Asal Usul Alam Maya (Bab 1)

Dari Kejadian 1 – 2 

Pada mulanya, tiada apa yang wujud.

    Tiada yang kedengaran. Tiada yang dirasakan. Tiada yang terlihat.

    Hanya kekosongan. Kegelapan. Selain dari itu, apa-apa pun tiada.

Tapi Allah ada. Dan Allah mengilhamkan suatu Rancangan indah.

“Akan Ku penuhi kekosongan ini!” firman Allah. “Dalam kegelapan, Ku berikan cahaya! Dari ketiadaan, akan Ku cipta… SEGALANYA!”

Jesus Storybook - The Beginning: A Perfect Home

Seperti ibu burung menetaskan telurnya, Allah berlegar di muka kegelapan sunyi untuk memulakan nyala kehidupan.

Allah berfirman. Begitu saja. Dan apa yang dititah Allah menjadi nyata.

Allah kata, “Datanglah, cahaya!” lalu bersinarlah cahaya menerangi kelam. Allah gelar cahaya itu, “Hari” dan kegelapan itu “Malam”.

“Bagus!” seru Allah. Sememangnya, ia baik belaka.

Lalu Allah kata, “Datanglah, lautan! Marilah, langit!” Maka terbukalah ruang angkasa tinggi dan samudera yang serba luas dan dalam.

“Bagus!” seru Allah. Sememangnya, ia elok sekali.

Lepas itu, Allah kata, “Datanglah, bumi!” Maka timbul dari gelora lautan itu pantai pasir, daratan lapang dan gunung mencecah awan.

“Bagus!” puji Allah. Sesungguhnya, mereka diciptakan begitu.

“Bangkitlah, pokok!” firman Allah. “Tumbuh-lah, rumput dan bunga!” Dan hidupan flora mekar di merata-rata pelosok bumi. Daun segar kehijauan, akar kukuh menular dan bunga harum berkembang.

“Bagus!” seru Allah. Sesungguhnya, mereka cantik sekali.

“Datanglah, bintang!” kata Allah. “Marilah, suria dan bulan!” Maka berputarlah di angkasa lepas bola berapi, bintang berekor dan planet berwarna-warni. 

“Kamu bagus!” seru Allah. Sesungguhnya, mereka sedemikian.

“Marilah, burung!” kata Allah lagi. Maka, berterbangan tinggi sambil bersiul riang, bermacam jenis burung memenuhi langit.

“Datanglah, ikan!” kata Allah. Maka, percikan air laut riuh dengan berbagai ikan yang gembira menerpa dan meluru ke sana sini.

“Kamu bagus!” seru Allah. Sebegitu mereka jadinya.

Lepas itu, Allah kata, “Marilah, haiwan!” Maka, semua binatang keluar main. Bumi bergegar dengan bunyi lantang mereka – mengaum, menyalak, berdengkur, melaung, melolong dan mendengus.

“Segalanya bagus!” sahut Allah. Mereka girang belaka.

Allah melihat semua ciptaanNya dengan penuh kasih sayang. Mereka makmur dalam peliharaan Allah.

Tapi yang paling bagus belum datang lagi. Dari awal lagi, Allah mengidamkan sesuatu yang istimewa dalam hatiNya. Allah mau cipta manusia untuk menikmati Kebahagiaan Abadi. Mereka adalah putera-puteri Allah, dan dunia menjadi kediaman indah untuk mereka.

Jadi Allah menghembus nafas jiwa ke dalam Adam dan Hawa. Apabila mereka buka mata buat kali pertama, yang terlihat adalah wajah Allah sendiri.

Allah pandang mereka seperti seorang ayah. “Kamu mirip saya”, kata Allah. “Kamu karya paling indah yang telah Kucipta”.

Allah mengasihi mereka sepenuh hati. Mereka makmur kerana kasih Allah.

Bersama bintang dan sungai dan angin membelai pokok, Adam dan Hawa mempersembahkan lagu merdu kepada Sang pencipta. Hati mereka penuh girang. Tiada yang sedih atau sakit atau takut atau sepi.

