The Pill Box

Onwards to a new obsession

2011-07-18T21:21:00.008+10:00

As some may know, I've spent the last 5 months as probably the only unemployed doctor in Singapore. For various reasons relating to the ministry of defense/ministry of health, I've been waiting (and waiting), for a decision regarding the future of my medical career.

In any case, I've been keeping sane by studying for my USMLE (man, those American M.D.s have it tough), and getting deeper into a pastime (that I suspect has now become an obsession): Coffee.

So, I had brought my good old Gaggia Classic over from Australia, together with the budget-friendly Sunbeam E0480. Frustrated at the fact that the freshest beans were 1/2 - 1 h away, I bought a Gene Cafe and starting roasting. My budget Sunbeam soon starting dying, so I made a (huge) jump to the new-kid-on-the-block, the Ditting Vario! To make sure that I'm been squeezing every possible cent out of these machines, I attended roasting classes, cupping classes, and latte art classes (all this on top of what started me off in the first place - Cynthia's gift to a barista class).

Now I subject my friends to tasting coffee that is not just under/over extracted, but also to coffee that is possibly underroasted or charred to a crisp. Surely it (the coffee) can only go up from here ;).

Book review: The Demon Under the Microscope, By Hager

2011-05-27T20:34:00.001+10:00

As human beings, we have relatively short memories; we have largely forgotten what life was like barely 90 years ago, when human lives were far too often cut short by relatively simple infections (by today's standards). Most of us have lost touch with the time when epidemics of "childbed fever" meant that almost all women giving birth in the hospital would die from infection; when a simple blister on the toe could lead to deadly, incurable bacterial sepsis.

Hager's book is an excellent reminder of how far we've come. It is largely narrative history, written with the aim of communicating the processes and ideas that led to the development of sulfa (the world's first true antibiotic), rather than a straightforward chronological account.

Hager begins right at the start, when microscopic world was first discovered, and how it led to the development of germ theory. He carries us through the development of antiseptic use and serum therapy, moving us from a time where surgeons merely placed their instruments on any convenient table, to a period when theatres were constantly filled with aerosolised antiseptic blown from a bellows.

The real start of the show, however, is Nobel Prize winner Domagk (and of course his much neglected chemists), who led the clinical research that culminated in the discovery of the antimicrobial properties of sulfa. Their pains and toils are remarkably communicated by Hager, giving us a definite sense of disappointment after years of unfruitful research. At the same time, due credit is given to other parties involved in the discovery - including French researcher Forneau.

The stories doesn't just stop at the discovery of sulfa - Hager also gives us an account of how the FDA and a haphazard medicinal drug market was transformed overnight into a well organised, highly vigilant industry.

All in all, this is a fantastic book - not just for an insight into the discovery of sulfa, but the ideological and scientific struggles surrounding the idea of a antimicrobial "magic bullet", and the challenges that sulfa placed forth to the world - that of the need for careful, well designed and executed clinical drug research. Most of all, this is a book that reminds us of where we've come from, where we are now, and raises question of where we are headed, in our constant battle with the microscopic enemies in our midsts - an issue particularly pertinent with worrying trends in bacterial resistance.

OK, lets get this out of the way

2011-05-16T12:29:00.007+10:00

There's been a post circulating around on FaceBook, entitled "Scientists Cure Cancer, but No One Takes Notice". To be honest - it's unproven science at best, a load of rubbish at worst. Here's why:

1. The author of the article doesn't know what he/she is writing about, and scientific terms are thrown around in a nonsensical manner. For example, mitochondria are NOT cells - they are cell organelles (little organs in the cell). Sure, there is a theory that a million gazillion years ago when we all lived in a soup that they were infective bacteria, but that's a separate story. A more significant error is the fact that glycolysis does NOT produce lactic acid - it is an essential cellullar process that provides pyruvate, the substrate used for the cell to generate energy. Shut off glycolysis, and you kill ALL cells, period. Lactic acid is produced via a different mechanism (more on this later).

2. The original research paper proper (from the website) dates back to 2007, and is more a hypothesis than anything. What the original researchers are suggesting is this: cancer cells grow at very high rate, and and hence have high energy needs. Most of this energy has to be produced via anaerobic respiration (probably due to ineffective angiogenesis), hence producing lactic acid in the process. To maintain the high energy requirements, the rate of pyruvate production has to increase (so glycolysis needs to occur at a faster rate).

The researchers propose to use DCA to suppress glycolysis, thereby cutting down the rate of anaerobic respiration. This essentially cuts off the energy supply to the cancer cells and kills them. The theory is that other cells are not AS affected because they are much more energy efficient (aerobic respiration) than cancer cells, and thus do not require high rates of glycolysis.

Sounds like a good theory, and explains why cells such as lung cells are not damaged in early experiments. However, there are other cells that are pretty energy demanding - such as neurons - which may explain why DCAs side effects include neurotoxicity. Also, the researchers also seem to be proponents of the Warburg hypothesis - that lactic acid is the cause of cancer - an idea that has fallen out of favor due to genetic discoveries.

3. Some good results are seen in vitro, but the real test of a drug is in vivo. DCA has so far gone through Phase 1 and 2 testing - which means that it seems to be relatively safe, and that there seems to be the possibility of benefit from the drug. However, there are no Phase 3 study results available (which is where we get REAL information on whether the drug actually has a benefit, and how great a benefit/harm).

IE: The science behind this hypothesis ranges from reasonable to rubbish, and DCA as yet is unproven in cancer treatment and actually has significant known side effects. I wouldn't be asking any doctor to prescribe this for me, anytime soon.

On Rising Healthcare Costs - And Why I'm Not Buying Opposition (or PAP) Promises

2011-04-30T02:05:00.005+10:00

As a medical doctor, I read with concern claims by the opposition that rising health costs are the fault of "government mismanagement". Even more worrying were promises by the opposition to provide cheaper medical care (with one politician reminiscing of low healthcare costs in the 70s and 80s), with plans such a welfare scheme put forward by some parties, as if this were an end-all solution.

The reality is that healthcare is getting exponentially more expensive, by processes beyond the control of any government. The “cheap and easy” gains in health outcomes, such as vaccinations and sanitation, have been already been achieved. With demographic shifts reflecting those of first world countries, Singapore would soon be facing increasingly complex healthcare issues that require new, and often expensive, solutions. These would include an ageing population, with people living longer and developing more illnesses associated with old age (such as dementia, cancer and arthritis). Recent economic analyses from the US have demonstrated that any cost-saving from addressing preventable illnesses will be offset by these unavoidable “diseases of old age”.

Rapid advances in technology also mean that medical care today is a far cry from medical care from yesteryear (especially from the "good old 70s"). We have a larger number of more powerful drugs to treat conditions, many of which are being detected with more sophisticated tests. Technology has revolutionized medical practice, such as fibre-optic imaging in keyhole surgery. However, all of these advancements involve significant R&D costs, into the millions of dollars, which are then transferred to the end-users. By positioning ourselves as a medical hub, Singaporeans effectively now have access to these latest developments. However, if we want to continue to enjoy the latest pharmaceuticals or the most advanced imaging and surgical techniques, we will need to face the burgeoning costs associated with them.

What this means, is that healthcare is becoming more expensive at a rate never seen before, bringing the issue of healthcare costs to the forefront in many political debates around the world (the most recent, and perhaps significant, are the healthcare reforms in the USA). The best minds from around the world have sought a solution, but no easy answer has yet been found. Ultimately, the costs have to be borne by someone – in Australia and the UK, the governments have borne the costs through a welfare system. However, this is translated to significantly higher taxes for the people (close to 50% for some categories!) Even then, these governments are frantically searching for a way to curb the ballooning healthcare expenditure that is pushing the countries deeper into debt (as a friend of mine says – health care expenditure is basically a black hole). On the other hand, the USA has attempted to use a free market approach in an attempt to drive healthcare costs down via competition. Unfortunately, this has backfired for a number of reasons, leading to even basic healthcare being out of reach of a significant proportion of the population.

