Difficult night. Menopausal, I suppose.
Busy afternoon at advice charity dealing with, amongst others, a disabled, breathless but ever so polite Iraqi, a tearful Brazilian woman bullied at work, a mother facing repossession, Kosovan man who felt he was being badly treated by a local council, etc.
Thankfully husband had dinner ready when I got home. What a nice change!
Feels like I'm coming down with a cold. Bah!
And then I read PM Lee pays tribute to NSmen with $100m of vouchers in which he 'described NS as "a universal rite of passage" for every male Singaporean, noting that it had become a national institution'.
Does that sound familiar? Didn't someone just make that point recently? O! It was me.
Here's the rest of what I could find on Straitstimes online:
========
National service is a defining part of the Singapore identity, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as he called on younger generations of Singaporeans to do their part to defend their country and understand the strategic realities it faces.
PM Lee on Monday paid tribute to the more than 900,000 men who have served the nation, as he announced $100 million worth of vouchers and free NSmen club memberships to recognise their efforts at a dinner that capped year-long celebrations of 45 years of national service.
He described NS as "a universal rite of passage" for every male Singaporean, noting that it had become a national institution. He also praised NSmen for serving faithfully.
Mr Lee added that he was "cautiously optimistic" that the region will remain peaceful, but warned that Singapore cannot take its present peace for granted, and stressed continued efforts to build up the Singapore Armed Forces and Home Team.
=========
I wonder if PM Lee was inspired by my letter or that he, too, had been thinking anthropologically and decided to use Van Gennep's concept of 'rite of passage' to make his point.
Monday, 22 October 2012
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
National Conversation: Rite of Passage?
Back in my advertising days I learned to always do an "overnight test" on my copy. Something made me write the following piece in a matter of minutes and submitted it without the overnight test.
It was published in the print section of Straits Times Forum today.
It's not a perfect piece of writing, but please read between the lines.
!!
=============
THIS is my contribution to the national conversation.
In thinking anthropologically about why there was a distinctive corporate culture where I used to work, I decided that the three-week residential training I had in the United States at the beginning of my time with the company constituted a "rite of passage": a time of separation, transition and re-incorporation, similar to the rites of passage in some cultures.
If one ate, slept and breathed nothing but corporate culture for three weeks, it was difficult not to accept the company ethos for what it was.
I returned to Singapore, thinking and acting like every other employee who had also been through this ritual and, together, we maintained that "culture".
Nations that have been through a national crisis can also be likened to have undergone a rite of passage.
In Britain, all those who went through one or both of the world wars hold a certain perspective. People of my parents' generation who suffered during the Japanese Occupation also hold a distinctive perspective.
My generation of Singaporeans did not suffer war. But we had the rituals and ceremony of pledge reciting and flag raising. For half the population, there is national service.
So when we see a young man, or large groups of them, in their fatigues being transported in three-tonners, or marching along the road with their rifles and backpacks, we say: "Ah! My brother/father/husband/son has also gone through that."
We wave and cheer them on.
Rites of passage cause us to believe that we have earned our status: the trepidation as we approach the time of separation; the liminal stage as we undergo transition, wondering whether we will make it out alive; the re-incorporation stage as we return triumphantly - and the boy is now a man.
Because they are our sons and brothers, female family members also share in these anxieties.
I concluded that corporate culture cannot be "talked" into existence. It has to be "done".
The litmus test of citizenship is not the colour of our identity card. It is if would-be citizens are willing to "do" Singapore culture - curry smells, void deck weddings and funerals, getai, joss-stick burning and all.
Let the "doing" begin.
====
The point is a rite of passage reinforces the idea that a status is achieved or earned. It is not an entitlement.
Britain has tried to implement a kind of 'rite'. Previously new citizens merely had their British passports posted to them. In recent years they have to attend a citizenship ceremony.
Oddly enough, despite learning and passing (ostensibly) tests on language, history and customs, candidates are asked whether they are happy to shake hands with the dignitary handing out the certificates. Apparently some women candidates object to making skin contact with males.
This is Britain. It is a ceremony to welcome them to British citizenship and they would not shake hands with a male mayor. ???
In my voluntary role at the local advice charity I get too much of people going, "But I am EU citizen, I should be entitled to this benefit."
