Perhaps one of the most difficult questions posed to Christianity is how a good and all-powerful God can allow great natural disasters to occur.  This, I would say, is a mystery that most Christians (including myself) have a really hard time dealing with.  However, on the flip side, the way people have responded to recent crises has, for me, given a hefty argument for the existence of God.

A report (link and pdf) just came out a few days ago that surveyed Americans about their willingness to donate to disaster relief.  The numbers, to me, were quite astonishing:

Now, if you figure that the economy has not been doing too well for the last few years, these stats are quite significant.  Nearly 45% of those surveyed have or are planning to donate to Japan.  Granted, when something happens in the US like Katrina, up to 84% of Americans surveyed were willing to put money to the relief efforts.  But even in international cases, you still have around 50% of the American population reaching for the strapped funds.  Why?

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant once posited something known as the moral argument for the existence of God.  The basic idea is that there seems to be a basic sense of morality in all of us that we can rationally ascertain; this morality points to a Giver of morality that is outside of our natural realm.

Now, if you take a strongly evolutionary stance on life that assumes the “survival of the fittest” (which, I would say, exists in many workplaces), then it makes no sense to help somebody else –unless, of course, you are to get something in return.  It’s the I scratch your back, you scratch mine mentality.  But what I found significant in this survey is it seems to defy the dog-eat-dog mentality.

Even if we are stretched financially and at risk of losing our jobs, we still want to help in any little way possible those whom we deem to be in great need.  It suggests that life is not full of pure randomness and that there is a sense of interconnectedness in the world.  Our moral compasses must come from something outside of ourselves.  It comes from a transcendent moral reference point.  It comes from God.

Now, throughout that session, several delegates discussed this question and repeatedly there was the critique against “conservative Christians” or “evangelicals” who have not cared about society.  On the one hand, as an evangelical myself, I was a bit offended by the attacks levied by those in attendance.  On the other hand, I must confess that conservative Christianity has not been on the forefront of the social problems this world faces.  Historically speaking, conservatives have shunned away from social reconstruction and emphasised an individualised, spiritual reconstruction.  This world is fleeting and not of our concern — we must simply save souls.  What I find additionally interesting is that, while I cannot agree with Hick’s thinking, I have to say that his theology has given him the philosophical impetus to engage the society and work towards remedying the groans of the cosmos (Romans 8:22).

Then yesterday at church, the preacher Barry spoke about the problem where Christians can be too “academic.”  In saying that, he was not attacking education or theology, by any means.  What he was saying was that we often are too interested in aimless discussions and heresy wars.  We therefore forget that we are Christians who are to be a city on a hill — shining God’s light upon this world and society.  Again, rightly so, the same critique is levied against conservative Christians.  Yet I would say (and I think Barry agrees with me here) that the “academic” aspect of Christianity in and of itself is not bad as long as that is not the entire preoccupation of the faith.

Such academia is meant to spill out in practice (much like with Hick).  We know that God is a loving God hence we too must be a loving people, loving those who are unloved.  We know that God is a just God hence we too must be advocates of justice when our local communities are not interested in justice.  We know that God offers hope in the midst of desperation and dire situations and hence we too are to bring that hope to those who have no hope at all.  If anything, conservative Christians should be even more on the forefront of leading the charge for concern in this world.

–

While money is never the end solution for the world’s problems, Christians are called to use whatever we have to participate in God’s work, as a means of worship.  On the morning of the last day of the conference, just before we academically discussed the question of social advocacy, an 8.9 earthquake hit Japan followed by waves of devastation and despair upon that island.  One organisation to consider supporting is Asian Access who, through their network of workers in Japan (a friend of mine included), are trying to help in the relief efforts at this crucial time. If you are able, put some moneys to the work in Japan, whether it be Asian Access or another.

Update 15 March 2011 @ 19:25 GMT: Just got word that my employer will match dollar-for-dollar up to $10K for Japan relief, through World Vision.

It may look like China (and, indeed, Betty and I took pictures like this in Suzhou earlier this year), but this was in fact taken in San Marino, California at the new Chinese garden exhibit at the Huntington Library.

I recently came across two very interesting news articles that highlight the question of national pride for ethnic Chinese in countries outside of China:

• LA Times article about the celebration of the founding of communist China in Southern California.
• CBC article about the Chinese government funding a Chinese language course in the Greater Vancouver area of BC, Canada.

The question that I want to pose is: is it unpatriotic to the US (which I am a citizen) if I were to be proud of China (which is where my ethnic origins are) and its latest accomplishments?  This is something that seems to come up quite a bit (esp. if you read the seemingly racist comments by some readers of the CBC article).

