Logical and Anointed Responses

Sunday, 26th April 2009

Having now firmly established that the term "touching the Lord's anointed" has been misquoted especially by pastors who are not secure about their own ministry, I would like to recommend to you dear readers the blog of fellow Best Christian Blog of the Year awardee Stanley Wong. He was given the award after just 2 1/2 months, probably because of the great reservoir of potential therein.

I had dinner with some churchmates recently and they were amazed to find out that Stan is not a theologian. They had read the wonderful point-by-point rebuttal that he did in response to the article that appeared in my church's newsletter entitled "Salvation Made Easy - A Look into Antiomianism" that was purported written by Rev Peter Koh, the senior pastor of my church. You can download to read them at the following links:

Rev Koh's article on Antinomianism
Stan's response

Stan has now embarked on responding to an article that was written by Rev Kong Hee of City Harvest Church which appeared recently in sg.Christianpost.com

Rev Kong's article on Questionable Teachings
Stan's response (akan datang)

Stanley's response to the article is currently still ongoing, so you can check them out on his blog in the meantime. Once he has completed it, I will compile in into a PDF document, so that you can likewise be able to have a systematic and anointed response to those who are against the grace message.

Same to You, Buddy!

Saturday, 25th April 2009

Following yesterday's blog entry, I did a Google search on the subject "touch not the Lord's anointed" and among the results that showed up was an article written by a pastor known as Thomas Williamson.

He comes to the same conclusion that all Christians are now considered the Lord's anointed, so if anyone uses this phrase on you, you should respond to him saying "Same to you, buddy!"

I've reproduced it below for your reading pleasure (and highlighted in red what spoke to me). And please do not accuse me of plagiarism because the source is being acknowledged :-)

Source: http://www.thomaswilliamson.net/TouchNot.htm

"Touch Not the Lord's Anointed"
Is the Command for Today?

By Thomas Williamson, Th.M, Ph.D.
3131 S. Archer Avenue
Chicago, Ill., 60608

The familiar command, "Touch Not the Lord's Anointed," appears in Psalm 105:15. So that we can see what God is talking about here, let us quote the entire passage, starting with verse 10:

"And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance; When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. When they went from one nation to another, and from one kingdom to another people; He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." (Psalm 105:10-15.)

Many preachers and evangelists today teach that if anyone criticizes them, or finds fault with them in any way, or goes against their wishes, then that miserable sinner has "Touched the Lord's anointed." Many eloquent sermons, rivaling Dante's Inferno in ferocity, have been preached to warn those who would dare commit such a sin that they face the unmitigated wrath of Almighty God. But is what that verse really talking about?

The immediate context of the verse is a reference to the patriarch Jacob, who was not an ordained preacher, at least not as we would understand that concept today. Just what kind of hazard was Jacob in fear of as he wandered from one nation to another people? Did he live in mortal dread that someone, somewhere, would criticize him? No, his concern was that the heathen would use physical violence against him. Read his complaint in Genesis 34:30: "And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house."

It is clear that to touch the Lord's anointed is to commit an act of physical violence against the one anointed by God. It does not refer to those who verbally attack and criticize a preacher and his doctrine. Such verbal attacks may be quite wrong and sinful, and in some cases they may be commendable and necessary (see Jesus criticizing the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Paul criticizing Peter in Galatians 2:14-21, Paul versus the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12, Philippians 3:2, etc.) but they are not covered by the idea "Touch not the Lord's anointed."

For further confirmation of this, see I Samuel 24:6-7, where David had an opportunity to have King Saul killed, but refused to take advantage of it: "And he said unto his men, The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord. So David stayed his servants with these words, and suffered them not to rise against Saul. But Saul rose up out of the cave, and went on his way." Immediately afterward, David publicly criticized Saul in front of 3000 of Saul's troops, as well as his own 600 men, saying "The Lord judge between me and thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. As sayeth the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked, but mine hand shall not be upon thee." (1 Samuel 24:12-13.) No one seemed to feel that David was touching the Lord's anointed by this open rebuke of Saul. It is clear that to touch the Lord's anointed involved violence against his person, not criticism, rebuke or public disagreement.

A similar incident took place in 1 Samuel 26: "Then said Abishai to David, God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day: Now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not; for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless? David said furthermore, As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed." (1 Samuel 26:8-11.) David was willing to let judgement be executed against King Saul by the hand of another. He was not talking about the judgement of someone criticizing Saul, or disagreeing with Saul, or printing an article in opposition to Saul's doctrine, but rather about the violent death of Saul. That is what it means to touch the Lord's anointed.

