Reflection: The Resurrection of the Dead

A reflection of 1 Corinthians 15:12-34.

Paul makes an emphatic reminder of Christ's resurrection in this passage.

While there is much that may be expounded from this passage, the one thing I drew from this passage is the nature of Christ's work in the world:

More than just making the sinful righteous, Christ came to make the dead living again.

In this passage, we understand that Paul refers to physical death as "sleeping" and spiritual death (or total death) as "death". He makes it clear that Christ brings everything to his subjection, which includes destroying every rule and authority, the last being death itself. This is a crucial point of detail: Upon Christ's resurrection, we were freed from the bondage of spiritual death; upon Christ's return, death itself shall be no more. 

What does this mean for us?

When Christ died on the cross as the propitiation for our sins, he essentially gave us a chance to escape from dying spiritual deaths. We are, as Jesus previously mentioned, "born again". This would not be possible if Christ had not been raised from the dead, for the one who frees others from death must be free from death himself.

If we believe the resurrection of Christ to be true (the foundation for all Christianity), then we must, in full confidence, believe that Christ has the power to make us dead people living again. We must believe that the one, to whom all things will be subjected to, has the power to destroy all rule and authority, to destroy death, to rid us from living in our sins.

How should we live?

Paul delivers this instruction clearly, in parts:

"...I die every day!"

"Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals"."

"Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning."

As we look upon our lives from the vantage point of death, we are able to live in soberness. When we understand the weight of Christ's resurrection and its implications on our lives, it is natural and right to make a conscious decision towards daily surrendering of our lives to Christ. It is sensible to be mindful of our company, and what we choose to entertain each day in thought and deed. It is sensible to live with the mentality of looking forward to the hope that we have in Jesus, and the faithful anticipation of his return that death may finally be destroyed once and for all. And it is sensible for us to live in what is right and free from sin. 

Christ is our eternal king; he is our divine saviour, the rightful Messiah.

He has freed us from the bondage of our iniquities. He has given us a chance to live right.

We have been given this privilege, brothers and sisters. Let us strive towards that.

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" - Micah 6:8 (ESV) 

Sola Deo Gloria,

Matt

Reflection: Healing at the Pool

A reflection of John 5:1-18.

As John records the incident at the Bethesda, he captures as well the conversation between Jesus and a nameless invalid. There are a few interesting differences that make this different from the other healing events in the gospels. Firstly, there were two encounters between this man and Jesus. The first was by the pool, and the second at a temple. Next, in this encounter, Jesus was the one who initiated the conversation by asking the man if he wished to be healed. Let's take a closer look.

1. "Do you want to be healed?"

Jesus approaching the man and initiating such a request was uncharacteristic of most of the encounters we have witnessed throughout the gospels. Typically, the one who became healed knew of Jesus' identity (barring the ones that were blind). People flocked to Jesus just to touch him, grab his garment, all sorts of things.

It is important to note that Jesus knew this man had been there for a really long time (v.6). When asked if he would like to be healed, the invalid responded, essentially explaining how he had no help from others and how he was always placed behind others. I can only imagine the feelings of compassionate Jesus must have had for this man at that point for him to say to the man: "Get up, take up your bed, and walk."

Scripture makes no mention of how the man responded other than taking up his bed and walking. Putting myself in his shoes for a moment, if I had been lame for the last 38 years, what makes me think that just because a man tells me to get up that I will actually be able to do so? There is something to be said here about the healing of this man: despite not even knowing who Jesus was, he experienced the power of Jesus' healing. Scripture is clear: "at once, the man was healed." The man, upon sensing that he was healed, picked up his bed, got up and walk.

Jesus' healing can be experienced by those that may not know of him yet.

This was reinforced in the next few verses when the Pharisees interrogated him, but he was unable to identify the man who had healed him. This man had not an inkling the identity of Jesus, yet he was completely and utterly liberated from his sickness. 

This brings me to my next observation on how this man responded.

2. "Sin no more."

This man had been lame for 38 years. It was unlikely that he was able to move about, let alone visit the temple routinely. However, it was recorded that Jesus found him in the temple afterwards. My interpretation is that this man took it upon himself to worship in the temple after he had been healed. While this was not explicitly stated in the text, it is a logical reasoning that follows. It is apt, too, since Jesus found him there and here was his second message to the man: "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you."

To be frank, I'm not too sure how this ought to be understood exactly. A few things are clear, however. 

Jesus says to the man that he had been healed. He uses the word "see" metaphorically: the man knew he had been healed, but now he was truly witnessing the source of which his healing was from - Jesus. This is the crux - this man now recognized that Jesus had the power to heal, for he had been personally healed by Jesus himself.

The next bit is just as critical, if not more. Jesus tells him to sin no more, and mentions this for his sake, so that he may not experience anything worse than that which he had been healed from. This has massive implications. It implies that the man's initial condition had been a result of his sins. By extension, it meant that sin has profound implications on us.

Although not much was further expounded on the impact of sin, we do see this man going off and telling the Jews that Jesus had healed him. While we do not know from the text whether this man who had been healed went about his later actions in the heart of thanksgiving, Jesus' expectations are made clear.

The appropriate response to having experienced Jesus' healing is to believe in him, and sin no more.

This is similar to the woman who had committed adultery a few chapters from here. Jesus said the same thing: "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

So, how do I make sense of all this in my life?

For me personally, I've witnessed far too often how many of us are quick to focus on the sins (whether from ourselves or from others) before addressing one's belief and healing. 

