I saw this book years ago, when I was in University, in SUFES bookstore. But I was too poor to buy it then, I mean, the little money that I had, I saved them for days when I had even lesser. Since then, I never saw the book again. I was captured by the cover of the book, though we were all taught not to judge a book by its cover. But Hans Kung, being himself (I can’t even spell his name properly on my qwerty keyboard), his photo on the book jacket looked the part of a self made man. The rough clear lines on his face marked the life experience of a man who had challenged a great authority for the sake of all man. Yet his face glowed with the warmth of a pastor and the elegance of a learned teacher, not just a mere scholar. This man of history is history living in our times. 

I want to learn from him…

Night is already falling on the city, and the spectacular panorama with all the domes and palaces which is so familiar to me is bathed in the intense Roman twilight. The renovated St. Peter’s stands above it in festal illumination like a jewel. Early in the morning, before the stream of visitors, an old Germanicum alumnus will show us with the expertise of an art historian the Sistine Chapel, which is again gleaming as if brand new. A miracle of colours, forms, shapes, gestures - there is so much that moves me in it.

Here Michelangelo, originally a sculptor, has proved to be not only a brilliant painter but also a Christian who did not want to present primarily popes but the whole of salvation history, from the grandiose beginning of the creation fo the world and human beings to the gracious Last Judgement (hell as threatening possibility which no one enters). This is the universal vision which includes the women seers of the pagans as well as the prophets of Israel.

The friend of the poetess Vittoria Colonna, to whom he dedicated his most important sonnet and with whose Viterbo circle he wanted to remain Catholic when the Reformation then broke out and yet to have an evangelical disposition, thought deeply about its form. My ideal.

Together with numerious humanists, theologians and politicians, here is that ‘third force’ which was lost in the sixteenth century but revived again at Vatican II and proves effective. My direction.

To the present day the dispute of the century over the trueform of the Catholic Church, the ecumenical wolrd, indeed Christianity generally in these rvolutionary times which began at the Council, has not yet been decided. My suffering.

And no one knows whether in a couple of years the church and the world will not perhaps look better. My hope. (My Struggle for Freedom, Hans Kung, p461-462)

For almost 10 years, or maybe more - the Indian auntie I met said it was already “sepuluh tahun”, it doesn’t matter, the point is, the people of Taman Permata flat had been living in a very run-down neighbourhood for a long time.

The water retention tank and the main pipes were leaking in block D. Water was leaking from the rooftop through the ceilings of the flat units. And the exposed water system means contaminated water for the residents. 

 
The stairways and the walkways of the flats had no lights. Certain parts of the staircase had no hand support on the side, these were stolen and sold as metal scraps. Imagine old people or children walking up the dark staircase at night, with no side support.

 
The the ugly sight are the many empty units in the flats. Some of the residents dumped their garbage, their unwanted furnitures, their old newspapers and used diapers into those empty units. The rubbish accumulated in them, so did the crocoaches and maggots.

 


 
They, the residents tried to ask for assistance from the Rukun Tetangga (RT) in that area. The RT community is just besides one of the flats. But the RT Committee refused to help citing their funds (which is huge from collecting fee from the weekly “pasar malam”, night market in the flat area) were only meant for the residents of the ground houses and not the flats. The residents were hopelessly left alone. 

 
Since the 8th of March, I have visited the area a couple of times with my boss to dialogue with the residents. We recommended them three immediate actions, all which the residents gladly adopted:

 
1. To set up a Special Welfare Committee to be the representative of the flat residents, since the RT had refused to admit them
 
2. To organize a gotong royong to clean up their neighbourhood

3. To set up the Joint Management Body (JMB) which is a statutory body given power to manage the flat buildings.


In one of the meetings which we organized, the residents turned up full force. This was rare, previously many had refused to come forward - some were just apathetic, some disillusioned and didn’t believe anything could be done. During the meeting, one of the local DAP members who was a resident of the flat, Saudara Veanu, offered himself to be the chairman of the Special Committee. The residents agreed unanimously.