In 2 Samuel 1:14-15, David had an Amalekite executed for the sin of stretching forth his hand to destroy the Lord's anointed. What had the Amalekite done? Had he criticized the doctrine of a big-name televangelist? Had he exposed the moral failings of a preacher falsely claiming to be a holy man of God? Had he voiced opposition to some pastor's proposed building program? No, his offense was of an entirely different nature - by his own testimony, he had taken his weapon and killed Saul, the man God anointed to be king of Israel. (I believe that Saul was already dead and that the Amalekite stripped his body and then concocted the story of having killed Saul in the vain hope of receiving a reward from David.) Regardless of whether or not this man killed Saul, David believed that he had killed Saul and had him executed for that offense, not for the offense of verbally criticizing Saul, which was something David himself had done.

Why, then, do we hear so much whining from preachers today who warn their followers, and their critics, not to touch the Lord's anointed? Just what do these preachers have to hide, and what are they so anxious to cover up? One would think that it is the unpardonable sin to criticize or find fault with any preacher in any way. Some of the big televangelists have even hinted that God will punish their detractors with death.

To rebuke a preacher who has committed errors of false doctrine or practice cannot be the sin of touching the Lord's anointed, because it does not involve the use or threat of physical violence. Such rebuke is appropriate and even commanded in certain instances. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians 2:11.) "Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." (Titus 1:13.) "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear," (1 Timothy 5:19-20.) The office of elder here is the same as the scriptural office of bishop or pastor. Presumably it would also include televangelists and ecumenical evangelists, even though no such creatures are authorized in the New Testament, and they could not be higher in rank than the Apostle Peter, who Paul rebuked publicly before the congregation of Antioch.

Who is the Lord's Anointed?

Since we are instructed so many times that we must not touch the Lord's anointed, it might help to check out the New Testament and find out just who are the Lord's anointed today. In 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 we read; "Now he which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who also hath sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." The Apostle John tells us, "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.... But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:20,27.)

There we have it - all Christians are the Lord's anointed. How could it be otherwise? In Old Testament times, only some believers were priests, but in this age of grace, we are all priests: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ ... But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:5,9.)

In the light of this glorious truth, that all born-again believers are the Lord's anointed, perhaps when we are admonished by a preacher to "Touch not the Lord's anointed," we would do well to answer, "Same to you, buddy!" In fact, the preacher from his place of prominence in the pulpit can do more harm, to more people, than the average man in the pew, if he is following unscriptural principles and practices, and therefore he is to be more carefully scrutinized and watched. Yes, the preacher is the Lord's anointed, if he is truly saved, but so are you, and so are we. We owe a tremendous amount of courtesy to all of God's true preachers, including an obligation not to oppose or criticize them in an improper and unscriptural manner. But they have the same obligation of courtesy to all Christian laymen, who are also the Lord's anointed.

Some pastors seem to have the idea that because they are ordained to the ministry, they are on a higher and more exalted level than their followers, but at the same time they are to be held to a lower level of standard of conduct. Because they are preachers, they say, it is inevitable that they will offend people, and they are not going to try to avoid giving offenses, because if they did, they would have to stop preaching.

This is the very opposite of the teaching of the Word of God, which insists that preachers are to be held to a higher standard of conduct than their people: "Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12.) "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all." (James 3:1-2.)

The preacher or evangelist who thunders forth with the command "Touch not the Lord's anointed" intends thereby to silence and shut the mouths of all who might find fault with his doctrines or methods, no matter how unscriptural they may be, He is a man with much to hide, a man who cannot bear to have his deeds and his ways openly examined and compared with what the Word of God teaches.

Such a man is very self-centered, selfish, soulish, and in the final analysis childish. A small child must have everything his own way, and cannot bear to be challenged, contradicted or denied anything he demands. He feels that the world should revolve around him, and that all should cater to his wishes. The dictatorial preacher is no different; his followers must devote themselves entirely to his service, going around on tiptoes for fear of offending him in any way, while he feels free to offend all. Little or no time or effort is left with which to serve Christ, after the followers have served the ego and the cravings of their pastor. He is an insecure, immature man who lives in dread that somewhere there is someone who dares to differ with him on some minor issue. Christ has appointed believers to liberty, Galatians 5:1, but the dictatorial preacher robs his followers of all their liberty.

The moment anyone objects to such immature conduct, or to the fleecing of the tithe money of God's people, or the lapses in moral standards and doctrinal soundness, the preacher responds, "Touch not the Lord's anointed!" How silly - no one has threatened to slay them with a sword, as was done to Saul. It is time for such preachers to grow up. We would all object, and quite rightly, to any powerful layman who attempted to take control of a local church and to force all the other members to follow his will without question. For a layman to lord it over the church is wrong and out of the question. For the pastor to do so is equally wrong.

This is made quite clear by the words of Jesus in Matthew 20:25-27: "But Jesus called them unto him (the Apostles) and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." The same thought appears in the parallel passages of Mark 10:42-44 and Luke 22:25-26. In 1 Peter 5:2-3 we read, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof', not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock."

