Technically, our Archdiocese defines “youth” as falling within the margins of ages 19 and 35, so I am extremely concerned for the development of our young falling within this category.

At the same time, there is also a host of young people preceding this age group in the catechetical classes. And most often, there is hardly a sense of continuity in their ecclesial life once the post-confirmation classes end. This is why we see many of them embodying a sense of “disconnectedness” with the Church once that catechetical phase is over, and some even dropping out of the Church all together.

To begin with, what do I not intend to do – I do not intend to develop a youth ministry that attempts to mimic other youth ministries which may seem very actively engaged in what they call “youth culture” and attracting crowds of young people.

In the understanding of the Church, the Church itself is a culture, over and beyond any other cultures present in our world. Whilst the two dimensions interact with each other in differing degrees and intensity, there are certain aspects of our Church culture which must be cultivated into the “spiritual DNA” of our young people.

In saying this, I am particularly referring to the liturgical life of the Church.

The liturgy is the greatest act of the Church. I desire to see the young people finding themselves so much a part of the liturgical life of the community that it becomes the nucleus of their life journey for the rest of their spiritual pilgrimage on earth.

I am hoping that we can work towards seeing them so assimilated into the liturgical life of the Church by the time of their confirmation that they would no longer see the termination of their catechetical classes as an “end”, but rather, the beginning of a vibrant life with the wider parish community in service to God and neighbour.

The Eucharist is mission; just as the Body of our Lord is given to us for our nourishment, there is also subsequently the sending out so that we too – like broken bread – might be sent out to be the sacramental presence of Christ in the world. I desire that this be a way of life for the youth of our Church.

If we can somehow journey with them towards this understanding and way of life, perhaps issues of being like other more “influential” youth ministries would not be of great concern. To this end, as far as concerns the young people, my goal is to cultivate a community of youth which knows its identity, each individual knowing who he/she is in the Christ who gave the Apostle Peter the mandate for the establishment of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

--- End of Interview ---

What is more worrying to me is how a number of Catholics are taking on certain characteristics of these new forms of Protestant communities, wanting to mimic the way they worship and the way they regulate their ecclesial life. It is starkly a problem of deficient understanding pertaining to their own Catholic identity.

The liturgical life of the church is the nucleus of our Christian life, and we must be unmistakably clear about that. Nothing should erode the central feature of the liturgy and the Eucharist as the source and summit of our life and mission as a people of God. It is when we have forgotten this gift of God to us that we begin to seek other seemingly fascinating replacements to bring “excitement” and “meaning” back into our ecclesial life all in the name of relevance. It is deeply saddening and a grave cause for concern.

One important requisite of our ecumenical effort is that of standing firm in our Catholic identity. Any attempt to erode our Catholic identity for the sake of unity would merely lead to a false union. An authentic union is possible only when there is a true agreement of our code, creed, and cult. One thing we must never pander to is upholding unity at the expense of truth.

Further to that, I believe that true ecumenism finds its richness only when various partners enter into a conversation being able to freely embody their unique identities without having to suppress or erode them, and still being able to call one another “friends”.

Undoubtedly, the Orthodox Church is a possible alternative to my Protestant faith rather than the Catholic Church. I do not deny that this was one of the alternatives that presented itself before me, given that I do have a fascination with Eastern theology.

However, I had three reasons for choosing to become Catholic:

i) my thorough belief in the doctrine of original sin as taught by St Augustine, which is absent in Eastern theology;

ii) my thorough belief in the primacy of the Petrine ministry exercised by the Catholic Church; and

iii) my deep agreement with the catholicity / universality of the Catholic Church as opposed to the ethnic-specific configuration of the Orthodox Churches with which I could not identify.

3. There are so many denominational churches today in Malaysia (and more are forming). Would you comment on this growing trend to “form a new church”? While we strive towards ecumenical closeness, there is a lot more ground to cover with this mushrooming.

The Protestant communities consist of some 40,000 denominations worldwide and continue to grow in that direction. One major development in these Reformation-based communities in the recent decades is the swift emergence of independent congregations which do not place themselves under the leadership of any denominational structure. They often see the historical denominations as a thing of the past, whereas the Holy Spirit is developing a “new wineskin” now in the form of independent ecclesial communities.

It is true that the growth of these newer forms of Christian communities poses a greater challenge to the ecumenical priority of the Catholic Church. But to begin with, the current ethos of Protestantism itself already makes the ecumenical priority difficult enough.

To cite a case in point, the Catholic Church reached a consensus in 1999 with the Lutheran World Federation on the doctrine of Justification by Faith. To be sure, this consensus represented an agreement on the part of the Catholic Church. But how binding was it upon all the Lutheran denominations around the globe? There was not an embrace of that consensus in unison as far as concerns the Lutheran denominations, let alone on the part of other denominations which are offshoots of Lutheran Protestantism.

