3900 Sundays

Did not write anything today, but instead am posting a very thought-provoking story I received some time ago. It is found in “Charging the Human Battery” written by Mac Anderson, called “3900 Sundays”:

The older I get, the more I enjoy Saturday morning. Perhaps it’s the quiet solitude that comes with being the first to rise, or maybe it’s the unbounded joy of not having to be at work. Either way, the first few hours of a Saturday morning are most enjoyable.

A few weeks ago, I was shuffling toward the garage with a steaming cup of coffee in one hand and the morning paper in the other. What began as a typical Saturday morning turned into one of those lessons that life seems to hand you from time to time. Let me tell you about it:

I turned the dial up into the phone portion of the band on my ham radio in order to listen to a Saturday morning swap net. Along the way, I came across an older sounding chap, with a tremendous signal and a golden voice. You know the kind; he sounded like he should be in the broadcasting business. He was telling whomever he was talking with something about “a thousand marbles.” I was intrigued and stopped to listen to what he had to say.

“Well, Tom, it sure sounds like you’re busy with your job. I’m sure they pay you well but it’s a shame you have to be away from home and your family so much. Hard to believe a young fellow should have to work sixty or seventy hours a week to make ends meet. It’s too bad you missed your daughter’s dance recital,” he continued; “Let me tell you something that has helped me keep my own priorities.” And that’s when he began to explain his theory of a “thousand marbles.”

“You see, I sat down one day and did a little arithmetic. The average person lives about seventy-five years. I know, some live more and some live less, but on average, folks live about seventy-five years.

Now then, I multiplied 75 times 52 and I came up with 3,900, which is the number of Saturdays that the average person has in their entire lifetime. Now, stick with me, Tom, I’m getting to the important part.

It took me until I was fifty-five years old to think about all this in any detail,” he went on, “and by that time I had lived through over twenty-eight hundred Saturdays. I got to thinking that if I lived to be seventy-five, I only had about a thousand of them left to enjoy. So I went to a toy store and bought every single marble they had. I ended up having to visit three toy stores to round up 1,000 marbles. I took them home and put them inside a large, clear plastic container right here in the shack next to my gear.

Every Saturday since then, I have taken one marble out and thrown it away. I found that by watching the marbles diminish, I focused more on the really important things in life.

There’s nothing like watching your time here on this earth run out to help get your priorities straight.
Now let me tell you one last thing before I sign off with you and take my lovely wife out for breakfast. This morning, I took the very last marble out of the container. I figure that if I make it until next Saturday then I have been given a little extra time. And the one thing we can all use is a little more time.

It was nice to meet you Tom. I hope you spend more time with your family, and I hope to meet you again here on the band. This is a 75 year old man, K9NZQ, clear and going QRT, good morning!”

You could have heard a pin drop on the band when this fellow signed off. I guess he gave us all a lot to think about. I had planned to work on the antenna that morning, and then I was going to meet up with a few hams to work on the next club newsletter.

Instead, I went upstairs and woke my wife up with a kiss. “C’mon honey, I’m taking you and the kids to breakfast.”

“What brought this on?” she asked with a smile.

“Oh, nothing special, it’s just been a long time since we spent a Saturday together with the kids. And hey, can we stop at a toy store while we’re out? I need to buy some marbles.”

As I said a few posts ago, if you are an average 60 year-old male, you can expect 26.2 more years i.e. 1,362 more weeks. Part of that you won’t be in good health. There will be time for leisure and trips, but how much will there be for the Kingdom? For your spouse? Your family? Think about it and re-order your priorities.

Living with In-laws 2

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

We continue with considerations from the parents’ angle. We’ll take the case of the parents moving in with the children. The dynamics would be different if the children move in with the parents. First the advantages of living together:
* Many older Chinese prefer the lively atmosphere of an extended family. It beats the feeling of loneliness, especially if the spouse is no longer around.
* It gives them a sense of being wanted, that they have not been abandoned. This is also the reason why most seniors resist going to a nursing home. They also feel that they are making a contribution by looking after household chores.
* If they enjoy good health, caring for grand-children rejuvenates them and gives them a sense of joy and satisfaction.
* It makes good economic sense. Why waste money running two households when you can do with one?

Next the disadvantages:
* You get the sense of living under someone else’ roof, even though it’s your child’s, and he/she thinks you are being silly by feeling this way. It’s not the same as living in your own home.
* Depending on the relationship with your child and his/her spouse, you have to watch “someone’s countenance”. You are no longer the “master of the house”.
* You lose some personal privacy and freedom, plus you “intrude” on your child’s family.
* You may think your children or son/daughter-in-law are spoiling the grand-children by being too soft, but disciplining the grand-kids may clash with their parents.