A New Caste of Untouchables

The effect, if not the purpose, of the new emphasis on the exalted rights of ordained ministers, is to create a new class of "Untouchables." Unlike the Untouchables of India, who are at the bottom of society, the new Untouchables are at the top of Christian society, taking advantage of their sheepish followers at will, clobbering them anytime they want to, while they themselves cannot be touched. They will reign like kings, living the life of Riley while their riled subjects have no choice but to bow down and obey.

If all this seems rather extreme, then consider a very incomplete list of some of the offenses committed by this incipient class of Untouchables here in the United States:

- Acts of adultery by famous televangelists and Christian celebrities.
- Diversion of tax-exempt funds given for the preaching of the Gospel, to be used instead to pay off mistresses and paramours.
- Prayer requests thrown out in the garbage unread, after donations have been extracted from the letters.
- Converts sent to Roman Catholic churches and other churches which openly deny evangelical doctrines.
- Wild prophetic speculations, including date setting for the Second Coming of Christ, exposing evangelical religion to ridicule and contempt when the predictions fail to come true.
- False claims to receiving direct revelations from God, when the preacher is only quoting from the notes of the heretical Dake's Study Bible.
- Bizarre false teaching, such as that there are nine persons of the Trinity, that Christ was not God, that all men are gods, that Christ went to Hell and was born again there, etc.
- Bullying and intimidation of church members and followers.
- Teaching that to be born again is to recover one's lost self-esteem, or that it can be achieved in a mechanical manner by repeating a few words or coming forward in a meeting, with no conviction of the Holy Spirit.
- High-pressure, unethical fund raising tactics, and waste of funds to purchase ostentatious luxury items for the preacher.

The New Untouchables would have us to believe that all these sins are permitted for them, but if any lower-caste Christians dare to criticize them for these offenses, or dare to withdraw their support from preachers who sin, and advise others to withdraw their support, then we are told that they have committed the unpardonable sin - they have "Touched the Lord's Anointed!" What a convenient double standard for the New Untouchables - they can sin greatly, while those who would never have dreamed of sinning after such a manner are condemned and made to feel like miserable wretches.

(The lowest circle of Hell has been reserved by the New Untouchables for those who actually dare to name the names of preachers who have swerved aside from sound doctrine. We are told that there is "no redemption" for them. In that case, the Apostle Paul must be there, since he named names, warning against Hymenaeus and Alexander.)

We should not be taken in by the pretensions of the New Untouchables. We have already seen that all Christians are the Lord's Anointed, that all Christians are priests, and that there is an equality among all Christians, whether they are ministers or laymen. It is time for us to return to the primitive and scriptural state of things, in which all Christians are equal, having only one master, even Christ. "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." (Matthew 23:8.) "Ye ere bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." (1 Corinthians 7:23.)

Yes, the Command is For Today

The command, "Touch not the Lord's Anointed" is for today. In 2 Corinthians 11:19-20, Paul warns against religious leaders who would take advantage of believers: "For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face."

Today, among some preachers, it is considered a mark of distinction that they are able to bring their followers into bondage, devour them, take of them, exalt themselves, and smite or abuse their followers. They brag about this sort of thing in their preacher's meetings, and conduct pastor's schools to teach others how to do it and get away with it. But notice what Paul calls such men - he calls them Fools! In the context, it is clear that he is not talking about laymen abusing preachers, although that is also wrong. Here he is talking about preachers who abuse and misuse laymen, and according to Paul, such preachers are fools.

To those who would smite God's people in the face, the command of God is "Touch Not the Lord's Anointed!"

Touching the Lord's Anointed?

Friday, 24th April 2009

Back in January 2007, I was called into the office of the senior pastor of my church so that he could tell me that it was "not appropriate" to show Ps Joseph Prince's Humorous Biblical Illustrations DVD to my then-cell members. I was surprised to find that the other 2 pastors were also present at that meeting.

Anyway, one of them (who has thankfully since been posted to another church) told me categorically that it was wrong to challenge a pastor because I was "touching the Lord's anointed". But what really took the cake was when told me that "according to the Bible" we cannot do so, even when the pastor was in the wrong! To validate this, he quoted to me the passage recorded in 1 Samuel 24:5-7 whereby David had told his men not to kill King Saul because he was still king at that time and even though Saul was clearly at fault in hunting David down, he was God's anointed and hence untouchable.

So can we then say that "according to the Bible", there was a passage in Gen 38:15-16 whereby Tamar dressed as a harlot to seduce her father-in-law Judah into getting herself pregnant. She ended up being mentioned in Jesus' genealogy in Matt 1:3 and so, it is okay to seduce one's own father-in-law? Ludicrous if we use such kind of logic, isn't it?

The irony is that he was very critical of the grace message and what Ps Prince is teaching, so by his very own definition, isn't he also "touching the Lord's anointed"?

