You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September, 2008.
It is illustrated in the experience of almost all ethical doctrines and religious creeds. They are all full of meaning and vitality to those who originate them, and to the direct disciples of the originators. Their meaning continues to be felt in undiminished strength, and is perhaps brought out into even fuller consciousness, so long as the struggle lasts to give the doctrine or creed an ascendency over other creeds. At last it either prevails, and becomes the general opinion, or its progress stops; it keeps possession of the ground it has gained, but ceases to spread further. When either of these results has become apparent, controversy on the subject flags, and gradually dies away. The doctrine has taken its place, if not as a received opinion, as one of the admitted sects or divisions of opinion: those who hold it have generally inherited, not adopted it; and conversion from one of these doctrines to another, being now an exceptional fact, occupies little place in the thoughts of their professors. Instead of being, as at first, constantly on the alert either to defend themselves against the world, or to bring the world over to them, they have subsided into acquiescence, and neither listen, when they can help it, to arguments against their creed, nor trouble dissentients (if there be such) with arguments in its favor. From this time may usually be dated the decline in the living power of the doctrine. We often hear the teachers of all creeds lamenting the difficulty of keeping up in the minds of believers a lively apprehension of the truth which they nominally recognize, so that it may penetrate the feelings, and acquire a real mastery over the conduct. No such difficulty is complained of while the creed is still fighting for its existence: even the weaker combatants then know and feel what they are fighting for, and the difference between it and other doctrines; and in that period of every creed’s existence, not a few persons may be found, who have realized its fundamental principles in all the forms of thought, have weighed and considered them in all their important bearings, and have experienced the full effect on the character, which belief in that creed ought to produce in a mind thoroughly imbued with it. But when it has come to be an hereditary creed, and to be received passively, not actively‐when the mind is no longer compelled, in the same degree as at first, to exercise its vital powers on the questions which its belief presents to it, there is a progressive tendency to forget all of the belief except the formularies, or to give it a dull and torpid assent, as if accepting it on trust dispensed with the necessity of realizing it in consciousness, or testing it by personal experience; until it almost ceases to connect itself at all with the inner life of the human being. Then are seen the cases, so frequent in this age of the world as almost to form the majority, in which the creed remains as it were outside the mind, encrusting and petrifying it against all other influences addressed to the higher parts of our nature; manifesting its power by not suffering any fresh and living conviction to get in, but itself doing nothing for the mind or heart, except standing sentinel over them to keep them vacant.
To what an extent doctrines intrinsically fitted to make the deepest impression upon the mind may remain in it as dead beliefs, without being ever realized in the imagination, the feelings, or the understanding, is exemplified by the manner in which the majority of believers hold the doctrines of Christianity. By Christianity I here mean what is accounted such by all churches and sects‐the maxims and precepts contained in the New Testament. These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws, by all professing Christians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws. The standard to which he does refer it, is the custom of his nation, his class, or his religious profession. He has thus, on the one hand, a collection of ethical maxims, which he believes to have been vouchsafed to him by infallible wisdom as rules for his government; and on the other, a set of every-day judgments and practices, which go a certain length with some of those maxims, not so great a length with others, stand in direct opposition to some, and are, on the whole, a compromise between the Christian creed and the interests and suggestions of worldly life. To the first of these standards he gives his homage; to the other his real allegiance. All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are illused by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not, lest they be judged; that they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbor as themselves; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat also; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect, they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor. They are not insincere when they say that they believe these things. They do believe them, as people believe what they have always heard lauded and never discussed. But in the sense of that living belief which regulates conduct, they believe these doctrines just up to the point to which it is usual to act upon them. The doctrines in their integrity are serviceable to pelt adversaries with; and it is understood that they are to be put forward (when possible) as the reasons for whatever people do that they think laudable. But any one who reminded them that the maxims require an infinity of things which they never even think of doing would gain nothing but to be classed among those very unpopular characters who affect to be better than other people. The doctrines have no hold on ordinary believers‐are not a power in their minds. They have an habitual respect for the sound of them, but no feeling which spreads from the words to the things signified, and forces the mind to take them in, and make them conform to the formula. Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.