What I am saying is, this is not a new problem; it is an intensification of an old problem.

My blogposts are so far and few now huh? It's not that I've run short of ideas on things to post about. I've just been kept really busy. It's unlikely to be different anytime soon.

I was most recently interviewed by a Catholic journalist on my reception into the Catholic Church together with several other concerns. I will post up my answers to the interview in a series of several short posts.

1. What attracted you to the Catholic Church? What may have prompted you to make this move?

In the course of my scholarly labours as a theological student and researcher, I gradually developed a conviction (especially through my study of the Church Fathers) that the Catholic Church is the Church most fully and rightly ordered through time. When I was sent to the Vatican for a meeting in January 2005, three months prior to the passing on of the Holy Father John Paul II, that conviction was further impressed and ratified in my conscience.

Of course, another aspect of the Catholic Church that attracted me was the liturgy as the source and summit of the Christian life. I had prior to that been increasingly journeying towards a more liturgical and sacramental understanding of Christian spirituality.

At some point, I found it extremely painful and difficult to remain a Protestant whilst still trying to be “catholic” (without having to be Catholic). It is hard to be sacramental in an environment that does not promote the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, as the source and summit of the Christian journey.

Of course, subsequently, the issue of the validity of the Holy Orders of other forms of ecclesial Christianity (and by extension, the sacraments) also became a disturbing struggle for me.

2. How have the responses been from people who know you?

My friends and acquaintances have exhibited various types of responses and in varying degrees. Those who have never been open to the Catholic Christians as fellow brethren consequently held that I had lost my Christian faith (I had apostatised). After all, to certain segments of Protestantism, the Catholic Church is the “Harlot of Babylon”.

Those who were open to the Catholic Church as being Christian held that I had “changed my denomination”, so it was no big deal to them. But when I refrained from participating in the Holy Communion whilst being in their company, that invoked some response too.

Of course, in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church, we are no denomination! With humility but unwavering conviction, we hold ourselves to be the Church most rightly and fully ordered through time, this being a fact we hardly need to defend because it just is.

Charismatic: Only 1
Hands are already in the air.

Pentecostal: 10
One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Presbyterians: None
Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

Roman Catholic: None
Candles only.

Eastern Orthodox: 1
As long as it's done the accurate way, and you stand facing the right direction while doing it. And once you're done, remember to kiss the light bulb before you leave.

Baptists: At least 15
One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad and fried chicken.

Episcopalians / Anglicans: 3
One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks and one to talk about how much better the old one was.

Mormons: 5
One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Unitarians :
We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, you are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Methodists: Undetermined
Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved. You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Bring a bulb of your choice to the Sunday lighting service and a covered dish to pass.

Nazarene: 6
One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

Lutherans: None
Lutherans don't believe in change.

Amish:
What's a light bulb?

My imaginary friend has everything I don't - public recognition, external affirmation, positive strokes (well, we never have enough of these anyway). He is thus assured of his worth.

I must tell you, I don't like him. But since it was my day of rest, I decided to entertain him for a bit. Just to see what he might say to put me down. (You see why I don't like him.)

He spent hours on end telling me how successful he is in life, how he has become everything I'm not. And he told me how I'll never be like him, that my life is a dead end being where I am now.

Out of courtesy, I listened painfully to the thousand and one things he had to say. I felt myself shrinking as the minutes passed.

But finally, it was my turn to say something, so I answered:

Everything you are now, you will lose someday. Everything you have become, you won't be anymore someday. You'll be forgotten, you'll be ignored, you'll be unappreciated.

The only difference between you and me is that I never had it to lose, so I'll never have to cling on to what I don't have to lose.

And whatever has happened to me will happen to you someday, except that it has happened earlier to me. That way, I have a longer time in life to work it out and die being comfortable with myself.

Something in me wonders if he's really imaginary.

Even for some of us who come from very liturgical traditions, we are taken in by the glory and the glitter of other non-liturgical traditions that model themselves after giant corporations through almost perfect concoctions of psychological theories, management skills, and marketing strategies. The way some of these liturgical traditions are aping the other "happening" Christian groups is unmistakable.

The Church as become a capitalistic marketplace, creating its niche and competitive advantage in order to create a demand for itself.

For all those times that Jesus withdrew from the crowds and all those times that He revealed His glory only to a very selected audience, we are reminded that the Christian life is not about the glory and the glitter. It is about the richness of the hidden inner self, which needs to be cultivated in secret and away from public eye.

We are challenged to withhold our "capabilities" from being exposed for self glory. We are called to understand the difference - the very subtle difference - between witnessing and showing off.