We should thus take any blanket promise of lower healthcare costs with a grain of salt, being aware that there is no simple answer to this complex issue. As the election draws close and more promises are being made, we should be wary of such utopian offers, realizing that there is no magic bullet to ease the pain of rising medical costs.

My 2 Cents, on probably the only topic I'm familiar with.

Sing Chee

Book review: Unscientific America by Mooney and Kirshenbaum

2011-04-27T02:29:00.006+10:00

In this book, Mooney and Kirshenbaum (I'll just refer to Mooney from now on) address the key issue of scientific illiteracy - the decline of scientific awareness and engagement with the public, and the dangerous implications it has for the future. He splits his chapters up into key topics - describing the current situation, how we got here, the issues behind the decline in various disciplines (eg: science in culture, science in movies, science in schools), hot topic issues such as the new atheism, and what can be done about it all.

I really want to like much more than I did, for good reason - it's centred on an issue that I'm (somewhat) interested in: scientific illiteracy. Mooney shares the same desire as I do - that people become more aware of the wonderful progress being made in scientific fields, that science conciously becomes a integral part of society, and that more people take consider pursuing science as a career path for the sheer love of it. In my case, my career direction (As a doctor) was most impacted when I was barely 10, by a "Book of Science" (that I still have) which contained some of the most marvellous pictures of the human body (dissected down to the level of vessels). I think my parents must have thought I was crazy to have placed "B.Science/Arts (combined)" right after "MBBS" on my university course preference list (I do have a crazier medical colleague who put B.Education as his second choice). So for sharing this passion, and communicating it in a easy and readable manner, Mooney scores some points.

But why doesn't this book score higher? Well, Mooney loves the scientific process no doubt, but underlying his entire book is a very questionable stance on what "science" is, and it's relation to the rest of society. Take for example, Mooney's discussion on the nature of science - which he describes as the description of an objective reality, compared to the humanities, which make a fool of reality. (He tries to be fair to the humanities, but he still comes across as poo-pooing them. Eg: His chapter on science and entertainment starts with a mockery of the idea that movies don't need to follow the natural order) He more or less completely dismisses post-modern philosophy in a few sentences, without showing evidence of engagement with some of the serious epistemology challenges it throws to scientific research. Even Stephen Hawking, in his new book The Grand Design, makes an admission that traditional "realism" is no longer a tenable position, not in light of post-modern philosphy, but in the context of new knowledge of the quantum world.

In addition, he repeated uses the word "science", like it were some holy grail - he says "we must fund science/protect science/encourage science", but never really deals the whole question of "what is science" - is it a concept, a philosphy, a defineable entity? He writes in such a way that one could be mistaken for thinking that science is a god to be worshipped, and that anyone who doesn't recognise that is a moron.

It is this "holier -than-thou" attitude, masked by what seems like a false sense of humility (he repeatedly says "Scientists are somewhat at fault to, for not doing enough to make sure things are done the proper way"), that marrs the entire book. For example, he complains that in politics, decisions are made not on careful analysis, but rather on ideology and political belief (well, surprise surprise, but ideology and political belief does form the entire framework on how we perform our analysis).

There is ultimately no clear outline on what exactly accounts for "Scientific literacy" is, and what differentiates it from scientific illiteracy. For example, he mocks things such as the Reagan "star wars" project as examples of stupidity, but then heaps praise upon projects that were once "Dreams" but have become reality (eg: space flight).

Scientific America is a book that for all intents and purposes addresses a key issue, not just in America but all over the world, even in Singapore (despite our world record science and math scores, how many of our students can actually apply critical scientific thinking to problems?). But ultimately, it comes across as too much of a kopitiam whinge, than a well thoughtout engagement with the key issues at hand (although there some points that shine through).

Review: 6 Feet Over

2011-03-02T03:46:00.001+11:00

This book should be entitled - "adventures in the apparent physical manifestations of the afterlife". In this book, Roach approaches the issue claims of experiences of the afterlife as a skeptic, looking at the evidence closely and with a healthy dose of salt. She comes away, unsurprisingly, as a....skeptic.

To understand why, you only need to look at the central topics upon which she focuses. These range from reincarnation (she goes to india, interviewing experts on the topic and sitting in on interrogations of supposed "reincarnated persons"), to investigating mediums (And the ectoplasm craze), before capping it off with an examination of near death experiences.

The only firm conclusion that she can come away with is - there really isn't any. This is due to a number of factors - mostly related to poor evidence, but also the nature of the object of study (ie: if an event is uniquely supernatural, occurring not at fixed pattern but at the whim of invisible beings, one cannot perform a quantitative study, and can only remain in the domain of qualitative science).

Peppered with hilarious remarks, many finding inspiration from the loose nuts she finds on her journey, this is a great read, for both believers and skeptics alike.

Review: 13 Things That Don't Make Sense

2011-03-02T03:45:00.001+11:00

Brooks writes about 13 "anomalies" in the scientific world that refuse to fit into our nicely formulating theorems and paradigms. His writings can be largely grouped into two subsets - physics and biology (with chemistry interspersed along the way). For the former, he looks at issues such as dark matter and evidence of changes in universal constants (Eg: the speed of light). For the latter, he explores matters such as the placebo effect and the quest for a working definition of "life".

As I read this book, I couldn't help but have a stirring within me - a love for science in it purest, curious form, and an amazement at the marvels and curiousity of the creation. You see, One of my favourite books of all time is a guide to science by Isaac Asimov; Asimov's explanation of the world of physics left me in awe - I fondly remember discussions I had with friends on how relativity, amongst other things, had so many strange and marvellous implications for our understanding of the world. I remember spending nights in high school trying to wrap my head around quantum theories (who can forget Shroedinger's cat).

Why mention all this? I feel that this book embodies that philosophy in its approach to science - an inquisitive nature that revels in the challenge of discovering why the world works the way it does. Brooks at more than one point evokes Kuhn and his discussion of crisis leading to the (now cliched) paradigm shift, and he does it with good reason - Brooks is arguing at many of these anomalies in science just don't fit with our current paradigms, and could potentially force a complete rethink of our current systems. In short, look at the world around you, and don't be afraid to ask questions if things don't make sense - not with a fear that everything will collapse if you do, but with a confidence that somehow, someway, we'll come up with an even better way of explaining the world around us.

I don't know about you, but I find the thought of doing that strangely exciting.

Review: Why We Love the Church

2010-05-06T23:28:00.006+10:00

What can I say? Bagging the church has become so commonplace that writing about the AWESOMENESS of the church has become cool in a weird countercultural manner. It's so commonplace to find books about "community" and "religion (ie Church) is bad, spirituality (ie talking about God in Starbucks) is cool". But how often do you come across a book that argues FOR the Church?

In all seriousness - DeYoung and Kluck have put together a great book, worthy of its title. Mind you, this is no theological treatise examining constructs of the "visible vs the invisible" Church and so on, but a heartfelt, down-to-earth plea for Christians to come back to their senses; to stop talking about how one can find God in places like StarBucks and Enimem music, and to just love God and serve His people for who they are.

In this book, they discuss the (occassional) madness of the Emergent Church movement (and its merits), and then engage with all the "Disappointments" emergents often have with the church. And the conclusion at the end is not wholly unexpected - we know the Church isn't perfect, but whether you're emergent or reformed or pentecostal, you've got to learn to deal with it.

Mind you, the style of this book swings between bits by DeYoung and others by Kluck, but with surprisingly good effect - for reflectiveness and theological thoroughness of the former being balanced out by the humor and down-to-earth style of the latter.

Whilst they don't break any new ground in Ecclesiology, I would heartily recommend any Christian to read this book, simply for the fact that it draws us back to see the big picture - that we are God's people, broken, but eagerly awaiting our redemption. And the best place to do that, is with the Church.

Phew, long time no post.

2010-02-18T16:56:00.004+11:00

As the title goes. It's been a fairly hectic 4-5 months. Going back to Singapore, getting wedding plans sorting, starting work back here in Melbourne. Here's some material I've been able to get through during this period:

1. Health and Medicine in the Methodist Tradition, by Hollifield.

As the author says in the preface - trying to write about something Wesley never wrote about (specifically) is an immense challenge. This book was borne out of Wesley's noted interest in health and medicine (his famous/infamous booklet The Primitve Physicke is a case in point), as well as the tradition's ongoing theology and practical involvement in the field.