Now we may be well assured that the case was not thus, but far otherwise, with the early Christians. Had it been thus, Christianity never would have expanded from an obscure sect of the despised Hebrews into the religion of the Roman empire. When their enemies said, “See how these Christians love one another” (a remark not likely to be made by anybody now), they assuredly had a much livelier feeling of the meaning of their creed than they have ever had since. And to this cause, probably, it is chiefly owing that Christianity now makes so little progress in extending its domain, and after eighteen centuries, is still nearly confined to Europeans and the descendants of Europeans. Even with the strictly religious, who are much in earnest about their doctrines, and attach a greater amount of meaning to many of them than people in general, it commonly happens that the part which is thus comparatively active in their minds is that which was made by Calvin, or Knox, or some such person much nearer in character to themselves. The sayings of Christ coexist passively in their minds, producing hardly any effect beyond what is caused by mere listening to words so amiable and bland. There are many reasons, doubtless, why doctrines which are the badge of a sect retain more of their vitality than those common to all recognized sects, and why more pains are taken by teachers to keep their meaning alive; but one reason certainly is, that the peculiar doctrines are more questioned, and have to be oftener defended against open gainsayers. Both teachers and learners go to sleep at their post, as soon as there is no enemy in the field.”
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.
Have you ever received that email telling you how you are one of the richest people in the world? Has someone ever told you when you were complaining about work, “Be glad that you have a job.” Or when you were upset about your parents, “at least you have parents, there are millions of orphans in this world who would give anything to be in your shoes.”
Now, I’m not discounting the truth in these statements and I do believe that it is very important to remember how blessed we are, instead of become so insular and only thinking about “me, myself and I”. There are many who are not as fortunate as we are and we should not think that the world revolves around us and our problems.
I used to use the same tactic when someone came complaining to be or even when they are upset or angry about something or other.
“Oh, so you’re stuck in Jurong Camp? Well, be thankful that at least you aren’t in a combat position.”
“Oh, so you’re really stressed out with work? At least you have the opportunity to go to university.”
Now, this is helpful when the person is really being whiny and just can’t or refuses to see how blessed they are. But I always wondered two things. Firstly, what would happen if you were in the worst possible position? I.e. there was no one or no situation that you could compare yourself to and thus realise how blessed you are. Secondly, how does it actually help someone who is hurting and broken?
Simply put, this comparative method (for want of a better phrase) simply makes someone feel guilty and makes them thankful for not getting what could have been worse. Not bad in itself, but it is rather fluid and ever changing, which means that the awareness of your blessedness would change too (Usually awareness to non-awareness).
So what should we do?
When faced with a friend/family member who is telling you about how bad things are. Remind them of how blessed they are. But don’t stop there. Show them that they have something to be so joyful for, i.e. Christ’s love and salvation (for you Christians out there). Remind them of the constant in their life. After all, our joy and contentment does not come from outward circumstances, but from Christ, the Alpha and Omega.
Now, that’s something to be truly joyful about.
As David and I talked today, I had two ‘revelations’.
I realised the point of a relationship. It is to point each other to the One who inspires our love and help each other grow in our faith.
Secondly, I think that I’m finally gaining an understanding into what Paul meant when he said that “I have learnt to be content whatever the circumstances” and how nothing in this world will ever provide true contentment and joy.
Both David and I still have a lot more to learn. :)
When I wrote a few months back about my fears of my friends leaving and our friendships not being the same. I was told not to be so worried as one only needs to take the effort to communicate and keep in touch and everything will be fine. I guess that it’s partly my fault, but I haven’t kept in touch much with those who have left. I’ve been trying to, but I guess that everyone is so busy, including myself.
———
On to the main point of my post (which I realised have become rather infrequent, my postings, I mean).
As we start recess week (or rather, as most term it, “study week”), I’ve looked back at this past half a semester and realised how much I have enjoyed my time in NUS. I haven’t regretted staying here, which is a good thing.
But I digress… I know a number of my friends, especially those from AC who seem rather unhappy about being in NUS Arts. They are feeling rather unsettled and haven’t made many friends. So why am I enjoying it but they aren’t? Basically, they don’t want to be in NUS. They are planning to go overseas and NUS is simply used to fill up time. As such, they don’t bother going for orientation activities, joining CCAs or basically, being sociable. Then they come and say that they don’t feel at home in NUS. Erm… I don’t really have any sympathy for you, really.
