How To Do Legal Drafting?

A lawyer friend of mine (who probably got it from someone else or through the Net) sent me this brilliant and humourous yet realistic illustration of how lawyers would make things (and life) difficult for others. Also with this illustration, it might de-mystifies for those financially affected as to how legal fees can escalate, especially when billed by the hours or time spent (by the legal assistant(s), senior legal assistant/associate and a partner before the penultimate draft is reviewed by the senior partner).


Original wording:

I want to eat burgers with you.

First amendment:

I want to eat burgers with you. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing shall not be construed to mean that I want to eat a burger that has you in, on or under it.

Second amendment:

I want to eat burgers with you. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing immediately preceding sentence shall not be construed to mean that I want to eat a burger that has you (or any part of you) in, on or under it.

Third amendment:

I want to eat burgers with you. For the avoidance of doubt, the immediately preceding sentence :

(i) shall not be construed to mean that I want to eat a burger that has you (or any part of you) in, on or under it ; and

(ii) shall be construed only to mean that I want you to eat a burger and me to eat a burger at the same time and in the same place.

Fourth amendment:

I want to eat burgers with you. For the avoidance of doubt, the immediately preceding sentence :

(i) shall not be construed to mean that I want to eat a burger that has you (or any part of you) in, on or under it; and

(ii) shall be construed only to mean only that I want you to eat a burger and I want me to eat a burger at the same time and in the same place.

For the purposes of the immediately preceding paragraph, with respect to the consumption of one or more burgers (if any) by a person (for the purposes of this paragraph, the “first person”) and another person (for the purposes of this paragraph, the “second person”):

(a) “at the same time” means the consumption of the first person’s burger by the first person at approximately the same time as the consumption of the second person’s burger by the second person; and

(b) “in the same place” means to the geographic location at which such burgers are consumed and does not, for the avoidance of doubt, refer to any part of any burger.

Final amendment:

I want to eat burgers with you (the “Original Sentence”). For the avoidance of doubt, the immediately preceding sentence Original Sentence:

(i) shall not be construed to mean that I want to eat a burger that has you (or any part of you) in, on or under it; and

(ii) shall be construed to mean only that I want you to eat a burger and I want me to eat a burger at the same time and in the same place.

For the purposes of the immediately preceding paragraph, with respect to the consumption of one or more burgers (if any) by a person (for the purposes of this paragraph, the “first person”) and another person (for the purposes of this paragraph, the “second person”):

(a) “at the same time” means the consumption of the first person’s burger by the first person at approximately the same time as the consumption of the second person’s burger by the second person (Provided, for the avoidance of doubt, that the “first person’s burger” means the burger (whether made of beef, chicken, fish, lamb or the flesh of any other animal) owned by that person and not a burger made from the flesh of that person and the same shall apply to the “second person’s burger”, mutatis mutandis and Provided Further that “at approximately the same time” means that (1) the first person commences the consumption of the first person’s burger within 10 minutes of the consumption of the second person’s burger by the second person and (2) the first person finishes consuming the first person’s burger (or notifies the second person, in a notice in writing which is signed by the first person, that the first person has determined that it will not finish the consumption of said first person’s burger) within 10 minutes of either (A) the completion of consumption of the second person’s burger by the second person or (B) the delivery of notice in writing (signed by the second person) by the second person to the first person which states that the second person has determined that it will not finish the consumption of said second person’s burger; and

(b) “in the same place” means to the geographic location at which such burgers are consumed and does not, for the avoidance of doubt, refer to any part of any burger the first person shall consume the first person’s burger whilst seated at a table (the “Table”) and the second person shall consume the second person’s burger whilst seated at the Table.

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the Original Sentence (or any paragraph referring thereto) shall be construed to refer to the consumption of human flesh by any person or express the desire on the part of any person to do the same.


Note to draft:

Wording is not ideal but may be the best that may be accomplished under the circumstances, given the complexity of the subject matter and the completely unreasonable deadline.

Which Transformers Character Are You?

Been having a little "Transformers" fever lately - having Burger King Kiddies Meal set frequently so as to collect their Transformers movie tie-in toys; checking out department stores on their latest Hasbro stocks on those "more than meets the eye" toys; watching the 1986 cartoon "Transformers: the Movie". I was surprised to find that there is a quiz on the characters of these robots-in-disguise. Of course I couldn't resist but to take the quiz to add on to the current mania and the result was as follows:

You scored as: Optimus Prime





You are Optimus Prime! The greatest Autobot to ever live. Fighting to uphold your beliefs is important to you. You are a genuine person that cares a lot about the people around you. You rock!!



