Advent Giving

I attended a funeral service today after lunch. It was held in remembrance of a brave little 15 year old girl called Angela, who died of lupus. With music and testimonies, sharing and reflections, hundreds of friends, relatives and church members came together to offer thanksgiving for this brave little joyful and strong girl.

As various people stood up to share, I could hear people quietly weeping all around me. The organizers were brilliant for anticipating the gush of tears. Boxes of tissues were strategically placed for the convenience of all attending. Of all the sharing, the mother's reflections and the reading of Angela's will, unleashed the most tears. I was particularly moved when I hear Angela's will being read out. She willed all her soft toys to her family, and everything else to be sold for the benefit of others, as she did not need them anymore. The will was only discovered after Angela died on Nov 20th, 2009.

As I thought about it, there is much to learn from a 15-year old High school student. Things are frequently not as important as we place them to be. Sometimes, it takes an illness to reveal the true humanity in all of us. In a society where money and possessions seem to be the primary concern of people, this young life is a glowing testimony of love and kindness. Sometimes, simple joys bring about the most satisfying experiences. One thing that impresses me most about the service is how a simple key of 'giving' can unlock the wealth of human goodness. This reminds me of Miroslav Volf's beautiful book, "Free of Charge," which talks about the need for human society to give and to forgive in a 'culture stripped of grace.' It is fitting for this first day of Advent to think about Christ coming down to earth.

If we get out of our homes these next couple of weeks, we will be inundated by the materialism surrounding Christmas, Santa Claus and season of gifts. Volf suggests that we first learn to respond to the great Gift of God in Jesus by exercising 4 obligations:

1) Faith in receiving.
Do not simply think God gives us gifts expecting something in return. The gift is plainly and simply 'free of charge.' Too often, we fail to exercise faith when we receive or give gifts with an expectation to do things for others. I learn long ago that true giving is in giving to others who cannot pay back in return. Faith in receiving is as simple as receiving things without suspecting other people's ulterior motives. True giving does not have a fineprint hidden somewhere. True giving implies a free gift, expecting nothing in return. We can only practice such giving when we have first received love from God. Give people the opportunity to see us as people who have freely received Christ.

2) Oblige to gratitude
Receiving God's gifts correctly means responding with a grateful heart. This is something freely given and received, not demanded. This means that even as we go through the festive period, shopping or joining the throng of busy shoppers, let us be thankful for everything. Again, we need to recognize and appreciate what Christ has done for us, before we can adopt a thankful heart. My readers, receive this Gift of God. Give people of your thankfulness.

3) Oblige to be available
How can our Giver bestow gifts on us, if we are too busy? If we are always not available, we will miss the soft gently whisper of love. My readers, the act of receiving requires our availability. Perhaps, the ones closest and nearer to us are ready to give us something. A child waiting to hug us? A friend ready to buy us coffee? This Christmas, practice being available. Give people of your time.

4) Oblige to Participate
This means that when we receive gifts, we are not to let the receiving be the end point. It is actually an invitation to participate in the joy of giving. Give others the encouragement by joining with them for common causes.

All of these obligations are evident in the life of little Angela. I do not know her a lot. I have seen, shook her hands and prayed with her before. Yet, I felt there is something Angela's passing has taught me. All of the above.

In faith, she receives the gift of life, and the readiness to die. Freely she received, freely she gave. Her gratitude shows forth in the way she gently love her parents, teachers, friends and many people. Her keen awareness that people mean more than things, shines through in her will. Despite her eight years of illness, she was available to give others strength and encouragement. In fact, her brave fight to the end, gave all of us a reason to cherish our own lives. Finally, her dying brought so many people together to reflect and to love Who she loves: God.

This is the true power of giving. Yet, this giving itself is only the beginning. When we exercise the 4 obligations of Faith-receiving, Gratitude, Availability to people and the willingness to participate in community bonding, we move even further. Much further.

The world tells us: "Christmas is a time for giving," let us remind ourselves that the act of giving entails 4 responses:

• Receiving the discernment to know when to give and to receive
  
• Receiving the wisdom to be thankful in our hearts as we see life;
  
• Receiving the humility to be available for loved ones and friends;
  
• Receiving the willingness to help one another build the kingdom of God, by community participation.

