Prof Hawking's bets and what we as believers can learn from it.

Prof Hawking was an avid bettor. But his bets come with a positive twist. It seeks to advance science and knowledge. It is nothing personal.

So, it is not about winning and losing with Prof Hawking. He was prepared to lose a bet and to be proven wrong because his attitude towards losing is that the winner gains for science and the world is better for it.

Science is therefore the ultimate beneficiary of the direct challenge to humanity's ego to prove another wrong. That's the irony of reverse psychology and Prof Hawking was a master of placing such bets to spur man's (sometimes desperate) drive to be right.

In the above article written by Adam Minter, he wrote this about Prof Hawking's penchant for betting:-

"For years, he had been making - and losing - public bets on fundamental questions of physics. He felt no shame in these repudiations but rather revelled in them, knowing that science advances when its participants are wrong as well as right."

Prof Hawking had made many bets over his lifetime. He once bet in 1974 that "a bright object in the Cygnus constellation was not a black hole". He lost that bet in 1990 and had to pay it off with a subscription to Penthouse.

In another bet that he lost, he challenged Physicist John Preskill by stating that "information swallowed by a black hole could never be retrieved." However, his own research in 2004 would undermine that statement.

So, in a major physics conference, he announced, "he had devised a calculation that proved he was wrong."

For that bet, he "presented Professor Preskill a baseball encyclopedia from which information could easily be retrieved."

Prof Hawking's most famous bet was with another Professor, namely, Peter Higgs, who won the Noble Prize for finding the God's particle, eponymously named after him - Higgs Boson. But that discovery came partly (or largely) from a professorial taunt (a bet) by the notorious bettor himself.

In 2000, Prof Hawking wagered with University of Michigan's Gordon Kane that the God's particle would never be found. Although it was not a wager directly with Prof Higgs, the latter took it personally and strove to prove him wrong (or himself right).

Alas, Prof Hawking lost that bet too.

In 2012, Higgs Boson was confirmed and Prof Hawking "made a global spectacle of paying off the US$100 wager, admitting he was wrong." But he did not stop there.

Ever a gentleman in losing, Prof Hawking called for Prof Higgs to be awarded the Nobel Prize.

Whether right or wrong, Adam wrote, "Prof Hawking's humility and graciousness would be rare in any age, but particularly at a time when conceding even the slightest error is viewed as a weakness to be derided and exploited."

Lesson? I am curious about what we as believers can learn from Prof Hawking. Of course I am not talking about betting here, for an atheist's bet against faith or omnipotence will take an eternity to unravel.

What I am however talking about is his gracious attitude towards the possibility of being wrong, thereafter accepting it and moving forward with it.

Can we Christians consider that, accept and learn from that? Can we accept that we are not always right about our belief? Can we accept that we are not always that certain about what we claim to be certain about?

What Adam writes below about science in the article is relevant to our belief:-

"Public-facing scientists become reluctant to concede uncertainty about data for fear that the admission will undermine funding and support for their research. The result: well-intentioned intellectuals who feel obligated to present science as a series of truths not to be argued or rebutted."

The issue I have with belief is absolutism. When we claim that we can't be wrong, we suffocate our belief into insufferable tyrant.

We turn every interpretation of scriptures into a truth never to be argued with. We close off debate. We shut out the light of reasonable doubts. We become an epistemological Dead Sea surrounded by a fortress which is constantly pampered, or mollycoddled, by the harem of our own confirmation bias.

We are thus trapped in the hermitage of our own arrogance whereby we voluntarily deny ourselves of a whole, almost infinite, world of discoveries out there.

However fallible we are as a believer, it seems like what we say about what the Bible has to say becomes an infallible pronouncement very much like the ex cathedra declarations of the pope as the church's universal shepherd.

But the church has been wrong on many occasions. They have been wrong about sex, about masturbation, about science, about cosmology, about demonology, and about evolution.

Now, the modern megachurches are repeating the same mistake with an incomprehensible level of self-conceited panache.

Preachers in their glamorous suits and glittering hairdo unpack self-proclaimed revelations with every sermon about how they are so cocksure about God's will, direction and even emotions. Ironically, their certainty seems to be equated with their believability. The more cocksure they are, the more persuasive they become. Go figure.

