My Profession
I’ve finished my thesis. This week I hand in my thesis to the university and start to hope and pray the examiners don’t fail me.
This is going to be a personal piece, a deeply personal piece which speaks for myself, rather than a piece where I am voicing out ideas to apply to the wider society.
.
Ever since I started kindergarten school when I was 4, I have not left school, until now. It had been one level after another immediately, until my undergrad studies and finally my graduate studies. Sure I’ve had many jobs in between or during school, but that’s not the point. The point is that every weekend, every day after coming home, I know what there is for me to do. Each night when I go to sleep, and know what there is for me to do when I wake the next day. My plans evolved around school work, my PhD experiments, my thesis writing.
.
But now that’s gone
.
What do I do tomorrow? What do I do this weekend?
.
It’s not that there is nothing I can do. I could do my work from my job (I’ve been holding a health research job over the last year while working on my thesis.) I love my job, the work involved and I could potentially spend all weekend doing free OT — that is an option. There are also all these very interesting discussion groups, NGO work, charity work etc that I could busy myself with (And yes, I’m highly aware that I owe a lot of people something I said I’ll do *sheepish smile*). Or I could take my best friend’s advice ‘Why don’t you just be normal and watch TV and go shopping like everyone else?!’ Which can be tempting because I truly enjoy those too!
.
But the question remains. What do I do?
It’s not that there is nothing I can do. It’s out of all those options available, what do I pick? What’s meaningful to pick? And what do I pick for weekends for the rest of my life?
.
.
I do have a guiding principle. It’s not a guiding principle I consciously thought of and arrived at. It’s not one I adopt because I’ve been told to adopt or have to adopt. It’s my guiding principle because out of the many guiding principles presented to me in life, this is the only one I feel at peace with. Some people decide what to do based on what gives them to most happiness, some people base on what gives the most money, some on what’s best for their kids and family etc. All these are good and valid choices, and I would support every social structure to help these people live the way they want. But I cannot be at peace with these guiding principles. Before I can articulate my guiding principle, I must share an experience.
.
Last year I visited a Hindu temple as part of an Interfaith Dialogue group’s event. We went right up to the front of where the worshipper were, facing the Gods and priests. I was fascinated, listening to our Hindu hosts/guides. And then I turned around to face all the worshippers. What I saw touched me and impacted my religious beliefs greatly. I saw on the faces of grown men, desperation and pleading, earnestness and sincerity, hope and prayer. At that moment a thought sprang into my mind “God, how could you not be moved, these are your people! Thy children!” At that moment, I realized this was what religion was all about. Religion was not about who was God, who was the prophets, what the doctrines are, what the sacred texts are, what the rituals are. Religion was about humanity. People had been looking in the wrong direction. We’ve been looking at too much at the unknown, the unseen, the cold statues to ask what is religion. We should have turned around, to see the people. And when we do that, we’ll realize that all religion is the same, all religion is about human suffering, and human desperation and helplessness, pleading to the unknown, the unseen, the cold statues for just a bit of relief. Religion was about hope when hope had run out, a way out when there was logically no way out.
.
.
It surprises many people when they learn how deeply religious I am, because I can be so critical of religious institutions. To me, I need God. I need to believe that humans are more important that animals, animals more important than trees, trees more important than rocks. More important not in the ecological sense, but in terms of whose benefit we prioritise. If a human, an animal, a plant, a rock was trapped in a fire, we know who we save first. To me, this belief that beings are more than just the proteins and fats that make up our bodies, that there is something more in humans and animals and plants that gives them their respective importance to other humans, is a religious belief. Science tells me that humans are made up of the same materials – proteins, fats, 70% water – as animals. If there was no God, no supernatural, no something else, I will no longer be able to justify killing a chicken for my family’s dinner table. I will no longer be able to justify rescuing the baby instead of the pet dog from a burning building. If there was an earthquake, and a trapped dog was in a rescue-able position than a trapped human, I would be obliged to rescue the dog first over the human. And why should we discriminate against rock material and tree material, over protein and fat?! I simply cannot believe that. I need to believe in God to believe in the importance of humans. I respect that there are atheistic humanists who can believe in the importance of humans without believing in God (I’m using God in the general sense, btw, not in a particular religion-specific sense) at all. In fact, I am full of admiration of such atheists for being able to do so. I hang out a bunch of atheists who are such good and cool people, I am constantly asking atheists this question because I’m fascinated.
