I am a dragon according to the Chinese zodiac. It means at the mark of this new year, I have lived through three full cycles of the twelve zodiac animals and I am 36 years old. Of course, my family doesn't really believe in the superstitious dictates of the Chinese zodiac signs. But offspring of the dragon zodiac are generally perceived by the Chinese community to have very good standing in life, because the dragon is often seen to be tenacious, determined, hardworking, confident, intelligent, and therefore successful.

However, having grown up in an Evangelical Protestant background, the dragon was often seen in negative light because in the book of Revelation it represented the devil himself. My grandfather gave me a Chinese name that had the character of the dragon in it (龍), written in the traditional script at that because the word in its traditional form looked more ferocious. Because of this, my pastors often suggested to my mother and me to change my Chinese name so that it wouldn't be so "evil".

Here I am 36 years on, now a Catholic (therefore being surrounded by people who're more friendly to the character of the dragon). I doubt I've done anything significant damage to the world by being a dragon kid. At least not yet.

Situations in life often cause people to expect either extreme positives or extreme negatives to stem forth from what they perceive us to be. But within each of us is an immense capacity for both good and bad, and I think I have been equally responsible for both the good and the bad that have come from my life. However, ultimately it is one's choice to decide if one will be more good than bad, more positive than negative, and more holy than sinful. We are neither really helped not aversely bound by the perceived power of any zodiac sign.

So for the rest of this year until the next new year, here's wishing you a year of correct choices and wise directions so that you may grow in stature and wisdom. May the favour of the Lord be upon you and all you hold dear.

I suppose it is natural that for many people sustained reflections often dwell on what they have achieved throughout the year, how much they have attained, how productive they have been. I know for a fact that I've been very productive this year and I've achieved - with the help of a number of others around me - significant milestones this year. Performance has seldom been my challenge in life. I know what I do well, and I do it well.

But a challenge remains for me to stab my internal inquiries deeper into the recesses of my heart and mind, to ask the truly pertinent question with regards to being. Therefore, I'm obligated to ask myself not "What have I done this year?" but "Who have I been this year?" I know just what I've said to the many people I've spoken to and taught throughout the year; but just who have I been to them, for them?

I have travelled to many places, met probably thousands of new faces I cannot remember (and which, often to my great embarassment, remember me). Done much and spoken much I have. In a sense, I had no choice - my work required that of me. My lectures and talks and writings wouldn't have done much to affect life directions if I have not been the presence of Christ to those who listened, acting for them in the person of Christ (in persona Christi).

But I know I can be quite deficient that way, given that I'm highly introverted and rather afraid of and easily worn out by crowds (a secret of mine that few know about). I neither enjoy travelling nor new environments. I love people a lot but find it difficult sustaining my mental/emotional stamina when required to hang around a lot of people for extended periods of time.

My favourite moments are when I withdraw from the noise and the haste into the silence of the moment, for it is there that I know who I actually am.

We would often like to think that we're capable of making a great impact in the world, affecting the lives of others and initiating great undertakings. Maybe the truth is, we are each simply little specks of sand on the beach, contributing in our own little ways through our little insignificant presence so that a greater "Significance" might flourish from our joint oneness.

2012 stares me in the face. I fear what it might bring. But time is no respector of man, and the coming year shall befall me, with or without my bidding. God help me. God help us all.

Up to this day, I'm still often being asked why I decided to return to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church. It has been my practice, out of respect for the right of conscienable choice of others, to never try to persuade anyone to agree that my choice to return to Rome was correct.

Neither am I proud of having made such a choice. For a Protestant of almost thirty years, such a choice could have been made only with a deep measure of sadness and immeasurable trepidation, but always accompanied by much gratitude to Mother Church who extends her arms patiently without too much of a fanfare. For Mother Church, it was a mere return of an heir of her longlost children, not a victory to celebrate.

My journey of return began with a discontentment towards living a protesting faith as a way of life. Of course, for many in my generation, we do not overtly perceive ourselves as "protestants" in the truest sense of the word - we don't see ourselves as truly protesting against anything, not even the Roman Catholic Church. But this notion logically necessitated me to ask myself, "If I'm no longer protesting like my fathers in the faith did, then why am I not Catholic as the Fathers of the Church say every Christian should be?"

