Seven Days to Live

Article condensed from Seven Days to Live. What can we learn from Jesus' last week on earth? by Bill Hybels, which first appeared in Today's Christian Woman. March/April 1999,Vol 21 No2 pg64

What if you knew you had only one week to live?

Passion Week—the last week of Jesus' life, before he faced a criminal's execution on a cross—was an extraordinary week. Jesus knew he was going to die in seven days. He knew it would be an excruciatingly painful death. But there's much we can learn from what Jesus taught and from how he acted in the week preceding Easter Sunday.

Saturday
The weekend before his death, Jesus stayed at the home of three of his closest friends in the small town of Bethany, about two miles outside Jerusalem. These people weren't among his 12 disciples; they were personal friends—Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. Jesus chose to spend his last days of freedom with them.

Throughout Jesus' teaching ministry, he emphasizes the importance of community. Jesus continually told all who would listen, "You were created for community with God and others. You were created with a yearning to know and be known, to love and be loved, to serve and be served, to celebrate and be celebrated."

Have you found this kind of community in your life? It's more than good relationships with your family. You need an inner circle of friends who are fellow believers—just as Jesus had—with whom you can be honest, with whom you can "do life" together.

Sunday
On Palm Sunday—six days before Jesus' death—people lined the streets, waving palms as he entered Jerusalem. Jesus' popularity was at an all-time high; his teaching had astonishing power. Jesus had changed people's hearts and healed them physically. He'd even recently brought someone back from the dead! By far, Jesus was one of the most popular people in the entire Middle East.

But everyone who lined the streets had a different reason for waving those palms. Some were political activists; they'd heard Jesus had supernatural power, and they wanted him to use it to free Israel from Roman rule. Others had loved ones who were sick or dying. They waved branches, hoping for physical healing. Some were onlookers merely looking for something to do, while others were genuine followers who wished Jesus would establish himself as an earthly king. Jesus was the only one in the parade who knew why he was going to Jerusalem—to die. He had a mission, while everyone else had an agenda.

Monday
On this day, Jesus did something that shocked people. Jesus came into the temple and saw all the little arcades set up for commercial business. He overturned the merchants' tables and kicked them out of the temple.

Why did Jesus act with such passion? Because he saw worship at the temple in Jerusalem going awry. Jesus knew he had to straighten out the situation before he died, was resurrected, and returned to heaven. The message of his transforming power was going to be left in the hands of worshiping communities. Jesus couldn't afford to have any church get distracted and caught up in questionable activities. They alone would possess the message that would change the world. Jesus sent a signal: Don't get sidetracked. Stay on target. Stay on the mission of spreading God's love.

Tuesday
Jesus taught from early morning till late at night. When the sun went down on Tuesday, his earthly teaching was done. As dusk approached, Jesus taught the Parable of the Talents. In those final moments before his teaching ministry came to an end, he told his listeners, in essence, "You have one life. That's it. Some of you have all kinds of gifts and abilities; some of you have less. But don't squander the one and only life God's given you; do something noble and great with it." How poignant it is that as Jesus talked about this, he knew his life was almost over.

Wednesday
Most scholars believe this was a day of solitude for Jesus. He was doing the most important thing he could—getting alone with God. As he quieted himself, he heard the still small whisper of his Father say, "You're on a mission, and it's going to be difficult, but I'm asking you to endure. I'll be with you."

We live in a culture that no longer values solitude. We go from one meeting to the next, one deadline to the next, one activity to the next. Too often we fail to quiet ourselves enough to hear what God would say to us—if only we were listening.

Thursday
This day, Jesus took a normal Passover meal and changed it forever. All the arrangements had been made, but then the foot-washer didn't show up! The disciples came to dinner with dusty feet, and stood around asking who messed up the arrangements. It never dawned on them that maybe one of them could humble himself to do that for anybody else.

Jesus came, took off his robe, put a towel over his arm, filled a basin with water, then knelt down and started washing the disciples' feet. They couldn't believe it! The Son of God, the Savior of the world—and he had the humility to wash their feet.

In today's words, here's the lesson: True fulfillment never comes from a life of self-gratification. The way to the top in God's economy is through serving. It's finding God's mission for your life and engaging in it. It's finding people you can humbly serve in daily, down-to-earth ways. And when you find God's purpose for your life and pursue it in a spirit of humility and servanthood, your heart spills over with love and gratefulness.

