Politics and Our Neighbours -- By Daniel Koh Kah Soon

With his permission to re-post, here is Daniel Koh's (my Christian Ethics lecturer at Trinity Theological College) response to Singapore government's action on Malaysians' political activity in Singapore:

The Straits Times has carried various reports about the arrest of 21 Malaysians for illegal assembly, some of them have their work permits revoked. (ST, 15 May).

Their arrest and action taken against them have raised more questions for me as an interested observer and as someone with good friends and relatives in Malaysia. In the first place, the Malaysians were not involved in interfering with Singapore politics. The Malaysians gathered to express their concern about politics in their home country. If such gathering is illegal, and therefore subject to police action, would it not be fair to say that the same law should be applied to every Malaysian who has violated such a law, regardless of the Malaysian's social status or political affiliation? From the perspective of being fair and even-handed, if the ordinary Malaysians were arrested, should not our police also arrest Abdul Ghani Othman for bringing his highly politicised and widely publicised election campaign to Singapore?

Furthermore, besides Mr Othman, should not the members of his entourage be arrested as well, for illegal assembly and politicking on Singapore soil? This has to be done strictly on the basis of no illegal gathering in Singapore is allowed for foreigners to promote an external political cause. If there is such a gathering the same law is applied to anyone who breaks such a law.

Of late, two ministries - Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs - have issued a statement to say "No offence was committed during former Johor chief's visit, says ministries" (TODAY May 18). But they have not answered the questions:

If the former Johor Chief Minister's tour of Singapore was not a political campaign, why should he visit Singapore during the electioneering period and not another time?

If it was not political campaign why the need to bring along supporters with many of them openly wearing campaign shirts?

If it was not a political campaign why the need to involve and manage the media to ensure that the event was widely publicised?

In fairness to those 21 Malaysians who were rounded up by our Police, the former Mentri Besar should be invited to our Police station for questioning, and those kakis who wore political cloths when they accompanied the former Mentri Besar to Singapore should also be arrested for illegal assembly.

His brief comment is posted on Singapore news portal TodayOnline:

The statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs, reported in “No offence was committed during former Johor chief’s visit, say ministries” (May 18), raised more questions than it has answered.

If it was not for a political campaign, why should the former Menteri Besar visit Singapore during the election period, and not another time?

Why the need to bring supporters wearing campaign shirts?

The former Menteri Besar should be invited here to be questioned by the police, and the supporters who wore campaign shirts when they accompanied him should be arrested for illegal assembly.

Singapore, Abdul Ghani Othman's visitation, and Malaysians' gathering

This is the joint-statement by Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs on Abdul Ghani Othman's previous visitation and activity in Singapore prior to the Malaysian 13th General Election. (Today Online's report.)

From what we can gather from this statement, the two ministries perceive a contesting candidate's talking to media and public with his entourage wearing their campaigning t-shirts is not campaigning. While on the other hand, commoners' gathering without wearing any party's shirts is campaigning.

Is the best interpretation of the Public Order Act by the authorities?

Personally I think that it is important for foreigners not to import or promote their political cause in and to another country. Hence I'm very puzzled that some Malaysians who sent a petition to the White House about the recent election's result. (I understand and share the frustration and helplessness felt by many Malaysians, and so the urge to seek for whatever support available. However, one needs to consider the intricacy of international relations; wouldn't such petition be seen as anti-independence?)

That said, I'm surprised that the 2 ministries have interpreted Ghani's trip not as campaigning but Malaysians' gathering in Singapore as campaigning. Is such interpretation a consistent reading of the law?

This picture says it all

CFM Statement Against Anti-Christian Election Billboards

(H/T: Robert Lip Seng Kee)

1 May 2013

CFM ABHORS AND PROTESTS THE DESPICABLE ANTI-CHRISTIAN MESSAGE ON ELECTION CAMPAIGN BILLBOARDS

Christians are appalled at the despicable and heinous message on election campaign boards which has gone viral among Netizens recently (see 2 photos attached).