It is basically organised along particular themes - such as death, suffering and life/holiness as a journey. Each section explores what Wesley thought/wrote/believed about the theme, where the Methodists took this theme, and ultimately where we should/could be headed.

Hollifield does, in my opinion, do a good job of capturing and articulating Wesleyan approaches to key medical issues, applying Wesleyan theological concepts appropriately, and filling in the gaps using by extrapolating what was said/done before. Given the sparcity of reading on this topic within the Methodist tradition, this book is a gem.

2. Theology and Proclamation, by Willimon.

I've reviewed this book on my facebook page, but I'll outline some key thoughts. This book articulates a clear theology of preaching, looking at this divine act through various theological paridigms - such as Cross and Resurrection. In doing this, Willimon successfully lifts the preachers out of the pragmatic, "life application" ghetto they often finds themselves in.

A particular declaration from the book sums it up perfectly - the primary task of preaching is not to be applicable, or interesting; it is to be biblical. For there is nothing more applicable, nothing more fascinating than the Word of God. So if our sermons are boring and irrelevant, it is not a problem with style, it is fundamentally a problem with our substance. Willimon hammers this point in over and over, and inspiringly so.

3. Being Consumed, by Cavanaugh.

Also reviewed on facebook, Cavanaugh moves beyond typical "free market" vs "state interventionalist" approaches to economics. He in some ways deconstructs our modern concept of the free market, pointing out how modern economic paradigms fall apart in the face of particular theological realities of the Christian faith. For example, he critiques our idea of the "free market" by applying Augustinian values of freedom.

The chapters on economics are interesting enough, but Cavanaugh is primarily a theologian, and really comes into his own on the more "theological" chapters, such as one where he argues for the Eucharist as articulating an alternate socio-economic reality for Christians.

Some debatable points here (especially for those of a non-Roman Catholic background), but a valueable contribution to the discussion in this field.

4. Why We Love the Church, by Kluck and DeYoung.

I'm still reading this, so the review is to come.

This is why we fight

2009-10-03T09:18:00.002+10:00

In recent times, there have been some frustrating complications with church relationships and all, leaving me a bit frustrated and concerned. That same mood was carried with me into the Rosie's street ministry today, with me almost having to half drag myself out in the cold to serve the streeties.

However, during the night, I was brought back to reality, when one of our team members recounted how someone had been suicidal. She subsequently just sat and heard his story, prayed with him, and gave him a referral to LifeLine for support. After that, he said, in his own words, "This was the first time I've felt part of something".

At that point I realised - we get caught up in the details of life, in our frustrations and annoyances. We lose sleep over things that don't go our way, and our preoccupation is so often our struggle with life.

Yet, at the end of the day, we fight the good fight, not to put up a brave front to impress, or to polish our lives to sparkling perfection. We are fighting, contending, struggling for something bigger, greater, and beyond our own narrow little lives. It is the least of these that we are to struggle for: for the lives that Gods wants to touch and heal, for the broken people that He wants to comfort. We are fighting for the gospel, and for the ones that God loves.

This is why we fight; and believe it or not, ~~God is on our side~~ we are fighting on God's side.

Sad news - but inevitable?

2009-10-03T00:16:00.015+10:00

I just received this mail from FORGE Australia:

For the last twelve years, Forge has sought to serve the Australian church by inspiring and training leaders to engage the first world as a mission field. We have had the privilege of working with many individuals and churches, helping catalyze missional initiatives and challenging the ecclesial status quo. Through God’s graces, we have seen significant shifts in the mindsets of Australian Christian leaders and for this rich and colorful journey, we are eternally grateful.

More recently, over the last two years we have been involved in a process of organizational reflection and future planning, seeking to identify what our contribution could be to the Australian church in the years ahead. After some long conversations and considered analysis of our position, we believe that the best way forward is to scale back all of our organizational operations for the foreseeable future."

As someone whose faith has benefited richly from the FORGE ministry, I'm really sad to hear this. I have been inspired, challenged and humbled by the many faithful members of FORGE. Seeing their zeal for missions in the West has rekindled a new flame and passion within my own heart for my neighbours and friends.

It is ironic, that the end the of the day, their basis for existence is to some extent the cause of their closure. In particular, they write:

Our current decentralized organizational structure has made it difficult to move ahead cohesively. The challenges associated with transitioning Forge to be an effective training organisation for the new context proved too costly.

FORGE has always pushed for a return to "Acts-style" churches, without the central administration and structure seen in "traditional churches", but rather an organic approach to church life. Thus, it doesn't come as a surprise that as FORGE grew, their commitment to "organic" administration meant that they did not have the administrative structure to support that growth.

While I'm sad to see FORGE Australia go, I think there's a great lesson in this - that at the end it's not all about "returning back to the good ol' days", it's about reaching people with the Gospel for the glory of God - and faithfully using whatever is available for those ends - even if they involve elaborate hierachies ;).

Language, Culture and the Death of Me

2009-08-30T01:58:00.020+10:00

We recently had a barbie where both English and Chinese services came together to "interact". First off, people who organised it, like Kat, Andrew and co., as well as others who pitched it are to be commended for their work - thank God and thank them that it was a great delicious event :).

*warning: Rant ahead*

My reflections however center on the irony of the event, most visibly demonstrated when the 2 services were asked to participate in certain activities together. These activities included the English service members, being asked certain "trivia" questions, in CHINESE, with no translation provided. Phew, thank God for that; I've always struggled with trivia, but not understanding the questions fixes all that!

The most ferrous-filled irony of the night occured when someone was speaking in Chinese about how great it was that the Chinese and English could come together to interact (or something to that effect), again with NO translation. When our Pastor and some other members asked that English be used or a translation provided, someone cheekily said "Sorry, my England no very good". Laughs all around, then back to a foreign language.

Ah, yes, the irony of saying "We love your participation, but we don't really care". /rantmode

And so a crossroads is once again met - having come with a real desire to support these initiatives, does one persist in faith, or shake the dust off the soles of my shoes? Is it a relationship that is in need of resuscitation, or are we beating a dead horse? (note: forgiveness and persistence are 2 very different things!)

Emerging Churches - More Wesleyan than the Methodists?

2009-07-19T21:41:00.013+10:00

In recent times I've had the opportunity to attend a FORGE conference and get my hands on some material by Hirsch and Frost, and essentially get a bit more up to date with the whole "emerging church" movement.

Much ink has been spilled over reservations about the whole movement, particularly over their interactions with more "traditional" mainline churches. I share the sentiments of many others (Glen has written some excellent comments here), feeling that they have many good things to offer, but do often come across as being a bit arrogant in the simplistic neglect of tradition. Nonetheless, I'm inspired by their commitment to serious discipleship (something which has definitely lapsed in many churches) as well as their intense missional focus, particularly in their service to the poor.

No doubt there are some questionable characters in the movement (I'm not a fan of McLaren), but amongst the more balanced people, I've been interested to find how much they have in common with the spirit of Wesleyanism. For example, in The Shaping of Things to Come, Hirsch and Frost write:

...what the church needs to find its way out of the situation it's in at the beginning of the 21st Century, is not more faddish theories about how to grow the church without fundamentally reforming structures. What the church needs is a revolutionary new approach.

They advocate that the church need to restructure itself around the concept of mission (rather than worship, which is very prevalent today), on the basis that:

...the missional church represents God in the encounter between God and human culture....it is a visible manifestation of how the Good News of Jesus Christ is present in human life and transforms human culture to reflect more faithfully God's intentions for creation.

In other words, our construct of ministry and mission should not and must not be centered within what we call "Church". "Ministry" is not just about ushering, leading worship or playing the piano - it is also very much (and more so!) about MISSION - our engagement and interaction with the world the other 6 days of the week. For many, it is thus lamentable that church structures and organisations are so church-centered - we encourage people to attend prayer meets, cell groups, sunday schools, choirs, courses, seminars, workshops, meetings, etc, hence effectively taking people OUT of their community and keeping them IN the Church.