Friday
On Friday, Jesus voluntarily submitted to be nailed to a cross.

The Bible says at noon the skies got dark. There was an earthquake. The temple veil was torn. People suddenly realized that when Jesus cried out, "It is finished," and then died, he was no ordinary man. Jesus was taken from the cross, prepared for burial, and put in a tomb.

Thankfully, the story doesn't end there. But what follows next—Saturday—is most difficult of all, because it's the day between the promise and the fulfillment of the promise. Jesus had predicted he'd be crucified, and that he'd rise from the dead. He was dead all right. But would he come back?

On Sunday, Jesus burst forth from the tomb exactly as he'd predicted. The guards at the tomb saw him, went back to tell the officials, "He's alive!" and were paid to keep quiet about it. Jesus appeared to more than 500 people—cynics as well as believers—before he ascended into heaven. There was no question about whether or not Jesus was resurrected. With his resurrection, Jesus proved he is the Son of God.

Mummy (or Daddy), please don’t scream!

If you go to work tomorrow and your boss screamed and yelled at you, you would feel pretty bad. In fact, you may even yell back, resign and walk out if your livelihood did not depend on it. Yet when parents scream at their kids, they seem to think that they can do it with impunity.

ScreamFree Parenting. The words jumped off the pages of Straits Times1, even as I grappled with the issue on how kids should be raised. Hal Runkel, the founder of ScreamFree Parenting, wrote in the preface to his book of the same title, “I believe God is the original ScreamFree Parent to us all, and his way of relating with himself and with others is the model I teach and try to live. These ScreamFree principles are biblical principles.”2

Since his book is so popular, I guess I am not the only screaming parent around.

The magnitude of the problem
In a survey3, 150 children between 9 to 12 years old were asked to write their answers to two questions:
• What do you like most about your mother?
• What do you dislike most about your mother?
Although the answers the first question varied, the answer to the second did not. Almost all used the phrase ‘her screaming’ in their answers to the second question.

In a seminal4 paper to document the extend of psychological aggression (the psychologist’s term for screaming and yelling at your kids) by American parents, researchers looked at the self-reported prevalence of 5 different levels of psychological aggression (shouted/yelled/screamed; threatened to spank; swore/cursed; called name e.g.lazy,dumb; threatened to kick out of house – the latter 3 being categorised as severe psychological aggression) in a nationally representative sample of 991 parents with children 17 years and below. They reported that by age 5, 98% of parents reported using one or more forms of psychological aggression and the rate remains in the 90% range up to age 17 years. The rates for severe psychological aggression however differed according to the children’s age groups. It was less common in the younger age group (10-20% for toddlers) and increased progressively to 50% for teenagers. The average number of overall and severe episodes was 21 and 8 respectively over the last 12 months. Given that this is a self-reporting survey, these figures are expected to be an underestimate of actual rates of prevalence.

There is no local data but given the cultural characteristics of contemporary Chinese parent-child values and practices, the rates are expected to be greater than in Western cultures5; my experience and gut feeling tell me that Christian families are not spared.

“If it is so common, it must be OK”
Disciplining a child is a parental responsibility and biblical injunction. However, screaming and yelling is not an acceptable disciplinary tactic. As far as I know there are no advocates of screaming as a parenting style. To say that it is unchristian is to put it mildly. There are at least 3 reasons why you should not scream when dealing with kids:

1. A screaming parent demonstrates that he/she has lost control.
There a many valid reasons why a parent may ‘lose it’ but if the parent is not in control, he/she cannot be in charge. Each parent is solely responsible for his/her emotional response. Prov 29.11 says, “A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control.”

Hal Runkel2 defines being in charge as the ability to inspire your children to motivate themselves; a radical shift from controlling their behaviour and decisions. Parenting is not a set of tricks for manipulating the child into obeying but the building of a special relationship between parent and child. When a parent screams, the tone does not inspire and its content tears down relationship.