For many, asking oneself the above question would in an instance trigger off a series of internal protests about how Catholics worship idols, have a wrong doctrine on justification, blindly obey the papacy, etc. For me, these were not so much protests as they had been things that I had been taught by various Protestant traditions. They initiated me on a long search to better understand what the Catholic Church, the Christians 1500 years prior to the Protestant Reformation, believed.

Is this process to be held as normative for everyone? Should all Protestants be expected to go through the same journey? I cannot say. Different people have different threshholds of conviction. Some people feel strongly about faith issues, and some do not feel strongly about anything. Nobody can judge, and I assure you the Catholic Church, despite gentle invitations to dialogue, does not judge the salvation of Protestants either.

So for those of you, my brothers and sisters, who have chosen to remain where you are, let us love the Lord Jesus Christ together in the best ways we know how. Happy Reformation Sunday.

We seek to write our own life stories that will be told at our impending earthly departure. We desire it be said of us that a great legacy has been bequeathed to the world by virtue of our existence. We desire it be made mention that a legend has been lost. And so we strive for greatness. We strive to achieve great things so that the world will attest to our worth.

No few men have entertained these deep desires and, in fact, even attained them. But they are the very ones who have also expressed great remorse at the reality of an empty existence and a strange sense of isolation from the greater scheme of things. They have everything and yet feel like everything is nothing. Even at the top, they still find themselves preoccupied with thoughts like "If only..." and "What if..." In the world of greatness, they have lost themselves. In a world of significance, they have become isolated from themselves.

When is a man ready for great things? When great things mean nothing to him anymore because he finds the reason for his existence in the simple things in life. He is ready for greatness when, beyond constructing monuments, he finds fulfillment in sharing an icecream (and therefore friendship) with a little child.

The glory of life is found in the simple things.

Sherman Kuek, SFO
Published in Catholic Asian News
(March 2010 Issue)

Have you watched the movie Fireproof (2008)? Since its publication, it seems to have become quite a hit in various Christian circles, especially as a tool for the promotion of healthy marriages and family life.

In one scene, the son, Caleb Halt, says, “See, I don't understand. Why do I need His salvation? What? Am I gonna be thrown into hell? For what? 'Cause I got divorced?” And the father, John Halt, in apparent agreement that his beloved son is in fact bound for hell, replies, “No. Because you violated His standards”.

With indignation, the son continues challenging his father’s position, “What? 'Thou shall not kill'? Dad, I help people. I am a good person”, to which the father rebuts, “According to you. But God doesn't judge by your standards. He uses His”.

Unbeknownst to many unsuspecting Catholics who have come to appreciate this movie, Fireproof has incredibly strong Evangelical Protestant undertones in its understanding of salvation. Their doctrine of salvation says that people who do not receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour are condemned to an eternity in hell, no matter how well-intentioned and highly moral they may be.

It is also this doctrine of salvation that propels them to spread their faith convictions the way they do. The salvation of all their non-Christian relatives and friends is a fragile egg hanging on a string. As a result, out of pure care and concern, there is an urgency to “get them saved” so that their eternal fate will take on a different direction.

Of course, the Catholic Church too believes that Jesus is the only Saviour of the world. However, our understanding of salvation is much more complex and intricate than that which is believed by Evangelical Protestants. Hence, so is our understanding of evangelisation.

Heavenly Father, I know that I have sinned against you and that my sins separate me from you. I am truly sorry. I now want to turn away from my sinful past and turn to you for forgiveness. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your Son, Jesus Christ, died for my sins, that He was raised from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become my Saviour and the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You and to convict me when I sin. I pledge to grow in grace and knowledge of you. My greatest purpose in life is to follow your example and do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

And lo and behold, your sins are henceforth forgiven and you are saved! Evangelicals would be extremely vigilant about getting people to receive Jesus and to say an equivalent of this prayer in any season of their lives. Unfortunately, it is often in the midst of very vulnerable seasons of their lives that people tend to be willing to yield to such demands, albeit not necessarily feeling good about their decisions after that. Seeing people say these prayers at the verge of their divorces, in hospital beds, at the occasions of family members’ deaths, or in the face of some acute emotional need, is entirely common. At these events of life, there is inevitably a good Evangelical Protestant to be found there taking the opportunity to secure the “salvation” of that victim of life’s predicaments.