Allah melihat segala ciptaanNya. “Sudah Sempurna!” seru Allah. Sesungguhnya, mereka begitu.

Tapi segala bintang, gunung, lautan dan cakerawala pudar berbanding dengan kasih Allah kepada putera-puteri kesayanganNya.  

Allah rela mengalihkan langit dan bumi demi bersama mereka. Sentiasa. Apa saja terjadi, tidak kira harga pengorbanan, Allah sedia mengasihi mereka selalu.

Maka bermulalah kisah cinta ini…

Setiap Cerita Bisik NamaNya (Pengenalan)

Cerita Dan Lagu

Langit menceritakan kebesaran Allah;

Cakerawala memanggil, “Lihatlah karya ciptaan Allah!”

Hari demi hari… Malam berganti malam…

Mereka menyampaikan ilmu kepada kita 

(Mazmur 19:1-2, parafrasa)

Tulis Allah, “Aku Kasihi Kamu” – di atas langit, di muka bumi dan di dasar laut. Pesanan Allah terpahat di mana-mana jua! Kerana segalanya dicipta demi mencerminkan rupa Sang Pencipta – supaya kita dapat kenal Allah, agar hati kita berlagu.

Lihat-lah burung kenyalang melayang tinggi. Renungi-lah gaya ikan keli bermain dalam sungai. Perhatikan lambaian pokok kelapa di-buai bayu.

Malah Allah suratkan kasih-Nya dalam sebuah buku juga. Namanya: “Alkitab”.

Ramai yang fikir Alkitab ialah buku para wira serta wirawati – orang cerdik dan gagah yang harus anda contohi. Ya, memang ada pahlawan dan serikandi dalam Alkitab, tapi (segera akan anda dapat tahu) mereka semua tidak-lah sempurna. Mereka buat salah (seringkali, secara sengaja!) Mereka penakut dan cabut lari. Kadangkala, mereka juga berlaku jahat.

Tidak, Alkitab itu bukan buku hukum ataupun buku wira contoh semata-mata. Sebenarnya, Alkitab adalah sebuah Cerita – tentang seorang Pengembara muda dari negara jauh yang datang menawan kembali harta kesayangannya. Ia kisah cinta tentang seorang Putera berani yang meninggalkan takhtaNya, mahligaiNya – segalanya – untuk menyelamatkan orang yang dikasihi. Ia seperti dongeng paling indah yang telah tiba-tiba menjelma di dunia nyata.

Oh ya, yang paling bagus tentang Cerita ini – ia adalah benar.

Ada banyak cerita dalam Alkitab, tapi semuanya menyampaikan sebuah Cerita Utama. Cerita tentang bagaimana Allah mengasihi anak-anakNya dan datang membebaskan mereka.

Setiap halaman Alkitab adalah sebahagian Cerita ini. Anda akan temui seorang bayi di dalam kalbu hikayat ini. Setiap cerita dalam Alkitab bisik NamaNya. Dia seakan penyelesaian suatu teka-teki. Secara tak disangka, anda dapat lihat suatu gambaran lengkap kerana kedatanganNya.

Dia bukan bayi biasa. Segalanya bergantung kepada Bayi ini. Suatu hari, Dia akan…

Oh, tunggu sebentar…

Cerita kita harus bermula di zaman yang paling awal sekali…

Pada mulanya…

The Pulpit And Politics (Part 1)

The Bible and the Ballot is a collection of articles produced by a group of Christians who are concerned with Christian political engagement in Malaysia today. They come from various church traditions who share connection with Friends in Conversation network. It was premised on the Lordship of Christ over all of life and sought to encourage other believers to think of their role as responsible citizens. In the following review, I will pick up some key themes and proceed to comment on selected articles.