Which Transformers character Are You?
created with QuizFarm.com


I guess it is just the little boy in me again imagining myself as Prime; having a little time-out to escape the unpalatable reality I am facing now.

Slavery?

I had the opportunity of visiting blue and sunny Mauritius this month.



But what fascinated me most was the sight of this mountain of volcanic formation near the place where I stayed: Le Morne Brabant.



The mountain is an intimidating sight, standing tall and dark against the mostly blue sky.



When I first arrived, I was told of its history, which invoked the strong feelings I had:

Le Morne Brabant was once a hiding place for many runaway slaves. After the abolition of slavery in 1835, an expedition was sent out with the news of their freedom. Seeing that many people (and soldiers with firearms) coming their way, they thought the expedition was for the purpose of capturing them again. So they jumped from the mountain cliff, preferring to die rather than being enslaved again.

So till today, Le Morne Brabant stands as a symbol for freedom.

The thought of slavery reminded me of the life of William Wilberforce, an evangelical member of the British Parliament, which was depicted in a recent movie called "Amazing Grace". He faced great obstacles in his fight for the abolition of the African slave trade and against slavery itself until they were both illegal in the British empire. The battle consumed almost 46 years of his life. The cause of abolishing the slave trade was defeated 11 times before its passage in 1807. And the battle for abolishing slavery itself did not gain the decisive victory until 3 days before he died in 1833. This decision in 1833 resulted in the British colony of Mauritius then to follow suit and abolished slavery in 1835.

Abolishing the African slave trade became for Wilberforce
“The grand object of my parliamentary existence. . . . If it
please God to know me so far may I be the instrument of stopping
such a course of wickedness and cruelty as never before
disgraced a Christian country.”

Christ died to set us free, let us not be slaves to any other except Him.

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Galatians 5:1 (ESV)

What are some of the things today that the church is enslaved to? Rigid practices, institutional policies, domineering controls, etc?

What Is Your Political Type?

Recently I was introduced to Facebook, a "social utility that connects you with the people around you". Quite an impressive thingy that could get one addicted to it... Anyway, as I was about to say before I digressed, when setting up my profile, I was asked what is my political view? Huh? I didn't know how to answer that then....

Well, now I know...I found this interesting and educational quiz here that tells me what is my political view.

The political description that fits me best is... CONSERVATIVE

CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.


A conservative tends to be for the free market in economic affairs, and against what he calls "big government" -- an excessive federal bureaucracy that intervenes in a wide range of social and economic areas. Conservatives prefer a kind of individualistic self-sufficiency. On social issues conservatives are pro-family, anti-abortion, and in general support traditional moral values and religion. Conservatives usually favor a strong military. -- iAmericanSpirit Political Dictionary


Conservatives generally believe that there exists a transcendent moral order, to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society. Conservatives uphold the principle of social continuity. They prefer the devil they know to the devil they don't know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long and painful social experience, the results of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order can ever be created. -- Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind


Well..., is this good or bad? Or is the quiz accurate or reflective?

Lina Joy: Some More Views?

Taking time to read and think over the following press statements from NECF and Bar Council....


National Evangelical Christian Fellowship Malaysia's Response to the Lina Joy Judgement

NECF Malaysia is gravely disappointed by and dissatisfied with the Federal Court’s dismissal of Lina Joy’s appeal.

First of all, the Federal Court’s decision does not uphold the constitutional safeguard of freedom of religion. It is a person’s fundamental right to profess a religion of her own choice free from compulsion or interference by the state or its institutions. Freedom of religion under the Federal Constitution can only be restrained where a person acts contrary to any general law affecting public order, public health or morality. Therefore, it defies all logic that Lina Joy’s freedom to profess and exercise a faith of her own choice can be subject to administrative barrier in the NRD refusing to effect a change to her religious status except upon the order of the Syariah Court. The foundational principle of supremacy of the Constitution over all other laws must be upheld.

NECF Malaysia is also deeply dismayed that the majority decision of the highest court has failed to bring about resolution to the present interfaith issues. By insisting that a person who no longer professes the religion of Islam but has embraced another religion to seek an order of the Syariah Court is equivalent to insisting that a muallaf who has attained the age of majority is obliged to seek the clearance of the religious leaders or authority of his former religion. Mutual respect and tolerance surely cannot be fostered without due regard to the principle of reciprocity.