Unless he does not consider Ps Prince to be God's anointed, but then again, I could use a similar reasoning on him :-)

So who then is the Lord's anointed?

I did a Biblegateway search on the phrase "touch anointed" and the following verses were returned:

1 Chron 16:22
"Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm."

Ps 105:15
"Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm."

In both cases, it was part of a psalm by King David and he was referring to the prophets.

The Hebrew word for "anointed" in those verses is H4899 mashiyach (משיח) from which we get the word Messiah.

In the Old Testament, the privilege of being considered the Lord's was given only to a selected few, namely the priests, the kings and the prophets. We read in Ex 40:15 God telling Moses to anoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests. We read in 1 Sam 10:1 the anointing of Saul and then again in 1 Sam 16:13 the anointing of David. And in the passage quoted above, David referred to the prophets as God's anointed.

They would be anointed by oil as an indication of this.

How about in the New Covenant?

Let's go back to the Hebrew word mashiyach, from which comes the word Messiah. There is a Greek equivalent of that word in the New Testament, and that word is G5547 Christos (Χριστός) from which comes the word "Christ" and "Christians"!

Yep. In the New Covenant, every one of us who has accepted Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and as a result of that been born again in the spirit is considered to be the Lord's anointed.

When we call ourselves Christians, we are calling ourselves "anointed ones".

Rev 1:6 tells us that through the blood of Christ, we have been made kings and priests unto God.

And while in the Old Testament, the anointing was with olive oil, we of the New Covenant are anointed with the Holy Spirit Himself. Hallelujah!

Amen, my fellow anointed ones?

So the next time someone tells you "touch not the Lord's anointed", you can tell him back that the same applies to him :-)

A Theological Breakthrough

Sunday, 19th April 2009

Yesterday, I discovered that my pastors were all away on retreat. As long as Ps Reuben is not preaching, it would mean that my wife and I would go to NewCre.

Last night, I checked NewCre's website and discovered that Ps Lian would be preaching.

And so, I told my wife that maybe I would take a break from attending church today.

Well, praise be to God that I listened to my dear wife to attend Paya Lebar Methodist this morning. Because the pastors were away, lay persons took over the pulpit. And the one who was preaching at the adult service was Mr Allan Fong, one of the full-time church workers who is in-charge of youth ministry.

His sermon was truly a breath of fresh air and was on the topic of RIGHTEOUSNESS! Entitled "I Have An Identity (Righteousness)", I have made it available for download here.

The powerpoint slides that Allan did to accompany his sermon can also be downloaded here.

This may not be a big deal for your folks from NewCre, but it is for us Methodists. It represents a theological breakthrough for us because this is the first time I have heard this topic being preached in a Methodist church in my 30 years here!!! Seriously.

Speaking of righteousness, I recall when I was an undergraduate at Nanyang Technological University. For the year-end examinations, my roommate and I (who were both in the NTU Christian Fellowship) would make our way to the Sports and Recreation Centre ("SRC"). Before walking into the exam hall, we would gather outside for a short time of prayer to commit our exams to the LORD. I recall us feeling slightly better and less panicky as a result.

Well, there was one particular occasion when a fellow sister happen to see us about to embark in prayer and decided to join us. She was a member of the NTUCF Executive Committee ("Exco"). After that particular round of prayer, my roommate and I felt very much better and had a heightened sense of peace. We thanked this sister of ours, and as she walked off, I remarked to my roommate, "Wow, Exco member's prayer is so different, hor?", to which he replied, "Ya lor. The prayer of a righteous woman availeth much."

And I believe that is how many Christians feel as well. We see passages like Js 5:16 and feel discouraged rather than encouraged because we do not qualify. That is why we rely on the priest, or the pastor, or the cluster leader, or the cell leader to pray for us. We have this impression that because these persons are in full-time ministry or are actively serving the Lord, they are closer to God and hence considered to be more holy and "righteous". Consequently, their prayers would be more effective than if we prayed to God ourselves.

But what exactly is righteousness, or right standing with God? Is the full-time minister more righteous than the average believer sitting in the pew?

The apostle Paul tells us in 2 Cor 5:21 that God made Jesus who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Meditate on this verse for a moment. How did Jesus become sin? Did He do bad things in order to be made sinful? Nope. He knew no sin and was sinless and hence could qualify to be our sin offering.

It was God who imputed our sin onto Him.

By the same token. How do we become righteous? By doing good works? By praying 8 hours or reading 10 chapters of the Bible each day? By serving God in this committee or that ministry? Nope. We become righteous because it is God who imputes His righteousness to us.

We are righteous not because of what we do or try to do, but because of what He has done.

Paul also tells us in Rom 5:17 that righteousness is a gift from God. A gift is something that is given; we cannot earn it by our own works and self-efforts.