Before we can give, let us receive. For some of us, we need to be reminded that the Giver has already given. Let's open our hands.

ks

Book Review - "Cash Values" (Craig Gay)

Title: Cash Values - money and the erosion of meaning in today's society
Author: Craig Gay
Published: Regent-College Publishing, 2004.

How do we avoid becoming a society that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing? Well, if we see life as a race to accumulate money and stuff, capitalism is remarkably productive. If we see the problems and negative sides of capitalism, chances are we will rebel furiously against it. Gay convincingly argues that if we approach capitalism with a uncritical mind, chances are we may see an 'erosion of meaning' in modern society.  The key is to see with redemptive eyes.

Gay's book is a welcome effort to correct any modern society that tends to know the price of everything but the value of nothing. It argues cogently that, capitalism for all its power to generate money, is ill-equipped to produce meaning. Without throwing away capitalism totally, Gay helps us look at it redemptively via an 'economy of shrewd stewardship.' He concludes by urging the reader not to be 'overly critical' of capitalism for its ills, nor 'overly concerned' about defending it. His proposal:

"I believe we should use modern capitalism for the sake of our fellow servants, showing them grace, forgiving their debts, unexpectedly lightening their burdens, employing whatever wealth we have - wealth that we know we cannot keep for long - in the service of fellowship and friendship. And we should place our hope in the goodness and above all in the graciousness of God, the God for whom all things are possible." (99)

Overall, this is an intelligent book, well grounded in scholarship and full of wisdom for a world that fanatically believes that money makes the world go round. No. it is the wise use of money that makes the world sound.

conrade

Book Controversy: "Deadly Vipers Character Assassins"

Thanks to a blog reader, I came across this controversy over a book published by Zondervan, a giant Christian book publisher. This book is "Deadly Vipers Character Assassins," written by Jud Wilhite & Mike Foster, two white authors.

In a nutshell, too much stereotyping of any ethnic race limits their overall contributions to society, and unwittingly promotes unhealthy perceptions of any one ethnic group.

What the Book is About
Leadership using the metaphor of kung-fu. You can read Eugene Cho's summary here. From what I know, the book covers 7 mortal enemies of leadership character (Creep, Zi Qi Qi Ren, Amped Emotions, Headless Sprinting Chicken, Boom Chicka Wah Wah, Bling Bling and High and Mighty Assassin). All these assassins are secretly working behind the scenes to kill leadership character. Steve Bobbins made an excellent summary on his blog, reproduced below.

• The Assassin of Character Creep - Character begins to die by a thousand small cuts that weaken you enough for the assassin to deliver the coup de grace...
  
• The Assassin of Zi Qi Qi Ren - Zi Qi Qi Ren is a Chinese word that literally means "self-deception while deceiving others"...
  
• The Assassin of Amped Emotions - In the moments of everyday life, he waits for you to blow your top, lose your cool, or go postal. Then he strikes...
  
• The Assassin of the Headless Sprinting Chicken - If you are too busy and tired, you have little defense against the attacks...
  
• The Assassin of Boom Chicka Wah Wah - Stupid decisions are made when thinking is done without the brain...
  
• The Bling Bling Assassin - While you chase for "enough" this assassin can cut you down...
  
• The High and Mighty Assassin - Over confidence and arrogance can do this assassin's job for him...
  
  (Credit: Steve Bobbins)

What the controversy is about? Stereotyping of the Asian image.

What happens next? Aftermath
- series of compromises by the authors and publishers;
- Many Asian Americans felt offended;
- Zondervan eventually pulled the book off the shelves;
- Website (deadlyvipers.org) shut down.

Lest I repeat some of the very good points made by many, let me give a brief snapshot of the different views.

On a positive note, there are useful insights about leadership from the book. Michael Buckingham appreciates the book for its creative blending of visual art and concepts. Michael Melilli points out that the book is useful for leaders to take note of lest they fall out of grace. Jenny Clayville, an Asian American fails to see what the fuss is all about, and makes a perceptive note that many who oppose the book have not really read the book in the first place. She gives a helpful summary of the whole controversy. She describes the predicament well: "Now, everyone feels censored."