The message asking “Do you want to see your grandchildren praying in Allah’s house” and with two pictures of churches with the Cross and the words “Gereja Allah” is incendiary and may pose a danger for Christians and Churches just because we use the word “Allah”. These fears are real given the recent history of Church burnings and threats to burn the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia.

The message pits one community (Muslims) against Christians by spreading fear through scare tactics using the issue of “Allah” which the High Court had allowed as a right to freedom of religion.

CFM and other Christian leaders have in the past said that Bumiputera Christians whose only common language is Bahasa Malaysia had used the Bible in BM and the word “Allah” for centuries without any resistance until recently. Hence, it is extremely mischievous and malicious to pit Muslims against Christians who have always enjoyed good relationships, to gain political points with such blatant misinformation.

Christians and all right-thinking Malaysians should rightly condemn such inflammatory election campaign billboards and for that matter all such campaign materials and rhetoric in the run-up to polling day on 5 May 2013.

We strongly urge the Election Commission to immediately remove such billboards and materials and the authorities to investigate and charge the person or persons responsible.

We call upon fellow Malaysians to report to the police such billboards and other campaign materials and speeches which disrespect our communities and incite against another religion for political expedience.

The Christian community maintains its rights as guaranteed by our Federal Constitution, which includes the right of non-Muslims to manage their own religions. This right includes those Malaysians who only know Bahasa Malaysia besides their native language, such as the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, the Babas, and the Orang Asli peoples, using the AlKitab and all other materials in Bahasa Malaysia necessary for their religious purposes.

At the same time, we note with great dismay the upsurge in polls-related violence (as reported in the media) such as the torching of cars, the planting of explosive devices near ceramah centres, arson cases and motorcycle gangs scaring off people going to ceramahs which are attempts to cause fear and intimidation in the days just before election day. We urge all to be more circumspect during this election season.

Yours sincerely

Rev. Dr. Eu Hong Seng,
Chairman and the Executive Committee
The Christian Federation of Malaysia

The Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) is an ecumenical umbrella body in Malaysia that comprises the Council of Churches of Malaysia (mainline Protestants and Oriental Orthodox), National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (Evangelicals) and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Malaysia (Roman Catholic).

James Arminius on the significance of John Calvin's works

I came across this interesting statement wrote by James (or Jacobus) Arminius, the founder of Arminianism:

"After the holy scriptures, I exhort the students to read the Commentaries of Calvin... for I tell them that he is incomparable in the interpretation of scripture; and that his Commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the ancient Christian fathers: so that, in a certain eminent spirit of prophecy, I give the preeminence to him beyond most others, indeed beyong them all. I add, that, with regard to what belongs to common places, his Institutes must be read after the Catechism, as a more ample interpretation. But to all this I subjoin the remark, that they must be perused with cautious choice, like all other human compositions."
(Quoted in John Scott, Calvin and the Swiss Reformation [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1833], pp.403-404.)

Reading such an elevated praise for Calvin by his most famous theological nemesis is as much surprising and exciting. But there is one problem: Scott quoted this statement without footnote! This means we cannot be sure if Arminius really wrote that.

I tried to trace the original source by looking up the other neighbouring footnotes, but to no avail. All the trails lead to some volumes of Christian Observer published in the 19th century. Yet none of them contain this statement. All I know is that some of these documents mention that this statement was written two years before Arminius died.

Then I tried to look through Arminius' works readable at Wesley Center website. Still, I could not locate the source.

After spending hours in my day-off (I should be watching a movie or something!) searching for the origin of this statement, I came to my sense: Probably this statement was fabricated by Calvin's fans in the 19th century to popularise their theological hero. So I gave up the ad fontes adventure.

When I almost switch off the laptop, I was prompted to google "arminius two years before death calvin". So I did.

That led me to Mark A. Ellis' essay 'The Arminian Confession of 1621' hosted at Society of Evangelical Arminians website. On the fourth page of the essay, Ellis wrote:

"...a letter Arminius wrote two years before his death: "But after the reading of Scripture, which I vehemently inculcate more than anything else, which the entire academy can testify and of which my colleagues are conscious, I encourage the reading of the commentaries of Calvin, which I extol with the greatest praise.... For I say that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture, and his comments are better than anything which the Fathers give us.""