.
.
My guiding principle then, that is the one I feel at peace with, that I can wake up for is this: I need to live a life that is 100% for the sake of God.
.
Throughout human history, there have been many interpretations of that statement. Some believe that to live a life that is 100% for God is to go up to a mountain to be a hermit. Some belief in joining a monastery and praying every moment. These days, there are those who believe it means being a suicide bomber, and there are those who believe it means converting everyone to your particular set of religious beliefs, rituals, and practices.
.
For me, it means turning around from the altar, and looking at humanity instead. And spending one’s life being moved by the human condition.
.
There are people who’ve asked me ‘How can you see so much suffering and yet believe there is a God?!’. While I think such questions are very interesting and stimulating to debate and discuss, it would be no different from sitting in the temple courts, arguing about the nature of the un-see-able, un-know-able, of the cold statues, while ignoring the multitude of desperate, suffering faithful. It makes no sense to sit around blaming something you’ve no clear idea of, and not point the question back to oneself and ask ‘Before I start blaming God, or preaching there is no God, or finding excuses for God, how can *I* see so much suffering, and still sit here arguing?!’
.
.
I believe in priesthood. Not the priesthood of performing rituals, collecting money, preaching hellfire and brimstone. I believe in the Christian concept of priesthood — Christian, as interpreted by me.
.
In this concept of priesthood, the primary role of the priest is to intercede on behalf of the people to the God/s. By ‘people’, I mean the suffering, pleading, desperate people looking for hope with faith and sincerity. By ‘the God/s’, I mean every being that has power over such people…. Power to destroy, change, or improve their lives. And so, in my concept of priesthood, the person who helps write letters to various government authorities at the Meet-the-Peoples session, are priests. A lawyer fighting pro bono for his teenage client on death row, is a priest. An MP appealing to Parliament for better working conditions, is a priest. A gay-rights activist, is a priest. People stopping a large corporation from bullying members of the community, is a priest. A manager fighting for better conditions for his staff, is a priest. A person who stands up to his friends against their racist jokes, is a priest. Anyone who does this “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. (Proverbs 31: 8 of the Bible) (1)” is a priest. Appealing to the powers and authorities on behalf of those who are unable to, at the cost of personal sacrifice, is priesthood.
.
Whether one believes the Biblical gospel events happened literally, or metaphorically, is irrelevant. The way I read the story, Jesus took on the role of the ultimate priest when he chose to die as an intercession on behalf of humanity to God. The Bible calls Jesus the High Priest (2). Jesus lived his life for those despised, and stood up against religious leaders. And Jesus calls his followers to follow him; the Bible calls on all who believe to be priests (3).
.
The point here is not that I think everyone should be Christians or following the Bible, or that there’s all there is to Christianity, or that Christianity is the only way (it’s just the one I’m most familiar with), or that institutions that call themselves Christian are perfect or even good. One can be good for whatever reason one chooses, or even more admirably, for no reason at all. For me, I see here a very appealing concept of religion and priesthood. For me, I see here my guiding principle, my runway lights.
.
.
I am constantly touched when I see or work with a bunch of people from all walks of life, all religions, all orientations, all races, all nationalities, coming together to work towards the good of the helpless. People who don’t see all these differences as relevant at all. It is so beautiful. I am constantly amazed (though being the unexpressive asian I don’t show it! =) )
.
.
.
Footnotes:
(1)Proverbs 31:
1 The sayings of King Lemuel—an oracle [a] his mother taught him:
2 “O my son, O son of my womb, O son of my vows,
3 do not spend your strength on women, your vigor on those who ruin kings.
4 “It is not for kings, O Lemuel— not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,
5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.
6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.
8 “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
.
.
(2)Hebrews 4, 14-16; 7:24, 25:
Therefore since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weakness, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace in our time of need. …… Because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
.
.
(3)1 Peter 2:4,5:
As you come to him, the living Stone – rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him – you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
freedom of expressing
What if your friend turned around to say “I love you” today? How would you react?