On the opposing front, some have written open letters to Zondervan (Professor Rah of North Park Theological Seminary), others have written against it on principles, (DJ Chuang, Todd Thomas). Others have published their dismay on their own blogs, websites etc (daveingland, Scott McLellan). I like McLellan's phrase that 'images aren't necessarily neutral' (of the kung fu metaphor).

My Comments
The fact that Zondervan has taken the step to remove the book totally from the shelves goes to show that they recognize the seriousness and validity of the unhappiness. The important thing is to learn from it, not to simply put this aside and forget all about it. Stereotyping of anybody is plain wrong, regardless of who is making it.  Having said this, I must also say that stereotyping happens both ways. Even in Asia, people stereotype white and black people. That too is deplorable. Stereotyping happens everywhere.

Having said this, let me also say that we learn to accept the authors' intent and apology with grace. There was no malicious intention, but a genuine concern to address important leadership flaws in society. Move on, but learn from this episode, that sensitivity flows both ways.

Looking Forward
A side comment. Personally, I have pessimistic views about Asian authors being able to succeed as serious writers in the West. (The authors of the controversial book are not Asian, which makes the stereotyping accusation more serious) Just look at the numbers, and you can see that not many Asian authors ever get on the New York bestseller book lists, let alone starting a writing career at all. If an Asian gets stereotyped as good Chinese cooks, people accept them readily when they set up restaurants and Chinese take away food stalls. If they get stereotyped as kung fu masters, thanks to Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Jet Li, each time people see a Chinese, they flash off some kung-fu strokes and may even volunteer to join a martial arts course if he was to start one. As more Asians appear on TV as police officers, as doctors, dentists, teachers and various professions, people will start to change their perceptions of Asians. A TV watching generation is more prone to stereotyping based on what they watch and see. For this reason, I feel that the book is flawed, despite the good leadership pointers and the good intentions the authors originally have. By the way, if this book has been written by an ethnic Asian, I doubt it will stir up so much controversy as not many will read it. There is no stereotyped Asian authors anyway. Some has been successful no doubt, but they remain too few.

If things remain this way, I am somewhat pessimistic about any foray into publishing. Yet, I am hopeful that the day will come, when all Christians, regardless of ethnicity and cultural origins will be stereotyped by how much they love one another. Period.

ks

Manhattan Declaration & Canadian Anglicans

I have been pre-occupied with preparing for my January doctoral residency. At the same time, I unwittingly awaken my 'geek spirit' as I twiddle with computer upgrades, backups and all those Windows 7 stuff. That is not all. I am also in the process of upgrading my Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Professional, which requires a custom upgrade. With Black Friday deals all around, I am surely distracted. Eek!

Rest assured, my readers that I am still mindful of my humble little blog. This week, I read a couple of books by some heavyweight theologians: Miroslav Volf, NT Wright, ...... (you know). At the same time, I am reflecting on two events. The first is on the Manhattan Declaration and the second on the latest result of the unpopular law court case between the main Anglican diocese and breakaway churches.

A) MANHATTAN DECLARATION [link
Published on November 20th, 2009, this declaration is essentially a statement that supports the following:

"We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are: (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty."

According the the press release, the 4700-word document calls all Christians to "to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not—under any circumstance—abandon their Christian consciences." Most prominent in such a declaration is the list of religious leaders that support the statement. Some of the signers include prominent figures like Church Colson (Prison Fellowship), James Dobsom (Focus on the Family), Al Mohler (President of Southern Baptist Seminary), Richard Mouw (President of Fuller Seminary), David Neff (Editor of ChristianityToday), Ravi Zacharias, Ron Sider, William Donohue, Joni Eareckson Tada, and others often associated with the 'religious right.' Two professors of schools I am directly associated with, Dr JI Packer (Regent-College) and Dr Dennis Holllinger (President, Gordon-Conwell) also signed the declaration. This statement seems to be gathering momentum even as this is being written. Within a week, the number of signers are approaching 170,000.

