Main Page  »  Mind
View Article  Christians and the election: What?

I will not fork out money to buy The Star, I told myself after the dissapppointing episodes of dishonest journalism top-down ever since BERSIH 10/11.

But last Sunday, I did - RM1.50 to the coffer of The People's-as-if Paper, because the small caption on the front page was too interesting to be passed: Christians and the elections > F25 & 26

I bought the paper in the morning, but it was until late evening when I read the section - I didn't even bother to look at the news.
 
After reading it and rereading it (and rereading for the third time here today), I begin to hit my head to remind myself that there was a reason I didn't want to buy The Star, it's crappy.
 
The whole interviews, it had a good representations from national leaders and politicians from various church traditions and political parties, lacked the substance so much promised by the title.
 
Rev Wong Kim Kong's repeated "the Church is apolitical", "the Church is spiritual" was such a dissappointment. To be sure, I understand that the Church ought not to be partisan, but I thought the issue was sort of settled in OHMSI's forum, Was Jesus Political? How can anything not be political when situated within the society of people? How can we say that we are biased towards truth, justice and righteousness AND be apolitical? Perhaps Rev. Wong meant "the Church ought NOT to be partisan in politics" or "Pastors should not get involved in party politics" but language is so crucial here. I am not nitpicking, but it reflects our mentality and sentiment. Apolitical is like an apathetic period to the whole issue. And I cannot bear with that, especially when an ordained minister who helm an umbrella Christian body claimed that the bible calls us to be apolitical and "not be involved directly in the political process".
 
Again and again, we hear the call to spirituality, and Teresa was on the spot when she asked, "Why are not many Christians involved in politics?" and she answered her own question: "they are involved in evangelical activities [whatever that means]...they don't want to dirty their hands". What a terrible indictment against us, no wonder people said, I don't want to have anything to do with religion.
 
If religion is about airy fairy kingdom with no concern for god's good earth and dear Creation, if religion is about what happens after death, about a closet relationship with some supreme being and does not give a heck about the rampant injustice, unrighteousness and evil that distort all the beauty of god's handiwork - Creation and human beings - who with a right and sensible mind would think religion is of much value?
 
My heart ached when Teresa said, "There are also Christians who ask me to leave politics and get involved in more spiritual work." Rip the last of the good folks from this dirty work, what are we thinking?
 
I refused to believe that spirituality is not about the material world. I believe god did not call us to do "church", but to live life, and that means relationship with one another, with the society around us, with Nature. And can we escape politics? Preaching spirituality without these elements is not the fullness of god's truth. Unless we say, Christian spirituality is like what the platonic or buddhist philosophers taught, a sort of soul-ish, immaterial afterlife and period. That our ultimate aim is to get rid of this prison body - that St. Paul called "god's temple" for goodness' sake - and go to heaven somewhere.
 
Our ultimate aim is to arrive at a point where the material becomes so much washed in god's redeeming truth that it will respond to god in worship at all time while we go on living. Our ultimate aim is the whole cosmos, the world, fully reconcilled to god and all human beings properly reflect his beauty, the beauty of his glory in worship and adoration - not by singing songs in immaterial existence, but by living a life, a resurrected life, in joyous and loving obedience to god's will. And while we await the day of redemption, it is our duty, the Church's duty to challenge the powers that sought to oppose the radical movement towards that day. The powers which distort human dignity by the oppressing acts of political hegemony, economics bullying and moral distortion. And when we speak the language of "the Church is to be apolitical", what we managed to do is to reduce the spirit of being counter culture to an indifference "waiting for things to happen".
 
I am not sure if the conversations are edited and if the articles really reflected the original interviews or even the full views of the participants, but I only say I was utterly dissappointed reading it.
 
Datuk Lee Hwa Beng, was surprisingly mature in his opinions and I respect him for that; making a stance about Malaysia not being a theocratic Islamic state (very careful though to reflect the PM and DPM's emphasis on the word "theocratic"), acknowledging the rights of Christian leaders to be be political and even partisan and attend rallies (although he added, "off the pulpit") and acknowledging the paramount of freedom of religion among the concerns of the people.
 
Wong Chun Wai's concluding remark was really nothing but some sort of a textbook-like safe statements:
 
"In conclusion, the Christians make up a substantial chunk of votes in the elections and these are issues of concern to them. In the battle for hearts and minds, their voices and their votes certainly matter."
 