Jesus spared no patience when dealing with this man, who did not even know who he was. He simply reached out, asking if he wanted to be healed. I believe that we ought to follow in that example, by extending healing first. If it is our sin that we are grieving over, then let us first seek his healing. Jesus is patient with us, always waiting for us to turn to him for healing and forgiveness, for restoration and reconciliation. If it is another that we are dealing with, let us extend ourselves as servants of God's healing for them. For even if they do not know of Jesus, just like the invalid, Jesus is fully capable of healing them of their afflictions. 

And when we have witnessed the work of Jesus in our lives, let us respond in kind, by resolving to weed out sin in our lives. Strive to sin no more, regardless of how many times we shall fall, let us strive to sin no more. This is the right way to own the freedom that we have been given through the blood of Christ: freedom from sin.

Brothers and Sisters, let us receive boldly the healing that God has for us, that we may freely believe in His name, and seek His holiness. And then, let us do the same for the many others, who like us previously, are laying around this pool just waiting to be healed.

T'was blind, but now I see.

Sola Deo Gloria,

Matt

Reflection: The Perfect Servant

A reflection of Matthew 12:15-21, passage titled "God's Chosen Servant".

Matthew made it a point to capture Jesus' withdrawal from the Pharisees, his healing of the people, and his ordering them to keep his identity secret. Why was this so? Well, what follows is an explicit reference made to the prophecy of Isaiah in Isaiah 42:1-3. There, comparisons were made to Jesus' gentle nature, his zeal for justice, his mercy for people, his meek and lowly spirit, the significance of his name to the people.

Essentially, this was what Matthew was saying:

Look no further. God's chosen servant, the Messiah, the one who will liberate us and bring justice to victory is here. Jesus is the one!

Matthew was fully aware that the Jews were still looking around for their Messiah. Surely they'd pay heed to the words of their prophet, Isaiah. And while Jesus fulfills numerous other prophecies throughout the Old Testament, in this particular one, a few key points were made known.

1. Jesus is a servant, chosen by God Himself.

What an honour! That Jesus was chosen by God personally to be His servant. However, one will quickly realize how this honour comes with unbearable burden, as we learn that Jesus, while chosen to proclaim justice upon the world, has also been chosen to bear the brunt of injustice of the world. 

There is no other more worthy to proclaim justice than the one who is just. There is no other judge more qualified to judge than the one who was judged and deemed perfect. Jesus was all of them. And what a scandal it is, that the one who is all of these things should come before us to serve us! (Mark 10:45) 

2. Jesus is gentle, he lifts us up.

Matthew describes the character of Jesus through the prophet's words. Jesus takes the route of the meek and gentle. He withdraws himself from the Pharisees to avoid angering them further. Even as he left, he continued all that he sought to do: he healed the people who followed him. He restores them in justice, yet ordering them to keep him from being known. When others were conspiring to destroy him, Jesus was conspiring to save others.

Far from breaking a bruised reed, Jesus will strengthen it. 

Far from quenching a smoldering wick, Jesus will ignite its flames.

Matthew makes his point fully clear here: Jesus, being the servant that he is, seeks to restore people and lift them up. That is the justice he has come to proclaim. Let the one who doubts come before Jesus and behold, that indeed his spirit is one that is gentle and lowly, and brings rest to any weary soul.

3. Jesus is the name that brings hope.

Interestingly, verse 21 is not an explicit reference from the Isaiah passage. "And in his name the Gentiles will hope" cannot be directly lifted from Isaiah 42. However, if one reads the entirety of the chapter, the message becomes clear:

Jesus is the hope that God pronounces upon His people.

Without going into any analysis of Isaiah 42, I'd like to contemplate the implications of this point. Taking the above as a statement of truth, what then, is an appropriate response from us? Matthew says that Jesus is the name that we shall all hope in: what does that mean?

I'd like to borrow a thought here:

"Unfathomable oceans of grace are in Christ for you. Dive and dive again, you will never come to the bottom of these depths. How many millions of dazzling pearls and gems are at this moment hid in the deep recesses of the ocean caves! But there are unsearchable riches in Christ. Seek more of them. The Lord enrich you with them. I have always thought it a very pitiful show when great people ornament themselves with brilliants and diamonds; but it is truest wisdom to adorn the soul with Christ and His graces."

- Robert M'Cheyne

How true, then, if Christ is the name that we hope in, that we give all we have to pursue him and all that he has in store for us. He who gives up all he has for that which he cannot lose is no fool. Let us seek Christ, his wisdom, his grace, his mercy, and his ways. Till eternity comes upon us.

Here's my heart, oh, take and seal it. 

Seal it for Thy courts above.

Sola Deo Gloria,

Matt

Reflection: The Greatest Testimony

A reflection of 1 John 4: 7-21.

The greatest testimony possible, of anything, is that of love. Love is the grandest expression of that which is real, a true force for good, and the power to change lives. Love needs no explanation, nor can its logic be conceived through any form of rationalization or constructed theory. Love needs no scientific equation to be proven. We know that love exists, simply because we have experienced it, and witnessed its sheer nature.

Then, if love is the greatest testimony to anything, God's love must be the greatest testimony to three things:

1. The depravity of man

"In this love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John 4:10 (ESV)

The greatest act of love ever known. God sending His Son to die, a death on the cross, so that man may be saved. It speaks deeply about the human condition - the nature of man's depravity. We are so depraved that there is no way we can ever hope to save ourselves. Our sins are part of our nature, and they bring us the wrath of God for He is pure and just. Let this be clear: without the Son, there is no way we can come before God without being utterly destroyed by the nature of His holiness. 