The first issue is essentially a support for pro-life. The second is for the traditional view of marriage being between a man and a woman. The third is for freedom of religion and the need to exercise one's conscience accordingly. While the document is not something that is legislated by law, it can be seen as an attempt to make the voice of the religious right heard. This is especially when the political establishment in the US appears to be leaning more to the left, (the more liberal side), thanks to the political rise of Obama and his adherents. I have heard several comments from religious leaders down South that the US is heading toward more religiously liberal lifestyle. Just last week, someone shared with me about the growing suspicions conservatives have over Obama's faith, that he is leading to US to greater secularism.

MY MUSINGS:

1) Firstly, is it a necessary document?
I think we need to remember one benefit, that this document is something that is drafted to make a stand for future generations. 'Not making a stand' is already an opinion. While I may not classify this in the same category of the ancient creeds (Apostles, Nicene), this essentially highlights the troubles that many Christian leaders have to face in the light of a post-postmodern era. In other words, what is traditionally believed are no longer automatically believed. The younger generations are beginning to ask why. Youngsters are beginning to question the practicality of holding on to traditional beliefs. In other words, if nothing is done, the sacred cows of yesterday will be slaughtered in the secular abattoirs of tomorrow. If Christians at large do nothing to stem the tide of liberalism, traditional beliefs will be history. From a political standpoint, the timing of the press release tries to apply pressure on the senate not to support abortion funding.

Personally, one does not have to make an official statement in order to prove one's conviction. Yet, I will not be too quick to dismiss the significance of such a document. If we do not agree with it, do not sign it. However, let us not be too loud with our disagreement that our actions undermine the intent of the document. In other words, what may not be helpful for us, may be helpful to others. Whether this is necessary or not, depends on where we come from. As far as the future generations is concerned, I think it is necessary for our younger generation, our children to know about our stand. Otherwise, when people ask our kids about their stand regarding abortion, same-sex marriage and conscience, they may reply: "I don't know." Worse, they may shrug it off by saying: "Whatever!"

2) It will probably create a backlash, (even from moderate evangelicals)
I know that some other respected evangelicals are skeptical about it, like Tim Challies and my Regent professor Dr John Stackhouse disagree with this statement. The latter even says it is a 'waste of time' and his blog has generated quite a vigorous discussion. Dr Stackhouse makes some pertinent observations, which I tend to agree with. However, I have this nagging feel that even if we do not agree with it, we should not block others from doing it. That said, by questioning whether it is a 'waste of time,' it may further discredit the statement. I would prefer Dr Stackhouse to put 'not necessary' instead of the more provocative 'waste of time.' Tim Challies highlights some insightful views by non-signers such as John MacArthur and James White.

Many on the evangelical right may have no qualms in signing the document. Those who oppose will not sign. What remains to be seen is the silent moderate majority. This moderate party can become a bridge not only between these two sides, but also with non-believers. One of the most prominent moderates is the Emerging Church movement. They remain silent. Perhaps, their views are still 'emerging.' Perhaps, they do not feel it necessary to be involved directly. For me, any public and visible press release will create an equal and opposite reaction. This is how the world is. Freedom of speech always means that people are free to agree or disagree. This is a good thing. 'A backlash' is not necessarily a bad thing. It can keep one humble and to recognize that we need to keep one another in healthy check.

Let me say that merely signing the declaration by no means a magic solution to the three complex issues. It is a statement. Period.

3) Declarations Potentially Polarises
While it strengthens current convictions, it also fortifies the opposition. In a nutshell, it polarizes evangelical camps further from each other, forcing some to take sides unnecessarily. This is for me the single most distressing effect of the Manhattan Declaration. Evangelicals are not known to be completely united. This statement may further distance any fragile truce between parties that disagree. This leads me to the next thought about the Anglican Church in Canada further below.

In summary, I feel that the Manhattan Declaration is a document made with the intent to preserve traditional beliefs which is increasingly being threatened. While it may not be the most palatable piece of draft for some, it remains a statement that one can freely sign or not sign. There is no compulsion on anyone that one has to decide. Having said that, this statement forces us to examine our willingness to make our convictions known, especially to a growing and questioning younger generation. Those of us growing up with traditional upbringing do not have to deal with a 'whatever' culture, that our younger generations have to deal with. Without specific statements of belief, people can hop onto any bandwagon of beliefs (and unbeliefs), without a proper sense of what is right or wrong. Too much swimming in an ocean of 'gray,' can eventually drown one's sense of identity. In other words, be prepared to make your stand, albeit a quiet one, especially when others ask us about our opinion. I am ready to sign the document, as a symbol of what I believe rather than to militantly influence others. This I do so, without wanting to condemn or discredit others who will not. I respect them for their reasons for not doing it. By understanding the reasons why each of us do or do not sign, it cultivates an understanding that moves toward unity.