This is precisely what proselytism means: persuading people to embrace one’s religion and placing undue pressure on them to yield to such persuasion. In the process of proselytisation, the receiver often feels robbed of his dignity and his freedom to choose. It is not uncommon for him to feel that his faith and his choices have been belittled and put down. He feels disrespected and objectified rather than dignified. And yet, he often concedes, because such proselytising efforts are frequently accompanied by unrealistic assurances that Jesus can make everything better.

Evangelisation never brings about such sentiments. It treats the receiver with utmost respect, honouring his right to decide if he desires to embrace the faith, or if he even wishes to listen to that which the evangeliser intends to share in the first place. He is never caught off-guard in the midst of an unfortunate situation. When the receiver decides to listen, he receives that which he hears with much gratitude and joy, for he has discovered a treasure of life.

Whilst Catholics recognise that the Church is the "universal sacrament of salvation" (Lumen Gentium, 48) and is "necessary for salvation" (Lumen Gentium, 14), we also hold that people who do not understand the role of Jesus Christ and His Church are not necessarily damned into an eternity of helpless torment.

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.

(Lumen Gentium, 16)

This does not mean that there is no need for evangelisation in the Catholic scheme of thought. Indeed, evangelisation is our rightful duty in all places and at all times. But salvation, for us, is much more than merely about “getting them saved”. It is about directing the affairs of the world and the values of life towards the Kingdom of God, which is bigger than the Church itself.

We evangelise not because we need to save people, for God can save whom He so desires, and He does desire to save all who do not wilfully reject Him. But we evangelise because it is our sacred duty to cooperate with the coming of the Kingdom of God, to join in the establishment of His reign on earth, as we pray “Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. We proclaim the kingship of Jesus more than we attempt persuading people to embrace that kingship against their will.

At one level, their urgency to proselytise stems from a mistaken notion of other religions, that only Christians possess the hope of salvation, whilst people of other religions are doomed to an eternity of torment and condemnation no matter how sincere they are in their religious practices (even the Catholics!)

At another level, proselytism tends to rob people of their sense of dignity and self-respect. Rather than feeling that they are offered an opportunity to respond to a wonderful invitation, they are often compelled to listen to that which they do not desire and yield to the immediacy of the demands confronting them to decide on the desirability of the faith. There is little, if any, respect of the proselytiser for the proselytised’s preference or level of comfort with the situation he has been unsuspectingly thrust into.

The proselytised generally do not emerge from such situations feeling good. Many of them often manage to escape such circumstances with a new resolution: to never talk to another Christian ever again. And unfortunately, because they are unable to differentiate between the Protestants and the Catholics, they also resolve to avoid Catholics at all costs.

It is unfortunate that a good number of well-meaning Catholics today, especially those from some of the New Ecclesial Movements, are attempting to learn about evangelisation from the Evangelical Protestants. Learning some of these things are not bad at all if one can discern the subtle distinctions between the “evangelisation” spoken of by the Holy Catholic Church and the “evangelism” exercised by the Evangelical Protestants; the latter is, by the standards of the Catholic Church, proselytism.

Evangelisation refers to sharing our faith, bringing the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ who freely and willingly welcome this proclamation. Proselytism, on the other hand, refers to seeking to influence people to embrace a certain religion by means that exploit their weak position or put some other pressure on them. Canon Law (Canon 748 §2) and respect for the dignity of the human person forbid proselytism.

Evidently, we need to evangelise. But instead of thrusting our creeds and our faith claims into people’s hands, we need to start talking about God and our faith in ways that make sense to the present context of the world. This is not a practice that is alien to the tradition of the Church. It would take no more than a mere cursory reading of the popes’ encyclicals to witness how this has been and still continues to be done.

In fact, there is currently an urgent predicament confronting mankind, which in turn presents the Church with a renewed imperative of evangelisation. The world exists in a critical state today. Our natural resources are fast depleting, whilst Planet Earth suffers from greater heat now than it ever has in the history of its existence. These are results of a market-driven economy which people conveniently assume has a logical principle regulating it when, in fact, it is a mechanism regulated by no more than mere capitalistic greed. In the face of this crisis, surely we need to talk about conservation and sustainable development.