In discussions about postmodernity, some people have talked about how we should recognise the fact that many of us have a “hyphenated identity.”  Meaning, not only am I an American, but I am a “Chinese-American.”  Or, perhaps, since my parents were born and raised in Burma, I am a “Chinese-Burmese-American.”  There seems to be some warrant to celebrating this “fragmentation” since there are multiple stories that inform who I am (and, sometimes, also confuses who I am).

Then in religious studies, there has been an ongoing discussion about the possibility of dual or multiple religious affiliation.  Some would say that I should not consider myself as a “Christian” but as having a multiple allegiance to Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism since all of these are part of who I am, whether I agree with it or not.

To be clear, I disagree with this second idea.  John Stackhouse has an interesting discussion on this in defining terms like “inclusivism,” but basically I believe the Bible is quite clear that God wants to have our full allegiance and does not like us mixing and matching to our liking.

So I return to the original question.  Can I be faithful to multiple nations at the same time?  I mean, China has done some pretty great things in the recent past (hey, let’s see London top the open ceremonies of the 2008 olympics!).  But there are also plenty of rotten things they have done too.  The same, of course, can be said of any nation like the US or the UK — no nation is perfect.  There’s the classic question: if the US and China were to go to war with one another, which side would you support?  Sure, there’s something to be said about a case-by-case scenario.  But blindly taking that question, I really don’t know how I would respond.

BBC reports that many in the UK also want this ban, claiming that it is “not British.” There is obviously a racist underpinning to such a statement, but I’m not even going to go there for now. What really unnerved me was what the journalist was implying about freedom of religion: “In a country [France] where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law, a parliamentary committee report ruled the veil as “contrary to the values of the republic’…” [2]

And now begins my rant.

My first issue is with how the BBC journalist defines separation of state and church religion (incidentally, is this also “enshrined as law” in the USA?). Freedom of religion assumes that everybody should have their own freedom to choose and follow any religion. It also assumes that no one religion should be exalted above any other. But if a government claims that any religious practice is “contrary” to its society’s values, then it should be outlawed (so, if your religion believes in cannibalism, the government can and must outlaw it). Effectively, there is an equating of this “doctrine” with a totalitarian system — one that assumes the one god to be worshipped is atheism. If what I believe and practice is contrary to what somebody else believes and practices, and this is true across the board, the only true answer is no belief or practice. All religions cancel each other out resulting in atheism.

My other big issue is with the fact that many Christians love this notion of freedom of religion and have a hatred for any society that does not practice it (e.g., China). First off, freedom of religion never existed before the founding of the USA. The British settlers who first traveled to the Americas were the Puritans — a group of Protestants that were fleeing religious persecution from the Church of England. So, when the country was formed, the doctrine of separation of church and state was established to mean the separation of denominationalism and state — the founding fathers did not want the government to have a state denomination. Secondly, Christianity is a religion that was birthed and grew out of a state of persecution. That’s why so many New Testament letters challenge the early Christians to not compromise their faiths in light of their suffering. Freedom of religion was never taught in the Bible. Thirdly, when many Christians argue for freedom of religion, what is actually desired is freedom of Christianity. Very few Christians fight for the “rights” of other religions. Unless they convert, of course.

So, how is the government to deal with religious pluralism? For starters, not by banning head coverings. That’s just ridiculous. Might as well outlaw any religious practice. But honestly, I have no clear answer.

Yup.  I didn’t believe it.  But when Bert told me you could get the ESV Bible for free on the iPod Touch or iPhone with Kindle, I went online today to check it out.  And yes, it is true.  It is not the prettiest interface for the Bible, but hey, it is free and it is the full version of a solid, present-day translation.

So here’s what you do:

1. Download and install Kindle from the iTunes App Store.
2. Launch the app and login with your Amazon account (I hear it is only doable with a US account).
3. Go to the ESV page on Amazon.com, and you will see a buy option (for the low low price of $0.00) allowing it to send directly to your iPod Touch or iPhone.
4. Relaunch the Kindle app and it should be in your book list.

That’s it!  Enjoy.  :)

For me, as an American living in the UK, I am pleased with the democratic process that has chosen Barack Hussein Obama to be the next president of the United States, the first black president.  I heard on CNN a report that many Iraqis believed Barack would never be voted in since all elections were rigged — I guess they were proven wrong.  But more than a race, the voice of America has chosen a replacement of a former administration, demanding a change to the previous regime.  Whether or not the change will be substantial enough, only time will tell.  But, the people demanded and the people were satisfied.