Now, some more considerations peculiar to the mother and daughter-in-law relationship, but are not much of an issue on the mother and son-in-law front. Generally speaking, even though most Chinese prefer living with sons, living with a daughter and son-in-law is less problematic, for several reasons:
* Mother-daughter relationships are usually deeper and they communicate. A daughter-in-law is someone else’ daughter, somewhat of an “outsider”, who took your son from you.
* Both mother and daughter-in-law are women, generally focussed on feelings and details. When household responsibilities are not clearly delineated, “boundaries” may be crossed and someone may resent it. A son-in-law generally does not bother himself with little things, so there is less conflict.
* Often daughters are better at mediating between her parents and her husband. A son is caught between a rock and a hard place. He can’t side with either his wife or his mother without alienating the other.
* A son-in-law generally listens to his wife and treats his in-laws rather well, acting as chauffeur for doctor’s appointments, shopping etc. A daughter-in-law usually spends her time driving the grand-children to activities and classes, and sends her husband on errands! You feel you’ve lost your son!

As you can see, family dynamics can be complicated, and there are therefore no hard and fast rules that apply to everyone. Does that mean there is no “win-win”? No, there are examples of living with in-laws that worked really well. The book of Ruth in the bible is a beautiful case of how this can work. You need people who know the Lord, who are unselfish and mature, and who are genuinely concerned for the well-being of the other, and their testimony can be a shining witness to the reality of God in their lives. That’s on the constructive front. On the avoidance of problem side, some have opted to live close-by but not together, say in different units in the same highrise apartment or townhouse, provided finances is not a serious issue. Hope my enumeration of pros and cons would give you enough to come up with a good solution. Above all, pray. He has your best interests at heart and will guide you towards a best solution.

Living with In-laws 1

Q. We plan to get married next year but my fiance and I are divided on one big issue – whether to live with his aging parents. I think it would create lots of complications but he says his siblings are in Hong Kong so the responsibility rests on him. What do you recommend?

A. This is a very practical but tough question, especially among Orientals who have close-knit families. There is no universal answer and each case must be examined on its own merits. Having said that, there are some biblical guidelines and pros and cons to consider.

On the one hand, some have used Gen 2:24 to justify that the newly weds should never live with their parents. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. On the other hand, some argued on the basis of 1 Tim 5:8 that living with parents to provide for them is the proper thing to do. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Both have been mis-applied.

A man should be independent of his parents physically, psychologically, and financially, able to make decisions on his own, by the time he is ready to get married. But what if it’s the other way round – his parents are dependent on him for their well-being? Similarly, a believer should provide for his immediate family, but “providing for” does not necessarily equal “living with”. Joseph, for example, provided for Jacob’s household, but he did not live with them. Gen 47:11-12 So Joseph settled his father and his brothers in Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the district of Rameses, as Pharaoh directed. Joseph also provided his father and his brothers and all his father’s household with food, according to the number of their children. So, what are the criteria to use?

There are considerations for both the young couple and the parents. Let’s start by looking at the young couple’s side. First the pros:
* Married grown children want to care for their parents out of love and concern for their well-being. Living together just makes it that much easier instead of travelling back and forth.
* If both the husband and wife work, there would be a built-in baby-sitter instead of dragging young children to a daycare or nanny everyday.
* The grand-children can learn the native tongue, as well as filial love and respect for elders.
* If the parents are financially dependent on the children, living together is more economical than maintaining two households.

Now the cons:
* The newly weds have to learn to adjust to each other already. Having to accommodate in-laws as well makes it that much more challenging.
* Even though the in-laws may be very discreet already, the couple will lose privacy to a certain extent.
* The in-laws may “spoil” the kids if they have different world-views and value systems, particularly because of the generation gap.
* The young couple needs to start their own family as “adults”. But when you live with parents you are forever “children” in their eyes. It just makes it harder.

But there are advantages and disadvantages from the parent’s perspective too, which we will consider tomorrow.

(to be continued)

Extra-terrestrial 2

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Yesterday we laid the foundation to introduce Ross’ explanation. Today we quote from “Beyond the Created Dimensions” which distills Ross’ ideas clearly.

The above slides (“Copyright 2006 by Burke and Glenna Magee”) are from:

http://www.returntogod.com/Science/Dimensions.htm

1. Two-dimensional “Flatland” illustrates the concept of God operating outside the dimensions of our universe.
2. Two-dimensional “Flatlanders” can’t perceive a hand a fraction of an inch away, because the hand is outside their two-dimensional universe.
3. If a three-dimensional being poked his finger into “Flatland”, it would be perceived as a circle (actually a small line) by the Flatlanders.
4. If a three-dimensional being poked three fingers into “Flatland”, it would be perceived as three circles (actually three lines) by the Flatlanders.