2. Psychological aggression has adverse effects on children.
Parental verbal aggression is associated with negative effects on children’s self-esteem and school marks6 and higher rates of physical aggression, delinquency and interpersonal problems with other children7. Dr Ketterman3 describes it graphically- To a child, screaming is like a cancer. When that screaming enters a child’s ears, it quickly spreads, killing the child’s fragile cells of growing self-esteem. Without healthy self-esteem, the child cannot achieve his or her God-given potential and will become increasingly anxious, insecure and often angry.

3. Screaming and yelling at our children is contrary to biblical teachings on speech and conduct.
The Bible has clear teachings in this area. Col 4:6 says, “Let your conversation be always full of grace.” Jas 1:19-20 admonishes, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.”

The Bible uses striking metaphors to warn of the immense power of the tongue. Words are weapons- spears, swords and arrows (Ps 57:4, 64:4, Jer 9:8). It is a bit in the horses’ mouth, the rudder of a ship and the spark that can set the forest ablaze. Its influence out of proportion to its size and should not be underestimated. (Jas 3:2-12)

Screaming at our kids is wrong. Many parents do it because it seems to work. It then has a way of becoming a habit and these parents continue to do it even when it no longer works. Habits are difficult to break. Stop it before it becomes a habit. If it has become a habit, acknowledge that it is wrong and take personal responsibility for your emotional outbursts. That is the first step to discovering the many other Christ-like alternatives to screaming and yelling at your kids.

References:
1.The Straits Times, 24 July 2010;p.E1-2
2.Hal Edward Runkel, ScreamFree Parenting (2007); Colorado: WaterBrook Press.
3.Pat Holt, Grace Ketterman, When you feel like screaming: help for frustrated mothers (2001); Colorado: WaterBrook Press.
4.MA Straus, CJ Field, Psychological Aggression by American Parents: National Data on Prevalence, Chronicity and Severity. J Marriage and Family (2003);65, p.795-808.
5.CSK Tang, Adolescent Abuse in Hong Kong Chinese Families. Child Abuse & Neglect (1996);20, p.873-878.
6.CR Solomon, F Serres. Effects of parental verbal aggression on children’s self-esteem and school marks. Child Abuse & Neglect (1999);23, p.339-351.
7.YM Vissing, MA Straus. Verbal aggression by parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse & Neglect (1991); 15, p.223-238.

Christian Response to Homosexuality

(This article was written in July 2007. It is posted here because of interest arising from current events.)

Caught in the Middle: Homosexuality

Amendments to the Penal Code will soon to be debated in the Singapore Parliament. This includes Section 377A, which deals with ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’.This section criminalises homosexual acts. Many pro-gay groups are taking this opportunity to lobby for homosexual acts to be decriminalised. This has lead to widely publicised comments from journalists, MPs, Ministers and a former Bishop of the Methodist Church who openly declared their support for homosexuality and homosexual acts.

The Minister Mentor has been quoted as saying, ‘homosexuals are mostly born that way’. A senior journalist wrote, ‘Two factors would favour homosexuals in the long run: One, the growing evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. And two, the growing cosmopolitanism of Singapore….homophobia renders Singapore a less attractive place to the talented and creative, both local and foreign…There is a reason why some of the most creative cities in the world - San Francisco, Boston and London - are also among the most accepting of gays.’1

These assumptions are widely embraced, especially by youths. The Singapore Polytechnic survey involving 800 people between 15-29 years old reported that 44% of male respondents and 57% of female respondents found homosexuality acceptable. Unfortunately these views are not limited to unbelievers. There is a homosexual ‘christian’ group in Singapore contradicting the evangelical Christian view. The former Methodist Bishop is an honorary pastoral advisor to the group. We are caught in the middle!

Is homosexuality a sin?
The biblical basis for rejection of homosexual acts can be found in the following scripture passages: Gen1: 27-28 describes God’s design for humankind – male and female. Gen19 described the homosexual perversion and destruction of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lev18: 22 and 20:13 record God’s injunction against homosexual acts. Rom 1:26-27 described homosexuality as a manifestation of God’s wrath as the result of man’s rejection of God and God’s abandonment of man to their own devices. In 1Cor 6:9 Paul described homosexual offenders (Gk: arsenokoitai - arsen = male, koite = bed, i.e ‘a male bedding a male’) as one of those who are wicked and will not inherit the kingdom of God. In 1 Tim 1:10 arsenokoitai (translated homosexuals in NASB and perverts in NIV) is described as the antithesis of a righteous person.

