on eagle's wings

Saturday, April 4, 2009

on the nature of God and sins

I am writing this in a response to an entry in my friend's blog which can be found here

This is the citation from my friend's writing which I would like to address:

"My point is this language allows wars, killings and the use of force to defend the dignity of the religion if threatened. God (not capitalized because it loses my respect) in both text is described as vengeful and destructive. Holy Bible describes god’s anger when he swept out the whole mankind except Noah. This is not justifiable for whatever grave sins human has committed (it is said that god is forgiveful BIG JOKE). Another example is Sodom and Gomorrah incineration (can be found in Quran text as well). I find this god’s character, if not followed, interpreted extensively by both religions. No wonder, it incites so much vengeful character in both congregations."

First of all, it is about the nature of God. The bible, as Christians accept today, consists of two major parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. I have seen that many people tends to see that the "God" presented in the Old Testament and the "God" of the New Testament to be "two different gods", the basis of this is that, as mentioned in my friend's blog, someone could see the nature of God in the Old Testament to be vengeful, cruel, and so on and so forth. However, in the New Testament, it seems that we can see "a more plausible nature of God in term of His love towards humanities." Is this really the case? Are there really "two gods" in the bible? Of course the answer is no. There's only one true God and from the perspective of the completeness of the bible and of course with an assumption that God exists (note: the discussion the existence of God will be set aside first for now), I would like to present my argument from Christian's point of view.

How could we “reconcile” these two somewhat “contradicting” nature of God? The Bible should not and must not be interpreted parts by parts, rather as a whole. So, what is the whole Bible all about? The whole Bible only tells us one thing, from the beginning in the book of Genesis to the end in the book of Revelation, on the great redemptive plan that God has on humanities and the restoration of the Kingdom of God. The New Testament itself is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the completion of God's great redemptive plan which is manifested through Jesus Christ that came down to earth, became human in order to bear all of our sins and iniquities.

We could start from the Old Testament first. In the Old Testament, the first covenant from God was given to Abraham (Genesis 22:17-18):

"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

This is the God's covenant to Abraham so that his descendants will be blessed (one of them is mentioned here is take possession of the cities of their enemies). God also made similar covenant with Isaac, and then Jacob which from him the 12 tribes of Israel were born.

In Exodus 19: 4-6, God’s purpose for Israel is mentioned:

“Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

Israel was chosen to be God’s treasured possession, kingdom of priests, and holy nation. God’s purpose in bringing Israel out of Egypt is that they would worship Him and become a holy nation for Him. Through them, His blessing should reach all the nations of the world. God also wanted to show through them to the other nations (which at that time still worship other gods such as Baal) that He is the one and only God, and no other gods beside Him. God helped Israel in their conquest of Canaan. This is also to fulfill God’s covenant to Abraham: “Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.”

However, despite that all the greatness that God has shown to the people of Israel, the people of Israel kept turning away from Him and adore other gods. Israel has failed to fulfill the God’s given role: they failed to spread the Word of God to other nations, they failed to stay holy but rather they turned away to other gods.

God’s covenant with Abraham is then fulfilled through Jesus Christ, which is the “offspring [on which through Him] all nations on earth will be blessed." Thus, the final fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan was written inside the New Testament. I will now turn into answering the question on the problem of sins and then conclude the discussion on the nature of God:

Secondly, it is about the question, is it justifiable for God to, for example, swept the whole human kind in the story of Noah's flood? Perhaps we could start the discussion by defining “sin”. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God (Westminster Shorter Catechism). God is holy and His divine holiness sets Him apart from us, it covers all aspects of His transcendent greatness and moral perfection, and is characteristic of all His attributes, pointing to the “Godness” of God at every point. Therefore, the core is that God’s purity cannot tolerate any form of sin. “For the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23). One example on how God could not tolerate sin is shown in Numbers 15:32: “they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day” and the God ordered for that man to be put to death. Even to the chosen people of Israel, God could not tolerate sins. This shows how grave sin is in the eyes of God.

In the case of Noah, God has given the mankind the time of 120 years to repent, but none turned back to God and “that the every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 5: 6). Only Noah and his family found to be righteous in His eyes and thus God flooded the earth and saved only Noah’s family. In order to answer the question on whether it is justifiable or not for God to do this, we need to understand the nature of sin itself which is totally intolerable for God which is holy.

These two points show the justice and love of God. God’s justice is shown by His intolerance against sins. God’s love is shown through His Son Jesus Christ which

“being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Philippians 2: 6-7).

God’s intolerance against sins, all of His anger, was cast upon Jesus on the cross. Jesus bore all the consequences of our sins so “that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Quoting Heidelberg Catechism,

“God is indeed merciful, but also just; therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul, [and the only mediator is] Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

However, there's still one last question which perhaps remains. Could we understand God fully and thoroughly? Unfortunately for our own state, the answer is no. Why? If we could really understand God (in term of one-hundred-percent-certainty), what kind of God is that? Won't it be just a god that we created thus we can understand it very easily? But our mind is so much limited and could not (and will not in our current state) grasp God's fully. Adding to it, it's also because of all our logic and our mind has been polluted by sins, as Apostle Paul put it in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Of course this short text would not be able to answer all of your questions, but it will be good if we have the heart to listen and learn from others. I am also learning and seeking for the truth, I am open for discussions and I would like to further hear other’s view on this matter as well :)

Friday, April 3, 2009

so have Indonesians really grown tired of nationalism?