Or "I am a single parent, I should be given this."
Or "But I have diabetes, I cannot work."
I often think, but cannot say aloud, "What would you do if you were still in your home country and there is no welfare to look after you? What are your options?"
Meanwhile each of these is convinced that I (and fellow taxpayers) have to support them indefinitely. Would a proper rite of passage set right this sense of entitlement?
What 'rite of passage' could we fashion for our new citizens in Singapore? Let's have a think, shall we? Remember there are three stages to a proper rite of passage (according to Belgian ethnologist Arnold Van Gennep): separation (from normal familiar contexts), a liminal "betwixt and between" stage, and a reincorporation stage.
How about speaking either English and/or another official language?
Doing voluntary service in schools, hospitals, libraries, other charitable organizations (MENDAKI, SINDA, CDAC, etc.)?
A test on Singapore history? Understand that local-born Singaporeans have a certain affection for things Singaporean. (I still cannot believe that female at Bras Basah Kopitiam told me off for using the term "chendol" instead of some Chinese transliteration.)
Should we take a busload of them to a pulau somewhere and make them speak Singlish? Make them undergo BMT?
It was published in the print section of Straits Times Forum today.
It's not a perfect piece of writing, but please read between the lines.
!!
=============
THIS is my contribution to the national conversation.
In thinking anthropologically about why there was a distinctive corporate culture where I used to work, I decided that the three-week residential training I had in the United States at the beginning of my time with the company constituted a "rite of passage": a time of separation, transition and re-incorporation, similar to the rites of passage in some cultures.
If one ate, slept and breathed nothing but corporate culture for three weeks, it was difficult not to accept the company ethos for what it was.
I returned to Singapore, thinking and acting like every other employee who had also been through this ritual and, together, we maintained that "culture".
Nations that have been through a national crisis can also be likened to have undergone a rite of passage.
In Britain, all those who went through one or both of the world wars hold a certain perspective. People of my parents' generation who suffered during the Japanese Occupation also hold a distinctive perspective.
My generation of Singaporeans did not suffer war. But we had the rituals and ceremony of pledge reciting and flag raising. For half the population, there is national service.
So when we see a young man, or large groups of them, in their fatigues being transported in three-tonners, or marching along the road with their rifles and backpacks, we say: "Ah! My brother/father/husband/son has also gone through that."
We wave and cheer them on.
Rites of passage cause us to believe that we have earned our status: the trepidation as we approach the time of separation; the liminal stage as we undergo transition, wondering whether we will make it out alive; the re-incorporation stage as we return triumphantly - and the boy is now a man.
Because they are our sons and brothers, female family members also share in these anxieties.
I concluded that corporate culture cannot be "talked" into existence. It has to be "done".
The litmus test of citizenship is not the colour of our identity card. It is if would-be citizens are willing to "do" Singapore culture - curry smells, void deck weddings and funerals, getai, joss-stick burning and all.
Let the "doing" begin.
====
The point is a rite of passage reinforces the idea that a status is achieved or earned. It is not an entitlement.
Britain has tried to implement a kind of 'rite'. Previously new citizens merely had their British passports posted to them. In recent years they have to attend a citizenship ceremony.
Oddly enough, despite learning and passing (ostensibly) tests on language, history and customs, candidates are asked whether they are happy to shake hands with the dignitary handing out the certificates. Apparently some women candidates object to making skin contact with males.
This is Britain. It is a ceremony to welcome them to British citizenship and they would not shake hands with a male mayor. ???
In my voluntary role at the local advice charity I get too much of people going, "But I am EU citizen, I should be entitled to this benefit."
Or "I am a single parent, I should be given this."
Or "But I have diabetes, I cannot work."
I often think, but cannot say aloud, "What would you do if you were still in your home country and there is no welfare to look after you? What are your options?"
Meanwhile each of these is convinced that I (and fellow taxpayers) have to support them indefinitely. Would a proper rite of passage set right this sense of entitlement?
What 'rite of passage' could we fashion for our new citizens in Singapore? Let's have a think, shall we? Remember there are three stages to a proper rite of passage (according to Belgian ethnologist Arnold Van Gennep): separation (from normal familiar contexts), a liminal "betwixt and between" stage, and a reincorporation stage.
How about speaking either English and/or another official language?
