One of the first things that people tend to ask or wonder when they hear about the gospel of Christ is: if all people’s sins are always forgiven, then won’t they keep sinning? In the letter to Romans, Paul actually asked that same question himself to make explicit why such thinking has no place in Christianity:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. – Romans 6:1-4 (NKJV)
I already dissected these verses in a previous post, and so I want to address a bit more how hiding these verses in our hearts allows us to apply the verses to some of the inner conversations we might be having with ourselves.
Many churches today emphasize the grace of God without highlighting that the grace exists because of the need for justice. And so one of the challenges for many Christians today is that when reminded of their sins or continued sinning, they are quick to say ‘am I under the law?’ – essentially implying if one is to be held accountable for his sins, then Christ died in vain for him. That is an extremely convoluted understanding of the gospel.
Paul makes it clear that the incredible grace of God suggests that one who has truly accepted his/her salvation and has been saved from sins would not choose to live in sin. When we continue to live in sin, we are not identifying with the Christ who died on the cross for us. Paul doesn’t just stop there. He reminds us that identifying fully with Christ means that our sins died with Christ on the cross; but not just that, we gain a new life that is meant to be lived in this world, just as Christ was raised to live from the dead by God.
This is a powerful thought – because baptism in our minds tend to relate to some kind of new birth, the sense of being born again. But to be born again only works when the old self has died. Thinking of salvation as a license to sin is precisely the workings of the old self, not the new. So if the old self is not yet dead, there isn’t the born-again to speak of. As we Christian continues to struggle with sin and temptation, let the words of Paul from Romans 6:1-4 encourage us to tread forth in the newness of life.
I am a Singaporean. And one aspect about Singapore highlighted by many stories of its growth and early leaders is the notion of pragmatism. Yet I feel that this notion probably has been overplayed.
Pragmatism is used to suggest that the ends justify the means. Now within the context of school, it could mean that you can get your grades by rote memorisation as opposed to genuine learning. Or that you could simply find the right answer to copy than to solve a problem yourself on an assignment.
Same goes for the worker at work – just find the answer, don’t bother solving the problem. This may mean finding out how it was done before; or to figure out what others who had the same problem was doing. One could argue those are problem-solving heuristics. Maybe. But I call those “answer-finding”.
As a consultant, I cannot help but recall clients who are asking, “but have you done this same thing before with another client or somewhere else?” This is answer-finding, not problem-solving.
The Singapore today needs trail-blazers and problem-solvers; as it always had. But decades of overemphasizing pragmatism means we prefer to pay for answers than purchase problem-solving capacity. We desperately need to shift this culture and move towards real problem-solving than answer-finding.
I’m currently doing some bible memory work of Romans 6:1-4. And sometimes, it just helps to do a close reading of the verses bit by bit and digest it so that the verses stick in my memory not just merely as words but as deep concepts and associations with the many other things I’ve learnt.
The context of Romans 6:1-4 is the preceding chapters of Romans that Paul has penned. He writes and expound on the incredible grace of God that is given to us through the gospel – that Christ died for our sins so we may gain salvation, and be reconciled with God.
Paul asks two questions:
What shall we say then? – this question is more to get us to respond somehow to the implications of the grace of God that had been presented before us in the preceding chapters.
Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? – this question effectively spells out what would be in the minds of most disciples: is the grace of the Lord fuelled by or shown only by the fact that we have sinned greatly?
He then answers the second question himself: ‘Certainly not!’
And then he poses another question to introduce another concept: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into His death?” He is presenting the argument that as we submit ourselves to be baptised in the name of Christ, we are entering His death (we allow our old selves to be dead)
Finally, having presented that concept, Paul then concludes his point here with a long statement of the implications of this baptism into Christ’ death:
We were buried with him through baptism into death
Just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father
We also should walk in newness of life
In other words, just as Christ was raised up, we are likewise raised, living a different life from the one we lived before when we identify with Christ and accept Him as our saviour, receiving our salvation from Him.
I reproduce again the full text of the verses I’m trying to memorise:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. – Romans 6:1-4 (NKJV)
I’m thinking of putting together some learnings from the bible (yes the Christian Holy Bible, word of God) as part of my posting every Sunday. These are not necessarily lessons learnt on the Sunday itself but it is a dedication of the day to the Lord. And an opportunity to share my learnings with readers (if at all).