But the Church continues to remind us, none of this works if we do not start talking about God, the ground of all moral objectivity. Because believe it or not, no purely secular economist of capitalist would be truly interested in saving the world from self-destruction. It is we, the Christians, who need to begin directing these secular dimensions towards the Kingdom by speaking of them in a way that assumes moral values grounded in our belief.

It is not sufficient to do what many Evangelical Protestants do; just “getting them saved”. To simplistically endeavour to “save people” is to fall into a two-faceted trap of a same fallacy. Firstly, it misrepresents the Christian faith as one that is impotent and irrelevant to the realities of the world and human predicament today. Secondly, it misrepresents the Christian faith as one that is only good for eternal concerns but has absolutely no concern for the sufferings of mankind on this side of life.

If we desire a world in which authentic development of the human race is pursued and the wellbeing of nature is cultivated in the best of ways, we must once again talk about God. This is as much evangelisation as the soul-saving efforts of Evangelical Protestants is, and even more. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, in his latest encyclical Caritas in Veritate, says:

The risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanising value…

…The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States”. She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values - sometimes even the meanings - with which to judge and direct it.

(Caritas in Veritate, 9)

We need to start talking about God indeed. Not by way of prosyletism or “soul saving”, but by way of helping the world to understand that true conservation and sustainable development is to be built only upon the One who is the source of all beauty and truth. Jesus Christ, the One who was there at creation, is the One who can and shall recreate all that is in existence.

He alone is the lux mundi, the light of the world; this we proclaim.

Sherman Kuek, SFO
Published in Catholic Asian News
(August 2009 Issue)

In adapting the satire written by Canadians Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull in 1968 - The Peter Principle - one may say, in the context of human involvement in national governance, that the higher one rises in the political ladder, the less one is able to achieve that which he had initially set out to do. For the individual politician, this may be because he has to spend most of his time focusing on efforts to retain his position rather than being fixated on human dignity and the common good. The higher he rises in the political ladder, the greater a proportion of his resources must be devoted to preserving his position.

And thus, in accordance with the Peter Principle, the rise of individuals into political positions might mark the death of their initial ideals.

But yet, despite such a deficiency, we live in a context today that calls for loyalty to king and country. With governments that do not always promote human dignity or the common good, can Christians be loyal to their king and country, and to God, both at the same time? Should they? Is it right that such undisputed loyalty without boundaries be attributed to the collective sensibilities belonging to people who would do whatever it takes to stay up there, governments often fraught with corruption and all but questionable motives?

On this, the Christian tradition is not naïve.

Different sorts of government systems exist in the world. Among many Christians, it is commonly held that liberal democracy is the political regime most consistent with Christian ideals. That notion, to be sure, is a myth, for even liberal democracy cannot help but be accompanied by various self-serving humanistic inclinations. This deficiency is often compounded by the political assumption of liberal democracy’s autonomy from the religious dimension.

Of course, even theistic forms of governments entail their own challenges. For example, the dominance of a particular religious worldview in a government may mean the marginalisation of all other religious worldviews in a plural society. Therefore, for, say, Christians who exist as a minority community within a society which is governmentally dominated by a different religious worldview, true loyalty may be in question when the government becomes exacting in a way that requires the Christian community to compromise its religious loyalties. Thus, the Christian is often found to be caught in a tension of conflicting allegiances - to serve God, or to serve king and country?

Thus, at one extreme, the problem with liberal democracy is that it ignores the existence of God all together. At the other extreme, theistic governments which embrace certain religious worldviews ignore the fact that their “god” exists among other “gods”.

On the one side is the “city of God” that consists of all things supernatural and includes the Christian community. The city of God is governed by divine law and is more concerned with the direction of creation to eternal existence.

On the other side is the “earthly city” that consists of all things political, such as the state government, the economy, social stratification, and the military. This latter dimension is to be subservient to the former as it serves the lesser purpose of the temporal order.