My advice: Do not look at names of people before you decide. Ask your conscience. Let your faith in God determine your action. If you want to sign the Manhattan Declaration, click here. Otherwise don't bother.

B) ANGLICAN CHURCH IN CANADA LAWSUIT UPDATE
Just today, I learned that the main Anglican diocese has won the lawsuit against several breakaway Anglican Churches in BC Canada. At stake are four properties owned by the Anglican Diocese based in New Westminster. While the courts declare that these properties are owned by the Anglican Church, the present parishes were told to 'settle' with the diocese concerned.

Legally speaking, if the breakaway parties no longer belong to the Anglican Church, they have no right to occupy the properties.  I think the decision was made that allows both parties (diocese and the breakaway churches) room to practice their convictions. The diocese gets to keep the title deeds, while the breakaways get to keep their convictions intact. Here are three brief thoughts.

1) In the first place, I feel that the moment the case went before the law courts, it is already a lose-lose situation for all. Why let the secular courts decide on matters of faith?

2) Secondly, this may be the best way forward. It lays to rest the polarising topic of same-sex marriage and allows the respective churches to move ahead with other more pressing matters of faith, like pastoral care, spiritual growth, community outreach among the parishes. It is costly for the parishes to move to another location. Yet, do not underestimate the people of God when they come together. Like the early Church, the more they were persecuted, the more the Word of God flourish.

3) Thirdly, I remember a recent conference at Gordon-Conwell seminary on "Renewing the Evangelical Mission." One of the memorable takeaways is that a revived Church needs to have a "willingness to suffer." A Church that is too comfortable often does not grow as much. Like what they used to say about the early Church in Jerusalem. The reason why there is Acts 8:1, is because the disciples fail to obey and follow through on Acts 1:8.

"And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria." (Acts 8:1)

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8)

I pray that the churches who lose their properties will indeed gain a revitalized faith. Perhaps, their flock will grow even more.

ks

Google Chrome OS

Google is slowly but surely dominating the Internet and poses a big threat to traditional businesses. This initiative called Google Chrome OS looks promising. It aims at people who:

• are Netbook users
• Mainly surfs the Internet or do work online;
• Always has an internet connectivity;
• Uses mainly (or only) the browser to do work;
• Cheap and super-fast bootup.
• Wants something light, simple and open source

If you are a mobile user, who uses a computer mainly to check emails or do work on the Internet, and want a cheap and easy to carry computer device, perhaps Google Chrome OS will interest you. This is the "Operating System" and not the no-frills browser only program. Requiring only a solid state memory on the Netbook-type size computer, the Chrome browser is the operating system. Period.

Everything that one uses to do offline can now be done online. This concept video will show you more.

1) Easy to understand Concept Demo of Chrome OS (link)

I find this video very clear and quite convinced of the benefit of a quick and light browser OS. It is a 'totally rethought computer' for the user who uses mainly or only the Internet.


2) Amazing 7 seconds bootup! (Mountainview Debut)


Presented by the Google Product team, this demo showcases an amazing 7 seconds bootup time for the computer to get ready for our Internet work. They are looking to improve that too! Cool.

3) First Look of Google Chrome OS (link)


This is an interesting take on the Chrome OS from an early user perspective.