The first contributor, Alwyn Lau, examined if the pastors could tell people how to vote from the pulpit and gave a clear answer: “Yes”! The argument is buttressed by references to biblical prophets and apostles who openly challenged corrupt kings and religious leaders of their day. Did Jesus pull punches in his confrontation against the Pharisees and Sadducees?

At least one reader/preacher expressed this concern, “Wouldn’t the pastor’s sermons, then, reek of partisanship when he takes side for a particular political party or candidate? What about separation of church and state?”

No, Alwyn argued, because a church becomes partisan only when she blindly swallows the rhetoric of a political party “lock, stock and ballot” without being a discerning critic of its faults also. After all, a church council could recommend to purchase its audio equipments from a particular brand (let’s say, Yamaha) without being accused of playing ‘favorites’, could it not?

As much as I welcome his concluding remarks about the centrality of the cross in our political engagement (“to serve and suffer for the community”), it seems that this “Yamaha sound-system” argument committed the fallacy of a ‘weak analogy’. A more representative analogy would sound like this: “Should a preacher recommend  from the pulpit that church-goers purchase Panasonic air-conditioners because its greener technology is more in line with a creation-caring trajectory of the Bible?”

Then it becomes more apparent why many pastors would be hesitant to countenance the possibility of the pulpit being hijacked for profiteering or politicking agenda. When they preach the Word, they are supposed to speak as representatives of the Almighty.

Perhaps a more fruitful and concrete question to explore is, “When, if ever, is it appropriate for pastors to make such recommendations from the pulpit?”

It would appear that such unusual homiletic ventures are conceivable to the degree that

-         the facts are beyond reasonable doubt that Panasonic/Pakatan Rakyat are “far better”

-         in unusual circumstances where failing to do so causes significant harm to others (i.e. all other brands emit disastrous ozone-depleting chemicals or BN is guilty of some heinous crimes against humanity)

Even granting that a government agency is guilty of detaining people without trial, it is not always clear whether the best course of action is to preach up a mandate for the Opposition. Could it be a vote recommendation against the Home Minister instead of the entire political platform? Or would a press statement or candlelight vigil on this particular issue be more effective compared to a pulpit message? How did you respond when evangelical pastors publicly endorsed George Bush Jr. for President of America because of his stance on abortion?

Such Brian-McLaren-esque questions throw up the ambiguity and diversity inherent in such daunting, complex socio-political issues. As Christian leaders, we should not shy away from our responsibility to be engaged at various levels. But it does caution us to humility and not to be too quick to take sides from the pulpit.

Recently, I heard desas-desus of a local church that is blessed (or cursed?) with two pious believers from across the political divide facing off with each other. It may not be the most pastoral approach to endorse one candidate and not the other. However, I believe it is appropriate for the pastor to discuss pertinent issues that affect the community and explain his personal affiliations on that basis. In fact, Pastor Soo Inn did precisely that in his article entitled “Vote for Change: My Decision at this point in History”. In that capacity as a concerned citizen, the Christian leader could still engage meaningfully with such public issues without risking the tarnish of partisanship for the Church. 

The Meaning of the Cross

Models Of The Atonement

Introduction

Every religion or ideology has its representative symbol. The lotus flower depicts the emergence of purity from murky waters in Buddhist thought. The Star of David is a symbol for modern Judaism while the crescent moon became internationally associated with Islam. Even secular Marxism is signified by a hammer and sickle to represent industry and agriculture of the proletariat. At least since the 2^nd century A.D., the cross has been used as the visual emblem for Christianity. For believers, it signifies that the death of Jesus is central to their faith even though crucifixion was a much-feared form of capital punishment.

Throughout the centuries, Christians have cherished and grappled with this mystery of how His death brought about reconciliation with God. The canonical Gospels devoted such disproportionate attention on events surrounding the final week of Jesus’ life on earth that they are sometimes described as “passion narrative with an extended introduction”. It is as if the action shifts into high-definition, bullet-time motion when the story reaches its climax in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. But what exactly did Christ accomplish on the cross of Calvary? Several frameworks for explaining the atonement have consequently gained wide acceptance in various historical contexts.