And when we get the revelation that we are made righteous because of Christ, then those verses in the Bible referring to the righteous man and the blessings he is entitled to which used to discourage us because we felt disqualified now become sources of encouragement because we realise that we actually qualify for them. Hallelujah!

And so coming back to today's sermon. I was very encouraged by brother Allan's sharing and my wife and I took the effort to tell him so after the service. May our God continue to use him mightily to impart the truths of His Son onto the youth such as my daughter and son (yep, I've got vested interest there).

God has no favourites. As long as Jesus His Son is being exalted, unveiled and glorified, there is no reason why Paya Lebar Methodist cannot also be blessed with phenomenal growth. My intended sabbatical may be over sooner than I expected :-D

We Are Not The World

Saturday, 18th April 2009

Back in the 1980s, there was a charity record that was released by a group of artistes who called themselves USA For Africa, the proceeds of which went to the famine victims in Ethiopia.

The title of that record was "We Are The World". The song contained a verse that went "As God has shown us by turning stones to bread, and so we all must land a helping hand."

Well, sorry to disappoint you, Mr Willie Nelson. God did not turn stones to bread. He was tempted to do so by the devil, but he responded by saying "It is written: man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God".

Which brings me to the title of today's post.

There has been a great debate about how much Pastor Joseph Prince was paid by NewCre. While those who are in support are NewCre members (with this Methodist being the exception), those who take issue are both fellow Christians from other churches and even pre-believers.

Christian blogs like those maintained by Angie, Geri, Stan, Joshua and Yi Wei are primarily meant to be read by fellow believers. After all, the gospel of Jesus Christ is foolishness to the world, while the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.

We are not the world. We may be in the world, but are not of the world.

What happens then when pre-believers (or believers masquerading as pre-believers) start reading our blogs or even start leaving comments on them? It becomes like rojak, and my concern is that besides the influx of rats and mice, some may end up getting "poisoned" as well :-/

It is no wonder that Stan has now mentioned in his blog:
"By the way, my blog is mainly meant for fellow Christians to discuss and debate things we have learnt in our different churches, and not as a platform to prove to non-Christians our faith and win them over."

Which brings me back to the point as to why engaging pre-believers and believers using the same platform may be a futile exercise at best, and a dangerously confusing one, at worst.

When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, what resulted was that they became aware of what was good and what was evil and realised that they were naked, even though God did not tell them so.

Note that the tree was that of the *knowledge* of *good* and evil. It was not the tree of evil.

God had declared everything that He created as "good" (with man being the pinnacle of His creation, and thus considered "very good"). So while that tree was part of what was good, that tree was not good... for man.

Soil may be good in the garden, but it is not good on the carpet.
Sex is good within the context of marriage, but not outside of it.

And so, as a result of Adam and Eve eating from that tree, all mankind (both believers and pre-believers) now has an in-built sense of right and wrong, of good and evil, of justice and injustice, of fairness and unfairness, etc. Or a sense of common sense, as how some would put it.

Hence the debate about whether Ps Prince's pay is fair or unfair, and particularly in the eyes of the world.

The world will say that Ps Prince's pay is not fair.

The world will say that is not fair for a religious man to go to hell.

The world will say it is not fair for the thief who hung next to Jesus to go to paradise.

The world will say that it is not fair that Pharoah and his kinsmen got punished even though it was Abraham who lied about his wife.

The world will say it is not fair for someone who cheated his own dad and brother in order to get his birthright and who wrestled with the angel would end up being so abundantly blessed.

The world will say it is not fair for a woman who had tricked and seduced her own father-in-law into getting her pregnant, would through that unholy union produce an ancestor to the throne of David, from which the Messiah would descend from.

The world will say it is not fair that a harlot who betrayed her own king and fellow citizens not only got away with treason but ended up marrying the enemy's commander's son and likewise become an ancestor to the throne of King David, and whose name was also specifically mentioned in the Messiah's genealogy.

And that, my friends, is exactly what is so amazing about grace. Because it goes against the natural man's sense of reasoning. Grace is what no religion or philosophy can ever teach. It is undeserved, unmerited and unearned.

It takes the Holy Spirit to understand grace. And that it is why engaging pre-believers should be on a different platform. This blog and the others aforementioned are not the forum for such.

We are not the world.

If Die Liao, How Come Still Can Hear Baa-ing and Moo-ing?

Friday, 17th April 2009

I have been following a series of discussions on fellow Best Christian Blog of the Year awardee Stan's blog. Stan has been accused of being sarcastic in his dealings with one such annoy-ny-mouse, oops I mean anonymous, commentator.

Stan's reply to him was that he would have been even more sarcastic had he not been a grace-embracing believer :-D

Here is an extract from Stan's blog...

Mouse said...
Just curious. Does Christianity make a person more sarcastic ? Cause I see plenty of it here.