With every ex cathedra pronouncement, they conveniently sweep away all mysteries and wonders and leave their audience with the remnants of reality that just doesn't reconcile with the reality they have come to know when they walk out of the sanctuary with light feet and head.

If you need examples, here goes.

"God is never angry with you. God has "retired" the Holy Spirt to convict you of sins. God is happy when you are happy. God is even happier when you ask big because he gives big. God no longer punish you for sins. God is your new buddy in Christ. God can't wait to bless you beyond your wildest imagination. God is a cheerful giver, you should be one too. When you prosper, God rejoices with you. God's will without exception is your healing and longevity, because death can wait. God hates it when you speak bad about his anointed".

They seem to have God all figured out, fully unpacked, with an exhaustive manual inside...(and I can go on and on with this).

I guess the worse infraction in the modern church today is to allow the preachers to do all the thinking for us, to spoon feed us with the spiritual stuff, essentially with what we would like to hear.

And we want answers, fixed answers, good answers, answers of certainty, answers that are easy to swallow, well crushed out, like sweet liquids fed into the estuaries of our self-confirming belief system, the fortress of our own pet theories.

Alas, by embracing or hallowing certainty, or cocksureness, we unknowingly garland our faith with the condolent wreaths of wonders, curiosity, uncertainty, and discovery.

We therefore become anti-Berean believers spoon-fed with the junk food of self-conceited revelations dished out in an all-you-can-eat buffet from the mouth of equally ignorant preachers.

Let me end with the article’s conclusion:-

“If Prof Hawking’s life can teach anything to scientists, public intellectuals and social media users (and believers?), it is that humility and a willingness to change one’s mind are a sign of not weakness but an adventurous and intellectually engaged mind and polity. This is a legacy as worthy as Prof Hawking’s monumental scientific achievements.” 

Amen, RIP Professor. Cheerz.

Caishen and the prosperity preachers.

Alec Chia, 47, is the quintessential "god of fortune" or better known during this festive season as "Caishen".

He was a shoo-in for that role when he was as young as 15 years old. He played Caishen in a school play and even filled that role alongside Moses Lim during a CNY countdown show in 1995.

In order to fulfill his dream to be a full-time Caishen, he quit his job in a crystal shop and took up freelancing as a fengshui master. This allowed him to have more time to pursue the Caishen role. 

Then, his big break came when he performed at River Hongbao in 2003. His profile was launched as the one and only Caishen. It was there that he got many engagements. It reports that "business has been booming since."

Mind you, Alec has done his bid for charity too. In 2004, he travelled to Sri Lanka for nearly a month with Maha Karuna Buddhist Society "as part of post-tsunamis efforts, where he distributed drinks, water and candy to the children."

Lesson? Just three.

What if I say that there is a parallel here in our modern churches nowadays? We have our own god of fortune too.

Mm...will I be stoned by fervent believers for such irreverent remarks? 

Anyway, please hold that stone first and allow me to make my three points before you cast it my way. Here comes my first point...

1) It reports that Alec "now owns five custom-made costumes made with fabric from China, Thailand, Nepal and even Tibet. His headdress and robes are adorned with jade, crystals and other precious metals. The costumes cost more than a thousand dollars each and can weigh up to 6kg."

The parallel here is appearance. You can't miss it. The god of fortune ("Caishen") equivalent in our churches is the prosperity pastors who enthrone the god of prosperity. 

Every Sunday, they are all dolled up to present this exciting side of the gospel, and the crowd sits comfortably lapping it all up. 

You can witness the smiles, amen and hallelujah as the word of blessings, longevity and riches pour forth from the mouth of these prosperity preachers. 

Not just their fine suits, bedazzling hairdos, made-up faces, and an awesome professional band with pyrotechnics, big screens and lightings as their backdrop, they are also high net worth individuals with private cars, private jets and private mansion to boot. 

While Caishen dorns a headdress and robe with hanging jade and other precious metals, these prosperity preachers rule the stage with charisma, captivating messages, and a beaming smile to tell all and sundry that their God just can't wait to pour prosperity onto their lap, press down, shaken together and running over. 