Models of the Atonement

Surrounded by pagan occults, many early Greek Fathers interpreted Christ’s death as a ransom paid to Satan to redeem captive humanity from his clutches. In Mark 10:45, Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Origen has a popular analogy that likened Satan to a ferocious fish that swallowed the bait of Christ’s human form and got caught by the hook of His deity. The forces of hell bit off more than they could chew when Christ rose victoriously from the grave. 

Drawing from these patristic sources, Gustav Aulen, a Swedish theologian, viewed the cross as Christ’s public triumph over evil powers in a cosmic battle to unshackle humanity from bondage. The Christus Victor motif found biblical support in passages like Hebrews 2:14: “Since the children have flesh and blood, (Christ) too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.”

Influenced by Roman legal codes, early Latin Fathers such as Ambrose construed the cross as Christ satisfying the requirements of God’s law. They drew support from Galatians 3:13, which read, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us”. During the medieval period, the satisfaction theory of the cross was developed further by Anselm as satisfying God’s honor. In feudal societies, an overlord whose dignity was offended could either punish the guilty peasants or forgive them when his honor is satisfied by another. Although God was dishonored by our rebellion, Anselm believed that we are forgiven because Christ’s obedient, meritorious death compensated for His honor. 

Peter Abelard, a younger contemporary of Anselm, reacted strongly against the prevailing theories and insisted that Christ’s suffering is primarily a display of how great God’s love is for us. “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). His sacrificial death melts away our enmity, awakens moral change and moves us to seek forgiveness. Some proponents of the moral influence theory also reject any objective requirement to appease God’s anger. Rather, the sole obstacle to salvation lies in the subjective resistance of sinners. Consequently, the cross as an expression of God’s love is required to inspire us to imitate Christ’s self-giving ethics.

Last but not least, some influential Church Fathers such as Athanasius in the East and Augustine in the West (to name just a few) also held that Christ took upon Himself the deserved penalty of fallen humanity as a sinless substitute in their place. The penal substitutionary view was further developed by the Reformers. 1 John 4:8-10 declares, “God is love. . . . This is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” In explaining this biblical passage, Calvin wrote that God, at the same time when he loved us, was also hostile to us because of our transgressions. [1] Reconciliation was made possible because Christ appeased His holy wrath and opened the way for our pardon. By doing so, God can be both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).

Pierced For Our Transgressions

Although penal substitutionary atonement has been the predominant theme in evangelical preaching, some theologians today seem to favor a plurality of atonement theories. In differing degrees, the various models stress crucial facets of Christ’s work on the cross that should be recovered. They need not be mutually exclusive. Indeed, it appears that when we understand the centrality of the cross as something accomplished primarily in relation to God Himself that its implications for the cosmos, demonic powers and ethics come into more balanced perspective.

Let us attempt a synthesis of these themes: The heart of the cross is, first and foremost, Christ’s vicarious sin-bearing to take upon Himself the just wrath of God (Isaiah 53). He absorbed the punishment that we deserved as a substitute so that sinners may be forgiven while satisfying the righteous demands of God’s law. However, the moral law ought not to be seen as a higher abstract entity independent of the Law-giver, but a reflection of God’s own holy character.

Unless the cross objectively rescues us, it would be an empty show of sentimentality just like a silly lovesick boy who declares, "Darling, I will prove my love for you by jumping off Niagara Falls". It is only a meaningful act of love if the beloved is in real danger so that diving into the waters would be an attempt to rescue her. And would it not be inappropriate to conceive of the cross as Jesus paying the devil a “pound of flesh”? God owed the devil nothing but retribution. Rather, the ransom was paid to God on behalf of sinners so that we now could belong to Christ.

And yes, by looking at the cross, we can learn much about Christ’s obedience even unto death and denying one's will to do the Father's. 2 Peter 2:21 says, “Because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” Yet, it is because Christ has rescued us from moral condemnation that we have the most powerful, liberating motivation for obedience in life. Otherwise, our moral performance degenerates into yet another self-salvation project.