Hirsch and Frost see this church centered functioning as a logical outcome of "traditional" ways of church organisation and institutionalisation, and hence call for a radical restructuring of our churches, at points calling us to return to "primitive" Christianity.

What struck me was how similar this sounded to the Wesleys as they began their ministry. Chilcote, in The Wesleyan Tradition, comments on the Wesleys' beliefs:

The church of England in the Wesleys' day was an institution in need of repair...It had become distant from and irrelevant to the world it was called to serve during a time of tremendous change. Its forms and its structures had become so inflexible and devoid of life that the weight of its "institutionalism" was quenching the Spirit, suffocating the life of God's people....It needed to rediscover itself and reclaim its identity as God's agent of love in the world. The Wesleys believed that God raised them up to resuscitate the church.

Commenting on the Wesleys' understanding of the function of the church, he says:

Their ecclesiology (understanding of the church), therefore, was essentially missiological (formed around mission)... All of their energy was directed toward the empowerment of Christ's fiathful disciples in ministry to God's world. Indeed, they all viewed evangelism and mission...as the reason for their existence.

Given that the Methodist Church today has become more well known for being "Methodical" (in terms of beauracracy and red tape, rather than in the pursuit of holiness), I can't help but wonder whether the much maligned "Emerging Church" movement actually better embodies what it means to be a Methodist than many Methodists, by demonstrating a stronger passion for a more missional, discipleship oriented, and contextual approach to church life.

However, perhaps more importantly, how do we as a church rediscover what it means to be "missional" - what sacrifices and pains will it take, and will we take them?

Review for "ReJesus - A wild messiah for a missional Church' by Hirsch and Frost

2009-07-16T00:28:00.005+10:00

Hirsch and Frost are concerned only with 1 word - J.E.S.U.S. Call them what you may, but their premise is simple: the modern western church has strayed far from the teachings and values that its founder Jesus Christ embodied - he has been domesticated to fit our agenda. Echoing characters such as Barth, they declare that Christ must remain central in the faith, as nothing can be known/felt/done apart from Christ himself. To make their point, they go through 7 chapters that discuss (in order): how Jesus impacts theology/missiology/ecclesiology, how he impacts individuals and how he impacts communities. They explore the false images we've made of Jesus, and how the Shema provides a holistic model for discipleship in the form of monotheistic ethics. They go on to discuss the importance of intersecting orthodoxy, orthopraxy and orthopathy, and finish off with a discussion on ecclessiology (which is admittedly very functional).

In general I'm quite wary of these kind of books (that proclaim that 'everyone is wrong and we just need to get back to basics'), as they often have a blaise disregard for the value of tradition and history. The authors constantly affirm the value of tradition, thankfully, but provide few insights into how this may be reinterpreted in the context of a renewed Christologic focus, so as to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This, however, does not hurt their main, and very timely message - that we need to rescue the gospels (and Christology) from the dungeons, and place them and their central figure back at the center of our existence as the church. In doing this, they rightly argue, the church will rediscover what it means to be "missional", in every sense of the word, as they embody the values of their Lord. Rather than the tame, gentle, huggable, nice lady-like Jesus of our paintings, they present a challenging, radical, loving, confrontational, non-conformist and passionate Jesus. This they do very well, with a good mix of anecdote and story to add some personal flavor to their writings, leaving one with the challenge to read the Gospels more intently, keeping our eyes and heart open to the person they testify to.

Ironically, the book is short on the very material it seeks to promote - Christology. There's plenty of discussion around the impact that Christology would have, but not much exploration of the man himself - but perhaps that is too much of an ask for a book only 200 pages long! In addition, attempts at serious theological reflection (such as the section on ecclesiology) are pretty flimsy, but then again, this book is more about the importance of prioritising Christology than an actual discussion of the subjects themselves.

All in all, ReJesus is a good read that will no doubt stir the reader to rethink and reflect on putting the Christ back into being Christian, and learn to read the gospels more robustly, leading to a reinterpretation of the identity of the church. In a sense, what Barth did as a theologian, Hirsch and Frost are doing as missionaries. It gets pretty draggy and repetitive at points, but remains a great starting point for discussion on ministry.

Biblical Preaching by Haddon Robinson

2009-07-02T13:51:00.005+10:00

This book is immensely practical - it takes you on a step by step journey through the preparation and delivery of sermons. It covers topics ranging from selection of a text and its exegesis, to the development of a homilectical theme, and finally to the to nuances and issues in delivery of the message (Eg: body language, voice etc).

The breadth of topics Robinson tries to cover seems intimidating, and one wonders whether the book becomes a jack of all trades, without really detailing any particular step. Robinson however makes up for this, by ensuring maximum clarity by keeping the points simple, and filling the pages with examples. He also makes it a point to direct the reader to more indepth resources at the each chapter, if one wishes to pursue it. More worked examples, however would have been useful.

One glaring deficiency in the book, however, is how a clear theology of preaching is not outlined. Although the book sets out to be more practical than theoretical, it would not have hurt to have discussed the biblical and theological basis for speaking the word of God (beyond the few paragraphs mentioned in the introduction and the final chapter).

All in all, this stands as a clear and valueable introduction to the preparation and delivery of sermons. Whilst you won't get a comprehensive exploration of preaching ministry, you will be getting a solid, and all-round guide to get started in this ministry.

So I watched Constantine...

2009-06-21T22:30:00.005+10:00

A bit of an oldie I know, but I never got round to watching it. On the whole, I'll say it's a pretty bad movie - crappy plot, and filled with horrible theological concepts (kind of like those movies that potray Chinese as yellow skinned slanty eye people with pig tails?).

Anyway, there were actually 2 bits in the movie that I liked (spoilers ahead):

1. When Gabriel pins Constantine to the ground, he/she/it (angels are neuter) comments on how humans just need to repent to enter into the bosom of God, and how privileged and loved we are above all of God's other creations. It then caps it off by saying "It's not fair".

At this point I was groaning from the badness of the movie, but this little bit perked me up a little, simply because it reflected the awesome theological truth - that the Son of God should give His life for fallen humanity, that He should take on the form of the human and no other creature. Yes God loves His creation, but there is little doubt that humanity has a treasured place in that. And furthermore, at the end of the day, the Gospel of Jesus Christ ISN'T fair - in no way is there any "fairness" in us being reconciled to God by the suffering of God Himself!

2. As Lucifer tries to drag Constantine to hell as punishment for his sin, God stops him in his tracks and lifts Constantine to heaven, much to Lucifer's chagrin. At this point, Constantine gives Lucifer the birdie, and was really a LOL moment for me.

You see, I couldn't help but reminded of how we often get caught up into appearance and etiquette, thinking that God is looking out for the well mannered nice person, but has no interest in the ruffian who swears and is ill mannered. But at the end of the day, we come back to the parable of the Good Samaritan, where the evil, uncouth Samaritan is praised as living closer to God's command to "love thy neighbor", than any of the Jews coming before him.

It's so tempting to measure holiness (particularly in our conservative Chinese church) by, in a sense, "niceness". Yet, perhaps God is sometimes less concerned about whether you are nice and polite, than whether you are living out His command to love God with all you've got, and love your neighbor like yourself.

A Review of God's Politics: Why the Right is Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get it

2009-06-13T14:46:00.003+10:00

"We are the one's we are waiting for" - this pretty much sums up what Wallis is arguing for in this book: a desire for the church to rediscover it's duty to engage with society, and push for social reform on critical issues of peace, justice, international aid, etc. Whilst the mention of 'politics' and 'God' is bound to raise suspicion given the necessity of the separation of Church and state, Wallis is clear to emphasize that he is not promoting the development of a "Christian nation (as some fundamentalists insist on)", but the development of a political stance amongst Christians that is congruent with the values of our faith, achieved not through coercian but through accepted means.