A committee was formed to represent them with a view of finally setting up a JMB for the Taman Permata flat.

My boss approved an allocation to repair the leaking water tanks and pipes. And also a smaller allocation to purchase equipments and organize the gotong royong.

JR and I went there about 8.30am, by then the residents were already 30 minutes into serious and massive cleaning. 

A lot of people came out, but a lot more stayed at home. Yet as I was informed, those that stayed at home did send someone from that house to join in the gotong royong - usually the menfolks. But slowly into the noon, the womenfolks came out, picking up the lidi and brooms. They started to clean up the clogged drain while their men were picking up big furnitures and some almost decomposed rubbish from empty flat units. One group of about 5-6 men took almost two hours to clean up a unit. The rubbish collected was massive.

 


It was a community affair, people of all races came out, I can see the Malay lady chatting with the Chinese auntie while both of them were sweeping the road and drains. The Indian guy was putting the rubbish into a bag while the Chinese and Malay will carry that load and dump it into the big rubbish bin provided by the local council. There were old people, young people, children, men and women. All of them living out our Malaysian culture of gotong royong, which we hear so much, but seen so little.

 


A few DAP members came out to help, in fact some of us collected about RM150 among ourselves to buy breakfast for the residents. We could only afford a packet of nasi lemak for some and roti for others. Some residents said that previously when the RT called for gotong royong, they were paid RM30 each. That’s not gotong royong, that’s hiring cleaners. 

They managed to clean up block C that day, some worked till late afternoon. A lot of work still left to be done. Veanu told me yesterday, they have already planned another gotong royong this weekends. They will not stop until their neighbourhood is clean.



Looking back, when I first saw the flats, I thought it was impossible. 

But 50 people that day showed me heroes who make the impossible happens do not always come in capes and red undies. 

Some even have one arm only…

 


 
More photos here

 

Prof. Ramasamy speech did not criticize the affirmative action concerning the Malay community, but merely critized, substantiated with statistics, how UMNO has maneuvered a communal monopoly of the public sector resulting in a divide and conquer situation in our country with the different races participating in different sectors of the economy.

For the last 50 years of their rule, the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional government has failed to overturn the divide and conquer policy of the colonial British. Instead, it was seen to be reinforcing such communalist policy which has caused racial disintegration in our Country. The fact is, in Penang itself, only less than 20% of non-Malays (about 12% of Indians and 5% of Chinese) are employed in the public sector. It is a wonder if the only reason for such huge disparity is that non-Malays are not interested to go into the public sector. Instead, the lack of political will to hire non-Malays into the public sector and difficulty of non-Malays to get into the service must be taken into consideration, investigated and reviewed.

In terms of a boast to the participation of Malays in the private sector, Prof. Ramasamy has in his statement reiterated the Penang Pakatan State Government’s commitment to eliminate any racial and gender discrimination in both the public and private sectors.

I trust that our Malay community is matured enough to judge for themselves the truth in Prof. Ramasamy’s statement and they are not a group of easily angered people as portrayed by Bayan Baru UMNO Youth leader Norman Zahalan in his statement in the press.

I call upon Bayan Baru UMNO Youth to retract their police report because their action is obviously politically motivated and has a larger tendency to provoke the racial sentiment of our country. Instead of hiding behind the so-called “racial sensitivity”, Bayan Baru UMNO Youth should come forward to debate Prof. Ramasamy’s findings with facts and statistics, failing which they should just focus on joining hand with the Penang Pakatan State Government to ensure an equitable employment opportunities for all races and gender in Penang and Malaysia in both the public and private sectors.

Finally, I also call upon UMNO’s partner in the Barisan Nasional, notably MCA, MIC and Gerakan to state their stance on this issue regarding the disparity of racial composition in the public sectors.