Furthermore, a painful death by crucifixion is not apparently victorious if we conceive it exclusively as cosmic warfare. The demonic powers were stripped of their condemnatory weapons and made a public spectacle precisely because Christ forgave our trespasses by nailing our legal debts on the cross (Colossians 2:13-15).

The first Passover serves as an illuminating paradigm for connecting the deliverance of God’s people from spiritual bondage with penal substitutionary atonement. Nine plagues had fallen upon their Egyptian oppressors while the Israelites were spared in a protracted “power encounter”. But Pharoah stubbornly refused to let His people go. The stage was set for the climactic “judgment on all the gods of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12). If the tenth plague followed the same pattern as the preceding ones, it would be a coherent narrative of how divine judgment liberated humanity from evil powers. But unlike the other plagues, the firstborn of the Israelites were not automatically spared when God struck down the firstborn of Egypt. Instead, they were instructed to slaughter a spotless lamb and apply its blood to the door so that the wrath of God would “pass over” them. The Passover lamb was a sacrificial substitute for the Israelite firstborn so they may be spared from divine judgment (Exodus 13:11-16). What a sobering caution against triumphalism to realize that God’s people are not merely victims but guilty sinners in need of atoning grace! Similarly, our own liberation from Satan’s accusing condemnations is secured on the grounds of Christ’s once-for-all atonement as the Lamb of God (Hebrews 9).

The Divine Conspiracy

In summary, we can make much sense of various biblical themes of atonement through the lens of Christ's vicarious sacrifice. But in and of themselves, these motifs are emptied of their power. Unfortunately, this doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement has recently been described by critics as 'cosmic child abuse', portraying a fierce Father who needs to punish the innocent Son before He could forgive the guilty. But the objection fails to see that Jesus is not just a third-party bystander.

He is the Judge Himself receiving the punishment. He is the incarnate God, eternally one with the Father. The cross is biblically portrayed as a Trinitarian conspiracy of love where the Father ‘so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son’ (John 3:16) and the Son voluntarily accepts the cross as the supreme expression of His own love: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends.” (John 15:13) That’s the kind of love that continue to inspire countless choruses of worship devoted to the Sinless One who became sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him:

In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fulness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.[2]

---

[1] Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II. xvii. Section 2.   

[2] “In Christ Alone”, Words and Music by Keith Getty and Stuart Townsend, Copyright @ 2011 Kingway Thankyou Music

Gospel in the City (Malaysia)

Kuala Lumpur Gospel in the City

Commentary: Faith and Public Life

SOO-INN TAN
sooinn@graceworks.com.sg

Recently I was asked to share something about the political situation in Malaysia at a missions prayer group. I was given about ten minutes so only the highlights. I shared that in the past, many churches and Christians in Malaysia did not get involved in politics as they saw this as a distraction from the only work that mattered --- evangelism. After all, this world is temporary but saving souls is for eternity. I shared that times had changed. There was a new generation of Christians who did not see a dichotomy between evangelism and social engagement.

On the whole, I said, I thought this was a healthy development. Involvement in politics took seriously the fact that God had ordained governments as a key structure to order human life (Romans 13:1). As Charles E. Gutenson writes:

Governments are ordained by God. While God does not indicate that any one particular form of government is to be implemented, Scripture does lead us to conclude that government in general is intended by God as one of the "powers" that orders human life. Broadly speaking, God intends governments to serve and empower what might be considered a kingdom agenda. (Charles E. Gutenson, Christians and the Common Good, Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011, 119)

Gutenson goes on to say that a kingdom agenda is one that pursues justice and mercy. In other words, governments are God's idea but they exist for the purpose of serving God's agenda for justice and mercy. Therefore, if we have the opportunity to choose a government, we should do so, and select a government that better serves God's agenda. (I have written on this before. See http://tinyurl.com/6o9mdu2)

But I also shared my concern that the church in Malaysia not swing to the other extreme and put too much faith in the political process to make Malaysia a better place. Again I like the way Gutenson puts it:

. . . we tend to put too much trust in the political process for making the world a better place. . . . I think that the public policies and institutions can serve a kingdom agenda. The concern I express here relates to putting too much confidence in them. (Gutenson, Christians and the Common Good, 136).