Doing voluntary service in schools, hospitals, libraries, other charitable organizations (MENDAKI, SINDA, CDAC, etc.)?
A test on Singapore history? Understand that local-born Singaporeans have a certain affection for things Singaporean. (I still cannot believe that female at Bras Basah Kopitiam told me off for using the term "chendol" instead of some Chinese transliteration.)
Should we take a busload of them to a pulau somewhere and make them speak Singlish? Make them undergo BMT?
Monday, 15 October 2012
Today at the advice charity
I had a Rwandan lady who has visited the charity countless times. She has been living here 18 years but still cannot speak very good English.
Basically she needed someone to read her letters. Credit must be given her for anticipating problems such as with her gas bills, etc. and having been in debt before she seems to have learned how to manage quite well.
Our charity aims to empower so I had to tell her she must learn to read English better. She cannot expect to come in with every letter she receives and expects someone to read and respond for her. At least this time she came with five questions, not just one.
Another lady for a East European country thought she was marrying a Pakistani young man for life -- just as his student visa was running out. Then he wanted to move to a bigger property, buy a car, buy a bigger car, etc.
Then she persuaded her to combine their loans to benefit from lower interest rates. Then he wanted to divorce her. She managed to get him to take responsibility for half the loan (which is still larger than her original loan). Now the young lady thinks he probably only married her for the visa.
This young lady has had a lucky escape as he signed the divorce papers before he disappeared from this country. I hope that she does not get saddled with his debts as well.
Basically she needed someone to read her letters. Credit must be given her for anticipating problems such as with her gas bills, etc. and having been in debt before she seems to have learned how to manage quite well.
Our charity aims to empower so I had to tell her she must learn to read English better. She cannot expect to come in with every letter she receives and expects someone to read and respond for her. At least this time she came with five questions, not just one.
Another lady for a East European country thought she was marrying a Pakistani young man for life -- just as his student visa was running out. Then he wanted to move to a bigger property, buy a car, buy a bigger car, etc.
Then she persuaded her to combine their loans to benefit from lower interest rates. Then he wanted to divorce her. She managed to get him to take responsibility for half the loan (which is still larger than her original loan). Now the young lady thinks he probably only married her for the visa.
This young lady has had a lucky escape as he signed the divorce papers before he disappeared from this country. I hope that she does not get saddled with his debts as well.
Thursday, 16 August 2012
English as it should be writ (Part 7)
Or "Singapore got Olympic medals in rowing meh?"
3rd of August 2012, sent this to Straits Times. Of course, it has not been published.
=======
Just for the record, note these headlines:
3rd of August 2012, sent this to Straits Times. Of course, it has not been published.
=======
What shuttlers and paddlers are not
I know this letter will not be published as I complain, yet again, of how Straits Times (as a mass medium) commit[s] crimes of mass murder (ie massacre) against the English language.
Why do you insist on using “paddler” when referring to a tab le tennis player?
One paddles in water, using an object shaped like an oar, usually.
A tab le tennis player uses a “bat”. If the logic for using “paddler” is that tab le tennis players play with a “paddle” (and they most certainly do not), then why not use the term “batter”?
“Shuttle” means “frequent travel between two points”. Thus we have shuttle buses, shuttle flights, and until recently a space shuttle.
A “shuttler” would suggest a reference to someone who engages in such shuttling.
Why do you insist on using “shuttler” when referring to a badminton player?
A badminton player uses a racquet (or racket). If, following the paddler logic, badminton players are referred to by the equipment they play with, then surely the appropriate term should be “racqueter” (or “racketer”).
On the other hand if you wish to refer to the object badminton players propel to one another (ie the shuttlecock), then surely the correct term is “shuttlecocker”?
What ab out people who actually paddle in canoes and kayaks? They are rarely referred to as “paddlers”, and are definitely not “boaters” (which are hats) or “oarers” (as they use oars).
Why then do you inflict this murderous nonsense on the English language by calling people “paddlers” and “shuttlers” when “tab le tennis players” and “badminton players” would suffice?
As I write I notice that squiggly red lines appear under “paddler” and “shuttler”. Now any seven-year-old would be ab le to tell you that those squiggly red lines indicate wrongly-spelt words.
Quite enough said.