Stanley Wong said...
Hi Mouse, No, Christianity does not make me more sarcastic ... it's just my style ... if anything, Christianity tends to hold me back sometimes as I bite my tongue and resist the temptation to rub more salt.


The question arises then whether Stan is being "un-Christian" by being sarcastic.

Personally, I find that sarcasm is an art because, when executed correctly, it is able to achieve a dual purpose. The one it is directed at will not find it in the least bit funny (and will even feel hurt if what is said about that person is true). But those who are not at the receiving end, yet privy to what is being said, will.

Consider the following passage in 1 Sam 15 which records how God had led the Israelites under King Saul to victory over the Amalekites.

In verse 3, we read how God, through the prophet Samuel told them
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

Alas in verse 9, we find that
9 Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

The next morning, Samuel goes to meet Saul, and we read in verse 13
13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, "The LORD bless you! I have carried out the LORD's instructions."

What brought a smile to my face (and I believe to many of yours as well) was Samuel's reply to Saul:
14 But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?"

Samuel could have told Saul directly, "Nope. You did not carry out God's instructions!" but he chose a response that was laced with sarcasm!

The Singlish version would have read
Samuel said, "Izzit? If the sheep and cow die liao, how come still can hear baa-ing and moo-ing ar?"

LOL indeed :-D

It brought the point across in a humorous way. Yet Saul did not see the humour in it. The shoe fitted and he wore it.

So my take to Mr Mouse (and others like him) is this. If what Stan says about you isn't true, you should be able to appreciate and even marvel at his wit and sense of humour. On the other hand, if you do not find it funny (like how Saul did not see the humour in what Samuel said), then just perhaps there is an element of truth in what Stan is saying?

A Revelation of Restfulness in the Resurrection Story

Sunday, 12th April 2009

This morning, my whole family went to church very early, even before the sun came out.

Methodists have a tradition, and that is to hold a service early on Easter Sunday, called a Sunrise Service.

Last year was my first time attending one. The turnout was about 100 people.

This year, the turnout more than trebled to about 350 people.

Ps Reuben preached a 7-point sermon on the resurrection, but the 5th point was the one that was a revelation to me.

In Jn 20:2-7, it was recorded that Peter and John ran to the tomb after hearing Mary Magdalene tell them that it was empty. John, being younger, reached the tomb before Peter did. He peered inside and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but did not go in.

Peter arrived later and entered the tomb and saw the face-cloth rolled up in a place by itself.

When the tomb was discovered to the empty, some detractors had accused the disciples of stealing away the body. But if that was the case, then it would have had to be done hurriedly. There would not have been time for the disciples to neatly roll up the face-cloth.

Yet it was.

And although it was not mentioned who rolled it up, a reasonable conclusion is that Jesus Himself did that. It showed that our Saviour was so cool, calm and rested about His resurrection that He even found the time and composure to roll up the face-cloth.

Likewise, we who are His children, can be peaceful and restful, because Jesus Himself is the Prince of Peace. Hallelujah!

Barabbas - a Picture of Us

Saturday, 11th April 2009

As a young Christian growing up, I recall another aspect of the passion about a criminal by the name of Barabbas being set free, and Jesus having to take his place instead.

I also recall telling myself never to give my son such an awful name, one that was being associated with a murderer. I mean, I don't think anyone in his right mind would name his child Hitler or Stalin either.

Mel Gibson also chose a really detestable and barbaric-looking person to play the role of Barabbas in his movie The Passion of the Christ, as you can see in the picture on the right.

But only recently did I realise the meaning of that name. Barabbas is actually derived from Bar-abbâ (בר-אבא) where bar = son and Abba means Daddy, ie. son of the Father.

While the Scriptures do not record the names of the two thieves that were crucified on the left and right of Jesus, the Holy Spirit saw fit to record the name of the criminal that was set free!

That is because Barabbas typifies you and me. We were the ones who had a death sentence hanging over our heads. Rom 6:23 tells us that the wages of (ie. payment for) sin is death. Yet Jesus took that death sentence upon Himself in our place, so that we, who are bar-Abbas-es --- sons and daughters of Daddy God, can go free.

Hallelujah! Amen, my dear fellow Barabbas?

What's So Good About Good Friday?

Friday, 10th April 2009

When I was a younger Christian, I used to wonder why Good Friday was called such. Should it not be called Bad Friday? After all, it was supposed to be the darkest day in history. An innocent man who knew no sin was being put to death in the cruelist of ways -- crucifixion.

I remember attending church service and recalling the sombre atmostphere, not unlike what one would see at a funeral wake. We were also supposed to wear either black or grey; red was definitely a no-no. Even the liturgical colours worn by the choir and at the pulpit rostrum would be black (for only that one day in the entire year).

Well, it was only recently that I understand what is so good about Good Friday. And there are even Scriptural passages to support this.