Universal Christian political imperatives should not be derived from temporal considerations because the need for earthly government exists only as a reminder of man’s fallen nature. But at the same time, I am also not actually suggesting that the temporal order should find its governing principles from the spiritual order, for it has been established in a prior point of mine that even theistic governments present inherent deficiencies. Rather, the crucial point of this discussion lies in the assertion that secular governing principles should find their being in the reality that the present worldly state of affairs are a result of human fallenness, which as a consequence requires government to restore order in the temporal world.

Whilst the way of the city of God does not directly dominate the temporal order, the latter finds resonance with the former in that the city of God promotes a greater dignity of human persons in its proper perspective. The city of God also possesses the capacity to prescribe limits to earthly authority for the purpose of upholding civil peace and moral order on earth.

These two governmental worldviews also represent divergent values about human life, thereby further escalating the tension between those holding dual citizenships. Even if the values often look alike, one needs to look beneath the superficial expressions of these values in order to discern if they emerge from the same motivations. For example, it would be naïve to hold that the modern rendition of human rights can be grounded in the Christian understanding of human dignity when, in all likelihood, it arises from the egocentric nature of human fallenness.

The embrace of human rights can lead one to conclude that it is one’s right to cause the expiration of his own life when he no longer is able to live with dignity, whilst it leads the other to conclude that life must be preserved at all possible cost because of its intrinsic dignity.

The earthly city’s doctrine of human rights also fixates itself upon living the good life in the temporal order and neglects the greater desirability of the otherworldly concerns. In this respect, all temporal government must return to embrace its divine roots together with the noble motivations that accompany them.

The two concepts of “Christian” government and “secular” government are not mutually exclusive. The concept of a secular government is not to be construed as being opposed to religious government, but rather, to eternal government. The government should be secular only in the sense that it is temporal and will one day be displaced by the eternal rule of Christ.

But as has been earlier mentioned, the laws of the temporal government are also subservient to the laws of divine government in that the latter limits the former. Therefore it is vital that temporal governments legitimately demand submission of its citizenry only to the extent that the divine laws are not defied.

The suggestion that temporal government submits to divine laws does not in any way imply that a particular nation should form a theocratic pattern of governance. It is certainly not within the scope of the state to enforce Christianity. But it does imply that the state should cultivate fear of God and God’s ministers, the rulers and governors of the state; not because it supports the cultivation of mass subordination, but because it is simply consistent with the divinely instituted design of human governance.

It must also be recognised that the legitimacy of the temporal government can find its ultimate support for existence only in its acknowledgement of divine appointment. In other words, the state needs “proof” of its sanction by higher authority, and it is at this point that the state needs to understand the Christian imperative of its secondary prerogative in comparison with the divine government. Furthermore, it would be utterly illusive to presume that people’s beliefs and values have little or no political consequences.

Hence, just as secular political inclinations dictate that spiritual considerations are not to interfere with political concerns, the patriotic Christian - in being consistent with his faith - must necessarily pledge his primary allegiance to the spiritual dimension of his citizenship. And in instances whereby temporal political demands stand in blatant defiance of the spiritual order, he must remain firm in his allegiance to the latter (which, in the first place, is responsible for according legitimacy to the existence of the former). It is only in such a manner of allegiance to God and then to the state that a citizen can be truly held as one acting for the greater good.

However, a word of caution is in order. The priority of one’s spiritual citizenship must never succumb to the unreasonable conclusion of non-participation in the secular political order. Hence, a crucial point of reminder for the Christian citizen is the imperative of his involvement in the political life of the nation.

Aristotle claims that the human person is inherently a “political animal”. In so saying, he is not suggesting that every member of society bears a responsibility to be a participatory politician. What Aristotle refers to is the community as a reference point for the individual, and that each community needs to have its life ordered on the basis of the common good. This process of ordering communal life may itself be termed “politics”, and responsible citizenship of a community logically implies that an individual would participate in this political process through his interaction with others in the community. Likewise, the similar principle applies for the larger context of national life.

The onus rests upon the Christian community to understand the relationship between its faith and temporal politics, failing which the understanding of the community regarding the political arena would be wanting. The political actions of the Christian community must necessarily demonstrate a legitimate dynamics of theological understanding, for faith must give direction to politics. Therefore, this calls for both an active political participation from the nation’s Christian community and the cultivation of the discipline of theological reflection for the political direction of a nation.