Homosexual acts are condemned in the scripture (as are adultery, fornication and other sexual immoralities). Hence, Christians cannot support groups that condone or seek to promote this behaviour in the name of tolerance or progress. However, we do not despise the homosexual person. Jesus included into his sphere of friends, prostitutes and tax collectors. The church necessarily must extend her love to the homosexuals so that they may turn away from the sin of homosexual behaviour.


Is homosexuality genetic/biologically determined?
Proponents of this theory imply that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and they have no choice in their sexual orientation and change is not possible and should not be pursued. This impression popularized by the media can’t be further from the truth. Science is politicised for a homosexual agenda.2

The fact is that homosexuality is influenced by genes as much as playing basketball is. If you have a height gene that makes you tall, you may make a good basketball player but the gene does not turn you into a basketball player. You can choose to play volleyball. Genes are but a facilitating factor, interacting with other psychological, social and environmental factors, that ‘opens the door’ for some into homosexuality. A boy born with a sensitive temperament and a less athletic physique, subjected to peer isolation, a dominant maternal figure, an absent or abusive paternal figure may develop homosexual orientation. This effect is different from proclaiming that homosexuality is genetic in the way genes affect our inheritance of black instead of blonde hair and brown instead of blue eyes.

Homosexual orientation can be treated and corrected.3 Homosexual act is a choice, just like adultery and fornication for the heterosexuals. Our genes don’t make us do it.

How should we response?
We need to view the issue of homosexual orientation seriously and with compassion. During a small group prayer meeting in my university days, a brother requested prayer because he was struggling with ‘an affinity for someone of the same sex’. I was thrown off. I don’t think any of us in the group took him seriously. “He was such a devout Christian. He will get over it.” I thought. I chanced upon this brother two weeks ago after about 15 years. I praise God that he is still in church and although our conversation was brief I sense that he still has the struggle. Few of us know how to minister to such a person because we fail to appreciate their struggle.

We need to prevent homosexuality. No one is born gay. Experts believe there are early signs of a pre-homosexual child and intervention will prevent the inclination.4

We must not allow our society to evolve into one where homosexual behaviour is endorsed, encouraged and promoted as an acceptable lifestyle. We do this by first educating ourselves, our children and our church.

We need to pray for our leaders, our country, our community, our children.

Reference:
1. Janadas Devan. Can mum, mum and kid make a family? 7 July 2007, Straits Times.
2. W Byne, E Stein. Ethical Implications of Scientific Research on Causes of Sexual Orientation. Health Care Anal. 1997; 5:136
3. R Spitzer. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from
Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation. Arch Sex Behav 2003; 32:403
4. J Nicolosi, Linda A Nicolosi. Preventing Homosexuality. IVP

Christians and Socio-Political Engagement

(This article was written on 30 Nov 2004. I have posted it here as a reflection on the current event which calls for how Christians engage a secular society)

Religion and Politics

The result of the recent US presidential election has prompted discussions on “mixing religion with politics.”1,2 The general opinion was that President Bush was reelected because of votes from evangelical Christians who supported his stand against issues of abortion, gay marriages, stem cell research and human cloning. Chua Mui Hoong1, a senior political correspondent with Straits Times, cautioned whether “religious lobby in Singapore (will) one day amass electoral clout (as it had happened in US).” She cited a negative example of how a Singapore Christian group started an online campaign urging Christians to lobby their MPs against gay lifestyle with charged language, “The battle lines are now drawn and it is time for the Church in Singapore to rise up and make a stand.” She concluded by stating, “religious groups can focus on keeping their own house in order (discourage fellow believers from doing something considered immoral), and not throw stones at the houses of others (prevent others from doing something you consider immoral, but which they think is fine).” Guwe2 appositely showed that Chua failed to recognize that some (not all) public issues are religious-moral issues and hence it is inevitable that religious-moral values feature on such public policy decisions.

Christians are to function as the conscience of the society. How can we do this effectively? To what extent should we pursue this role without rousing negative sentiments in a pluralistic society? There are no short or simple answers. Three principles have been helpful in my approach to the subject.