In Matthew 22:36, a lawyer (religious legal scholar) asked Jesus what is the greatest command. While he did so to test Jesus, it was still a teaching moment for Jesus and he responded:
Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” – Matt 22:37-40 (NKJV)
The reason these commandment hangs all the Law and the Prophets is because they in essence summarised the Ten Commandments, from which all the other Laws that the Jews had develop were derived from. In Romans 13, Paul further notes that:
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. – Romans 13:8-10 (NKJV)
All of the laws involving the various ‘don’t’s in our interaction with one another ultimately culminate in loving one’s neighbour. Paul explains further that this is because love does no harm to a neighbour.
But isn’t that hard, even impossible? In the modern secular world and also our laws of the land, we have likewise developed categorical prohibition against most of those deeds that Paul mentioned. But it is not just because that those deeds in and of themselves are wrong; nor the fact that they harm another person (utilitarianism); but that they come from a place other than love (in terms of spirit and intentionality). What does the Christian gospel give us then, that allows Paul to say that to the Roman church even though we as humans know we can’t live up to that?
The gospel gives us the basis that as we were still sinners, Christ died for us, what we can have eternal life and be reconciled to God. Personally, when I read those verses from Paul, I think about what kind of neighbour I would be if God was a neighbour to me – I won’t be a very good one but yet He would love me. In fact, He sent Christ to die for me – in effect fulfilling the law of loving me through the ultimate sacrifice for my sins. As a Christian, that is the basis from which God gives us the command. There is a certain degree of circularity about it: God gives us the commandments through Moses to help us recognise that we fall short of it, but at the same time it gives us an ability to appreciate God’s perfection – at the same time, it provides the foundation for us to understand, and appreciate Jesus Christ’s ministry and the reason for His coming to die on the cross, and hence the offer of salvation for us. The very laws that prescribe the sacrifice of the lamb is fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ, as the ultimate sacrificial lamb for our sins.
The laws command, but also prophesy and are fulfilled by God alone. Thus, having been saved and adopted, we are freed to love, no longer being enslaved to the self or to sin.
So it’s general elections season. It’s really interesting how this general election gives a great sense of a maturing democracy where more capable candidates are stepping forward, and emphasising the need to provide diversity of voices in the parliament. Peers of mine are stepping forward as candidates. I’m seeing even young independent candidates like Darryl Lo stepping forward.
The features of the Westminster Parliamentary system that Singapore inherited create a strong government because of the ‘first-past-the-post’ approach to voting. While the governing party can somehow gerrymander to optimise their support across constituencies, there is a natural limit to that as their vote share decreases.
The other feature is that the system calls non-ruling parties the ‘opposition’. It is perhaps a result of the typical debate terminology where they talk about proposition and opposition. As our democracy matures, we begin to see what it means more and more to be a loyal opposition, and not be misled by this somewhat ‘confrontational’ sense of the term.
Even as the country faces uncertainty from the global situation, this general election thus far fills me with a sense that Singapore is really ‘coming to age’ as a country that is learning to deal with challenges. Looking at the MPs coming from different walks of life and at a broader range of socio-economic backgrounds (at least from my perception), there is more a sense of ordinary people trying to make a difference in the society they live in, recognising it is no longer enough to slog for their own personal lives and expect the society to develop desirably.
Today is the night before Good Friday when we commemorate the last supper that Jesus had with His disciples. And interestingly the Chinese name for this day refers more to the washing of the disciple’s feet.
In the church I attend, the message preached focused on Jesus’ warning to Peter in Luke 22:31-34. Peter had imagined his faith in God to be much more than he eventually was able show with his actions. But the comforting words from Jesus was:
“But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” Luke 22:32 NKJV
Peter’s faith faltered but eventually did not fail. He returned to the Lord and was restored. I thought deeply about what Peter went through that night.
He said he was ready to go to prison and even to death with Jesus in verse 33, so what went wrong? Peter was not short of courage, he trusted in Jesus’ power and might. He was ready to fight that night at Garden of Gethsemane so much so the gospel of John recorded that Peter took arms and struck the ear of the servant of the high priest.
But what was probably shocking to Peter was that Jesus called out his violent response. In John 18, it was recorded after Peter injured the servant.
So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” John 18:11 NKJV
And in Luke 22, Jesus reportedly said “Permit even this.”