The book is targeted at Christians, and discusses the foundational concern that (in the US at least) religion has been hijacked by political groups for their own means. Christians are often pressured to believe that if they want to be faithful, they MUST vote for the republicans, as if God is pro-war, pro-rich, etc. On the other hand, the democrats have been fearful of touching on the matter of religion, thus alienating an otherwise significant voting group. Wallis attempts to point out how Christians have to lift themselves out of the "Left" vs "Right" dichotomy, and begin to establish a politic that reflects scriptural values, such as that of the family, whilst being progressive in engaging with society, such as caring for the poor, fighting racism and sexism, etc.

Wallis calls Christians to step out from apathy, to begin engaging with their role as responsible citizens who have to speak as a common voice, and hold politicians to account on their commitments. Through the use of multiple case examples, he demonstrates that when Christians and other religious folk band together on moral issues, such as black civil rights and the abolition of slavery, their voice over time is heard by the powers at large, and that change can come.

The main downside of the book is that it seems a little self indulgent at times and repetitive. Wallis inserts one too many examples of how he and some other leaders wrote this letter, made this statement or did this work. On the other hand, these little snippets do provide some thought as to how Christians can speak up about these issues. Even then, he doesn't spend enough time fleshing out the alternatives to the abuses that are seen daily in the political arena. In addition, Wallis does ignore the (thankfully rare) scenario where evil just meets any attempt at meaningful engagement face-on with a hammer. However, I suspect that Wallis' approach is something meant for the Church in a democratic environment, rather than in an oppressed one.

On the whole, God's Politics makes a fascinating read for Christans who are thinking about how their faith interacts with their public life - to neither divorce them nor create a false simple unity. Whilst it seems to wander a little bit, by the end of it the reader is left with a sense of hope (a rarity in these discussions), that the Church can continue in the footsteps of other "prophetic" voices such as Martin Luther King and William Wilburforce, to make a meaningful impact on society.

A review of "Medicine as Ministry" by M. Mohrmann

2009-05-09T00:52:00.000+10:00

First off, it is worthwhile to note that Mohrmann is one of the few people who have the background, experience and training to write a book about theological ethics and medical practice - she is shared between a professorial chair of paediatrics, and an associate professorial chair in religion, at the university of virginia. Thus, unlike many doctors who do not have the breadth of knowledge/reading to comment in an indepth fashion on ethics, or the theologians who largely remain strangers to the world of medicine, Dr Mohrmann is able to unite the best of both worlds, and hence what she says has a very practical, yet deeply reflective element to it.

On to the book - this is not an exaustive treatise on biomedical ethics. As the title "reflections on suffering, ethics and hope" suggests, it is a book exploring what it means to be a doctor in a suffering world, and how we react to it.

Rather than offering a case-by-case discussion of the various areas of controversy, Mohrmann chooses instead to focus on the question of what "ethics" means to christians, and where this "ethics" comes from. The book, in rough order, reflects on the meaning of the trinitarian God for ethics, and necessity of engaging with the rich narratives of our patients' lives in order for medical practice to truly reflect what God intends it to be. Her arguement centers much on the narrative nature of human experience, and the need for broader engagement with the community of a patient for true healing to occur.

This book is more thought provoking than answer giving, as Mohrmann freely challenges our views of health, life and dying, even suggesting that we have idolised life itself. Nonetheless, Mohrmann is able to keep the book thin and make it a light read (I finished it 3-4 hours).

People looking for straightforward analyses of specific moral dilemmas and answers to life questions need not read this book - it is meant to stimulate thought on approaching our ethics differently, and in the process of doing so, enable us to fulfill the commandment to love our neighbours more meaningfully.

On Swine Flus, SARS and perspective

2009-04-30T00:07:00.013+10:00

This article from The Age pretty much sums some of the things going through my mind as people squeal in fear from the possibility of a pandemic from the H1N1 flu outbreak that will kill us all:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fears-distorting-reality-20090429-ancz.html

Some extracts:

...why do the deaths of only some people from obscure diseases cause us to panic? And how can we be so unfeeling when we have the power to save the lives of millions by relatively simple, inexpensive precautions and treatments?....

...it seems that only when we perceive that infectious diseases threaten "people like us" do we respond with real urgency. The millions killed by TB, AIDS, malaria and other mass killers are doomed to fit the stereotype of people who live and die like that. We can accept it as the way of the world. Aboriginal Australians are just as much victims of the indifference that flows from such stereotyping.

In all reality, we only have 7 confirmed deaths from the Swine Flu (based on WHO analyses - Mexican databases aren't exactly stellar), in a country that is known for its gross inequities and dodgy standards of health and living. In contrast, the normal flu kills 250-500,000 people a year, of which 2000 are in Australia. Yet, all of the sudden, we have the leaders of the known world speaking up and declaring that they will spare no expense to contain this outbreak.

I admit the need for an effective public health response, and even acknowledge that there is more to gain from stoking people's fears and insecurities, hence keeping them on the alert, as compared to calming them. It's good to take appropriate measures at disease containment, for epidimiological reasons, but probably more so for political ones (this is already turning into opportunities to score political points if you read the news).

However, despite all the fearmongering about it being the "next big pandemic" and how we are "overdue for a massive outbreak"that "threatens the existence of humanity", in all likelihood this H1N1 virus thing is going to become something of the past, just as SARS did. Does anyone remember the HK flu from the 1960s that killed over a million people worldwide-no? In addition, the world of international communications and public health is incredibly different from what it was in the century of the last pandemic. Just google something like "Developments/achievements in the last 50-100 years" and you'll see what I mean (this includes the internet btw).

And so I come back to my original point - lots of fearmongering and scares at "possibilities" that are in reality mere shadows, revealing a distinct lack of perspective on disease and illness. This is in stark contrast to our ignorance at the daily epidemics and massive numbers of deaths in poorer nations around us. I believe these events do something more than threaten the health of us all - they reveal the hypocrisy and lack of perspective in our lives, how we spend with reckless abandon at anything that immediately threatens our welfare, but live in gleeful ignorance what happens beyond our own world (I'm just as much guilty of this). I cannot help but think about God's anger - not expressed through disease as a punishment, but against us, for our indignancy, and our love for evil, not good.

PS: For those who are freaked out by the WHO near declaration of a pandemic - look up the definition first, see see how vague it is. The only thing that separates a "pandemic" from something like the normal flu, is the fact that it's new to populations.

A Review of The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible, by Ben Witherington III

2009-04-27T16:38:00.010+10:00

In this book, Witherington writes in response to 2 unhealthy patterns and attitudes to the bible he sees in today's world - on one hand, we have the fundamental conservatives who insist that everything in the bible is literally true, and understand the "authority" of scripture in a straightforward, literal sense, as demonstrated by Christians who insist the world is flat and square because Revelation speaks of how "angels came from four corners of the earth". On the other hand, we have the liberals, demonstrated by Erhman and his new book "Jesus Interrupted", pointing out that the bible is full of contradictions and cannot be trusted.

In both cases, Witherington argues, there is ironically the same problem - a straightforward, simplistic approach to scripture that neglects fundamental issues that arise in the study of any piece of literature (religious including). In both cases, there is a neglect of the complexity of scripture, with both groups forgetting that texts can and should primarily be understood as they were meant to be understood - eg: we should not be reading a comic strip as if the statements within where academic literature.

For example, liberal theologians often have an issue with the chronological differences between the four gospels - forgetting that biographies written 2000 years ago were not seeking to establish historical chronicity or accuracy, but rather sought to demonstrate and describe a persons life in particular themes. In essense - biography is different from history (especially ancient biogrpahy and ancient history).

Witherington spends much of the book look at specific issues and case studies - for example household regulations found within colossians and whether Paul is inadvertently promoting slavery and patriarchal systems, and discussing how a surface interpretation of the text will not suffice to do justice to it and the theology drawn from it. He also devotes 1/4 of the entire book to a QnA section, where he answers some of the most common questions he receives from the general public about the bible.

This book probably underachieves - it is entitled "rethinking the theology of the bible", but in reality Witherington does little more than to put forth a solid, well thought out argument for the proper and careful exegesis of scripture and its application to Christian life. His arguments are nothing groundbreaking, and would be what you expect from any reasonable book on hermeneutics.