Therefore, in order that we may come before Him, to reconcile and even dwell in Him, a price must be first paid. This payment was free for us, but costly to God. This was the personal cost of love - this is a personal sacrifice by God, to send His beloved Son to pay the price for the sins of man. This is a personal sacrifice by Jesus, who gave his life willingly so that the wrath of God may not fall upon us. He alone took on the sins of man, the one who is pure, blameless, and perfect in every way.

2. The identity of Christ

That it took one who had to be pure, blameless, and perfect in every way to pay the price for our sins is a testament to the identity of Christ: Jesus is Messiah. Jesus is God himself. 

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." 1 John 4:15 (ESV)

While John does not explicitly make that claim here, it is entirely congruent with the claims of Jesus, where it was said: "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides by the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me." John 15:4 (ESV) This parallel is clear: Jesus had to be fully God.

However, I'd like to be more concerned with the implications of the identity of Christ here. It was him, and him only, that could take on the sins of man. The blood of Christ was pure. It had the power to cleanse us of our unrighteousness. With full knowledge of this, it is crucial then, that we consider how we respond to our sin.

As it was said, unless we abide in him, there is no way we can bear fruit. Should we wish to see the fruit of the spirit in us, we must abide in him. This is true, for it is said:

"By this we know that we abide in him and he in us because he has given us of his Spirit." 1 John 4:13 (ESV)

To the ones who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he died for our sins, God gives his Spirit. By abiding in the Son, we testify to this; by abiding in the Son, we love.

Love is our greatest testimony to what Christ Jesus has done for us. Love is the only appropriate response. Love is abiding in Christ.

Which brings me to the third thing...

3. An abiding in Christ is perfected in love through our love for others.

God's love testifies to this truth. 

"We love because he first loved us." 1 John 4:19 (ESV)

The commandment to love others is more than a commandment. It is the fundamental response that any one should have if he truly believes in the identity of Christ, his love for us, and the imperative to abide in Christ. It is often preached that one cannot love God (whom he cannot see) if one does not love his neighbour whom he has seen. 

There is no mistake. God's love for us is more than a story to believe in. It is one that we take part in: because we have received his love, more than we can ever repay or understand, the only appropriate response is that which is an outpouring of love from the depths of our souls. And we do this unrelentingly, not withholding it from whomever we come across - for the nature of love is to flow from he who abides in God, and is not dependent on one's worthiness of love. In fact, if love were to be demonstrated on the basis of worth, it'd be a tragedy for none of us are worthy.

God's love is perfect - it is given to all freely but costly to the heavens. It requires nothing from us, the only demand is that we allow love to flow through us freely and that in itself is a form of love as well. And through our love for others, we will slowly start to understand, as the days go by, the depths of His love - when He first sent His Son to die for us on that ragged cross.

Final Thoughts

It has certainly been a long time since I've had a reflection piece like this. I've spent the last half a year wondering what I had to do to gain peace, wondering if there was something I had to do... but the Word is clear: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us. 

Therefore, there is nothing to do other than to take God's word as an examination of my life. The rest will be as He leads. The one who abides in Him shall overcome the world, and I shall continue to hope and pray that Jesus will be present in my every moment of living and breathing, and till my dying breath.

Friend, no matter where you are in life, know that the door to Jesus is always open for you. He welcomes every one of us with open arms. He invites us to feast with him. He is always waiting for us to return and to pour on him our woes and our joys. Jesus is the greatest gift we have, and in spirit, he will never let us go. Take heart, despite how you have been in life: it doesn't matter whether you've been living well or not; it doesn't matter if you feel too shabby to enter his house. If you truly believe in Him, all of that does not matter. In Him, you have a new tomorrow. 

"There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future." St. Augustine

Sola Deo Gloria,

Matt

Divided We Stand: What Christians Need to Know on the 377A Discourse

Hello fellow reader,

First of all, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to peruse the rest of this (lengthy) post. These thoughts are the byproduct of a time of self-reflection, and may hopefully serve to be an encouragement for others as well.

When it comes to discussing hot topics like these, it is always crucial to keep an open mind to the various sides of the argument, and consider how we as individuals and as a society might reconcile these differences.

However, my intention in writing this isn't to make an argument for or against the repeal of section 377A. In fact, I'm not even interested to talk about the issues on homosexuality for that matter. I feel what has already been shared in this discussion so far has been discussed ad nauseam. What I'm interested to do here is to shed some light on why  we (as Christians) are even engaging this discourse in the first place.

As such, I will sharing my thoughts in parallel to one of the best sources of Kingdom wisdom: Jesus' first discourse, or better known as The Sermon on the Mount. This sermon spans three chapters in the Book of Matthew but I'd like to make references to what Jesus says in a reversed order, starting from chapter 7 and moving towards chapter 5.

Observations

Why are we discussing this issue on section 377A in the first place? 

Don't get me wrong, I certainly do think that these are matters worth discussing. I'm asking: "What is our main motivation behind sharing our stand and opinions on the issue?" 

Through this whole recurring saga, I've observed three common Christian responses that are positioned on various ends of the spectrum:

The first Christian speaks fervently against the repeal of such a law, highlighting eloquently how doing so would undermine the institutions of marriage and family in Singapore, ultimately doing great damage to the social fabric that we have cultivated. He shares openly these views on social media, and engages in getting others to agree with his point of view as well. While his arguments are valid, his motivation to right a wrong (and possibly a lack of tact) is easily received by his opponents as 'brutal, blunt, hypocritical bigotry'.