In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Federal Court has perpetuated a most unfair and untenable position for Lina Joy and others in a similar dilemma. They now cannot enjoy the full rights as citizens as they are trapped in a religion which they no longer profess and are unable to lawfully marry, have children and live in accordance with the values, precepts and practices of the religion of their choice.

Finally, NECF Malaysia is extremely concerned that the Lina Joy case demonstrates the highest civil court retreating in the face of the relentless onslaught on their position as the third institution in a democratic system of government. In the hierarchy of the judiciary, the Federal Court is vested the judicial power of the Federation.

In this case, the judiciary has unfortunately failed to play its most important role of being both the guardians and interpreters of our Constitution. As an institution above the fray of politics, it is the only institution that can neutrally and without partisan considerations decide the serious issues raised in the Lina Joy case. It is constrained only by true and loyal allegiance to the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution, the twin pillars of our Rukunegara.

In the civil court’s abdicating its judicial power in religious matters on the basis of Article 121 (IA) of the Constitution, the Federal Court is placing undue stress and strain on the government to legislate or amend related laws when the due exercise of its judicial power as interpreter of the Constitution would have brought about a fair and just resolution to the issues.

While the country has undergone a significant shift towards “islamization” since the 1980s, the proclamation of Malaysia as an Islamic country in 2001, though a political expediency, has had considerable psychological impact and further polarized Malaysian citizens of different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Religious vigilantism has been heightened among not only the religious ones, but also the bureaucrats. Administrative actions whether in policies or laws are being implemented without scrupulous regard to the requirements of the policies or laws but with the imposition of syariah rules and requirements. For example, non-Muslim police women are to wear Muslim headscarves for the annual parade. The happenings in recent years are indeed grave concerns. Among others, there are religious authorities breaking up families in the name of religion, the custody tussles between a non-Muslim parent and a Muslim parent, and public morality based on the principles of a particular religion.

The Christian community acknowledges the special position of Islam as the State religion for ceremonial purposes, and recognizes the application of Islamic family laws to those professing the religion of Islam in areas outlined in the Federal Constitution. We uphold the sanctity of the Malaysian Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and it is our hope that the Prime Minister, who has publicly declared to be the Prime Minister of all Malaysians, would fulfil his promises to establish a clean, just, harmonious and prosperous nation.

The decision of the Federal Court sets a landmark example of making legal judgement based on religious sentiment and thus inadvertently disregarding the fundamental right of an individual to profess and practice the religion of his or her choice. In the light of this, NECF Malaysia urges all Christian leaders to encourage their congregations to set aside time, both corporately and privately, to pray for our nation as a whole, in the next few weeks and months. Let us bring to God these matters of extreme gravity and urgency, and humbly ask Him to intervene so that truth, righteousness and godliness will prevail in our land.

The very basic structure of our nation, our institutions, our Constitution and the Rukunegara must remain the solid rock on which Malaysia will continue to prosper and stand tall among the community of nations, and on which all Malaysians strive and thrive together as a multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious society. Let us, the concerned citizens of Malaysia, exercise our rights to make a good decision at the right place and at the right platform.

Issued on 1 June 2007



Bar Council: Federal Constitution must remain supreme

The right guaranteed by Article 11 grants every person the freedom to choose, affirm, practise and profess the religion of his/her choice. This freedom of belief is (and must be) an unqualified freedom fully protected by the law. Any law that prevents or in substance curtails the exercise of this freedom must be struck down as being inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, and as being incongruous with such a fundamental freedom. Further, the religion that a person in fact professes must be the religion that that person states he or she professes; since there can be no evidential difficulty in ascertaining this in the case of a living person. Asserting this right, and upholding it, in no way undermines the position of any religion under the Federal Constitution and is consistent with the position of Islam under Article 3.

The Federal Constitution is, and must remain in law, supreme. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the provisions of State Enactments and of the Federal Constitution, the latter must prevail. The majority decision in the Lina Joy case pronounced yesterday runs counter to this position. In this decision, the express provisions of the Federal Constitution were made to give way to an interpretation of some form of implied jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. It further clothed the National Registration Department with powers beyond that which was expressly provided for under the relevant legislation.

The implied jurisdiction approach runs contrary to the legal position that State law must confer on the Syariah Court express jurisdiction to deal with any matters stated in the State List. The majority decision has implied such jurisdiction in the absence of statutory provisions to that effect, which in any event must accord with the Federal Constitution in order to be valid. In short the majority of the Federal Court has also proceeded to “legislate”, (which the Courts are not permitted to do) and in a manner inconsistent with the Federal Constitution.