 Press Release by

SIM CHEE KEONG
Secretary
DAP Jalan Tembikai Branch

17 November 2008

“Then those ’sheep’ are going to say, ‘Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?’ Then the King will say, ‘I’m telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me—you did it to me.’ (Matthew 25:34-40, The Message)

You come to me with a sword and a spear and a  javelin…

I said to Dr. Irene that night, “It must be a very serious business indeed that you should stand up to speak”

Unassuming, unpretentious, and having a heart for the downtrodden and marginalized, I think Dr. Irene Fernandez deserves to be the “Mother Teresa of Malaysia”

Giving up isn’t an option

From Father Henri Nouwen’s Return of the Prodigal Son

“Often I have asked friends to give me their first impression of Rembrandt’s Prodigal Son. Inevitably, they point to the wise old man who forgives his son: the benevolent patriarch.

“The longer I look at ‘the patriarch’, the clearer it becomes to me that Rembrandt has done something quite different from letting God pose as the wise old head of a family. It all began with the hands. The two are quite different. The father’s left hand touching the son’s shoulder is strong and muscular. The fingers are spread out and cover a large part of the prodigal son’s shoulder and back. I can see a certain pressure, especially in the thumb. That hand seems not only to touch, but, with its strength, also to hold. Even though there is a gentleness in the way the father’s left hand touches his son, it is not without a firm grip.

“How different is the father’s right hand! This hand does not hold or grasp. It is refined, soft, and very tender. The fingers are close to each other and they have an elegant quality. It lies gently upon the son’s shoulder. It wants to caress, to stroke, and to offer consolation and comfort. It is a mother’s hand….

“As soon as I recognized the difference between the two hands of the father, a new world of meaning opened up for me. The Father is not simply a great patriarch. He is mother as well as father. He touches the son with a masculine hand and a feminine hand. He holds, and she caresses. He confirms and she consoles. He is , indeed, God, in whom both manhood and womanhood, fatherhood and motherhood, are fully present. That gentle and caressing right hand echoes for me the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Can a woman forget her baby at the breast, feel no pity for the chile she has borne? Even if these were to forget, I shall not forget you. Look, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.”

I still operate by that question, but I believe at another level, that standard changes. Recently, while surfing on Father Henri Nouwen, I came across a quote from him:

“I am deeply convinced that the Christian leader of the future is called to be completely irrelevant and to stand in this world with nothing to offer but his or her own vulnerable self.” -In the Name of Jesus, 1989

In a time when we are all so easily drawn into the status quo, when even the Church may be tempted to do what everyone else is doing, to advocate the popular cause - not that all these is wrong in themselves - perhaps, we will be wise to check ourselves and our actions against Father Nouwen’s advise. 

At the end of the day, we are not saviours of the world nor are we called to be. The truth is, whatever we do, the example of god is not the offer of little ideas or services to the world. They may be but incidental.

But god offered himself, that’s incarnational, to use a big christian word. And when he did that, offering himself, he did not purposely go against culture or pro-culture. He gave himself totally to the people, meeting their “self”, which included their culture (or subculture). It was counter culture only in the sense of god in Jesus reversed the “rejection of others” which permeated our global humanity. And the reversal was the loving offering of himself.

I think we may need to realize that we are worth far more than the ideas and programs we can offer. Yes, even our frail, vulnerable self. That’s not trying to be presumptuous, only putting the real value back into our humanity. 

God, help us, me, to be irrelevant and to say with Paul;

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20)

Message shared at BM Gospel Centre - 12 October 2008

Freedom In Christ (Gal 5:1-15)

Whenever we come to the letters of Paul, I get very excited. 

Not merely because Paul had something to teach us about the gospel and god and the church, but because there is always a story behind each of his sentences. 

Understanding Paul – Clerks, Context and Cost

But our problems begin when we think we understand Paul too well.

First before I go into Galatians 5 proper, I would like to share a few thoughts on Paul and his epistle to the Galatians and hopefully ultimately leading to chapter 5 and to discuss our title today Freedom in Christ. 