Every votes matter, I do not think based on what we have read in the interviews, Christians have any so called "Christians voices", after all we are said to be "apolitical", whatever which was meant by that really confusing word (is it like "amoral"?). Without being aware and directly concerned about politics in the Country and even the political process, how can our voices matter. Any candidates can probably tipu their way into our "hearts and minds"
 
-----------
 
I am interested to hear the views of other Church leaders now. Especially one Pastor Jeffrey Kumin from Sabah who was rumoured to be fielded as one of the candidates for coming General Election. I am trying to get his contacts from YB Teresa, if anyone has Ps. Kumin's contacts, I would appreciate if you can email me - just drop a msg at the comment in this post.
 
View Article  Much Ado about Education in Malaysia
As Dr. Alex (here and here) and the Reb (here) were posting about their thoughts on seminary education, and generating lots of comments, Joshua wrote a ...   more »
View Article  Personality, Intuition & Blink

Jung's pyschological types + Myer-Briggs personality test

Click to view my Personality Profile page

I have just finished Blink. Probably that explains the high marks on "Intuitive".

Malcom Gladwell helped to demystify intuition. I mean, he did not claim to take away the mystery, the ability of the brain to make intuitive decision is still well "behind lock doors", but Gladwell has shown with real life examples and labratory experiments that we can observe, quantify, analyze and ultimately try to understand the operation of intuitive thinking, or rapid cognition, the power of the brain to make good sense of its surrounding in split seconds.

When we say, don't judge a book by its cover, we typically mean that our early and quick judgement of something cannot be accurate given the unfamiliarity with the thing. But Blink has shown that to be untrue. Too much information may be harmful to our decision making because we may take "unnecessary information" into account.

Galdwell gave the example of how art experts failed to recognized a fake ancient greek male sculpture even after a thorough investigation, more than one year of handling by various experts and with sophiscated equipments.

Instead, it took an art historian a single look at the fingers of the statue to sense a foul play. Another expert of Greek art took a glance at the statue when the clothes covering it was lifted up and knew instintively something was amiss.

Thin-slicing, the brain taking up the smallest amount of data and make good and often accurate sense of its environment. This is what Blink was about.

Other than the example of the ancient statue hoax, some of my favourite illustrations and experiments which Gladwell described in Blink are the card game experiment and the mysteries of mind reading. The latter was really the part which I was utterly fascinated with. Ekman's book is now on my treasure hunting list. He had managed to profile a taxonomy of every possible facial expressions. By just looking at their faces, Ekman can know what is in the mind, the socio-pyschological background and the profile of a person. Mind reading, but not magic, just the labourious work of understanding and profilling the human facial muscles of a human being, their movements and their relation to the human mind.

Again, little information and slight movements in a few seconds producing impressive analytical result.

Speed dating anyone? Gladwell wrote about this in Blink too...why go through lenghty get-to-know dates; 5 minutes of interactions would probably be enough to tell a life partner from a fling.

Of course, there are downsides to judging too quickly. It all depends on our pre-programmed biases, those information which stayed with us deep inside which affects our data processings. Misjudgements, people say. We've got to get the info into the right channel to make rapid cognition work. At the end of the Blink, Gladwell gave example of how an art lover/expert simulate a surprise situation everytime he examines an art piece - e.g. his assistance suddenly lifting up a piece of clothe covering an art. Get as little critical information as possible without reasoning out too much?

Interestingly, I was reading Marva Dawn's Unfettered Hope recently and she wrote about how we who are living in the Information Age absorb so much information daily without knowing what to do with them. In another word, we took in useless information. She even recommended reading weekly digest instead of daily newspaper.

This is all too new and counter-intuitive to me. Hmm... is that a sign that I am sensing something fishy? Or it's just my bias because of how we were all thought to think that knowledge is power and more knowledge means more power?

My job requires a lot decision making at various level and I'd always thought that such tasks require data, as much data as possible. Now, how I can translate the strange concepts of thin-slicing into my job? Will let you know if I finally work out something...for now,

go check out the chapter excerpts which Gladwell put on his web.

and someone from the New York Review begged to differ here 

 


My Library

Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?
Search
Search all blogs