In fact, a rewarding God of all material goodness is a distinguishing mark of their faith and belief. 

2) Alec admitted that some patrons were initially scared and uncomfortable with his imposing outfit. 

They say that "when they see me, like see ghost."

He recounted that one woman even pointed a cross at him. But he tried to reassure her, saying: "Don't worry, I am something like Santa Claus but the Chinese version."

I guess by the standard of the prosperity gospel that has become a staple of the faith in our religious landscape, the Caishen equivalent for some churches may just be Santa Claus - that is, a god that gives unsparingly, loves without discipline, rewards exceedingly, promises without limits, dispenses with repentance, declares us righteous past, present and future, regardless, and emboldens us to open our mouth to claim whatever our hearts desire. 

It is thus quite ironic to flash the cross at Alec because nowadays, as Chuck Colson puts it below, the modern churches have found a way to merge the message of the Cross with the message of prosperity (quite seamlessly).

These are Colson's words for your reflection:

"The church has been brought into the same value system as the world; faith, success, materialism and celebrity. We watch the leading churches and the leading Christian for our cue. We want to emulate the best known preachers with the biggest sanctuaries and the grandest edifices. 

Preoccupation with these values has perverted the churches message." 

Finally...

3) Alec said that "besides dressing his part, the secret to being a good Caishen is having flair". He added: "You must believe that you are Caishen. You are giving hope to the people, and you must believe in yourself before you can get people to believe you."

The Bible says that without vision (or hope), the people perish. There is no denying that we need hope, and we need it more than ever. 

In today's distorting environment, where objective truths take a backseat to subjective ones, and cultural values are adapted to suit our religious palette, our hope now seems to rest on the more pragmatic aspects of our faith. 

With bills to pay, grades to achieve, reputation to protect, options that are endless to choose from, and prosperity in our mind, our hope is on the convenience of believing.

Forget about the journey, we are striving to get to our destination as fast as it is religiously permissible. 

Whatever is convenient and whatever gets us there is whatever that is reverence and sacred. 

As such, anything that promises us a leapfrog to our material goal and security directly satisfies the deep longing of our hearts.

This is where the modern churches come in. 

They have everything in the offering. Their god is an all-embracing one. Their faith fast-forwards the journey of bearing the cross to the end part where we automatically become the resurrection of the righteous. And there is nothing more convenient than to expect a loving God to bless us beyond our wildest dreams.

Let me end with an article entitled "The Tyranny of Convenience" by Prof Tim Wu.

He wrote: "Today’s cult of convenience fails to acknowledge that difficulty is a constitutive feature of human experience. Convenience is all destination and no journey. But climbing a mountain is different from taking the tram to the top, even if you end up at the same place. We are becoming people who care mainly or only about outcomes. We are at risk of making most of our life experiences a series of trolley rides."

And talking about trolley rides, I am reminded that Santa Claus has his slay ride all prep up for us to take us to where we want to go, to whatever destination our heart so desires. Cheerz.

What prosperity preachers can learn from Billy Graham.

J Lee Grady, the contributing editor of Charisma magazine, recently wrote an article about the late Billy Graham. 

It enjoyed wild circulation online because of its clear, simple and effective content. It's about leadership, about the church, and I dare say about the world.

Billy Graham's ministry was premised on a prayer in 1948 (amongst many pivoting petitions), in a tiny motel in Modesto, California - according to Grady.

On that day, he gathered key leaders to pray and "the results of that meeting were profoundly prophetic."

Grady wrote that "the men outlined what would become "the Modesto Manifesto"—a list of core ministry values that became the guiding principles of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The BGEA was founded two years later, in 1950, just one year after media coverage of Graham's eight-week gospel campaign in Los Angeles made him a household word."

One attendee, Cliff Barrows, jotted down the key points in the meeting, and in the article, Grady spelt them out as follows: -

"Honesty: "It was resolved that all communications to media and to the church would not be inflated or exaggerated. The size of crowds and the number of inquirers would not be embellished for the sake of making BGEA look better."

Integrity: "It was resolved that financial matters would be submitted to a board of directors for review and facilitation of expenditures. Every local crusade would maintain a policy of 'open books' and publish a record of where and how monies were spent."