And Ellis included the citation!

The endnote says that it is taken from Arminius' letter to Sebastian Egbert, 3 May, 1607, which is published in a Latin book edited by Christiaan Hartsoeker and Philippus van Limborch, titled Præstantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolæ ecclesiasticæ et theologicæ (Amsterdam: Henricum Wetstenium, 1660), 236-37.

Nevermind the Latin, the fact that this came from an Arminian source shows that the statement could, after all, be genuine. Besides, it is dated to 1607---two years before Arminius' death in 1609.

With this new lead, my investigation started again. And after a few rounds, I finally landed onto the Europeana website, which is a "source of cultural heritage" funded and maintained by the "Europeana Foundation and a large number of European cultural institutions, projects and partners." 

This website contains the scanned image of Arminius' actual 3 May 1607 letter to Egbert! So Arminius did hold Calvin in high esteem.

Here's the image (anyone of you who knows Latin can help to translate it?):

 

Founding Mission Statement of Harvard University, 1643

(Quoted in Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson, The Puritans [USA: American Book, 1938], p.702. Image is taken from James Emery White, Serious Times: Making Your Life Matter in an Urgent Day [USA: IVP, 2005], p.97.)

Vinoth amnesia?

Vinoth Ramachandra has recently wrote a post titled 'Reformed amnesia?' on his blog and the Micah Mandate website in protest against "some influential pastors in the US and UK laying claim to be guardians of a “Reformed orthodoxy”". I shall quote Vinoth's statement at length (emphasis added):

The Reformed Church tradition can boast of a rich heritage of social transformation, resistance to political tyranny, cultural engagement and ideological critique. Paradigmatic twentieth-century figures here are Abraham Kuyper (Netherlands), Karl Barth (Switzerland), Alan Boesak (South Africa). In the US, political philosophers such as Richard Mouw and Nicholas Wolterstorff have helped recover the centrality of justice to the Biblical narrative and Christian discipleship.

This goes back to John Calvin himself. He spoke boldly of the “wounds of God” not only with reference to the cross, but in terms of human beings as icons of God. For Calvin, notes Nicholas Wolterstorff, to injure a human being is to injure God; to commit injustice is to inflict suffering on God. “Behind and beneath the social misery of our world is the suffering of God. If we truly believed that, suggests Calvin, we would be much more reluctant than we are to participate in the victimizing of the poor and the oppressed and the assaulted of the world. To pursue justice is to relieve God’s suffering.” [Nicholas Wolterstorff, “The Wounds of God: Calvin on Social Injustice”, The Reformed Journal, June 1987]

Not only did Calvin vigorously denounce corruption in the church, but also tyranny in the polity and huge inequalities of wealth in the economy. In his Commentary on Habakkuk 2:6, Calvin claims that the cries of the victims are the very cry of God. The lament “How long?” is God’s giving voice to his own lament. One rarely finds such thoughts expressed in Calvinist circles today!

Was Calvin the first liberation theologian? He has as good a claim as any. He persistently fought the City Council of Geneva for the rights of poor refugees, persuading them to provide adequate social welfare. He himself was often exiled, experienced severe deprivation and other indignities, which must have made him particularly sensitive to the plight of refugees and the downtrodden.

How strange, then, to hear some influential pastors in the US and UK laying claim to be guardians of a “Reformed orthodoxy” while demonstrating little of Calvin’s heart. For these men (they are always men), the church’s mission is primarily one of proclaiming a message of individual salvation.

Basically his complaint was that these pastors from the Reformed movement have been prioritizing the proclamation of "a message of individual salvation" and by so doing have deviated from the rich heritage set by John Calvin himself, namely the championing of "social transformation".

Then Vinoth went on (emphasis added):

But perhaps not so strange, once we recall that our personal experiences, social and political contexts, profoundly shape the way we read both Scripture and the world. That is one reason why we need to listen to each other in the global Body of Christ. Authentic Christian witness has to be ecumenical and trans-cultural. (Italics original)

We have a long way to go in developing such theological maturity despite all the deceptive language of “partnership” and “equipping”. Below is one example of the huge obstacles we face.