First thought, we have always suffer or rather make Paul suffer from the “lone ranger syndrome”. Our impression of Paul is a bearded wise old man, a little bulky sitting on a thick wooden desk, with a quill on his hand writing on a scroll, the would-be Sacred Scripture. And sometimes, we imagine him pausing to put his left hand over his forehead as if in a moment of inspiration before the writings flow again.

But if I may break that romantic notion a bit, Paul didn’t usually do that when writing his letters. No Paul didn’t write alone most of the time. He probably had a small group of brothers and sisters coming together in a cozy room and as they sat down to listen to one another about rumours and news of say the Church in Galatia or the Church in Rome, they would discuss the proper response and someone would take down notes and write the letter.  

I have a breaking news for you (or at least for me when I first discovered it)…Paul didn’t write the epistle to the Romans. See Romans 16.22. Some chap called Tertius wrote it under Paul’s dictation.

And what about Galatians? Paul probably wrote this letter himself as he mentioned in Galatians 6:11. Do you see a problem with that verse? “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand”. If most of the letters he sent to the churches are hand written by him, it is indeed weird that he should inform the Galatians that this letter was written by him personally. And Galatians is not really a large letter, compared to Romans or 1 and 2 Corinthians. But it is considered large because as it is, Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians were most probably written by a “clerk” and not by Paul himself.

Why am I saying all this?

I think most of the time, we missed the human elements of Scripture and the story of the first century church and the characters in the story, the people, Paul, Peter, Jesus when we fail to look at the humanity in them and proceed straightaway to look above and beyond into the white clouds and see angels floating around. Because if we fail to see the human effort, the brainstorming, the discussion, the dispute, the argument and the debate behind the letters of Paul, we will fail to appreciate the study of these documents. If we imagine the letters flow easily like rivers of inspiration from Paul’s mind, then we will likewise take them as easy-going as they came to us.

Paul did not write letters for the sake of writing Scripture, if I may say. No. He wrote it because he felt a burden in his heart for the churches, especially those that he planted. Not only there were discussions and brainstormings (someone wrote that letters such as 2 Corinthians probably took a few days to write), there were also the cost of writing - obtaining the writing materials, then writing the letters and afterwards dispatching them. 

Paul didn’t have emails like us. In fact he didn’t have courier services or even postal services. What I want to say, to put it simply is this, it cost more, much much more for Paul to send a letter in the first century than now. 

And if we take all these into considerations, the clerks and the cost, we must realized more than ever that writing a letter is no joke nor even a past time hobby in Paul’s term. No, he didn’t write to the Galatia because he woke up one day and think, well, I have no tents to make this afternoon why not write a letter to my good friends in Galatia. No, Paul didn’t write like we did to our pen pals. 

Given the costs and efforts require to write and send a letter, when Paul writes, there must be a huge issue at hand. And in order to understand Paul’s letter, we have to understand why he spent so much efforts and money to write his letters. That’s the context. The story behind. 

Paul’s Context

What was the story behind Paul and his letters, especially Galatians?

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier, our problem is when we think we understand Paul too well. Before we can let him speak for himself, we are very quick to say, “Aha! Paul, grace, justification by faith not by works, salvation apart from the law, against the Jews and Judaizers”.

Jewish Paul & Elijah, Prophet of Israel

But let us remember one thing, Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee-trained Jew, speaking from a Judaistic background. And a Jew like him, it was expected that he spoke as one passionate about the Jewish race and religion. See Romans 9, how he anguished for his brothers, those of his own race, the people of Israel (v. 1-4). We cannot make him into an enemy of the Jewish religion or race as Christians often made Paul. No…in fact, the interesting thing about Galatians, if you notice, Paul actually saw himself like a Jewish prophet, in the likeness of one of the greatest Prophet of Israel, Elijah.

See his pattern:

Paul was a Jew in the tradition of “zeal”, almost like the Zealots but not quite. And he was persecuting the church, to the extend of killing and destroying them. But when he was converted, he went to Arabia and then to Damascus…(Gal 1: 13-17)

Arabia? Damascus? What’s that for? And why did Paul bother to tell us?