This is a heady time for the church in Malaysia. While a committed few have always been engaged in the political arena, Christians in general have become much more visible and vocal on the national stage especially after the 2008 General Elections when for the first time in the nations' history, it looked like there was a possibility to change the government. Those who believed that it was time for a change of government were emboldened. This included many in the church. I am one of them. I don't believe there are any perfect governments this side of heaven but I think the present federal government's track record on racism, corruption, mismanagement, human rights, and their treatment of the marginalised, warrants that they spend some time in the opposition (http://themicahmandate.org/2011/04/we-must-vote-for-change/). All Malaysian followers of Jesus should vote, and vote wisely, in the coming general elections.

But as I shared at the prayer meeting I couldn't help but think about the church's unique contribution to the nation. There is a place for political activism. When we do this we join the ranks of folks from many faith traditions in pursuing a common good. But as followers of Jesus are there unique contributions we can bring to the nation? I can think of two.

First, the church must model the values we are pushing for in society and which we wish to see practised by the governments of the day. Among other things, it means that our churches:

* are communities where all races are welcomed and celebrated;
* have leaders who are not self-serving. They are humble servant leaders who serve for the sake of the community;
* are free from the love of money; and
* are reaching out to the weakest and marginalised in the church and the community.

Gutenson cites Stanley Hauerwas on this:

Stanley Hauerwas has observed that the most basic job of the church is just to be the church --- to embody a different way of being that arises from following the radical Rabbi from Nazareth . . . (Gutenson, Christians and the Common Good, 142).

Getting our own act together will be tougher and will take longer than marching in the streets. Yet we will be failing our nation if we do not model what we preach.

Next, our unique contribution to the nation is the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is perhaps the most controversial of the church's contribution to the nation but the greatest problem of humankind is sin, a sin that cuts us off from the God of life, and therefore the best way to see society transformed is to see hearts transformed by the gospel. Christians have sometimes been accused of "converting people." I have argued elsewhere that we can't convert anyone. That is the work of the Holy Spirit (http://tinyurl.com/88ruuv4). But we are to bear witness to the gospel, and humbly and sensitively extend God's invitation to people to turn to God through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Evangelical revival in England in the 18th century led to the betterment of society at many levels, including the eventual abolishment of slavery. The evangelicals of the day did not shy from engaging society but never wavered from their passion for evangelism.

The evangelicals were not detached from politics, as the Pietists were, but their controlling passion was the conversion of the lost (Bruce L. Shelley, Church History In Plain Language, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995, 332).

Society changed for the better because people were becoming followers of Jesus.

The 13th General Elections in Malaysia will be called soon, maybe as early as June. May all followers in Malaysia be in prayer, and vote on polling day. I am now residing in Singapore but I will be back to vote. I feel that in Singapore, the nation is tweaking a system that is by and large working, but in Malaysia we are fighting for the soul of the country. Should Christians in Malaysia be involved politically? Yes of course. But our ultimate trust is in the Lord and we should never neglect the need to model and to share the gospel.

It will be difficult to hold the many agendas in tension but we must try.

Maintaining a position that allows the church to primarily to be the church while still offering a critique to political institutions is difficult . . . The role of the church is to be the church, but in doing so the church should both embody and speak critique to the powers that have been corrupted and no longer serve the kingdom agenda. (Gutenson, Christians and the Common Good, 142-143.)

My last word to the prayer group was: "Please pray for the revival of the church in Malaysia."

PS. Further reflections on issues of faith and politics in Malaysia can be found in The Bible and the Ballot, a Graceworks publication (http://tinyurl.com/7jko87n). Let us know if you need help to get a copy.