Where it does shine, however, is the (rather slim) chapter on postmodernism - and a brief commentary on self proclaimed postmodern christians, such as Brian Mclaren, Rob Bell and Dan Miller. In this, he effectively argues that they aren't true postmodernists, demonstrating that Christians, both professional and lay, often have a misconception of what true postmodernism is, and how it impacts the way we read scripture. Alas, this chapter is rather short.

In summary, "The Living Word of God" puts forth a good case for the need to properly and carefully handle the Christian scriptures, and warns against the fallacies committed by both liberal and fundamentalist camps. It is a book that is perhaps written more for the student who is beginning his/her journey in the study of the scriptures, than for the seasoned and experienced exegete. Nonetheless, the QnA sections, the Case Study sections and a few others do provide some gems and food for thought for someone more experienced.

Here it is from koorong.com.au

Camps, Love and Couples

2009-04-13T10:05:00.010+10:00

Our mid-year church camp's theme is "true love awaits", and as the name suggests, it's about "how to love". As one can guess, the promotion so far seems to suggest that while it is not exclusive to couples, it is significantly focused on these relationships.

Apart from the obvious theological issues of asking an anthropocentric question of "how do WE love", I have been wondering whether this is an insensitive and inappropriate theme for a combined church camp.

Within any church, including ours, there is a mixture of singles and couples, and I do wonder whether having a COMBINED camp that focuses on couple relationships does little more than to rub in the fact that the singles are single. Yes they have said that the camp is not just for couples, but the promotional material seems to suggest that singles are more of a "not uninvited" group.

Perhaps it's just been the way it's been promoted, and the actual camp isn't about about couple relationships. But looking at the way it's been going, it seems like it's going to be more segregating than unifying.

The Great Divorce

2009-03-30T19:36:00.004+11:00

OK, so maybe it isn't as great a divorce as I make it out to be, but it's still there. Anyway, on to my point:

People in our church have recently been talking alot about change. I'm not sure if it's just some pseudo-Obama fever, or just plain frustration with what's been essential stagnation over the last few years, but the sentiment is there nonetheless.

We have a new pastor, who goes on about how she's going to bring big change. We have a chairperson talking about how change is going to happen in the church this year, and the small group coordinator talks about how change is good. Our sister service, the chinese congregation, is also now shifting their service time to the arvo. (the list goes on)

Whilst I'm not against change, what I do get concerned with is blind change. Yes there may be a need for a move out of a particular situation, and sometimes the move brings some fresh air. However, more often than not, this move is done on the basis of a "good idea" (or something gathered from an experience/book somewhere). There is a prevailing experimental attitude that goes: "this isn't working, so let's try something else and see if it works".

I find it fascinating that the underlying assumptions driving this attitude is rooted in a pseudo-scientific/modernist concept: That there is something that works/is true, and our duty is to explore and experiment until we find out what it is (in contrast to perhaps pre-modern approaches where pure tradition, rather than pragmatism, was the aim of the game).

At the same time, however, Church ministries ignore the other elements of this underlying methodology: namely the concept that it is the combined progress of a body of people that counts. In other words - Churches/ministers tend to want to do 'research' on their own, without the necessary engagement with what others have done elsewhere/before them.

A classic example is the relationships between adolescent behavior and knowledge. Research into adolescent behavior over the last few decades has demonstrated a very weak link between knowledge and practice - ie: for the adolescent, knowledge is not power. In a health setting, it means that providing education on safe sexual practices, safe eating, safe driving, etc, will NOT produce significant behavioral change.

It's not difficult to see how this can easily apply to the church setting as well - we enjoy going on from the pulpit and sunday school classes that youths should read the scriptures and the bibles for their spiritual growth, etc etc - and we all know how that turns out (anecdotally, it would seem that the average youth has immense problem sticking to a disciplined, regimented schedule of daily scripture readings). Recognising that the provision of information does not necessarily lead to behavioral change within this population would lead one to conclude that many of our current methodologies do not work too well.

Whilst we recognise that God is the one who "makes the seeds grow", we also have to recognise that in our ministries, we essentially stand on the shoulders of giants. Where would we be if we did not recognise the contributions of Calvin and Luther to our understandings of salvation, or Tertullian and Augustine to the language of the faith? It is perhaps time to recognise that God has not left us to grasp at straws in the dark, but has made available to us a wealth of resources and tools that enable us to be more effective at discipling the people of the nations. It is perhaps time to heal the great divorce between ministry and research.

(Maybe it's time for Pastors to get UpToDate subscriptions :P jkjk)

Oh please

2009-02-23T00:29:00.007+11:00

Some are familiar with the fact that I'm becoming a bit uneasy with movies like SlumDog Millionaire - as to whether they are exploiting the extreme poverty of people for our first world entertainment. I was watching another of these movies last night (Blood Diamond) and the reporter in it sums up my thoughts exactly: We write and take all these pictures of suffering people, we draw a tear or two, maybe even get a cheque written. But in the end - no one really cares. No ones really going to stand up and do something about it.

As a disclaimer, I believe movies like slumdog millionnaire and blood diamond can be useful if they are used in the context of a holistic education on events or realities in the world, reminding watchers that for 99.999% of the people involved, there isn't a happy ending. Together with these movies, audiences need to be made aware of the need to do something about these issues - be it through pressuring the government, to raising awareness, to actually getting out there and doing something. Unfortunately, the "unhappy" message doesn't get transmitted to most of the people watching these movies (after all, people are going to the movies to be entertained, not challenged).

So what we end up with is the "pornography of poverty", where the events of another world are turned into our entertainment. Where what is a serious matter is turned into an object to be devoured by audiences for their pleasure.

The title of this age article couldn't have said it better..."Do the SlumDog!" So now the concept of slum dwellers living and dying poverty is a colloqual term for a hip and fashionable dance. Please.

(PS i have written to the Age about it)

Confessions

2009-02-06T16:28:00.014+11:00

I confess - I'm not itching and raving to drop everything and go work in a developing world.

I know how much of a need there is - I've spent 3 months living with the people (mud huts and all) in the poorest regions of India (it isn't much, but it's something). I've read article after article quoting international statistic after statistic, with plenty of case commentaries to demonstrate the difficulty of the situation. Mentors and friends have shared stories about the challenges and trials of working in these areas. I have been moved to tears by sights of poverty and hopelessness.

Unyet, I don't feel like dropping everything I have and heading over there ASAP.

Don't get me wrong, I have immense respect for people who sacrifice much to work overseas, and believe there is a genuine need for all Christians (including myself) to be involved in global missions, in whatever capacity. However, at the same time I can't help but feel that we have "glamorised" the overseas experience, and fixated our eyes on it, while Rome burns.

You don't need to be a genius to realise that our society is cracking at the seams - our health systems are breaking, families are being destroyed, street violence is on the rise, and so on. In many ways, the developed world is a ticking time bomb; we have archaic systems and mentalities in place that are woefully inadequate to meet the changing needs and demands of society, yet this is a society that is integral to the global village (the recent economic crash is a typical example of the central role developed nations play in the world).

An example has grown out of my experience in community pediatrics over the last one month. It has been decades since the concept of the "new morbidity" has been put forth, when pediatricians began to notice the replacement of "developing world" diseases such as meningitis, with developmental problems - learning disabilities, behavioral problems and so on.

"Bah" you may say, "having difficulty learning is nothing when compared to starving to death". In some ways that is true, but consider this - in todays highly educated, competitive and academically oriented culture, a learning disability is going to have massive social repercussions, much more than in a more traditional culture. The label of "dumb" rapidly progresses to bullying, school dropouts, and eventually substance and drug abuse, unemployment and involvement in street violence. Child Safety Commissioner Bernie Geary is quite certain where many of these kids end up: prison. It doesn't take long to see what a social disaster this could become, with up to 20% of Australian kids now having a functionally significant learning impairment. Can we seriously make a value distinction between the impact of starvation and the impact of violence/substance abuse/imprisonment?