See Elijah in 1 King 19:

Elijah was a Jew in the tradition of “zeal”. After killing the prophets of Baal out of zeal for YHWH, Elijah fled to Mt. Sinai (Horeb), the mount of god and received instruction from god to go to Damascus

Where of Arabia? Paul himself gave the answer in Gal 4:25 - Mt. Sinai in Arabia.

Paul traced his own pattern of ministry like that of Elijah - 

zeal, to the extend of killing

Mt. Sinai, probably as a pilgrimage to where it all began, and finally was commissioned to

Damascus, to declare the new King

Paul and The Law

The reason why I took a long de-tour on Paul and his thought in Galatians is to shake us a bit from our protestant post reformation understanding of Paul’s position in regards with Judaism and the law. 

The thing about us is that we often think about the law as something negative, a remnant of the old religion of Judaism. And Paul was preaching a new thing called grace where you do away with the laws. But as Galatians have demonstrated, Paul thought of himself as a Jew, and in the ministry of Elijah, one of the greatest Jewish prophets. 

And a good standing Jew will not consider the Law as something bad or negative. If Paul the Jewish Apostle has regarded the Law as a no-entry sign for salvation, then he would have a hard time answering questions from fellow Jews about how Israel was saved before Jesus came. I have, more and more, come to think that Paul did not mean that. 

Freedom In Christ?

So why did Paul pitted the law against freedom in Christ?

I believe when Paul spoke about Freedom in Christ, he had in mind three things:

1.Paul was saying salvation is not only limited to Jews alone but is now open to all and sundry. That is to say in Christ, the old religion of the Jewish people is freed from ethnic-exclusivity. Consider Gal 3:23-28.

Paul was speaking about the law in vv. 23-24. We would expect that Paul would say, “now that faith has come…as many of you as were baptized into Christ, you were saved by grace”. Instead Paul went on to say, “there is neither Jew nor Greek…”. The gospel, brothers and sisters, is not that we are justified by faith. But rather, the gospel is “Jesus is Lord”. The OT again and again state that when the Jewish Messiah comes, YHWH the Jewish god will fulfill his promise to Abraham to bless the whole world through him (Gal 3:8). So then, if Paul believed Jesus was the true Messiah and he was made Lord, Paul knew and taught that the time for the Abrahamic blessings is here -  we are set free from an exclusive religion, a religion restricted to a certain kind of race and gender and social position. This is the new Freedom in Christ.

2. Secondly, Paul was saying that we are now not restricted to worshiping god in one narrow perspective. That is to say, in Christ, we are freed to worship god beyond the traditional expression of Judaism. 

We should not forget that Israel of old did consider their election by YHWH god is solely by his grace. The Psalms has plentiful expression of god choosing Israel because of his pleasure and not because of any good deeds in them. The Law was given as a form of badge to wear AFTER Israel was chosen by god to be his people. This means, the Law was an expression of honouring god, a mark of BEING in the covenant rather than the mark to GET into the covenant. It is the Israel part of the agreement. God chose them, they obey god’s law. Not vice versa, we can forget about our protestant baggage for a while. 

But when Christ came, Paul was in effect saying, look, now don’t worry about honouring god through keeping the law. Through eating a certain food or through circumcision. It’s a New Age now. That’s a key point, please put your finger on the phrase: It’s a New Age now. We’ll come back to that later. Paul was saying, you no longer do this to honour god, in fact your stubborn insistence that one CAN only honour god through the law has become a stumbling block to others. And your preoccupation with keeping the outdated laws is enslaving you. You are challenging the work of Jesus. Because when the Messiah comes, these things will end. 

Then what is the substitute for this keeping of the law? Paul seemed to indicate in Gal 5:6 that the way forward is not circumcision OR even non-circumcision, but rather a new dynamics is at work: Love

3. Which brings us to my third and final point, that is, Paul was saying that in Christ we are freed to accept and love one another. 