If we look at Lev 1-5, we note that there were altogether 5 types of offerings:
(1) Burnt offering
(2) Grain offering
(3) Fellowship offering
(4) Sin offering
(5) Guilt offering

The burnt, sin and guilt offerings were restitutional in nature in that they were offered in the place of a person for his wrongdoing. These offerings could also not be eaten by anyone because the persons sin would have been "transferred" onto the sacrifice.

But the grain and fellowship offerings were acts of worship and thanksgiving. Incence and oil was added to the former so that it gave out a sweet aroma. The latter could be eaten because unlike the burnt, sin and guilt offerings, the purpose of such offerings was not to "transfer" sin onto the sacrifice.

The author of Hebrews tells us that the Old Testament contains types and shadows, but the real substance is Christ. In other words, Christ fulfilled all 5 types of offerings by His single act on the cross. He is our burnt, grain, fellowship, sin and trespass offering.

So while it was a "bad" Friday in that He was beaten, mocked, spat at and finally crucified, it was "good" because He fulfilled all of God's requirements. As a grain offering unto God the Father, He was a sweet-smelling aroma and frangrance that was pleasing to His Father. In fact, Isa 53:10 even tells us "the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief".

It is also a "good" Friday because a divine exchange took place in history. Jesus took upon Himself our sin so that in exchange, we could take on His robes of righteousness. Jesus took upon Himself our sicknesses so that in exchange, we could walk in divine health and wholeness. Jesus took upon Himself our poverty by being totally naked on the cross, so that in exchange, we can be rich and prosperous. Jesus, the second Adam, sweat drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsamane to reverse the curse that the first Adam brought upon us when He was told by God in another Garden (the Garden of Eden) that by the sweat of his brow, he will eat bread (ie. he had to toil and labour), so that we now just need to rest in His finished work.

I also used to wonder why Paul said in 1 Cor 11:26 that we "proclaim the Lord's death" when we take Holy Communion. Should we not be proclaiming Jesus' resurrection rather than His death? It was only recently after listening to the sermons on Health and Wholeness Through the Holy Communion* that I realised that when we partake of the Lord's Supper, we are declaring to the devil and the kingdom of darkness that because Jesus' body was broken, our do not need to be.

We are telling Satan, "Look here, devil. Jesus paid the price already. Therefore, I do not have to. None of the diseases of Egypt can be put upon me because Jesus took them upon His own body in my place."

* Check out excepts of that sermon series here.

And that my friend, is what is so good about Good Friday. It is God's answer and solution to all of mankind's questions and problems. Amen?

A Paradigm Shift in Viewing the Things of God

Sunday, 5th Sunday 2009

This morning, my wife and I decided to go again to Christos Restaurant for our set meal.

Christos Restaurant has been in the news more and more of late. Its chef was reportedly paid more than half a million dollars.

Well, it seems to be even more crowded than before :-)

God is causing all things to work for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

And the chef was candid enough to share with the patrons how he felt about the whole thing.

Stanley has rightly pointed out in his blog entry that people do not bat an eyelid when they read of English Premier League players being paid hundreds of thousands of Sterling pounds each week.

Yet, when it comes to pastors, why is half a million Singapore dollars in a year such a scandal? Soccer players like Wayne Rooney and John Terry earn that same amount in merely two weeks!!

If soccer players are paid such wages to entertain, should not a man of God whom He has been using to transform hundreds and thousands of lives be likewise worthy of his wages? Why begrudge him what the Church's remuneration committee, in their collective wisdom, considers to be an amount fitting for his calling?

The temple that Solomon built cost the modern-day equivalent of US$800,000 million. Does that not make the project at One-North at S$500 million pale in comparison?

God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Heaven's streets are made of gold. The church's standing has been devalued to the extent that even phrases such as "as poor as a churchmouse" has crept into our vernicular.

It is about time we have a paradigm shift in the way we view the things of God. Let us claim back what the devil has taken away. Amen?

A Hot Date at Hot Tomato

Saturday, 4th April 2009

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a colleague of mine leaving the office around lunchtime with his backpack, so I assumed he was on half day leave.

When I saw him that same afternoon, I was curious as to why he had to bring his bag with him. He told me that his wife just started working nearby, and he makes it a point to meet his wife for lunch everyday. In the mornings at home, his wife would prepare their lunch and packs it into his backpack. At lunchtime, he will meet his wife and have their lunch in front of the Singapore River.

What sweet devotion :-)

And it brought to mind how I would also meet my darling wifey for lunch each Tuesday when I was in Infineon. My then-colleagues would not ask me to join them for lunch every Tuesday because they knew that was the day I had set apart to drive down to my wife's workplace to meet her for our weekly rendezvous.

But ever since joining Walton, I have not been doing so. Furthermore, the car is parked at her workplace so that makes it slightly more of a challenge.

But hey, it suddenly dawned upon me that while meeting her for lunch was a bit tough, I could always have breakfast with her!