Purity: "It was resolved that members of the team would pay close attention to avoiding temptation—never being alone with another woman, remaining accountable to one another, etc. A practice of keeping wives informed of their activities on the road and helping them feel a part of any and all crusades they undertook would be encouraged."

Humility: "It was resolved that members of the team were never to speak badly of another Christian minister, regardless of his denominational affiliation or differing theological views and practices. The mission of evangelism includes strengthening the body of Christ as well as building it!""

Here comes my commentary...

To be honest, I would be naive (or gullible) to think even for a moment that we have found the holy grail of evangelistic success based on those guiding principles.

What are words good for if not backed by a lifetime of deeds?

Now tell me, which megachurch ministry doesn't have those basic principles, or at the least, implied them in their mission statement or manifesto?

In fact, the challenge is this - if you happen to read any of their mission statement, and if none of them carry all or most of those guiding principles, explicitly or otherwise, then it's not a church my friend, it is a religious Mafioso; where the executive head draws all men (and women) unto himself and no one else.

As such, I have no delusion about words on paper. They are no doubt a good and stable railing (hand guard) to hold when you are trekking the terrain of moral darkness.

But we know it is not so much the railing that makes the enduring difference. It is the hand that holds on to it against all temptations to stray that truly counts and will eventually overcome.

For completing the race or fighting the good fight is like wrestling a gorilla. You don't stop when you are tired, jaded, disillusioned, disappointed, embarrassed, rejected or hurt.

You stop only when you have KO'ed the gorilla for good. And that takes a lifetime to accomplish because good character is not built up in a day; it is sharpened through the decades. 

So, let's go back to the Modesto Manifesto, in particular, honesty and integrity.

Has the modern megachurch leader lived up to them?

While the CHC saga is an easy target here (because they have were been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt) and that horse has been admittedly flogged to pieces by the media due to the incomprehensible vehemence of the convicted leadership, I think there is an equal, if not more insidious, deception of church leadership we often overlook because it is mostly not criminal in nature.

This deception takes after the Latin phrase - "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi,” which translates to this – “the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false”. 

Here is what I mean...

When it comes to money, some megachurches thrive on the collection. This collection like floodgates is mostly centered on one drive: Expectation. It is an expectation of personal prosperity, that is, give and it will be given unto you, a good measure, press down, shaken together...I'm sure you are familiar with the scriptural tagline.

It is therefore mainly a form of derivative faith where the promise of blessings becomes a hallmark of believing and this transfixed believing brings about an unwaveringly anticipation of the elevation of one's material status in name, fame and riches. 

These megachurches' leaders are gifted in the language of modern culture.  

One business lecturer, who studied from a secular angle the marketing strategies of megachurches, came up with this observation:-

"Market-friendly ideologies associated with individualism and self-empowerment are often blended with selective Christian theologies to emphasize positive living and blessings, while deflecting overtly negative Christian doctrines such as suffering, judgment, sacrifice, hell or death from sin. Their church services are scripted and "produced" with deliberate use of contemporary music, sound and lighting."" (Jeaney Yip). 

Although it seems unfair to look at it from that strictly business angle, because there are more to it than that, that is, the transforming power of the gospel, I can't as a Christian with decades of megachurch background, disregard completely her assessment. There is still some truth to it if you keep an open mind about it.

So, the unfortunate reality is, in that "scripted" and "produced" context, the tendency is to dish out scriptural promises one after another and see the money comes pouring in. In other words, they sow words that tend to make striking the prosperity lottery an everyday occurrence for the desperate hopeful. 

Alas, the difference between the national lottery and some megachurch collection is that in the former, you never know who will strike the big one at every announcement. The odds are stacked against everyone.

But for the megachurches, you know the one who holds the winning numbers (so to speak) is always the leadership, which holds total rein over the money heap. Hence, you can say that the one who brings good news brings even better news for himself 

(My god, the redundancy rate for the idle funds are beyond comprehension as they keep pouring in beyond what any wise counsel in church knows what to do with them).

Here is how it went so biblically for one megachurch many years back.

In one of the collection drives to raise funds for its church's half of S$976m retail and entertainment complex, Joseph Prince bedazzled the 22,272 attendees with this embellished gospel tagline: -

"As they come forth Lord to sow, release upon them Father the power to get, to create, to receive wealth in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." (I call this the "or-your-money-back" petition).