I believe that today the divine acted. It was a rather different model of the BERSIH we've come to be so familiar with in the past couple of weeks; a divine rendition of BERSIH the way God would have it, if you like. Here's what it looked like:

The Vicar of Christ, the 265th Supreme Pontiff, the Successor of St Peter, held the hand of Najib Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Is the Holy Father unaware of what Najib has allegedly done in Malaysia and the countless accusations against him about various issues? Hardly so, I dare say.

But this is where the nature of the Church, in the spirit of Gaudium et Spes, becomes more incarnate than ever in the world when, despite knowing of human attrocities, depravity, oppression, cruelty and hypocisy, She holds the hand of a man and persists in speaking peace and goodness. She does all that Christ would do, Who sat with tax collectors and all the undeserving.

Wouldn't that unjustly sway votes back in Malaysia? Wasn't that Najib's intention in the first place? I choose to trust that Christians in Malaysia are discerning enough, especially those who understand the nature of the Church. When the Church speaks with those commonly perceived as undeserving, it does not so much reflect on the virtue of the one with whom She speaks. It reflects on who She, the Church, is. It speaks of the tenderness of Christ and His unconditional love, even for the unlovable.

Today, the Supreme Shepherd of the Church held the hands of someone who is perceived to have oppressed his own spiritual children. It must have been a painful sight for many who had spent the past weeks fighting for justice and equality. For some, it might have felt like their efforts had gone to waste. Others might have felt betrayed.

To be sure, the Church shares this pain. But the Church's gesture of reaching out to hold the hand of a man commonly perceived by many to be an oppressor of Her children aptly pictures the spirit of the Christ whose grace reaches further than we can conceive. A grace that hurts; a grace that calls to mind the reality of the crucified Christ. This was BERSIH at its best, at its most divinely inspired expression.

This gesture must have kickstarted a long analysis in many people's minds about the political implications of such a crucial encounter between Pope Benedict XVI and Najib. It might perhaps be a matter of wisdom in regards to whether one is able to see past these political implications and be brought back to the divine reality that we call the Holy Church.

I've spent many weeks trying to figure out how I should respond to the urgent call for justice in our nation. I've been deeply agonising over what the most appropriate response might be to the BERSIH movement, particularly in my role as a cleric and servant of the Church. Unknown to anyone else, this agony has carried me through sleepless nights; I've even dreamed about it in my sleep. All because I could never figure out what the right response was to the injustice I've witnessed and experienced in solidarity with my fellow Malaysians.

But today, Holy Mother Church has shown me how: justice and peace through righteousness and tenderness, not by the sword. For he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Mother Church invites us to take the higher path.

Yep, Bersih 2.0 is far from over. A peaceful demonstration awaited the YAB before his arrival. And yes, peaceful demonstrations are all right there; no canisters and no water spray.

What?? Even the police truck has a yellow strip? You've got to be kidding!

These blokes are from what we call the Ranting Istimewa (Special Branch). Their jobs are to make trouble for those who come up against corruption and those who uphold religious freedom and human rights. So they're here to take pictures of the protestors so they can return and torture their family members in the Kamunting detention centre. Nah, I'm just kidding... or am I?

Yes, that's true. In case the rest of the world didn't already know that.

A relatively intelligent looking Christmas tree, wouldn't you say?

Yep, there's that clever looking Christmas tree again.

There's yellow colour on the Malaysian flag... oh my...

Here he comes, all ready for a warm and hospitable welcome. An entire contigent across the road are already waiting to show just how proud they are of their Prime Minister.

He alights the car, dressed in a nice suit which I could never afford, but very likely purchased with the taxes my family is paying.

The news says he's so proud that his fellow Malaysian citizens are there to warmly welcome him to London, he actually gives them a friendly wave. It's no time to be feeling embarassed about anything at this moment. Her majesty, the Queen of England, awaiteth...

...in bright yellow.

PM, you make your people proud! Proud that they've stood up against injustice.

Until then, yellow, yellow, dirty fellow...