==============
Just for the record, note these headlines:
Pre-letter
S'pore's women paddlers through to quarter-finals
Published on Jul 31, 2012
Olympics: Good day for Singapore's shuttlers in singles events
Published on Jul 30, 2012
Post-letter
Olympics: S'pore women's tab le tennis team through to quarter-finals
Published on Aug 04, 2012
Olympics: Singapore men's tab le tennis team to face China
Published on Aug 04, 2012
But then,
but they have since reverted to 'paddlers'. Sigh.
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Culture of entitlement or pure naïveté?
Yesterday I encountered a case I cannot get my head around.
A mother, widowed, came to the UK with two children to give them a good education. She sold everything she had intending to work in the UK to support her children.
She lived in an expensive house in an expensive area paying more than £1000 a month for 14 months, and then ran out of money.
She insisted that she does not want benefits but in the same breath said someone has to help her because she has no one to turn to.
In all the time she was in the UK she has not been able to work because she did not have the right documents.
Yes, she paid a private landlord a lot of money, all her money.
Yes, she has been trying to find work. But her English is so limited she was not able to get any. She also appears, ironically, to be quite 'middle-class', and has refused to interact with people from her own country ... which is the most likely way of finding work.
Who's responsible for her and her children now?
She thinks that "someone" should. Who should this "someone" be?
Just because some migrant spends all their savings in this country and has become homeless as a result, should the taxpayer pick up the tab?
Already the children have been educated for free and she has been receiving Child Benefit, is this right?
No one has benefitted from her time here, except the landlord who has kicked her out illegally by changing the locks, and now risk legal action.
I don't know what happened to this family as it was too complex for me and was taken off me by the manager. We do not, typically, deal with cases where immigration status is questionable.
In her previous visits and in her interview with a law centre she had been told that she could either get a job, become self-employed or return to her own country. She has failed to do the first two but refuses to consider the third.
I think her son was saying to her in their own language that they could return home, but she insisted that "I want to stay in England."
On one hand there is a determined, if ill-informed and naive mother wanting a good education for her children. On the other we have a woman who was totally unrealistic about her chances of succeeding in a foreign country where she does not even speak the official language properly.
I feel really sorry for her children who were impeccably behaved but you can see how stressed they are. They have had no food for some time, but immigration rules are immigration rules.
What does one do?
After Gintai's comment:
Unfortunately hers is not an isolated case. I had to see so many clients after this I didn't have a chance to get an update on her case, but will try to do so later. There were so many in the waiting room a 'community' had formed, and clients were returning to waiting room after being seen to say 'goodbye' to one another. (They usually exit by another door.) Weird.
Anyway, loads of people come into UK on whatever grounds possible and then try to scrounge on benefits. People come in, sponsored by spouses who then promptly kick them out of their homes. Taxpayers or charitable organizations inevitably have to help them (see previous post).
One man, prone to drinking and womanising, complained that his wife wouldn't share her benefits money with him (o, what a surprise!) and asked how he could gain more money. We said, the only way is to separate with the intention to divorce her. "OK, please help me to divorce her." Just like that. No English. How is he going to survive in this country? Taxpayers again. So Legal Aid would need to be called in to help him divorce his wife so that he could gain more benefits. These are the rules and we have to follow them.
Go figure.
Update 3rd October 2012:
Forgot this woman as life got busy, but I ran into her and her daughter shopping at Marks & Spencer. They were both very smartly dressed. Talked to my manager later on to get an update on her story.
It appeared that we told her the state is not responsible to her, but social services would look after her children and she was asked to return to the waiting room to wait. After the manager had spoken to several people on the phone to try to organize shelter and intervention for them, this woman said she had made a few phone calls and now had a job.
For 14 months she could not get a job. So we had to do something, she insisted. Then when her children were at risk of being taken away from her, she found a job.
We don't know what sort of a job it is. Mothers do make huge sacrifices for their children. We can only wish her well and say a prayer for her children.
A mother, widowed, came to the UK with two children to give them a good education. She sold everything she had intending to work in the UK to support her children.
She lived in an expensive house in an expensive area paying more than £1000 a month for 14 months, and then ran out of money.
She insisted that she does not want benefits but in the same breath said someone has to help her because she has no one to turn to.
In all the time she was in the UK she has not been able to work because she did not have the right documents.