He also added: "Prosperity is right. Amen. We prosper to prosper others. We prosper to prosper God's kingdom, so come believing."

Well, I can't say that prosperity is wrong. Blessings are real from God. They are part of His promises. Admittedly, Joseph Prince has got a point there.

But the glittering carrot that Joseph Prince hangs over the expecting crowd is not the gospel that spoke the whole truth about prosperity. I guess the occasion (raising funds) requires one to frontload everything about prosperity and leave that which is a financial wet blanket out of the way right? Maybe….maybe not.

Mind you, the Rich Young Ruler walked away from Jesus not because he cannot serve God with his wealth. It is because he can't imagine himself serving God without his wealth. God alone is thus not sufficient for him.

That is what makes it disconcerting when a megachurch preacher resorts to what is quite indistinguishable from cutting a deal with his congregation by challenging them to give generously so that God would give them back manifold. The biblical cheerful giver is now spurred on by the profit motive.

(Honestly, wouldn't it be more honest to just tell them as it is, that is, convey the need in earnest, without swinging the golden carrot over the congregant's head as if God is all ready with his pen in one hand to issue out blank cheques? Truly, here, you can witness for yourself the difference between how a mainstream church asks for funds and how a megachurch does it. The latter's tactics is without a doubt unparalleled in ostentatiousness, self-confidence and charismatic exuberance).

Alas, this makes prosperity more of a trap to a lot of believers than a springboard to maturity in the faith.

In fact, if you harken to the words of the renowned theologian, Stanley Hauerwas, you ought to give pause for more reflection about the numbing effect of the prosperity gospel.

This is what he said:-

"Why (the churches in the West) are dying seems very simple. It is hard to be a disciple and be rich. Surely, we may think it cannot be that simple, but Jesus certainly seems to think that it is that simple. The lure of wealth and the cares of the world produced by wealth quite simply darken and choke our imaginations. As a result, the church falls prey to the deepest enemy of the gospel - serf mentality. The gospel becomes a formula for "giving our lives meaning" without judgment.""

The gospel therefore becomes a means to an end in this money-heaping exercise. While Jesus rejected the kingdom of this world, riches and all, knowing full well its corrupting influences, the cultural edifice of wealth today tempts every church leader to accept with open arms the kingdom of this world.

Sadly, some gave in - even unknowingly - because they can't imagine themselves serving God without their accumulated wealth. God, stripped of the wealth and reputation, is just one egg short of a dozen?

What's worse is that in giving in quite unknowingly, the preacher brings with him the gathering masses to this catatonic state of blissful unawareness.

So, when the whole truth is suppressed under the guise of a blank-cheque prosperity, it inevitably exposes the lies one is trying in vain to cover up behind the glittering pulpit. 

All this applies with equal force, if not urgency, to Billy Graham's other guiding principles like purity and humility in the Modesto Manifesto. The principles on paper are no doubt foundational cornerstone for living and leading an overcoming Christ-like life.

But cornerstone or not, the builders build the house by their hands and not by their mouth. The words on paper only come alive if the life follows them through, every word in the order it appears, up to the end of the line and life. In other words, it is the conscious, committed and covenantal effort that see to it that the house is eventually built from ground up that matters most.

It is only when the builder takes short cuts, walks the broad glittering way, compromises on the whole truth, and enriches himself with under-table gifts that his foundation crumbles the moment it is put to the test. 

This is where pastors fall, cross the line, tempt fate, and start to believe in their own invulnerability.

Let me end with the concluding words of J Lee Grady:-

"So much of what we call ministry today has been compromised by ego, marketing and man-made agendas. Some of our own "Spirit-filled" preachers are happy to sell a healing or a financial miracle for $29.95. Others claim spiritual superiority because they have the largest following on social media or because so many lined up to attend their packed conferences.

We have exchanged honesty, integrity, purity and humility for hype, fake anointing, manipulated photos, inflated attendance reports, sensuality and boastful swagger. God forgive us.

Billy Graham raised the bar for all ministers. I pray we will never forget his legacy." Amen. Cheerz.