My Comments
This is a shrewd move by Google. They are correct that many users nowadays use the Internet for their work. It is also true that the operating system is not that useful if all a person does is Internet work. After all, if most of the time we use browser only as our sole application, why not have only the necessary to support this browser? Since most applications are now online, we do not need to install other programs on our small computer gadget. Imagine saving money on:

• Ever expanding hard-disk requirements or backup; (store in online)
• Buying expensive Office Apps; (there's online apps)
• Investing in antivirus; (scanning available online)
• Maximum battery life (Google netbook uses solid state memories as alternative to hard disk);
• Minimum apps (simple)

That will truly be a cash saver. However, the main problem is that the way to use the computer is when one is online. What happens if the inspiration comes, but the internet is offline? I suppose that this idea can work only if the Internet is always available, like in a corporate office environment with Internet connectivity redundancy. This being the biggest weakness in the Google Chrome OS project, I believe that they will eventually have some offline capability. Watch this project carefully. It is quite promising. Perhaps, if such a project becomes popular, we may be able to buy a Google Netbook at Dollar shops one day!

ks

Virtual Spirituality

Martin Marty wrote in 2005 an insightful article on the trends of modern use of virtual space. We have heard of virtual reality, and virtual space. The inventive human mind will sooner or later come up with 'virtual spirituality.' Marty distinguishes 2 kinds of spirituality. The first is communal. The second is individualistic. It is to the second that he is particularly critical about. He writes from a position of concern that this second type, called "Spirituality Two" will overwhelm the first, making the already individualistic world more extreme in itself. In "Spirituality Two," lonely people becomes more alone when they have their computer screens, their personal iPods and their own electronic gadgets to keep them company. The individual that is trapped in the second kind of spirituality is more concerned with the self and totally disconnected from flesh-and-blood communities. In its place, Spirituality Two people are at home with the digital domain. Whatever a person can dream or desire, or to lust after, thanks to technology, one can select his dream girl or gay friend, choose his preferred digital companion, and virtualize anything. If one cannot get it easily offline, one can simply go online to live out one's fantasies.

This has become rather profitable for companies like Artificial Life. An example is the availability of a virtual girl called Vivienne, who is a walking encyclopedia, a guide for all kinds of questions, who possesses a sensuous body ready to perform anything the 'customer' wants. Though one cannot have sex with the virtual woman, the company promises that one can try. Marty concludes by suggesting that the limit for Spirituality Two may ultimately be financial.

My Comments
Marty's article is an eye opener. Published in 2005, around the same time where "Second Life" was also popular, it was supposed to virtualize a person's dreams and fantasies in the remote comfort of one's computer. It fits perfectly the modern man's desire for privacy, for indulgence and for self-narcissism. Currently, social networking is much more exciting than such virtual toys. People talk more about Facebook, Twitter and even mySpace. I find it quite ironic that while society is said to be getting more individualistic, yet the rise of social networking shows that people still desire to be connected more than being in their own private domain. Fortunately, Marty's negative view of "Spirituality Two" did not become as popular as social networking. People are excitedly connecting meaningfully with one another, in the digital realm. That said, it does not mean that society is any less individualistic.

If I were to call 'Spirituality One' as physical community, and "Spirituality Two" as ego-centric individualism, is 'Spirituality Three' (social networking style) a digital revision of 'Spirituality One?' If that is so, the big concern is whether "Spirituality Four" will be "Spirituality Two" reincarnated?

Strange world. People are beginning to use 'spirituality' as a means to meet their innermost desire for meaning in life. More will be turning to the digital medium to find that meaning. I will be observing cautiously signs for the next phase, once the fad of social networking dies off.

ks

I Will Follow You (Cantonese)

May this song be an opportunity to worship. This song is striking as the chorus emphatically clings on and follows Christ throughout. It is a good reminder that worship must takes precedence over service.

我要跟主祢(词曲: 刘步青)

Chorus: (2x)

我要跟主祢,让我不偏离, 立志紧握主的手
戒命一生都遵守, 决心跟主祢

无助时我寻求

耶稣基督拯救
安心的等候祢的手
静默听祢声音
依靠主我的神
奉献主我的一生

Chorus: (2x)

我要跟主祢,让我不偏离, 立志紧握主的手
戒命一生都遵守, 决心跟主祢

Chorus: (2x)

我要跟主祢,让我不偏离, 立志紧握主的手

戒命一生都遵守, 决心跟主祢

俗世不可逗留

此生那么短暂
基督的吩咐要记紧
就算世界笑我傻
传福音要清楚
传扬主赎罪恩歌

Chorus: (2x)

我要跟主祢,让我不偏离, 立志紧握主的手

戒命一生都遵守, 决心跟主祢

我要跟. . . . . . 我要跟

ks