The second Christian resolved himself to love his neighbours, and therefore, seek to understand and empathize with the LGBT community. He has a clearer picture of how these groups of people have been hurt before, and are in some ways still being 'oppressed' by the laws our society have put in place. He thus speaks out against these laws, and pushes forth his views to empower the 'voices of the marginalized' and to speak out for the 'right to love'.

The third Christian knows better than to get involved in such 'politics' unnecessarily. He decides that the wisest thing to do is to maintain neutrality, or at the very least, remain silent on the issue. After all, sitting on the fence keeps him shielded from both ends of the argument.

Let's have a look at what Jesus might be saying in response to each of these three Christians.


1. Matters of Maturity


"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it it will be measured to you." Matt 7:1-2 (ESV)


This is a particularly poignant message for the first Christian. While a clear instruction to God's people, these verses also speak about the character of God - God rules with all righteousness and justice, and He holds each of us to the same standards. As such, the instruction comes with a harsh overtone: Be careful when you make a judgement on others, lest you be guilty of the same sin.

Jesus goes on to explain how it is crucial for us to first remove the log from our own eye first before we can even see clearly to take the speck out of our brother's eye. His point is succinct: Our repentance must precede our correction of others, else we are doing them more harm than good. To the first Christian: Yes, you are able to discern the judgement of God due to your knowledge of what is right. But be extra careful in how you wield this knowledge, for if your intention is to hurt the conscience of another or to simply have someone else do what you think is right, you may be subjected to the same judgment by God. After all, it is said: "On that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me; you workers of lawlessness.'" (Matt 7:22-23)

Conversely, I have seen these verses about judgement thrown around flippantly to guilt trip others because someone does not like to be corrected. It is not Biblical to think that there is no place for correction or speaking of truth simply because these verses rebuke the one who makes judgments. In the same passage, Jesus explicitly instructs the repentance of one before he would go on to correct a brother. In 2 Tim 3:16-17, God says that "All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

The Bible is clear on this: those of us who have the knowledge of God revealed to us ought to shoulder the responsibility of speaking its truth to edify our brothers than to hurt their consciences. Such a pursuit involves a keen attention to tact and a spirit of love, both of which may be considered hallmarks of a mature Christian.


2. Matters of Allegiance


"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matt 7:21 (ESV)


This verse is a sobering one for all of us who are striving for God's kingdom. Jesus makes it clear that he who wishes to enter the kingdom of heaven must do the will of the Father. I will not go into detail what this means because I probably would not be able to cover its truth adequately. What I'd like to point out here is the question of allegiance.

The second Christian seeks to address injustice, or so he thinks. While his love for people and his desire to reach out to them is commendable, he does not actually understand who he is serving. When we fight for people, we do so with the understanding that we are agents of God's restorative justice. To be clear on my usage of 'restorative justice', I am defining justice as right relations between God, man, and creation. With that understanding, it makes sense to support the needy as God intends to be generous to them through His agents. It makes sense to support those who are lost and are looking for God for He seeks to reconcile with them and give them grace. However, it does not make sense that we stand by people to speak against what God stands for (in this case, the right relationship between man and woman). 

In Matt 6:24, Jesus establishes that "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." It poses important questions to those of us who question God's character and divine quality on the account of the suffering of mankind: Who are you actually serving? Who is your allegiance to? Are you here to do God's will or are you here to do man's will?

This may be one of the most subtle idols in our lives: money, sex, power, and other gods may be easy to spot on the surface, but human relationships as idols in our lives can be hard to detect and are even more insidious, for it conflates the love for people with the love of people. 

Aiden Wilson Tozer expresses this notion eloquently: "Modern Christians hope to save the world by being like it, but it will never work. The church's power over the world springs out from her unlikeness to it, never from her integration into it."

Jesus points out the remedy to this problem: trust. Trust in God isn't simply about agreeing with what God says and doing as instructed. It is about continuing to have faith in His character, that He is indeed good, loving and faithful, even when the things we perceive in the world are contrary to this; and we display this trust with our action, by continuing to do what is right and what is pleasing to Him despite the conflict we may feel within ourselves. Jesus tells us to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. As Christians who pledge complete allegiance to God, this must be our first priority.


3. Matters of Indifference


"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet." Matt 5:13 (ESV)


To the third Christian, indifference or fear is probably the main driver behind his behaviour. It could be that he does not feel adequate enough to speak about the topic. Perhaps he is confused about how he really feels about it. Or maybe he fears disapproval from others should he be vocal about his views against the repeal.

Jesus calls us the salt of the earth and the light of the world. He refers to us as 'salt of the earth' (representing goodness, the noblest elements in society) and 'light of the world' (representing radiance of the light of Jesus). This means one simple prospect: Should we wish to do His will and tend to God's flock of people, then we must first embody the principles of kingdom living, and become what others are to become. 

However, by sitting on the fence or remaining silent, this Christian really achieves nothing other than his own interests. There is neither an embodiment of the gospel nor a love for people. Such faith is powerless: the one who speaks out boldly may receive disagreement in opinion from his opponent but will certainly garner respect for staying true to his convictions and standing for them; but the one who proclaims to be an agent of truth but is barely compelled to speak or act wins neither the argument nor the respect from his opponents.

Jesus addresses this in The Beatitudes: For those who are met with confrontation and speak gently against it, "they shall inherit the earth" (Matt 5:5). For the those who are longing for righteousness, "they shall be satisfied" (Matt 5:6). For those who show mercy, "they shall receive mercy" (Matt 5:7). For those who strive for peace, "they shall be called sons of God" (Matt 5:9). For those who persecuted in their pursuit of righteousness, "theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:10). The persecution or afflictions that we bear are meant to be symbol of our citizenship in the kingdom of heaven, and calls for our rejoicing.


