Blessings and Curses

Blessings and Curses
        All of us have our share ofsuffering and Christians are not exempted from them. We don’t welcome it but weseldom have much control. Father Henri Nouwen says:
        “It is an on going temptationto think of our lives as living under a curse. The loss of a friend, anillness, an accident, a natural disaster, a war, or any failure can make usquickly think that we are no good and are being punished. This temptation tothink of our lives as full of curses is even greater when all the media presentus day after day with stories about human misery.
        Jesus came to bless us,not to curse us. But we must choose to receive that blessing and hand it onto others. Blessings and curses are always placed in front of us. We are tochoose. God says, ‘Choose the blessings!’” (Bread forthe Journey, Sept 8)
       
        “To bless means to say goodthings. We have to bless one another constantly. Parents need to blesstheir children, children their parents, husbands their wives, wives theirhusbands, friends their friends. In our society, so full of curses, we mustfill each place we enter with our blessings. We forget so quickly that weare God’s beloved children and allow the many curses of our world to darken ourhearts. Therefore, we have to be reminded of our belovedness and remind othersof theirs. Whether the blessing is given in words or with gestures, in asolemn or an informal way, our lives need to be blessed lives.” (Breadfor the Journey, Sept 7)

We bless ourselves:
·         when we give thanks with agrateful heart.
·         when we listen to thequiet, inner voice that says good things about ourselves.
·         when we affirm ourselves and know that we have giventhe best of ourselves in whatever we have worked on.
·         when we shut out the loud,busy outer voice that says we are being punished.
We bless others:
·         when we speak goodthings about them and to them.
·         when we show by ourgestures that their presence is a joy to us.
·         when we reveal tothem their gifts, their goodness and their talents.
1. Our reactions immediately after an unpleasantevent happens
        Whenwe lose our job, when we have an abusive boss, when a car accident happens,when we are robbed, when we are seriously ill, when we have cancer, theimmediate question “Why?” emerges. “Why me?” “Why now?” “Why here?” “What haveI done wrong?” “Why am I being punished?” It is so difficult to live without ananswer to this “Why?” But, if we are too focused and obsessed with findingthe answers to these questions of the causes of these events, we are morelikely to end up being angry and bitter. Bitterness will turn us away fromGod and thus we curse ourselves.
        In order to help me seemy suffering and pain in a new light, I have to change my focus. Nowthat the unpleasant event has happened, what should my response be? Byconcentrating on my response, I am more likely to end up turning to God,trusting Him and blessing myself. How is this done? Mother Teresa advised,“Just accept whatever He gives and give whatever He takes with a big smile.” (TheWisdom of Mother Teresa, 42) Who can do that? I can’tdo it. It is impossible for me to accept with a smile this suffering andadversity. Whenever I say anything is impossible, I have inadvertentlyput a curse on myself! I have shut out all possibilities. But Imay be able to accept it with a smile, if I truly believe that “Godloves me” (John 15:9 TEV) and that “I am precious to Him” (Isaiah 43:4 TEV).How? This requires a change in mindset and heart-set because if I amprecious to God, then it stands to reason that He cares for me and knows mysuffering and hardships and that He has permitted, allowed, sent or given themto me. Furthermore, I will surely be able to smile if I turn to God andwholeheartedly believe that with God’s help all things are possible as, “Thisis impossible with human beings, but for God everything is possible” (Matthew19:26 TEV). When I embrace this truth, I bless myself. Therefore,I must trust that God has allowed the suffering to be a means of disciplinethrough which faith, love, patience and grace may be cultivated in my life. Godwill not allow my suffering and pain to be wasted and to be of no value to me.God will see me through my suffering and will carry me through it all but Ihave to keep reminding myself that, ”I have the strength to face allconditions by the power that Christ gives me.” (Philippians 4:13 TEV) And “Godhas given us a spirit of power and of love and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy1:7 TEV). This belief, this constant repetition will help me to face mysuffering and hardships in a new perspective. What I need to do is to turnto God, do my best under the circumstances and trust Him to turn itround for my good. God promises to take “all things” including suffering,abuses, evil things, and turn them round for good as “in all things God worksfor good with those who love Him”(Romans 8:28 TEV).
        But what is for our good? Thisis for the individual to pray and with God’s help to discover. He needs toconstantly search for himself answers to the questions: “What is the seed ofequivalent good in my suffering?” “What is the seed of equivalent benefit in myadversity?” Some good traits which we may develop can be more patience,more consideration, less arrogance and less resentment.
       