We support the minority judgment of Justice Dato’ Richard Malanjum HMP, who stated that,
“jurisdiction must be express and not implied. The doctrine of implied powers must be limited to those matters that are necessary for the performance of a legal grant. And in the matters of fundamental rights there must be as far as possible be express authorization for curtailment or violation of fundamental freedoms. No court or authority should be easily allowed to have implied powers to curtail rights constitutionally granted.” (emphasis ours)
We must further heed the warning of the learned Judge that “… to rely on implied power as a source of jurisdiction would set an unhealthy trend.”

The Judgment further noted that it was unreasonable “to expect the Appellant to apply for a certificate of apostasy when to do so would likely expose her to a range of offences under the Islamic law”. Little comfort is drawn from cases of those who wish to leave or change religion, who have faced criminal sanctions and most recently the case of Revathi in Malacca who was deprived of her liberty and access to her husband and minor child.

It is important that this minority Judgment be given careful consideration.

We are mindful that issues relating to religion will inevitably draw emotive responses. However in a multi-religious society like ours, Malaysians must be prepared to confront these issues maturely and dispassionately, and within the framework of our Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Finally, we would commend the approach of the late Tun Mohamed Suffian in such cases where he said,
“In a multi-racial and multi-religious society like yours and mine, while we judges cannot help being Malay or Chinese or Indian; or being Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever, we strive not to be too identified with any particular race or religion – so that nobody reading our judgment with our name deleted could with confidence identify our race or religion, and so that the various communities, especially minority communities, are assured that we will not allow their rights to be trampled underfoot.” (The Constitution of Malaysia - Further Perspectives and Developments).

Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar
31 May 2007

Lina Joy: More Views?

Found a report by Associated Press here on the decision of Lina Joy's case delivered yesterday.

At the end of the article, it stated:
"Leonard Teoh, the lawyer on a watching brief for the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism, said it is now up to the legislature and the government to resolve the religious quagmire.

"Our next process should be the political process. We are going to talk to the prime minister, to our politicians. In the interest of racial and religious harmony, something needs to be done. People like Lina Joy should not be trapped in a legal cage, not being able to come out to practice their true conscience and religion," he said."

Interestingly, just a few minutes ago, I received an SMS update from The Star alert stating:
"31/5 Federal Court's decision on Lina Joy's appeal not a political one, Govt did not assert pressure on the judges in any way, says PM/STAR"
- I wonder what prompted this statement..


There are pending cases of families being torn apart, children taken away from parents and wives virtually abducted on the ground that one party was a Muslim and therefore not permitted to marry, live with or cohabit with persons of other religions. One of which involves a Hindu truck driver Magendran Sababathy who filed a suit alleging that Islamic authorities had illegally detained his Muslim wife. He said Islamic officials raided the couple's home on April 28 and took away his three-year old daughter telling him that his marriage under Hindu rites is illegal.

"All these cases are disturbing and reflect the rising Islamisation in the country, regardless of the price to national unity and interracial harmony," said Lim Kit Siang, parliamentary opposition leader. "The secular basis of the Constitution is being eroded relentlessly," he said. "Many people beginning to feel helpless."


There are many issues at hand and there are, again, more questions than answers...What can and should the church do in times like these?

Lina Joy: What's Next?

Today the Federal Court, the highest court in Malaysia, gave a decision rejecting/dismissing on a majority of 2-1 the appeal of Lina Joy to have the religious status of "Islam" be removed from her national identity card.

Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff said he agrees with Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim's judgment, whereas Justice Richard Malanjum delivered the dissenting judgement.


The Christian Federation of Malaysia gave a statement on Lina Joy's case as follows:

The Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) is disturbed and saddened by the decision of the Federal Court in the Lina Joy’s case, where the Court has confirmed the National Registration Department’s right to insist on a certificate from the Syariah Court that she has apostatized, prior to registering her conversion in the identity card.

We reiterate that the NRD’s insistence on such a certificate being produced has curtailed the fundamental right of an individual to profess and express his or her religion as provided for in Article 11.

We have also noted with much concern that this decision reflects a growing trend of decisions in the courts where civil courts are abdicating their responsibility of providing legal redress to individuals who only seek to profess and live their religion according to their conscience.