See also: http://www.nuggetnetreview.com/m-how-did-jesus-do-that.htm

Without making it too technical, essentially Ross sees, as some physicists believe about our universe, that God has extra-dimensions – at least 6 in additional to our 4 (length, breadth, height, time). He can therefore perform miracles, like appearing out of nowhere and disappearing suddenly (John 20:24-28), by simply moving in and out of our four-dimensional spacetime. Just as “Flatlanders” don’t perceive the coming and going of a 3D being, because he is outside their 2D universe, human beings do not see the actions and plans of a multi-dimension God, because He is outside our 4D universe.

This is very intriguing, as it does offer a plausible explanation in scientific terms. Some Christians are fascinated by it, because for the first time they can give a scientific explanation when questioned by skeptics. But plausibility is not the same as truth, and the reason I doubt it is because that’s not what Scripture says. The Bible tells us that God is transcendent i.e. He is over and beyond the created order and superior to it in every way:

Isa 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Eph 1:21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

Dimensionality is part of creation. For God to be explainable by dimensionality, even extra dimensions, implies that God operates upon the universe as an immanent, as opposed to a transcendent, force. That is, He is present in and with, and explicable by, the created order. While the fact that God is immanent is scriptural in the sense that He is omnipresent throughout His creation (Ps 139), the thrust of the Bible is that He is personally and essentially distinct from, and infinitely superior to, His creation.

Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

So as interesting as this proposition is, I believe it gives way too much to immanence at the expense of transcendence. The weight of the evidence is for the reverse. I believe God to be unfathomable. This view, while beyond the understanding of many people, has a God that is too small compared to the God that the Bible depicts. So my short answer is that God is not an alien, nor superman. He is the eternal, uncreated, absolute, self-contained, self-existent, sovereign Creator by whose will and power all things exist. They depend on Him for their being. He depends on none. Anyone less is not the God who revealed Himself in the Bible.

Extra-terrestrial 1

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Q. I think God is an alien! Recently I read a book that explains that God has “extra dimensions” which allows him to do the things we can’t do, because we are limited to space and time. He is nothing but a “superman”. What do you say to that?

A. That’s a very interesting question, but as interesting as it is, I think it is wrong. The idea of “dimensions” is not familiar to everyone. I am not a scientist, but I am a professional engineer by training before I enter the ministry, so I’ll try to explain the concepts as simply as I can.

Many years ago I read a book written in 1884 by Edwin Abbott called “Flatland” (See Fig. 1), which is a social satire of the Victoria culture. However, it introduced the concept of “dimensions”. We live in a three-dimensional (length, breadth, and height) world called “spaceland”. In a two-dimensional (length and breadth) world, there would be no height and everything would lie in a plain called “flatland”. In a one-dimensional world (length only), there would be no breadth as everything lies in a line. And finally in a world with no dimension, there would not even be length as everything is in a point.

“Flatland” became popular among mathematicians and physicists after Einstein wrote the General Theory of Relativity in 1916, which introduced the idea of a fourth dimension – spacetime. Then, in 1993, astronomer and astrophysicist Hugh Ross expanded on Abbott’s idea by writing a book called “The Creator and the Cosmos”, in which he tried to explain God’s actions scientifically by attributing extra dimensions to the Creator. I know it sounds complicated but bear with me a few more moments.

Before I explain Ross’ concepts, let me introduce a couple of observations which are more familiar so you can grasp everything more easily. The first is that in “Flatland”, you only see things as lines (see Fig. 2). Imagine you yourself living in this flat surface. Even though from a 3D perspective you can see the figure to be that of a man, from a 2D perspective within the plain itself all you see is a line. Furthermore, each shape (triangle, diamond, circle) would see a line of different length because it is looking at it from different angles.

What if a 3D object, say a sphere, passes through the plain? What would the shapes see? First of all, they would not know that it is a sphere, as they cannot see beyond their plain. Let’s assume the sphere rises from beneath the plain, passes through it, then finally rises above it, as the sun rises above the horizon. Before the sphere intersects the plain, the eye “within” the plain would not see anything. It does not know the sphere is approaching. As the sphere breaks through the plain, the eye can see a short line, which is the cross-section of the sphere with the plain. As the sphere rises further, the line gets longer and longer, until it reaches a maximum when it is exactly half-way through. Then as the sphere rises even further, the line gets shorter and shorter again until it finally disappears as the sphere leaves the plain. So much for background. I’ll continue with the explanation tomorrow.