Yes, she paid a private landlord a lot of money, all her money.
Yes, she has been trying to find work. But her English is so limited she was not able to get any. She also appears, ironically, to be quite 'middle-class', and has refused to interact with people from her own country ... which is the most likely way of finding work.
Who's responsible for her and her children now?
She thinks that "someone" should. Who should this "someone" be?
Just because some migrant spends all their savings in this country and has become homeless as a result, should the taxpayer pick up the tab?
Already the children have been educated for free and she has been receiving Child Benefit, is this right?
No one has benefitted from her time here, except the landlord who has kicked her out illegally by changing the locks, and now risk legal action.
I don't know what happened to this family as it was too complex for me and was taken off me by the manager. We do not, typically, deal with cases where immigration status is questionable.
In her previous visits and in her interview with a law centre she had been told that she could either get a job, become self-employed or return to her own country. She has failed to do the first two but refuses to consider the third.
I think her son was saying to her in their own language that they could return home, but she insisted that "I want to stay in England."
On one hand there is a determined, if ill-informed and naive mother wanting a good education for her children. On the other we have a woman who was totally unrealistic about her chances of succeeding in a foreign country where she does not even speak the official language properly.
I feel really sorry for her children who were impeccably behaved but you can see how stressed they are. They have had no food for some time, but immigration rules are immigration rules.
What does one do?
After Gintai's comment:
Unfortunately hers is not an isolated case. I had to see so many clients after this I didn't have a chance to get an update on her case, but will try to do so later. There were so many in the waiting room a 'community' had formed, and clients were returning to waiting room after being seen to say 'goodbye' to one another. (They usually exit by another door.) Weird.
Anyway, loads of people come into UK on whatever grounds possible and then try to scrounge on benefits. People come in, sponsored by spouses who then promptly kick them out of their homes. Taxpayers or charitable organizations inevitably have to help them (see previous post).
One man, prone to drinking and womanising, complained that his wife wouldn't share her benefits money with him (o, what a surprise!) and asked how he could gain more money. We said, the only way is to separate with the intention to divorce her. "OK, please help me to divorce her." Just like that. No English. How is he going to survive in this country? Taxpayers again. So Legal Aid would need to be called in to help him divorce his wife so that he could gain more benefits. These are the rules and we have to follow them.
Go figure.
Update 3rd October 2012:
Forgot this woman as life got busy, but I ran into her and her daughter shopping at Marks & Spencer. They were both very smartly dressed. Talked to my manager later on to get an update on her story.
It appeared that we told her the state is not responsible to her, but social services would look after her children and she was asked to return to the waiting room to wait. After the manager had spoken to several people on the phone to try to organize shelter and intervention for them, this woman said she had made a few phone calls and now had a job.
For 14 months she could not get a job. So we had to do something, she insisted. Then when her children were at risk of being taken away from her, she found a job.
We don't know what sort of a job it is. Mothers do make huge sacrifices for their children. We can only wish her well and say a prayer for her children.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Do you believe in free enterprise?
The Telegraph is running a series called "Britain unleashed". Bookmark this link.
This article Britain unleashed: it's not money that matters - it's markets. A good read.
Check out also: business mustn’t apologise for making a profit
Today Sir Terry Leahy, who worked his way to the top at TESCO from a humble background, reminded us that Truth and courage can power an economic recovery
The Olympics starts on Friday. Bang on cue, the unions representing public transport and immigration staff are calling strikes and work-to-rule.
Here's one chance to show the world what a wonderful nation (?) this is. But union leaders, who are paid obscene sums of money, are going to ruin it for their own personal gains (ie power base).
I wonder if "Britain unleashed" would discuss how the welfare state and trade unions are having a stranglehold on this nation.
I wonder how many have noticed that the pervasiveness of welfare provision has led to the "survival of the unfittest" (and feckless).
But should 'free enterprise' be introduced into education?
This morning we learned that even the top universities had to give their incoming students remedial Maths lessons, and that "20 per cent on engineering courses in 2009 had not completed an A level in maths".
Someone who commented on this gave a link to a GCSE paper: http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4306-1F-W-QP-JUN09.PDF "Read it and weep", he/she said. The first question required the candidate to tell the time. I kid you not.
Another question required the candidate to identify the highest and lowest value from a list of numbers.