As a result of this decision, it is now more pressing for the government and lawmakers to revisit the relevant legislation and to reinstate the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts so that equal protection of the right to choose and express one’s religion is accorded to all Malaysians, as enshrined in Article 11.

The CFM will continue to cooperate with the government and all Malaysians to uphold the Government’s vision of upholding the multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious character of our nation.

Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing, SJ
Chairman and Executive Committee
Christian Federation of Malaysia

Dated 30th May 2007



Raising concerns is also The Malaysia Hindu Sangam:

The Malaysia Hindu Sangam is gravely concerned with the Federal Court’s majority decision in Lina Joy’s case.

The Federal Court by a 2-1 majority today rejected the appeal by this ethnic Malay (who was born to Muslim parents but says she is now a Christian) for the Government to issue her an identity card without the description “Islam” on it. Lina Joy had argued that the Government’s requirement for her to first obtain a declaration from the Islamic court that she had “apostasized” from Islam was unconstitutional.

The decision may have serious personal repercussions for a significant number of persons living in Malaysia who say they are not Muslim but are nevertheless being forced to comply with Islamic laws by the government.

We anxiously await a perusal of the full written grounds of judgment to assess the full implications of this decision.

In the meanwhile, since the Judiciary appears unable or unwilling to act in these matters, we call on Parliament and all State Legislatures to urgently enact laws that ensure persons who do not profess Islam are not subjected to Islamic law.

The fundamental liberty of all Malaysians to profess and practise their faith in peace and harmony must be respected, both in fact and in law.

Dated 30th May 2007

Datuk A. Vaithilingam PJN, SSA, AMN, ASA, PJK
President
Malaysia Hindu Sangam



On the other side of the story, the Muslim Organisation in Defence of Islam states as follows:

The Muslim Organisations in Defence of Islam (PEMBELA) welcome today's decision by the Federal Court by praising Allah the Almighty for by His grace and mercy that the court has taken this position. We welcome and applaud this decision by which we believe that justice has been served. We believe that this decision is a relief for the majority of both Muslims and non-Muslims alike in Malaysia.

We say this because we see this decision as vindicating and upholding the existing arrangement relating to the position of Islam and the Shariah courts in the constitutional and legal set-up of the country. An arrangement that has been in place since before independence and 50 years after. It has been well accepted by all communities to the extend that for 50 years after Merdeka (Independence) we have been able to maintain one of the best records in the world of a multiracial multireligious society co-existing and building a nation together. In that spirit, this decision should not be perceived as a victory for Muslims and a loss for non-Muslims in Malaysia. Instead it should be seen as a rejection of an attempt by a certain individuals and segments to deconstruct and radically revamp of the current formula. A formula built upon a mutual appreciation and understanding of the historical background and social realities of the Malaysian society. One that is in harmony and reflects well with what we are as a nation.

We would like to urge all parties to accept the decision wholly and graciously. We also plead to those who were hoping for an opposite outcome to consider modifying their expectations to suit what is good and more sustainable given our circumstances. We reiterate that this decision is clearly more just and fair in a broader and higher sense of these words.

We also hope that we have seen the last of similar attempts. We invite instead anyone who feels that they are aggrieved within the existing arrangement, to choose other less confrontational, controversial or disruptive approach towards change or reform.

We also take this opportunity, in a time when Islamophobia seems to be very popular, to call upon all Islamic religious authorities and agencies to be extra diligent, efficient and professional in discharging their duties so that the good name of the religion does not suffer by mistakes or weaknesses at the implementation level. The Muslim NGOs are willing to come to the assistance of anyone, Muslims or non-Muslims, in genuine cases. It would be un-Islamic and wrong for us to tolerate any injustice, even by Muslims or in the name of Islam. Having said that, as Muslims, we re-affirm our full faith in the notion of justice as espoused by true teachings of Islam.

YUSRI MOHAMAD
On behalf:Organisations to the Defence of Islam (PEMBELA) and President of the Muslim youth Movement of Malaysia



There could be many effects and consequences arising from this decision. There are other pending court cases, one is Subashini's case, that may be decided upon similar points of law as raised in Lina Joy's case.

Let us continue to pray for God's wisdom and grace in this subject matter ...

Which Theologian Are You?

Found this "theologically challenging" fun quiz here. The result was not what I had expected...




You scored as Anselm

"Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'"


Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com


Anselm?! I don't even have any of his works...

Church: What now? - Part 3

I have been reflecting the things which I have blogged on lately. Honestly, I don’t have answers, just questions and more questions.