4. Matters of Perfection


"You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5: 48 (ESV)

It is surprising to hear how most people loathe the idea of perfection, writing it off as an impossible standard, and therefore an unrealistic conquest for the modern Christian. The mistake lies in our faulty understanding of what perfection is. If perfection was about living a life void of mistakes (i.e. the life that Jesus lived), then our sinful nature would surely make that an unreachable goal. 

But Jesus was not mistaken about what he said. He does call each of us to live perfectly. Allow me to suggest that what he was pointing out here was a life separate from the way the Gentiles live their lives. Jesus establishes that we are to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us, for even the Gentiles are capable of loving only their own, but we are to love those who may be our enemies as well. That is the defining quality that Jesus refers to: the capacity to love those who hate us. If we are to further distill this piece of knowledge, then we might suggest that this capacity exists solely in the life of one who loves God, for the godless are incapable of loving their enemies. 

The fundamental implication here is that the love for God should precede all that we do in our lives. This is perfection.

In the context of this discourse on section 377A, there is much to be said. However, unless people know how much we care, they will not care for how much we know. Let us reach out to our opponents, careful to uphold truth and love, and embodying the very gospel which we speak of - we may not always win on the frontier of the battle, but we will certainly become fishers of men.


Cheers,
Matt

The Death of Reason: The Result of My Letter & Conversation with the University

Hi all,

This is a retrospective post made in reference to the latest writing of mine: "My Letter to the University regarding teachings on Evolutionary Science." 

(Found here: https://amusingfollower.blogspot.sg/2017/09/my-letter-to-university-regarding.html)

I'm sure there are some who are interested to hear about the discourse that followed my email to the GEQ department, but first, here is some much-needed context regarding said letter:

1. Contrary to its appearance, the letter was not a writing to defend 'creation science' or 'intelligent design' but rather an appeal to consistency of reasoning. Simply put, I'm calling for fair analysis on both ends and in that endeavor, it was necessary for me to crack down on the seemingly iron-clad authority that evolution clings on to so tightly.

2. The module was one on questioning, or rather, asking questions. Considering that the segment I have referenced to was one on science, more specifically, physics, it was necessary for me to highlight that the portions on worldviews and faith (singling out one at that) was something uncalled for in such a curriculum. 

3. There are more unseen things at stake - the compulsory nature of the module as well as the tendency for students (not all but numbers substantial enough) to take information wholesale. It was worrying to note that information represented in the curriculum readings were not only clumsily cobbled but were also inadequately critiqued, curated, and lacking in disclaimers.

4. Independent of the points above, I will have to acknowledge, in retrospect, that the letter I had written, though well-intended, lacked poise and tastefulness. There wasn't much room for anyone reading it (and probably its intended audience) to disagree or adopt alternative points of view. I should clarify that it was a mistake on my part and anyone who had read that should also be wary not to take what I'd written as absolute either. Again, back to point (1), this was not a letter of defense or attack but rather a letter of concerns in academic rigor. 

Now that that's clear, I'll spend some time sharing the gist of the discourse that transpired (strictly discourse, no thoughts), and then the thoughts, momentary and reflective, that followed.

So what happened?

Well, I received a prompt response from the Physics segment coordinator (Let's call him C) inviting me to his office for a dialogue. 

I looked for him at his office in the Department of Physics, armed with 2 cans of coffee and a readiness for a level-headed discussion. C was a soft spoken man who looked like he was in his late 50's. We had a good discussion. In fact, it was a light-hearted one, with moments of laughter and commiserating with one another, and we had good space to politely share each of our sides of the argument or concerns. Overall, a peaceful and civilized dialogue in my opinion.

Some context needs to be established before I go into anymore details:

1. For the bulk of the conversation, I felt that he had the impression that I was "another student whose faith had been rattled by the curriculum (common for students in sciences) and had come to fervently defend it, or argue for creationism." For me, this seemed to be the greatest factor for the direction of our discussion, and though I had made attempts to correct that on several instances, it remained a barrier in the discussion. 

2. To be transparent, the discussion often weaved in and out of science, and between worldviews and faith as well. Yes, apparently, C and I shared the same faith (though not determining of the content of this discourse but certainly helpful in establishing common ground and experiential relevance).

What was the outcome of the discussion?

We had both established common grounds in the following areas:

1. Science does not prescribe truth, nor is it capable of making truth claims.

2. Scientific theories in particular don't tell us anything about the truth of the world - they are paradigms: possible ways of thinking in a given setting and point in time, and are subjected to changes as we develop and learn more.

3. Science and faith are not diametrically opposed. They can be aligned fittingly. (As to exactly how this is true is where we would differ.)

However, we disagreed on the following areas:

1. The necessity to point out the faulty reasoning that evolution science (i.e. evolutionary biology and cosmology) is scientific on the premise that it is "deeply interwoven in the fabric of science", a premise that can be easily dis-confirmed.

C's justification was that most of the information presented on his set of slides were taken from the AAPT statements directly (which was the reference that his team somehow decided to use solely). His point of view was that there was no need to take an issue with this on the grounds that at the end of the day, scientific theories are only just theories and that paradigms may change over time.

I, however, wasn't quite convinced of this and I felt that there was still a need to, at the very least, scrutinise such statements rigorously and call out faulty reasoning if observed. My suggestion on a disclaimer was briefly mentioned, though not thoroughly emphasised and was therefore, unintentionally dismissed by C.