• Ecumenism is more than mere theological talk and certainly more than the cultivation of a promiscuous sense of a unity which is yet to exist. However, our years of dialogue has certainly borne much fruit, particularly with the Orthodox Church. The Pope speaks on this. [ Read ]

  
  

• The Vatican launches new news portal! [ Read ]

  
  

• The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, on his new iPad 2... really cute to watch a bunch of granduncles meddling with a new toy. Hope their episcopal rings don't scratch the screen. [ Read ]

  
  

• The reflections of the Holy Father on the Eucharist continue to amaze and challenge me. Here is his homily for the Feast of Corpus Christi. [ Read ]

  
  

• As China seeks to project the facade of a new religious freedom in the country, the Communist Party continues to elude the world with empty promises. More persecution of bishops and bishops-elect. [ Read ]
  

Whilst this has been the first anniversary of my ordination as a minister of the Church, it was by no means the first year of my involvement in fulltime Christian ministry. To be exact, I have served in ecclesial-related ministry in a fulltime capacity for over 12 years by now. In Chinese terms, 12 years is often considered a full chronological cycle.

If I sought to call to mind my failures, I would have to venture into writing a tome that might earn me another doctoral degree, for I am no stranger to failure. In these past years, I have seen the best and the worst of people. I have also seen the best and the worst of myself. I have deeply hurt people and been deeply hurt by people. I have forgiven and can only pray that those whom I have hurt find it in themselves to forgive too.

But above all, this milestone for me is a celebration of God’s grace. The fact that I have made it to this point speaks absolutely nothing of my own virtue or deservedness. God has raised me up for this moment entirely for His glory and His Kingdom. My life was worth nothing and continues to be so save for the goal that God has placed before me, that is, the goal of declaring His glory and salvation to all whom I meet in the course of my lifetime and ministry. I mean it when I say He has called me precisely because I am the least deserving of all to have received this vocation.

I have learned, perhaps wisely, by now that many people seek to follow Christ, but most people prefer to follow Him from a farther distance because the further one stands away from the sun, the less propensity one has to be scorched by its heat. In a sense, it is hard to blame anyone for finding it overly tedious to follow Jesus closely and radically. He demands much out of a life, especially from a life that claims to love Him wholeheartedly. Anyhow, at whatever distance people have chosen to stand from Christ, Mother Church welcomes them all and nourishes them in Word and Sacrament.

I guess for me, it is rather difficult to settle for a more casual commitment to Christ. I blame it on people like St Paul and St Augustine of Hippo who have exerted entirely too much influence on my way of religious thought. These men were transformed from utter scum into saints with a wholehearted devotion to the cause of Christ. I am thinking, and I hope I am right, that if God has done the same for them, He might perhaps be able to do the same for me.

As I encounter this occasion of my birthday and ordination anniversary, I hold in my hands my greatest successes and my gravest failures. I realise I have no desire or wish for more than that which God has already bestowed upon me by His grace. I have only much gratitude to Him, to my family, and to all my precious friends who have kept faith with me throughout these years. A man who has enjoyed the privilege of countless underserved blessings should not long for more than that which he already has, and should never cease giving thanks to the Source of all good things.

I think I have arrived at the midpoint of my earthly lifespan (which may eventually turn out to be much shorter than the average lifespan anyway). With the remaining time, I pray that my faith will not fail me. With God’s strength and help, I seek to continue transmitting this one message to the world in many different ways:

Do not be afraid to follow Christ. Put out into the deep and seek to follow Him radically. There will be much suffering, but together with it, unspoken joy and true freedom in knowing that you belong to Him.

For now, I remain crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives within me. In Him, I move and live and have my being. Like the saints of old, my daily cry continues to be “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

More often than not, these sources of significance leave us wanting. The ultimate desire for significance is found unmet, the thirst unsatiated. Everything the world has to offer can only serve to further intensify a desire that has been but momentarily satisfied, only to find the longing still there, but each time in deeper measure. Temporal gratifications leave us high and dry.

The thirsty heart is invited by Christ to come and find life and significance in Him, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me... streams of living water will flow from within him."

Jesus calls us to life in Him. We are to acknowledge the hunger, not deny it, but at the same time to seek fullness in the Source that fills it. Those who wonder how it must be like to not thirst ever again, these should drink from the spring of living water, the well of life. And never want again.

Peace, be still. Christ comes to feed the one who seeks and asks.