If we look at the issue of law and justification by faith and freedom and MERELY focus on them as though all Paul was saying was about Salvation, then we may risk missing the point. I am not saying Paul didn’t have any thing to say about Salvation here, but rather I want to invite us to also look at these themes and consider about Church. In a more technical word, instead of solely thinking about Soteriology, let us consider Ecclesiology as well. 

The gospel, as I have stressed earlier in this message and elsewhere many times, is Jesus is Lord, the Jewish Messiah is Lord. That was the whole expectation and hope of Israel, either god will become king or his annointed one will become king. Different groups of people interpreted the OT slightly differently but they hover between these two poles, god himself becoming king or the Messiah becomes king. And of course, needless to say, when the Messiah is king, YHWH himself will rule all in all. 

What does all this means to us and more importantly to Paul and Israel of his time and of all time?

When YHWH finally gets down to do serious business, the whole earth will experience his blessings and salvation (Isaiah 52:10). The whole world, not only the Jewish people will come to know god, that was god’s promise to Abraham. I have demonstrated this above. But now so what? When the Messiah comes, or when YHWH finally acts, the New Age will arrive (there’s the word your finger is on). New Age or in the words of Paul, New Creation (Gal 6:15). In this new Creation it is not merely the opening up of the covenant to include non Jews and the abrogation of the Law but most importantly, there is this new powerful source of inspiration, Love. 

Consider the flow of Galatians,

1. Criticism and attack against those who stubbornly cling to the old way of the Law

2. Expounding our freedom over and against the old way

3. The way forward to love, and love and love…

That’s the only way brothers and sisters. We are already in, how do we do church then? How do we evangelize? Do we like the Judaizers in Galatians insist on our METHODS of belief and worship? Do we stubbornly insist that all who wants to come to god be made into “christian-jews”? Do we stubbornly insist that they must follow and take part in some of our traditions - please think about tithing, our worship style, the dress we wear, the language we talk? 

I want to repeat, consider again Paul not merely talking about Soteriology, but about Ecclesiology. How do we invite people into the covenant with god and once they are in, what should we do with them? Paul, after writing such a large letter spent his last few paragraph insisting on love. Because now, in Christ, we are freed to accept and love others. And why must we do that? Because the Law (notice Paul didn’t think that we can throw away the law), because the Law is summed up in one word: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. And Paul here used the greek word: Agape, Love, which in Romans (13), the same Apostle said is the fulfillment of the Law.

Anyway, the story goes that Lilith, Adam’s first wife, spoke god’s name and attained power to liberate herself from Adam. 

The thing about names in the Bible…there is something of a person, not just his personality, but a bit of his personhood in his name. Knowing someone’s name is like knowing him, it’s like reading him like a book. It’s like putting one’s finger on him at last.

See how Jacob asked the name of his wrestling partner by the stream of Jabbok (Gen 32:29). And Moses at the Burning Bush, insisted on god revealing his name (Ex 3:13), reminiscence of the legend of Lilith luring god into revealing his name to her. 

But unlike the god in the Lilith-story, Moses’ god revelation about his name was both an answer and a non-answer. The non-answer, god said, “I am Who I am” (or “I will be What I will be”) - it was as good as saying, “I am Me” (if I may interject in hokkien and in the Singaporean tongue - lim peh si lim peh). But that was god’s answer. He refused to be pinned down - I am Who I am. God’s personhood has or rather is a profound freedom of self-expression. 

There is something about the Christian god who refused to be boxed. When we think we have said the final word about god, the Bible reminded us that he is the “I am Who I am” (or “I will be What I will be”). And if we are humble enough to let god be god, such a divine personhood is like a bottomless well. We may draw water from close to the surface, but as we let down our bucket, we realized that it went on and on…there is still cold refreshing stream underneath which we previously did not know of. And deeper, and deeper and deeper…

And then there’s the question we need to face - do we dare to venture deeper? Or perhaps we’re contented to believe that we have said the final word on god. Jacob pinned god down in a wrestling match, but he did not know god’s name till the end. Instead it was god who pinned down his name -Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel (Gen 32:8) - true knowledge, St. Paul said is, paradoxically, not that we know, but we are known by god (1 Cor 8:2). 