2. The personal acceptance of a practitioner of pseudoscience despite its implications.

C affirmed that while creation science may be deemed as pseudoscience, he also affirmed that he was a proud practitioner of pseudoscience, and that it was something that people of faith are encouraged to do as well. This was the fundamental factor that I felt was the irreconcilable piece of our discussion. When asked (by me) how he would feel if he was deemed as 'unscientific' by the scientific community for his beliefs in pseudoscience, his response was a cheerful "it's alright."

Although I can't say that I agree fully with that line of thought, it gave me a huge deal of respect for the guy. As a professor, he was willing to be (unfairly) persecuted for his faith in the realm of academia and there really wasn't anything that could compel him otherwise.

However, I maintained the view that while that is something C may personally be able to accept without qualms, it could be disastrous in other circumstances. For instance, in some parts of the U.S., it is entirely possible to have your certification of Masters of Ph.D denied for simply having a creationist worldview. This stems from the heinous, underlying thought that evolution (as a worldview) is the only scientific worldview that is congruent with the scientific data and thus anyone who denies it as a worldview cannot be considered a scientist. I find this to be a travesty and an atrocity to the integrity of science.

My view is this: while by definition 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' are considered as pseudosciences, simply taking the lower rational ground and taking the persecution, though noble, is not a fair evaluation of pseudosciences where worldviews are concerned. This really goes back to point (1) where a rigorous analysis of evolution as a science will reveal quickly how much of a pseudoscience it really is. For the layman who subscribes to creationism (regardless of specific faith), it can be disconcerting to be told that his view is blind in comparison to the evolutionary line of thought when in fact this is not actually true.

However, this 'meekness' of C, as a scientific authority, was one to be desired (which I will speak of more in my thought segment)

3. The possibility of finding out, or coming near, to the truth about the universe. 

When posed the question on whether it was possible to reach a likely answer for the truth of the universe (regardless of field or discipline), C was quick to declare very rightly that scientific theories will never proclaim an absolute truth. However, he made a mention that with the advent of quantum and its implications on complexity of observation and scientific methodology, it was not possible to grasp the concept of truth, or reality for that matter. In this, he cited another scientist (I could not remember the name mentioned) that the truth is "too immense" for us to grasp.

To him, truth would then be virtues such as love, something that I agree with profoundly as well by the end of the session (which I will also elaborate more in a moment). 

At this juncture, what made me a little concerned about his ingenuousness in addressing this point was that at another instance, he commented on empirical data being the truth: In a comparison between theory and data, with data being truth since it is not something that can be changed; however, theories can change over time. Following this, he alluded to the evolutionary theory being a plausible truth with claims that apologetic giants such as C.S Lewis and Ravi Zacharias had some line of evolutionary thought (this could not be dis-confirmed by me at the time due to my lack of knowledge on this issue, but having some background information now, I might opine that C's interpretation on the stances of these men might have been inaccurate, or at the very least, his understanding differs from what these men have implied.)

Since he was familiar with Ravi Zacharias, I used a framework frequently used by the RZIM to convey my perspective: Truth, by definition is exclusive, and there can be only one truth. While you can have various perspectives of the truth, fact remains that you can have only one truth. So any worldview that engages with the truth will have to be subjected to two broad categories of evaluation, namely correspondence (whether the view is in agreement with reality) and coherence (whether the view as a whole makes sense and is not contradictory). These can be verified by three tests: logical consistency, empirical adequacy (which may be where science potentially comes in as well), and experiential relevance. And doing so will answer four key questions that ought to be addressed by any worldview: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. With that, we employ five disciplines to aid us: God, Knowledge, Reality, Morality, Man. Theology deals with God, epistemology deals with knowledge, metaphysics deals with reality, ethics deals with morality, and anthropology deals with man. This framework (which obviously is not exclusive to the realm of science) provides a reasonable guide for how one might works towards the truth.

I don't disagree that the truth is too immense for us, as C mentioned. However, I believe that it is our responsibility to grasp the truth to the best measure of our capabilities (as infallible human beings). It's the same as the concept of pure goodness. The knowledge that one can never be purely good should not undermine the attempts to pursue that goodness. Likewise, even though we know logically that we can never fully know the truth (otherwise, we'd be God himself), this should not by any means deter us from that pursuit. 

C had also hinted at the evolutionary line of thought when he mentioned that some scientists well-versed in the field (no names were mentioned) had certain 'revealing discoveries' on this debacle regarding creation and evolution. According to C, when he asked these scientists for why they weren't informing the churches on their findings, he was given the answer that "the churches aren't ready for it." 

I didn't quite buy this point, however. I think its fair to doubt the authenticity of said findings when the intentions aren't explicitly clear - to withhold crucial information on matters that may deal with the truth on the pretext that "the churches aren't ready for it" may be fairly treated as dubious or even malicious. I don't know that for a fact, but judging from the way it is conveyed and what was severely lacking in its substantiation, I'm not convinced of that at the current juncture. 

I would also like to highlight that evolution, defined by the evolutionist, is a materialistic worldview that is completely natural (i.e. no God, no superior being). So if I'm being told that Christian apologists and scientists have this line of thinking, then either they are lying about their worldview or the one who tells me the above is lying to me. That's all I have to comment in this portion.

Reflective Afterthoughts

It's been a long post so far, and I doubt you'd be interested to read this portion since you already know the conclusions of the discussion. However, I'd like to stress that this next part is probably the most important part (for me at least). This part of the discussion deals more with the faith aspect, different from the above discussion.