Yes, the same Man whom the disciples marveled at when the storm was calmed at sea, now effectively says “let them have me” without putting up any fight at all. It is exactly another moment when the disciples would be thinking “Who is this? Who would respond to the treachery with such calmness? Who would respond to such corruption with love and grace? Whom have we chose to follow and what are we bringing upon ourselves?”
Peter’s thoughts about his faith in Jesus probably just vanished before him. Can he go to prison with Jesus and even death without putting up a fight? Will he submit himself to the enemies the way Jesus did?
Unlike most disciples who fled, Peter followed Jesus and his captors. Peter tried to figure out what they were doing to him and find chance to be of use or help. He actually was braver than any of them. But when confronted about being a disciple of Jesus, he denied. There was fear for sure, and he must have been so overwhelmed by the night’s event. But more significantly, he probably wasn’t so sure if he was a follower of Jesus anymore. The denial of Jesus perhaps wasn’t about a moment of weakness but a sense of loss. But it was needed for Peter to discover what he actually had been placing his faith on instead of the Lord he had thought he was following.
So when the rooster crowed and reminded Peter of what Jesus had said, he was probably jolted back to his senses but not before being filled with shame, despair and utter helplessness. He wept bitterly.
Peter would eventually return to Jesus. In John 21 when John told him Jesus was the one at the shore, Peter immediately jumped into the water to swim towards the shore. And sure enough Jesus restores him and calls him to encourage the brethren (“feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep”).
Our faith will be tested again and again; what is the basis of what we believe and how far are we going to lead our lives premised on God’s word and promises? Only time and our lives will tell; but it is more for us to know and respond and to learn to return to God each time.
There seems to be some conventional or prevailing wisdom about people having to keep to their lanes in different ways. So there are so-called norms for being a worker, being a father, a brother, a son and so on. Overlay that with the dimension of culture, including heritage and religion, you get a different set of different norms that as an individual, you are expected to display.
And so all my life I’ve somehow been defying classifications. One of the big divisions in school I had was between a ‘science’ student and an ‘art’ student. In high school, I defied that classification by doing arts (not just humanities but even fine arts, digital arts, and film) alongside all of the sciences (biology, physics, chemistry). When I entered junior college, I took two science subjects and two arts subjects as my main subjects.
And when it came to college, I just had to go to a school that offered a Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Economics when in most places, Economics was considered a Bachelor of Arts (BA). And then in my masters of economics, despite joining the advanced mathematics course, I also did a module in Economic & Business history.
I often recognise the value and importance of arts despite being an economist and finding it difficult to quantify the value that arts generate. Life in Singapore has become so draining and taxing on the human spirit often because we don’t know how arts play a role in helping us recover and restoring dimensions of our lives that we fail to see or identify. In recent times, as I caught plays from Checkpoint theatre and various films or shorts produced by Singaporeans about life in Singapore, even poetry that is written about life (eg. Government Haikus), I begin to see more and more that we all need arts more than we know. It could well be what will keep us alive.
This ad campaign by Activista, mainly targeting Space X on Earth day – I believe that was in 2021 – is brilliant. It helps to put things into perspective in terms of how we approach our resources and earth.
The message still rings true today and in many ways, it is saying something about the human heart. Our wandering heart often wants to look for something else to sustain ourselves. Something else that may not be designed to sustain us, but we want to make it what our lives depend upon.
Yes, as a Christian, I’m talking about Christ, who provides the salvation we need when we are wandering about seeking salvation through our work, relationships and other forms of addiction in our lives.
Over the years, thanks to the multiple pieces of work Blunomy (previously Enea Consulting) had completed on bioenergy in Australia, we have often been cited and also asked questions about the relationship between numbers in our reports.
Since the publication of a piece of analysis Blunomy completed for AGIG last year on Biomethane potential and benefits, I sat down to review and work out a sort of directory to connect together the various work that different clients have commissioned us to do and all now in the public domain.
This is an effort I have undertaken to help generate more clarity in the conversations around bioenergy, especially biomethane resources in Australia. Blunomy continues to seek to accelerate the transition by developing analysis that drives evidence-based decision-making.
We started working on the National Bioenergy Roadmap for Australia back in 2020 and that was an attempt to look into all the bioenergy resources, regardless of what kind of fuel they could produce. The total theoretical potential estimated at 2600 PJ was computed based on the net calorific value of the various feedstock streams available including forestry residue and biomass, with assumptions applied on their moisture content.