For me, as a Californian living in the UK, I am pleased with the democratic process that has voted for Proposition 8.  Preliminary counts say the result is “Yes”, though millions of absentee ballots still need to be counted — mine included.  However, Los Angeles County has already suspended the issue of same-sex marriage licenses.  This is due to a California State Constitutional provision that says a proposed amendment “shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election.”*  Again, seemingly, the democratic voice has spoken.

But is this the democracy we want?

Now, to be clear, I was a bit uneasy about this proposition (nevermind the fact that the wording is quite offensive). My Christian convictions believe same-sex marriage is against the teachings of the Bible.  But my Christian convictions are also wary about legislating Christian values.  I mean, while we are at it, let’s legislate that divorce is illegal.  We should also make extra-marital sex illegal.  (That was sarcasm, in case you did not catch it.)  Why don’t we do this?  I would suspect there are at least two very good reasons why we wouldn’t legislate these things: (1) many of us know people who have been involved or hurt by divorces or adulterous relationships and (2) we do not live in a theocracy.  For the first bit, I would suspect that many people who voted “Yes” on Prop 8 do not personally know many people of a homosexual orientation (I for one do not).  This makes it very hard for me to empathize with the challenges of “those people.”  In regards to the theocracy, the United States is a pluralistic society without a consistent, moral reference point.  This is why I voted “Yes” on Prop 8.  I did so because, within a democracy, the legal system is to be a reflection of the moral compass of the people — I am one of those people.  Obama has often cited Abraham Lincoln as describing a government that should be “of the people, by the people, for the people.”  Is this truly what we believe?

What frustrates me is when people are so dissatisfied with the democratic process that they choose to circumvent it.  Already, a multitude of lawsuits have been raised against various California counties who have chosen to uphold the new proposition.  Well, you knew a proposition was going to come out, why not write your own proposition that embraces same-sex marriage?  How many millions of dollars are going to be thrown into the judicial system to try to overturn this proposition (of course, we can really afford wasting money right now)?  This reminds me of the stupid recall election of 2003.  I remember reading a report that said there were more people who voted in the election to recall Gray Davis than those who voted in the election that put him in office Gray Davis (both for and against him).  If you didn’t exercise your right to vote the first time around, why do you want to exercise your right now?  Just because you don’t like the guy now?

Honestly, I believe the governments of California and America will eventually be recognizing same-sex marriages like they do in Canada and the United Kingdom (two places that are very dear to my heart).  That is simply reflective of the trends of Western morality.  But please, let us use the means of democracy we claim to believe in.

Okay, enough ranting and back work.

8-8-08 at 8:08:08pm. This most lucky number of Chinese culture was the precise moment when China again has become the Middle Kingdom. I have yet to see the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, but plan to later this afternoon with some friends. I just saw some of the most magnificent photos from the celebrations at Gizomodo. The Chinese really know how to put on a show.  I mean, my Americanized palate says it is sometimes a little corny, but really, they know how to celebrate.  And celebrate they should — all eyes are on them.

China, of course, has a major self-esteem complex — she has lived through centuries of suppression by foreign powers.  Known in the Chinese language as the “Middle Kingdom,” for millennia, China has claimed its status as the center of the world.  But the Age of Imperialism changed this.

The Opium Wars of the 1800s were more about foreign powers gaining territories rather than opium.  Their “unequal treaties” gave names like “Peking,” “Shanghai,” and “Canton” household status on foreign lips.  Christian missionaries saw this as God’s providence and took advantage of protection under extraterritoriality.  By 1890, there were over 1,296 missionaries in China representing more than forty denominations.  Missionaries, like their imperialist sending countries, would chop up the country and divide regions by denominations. Christianity would therein always be considered an arm of imperialism.

In the turn of the 20th century, the Chinese were fed up with the impotence of the Qing Dynasty and, under the leadership of Sun Yat-sen, would establish a new republic in 1912.  Now China could modernize and advance itself militarily, economically, and culturally.  Joining on the side of the Allies in WWI, China show foreign powers it was “one of the boys.”  But they got a slap in the face when the Treaty of Versailles turned over the German-occupied area of Shandong to China’s age-old enemy, Japan.  Then there was the Japanese occupation during World War II and the infamous Rape of Nanjing.  Again and again, those foreign devils have done nothing but attack China.

But now, times have changed.  ”Made in China” is printed on most household goods.  Trillions of dollars in US debt is owed to China.  And of course, who better to lead the lighting of the olympic torch than Yang Liwei, China’s first astronaut.  Nevermind centuries of foreign suppression.  Sure, the Beijing olympics slogan is “One World, One Dream.”  But the center of this one world, today at least, is the Middle Kingdom.