         Remember, all God requiresof us is to come to Him in prayer and trust Him completely. Trust Him to turnour lives around. He will not fail us because we can trust God “who alwayskeeps His promise.” (1 Peter 4:19 TEV) We do our part and give of our bestand He will do His part. When we turn to God, God will work WITH us to turnthe suffering and pain round for our good. The circumstances, the pain, thesuffering, the hardship or the adversity may still be there and may not changemuch BUT our response and internal attitude towards them will certainly change.Yes, we can take God at His Word that He will help us, comfort us,strengthen us and support us through our pain and suffering. Then, sufferingcan become a turning point from which we take our greatest leap forward in ourfaith in God. When we trust God, God gives us the hope and courage to looksuffering in the face and to go through it confidently with a renewed spiritand heart. Our suffering will, hopefully, turn us round to come in closertouch with the presence of God in our lives. The great secret in life is thatsuffering can become a source of new hope and new life. We will then learn toaccept it with a smile. This is indeed a blessing.
2. Our memory of events long after they happened
        How we recount these unpleasantexperiences is also vitally important. When we constantly recountthem:
·         with blaming God,
·         with blaming others,
·         with cursing our fate,
·         with anger,
·         with fear,
·         with regret,
·         with the feeling of beingvictimised,
        then we put these events underthe curse. Whenwe feel we are being punished, the feeling of being cursed comes easily. Wewill hear an inner voice calling us “bad,” “rotten,” “worthless,” “useless,”“doomed to sickness and death.” We darken our hearts and live our lives withbitterness and resentment. So, we unconsciously curse ourselves.
        But blessing is nothing morethan recounting positively these events:
· with what God has helped usto endure or overcome,
· with what patience ourfamily and friends have stood by us,
· with what we have learnt outof the events, and
· with hope, courage and love.
        Then we put these experiencesunder the blessing and we consciously bless ourselves.
        Henri Nouwen says, “In Latin, to bless is benedicere.The word ‘benediction’ that is used in many churches means literally:speaking (dictio) well (bene) or saying good things of someone.That speaks to me. I need to hear good things said of me, and I know how muchyou have the same need. Nowadays, we often say: ‘We have to affirm eachother.’ Without affirmations, it is hard to live well. To give someone ablessing is the most significant affirmation we can offer. It is more than aword of praise or appreciation; it is more than pointing out someone’s talentsor good deeds; it is more than putting someone in the light. To give ablessing is to affirm, to say ‘yes’ to a person’s Belovedness. And morethan that: to give a blessing creates the reality of which it speaks. There isa lot of mutual admiration in this world, just as there is a lot of mutualcondemnation. A blessing goes beyond the distinction between admiration orcondemnation, between virtues or vices, between good deeds or evil deeds. Ablessing touches the original goodness of the other and calls forth his or herBelovedness.” (Life of the Beloved, 56)
         Physical, mental or emotionalpain lived under the blessing is experienced in ways radically different fromphysical, mental or emotional pain lived under the curse. Even a smallburden, perceived as a sign of our worthlessness, can lead us to deepdepression. But, great and heavy burdens become light and easy when they arelived in the light of the blessing. What seems intolerable becomes achallenge. What seems a reason for despair becomes a source of hope. What seemspunishment becomes a gentle pruning from God. What seems rejection becomes away to a deeper communion with God. And so the great task becomes that ofallowing the blessing to touch us in our brokenness. Then our brokennesswill gradually come to be seen as an opening towards the full acceptance ofourselves as the Beloved children of God. This explains why true joy can beexperienced in the midst of great suffering. It is the joy of beingdisciplined, purified and pruned. Just as athletes who experience greatpain as they run the race can, at the same time, taste the joy of knowing thatthey are coming closer to their goal, so also can the Beloved experiencesuffering as a way to deeper communion with God. Here joy and sorrow are nolonger each other’s opposites, but have become the two sides of the same desireto grow to the fullness of the Beloved. For this blessed attitude to takeroot, we have to have deep faith that God loves us unconditionally and that weare the beloved children of God, very precious to Him.
        God sent Jesus to bless us,“God. . . sent Him to bless you” (Acts 3:26 NJB) and Jesus himself has blessedus with every spiritual blessing, “our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed uswith all the spiritual blessings” (Ephesians 1:3 NJB). Jesus shows us by HisWords and Deeds how to live a blessed life, “Blessed are those who do Hiscommandments” (Revelation 22:14 NKJV). Jesus creates a whole new blessedenvironment for us to dwell in and, ”how happy are those who hear the wordof God and obey it!"(Luke 11:28 TEV) We have to choose to stay in thatplace with Him and to hand His blessings on to others to make our blessingsgrow and multiply.
       