Meekness in adversity 

C made a lasting impression when I found that he was willing to be persecuted for his faith in the realm of academia, especially where science and touchy topics such as worldviews and truth are concerned. It was his faith that gave him such meekness. He professed that he was very much in touch with apologetics in his younger days but at this age, he found less of a need to have to speak out at every slighting comment on his faith. After all, he didn't need science to prove his faith, nor does God need defending from us humans. It was astonishing, the level of criticism he was willing to take (though I feel there's a time and place for a defense position to be made) and this was definitely a much needed learning point for me personally.

The undeniable, universal truth is love

A verse that was aptly quoted by C in our conversation:

"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." (1 Cor 13:8)

Conveying the truth, whether in our lives or in academic disciplines, is definitely important. However, it should never be a substitute for love, which is the ultimate truth. When all reason fails, only love will stand; only love will speak, and only love will prevail. This is the reason for the title of this piece, "The Death of Reason". Science, along with its theories and data, and Philosophy, and all other fields of study, can only get you so far; and yet they don't stand the test of time and universality. 

David Berlinski, an agnostic scientist, wrote in his book, "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions":

“No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. A man asking why his days are short and full of suffering is not disposed to turn to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer. The answers that prominent scientific figures have offered are remarkable in their shallowness.”

At the end of the day, science, as with all other knowledge, tells us very little about how to live life, how to love, how to conduct ourselves, how to care for one another, how to embrace our weaknesses, how to abandon the self and pride, etc. Love stands on its own, that's the power of love that we have been equipped with by the supreme one. Love is the ultimate argument against all entities.

I must say, in this regard, C's digression into the topic of love from science was a pivotal one. It has helped me understand this: The greatest argument (non-verbal) to a truly god-less world as scientific atheism or evolution purports is that, if its premises are true, then there is no moral imperative for human beings - no sense or place for any morality at all and that includes love. However, the existence of love is a powerful counter-argument for that conclusion and let anyone who delivers this argument do so in the essence of the argument itself - to love the one who disagrees, not to disparage his opponent's thinking but because it is in complete accordance with the will of the one so heavily touted in this worldview of a supreme, loving God.

Our role in defending our faith

Something I only realised towards the end of this episode is that the manner in which we defend our faith is just as crucial, if not more, than what we say to defend it. The above portion makes clear of this truth.

But I implore you, dear reader, not to make the fatal connection as well that love is not making a stand if it is at the risk of offending others. A.W. Tozer says: "I claim the holy right to disappoint men in order to avoid disappointing God." It is crucial for us to stand firm and profess what we believe in, and we need to recognize that there will be risks of offending others. This is where discernment comes in - we do so at the risk of offending, not with the intent of offending. It is something that you and I could both learn as we go, but we must take the decisive action first to stand firm for what we believe in. Someone else may disagree with your opinion but your positional integrity and levelheadedness, that is what will garner you their respect and even win them over.

Thank you for reading up to this point. It is my sincere hope that my experience have benefited you or spoken to you in a positive manner. Otherwise, you have my honest apologies.

God Bless,

Matt

My Letter to the University regarding teachings on Evolutionary Science

Unfiltered:

Hello sirs,

My name is Matthew and I am a Year 2 Industrial Design student who's currently taking the GEQ1000 module at the moment. 

Firstly, I'd like to thank you and your team for the work and effort that has gone into running a module that can be a challenging one to teach. I believe many of the students who go through this course will find themselves more thoroughly equipped with the skills of critical thinking, questioning and analysis.

My purpose of writing this email is to raise a concern regarding the recent physics readings. I am drawing reference in particular to phy-2-3: reverse questioning and pseudoscience. I apologize in advance for the length letter ahead, and also for my tone at times (which I am using to illustrate a point with fervor).

In pages 10 to 13, you have included the statement adopted by the AAPT, 2005 with no clarification provided. This statement purports that 'biological and cosmological evolution are theories strongly supported' and are therefore considered scientific whereas theories such as creation science and intelligent design are considered 'unscientific' or pseudoscience. It further pushes the boundaries by asserting that "teachings against evolution" cannot be endorsed, nor can the teaching of scientific creationism or intelligent design be endorsed.

It has to be called out that such a statement is a clear double standard and runs completely inconsistent with all the teachings in the initial documents of the physics segment (and philosophy, for that matter). Here is a compelling reasoning:

You have considered Creation Science (CS) and Intelligent Design (ID) as 'pseudoscience' on the premises of (1) the desired conclusion has been assumed , (2) it seeks evidence that supports the conclusion and ignores evidence and arguments to the contrary. Fair enough. However, do you not realize how Evolutionary Science (ES) crumbles to join the 'pseudoscience' gang as well when placed under the same scrutiny? 

Here's why:

(1) Evolution Science assumes the conclusion that all complex life develops from simple fragments or parts over the course of time and chance. It also assumes the conclusion that the origin of life can be explained atheistic-ally. 

Anyone with critical-thinking ability and access to information can quickly find out the roots of evolutionary science. "Evolutionary scientists" (at least that is what they call themselves) carry an agenda of explaining away the possibility of God/a supreme being, and thus utilized Darwin's postulates to their own advantage. Not only do they not have the decency to be transparent about their own biases and assumed conclusions, they pass of Darwin's observations on natural selection as sheer proof of evolution (even though this has been strongly debated to NOT be the case). However, because of these historical attempts of passing off ES as legitimate science, many have come to believe that ES holds true, even though the scientific community has NEVER ever reached a consensus of said theory.

(2) Evolution Science is guilty of seeking evidence to support its conclusions and ignoring the contrary.