Firstly, the primary role of the Church is to fulfill the Great Commission. Article 6 of the Lausanne Covenant3 states, “We affirm that Christ sends his redeemed people into the world as the Father sent him, and that this calls for a similar deep and costly penetration of the world. We need to break out of our ecclesiastical ghettos and permeate non-Christian society. In the Church's mission of sacrificial service evangelism is primary.”

The Church is not a political party. Politics is the science of government and deal with public policies and legislations. In this sense it is a job for the professionals who have the expertise, training and skills. “Politics is not the church’s first calling. Evangelism,…discipleship, fellowship, teaching the Word…are the heartbeat of the church. When it addresses political issues, the church must not do so at the risk of weakening its primary mission.”4 When the Church gets involved in socio-political issues, she must remember that “evangelism is the major instrument of social change, for the gospel changes people and changed people can change society… evangelism takes primacy…”5

Secondly, we need to affirm our social responsibilities. This is eloquently described in article 5 of the Lausanne Covenant, “We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society… we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ…and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist. When people receive Christ, they are born again into His kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world. The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead.”

On a broader sense, politics denotes life of the city (polis) and the responsibilities of citizens (politēs), the art of living together in a community. In this broader sense, all Christians are involved in politics. 1 Peter 2:13-17 instructs us to “submit to the authority instituted among men” (abide by the law of the land), “commend those who do right” (you chose your leaders), “do good and live as servants of God” (social concern and social justice), “show proper respect to everyone” (civility in a pluralistic society).

Christians have a role in social service - relieving human need, works of mercy, etc. However, Christian social concern may oblige us to socio-political action. Some needs or structural evil cannot be relieved without political action and legislations. “If travellers on the Jerusalem-Jericho road were habitually beaten up, and habitually cared for by Good Samaritans, the need for better laws to eliminate armed robbery might well be overlooked. If road accidents keep occurring at a particular crossroads, it is not more ambulances that are needed but the installation of traffic lights to prevent accidents. It is always good to feed the hungry; it is better, if possible, to eradicate the causes of hunger. So if we truly love our neighbours, and want to serve them, our service may oblige us to take (or solicit) political actions on their behalf.” 6

Thirdly, Christians need to use persuasion rather than imposition for moral leadership. Satanizing non-believers, dogmatic pronouncements and using “charged language” are sure ways of losing all credibility in a society where we are a minority. We need to argue our case on its merits and hold our case with more reasons than just “the Bible say so.” John Stott succinctly puts it, “In evangelism, we should never try to force people to believe the gospel, nor remain silent as if we were indifferent to their response, nor rely exclusively on dogmatic proclamation of biblical texts…, but rather like the apostles, reason with people from both nature and Scripture, commending God’s gospel to them by rational arguments. In social action, similarly, we should neither try to impose Christian standards by force on an unwilling public, nor remain silent and inactive before contemporary landslide, nor rely exclusively on dogmatic assertions of biblical values, but rather reason with people about the benefits of Christian morality, commending God’s law to them by rational arguments.”7 Civility should characterize our approach to these issues.8 “Make every effort to live in peace with all men….” (Heb12:14) “When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly.” (I Cor:12-13).

In some circles, this is a taboo subject. However as Christians and citizens of the world, this is a subject we cannot avoid. We discount it to the Church’s peril. Church history and current events attest to this. This is not an exhaustive treatise and I am no expert on the subject. My aim is but to remind ourselves that Christians need to constantly seek to understand our role and how we fulfill this role in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society.

References
1. Chua Mui Hoong, “Beware of mixing religion and politics” in Straits Times Nov 5, 2004
2. Guwe Miauw Khoon, “US political issues were also religious ones” in Straits Times Nov 23, 2004
3. Lausanne Covenant. A declaration agreed upon by Christian leaders from more than 150 countries during the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland that was called by a committee headed by Rev Billy Graham to promote intentional world evangelization.
4. Charles Colson, Kingdoms in conflict, pg 290
5. John Stott, Issues facing Christians today, pg 12
6. John Stott, Involvement: Being a responsible Christian in a Non-Christian Society, pg104-5
7. John Stott, Issues facing Christians today, pg 52
8. Richard J Mouw, Uncommon decency: Christian civility in an uncivil world