(to be continued)

Retirement

My wife’s employer announced today her taking early retirement by the end of this year. So finally the official news is out, and she’ll be “free”, soon! But what does that mean? Assuming you are an “average” person with “average” mortality, whenever you retire, you can expect many years of life ahead. Not just to exist, but to live! If you look at Canada’s life expectancy by age, you can see that how long you expect to live depends on both your gender and current age:

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country-health-profile/canada

For example, if you retire at age 60, you can expect 26.2 years for a man :-(, 29.8 years for a woman :-). That’s almost three decades! And those are years in which you don’t have to commute to work everyday to make a living! Assuming you are healthy both physically and financially, all that free time will be yours to live! Some people can think only of leisure and enjoyment, taking cruises to see the world. Others think of doing all those things they’ve always wanted to do but never had the time, like spending time on their hobby, learning a new skill etc. Still others want to make a contribution by doing volunteer work, helping out in charities, hospitals, churches etc.

What about a Christian? Sometimes I hear pastors preach that there is no retirement in the Bible, citing examples such as Abraham, Moses, Joshua etc., all serving God till they die. No one ever “retires”. Actually that’s only half-true:

Lev 8:24-26 This applies to the Levites: Men twenty-five years old or more shall come to take part in the work at the Tent of Meeting, but at the age of fifty, they must retire from their regular service and work no longer. They may assist their brothers in performing their duties at the Tent of Meeting, but they themselves must not do the work. This, then, is how you are to assign the responsibilities of the Levites.

The Levites’ work life was 25 years, from age 25 to 50. After 50, they cease active duty to “keep the charge”. They guide their younger brothers. They teach, they train, but do not do the actual work themselves.

Not all of us are leaders like Moses or Joshua who were specially gifted by God to work till the end. Most of us are like Levites who were set apart for the subordinate offices of the sanctuary service (Num 3:11-13; 1 Kings 8:4; Ezra 2:70), as assistants to the priests. They were selected for this purpose because of their zeal for the glory of God (Ex. 32:26). I believe the “normal” pattern for most Christians to be that of the Levites. Even though the “retirement age” has climbed with longevity due to medical advances, I believe we should transition from active service to a nurturing role to the next generation of workers. That’s how we have leadership succession or management continuity. And I hope you have the same zeal for the glory of God as the Levites.

Self-Centeredness

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

When I started preparing for the second short-term trip by looking at the character trait that is most problematic to husband-wife relationships in Panama, actually around the world, I believe it is self-centeredness. As a minimum, a self-centered individual has the following characteristics:

1. Only what I think or say is correct. Others only need to obey.
2. My needs are far greater than yours. I don’t have to be bothered about what yours are.
3. My rights and freedom are important, forget about yours.
4. You need to accommodate what I want. I don’t need to adjust to fit you.
5. I make the decisions around here. I don’t need to consult you.

In short, it’s “all about me”. An egotistic person is overly sensitive about what he feels, but insensitive to others. Did I tread on anybody’s toes, including my own? To a certain degree, we all have this streak in us. If he/she is your spouse, it’s very, very tough. Psychologists tell us don’t try to change a person – you won’t succeed. But if you are married to one, what do you do? Grin and bear it for the rest of your life? There’s got to be a better way! There is. The New Testament calls it “crucified with Christ”：

Rom 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with himso that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.

Ga 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

The only catch is that the person must be willing to be crucified with Him voluntarily, for God won’t impose it on you. But how could a self-centered spouse want to be crucified with Christ? That’s when Mk 10:27 comes in: “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. Yet as hard as that is, God can do it. So if you are caught in a difficult situation with a self-centered spouse, pray, pray and pray. You can’t change your spouse, but God can. Pray that God gets ahold of his proud heart and turn him to Himself, gently. I don’t know how long that would take, but when He does, the self-centeredness is broken, and you got yourself a new spouse. Don’t believe it? Try it before you say no. You’ll be amazed at what God can do.

Desire for the Husband

Q. God punished Eve for eating the forbidden fruit by greatly increasing her pains in childbearing. Her desire will be for her husband, and he will rule over her.” I understand the pain part, and his ruling over her, which are bad, but what’s wrong with desire for the husband? Shouldn’t a wife desire her husband?

A. The problem is with our translation. The Hebrew word for “desire” is t@shuwqah (tesh-oo-kaw’) in the sense of stretching out after. It expresses longing, craving,
1. of man for woman,
2. of woman for man, and
3. of beast to devour.