The “Saying I love you” thing is an interesting concept, and I was just thinking about it, but more in the context of boss-staff relations (not relationships) in a cross-cultural context. Building upon Malcom Gladwell’s idea that in Asia, staff speak to bosses very deferentially, and western bosses might read that as a lack of confidence and being uncontributive. Conversely, from my own experience, I’ve seen asian bosses view western staff as rude/insurbordinate. Western staff also tend to think of asian bosses as rude, because most are not used to authoritarian communication from superiors. Asian staff love western bosses generally, believing them to be kind, when in fact, it might just be an extension of how bosses communicate politely in their culture. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn with romantic relationships within the asian, western, or cross-cultural context.
I find it interesting how in English, the word “love” is so applicable in so many contexts, that sometimes, it’s hard to understand what people mean. “I love chicken”. “I love children” . “I love dogs”. Means nothing in itself, does it? One must understand the cultural context in which these English sentences are uttered. Is this person saying the sentence a vegetarian? A cannibal? A blonde paris Hilton who needs a dog to accessorize? A person in korea where dog meat is a common delicacy? In Chinese though, there’s so many words, each for a different situation. There’s ai4 qing2 – romantic love. There’s you2 qing2 – friendship love. There’s qin1 qing2 – familial love. There’s jie-mei qing, which makes it so much easier for me to understand if a girl is telling me she’s a lesbian hitting on me, or if she treats me like her sister.
In this day and age of so much cross-culturalism, clarity in communication becomes all the more important. If I were speaking to a girl who comes from a traditional, conservative village where holding hands and saying “I love you” would always be taken to be sisterly because being a lesbian is too radical to conceive, then I know what I need to say to her to make her understand. On the other hand, if I were speaking to girl from San Francisco, I really need to make my meaning clear, because saying “I love you” could mean either things and so is not really saying anything at all….. It’s easy to be clear when one is speaking to another person from another culture. It becomes difficult though, when you’re in a place like Singapore, and you’re a Singaporean speaking to another Singaporean. Because there is just so much diversity amongst Singaporeans, you never know if you’re speaking to someone from the liberal, conservative, etc circles, and hence you never really know how you’ll actually be heard. Saying “I love you” to a girl at a lesbian bar and saying “I love you” to a girl at church will be heard in 2 completely different ways, if I don’t say anything else. Saying “I love you” to a girl at AWARE or SHM would be superbly confusing.
I think another aspect of saying things, is not just about whether I want to say it. Does one also need to consider if the listener wants to hear it? Part of medical ethics is this. The patient has the right to tell the doctor that he doesn’t want to hear the truth about his medical condition. The patient actually can sue the doctor (for trauma/distress??) if the doctor tells him nasty news about his cancer prognosis after he said he doesn’t want to hear. And the doctor is actually obliged to ask the patient if the doctor should be relaying info directly to the patient or to the family instead. Extending this principle beyond the clinic, would there be similar situations?
I suppose one’s philosophy towards language would come into play a lot here? Some people take the view that the primary role of language is to express how we feel or think. Some people are of the view that language is primarily there to affect the other person’s thinking or behaviour. Yet others believe that language enables us to tell each other what to do. In my postmodern circle of Christian friends, we talk about how language is a form of violence. Language enables us to shape another person’s world without his permission or even his knowledge at all! The classic example to use would be evangelism/proselytising, I suppose. “God loves you” “We love you” “we hate the sin but love the sinner” “I love you, I want to save your soul” “I love you, I want you to be saved, believe me!” “I love you because God first loved me” “I love you because the bible tells me to” “I love you, how dare you treat me this way” “I love these people, I want to do things to save their souls, I don’t want to waste time doing things that won’t save them” “I love you, I won’t ever let you go” “I love you, and so I’ll let you go” …… we’ve heard it all before, haven’t we? One thing I’ve learnt from institutional religion, which is also the reason why I run from it (though I’m a Christian) is how much emphasis is put on the speaker, rather than the listener. If the speaker speaks these words, who feels better? The speaker or the listener?
Ah well! Here I am, committing that very crime! Saying so much from just one small point (omg! Don’t think so much lah! , my best friend would say) =)
9 comments