The following are some of the questions I have been thinking (aloud) about, asking and hoping to find the answers myself :-

If the church is also filled with imperfect people, how can it be a safe place?
Many felt betrayed or disappointed with “church”, largely due to some point in time they have been hurt or discouraged by people, especially those whom they looked up to as leaders. Nobody’s perfect and the church could and is also a place where one can still get hurt or disappointed. But there is a difference. There is a channel of God’s grace.

What is the purpose of the church?
Its purpose is to draw people into Christ, to mirror Christ to one another, to show Christ to others by the way we live.

How is the church doing in carrying out this purpose?
It all depends very much on the people and their relationship with God through Christ. How could the church draw people into Christ, mirror Christ and demonstrate Christ if the people don’t know Christ themselves or don’t have a relationship with Him or don’t walk in the way of Christ? It will indeed be a sad affair if the church decides to substitute the way of the Spirit with the ways and thoughts of the material world...

What then shall we do with the church that may still hurt us?
There is always conflict in human relationships. The first step may be to acknowledge that we are still part of the church (the family). Ideally, the church is a spiritual community with which we make our journey toward God, knowing His purposes in our circumstances and seeking Him together. We still need each other to go on the journey. We will still encounter difficulties, confusion and disappointment but in all these, we should have a readiness to listen, learn and live, knowing that there is purpose in pain and in turn, have faith in God’s divine providence. We cannot go on with our own strength and understanding to manage our hurt and pain and we need to go beyond that to discovering God in a fresh way.

What happens when we are hurt again?
Experiences of hurt and pain will break our spirit. But only when we are broken do we experience God's love. In a true spiritual community, there is openness, whereby one would be taking off the masks and becoming authentic and vulnerable before one another. How well we learn and practice this is another thing… However, we should continue to learn to engage in relationship with others (…and not be a hermit in some island far, far away). We need to learn to be frank and open with one another, not to be shy or shameful to ask and receive help from others and to allow others to act as a channel of God's grace in our lives. We should embody brokenness, be open about our own weaknesses, not reacting with self-pity, but with hope. Whilst we are learning such, we should also observe the lives of others, see what others could become and what God is already doing in their lives at that point. We should envision potential in others, encourage them and discern when to expose what is wrong and when to stir up the right passion so that we can also touch them with the power of Christ.

How do we keep learning when we are still in pain and hurt?
May be we just have to quit being “managers” of ourselves and stop thinking that there are always some medication that one can take to cure or eradicate the sickness immediately. We just need to let the Spirit take over; quit rationalizing, quit planning, quit strategizing and quit executing any tasks under our own power and capabilities and (learn to) rely much on the power of the Holy Spirit.

Verses for meditation (taken from English Standard Version (ESV)):

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” (Rom 12:1-3)

“Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Php 2:4-13)

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1Pet 2:9-17)

Church: Feel Like Giving Up Church? - Part 2

Continuing from my last blog, this theme on being dissatisfied with church seemed to be a recurring thought to me. Not that I am complaining about the state that I am in or the church, e.g. of being too tied-up in activities or too much unfulfilled expectations or too shallow in relationships, etc.. I think the reason why I am thinking a lot lately about this is that I believe there are many people who are going through this feeling of "giving up church" being unnoticed by others and/or misunderstood by others.

Lawrence Crabb, an author and teacher, in his introduction to a book called: Reclaiming God's Original Intent for the Church , sums it up nicely:

"I'm now on the brink of giving up, not Christianity, but church. Not the true church, not the community of Jesus-followers who journey together toward God for his pleasure and for the sake of others, but the organization that has replaced the living body.

Too often, the whole church event feels like that, like a well-orchestrated event more than a throbbing-with-life community. The raw realism of the Bible is too often sugar-coated with cheerily optimistic promises that God wants you happily married, financially secure, and alive with a sense of adventure and romance. Whether it's a megachurch parading its A-team every Sunday before a packed house of struggling people who are helped to pretend things aren't so bad, or whether it's a single congregation of a hundred faithful members trying to believe that life can work better than it does, the problem is still the same: Too often the church is aiming its people toward self-fulfillment through God's blessings and away from the failure and pain that could bring people together as the community of the broken but loved and hopeful because of Jesus.

I once gave up Christianity as I knew it and discovered Christianity as the Spirit reveals it. I'm now giving up on church as I've experienced it and looking for church as the Spirit designed it."

What we need to be reminded constantly is to return to the first love, to the simple truth of the Gospel, i.e. the relationship with God and His people and those around them, and practise the essentials of developing our character, loving, serving and creating a community through the leading of the Holy Spirit and authenticating the Gospel.