         Remember, no one is broughtto life through curses, blaming, gossips, accusations and punishment. But everyone is brought to life through blessings, encouragement, affirmations, praises,rewards and forgiveness.

From an enlightened blogger which in this case is not me.

Eucharistic Adoration and Christian Meditation in our Schools by Wendy M Louis

I wish to make a few comments as we consider doing Eucharistic Adoration and Christian Meditation in our Schools: The meaning of ‘Catholic School’ in Australia or France or almost anywhere else for that matter is that the majority of students and teachers are Catholic. Even in such schools where the majority are Catholic the introduction or practice of any form of prayer is voluntary. A.      On the question of Eucharistic Adoration, we note that parents should be the ones enabled and encouraged to pray with their children as first educators in the faith.If this is introduced in school the following points should be noted:1.       It is always advisable to bring make Eucharistic Adoration voluntary. It should not be scheduled and imposed on Catholics.2.       It would be very important to prepare the children / students adequately for such an event. This means that enough time has been given for appreciation of what the Eucharistic bread is and why we adore the bread in the monstrance.3.       The atmosphere of beauty, reverence and quiet should be pre-requisites for such a practice. Preferably a chapel away from disruptions.4.       The setting up and removal of the monstrance should be done under the supervision of a chaplain who in most cases should be a priest. Only with special permission may someone handle the Blessed Sacrament.5.       The notion of Adoration lends itself to silence, quiet music and very few words (preferably from Scripture). All forms of ‘devotional prayers’ should be avoided. B.      On the question of Christian Meditation please note the following points for your consideration:1.       The practice of Meditation has as its primary purpose to centre on God, in Jesus Christ. It helps one to have a much closer relationship with Christ and to rely on God in a very real way everyday.2.       Any reduction of this wonderful aim of meditation to ‘reducing stress’ or ‘creating children who are more focused’ etc is doing a disservice to the purpose of Christian Meditation. Please do not encourage participation based on outcomes that are material and related to academic success. The focus is a deeper union with God.3.       Christian Meditation has Jesus Christ as its intentional and explicit focus. We should be very careful not to gather children of all faiths and teach a generalized meditation which could end up being emptied of its Christian content.4.       If we want to have calmer, happier children of different faiths we can certainly introduce some times of quiet or silence with quiet music but we do not call it Meditation as this could be very confusing. I hope you find the above useful and if you have any further questions I will be happy to discuss them with you.Once again, I hope you are able to find teachers or parents to attend the workshop listed above.

Yours in Christ,
Wendy M Louis
ACCS ED

Notable Catholic Thinkers - Desiderius Erasmus

Desiderius Erasmus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

When churches are charities

Religious organisations which operate as charities have special features, hence a different approach may be needed in terms of regulation

By Willie Cheng

THE City Harvest Church court case has resurrected the periodic question: Why should a church, or for that matter, a religious institution, be accorded charity status?
The naysayer's reasoning goes like this: Charity is about helping society's poor and needy. Sure, churches can be charitable and give some money to those in need, but so do many other organisations which are not charities. Religion, after all, is fundamentally about God and spiritual matters.
A proper discourse on this subject however requires an appreciation of how the definitions of charity and church have evolved over the centuries.
Charity and church defined
SINGAPORE and about 60 other countries trace their legal heritage to England. Specifically, the legal definition of charity harks back to the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 of Elizabethan England and its subsequent refinements in common law.
Chief among the common law cases was Income Tax Special Purpose Commissioners v Pemsel (1891) where four categories of charitable uses were defined:

• the relief of poverty;

• the advancement of education;

• the advancement of religion;

• other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads.