And again in Moses’ case, god addressed Moses by name and knew him intimately. But Moses was clueless. He, like Jacob, tried to pry into god’s name. Like Lilith the demoness. But “I am Who I am”. God gave him first a history lesson, I am the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, the god of Jacob. See, and learn, god’s involvement in our common human experience. Then a mission (Let My people go), then power (the magic staff). Perhaps the point is not about knowing god’s name and pinning him down, but to partner him in his work here on earth and getting to know him in the process. Or getting to be known by him in the process. And I believe it’ll always be “getting to”, if god is to be god, and we’re humble enough to let him be, then even in his knowing us, it’ll always be fresh. Because as St Paul said, on one hand, we are known by god, but the other side of the coin is we loving god. And again, when the shift is to us as the epistemological object, then the well is infinitely deep for us to draw. 

And maybe, just maybe, maybe that’s the sort of liberation which the story of Lilith tried to convey. As we draw from the infinitely deep well, we are drawn into the rich and profound freedom, pure and total freedom of divine self-expression. “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free…”

Too dense? It’s past midnight, I had to…

St. Teresa of Seputeh

I think she’s somewhat of a prophet as well…

Excerpt from an interview of YB Teresa Kok by Guang Ming Daily the same week after her release from unjust detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA)

Q: Will this arrest affect the way you do things in the future?

A: Not much. Even if we go to jail, we have to make sure it is not in vain. We can’t go to jail just because we have said something we shouldn’t have said.

To be frank, I felt downcrested on the first two days, but after seeing my parents, who told me many people out there were giving me their support, I began to change my attitude.

If my detention can raise the people’s awareness on ISA, as well as their fury towards the BN government, then I feel it’s not in vain, and I won’t feel so frustrated any more.

I was also thinking of the judgement Jesus had to go through. Even though He was crucified on the cross, He has been remembered by people through the ages. I felt that my detention had been arranged in such a way that Jesus was trying to use my innocence to educate the public on politics. (Emphasis mine)

Teresa sees the experience during her unjust detention and political oppression as a form of revelation, a prophetic and objective lesson to Malaysians (and should it be particularly the Malaysian Church) on the political climate of our Country. 

Often, we tend to see prophets as someone fore-telling future events. But perhaps more than anything, in the Old Testament, prophets were people who declare the message of god, whether a message about the future or for the present time. And most of the time, these messages, the prophecies, they were indictment against the evil times the prophets lived in. It is also not unusual that prophets not only speak forth their messages, but also acted them out, sometimes in dramatic actions.

Among my favourite examples are…

- Isaiah 58, the prophet was responding to the lamentation of Israel about god’s presumed silence at a crucial moment of the nation being attacked by their enemies. God spoke through Isaiah the prophet, castigating Israel and telling them why their rigourous worship was greeted with divine silence and thus giving a social commentary of Isaiah’s times. (interestingly the first indictment about the unacceptability of Israel’s worship is: v3 “You exploit all your workers”)

- Hosea 1, god instructing Hosea the prophet to take a promiscious prostitute as his own wife and live out Israel’s relationship with her Master and Husband, YHWH. Hmmm…a “pastor” sleeping with a prostitute…

- Jeremiah 27, Jeremiah was told to warn Israel and her allies to submit to Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar, and he presented the warning wearing a wooden yoke around his neck. Interestingly, god called Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, “my servant Nebuchadnezzar “.

And of course, Jesus who loved to do his little show and tell as he taught his disciples - he cursed the fig tree, he ate with the outcast, he whipped the temple traders and chased them out, he did some stuff with simple bread and fish and wine, he took off his jacket and washed the disciples’ feet.

It would not be a surprise therefore if god chose to speak through one of his modern day servants, as imperfect as they may be (After all, the guys in the old days were not the “saintliest” of people either). I pray especially for the Malaysian Church to discern these prophetic words in such a times as ours.