In the Roadmap, we assumed a 45% recovery rate under the Business-As-Usual modelling as ‘limited information is available to assess [feedstocks’] current and future, technical, commercial and sustainable accessibility’.
Subsequently, Blunomy started looking into biogas/biomethane in greater detail, studying the biomethane yield of various feedstock streams suitable. Sustainability Victoria commissioned a piece of work around Victoria’s biogas potential, which was published in 2021. The main contribution of this piece of work is the stricter selection of feedstocks and the application of different recovery rates for different feedstock streams. The study eliminated some of the resources from consideration for biogas potential due to high lignin content and also determined that paper & cardboard were more suited for recycling.
Table excerpt from the Victoria biogas potential assessment (2021)
While this work only covered the potential for the state of Victoria, once again, using data from the Australian Biomass for Bioenergy Assessment (ABBA) study, the approach on feedstock selection and recovery rates were eventually applied to more states in Australia to obtain the Australia biogas technical potential that was presented in the Appendix (Slide 36) of the 2030 Emission Reduction Opportunities for Gas Networks Report (2022) published for Energy Networks Australia. In it, we stated that the biogas technical potential of Australia was 506 PJ.
These figures, including the state-level breakdowns, were extensively used by ACIL Allen in their work on Renewable Gas Target for APGA and ENA. They added landfill gas into the mix, something we did not previously include in our studies as we felt that landfill gas was ultimately a subset of the feedstock potential from the waste streams we had already computed in our theoretical potential. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that when considering how much biomethane could be produced per annum in the near to medium term, the landfill gas resource cannot be ignored.
One of the important elements when considering the broad use of biomethane to displace natural gas was the consideration of proximity to gas networks. We got to dive more closely into that in 2023 when AGIG commissioned the mapping work for biomethane resources around their networks in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland. By this time, Blunomy had developed a new methodology to disaggregate the biomethane feedstocks spatially by using land-use data. This allowed us to estimate the amount of feedstock with greater granularity on locations, though the recovery rates were still applied according to feedstock streams.
The report was eventually published in 2024. It contained not just the biomethane potential near AGIG’s networks; we reviewed and updated waste stream figures in some states, included landfill gas resources into consideration, and updated the recovery rates in consultation with more local experts. As a result, we developed updated theoretical and recoverable potentials of biomethane in the states of South Australia, Victoria and Queensland. Those updated figures suggest that waste figures have been increasing over time, and the biomethane potential is likely above the 506 PJ we estimated in 2021.
It has been an incredible journey since the days of the National Bioenergy Roadmap. We had to deal with so many doubts about biogas and biomethane, misinformation and poor understanding of the nature of this biogenic source of methane. As Victoria’s government contemplates their approach to renewable gas in the state to deal with impending gas shortfalls and the need to decarbonise energy use, there is no longer doubt that we need biomethane. It is a question of how to get it into the system quickly. I hope we don’t have to hit up so many walls this time to get it right.
This article was first posted on Linkedin as my first article contribution to the platform. The link can be found here.
Blunomy is a French firm and being part of the firm for over four years now brings fresh perspectives that an Asian person schooled in very Anglo-Saxon education systems did not quite have as much.
One was about the ability to disagree as a reflection of the group’s collective ability to grow and be smarter. As an Asian, I overvalue harmony and tend to see open disagreement as unhealthy or disrespectful. Yet being amongst the French taught me to recognise that in a room full of smart people, something might be very wrong if everyone agrees with one another because the world is inherently complex and we are probably missing out on diverse perspectives if there were no disagreement. Being able to wrestle with differing perspectives could help everyone grow and learn.
Another was this concept of ‘REX’ that I kept seeing the French people use in my firm. They typically use that term for ‘after-action review’ but the term refers to ‘return on experience’. It sounds logical to be able to gain some kind of return (as in flow of benefits) from having experienced something. But I never quite thought of it that way until now. We always somehow take for granted that someone who have done something often or for a long time would be ‘experienced’. That’s not really true. An industry veteran who have been at a job for 40 years could simply have had 40 times of 1-year experiences if he did not learn anything with each additional year of experience. Simply being at a job or a post does nothing to prove that you are ‘experienced’.
When we consider assessing people for ‘experience’, it is no longer as simple as considering the CV of someone. It is mostly about assessing someone’s learning capability. Someone who can learn fast and sustain their interest in a topic, going deeper and deeper is much better than someone who plainly had been in the same place for a long time without demonstrating the capacity or hunger to learn.