Over the years and across the world, the fourth category has been used to cover an increasing variety of causes such as vulnerable groups (the disabled, elderly, etc), animal welfare, environment, the arts and heritage. Singapore, for example, specifically added sports as a charitable cause in 2005.
One reason for including the advancement of religion as a charitable cause in early England was that much of the charitable work of providing for the poor and needy was being done by the church. Religion, in those days, meant the Church of England.
However, over the centuries, the religious scene has changed significantly. For starters, there has been a proliferation of and diversity in churches.
In the first few centuries after Jesus Christ died, Christianity was consolidated and became widespread with the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. Starting in the 16th century, a movement by certain priests to reform the Catholic Church led to the formation of several Protestant denominations such as the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Methodists. In time, these denominations sprouted further subdivisions and sects, alongside untold numbers of independent 'non-denominational' churches. Larger ones with weekly attendances of 2,000 or more, such as City Harvest Church, are called 'megachurches'.
These churches may differ in opinion regarding theology and/or liturgical practice. But they mostly subscribe to Jesus Christ as the saviour and the Bible as God's word (even if they may interpret its contents differently).
Some critics consider independent churches shallow in theology while being deep in secular models of entertainment-based worship and marketing. For example, critics take issue with the doctrine of the 'prosperity gospel' some of these churches around the world subscribe to. The prosperity gospel teaches that financial blessings are the will of God and more donations to the church result in increased material prosperity to the individual. It is a philosophy which some theologians argue has no sound Biblical basis.
Another key distinction among the various forms of churches lies in their structures and leadership.
The Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant denominations have fairly well-established organisational structures and processes for the formation and conduct of the clergy. For example, a Catholic priest is ordained only after an intensive period of scrutiny and formation of eight or more years, upon which he takes a vow of chastity, obedience and, sometimes, poverty. He is expected to live less than modestly. In Singapore, Catholic priests are given a stipend of $500 per month, with their board and lodging provided by the church.
On the other hand, most of the non-mainstream churches are essentially independent congregations, some loosely affiliated to each other, but mostly with their own rules and practices. Many of these churches do not have the same kind of rigorous institutionalised approach to selecting and developing leaders. Indeed, leaders often emerge by virtue of their charisma and ability to win followers. It is the congregations, rather than institutional rules, which determine leaders and lifestyle expectations of the leaders.
Should such charismatic leaders have flawed characters, they can do untold damage. In extreme cases, such organisations are classified as cults. Cults are banned in Singapore, but not in some countries. Yet, by granting charity status to such cults or near-cults as some countries do, regulators confer on them tax benefits and, more significantly, legitimacy.
Keep religious groups out of charities?
GIVEN the historical broadening of the definition of charity, it would be, in my opinion, wrong to narrowly target religion for exclusion as a charitable cause.
Yes, (most) religions are about God and the afterlife, but they are also fundamentally about goodwill and bringing out the goodness in man. Which is to say: they are about the community good.
If religion is excluded - say, we revert to the layman's notion of charity as helping the poor and needy - we need to also exclude sports, the arts, heritage, animals, education and health care. We would, in fact, exclude the whole gamut of other causes of 'community good' that have grown over time.
At the same time, we also need to recognise that there are churches and there are churches. What then do we do about the errant religious organisations that may not be extreme enough to be classified as cults (and thus be banned) but, in all other respects, qualify to be charities? The default answer is: Treat it as any other errant social service charity or sports charity.
In other words, have a clear set of rules and regulations for how charities are to be governed and managed. And if there is a breach by any of the charities or its personnel, throw the book at them.
Special features of religious groups
HOWEVER, the application of such rules and regulations to religious charities is not so straightforward. There are three related and distinctive features of religious organisations that regulators have to grapple with.
The first is the basis of donations. An inviolable principle in the charity sector is 'donor intent'. This means respecting the basis for which a donation is given. In the case of religious institutions, most believers give with a blanket fiat for their leaders to do with the donation as is deemed fit rather than for specific or even general charitable purposes.
The second is evangelisation. The missions of most religious organisations include evangelisation, not just of the converted, but of the broader community. Evangelisation sits uncomfortably with regulators in the more secular countries. Yet, it can be argued that evangelisation is no different from, say, the advocacy of other charities, such as the healthy lifestyles (to avoid certain diseases) promoted by health-care charities like the Singapore Heart Foundation and Sata CommHealth.
The third is the leadership of these organisations. The governance and management of religious institutions tend to be bound together, rather than be separated, as is considered best practices by secular bodies. Religious leaders also have a sway over their followers which can sometimes be seen by regulators and outside parties as bordering on the irrational.
The interplay of these three factors has challenged regulators when they seek to implement a single sector-wide approach to regulating charities.
In Singapore, the same set of regulations is applied to all charities, regardless of sub-sectors (for example, the religious, social service and arts sub-sectors).
There is, however, differentiated treatment in the Charity Code of Governance based on the size of the charities: the bigger the charities, the more controls and scrutiny are needed.
As highlighted above, there are unique aspects of religious charities, as there could be for charities in other sub-sectors.
It might be timely to review these sub-sectorial differences for a more targeted and meaningful approach to charity governance and regulation.
The writer, a former partner at management and technology consulting firm Accenture, is author of Doing Good Well. He sits on the boards of several commercial and non-profit organisations, including Singapore Press Holdings, Singapore Institute of Directors, and Catholic and secular charities.