The same word is used in Gen 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” Here the third meaning “to devour” comes out clearly in context. So what Gen 3:16 is saying is NOT that the wife will love her husband, but that she will try to overtake him, like a beast devouring its prey.

Remember when God made Eve Adam said she was “bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh”. They have become one flesh. However, after the fall, they tried to cover up with fig leaves, and hide from the Lord. Each tried to shirk responsibility by blaming others. Adam blamed God and the woman, and Eve blamed the serpent. The punishment was that instead of loving concern, there will be conflict. The wife will try to usurp authority from the husband, and the husband will try to rule over his wife. That’s what sin does – it alienates people from each other, as well as separates people from God. Only when we are reconciled to God will we be truly reconciled to each other. That’s why we stress Christ as the foundation of a Christian marriage so much. Only then will the first two meanings of mutual longing for each other be true in a marriage.

Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

Q. Isn’t God unreasonable? What’s wrong with knowing good from evil? Aren’t we supposed to discern? How else are we supposed to do good and avoid evil if we don’t know?

A. There’s nothing wrong with knowing good from evil, and we are supposed to discern. In fact, before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they already knew what’s good – obeying God – and what’s evil – disobedience. They also knew the consequences – death, or separation from God. Then what’s the problem? The problem is not with knowing or not knowing, it’s with obeying or disobeying.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was placed in the Garden of Eden for one reason – to test our first parents’ obedience. The sin was in knowing what God commanded them not to do, yet going ahead and doing it anyway. It was willful defiance. As a minimum, it was distrust of God who had made them and provided everything for them, and believing the serpent who had done nothing for them. At the core, it is choosing to reject God’s standard, and wanting to exercise their own criteria independent of God.

Notice the serpent’s words in Gen 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” He was enticing Eve not only by the benefits to be gained by eating the fruit, but also by imputing some ulterior motive to God for not wanting them to eat it. In fact, it’s the same ambition – not being satisfied to be creature, but wanting to be like the Creator – that led to Lucifer’s downfall.

Read Isa. 14:12-15 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

Was God unreasonable in asking Adam and Eve to obey? No. Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” God placed Adam in charge of the Garden of Eden. He could eat from any tree, except one. God even placed Adam over all the animals by asking him to name them. He was under One, but above all else. The only restriction was this single prohibition to test his obedience, and he failed despite being in the best environment.

Yet even after man’s dismal failure God still provided a way out by promising a Savior in Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” The woman’s (Eve) offspring (Jesus Christ) will crush the serpent’s head. Furthermore, in Gen 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. The garments of skin hints at the lamb of God who will be sacrificed to cover man’s sin. Don’t blame God. We have only ourselves to blame. Instead, thank Him for His amazing love and repent by giving your heart to Jesus.

CARE

I thought I should give a little introduction to CARE. CARE was started by Rev. Nick Wong, MBC’s former senior pastor, after the Tiananmen Square crackdown on June 4, 1989. At that time many students who had participated in the democracy movement had to escape from China. Some came to Toronto, but through various circumstances ended up being held in custody at Toronto’s East and West Detention Center. To reach and help these Chinese scholars, CARE was formed to provide practical assistance such as finding legal aid, court translation services, applying for welfare, search for housing etc. The goal was to share Christ through addressing the needs of the whole person. At that time my involvement was only as a board member and in visiting inmates, but over time CARE’s ministry expanded to include:

1. Prison ministry
2. Blind and visually impaired people ministry
3. Pathological gamblers’ ministry, and
4. Rahab ministry to serve Chinese female sex workers in Toronto.

http://www.careministries.ca/

You can readily see that all the groups consist of people often overlooked by the church. I know that the main business of the church is evangelism and making disciples, but who are the targets? Often the church focuses her attention on the mass market, those middle-income folks with wholesome families and decent jobs. A few cater to those at both ends, the well-to-do families and the less-privileged grass-roots (基層)。Rarely would you find someone targeting the outcasts, those neglected by our materialistic society, but CARE is one such ministry.

Remember the parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Mt 25:31-46? Who are the goats, those that are cursed? What great evil have they done? The text didn’t say they were murderers, arsonists, adulterers or kidnappers. What did they do? They have neglected the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the poor and needy, the sick, the incarcerated. Whatever we did not do for one of the least of these, we did not do for the Lord. I hope we don’t turn our noses and look down on those “beneath” us. Remember the upside-down value in the Kingdom. Many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (Mt 19:30, see also Mt 20:16, Mk 10:31, Lk 13:30) What’s your value system? Does it align with Kingdom values? Think that through while you have time.