Thanks to Kristia who sent me the link to this interesting article. The link to the original article can be found here.

Have Indonesians Grown Tired of Nationalism?

2009-03-28 00:00

Former military commander Prabowo Subianto has been a household name in Indonesia for several decades now, but at present he is among the most talked about aspiring politicians in the country as Indonesians prepare for the next general elections in early April. The former son-in-law of President Suharto and the former head of the Komando Pasukan Khusus (Kopassus ,Special Operations Command) now leads the Gerindra party that was set up last year and which has announced its presence on the landscape of Indonesian politics in no uncertain terms. With Prabowo entry into the democratic race, yet another former military strongman (including the present President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono), has entered the space of civilian politics.

According to Jakarta-based analyst Shafie Anwar, Gerindra may well be one of the richest political parties in Indonesia today, if its media presence is to be used as the yardstick for its success thus far, Gerindra has certainly made an impact. Gerindra's electoral ads featuring its leader Prabowo were being screened as early as mid-2008, months before any of the other parties even began cranking up their election campaign machinery. From the outset, Prabowo had made his priorities and agenda clear: the call to unite the country under the banner of Pan-Indonesian nationalism and to restore a sense of pride to a country that is still suffering under the burden of the economic crisis from ten years ago.

"Perhaps the most damaging allegation of all lies in the fact that during the closing years of Suharto's rule Prabowo was the head of Kopassus..."

Gerindra's image and message is intimately linked to the personality of Prabowo himself, and it would not be far-fetched to claim that he is the party and the party is him. Officially the party and its leader present themselves as secular, populist and nationalist, but local analysts who have studied Prabowo's political career point to the fact that he was once closely linked to the more conservative hardliners of the Dewan Dakwah Islamiyah Indonesia (DDII) and Pelajar Islam Indonesia (PII) that were known for their rather communitarian stance. Many analysts have also expressed their concern about the brand of nationalism that Prabowo is promoting through his party Gerindra, for fear that it is more akin to the race-based ethno-nationalism that was prevalent among the right-wing groups and parties of Indonesia during Suharto's New Order (Orde Baru) regime.

One of the brickbats that has been thrown at Prabowo is his alleged anti-Chinese stand and his role in the anti-Chinese riots that took place in Jakarta in May 1998, during the last stages of the fall of former President Suharto. That Prabowo is dubbed as being anti-Chinese is interesting, considering that many of his own relatives are married to Indonesians of Chinese origin.

Perhaps the most damaging allegation of all lies in the fact that during the closing years of Suharto's rule Prabowo was the head of Kopassus; a crack military unit that gained fame as well as notoriety for many of its actions, including the counter-insurgency operations in places like East Timor and Aceh. In East Timor for instance, Kopassus has been cited as one of the elite military units that was responsible for most of the human rights abuses meted out there during the mid to late-1970s. As head of Kopassus, Prabowo was seen as being one of those directly responsible for the attacks on the Chinese community that took place in mid-1998, at a time when many local Indonesian analysts claimed that a diversion was sought to save the tottering regime of Suharto from its final collapse.

With the Indonesian rupiah dropping in value on a daily basis then, and with the flight of capital (both foreign and local) from the country, blame for the economic crisis was placed on the Chinese business community who were made the scapegoats for the country's economic collapse, and who were dubbed as outsiders, foreigners, and traitors. Between April and June 1998, riots broke out in Chinese areas such as Glodok in downtown Jakarta, where scores of Chinese businesses and homes were torched by angry mobs. It was claimed then (and now) that these riots were never spontaneous, but rather organised forays into the Chinese neighbourhoods that were intended to divert attention from the breakdown of the economy. Among the military and security units blamed for these attacks was Kopassus, with Prabowo as its leader.

Prabowo and the leadership of Gerindra however have presented themselves today as a nationalist party that caters to needs of all Indonesians, particularly from the lower peasant and industrial worker classes. Included in this rank of the poor and marginalised are poor Chinese citizens too, they insist. But for analyst ShafieAnwar this amounts to Probowo trying to re-write his history. Whichever way the political rhetoric turns however, it is undeniable that Prabowo Subianto as the former head of Kopassus is still forced to carry the burden of stigma from the past, and that the Indonesian electorate will not forget his role both as the head of Kopassus (seen as the unit most closely aligned to Suharto and the Praetorian guard of the old regime) as well as his alleged involvement in the anti-Chinese violence of 1998.

Despite the initial strong showing of Gerindra in the mainstream media, the party is now falling behind the bigger parties like the Partai Demokrat (PD), Partai Demokrasi Indonesia- Perjuangan (PDI-P) and Golongan Karya (GOLKAR) in the run-up to the elections. Gerindra's media campaign was undoubtedly one of the best organised and slick in recent Indonesian history, but as the date for the elections looms closer, Indonesian voters seem to be opting for the bigger parties of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Jusuf Kalla. Have Indonesians passed that crucial threshhold where the language of ethno-nationalism and communitarianism have grown outdated and irrelevant? The answer to that question will come on 9th April itself when Indonesians will go to cast their votes by the millions. What is certain for now however is that even in the face of a dire economic crisis that may last for a couple of more years, the rhetoric of ethno-nationalism and communal pride seems to be losing its appeal, particularly to the younger generation of post-reformasi Indonesian voters. (By FARISH A. NOOR/ MySinchew)