Charisma and its pitfalls

      What's so bad about charisma?

Trouble happens when followers cede independence

Published on Jul 7, 2012

 

By Jeremy Au Yong, Political Correspondent

THERE was an interesting study on charisma conducted in 1998, just after Steve Jobs returned to Apple but before he built his reputation as a messianic chief executive.

Then, researchers asked 150 students to allocate $10,000 across three possible investments: a mutual fund, money market certificates or Apple shares.

The students were given similar sets of financial information with one big difference. Half the students were shown a video of Jobs making a presentation at a trade show with his trademark flair, while the rest were not.
Researchers wanted to see if the simple addition of Jobs' charisma would have any impact on the investment decisions. The results shed some light on the impact charisma can have.

The arrest of Kong Hee and four other leaders of the City Harvest Church last week for alleged financial wrongdoings has once again drawn scrutiny to the notion of charismatic leadership.

Without commenting on his innocence or guilt - that is now a matter before the courts - his case does reignite debate over the potential dangers of charismatic leaders.

It is a conversation Singapore society has had before. After the cases involving former National Kidney Foundation (NKF) chief T.T. Durai or former Ren Ci head Ming Yi, some concluded that there was a need to be warier of the charismatic among us, because charisma is like a super power that is deadly in the wrong hands.

But if people are aware of the risk, why do they leave themselves vulnerable? Why do they not learn their lesson? And what exactly is it about charisma that seems to disable even the best defences?

Like any super power, there is nothing intrinsically bad about charisma. The ability to attract people and inspire them to follow you is actually very valuable.

For every Jim Jones, the charismatic leader responsible for the mass suicide of over 900 people, there is a Steve Jobs or a Richard Branson.

In fact, an argument could be made that charismatic leaders actually saved many companies because they pushed through change that was needed.

The problem with charisma does not lie with just the charismatic leader. Rather, the trouble tends to stem from how charisma changes the way the followers relate to the leader and the organisation.

Political scientist Marty Linsky once wrote that effective leadership meant 'disappointing followers at a rate they can absorb'.

He reasoned that a leader who disappointed his followers too much would be turfed out while one who did not disappoint at all was not leading anyone anywhere.

The idea implies a sort of social contract between a leader and a follower. In the absence of charisma, this contract has to include a shared sense of mission. The follower goes along with the leader because he believes the leader is taking him where he wants to go.

If the leader then starts to head off in a different direction, that social contract is violated and the leader may find he has lost his followers.

This arrangement, however, can be eroded by the presence of a a magnetic personality. A very charismatic leader does not have the same social contract. He does not need to be on the same page as his followers.

In this situation, people follow not because of some aligned sense of purpose. They are there because they are drawn to this outgoing, dynamic, passionate person.

One clear sign that an organisation has come under the spell of a charismatic leader is a sharp distinction between the way he is viewed inside and outside the organisation.

Many outside the NKF seethed when Mr Durai's lavish lifestyle came to light, so much so that the building was vandalised.

Yet, when he resigned shortly after, NKF staff members gave him a grand, emotional send-off. At the end of his farewell speech, they gave him a standing ovation.

'I've seen him work. It's his passion. He works seven days a week, by choice, for a larger cause,' a manager was reported as saying that day.

All this despite the court proceeding just days earlier showing that Mr Durai had, among other things, travelled on first class flights and had a gold-plated tap installed in his office toilet.

The results of the Steve Jobs survey give an insight into how powerful the effect can be. The group that watched a 20-minute video of Jobs invested on average three times more in Apple shares than the group that did not.

They all had the same facts, but the sheer force of personality coloured their perceptions of those facts.

The charismatic leader can thus disempower his followers. They do things not because they have reasoned that it is the right thing to do but because they have ceded a lot of independence to the person asking them to do it.

Suddenly, there is no amount of disappointment they cannot absorb.

And often, not enough attention is paid to this supporting cast. When we look back on the NKF now, we tell the story of how Mr Durai compromised the organisation. But the story is not complete without including the role of his close associates.

Even if we argue that he put them there, he could not have achieved that manoeuvre without others watching it and choosing to look the other way.

To understand that is to see that no amount of new safeguards against a leader will ever be sufficient if the followers are weak. The bars of the cell may be thick but they are useless if the inmates hold all the keys.

And it is in the very nature of charisma to create weak followers.

Thus, in trying to protect organisations from abuse, what is needed may not just be more regulations or more procedures.

Instead, it is about making sure we never turn a blind eye to our own reasoning just because a flashy leader passionately and articulately tells us to.