There are many problems with ES, which have been unscrupulously shoved aside or explained unsatisfactorily. If this requires substantiation, I am happy to do so. ES has casually explained away:

A. Its contradiction to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (one of the best proven laws in physics)

B. The complete lack of redundancies of 'evolutionary parts' when observing the fossil record

C. The lack of a propagating mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection is an extremely weak argument for evolution, and interestingly, is a stronger support for CS)

D. The incredibly low likelihood of mutation as a mechanism for genetic variation (that is capable of bringing about sustainable evolution)

E. Problems with the geological timescale

F. The problem with the self-assembly of DNA and protein synthesis (Based on Miller's [failed] spark chamber experiment, the 'primordial soup' theory is more likely to bring about death than life)

G. A philosophical argument here: the existence of consciousness and rationalism (There are 2 necessary conditions for us to be capable of understanding the world around us empirically: The first being that the world is rational and logical, and the next being that our minds function rationally as well to comprehend this world. If we claim that this world and our minds have been developed through an irrational, unguided process, then how can we even dare to trust that the reasoning and logic from our minds is sound?)

H: A moral argument here: If ES is the dominant reality, then it would be acceptable (more than acceptable, it would be encouraged) that we eliminate people we perceive as threats to us and that we ought to go about copulating as much as we can for the survival of our genes. If anyone disagrees, then they have failed to keep a worldview consistent with the prevailing reality.

I: Discovered living tissue in dinosaur fossils

J: The problem with the Cambrian explosion

K: The problem with 'trilobite tracks'

L: The problem with a common ancestor: the study of homology strongly disagrees with ES

M: Here's a truly scientific one: The scientific method relies on observations and repeated testing. Newsflash: Evolution is NEITHER observable nor repeatable. 

You see my point, I could add in dozens more problems to this list that ES has ignored and cannot explain in a scientific manner. To assert that ES is 'scientific' and therefore should be taught, while CS and ID should not be taught, is a clear double standard - it is skewed reasoning and sheer hypocrisy. At best, Evolutionary Science is equally as 'scientific' or equally as 'unscientific' as CS or ID. There is no reasonable basis to put ES on a pedestal.

But I am not done. 

The slides claim (I quote) that "to deny children exposure to the evidence in support of biological and cosmological evolution is akin to allowing them to believe that atoms do not exist or that the Sun goes around the Earth." Of all places, the last place I'd expect to see a fallacy of such an order is in a class on questioning. How are the two parts of this equation the same? The former is a theory whereas the latter are facts. Granted, it may be a statement by the American Association of Physics Teachers, but should we not, as educators, carry the responsibility of pointing out faulty reasoning? A word of discretion is still better than stark silence.

And the statement continues on to express how they cannot condone the teaching of CS and ID as valid scientific theories. Considering that ES is equally as unscientific as these theories, should we not do ourselves a favour and teach them all? And let the young (and old) minds of our generation exercise their mental faculties and make their own judgments? Why is one taught over the other when both are equally unscientific? If CS and ID are so invalid as scientific theories as the institution paints them out to be, then what is the fear of teaching it? What are educators afraid of? If they are truly invalid, then the rigor of questioning will tear those theories down naturally. Yet, it seems that the institution (which may include NUS) seems to hold back on doing so, almost seemingly with a hidden agenda. To argue otherwise would lead to the conclusion that the university, then, is faulty in its reasoning as a whole. In the worst case scenario (that's not far from the reality), the education system, then, is a complete flop.

One more thing.

The slides say: "science has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God because it studies only natural processes, not supernatural processes." I can't stress how misguided this statement is - it shows a complete lack of understanding about the implications of the existence or nonexistence of God, or a supreme being for that matter.

Here's why: Suppose the premise that God exists is true. This will mean that all creation, including nature itself, is brought about by God. Will not the natural processes reveal the originator of the universe? If an artist creates a painting, will not the strokes, style, textures, inspiration, etc. reflect the identity of the true artist behind it? It is completely absurd to think that we can only be informed about God because He is supernatural by definition. By definition, He is the one who defines nature should He exist. The problem with the statement in the slides is that it creates a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural, without realizing that the immediate implication of the existence of God is that His authorship will also be imprinted in nature. 

If one would like to clarify the above statement to say that the term 'science' in this case refers to the scientific method, then one could also proceed to reason that the study of 'historical science' (a field of science that is more suited to study historical events , origins and things of the past) likewise deals with natural elements as well. It studies fossils, Homology, molecular biology, archaeology - all to do with natural processes! It is the scientific method (empiricism) that is the hindrance to the understanding of the possibility of God, not science itself!

For the record, the last few slides on "well-known scientists who also believe in God" are not any consolation and seems strategically placed there to avoid the dissent of students who may hold on firmly to faith and the belief in God. This worldview argues firmly for the existence of creation, not evolution. Yet, in all the slides, evolution science has been the only worldview to be implied as scientific. Therefore, what you are essentially saying (though not explicitly) is that these scientists would have considered ES as scientific, and CS as unscientific, and that their scientific views actually oppose the fundamental worldview that they hold. That is a slap to the face of science, not an encouragement to students who believe in God (as may have hoped). 

I believe I have expressed sufficiently what I needed to. Again, I do apologize if any of the things mentioned undermines the Q team's efforts to bring about rigor in the questioning of our students' minds. However, I sincerely hope that there can be some sort of clarification or response as to why were these information presented in the way they were, and why was there a lack of discretion in doing so.

Once again, I thank you sirs and the Qteam for your tremendous efforts in this module. I am interested in hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely,

Matthew 

Year 2 Industrial Design