If we are going through a tough time or is struggling with some weakness, wouldn't it be easier if we all stop pretending to be alright when we are not? Too often I think we miss the point when we think that "good" or "strong" Christians should not or could not be shown or appear to be discouraged, burnt-out or depressed. We all know that we do experience these things, and that is why we need to re-look at the original intent of the church. In sharing all these failure and pain as well together in the community, we could show how our amazing God will care for us and how we can remain loved and hopeful because of Jesus.

Church: Why Bother? - Part 1

Chanced upon a book by Philip Yancey in Borders today. Of course everybody knows Yancey is a great author and had been given various awards for his works. Actually, it was the title that caught my eye and stirred my interest.





The title: "Church: Why Bother? " It is the same question which I have been asking lately. I wonder why ... perhaps.. it's because of several people I know that asked themselves the same question?

In his conclusion, Yancey said that the church is the way God has chosen to be present on earth, as imperfect as it may be. He wrote:

"Yes, the church fails in its mission and makes serious blunders precisely because the church comprises human beings who will always fall short of the glory of God. That is the risk God took. Anyone who enters the church expecting perfection does not understand the nature of that risk or the nature of humanity. Just as every romantic eventually learns that marriage is the beginning, not the end, of the struggle to make love work, every Christian must learn that church is also only a beginning."

We are all imperfect people and it is not reasonable to expect others in the church to be perfect or "a bit more" perfect than ourselves.

As an illustration of what others may see through the church:
Just as when we watch our kids perform a musical special for Mother's Day service, we do not expect the presentation to be perfect and slick. We enjoyed just as much despite all the imperfections, because it was a great moment for us to watch them doing what they love and singing to someone they love.

What Personality Tests?

Had a real stressful time at work today...

Thought I might as well do some of these ubiquitous freebie personality tests available in the Internet nowadays to unwind...Had a good laugh at the results. Moral of the story: Don't try out these personality tests when strung up!

Some of the tests I took:

What's Your Inner Blood Type?

Your Inner Blood Type is Type A

You seem cool and collected, though a bit shy. You are highly driven and a perfectionist, but that's a side you keep to yourself. Creative and artistic, you are a very unique person who doesn't quite fit in. People accept you more than you realize, seeing you as trustworthy and loyal. You are most compatible with: A and AB Famous Type A's: Britney Spears and Hilter

Same blood type as Britney and Hitler?! LOL



What Famous Leader Are You?

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Pleeease! Somebody needs a brain check.


What Classic Movie Are You?

What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

This result doesn't seem too far from the truth...



What is Your Enneagram Type?

free enneagram test


Found this site: Similar Minds with many other interesting personality tests. Didn't have time to try them all. If you do check them out, you can let me know how accurate are they ...

What 10 Things To Do In Negotiations?

Work lately involved some lengthy negotiations ...

Most people think negotiation is a game, played every day, every week, anywhere, anyhow and anytime, when one wants a change in his or her position/status quo for a gain or advance in interests (be it personal, financial or otherwise). For example, pre-schooler does not want to bathe or off the TV; teenager wants an iPod from daddy or mommy; customer wants more sotong (at no additional cost) for the nasi lemak he’s buying; person not willing to pay more for a watch in Petaling Street “bazaar”; etc.. Sometimes people just argue for the sake of arguing to see who will win at the end; it’s a matter of “face” for some...but that's tiring (if not fruitless) negotiation.

I have these 10 things to remember (which may or may not help) when doing a negotiaton:

1. Be prepared thoroughly prior to any negotiation. Preparation also includes having alternatives ready. After having alternatives ready, rank them in order of priority from the most attractive to the least attractive.

2. Begin by doing or saying something to ease the tension of the situation, eg. begin by saying something positive and appreciative to the person you are dealing with so as to increase the goodwill on both sides.

3. Set out to reach a win-win situation. Both sides should leave the negotiation feeling something is achieved and that they are satisfied and feel good about it. Further, who knows, there may be future dealings or interactions.

4. Know what you like to have. In a best-case scenario, if you could have everything you want, what would that be?

5. Know what you intend to have. Decide what really matters to you and what doesn’t that you can do without.

6. Know what you must have. Imagine a worst-case scenario: What is the very least you would accept to make a deal? Without this, then it is no deal, i.e. a deal breaker.