My 12-year-old looked through the paper and found it a doddle.
The race to the bottom began when someone thought it was a good idea to have a market for exam boards. Schools choose the exam board that would give their students the best results. The result was a dumbing down to the point that British school leavers do not have the basic skills that their counterparts from the rest of Europe do.
How does Britain think they could compete with the rest of the world?
Please don't let us have a comprehensive welfare state in Singapore. And please don't let us have a market for exam boards.
This article Britain unleashed: it's not money that matters - it's markets. A good read.
Check out also: business mustn’t apologise for making a profit
Today Sir Terry Leahy, who worked his way to the top at TESCO from a humble background, reminded us that Truth and courage can power an economic recovery
The Olympics starts on Friday. Bang on cue, the unions representing public transport and immigration staff are calling strikes and work-to-rule.
Here's one chance to show the world what a wonderful nation (?) this is. But union leaders, who are paid obscene sums of money, are going to ruin it for their own personal gains (ie power base).
I wonder if "Britain unleashed" would discuss how the welfare state and trade unions are having a stranglehold on this nation.
I wonder how many have noticed that the pervasiveness of welfare provision has led to the "survival of the unfittest" (and feckless).
But should 'free enterprise' be introduced into education?
This morning we learned that even the top universities had to give their incoming students remedial Maths lessons, and that "20 per cent on engineering courses in 2009 had not completed an A level in maths".
Someone who commented on this gave a link to a GCSE paper: http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-4306-1F-W-QP-JUN09.PDF "Read it and weep", he/she said. The first question required the candidate to tell the time. I kid you not.
Another question required the candidate to identify the highest and lowest value from a list of numbers.
My 12-year-old looked through the paper and found it a doddle.
The race to the bottom began when someone thought it was a good idea to have a market for exam boards. Schools choose the exam board that would give their students the best results. The result was a dumbing down to the point that British school leavers do not have the basic skills that their counterparts from the rest of Europe do.
How does Britain think they could compete with the rest of the world?
Please don't let us have a comprehensive welfare state in Singapore. And please don't let us have a market for exam boards.
Friday, 29 June 2012
Mega-church = mega-ego. Beware!
Some notes before I forget:
What's the point of a mega-church? I commented about this in previous two posts.
Some observations:
When members of a church devote themselves to one charismatic leader it is not a church any more. By sociological definition - if I remember my SOC 309 (or whatever it was) - it has acquired a cult existence.
Some members of this church however have truly been touched by the work of Christ and I do not wish to belittle this. There is a danger for anyone looking in from the outside to assume any kind of homogeneity. No, not all members are carbon copies of one another.
There are some who have a true faith, probably gained at another church, and have found a home in this church, for now. Their faith will be bigger than the history of this church. They will move on and continue their journey of faith, elsewhere if necessary.
There are some who have known no other church. These are the ones who need nurture and comfort during this trying time. Some amongst these might lose their faith, like the plants derived from seeds sown on shallow ground in the parable of the sower.
There are others who form various types of "groups", children of parents who have true faith, children of those who had blind faith, etc. They would have to find their own faith.
Shaken, not stirred
God is a God bigger, much BIGGER, than all of these. Man's (and woman's) failings notwithstanding, God has allowed growth amongst those who heeded his Word, no matter how thin or tenuous the teachings from the pulpit might have been.
God promised that his Word will not return to him "void". From Isaiah 55:11:
"... so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."
Even God's word that was preached by a man who might in due course be found in a court of law to be unworthy of his title would not return "empty". It shall "accomplish".
This is why I have faith that even in the largest, most mega of churches where the pastors have proven to be something less than godly, the word of God could still take root and grow. God's word is not limited by human failings. There will be true believers even in such churches.
These true believers might be leading small groups and doing a really wonderful work amongst the sheep of their small flocks.
Some might have been shaken in their faith. Let us pray that many more will be stirred to right actions.
Power/Money corrupts
I am trained to view the world in context. When I read about the achievements of Mr Kong I have no doubt that he was (once) used by God to draw people to him. There was a point in history when this servant of God had his heart in the right place. (One could say the same for his wife.)
Comments have been made that suggest (to me) that he remains deluded about his current situation. It is almost like those British politicians we know who have told their lies so frequently, so consistently that they had begun to believe them.