In the mornings, we would fetch our daughter to school, after which I would get dropped off at Lavender MRT and then she takes over the wheel to drive to work. Sometimes, if we are super-early, I get dropped off at my office building, Republic Plaza.

Well, we were super-early yesterday, so I invited her to have a romantic breakfast at Hot Tomato, which is located at the basement of Republic Plaza.

Thank God for such blessed moments. May it be the first of many more romantic Friday morning breakfasts to come. Amen?

Money, Sex and Power

Friday, 3rd April 2009

1. Money
2. Sex
3. Power

The 3 things that the people of the world seek after.

The 3 things that make the headlines and front-page news.

And of late, NewCre seems to be making the headlines on a very regular basis :-)

A few weeks back, it was reported that it raised $19m in less than 24 hours.

Just this week, it was reported that it paid one of its pastors more than $0.5m in salary last year.

Well, there is one thing that cannot be denied in all of this is this

GOD HAS BEEN, IS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE BLESSING NEW CREATION CHURCH!!!!!

The vows of celibacy and poverty that the Catholic priesthood undertook are not biblical. They only suppress the desires that are given to us by God to begin with. It is no wonder then that paedophilia, homosexuality and covetousness are so rampant.

PROSPERITY is not a dirty word. If it were so, then God would not have prospered Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

SEX is not a dirty word. If it were so, then God would not have created man and woman with sexual organs that fit hand in glove so that the two could become one and complete and fulfill each other in a context of a marriage.

POWER is not a dirty word. God raised Jesus from the dead and seated Him above all, and we who are in Christ, have that same power to be more than conquerors and to reign in life.

Let us not have a holier-than-thou attitude like the Pharisees and instead see money, sex and power in the proper context of beneficiaries of the New Covenant.

Jesus became poor on the cross so that we may be rich.

Jesus esteemed marriages and gave it its rightful honour when He attended the wedding at Cana.

Jesus, via the Holy Spirit, has given us the power to be His witnesses and spread His good news to all that He has placed around us.

Coming back to the $0.5m salary. I like this parable about The Half-Million Dollar Chef that fellow blogger Stan wrote.

To add to his analogy, the chef in his parable has been gifted to take ingredients that one would normally consider tasteless and boring to cook up a meal that is so tasty, delicious and mouth-watering that patrons are willing to queue up for hours, and still come back for more every week thereafter.

Does it make you curious as to how come he is being paid that much? Good, then go to the Rock and listen for yourself. God is using him so mightily that even the driest of passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy become exciting and come alive because Jesus is being unveiled.

In the Old Testament, the priests and Levites were well taken care of. The tithes collected from the other tribes were meant to be given to them. In Deut 15, we read that some of offerings of oxen and sheep were to be eaten by them, and the best parts (like the thigh and the breast) were even reserved for Aaron the priest and his descendants.

Well, in the current-day context, full-time church workers are the equivalent of the Levites and Pastors are the modern-day equivalent of the priests. This is what Paul had to say in the New Testament:

Gal 6:6
The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him.

1 Tim 5:17-18
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

So let us not begrudge the man what the church's council, in their collective wisdom, has decided is a worthy wage for this labourer of God. Let us rejoice that God has blessed NewCre with the means to do so. Amen?

Happy April 1st

Wednesday, 1st April 2009

I do not usually blog on weekdays, but shall make another exception today.

While others around the world celebrated April Fools' Day, I also celebrated my 1st anniversary in what I consider to be the best company in the world.

Early this morning, my darling wifey sent me the following email:

To: Malcolm Loh
Sent: Apr 1, 2009 8:51AM
Subject: Happy Anniversary :)

Happy 1 year anniversary & many more good years... at Walton !

My 3 bosses (the COO, CFO and MD) are great. My colleagues are wonderful. And the product that we sell is second-to-none.

This is the 7th company I have worked in and the most fantastic one thus far.

And my department folks were so sweet. They bought me a nice delicious chocolate fudge cake to commemorate this blessed day.

Speaking of April Fools' jokes, I recall an incident that took place on my first day at work last year which I thought was a prank that my new colleagues pulled on me as a means of welcoming me on board.

After being given a tour of the office in the first hour, and a briefing by the CFO in the second, I made my way to my then-room. As I attempted to sit on my chair, to my horror of horrors, it gave way! Thank goodness I did not injure myself, but I thought it was a trick that my colleagues were playing on me. Turns out that that chair was a pretty old one. My then-secretary told me she had sat on it to try it out a few days earlier without any problems. I suppose it could withstand her ?45kg weight but not my 75kg :-(

Well, this year, my department colleagues did indeed play a trick on me... by putting a candle on the cake that would not go off. But it was all taken in good fun. In fact, it warmed my heart that they could be so pally and comfortable with me.

Thank you dear LORD for blessing me so abundantly! All glory and praise I give unto you!