7. Write down or formulate your best estimate of the opposite side’s best-case and worst-case scenarios. Give yourself room to maneuver. Make sure you have something to offer the other person, as well as something you want. Getting what you need but leave others satisfied that their needs have been addressed.

8. Listen. It helps much to understand what the other person is saying and their point of view. To listen shows respect and good intentions, and will make the other person feel valued. If you need to know what it is the other party wants, listen for it. As Sigmund Freud said, “If you can get the other fellow to talk enough, he simply cannot disguise his real feelings or his real motives.”

9. If the other person is angry or hostile, then refuse to get drawn into it or to fight. Keep smiling and being pleasant and sooner or later they will calm down. (This is something I have to tell myself constantly to do…)

10. Keep options open. It does not help to insult the other person or storm out, even if you don’t get what you want. End the negotiation politely, and with a smile. That way you can always try again later.

Qualifiers:
- The above is neither fool-proof nor water-tight. Every negotiation can be subject to external pressures and circumstances.

- I am not saying that one should “negotiate” with God. God knows what’s best; we need not “negotiate” with Him, unless of course, if the Spirit prompts strongly. Be that as it may, this is one topic of a conversation which can be lengthy and hence, to be dealt with another time (and place).

Which Super Hero or Super Villian are you?

It's a weekend and am chilling out now ...

Recalling an interesting chat last Sunday on comics with a church member who has a medical practice (didn't know he was into these stuff too; and I thought I was the only weird one), I took a fun quiz on superhero personalities and this was what I got:

Your results:
You are Iron Man

Inventor. Businessman. Genius.



Click here to take the Superhero Personality Test


Unfortunately, during and after the Civil War, Iron Man turned "villian" and unfavourable ...

Since I was thinking about how one hero could become a villian later, took another fun quiz to check out who my hypothetical dark personality would resemble and this was what I got:


Your results:
You are Apocalypse

You believe in survival of the fittest and you believe that you are the fittest.



Click here to take the Super Villain Personality Test


Don't know how true these quizzes are...obviously, not even to be taken with a pinch of salt! Anyone beg to differ? Where-lah got superhero and supervillian...? Well, not in Malaysia!

Sweet Insights on Emerging Churches?

I found an interesting article on George Fox interviewing Leonard Sweet on the Emerging Churches.

Leonard Sweet, a best-selling author, shared his insights into the Emerging Churches in the interview and the following insights are what I found most interesting and challenging for me (especially those that I highlighted in italics here):

"George Fox Journal (GFJ): How are emerging churches any more relational than evangelical mainstream churches? Isn’t this what small groups are all about?

LEN SWEET: Much of the evangelical mainstream makes small groups a program of the church. It’s an add-on, or a drive-through. In emerging churches, community is constitutive of their identity. It’s the very essence of who they are. There is also a relational component of the theology of the emerging church, where truth is seen more in relational than in propositional terms. After all, God didn’t send us a principle. God sent us a person. God didn’t send us a statement. God sent us a savior . . . who is Christ the Lord."

"GFJ: How are emerging churches distinctively missional?

LEN SWEET: Karl Rahner, the great 20thcentury Catholic theologian, referred to what he called Thermos-bottle Christianity. This is a form of pseudo-church where you keep everything inside warm and cozy and fresh, but let the outside freeze and take care of itself. Missional churches are focused on what God is doing in the world. Their circles face outward, not inward. This is a culture that loves gated communities, and there are gated churches to match. Missional churches are putting back together what for too long has been rent asunder: the whole gospel, both the personal gospel (evangelism), and the social gospel (justice and kingdom ministries)."

"GFJ: Finally, why might a pastor of an emerging church tell me I should follow Christ? And so what if I don’t?

LEN SWEET: Everybody follows someone. We all give our lives to something. The only questions are who, or what? I invite you to give your life to Jesus. I like how philosopher Dallas Willard does it: He challenges his students to the reality test: Put Jesus into practice. Go ahead. Got someone better than Jesus in mind to follow? OK, try someone else first. Put Sigmund Freud into practice. Put Charles Darwin into practice. Put Karl Marx into practice. Put Aristotle into practice. Put Plato into practice. Put Pablo Picasso into practice.
The only who or what that can stand up to the reality test is Jesus the Christ, who is bold enough to say to each of us, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
There’s only one reason to follow Christ: Truth. Truth or consequences. "

"Taste and see that the Lord is good.". Put Jesus to the test.

In the long journey of life, perfection is not required, only faithfulness in following and practising Jesus.