Mr Kong seems to be blinded ... by what?
Honestly which husband would want to see his wife gyrating in skimpy clothing in music videos mouthing words that are not spiritually uplifting? Let alone a pastor of a mega-church. Hey! Reality check needed, mate. Urgently.
Too late now.
I want to give this man the credit that is due him, for those times that he really made God's Word real to those who need it most. But then, at some point, it seemed he stopped worshipping God.
Instead he worshipped his wife, or her potential, or money that might come with it, or fame, or what? I am not sure. Could early success have led to an ego trip that went too far?
This does not mean that I have already judged him guilty of the crimes that he has been accused . I am merely making a statement about his lifestyle (the expensive clothes and homes) that was clear for all to see.
Sun/Son of God
I learned a significant lesson while travelling 16 hours "hard seat" from Guilin to Beijing many years ago: "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." (Luke 9:58)
Even King David was not immune to temptation.
The critical point for me is: would he do a Zacchaeus?
Like Jesus said, those who are not sick, they do not need doctors.
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)
Are my inconclusive thoughts at the moment.
What's the point of a mega-church? I commented about this in previous two posts.
Some observations:
When members of a church devote themselves to one charismatic leader it is not a church any more. By sociological definition - if I remember my SOC 309 (or whatever it was) - it has acquired a cult existence.
Some members of this church however have truly been touched by the work of Christ and I do not wish to belittle this. There is a danger for anyone looking in from the outside to assume any kind of homogeneity. No, not all members are carbon copies of one another.
There are some who have a true faith, probably gained at another church, and have found a home in this church, for now. Their faith will be bigger than the history of this church. They will move on and continue their journey of faith, elsewhere if necessary.
There are some who have known no other church. These are the ones who need nurture and comfort during this trying time. Some amongst these might lose their faith, like the plants derived from seeds sown on shallow ground in the parable of the sower.
There are others who form various types of "groups", children of parents who have true faith, children of those who had blind faith, etc. They would have to find their own faith.
Shaken, not stirred
God is a God bigger, much BIGGER, than all of these. Man's (and woman's) failings notwithstanding, God has allowed growth amongst those who heeded his Word, no matter how thin or tenuous the teachings from the pulpit might have been.
God promised that his Word will not return to him "void". From Isaiah 55:11:
"... so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."
Even God's word that was preached by a man who might in due course be found in a court of law to be unworthy of his title would not return "empty". It shall "accomplish".
This is why I have faith that even in the largest, most mega of churches where the pastors have proven to be something less than godly, the word of God could still take root and grow. God's word is not limited by human failings. There will be true believers even in such churches.
These true believers might be leading small groups and doing a really wonderful work amongst the sheep of their small flocks.
Some might have been shaken in their faith. Let us pray that many more will be stirred to right actions.
Power/Money corrupts
I am trained to view the world in context. When I read about the achievements of Mr Kong I have no doubt that he was (once) used by God to draw people to him. There was a point in history when this servant of God had his heart in the right place. (One could say the same for his wife.)
Comments have been made that suggest (to me) that he remains deluded about his current situation. It is almost like those British politicians we know who have told their lies so frequently, so consistently that they had begun to believe them.
Mr Kong seems to be blinded ... by what?
Honestly which husband would want to see his wife gyrating in skimpy clothing in music videos mouthing words that are not spiritually uplifting? Let alone a pastor of a mega-church. Hey! Reality check needed, mate. Urgently.
Too late now.
I want to give this man the credit that is due him, for those times that he really made God's Word real to those who need it most. But then, at some point, it seemed he stopped worshipping God.
Instead he worshipped his wife, or her potential, or money that might come with it, or fame, or what? I am not sure. Could early success have led to an ego trip that went too far?
This does not mean that I have already judged him guilty of the crimes that he has been accused . I am merely making a statement about his lifestyle (the expensive clothes and homes) that was clear for all to see.
Sun/Son of God
I learned a significant lesson while travelling 16 hours "hard seat" from Guilin to Beijing many years ago: "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." (Luke 9:58)
Even King David was not immune to temptation.
The critical point for me is: would he do a Zacchaeus?
Like Jesus said, those who are not sick, they do not need doctors.
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)
Are my inconclusive thoughts at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)