In many ways, I can't help but feel that this is going the way of Christian evangelism: for years it was "the West to the Rest", but now, for a variety of reasons, it's very much "the Rest to the West". Unless we keep vigilant on what's happening at home, we could easily end up on a downhill slope in society. Already Keating and Hertzman (1999) have noticed this "paradox of modernity" - that Marmot's social ladder of health is beginning to falter in our modern world.

And so the next time you are tempted to think that the third world is only place needing prayer and transformation effected through the work of the body of Christ, remember events such as this merely scratch the surface of a deeper disease beginning to eat away at the roots of our society.

Where art thou

2009-01-28T20:42:00.002+11:00

I've been absent from this blog for a while, for good reason! Here's a quick update on what's been shakin'

1. Been completing my Christology and Church History essays. For the former, I explored Barth's theology. It was fascinating how he thought "outside the box", and essentially reorganised systematic theology as we know it. For the former, I explored the events surrounding and leading up to the synod of Dort, where the Arminians were charged with heresy by the Calvinists. It was an interesting exploration that I'm still continuing - simply because it really goes deeper than "do we have free will"?

2. I've been busy with my medical elective at the Center for Community Child Health. I really thank God that I've had the opportunity to sink my teeth into a real public health project - a fairly major one too! On top of that, the clinics I've been attending, split between Developmental Pediatrics and Adolescent health, have been fascinating and really interesting, in that they combine the best of two worlds - clinical medicine and social medicine.

3. I'm getting reading for a summer intensive subject called Adolescent International Health. At the moment I'm wondering whether to put my Masters of Public Health on hold, and instead use the subject for credit towards a G.Dip in Adolescent Health and Welbeing. I would love to do the former, but the fact that a fair bit has to be done on campus is a bit of a deal breaker.

Oh Joy to the World

2008-12-26T17:22:00.002+11:00

For Christ is Born

The Demise of Theology

2008-12-23T21:21:00.006+11:00

I've recently been really thinking about whether theology as a field of study has any more place within the contemporary church, and felt this this comment by Webster, in Barth (2000) hit the nail on the head:

" Barth worked in a religious culture in which - possibly for the last time in Protestant history - sophisticated theological ideas were accorded great prestige, even when they were repudiated. The institution and forms of the Christian life which nurtured such a massive project as the Church Dogmatics scarcely exist, or exist only in somewhat embattled forms"

Looking around me, I can't help but feel the same way. The modern church is characterised by an almost anti-intellectualism, where proper thought and reflection is marginalised in preference for "life application".

We no longer seek to sharpen our understanding of the faith, making sure that proper action is guided by proper thought. Instead, so many approach the Christian faith as if it were some manual for life, giving point by point direction on how to do this or that. Whilst I cannot deny the need for practical theology, I cannot help feeling that we have, in doing so, "tamed" the Word of God, thinking that it can be bent to our own purposes, limited by our needs.

(For those wondering, the Church Dogmatics is a massive multivolume work by the theologian Karl Barth, who is regarded as one of the finest theologians of the 20th Century, in the company of Calvin and Augustine. This work has shaped alot of modern theological reflection, particularly Christology)

LoL time: The Porpoise Driven Life

2008-12-07T16:32:00.009+11:00

Keep a lookout for tongue in cheek comments - like "ask Jesus into your heart again".

Just looking around

2008-11-30T02:16:00.006+11:00

I just came across a reference to this church: http://www.docklandschurch.org.au/. Basically - it's an Anglican Church that was started up in docklands a few years ago, with a membership of 12. Now they currently have a membership of over 200 - not bad I reckon.

I know that we shouldn't compare ourselves with others, yadda yadda, but I think the contrast between our City Light Methodist Church and the Docklands Anglican Church is too striking to ignore.

You see, we have here two churches, situated literally next to each other. They both start out small, and are both part of very similar traditions (the Methodists are offshoots of the Anglicans).

Yet, over time, both have taken very different courses. Our church at the moment is still struggling with membership, funding, pastoral leadership, organisation, etc. Our brothers/sisters next to us, however, seem to be chugging along at a nice and healthy pace. Why? Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that they're really working with the Docklands communities, and targeting their activities as such ( they have "Sex in the City" Seminars and hold Bible Studies in local pubs - need I say more ?).

Now, I don't believe that growth is necessarily the definitive sign of the health of a church, but with the church leadership mulling over how to grow our church, I don't think we can ignore and shut ourselves off from what's going on around us. In fact - sometimes looking at others leads us to reflect long and hard on ourselves. Perhaps this is something we need to do a bit more :P

389 years

2008-11-08T12:09:00.001+11:00

Just as a followup from my previous post, have a look at this:

http://www.wallstats.com/blog/389-years-ago/

Change isn't coming - it's already happened.

2008-11-08T01:04:00.014+11:00

I'm sure everyone's heard about the recent Obama win in the US elections. Like many, I'll reserve judgement about how much change he'll really bring about - some things can only be seen when the rubber hits the road, so to speak. What I am excited about, however, is the fundamental change in society we are seeing.

I think it's lost on many of us as to how AMAZING an African-American becoming president is.

Being a hobbyist photographer, I think a picture speaks a thousand words. This photo was taken by Lawrence Beitler in 1930, and shows a racist mob taking two black men from a local jail and hanging them. This was not a group of fringe fanatics - such a scene was not really considered outrageous back then. And mind you - this was less than 80 years ago in the USA. Many of us would still have relatives from that period who are still alive!

Up to the 1960s, black people had limited rights to vote. (especially the women) In a well documented case, Amelia Boynton, a black woman, tried to register to vote during the elections as a protest against her lack of voting rights. For this, she was arrested and thrown into jail.

It took a few more years for the Voting Rights Act to be passed, enabling blacks to once again have voting rights. Even then, the racist attitudes and hatred were still deeply embedded in society (for example, blacks were still not allowed to use PUBLIC toilets). Again remember: this was barely 50 years ago (my parents grew up in this era!).

So please excuse me for getting excited about the fact that USA has voted in an African American president by democratic vote. I find it amazing that in the relatively short span of 50-80years, we have gone from lynching the blacks to voting one of them into the White House. And its not just because people hate the Republicans - surveys and statistics have shown repeatedly that there was actually EXCITEMENT about the prospect of having Obama as president (as compared to having the Republicans out). Heck, the sheer size of Obama's rallies is a giveaway as to how enthusiastic the crowds were about him.

At this point, I'll just make a final comment about eschatology. Last week we had a sermon about how the world is going to pieces and is getting worse and worse. No offense to anyone, but I simply cannot and will not agree with such a pessimistic, dispensationalist view of human history. I don't know about you, but I would rather live in the world today, than in a world completely ruled by racism, hatred, greed and injustice(not that those things aren't around anymore!). The very fact that we see these stalwarts of human sin being penetrated and broken down, is a testimony to the fact that by God's grace made available through the transforming work on the Cross, the world can change for the better.

Tram tracking

2008-11-02T00:18:00.010+11:00

I took this on the way to prayer meet. I just love the way the sun filters through the trees and bounces off the tracks.

Public ethics - a messy business

2008-10-25T19:36:00.013+11:00

I've just completed a 3 day course on HIV prevention amongst sex workers, IV drug users, and men who have sex with men - and it's given me a lot to think about - in particular on the issue of legislation.

Let's take, for example, IV drug use. No government would be "proud" of having IV drug users around, and it is universally regarded as an undesirable practice. However, evidence has demonstrated complete prohibition of IV drug use doesn't really work that well, and has the downstream effects of causing the social marginalization and isolation that leads to high -risk behavioral patterns in that population. Services that would actually help these drug users cannot function effectively, as their target population is essentially underground, scattered, and fragmented.

On the other hand, by legalizing drug use, as in Victoria, we give organisations the opportunities to gather and target this particular population, providing ready access to support programmes and services that not only minimise the harm of IV drug use, but also facilatate their entry into rehabilitation programmes.

This approach presupposes a particular interaction between LAW and MORALITY. It suggests that the legal acceptance of a particular behavior does not necessary correlate with a moral acceptance of that same behavior. The corollary of that is that our moral convictions does not necessarily need translate into a corresponding legal stance on the issue.

