It's been a while since I posted. Being home sort of negated the need for that - we could always have a lively conversation around the dinner table. And that is something I miss very much. A video call isn't quite the same thing but it is the next best thing. Being alone here is something I have adapted to since last year, and especially after being locked down last December. It's still not easy. You adapt because you have to, and having a distraction like golf helps because you make new friends.
My main golfing kakis are a Bruneian (Muchdieni - we call him 'Mooch' for short) and Nino, a Filipino - both are liaison reps here like me and both really good guys; an Australian Indian (ex-Malaysian) friend Julian who works for the Bruneian government investment vehicle or something; Halidi another Bruneian chap in that same company (he's like minor royalty or something); and Devin who's American and husband of my former colleague in MOM. They are fun to play with, and generally don't take the game too seriously, which is good.
The only real 'competition' we have is called "Snake" - it means whoever is the last person to 3-putt, is said to 'hold the Snake' and buys drinks/lunch after the game. It helps us focus and while I say we don't take it too seriously, we still want to improve our game.
I've also resumed reading regularly, including the daily Bible reading drive. I just finished CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" which is a really good book in explaining in layman terms, what being a Christian means. Lewis was an Oxford professor and if I recall correctly, was formerly an atheist. He converted and became one of its most famous advocates and the contents of the book actually started out as radio broadcasts. This explains why the language is so accessible because listening is harder than reading and good speakers know they have to hold the listener's attention and cannot afford to string together complex ideas/sentences on air. After finishing that book, I moved on to reading a book by my former lecturer in LSE, Christopher Coker. He was a fascinating lecturer on the subject of war. Books are my bedtime reading, while the daily Bible reading is my morning ritual.
I wake up very early even if I am not going anywhere - it's a sign of old age I guess. I can't seem to get more than 6 hours of sleep no matter what time I go to bed. And I find myself waking at 5, 6 a.m. So I stay in bed to read the Bible. It is also easier to focus at that time of day.
Things have slowed down a bit, unlike when I first returned to London. The first couple of weeks were really hectic as I sought to make up for lost time. There have been some changes as people have retired(!), people have returned home, people have been promoted, posted somewhere else. Praise God that most of those who have remained are still friendly and willing to meet. I still feel occasionally that I am like a fish out of water here, a bit out of my depth or comfort zone, but He has watched over me and provided me with the inner peace and strength to forge ahead, and meet the demands of the job. I pray I am bringing glory to Him.
Things were looking up for a while as summer arrived but today is Freedom Day and it is a little unsettling as some of my fears are beginning to be realised. Firstly, it was always a bit premature to undo restrictions totally when out in public. I understand that people are tired of lockdown and restrictions etc., but it isn't a binary issue. You can tread a more conservative middle path, though like reason and common sense, that no longer seems to be an option in a highly polarized world. Everyone is shouting for attention, being contrarian is fashionable for its own sake and we all get tied up in our own contradictions.
What triggered these thoughts was something someone mentioned on a chat about the outbreak of cases in Singapore - there are of course parallels with what is happening here since it is a worldwide pandemic. I am referring to the infamous KTV cluster. There have been the inevitable comments about why people go to these KTVs, or rather these types of KTVs and the person commented that we should stop moralising about the behaviour of those involved - there were also comments that say we should maybe just call out the selfish and irresponsible behavior.
It got me thinking. I think I understood what he meant as a general point, and it is about passing moral judgements on people, which we are also taught not to do. But he also said we should not judge those who patronise such establishments because they may have needs, that we should not judge the women who work as hostesses because they need the money.
Morals are a sort of code for the way a group of people would like to live together. The problem of course is that this is a tricky minefield, depending on your frame of reference. The Bible provides us with the guidance to navigate through everything we encounter in life. What do other people use? For instance they may have different views on gay marriage etc.
In fact, even before we come to know Christ, we have this sense of an inner voice, a conscience that tells us when something is not right. Some are learned, from our parents, friends, and other voices in our communities. But some situations are novel when we encounter them, and we wrestle with it because we feel uncomfortable. If we had no moral compass we would feel nothing at all and we are then likely sociopaths at the extreme end of the spectrum. My view is we all fall along that spectrum somewhere because of our fallen nature.
But back to the issue of judging others. This episode was a good reminder to me to not take it too literally for two reasons. The first is that people who are not believers often think it is a good principle - and they are right but only partially. It is true that human nature is such that we often want to believe we know why people are what they are. We see them do something and we are quick to judge, to believe that they must have done so for such and such a reason, when in fact we can't know for sure why. Also we cannot say for sure we would not have done the same thing if put in the same position. And I don't just mean the circumstances. That is too simplistic. If we are exactly who we now are, and are put in the same exact circumstances, maybe we can say that we probably wouldn't do the same. But what if we had lived the life of the person we are observing? How do we even begin to make any sort of judgement that we definitely would not do the same? (Of course there might also be those who think it is a clever argument against Christians by telling us that is what the Bible tells us - and I think there's no need to spend too much time on this).
However, putting aside the point that we are taught not to judge, what does it mean in practice? Does it really mean we are to have no opinion? And here I must admit I needed to do some reading to remind myself of what it means, and also what it does not mean. What the bible does say is we should not judge lest we ourselves be judged. I guess it's not to be a hypocrite or self-righteous. And we lack grace, which has been so generously given to us. But the Bible itself does not say everyone is entitled to his own truth, which is what people who misuse the principle are trying to argue. Telling people not to moralize sounds to me like a contradiction of sorts.
It is sort of like how people who argue they don't believe in God, actually create and believe in their own gods. It may be their own intellect, or the collective intellect of the human race or whatever. Does it not then mean that they have some sort of moral standards of their own? And so the argument that we should not moralize because we are not in the shoes of those we are judging sounds like a moral argument itself. And not very different from the Bible.
But I think there is a difference and the giveaway is the explanation about needs (of those involved), which sounds like approval of what is done. It is not dissimilar to arguments made about how people should be free to find their own happiness, or how some things are determined by nature (as some pro-LGBT arguments go). I am not well informed enough to debate this but I am curious about how a meaningful conclusion can be reached with such arguments. If we allow nature or genetic disposition arguments, how should we treat murderers or rapists? If that is what makes them happy, where do we draw the line? Invariably we cannot help but draw lines in the sand to make moral arguments as we would otherwise live in an anarchical society.
For another reason, the argument about natural dispositions mean that Christians cannot debate this because the starting premises seem different to me. We are taught that God created us in His image, and gave us free will. The nature argument tells us we are products of nature, and we are unhappy if we deny our true selves. Are we then just no better than animals in nature? So the two perspectives cannot be reconciled or settled because we are in a sense, not on the same wavelength.
I think I will stop here for now. Complicated topic.