There is a greater issue at hand. Why do people insist on going overseas? Now, when I went to meet my academic advisor for USP, I told him that I stayed in NUS voluntarily and he was surprised. Now, he’s an American who hasn’t been in NUS for long. But what he said struck me, he said, “Most of the students that I’ve met, especially those in USP (who are supposedly the brighter ones) don’t really want to be here. NUS is really their second (or rather, normally, last) choice.”
It set me thinking. Why is NUS not a first choice for many Singaporean students? No offence to those who have chosen to go overseas. In my opinion, many believe that there is something exotic about going overseas, that you can learn from being somewhere other than your homecountry. I don’t deny that. But why does this mindset come about? We seem to be told contradictory messages in the education system. We are told that NUS is a good university which it is, being one of the top in the world, but of course, most people tend to ignore that. But at the same time, those who go overseas are glorified and seen as somewhat of a higher breed than those who stay in Singapore for uni.
If we want to keep our top brains in Singapore, people need to be shown that the Overseas Merit Scholarship isn’t for better students than the Local Merit Scholarship. Government agencies (including the MFA) should start promoting local universities and encourage students to stay in Singapore, while funding them to go on exchange. Plus, it would be a better use of taxpayers’ money not to send our Singaporeans overseas to study law, medicine, engineering, the humanities etc. overseas but to keep them in local unis who can provide a quality education.
Basically, NUS wouldn’t need to market itself as a world-class institution if its own people started believing that…
I feel like crap. I’ve screwed up.
I need to stop relying on myself to make you happy.
So, I bombed selections for Australian Women’s IVs. What can I say? I need to work and train a lot harder to get my standard up.
———
Today Hui Qian, Paul and I once again realised the true sovereignity of our Father who rules over all authority.
As we were discussing Rousseau’s Social Contract in tutorial today. We debated what/who gives legitimacy for authority.
Basically, as Rousseau discusses the need for a general will and some order in society (which comes through the social contract), he reaches a paradox that if men decide the general will, they must be somewhat rational and moral. If they are so, why would they need this social contract in the first place? As such, to solve such a dilemma, he comes up with the concept of some wonderful character who is exemplary in his personal qualities and comes in to a foreign country to rule them. He is called the ‘legislator’.
One person asked, “Who gives the legislator the authority?” Is it convention? How does one decide on morality and the general will? If the general will is something inherent in us, e.g. if all men believe that everyone has a fundamental right to life, then where does it come from?
In the end, we came to the conclusion that all authority comes from God, including this moral authority.
The academic path is truly not a secular path, but one which you can discover more about the truth of God, for after all, He is the source of all knowledge. :)
Well, this REALLY sucks.
I should watch Chariots of Fire again, maybe I’ll be inspired.
The White Man’s Burden (Rudyard Kipling)
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to naught.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
“In the early period, Asians saw Westerners (except the Jesuits) as clever with ships and guns but ignorant, dirty, contentious, drunken, uncivilized, and treacherous – all understandable descriptions of the European adventurers of the time. The habit of regular bathing did not come to Europe until well into the nineteenth century, with the advent of piped water and more adequate domestic heating. The smell of Westerners who arrived in Asia during the first three centuries of their contract, after several momths cooped up on board their tiny ships, disgusted the far cleaner Asians, especially the Indians and Japanese with their daily practice of scrupulous daily bathing and Indian daily toothbrushing…
The Chinese, noticing their greater amount of body hair, smell, and strange features as well as their wild behavior, reasoned that they must be more closely descended from the apes.”
- A History of Asia, Rhoads Murphey.
What a difference in perspectives. Heh.
Things have been getting rather crazy lately and I’ve just been trying to keep my head above water.
It’s not that stressful, but rather, lots of fun. I just need to make sure that in the midst of all the fun I don’t neglect people, neglect my walk with God and neglect my work.
We’re already one quarter through the first semester and it feels rather strange. It has whizzed by and I should be making the most of the time that I have.
I do wonder if I should be missing those who have left. To be honest (and don’t get offended), I’ve been so busy lately that I don’t miss them. I guess that we’ve all moved on with our lives and we’re all going to meet new people and do new things.
Debate training today. After the ProAms, I wondered how I ever managed to survive a lack of debate for two years. Then again, it’s ditto to the paragraph above. Once you have something to occupy yourself, you don’t realise how much you miss (or should be missing) something.
I need to start on my work.
So who commented?