Jesus bids the Christian to come and cultivate the hidden inner life which can happen only in secret, that through our hidden inner lives, His true glory and the glitter of the Kingdom might be revealed as a reality bigger than ourselves. May the witness of the Spirit within us forbid that we might somehow be mistaken that we are the ones who have been responsible for the magnificent manifestation of the Kingdom of God in this world. For really, we are nothing.

Check it out here.

A monk is a man who has freed his intellect from attachment to material things and by means of self-control, love, psalmody and prayer cleaves to God.

He who has renounced such things as marriage, possessions and other worldly pursuits is outwardly a monk, but may not yet be a monk inwardly. Only he who has renounced the impassioned conceptual images of these things has made a monk of the inner self, the nous.

It is easy to be a monk in one's outer self if one wants to be; but no small struggle is required to be a monk in one's inner self.

St Maximos the Confessor

I'm at the very tailend of my doctoral studies now. I'll be submitting my dissertation for assessment this weekend. My parish priest asked me last night (because I've been ranting and lamenting to him), "Hey, are you struggling with the finality of it all, because it feels too final and terminal?" By golly, he's right.

He does not have a wealthy background, never had an opportunity to attend college, has a very meek demeanor that makes him a subject of oppression in the workplace, and has financial commitments to ensure his family is secure (but which hinder him from pursuing formal programmes for self-development). Most others would have given up by now.

But one thing sets him apart from many others like him – he knows he’s good, and he wants to be even better. He has never given up on what sometimes seemed like futile attempts to further develop himself and reach for his fullest potential in life. If you watched him consistently, you’d see the fingerprints of determination, relentlessness, and devotion all over his life.

He works in an ordinary place, but performs extraordinarily. He does things which others would not normally do, because these things are beyond the specifications of their jobs. But he does them because he knows these are marks of vocational excellence. He’ll most probably not get a promotion for doing these things – in fact, he has never had a promotion before because he does not have a university degree – but he does them because he is committed to personal excellence and the good of others.

For every one such person I meet, I come across many others who are just so easily beaten down, who suffer from justificationitis, who have thousands of excuses for why they cannot make it in life. They either have no time, or are weak in languages, or are from less developed countries and never had opportunities for good education, or don’t have the money, or don’t have the intelligence. There’s always a valid reason to not excel.

When a person is not committed to excellence, he hasn’t just shortchanged himself; he has shortchanged his neighbour as well. His excellence would’ve otherwise been a blessing to someone else. But in wasting time, in giving up, in relenting, in compromising, he has failed to optimise his potentials which would have otherwise served humanity for a better cause. Of this charge, he has no excuse.

This person I know has not yet “made it in life”, if you need to know. But so what – he’s being the best he can be. And he has inspired me deeply. And he deserves to be called excellent. Because he is.

I read the headlines this morning with an incredulous stare of disbelief. The entire nation is being driven nearer and nearer towards poverty, and you're talking about decreasing the entertainment allowance and the paid holidays of your ministers! You've got to be kidding, really.

Who pays for our holidays? And who sponsors our entertainment?

Eradicate all these entertainment allowances and paid holidays totally, then maybe you can keep the prices of petrol at an affordable rate for those of us who need petrol to actually get to work.

Sounds all right, no?

But then, he goes on to say, "All are the same god. We just have different names for that one god, and we worship him in different ways". At this point, I see red flags waving all over my inter-religious dialogical sensibilities.

To insist that everyone's god is the same and that this god is just named differently and that we worship him differently is as ethnocentric and obstinate an insistence as that of the one who claims that his god is the only true god. Here are my two reasons why:

1. If all our gods were the same god, there wouldn't be a need for dialogue. Most pluralists I have met before seem to forget that part of an inter-religious dialogue is that of acknowledging that we are different, and that it is all right to be different in our convictions. Even if we wanted to rest purely on our commonalities, one main thing we have in common is that we have differences in our convictions! So for a dialogue partner to state his claim that all rivers flow into the same sea, and then to insist that everyone else has to embrace the same claim in order to bring about religious harmony, is as bad as someone who says he is Christian and thinks that everyone else should be Christian in exactly the same way that he is.

2. Not everyone in an inter-religious dialogue believes in a god! I know of at least one religion, in every inter-religious dialogue that I attend, which does not subscribe to the existence of an Almighty God. That religion speaks of itself as a way of life, a philosophy, a search to end human suffering by transcending beyond one's self, not of a god who brings salvation to his people. How dare anyone insist that everyone's god is the same to the exclusion of the religion that doesn't even subscribe to a godhead. What audacity to exercise such conceited ethnocentrism.

All rivers do not flow into the same sea. We are of different religions with different ways of articulating our understanding of the divine. And each religion, by its sheer nature, is exclusive in its claims to understanding the right path towards the divine. Whilst we each disagree with one another, that's okay; we can still honour one another's search for truth and purity. That's real dialogue.