This, obviously, flies in the face of what so many of us assume about the nature of legislation, and the role of our Christian values in the interaction with greater society. It did for me, and has now led me to rethink and reflect on my own ethical system, and how a public health physician (an area I'm working towards) engages in policy formation that affects an entire non-Christian community. SHOULD the law reflect and ENFORCE morality by force? And on what basis can we actually enforce a SPECIFIC brand of morality - religious or not (eg: why don't we take pedophilia off the criminal code)?

These are difficult issues, issues that have been around since the Church started getting involved in Roman politics. But they are also crucial issues worth reflecting on. I'll post more as I sort out my thoughts ;)

Any "objective" historians out there?

2008-10-06T12:59:00.007+11:00

I'm currently working on a presentation on the 19th Century Cane Ridge revival in North America, in the form of a "role play". I chose to write as a skeptical young journalist, more interested in trashing the Christian faith than anything else. Here's a snippet:

Even the much touted Bible, the source of all Christian "revelation", is really full of sin, immorality, evil and plain silliness. If we read it uninfluenced by the holy banter from the pulpit, we will surely agree with Thomas Paine that “it is more consistent that we call [the bible] the word of a demon than the word of God".

It's really quite interesting to be writing from the other side of the fence. I think it really illustrates Cairn's discussion on the nature of history - that there are scientific (factual) elements, philosophical (interpretative) elements, and artistic (presentation) elements. In this case, I had to report on the factual events of the Cane Ridge revival, interpreting them as a skeptic, and present them in a journalistic format (I fail at the last, I reckon).

It's a useful reflection on the nature of all forms of reporting - that there will always be a subjective, interpretative element to things we say and do. It is much better, I propose, to recognise our inherent biasness and account for them, than to pretend that we are capable of "objective" thought, free from the influence of the world in which we live.

Unhealthy debt

2008-09-30T14:51:00.010+10:00

I'm sure the majority of us have heard something about the Wall Street crash, with the closure (and near bankcruptcy) of several major US banks and insurance companies (eg: AIG, or AIA for those from SG). If you haven't, here's a 30 second summary: basically, US banks and companies were using debt to create more debt. Kind of like borrowing money from 1 person to buy something from another person - just on a global, massive financial scale. Now the bubble has burst, and all the bad debt has caught up with these institutions - and overnight, people with investments/savings with these institutions have seen their life savings disappear. People stop buying, US stops importing, and other countries stop exporting - and the economy grinds to a halt (I know the economists will tear me up for this oversimplification!).

But why bother with this? Those of us who haven't been taking risks with investments aren't affected, right? Even more so for those of us in the field of health care - we'll always have jobs, so as long as we don't overspend and make risky investments, we don't need to bother, right?

Wrong.

The WHO definition of health is as follows : "health is a state of complete physical, mental and social [and spiritual!] wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" The corollary of that definition is that "anything that affects physical, mental and social [and spiritual] wellbeing affects health".

So what?

As health workers in a wide variety of capacities, we have to recognise that the issues we deal with are not entities existing in a vacuum that appear to the beat of some biostatistical value, but are often presentations of wide socio-economic issues.

In the case of the recent Wall Street meltdown, we have to stop ourselves from compartmentalising it into an "economic issue" - instead, we have to recognise that this will, in the great interconnectedness of society, eventually translate into health issues. The 1978 declaration of Alma Ata states: "Economic and social development, based on a New International Economic Order, is of basic importance to the fullest attainment of health for all".

The "illnesses" seen in the market place and society will more often than not translate into the "illnesses" seen in the consultation room, the pharmacy, the counselling rooms and the dental clinics. With a recession hitting the streets and people losing their savings and financial security, it would be not unexpected to see changes in the burden of diseases within society. We would be looking at remergence of infectious diseases as people begin moving to more cramped accomodations with poorer sanitation. There may be rising rates of depression, and possibly alcohol abuse and substance abuse (with relevant medical consequences) as a means of emotional anesthesia. Financial stressors could lead to relationship breakdown and domestic violence, with consequences for the long term health outcomes for members of those families. Eating a healthy and balanced diet may be replaced by settling for whatever was on special on the supermarket, more often than not something less than ideal, nutrition wise. A global recession is more than an "economic issue" - it is fairly and truly a health issue as well.

As health workers - doctor, nurse, dentist, pastor, phamacist, counsellor, physiotherapist, dietician, OT, etc - we have been tasked by God to engage with and contribute to the health of populations. It is only by looking beyond our textbooks and our own working space, to engage with the emerging challenges to the health of the people, that we can truly fulfill the task God has laid before us.

Why we focus on Christ Crucified

2008-09-26T11:21:00.007+10:00

A recent essay I'm doing concerns the centrality of Calvary in Christian Evagelicalism - how we often associate the 'saving work' of Christ with his death. It was very interesting to attempt to chart the historical development of our current emphasis on the death (and resurrection) of Christ.

This focus on the can be traced back to the patristic theology of the western Church, in particular that of Augustine. Augustine emphasized that the righteousness of Christ was required in response to the guilt of human sin. In his case, the salvation effected by Christ was primarily one of legal significance, in which the recipient of grace was freed from jurisdiction. This theme was picked up again by Anselm’s Cur Deus homo argument, in which he argued that human sin caused an offense to God's honor, and that this required a satisfication of God only made possible through Christ's death.

However, the modern Evangelical emphasis on the soteriological value of Christ death, was probably cemeted by the reformer John Calvin, as he further developed Anselm’s argument into the Penal Substitution theory. Here, Jesus at his death is seen to be taking the punishment for our sin upon himself, in a substitutive manner. Since then, it would appear that this idea has been central to understanding Christian salvation within Evangelicalism (some even saying that the Penal Substitution theory was the "lens" by which all models of salvation are understood!).

Addiction ;)

2008-09-18T18:28:00.006+10:00

The Old "New Faith"

2008-09-16T18:03:00.011+10:00

http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-faith-throws-out-the-ten-commandments-20080915-4h3d.html?page=1

What gets me isn't that someone is making these claims. After all, we've seen such claims since the days of Marcion (c. 110AD). Instead, its the fact that people are standing up, claiming to be Christians, and rejecting everything that defines a Christian. Kind of like someone calling themself an atheist and then proclaiming that God exists. (Plus it's a sad statement on the current state of the Uniting Church.)

The Paradox of Modernity

2008-09-15T20:16:00.018+10:00

‘A puzzling paradox confronts observers of modern society. We are witnesses to a dramatic expansion of market-based economies whose capacity for wealth generation is awesome in comparison to both the distant and the recent past. At the same time, there is a growing perception of substantial threats to the health and well-being of today's children and youth in the very societies that benefit most from this abundance.’ (Keating and Hertzman, 1999)

Fascinating - we have always assumed "richer = better (health indicator wise)". To some degree that seems to be true, but we are now seeing rich societies getting richer, while their "well-being indicators" (in areas such as mental, physical and social health) either stabilise or drop. It appears that the consumerisation, capitalisation, globalisation, post-modernisation, whatever-nisation of our society is taking its toll in ways we never expected.

That leaves a challenge for all of us involved in God's global mission - those of us ministering in these contexts have to develop a new model of health and well-being, with which we engage the modern (or post-modern) epidemics. Just as we cannot ignore the diseases of the developing world, we cannot ignore the diseases of the modern world.

Back to life

2008-09-15T20:16:00.014+10:00

OK, after 1 year of a dead blog, I've decided to ~~resurrect~~ resuscitate it.

So much stuff in my head that I need somewhere to spew it all out!

A foggy night

2007-06-19T12:31:00.000+10:00

What do you do when it's freezing cold and foggy at 12am at night? Take out your camera, stand in the middle of the road, and take photos!

Sunday sports: bball strip

2007-03-30T16:28:00.000+10:00

2007-03-28T17:08:00.001+10:00

went to the Canon service center to repair my G7 today. They said the damage is just cosmetic - looks like i just saved another $100! :D

2007-03-27T19:39:00.000+10:00

My Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX!

2007-03-26T20:19:00.000+10:00

Yea...huge lens....went shooting some sports today with it, and boy does it perform!