A group of North American pastors calling themselves The Gospel Coalition of International Outreach is engaged in what they call “a mission of Theological Famine Relief for the Global Church”. They state on their website: “We are partnering with translators, publishers, and missions networks to provide new access to biblical resources, in digital and physical formats. Our goal is to strengthen thousands of congregations by helping to equip the pastors and elders who are called to shepherd them.”

Sounds loving, until one asks: who decides who is theologically famished and who is not? who selects what “resources” to send the famished? who decides what constitutes “equipping” and who should be doing it? The answer is always the same. A small group of white, well-to-do American or British males. We have experienced such paternalistic, colonial “mission” before- others deciding what is the “Good News” for us, what is “sound doctrine”, which authors to read and whom to avoid, etc. They have exported their theological blind-spots and sectarian rivalries, reproducing carbon-copies of themselves in the global South rather than nurturing real leaders. The learning and theological traffic is all one-way.

Perhaps a day spent with leaders like Pope Francis or Desmond Tutu may be more useful for African pastors than all the “resources” from north America.

We get a better picture here that the Reformed "influential pastors in US and UK" whom Vinoth refers to are "a small group of white, well-to-do American or British males" of which The Gospel Coalition (TGC) is an example.

In other words, Vinoth is saying that certain contemporary Reformed pastors, such as those involved in TGC, have been prioritizing the proclamation of "a message of individual salvation" and by so doing have deviated from the rich heritage set by John Calvin himself, namely the championing of "social transformation". What is worse, to Vinoth, is that these Reformed pastors are exporting "their theological blind-spots and sectarian rivalries, reproducing carbon-copies of themselves in the global South rather than nurturing real leaders."

In a comment on his blog, Vinoth further reveals his failed attempt to get an audience from TGC. He is concern that such exclusiveness has likewise being exported to churches in the global south: 

"If you can get around the firewalls of these super-pastors and invite them and their fans to read my posts and engage with the likes of me, I would be delighted. I have tried and failed.

"Also the local churches in Asia which are linked to the GC have a reputation for being isolationist and exclusivist. They refuse to talk with- let alone work with- other churches and local theologians/institutions that do not share their views."  

I find Vinoth's post and comment problematic for three reasons. First, Vinoth's portrayal of John Calvin is questionable. Second, Vinoth's description of TGC is ignorant. Third, Vinoth's critique on TGC's exporting their theology is unfair.

1. Vinoth's 'John Calvin'

Vinoth portrays John Calvin as a liberation theologian and social activist who did not prioritize the proclamation of a message on individual salvation. Vinoth charges certain contemporary Reformed pastors, like those affiliated with TGC, to have abandoned this "rich heritage" for thinking that the "church’s mission is primarily one of proclaiming a message of individual salvation".

What did Calvin say?

"Yet, whatever result may at length follow our efforts, there never will be reason to regret that we showed both pious and grateful obedience to God, and, what we will be able to relieve our sorrow even in the greatest catastrophes, that we faithfully served both the glory of Christ, which is preferable to all the kingdoms of the world, and the salvation of souls, which is more precious than the whole world."
(John Calvin, Concerning Scandals, trans. John W. Fraser [UK: St Andrew Press, 1978], p.115. Emphasis added.)

Commenting on Isaiah 2:3, Calvin wrote: "By these words he first declares that the godly will be filled with such an ardent desire to spread the doctrines of religion, that every one not satisfied with his own calling and his personal knowledge will desire to draw others along with him. And indeed nothing could be more inconsistent with the nature of faith than that deadness which would lead a man to disregard his brethren [...]. The greater the eminence above others which any man has received from his calling so much the more diligently ought he to labor to enlighten others. This points out to us also the ordinary method of collecting a Church, which is, by the outward voice of men; for though God might bring each person to himself by a secret influence, yet he employs the agency of men, that he may awaken in them an anxiety about the salvation of each other."
(Emphasis added.)

Commenting on Psalm 109:16, Calvin wrote: "...as we cannot distinguish between the elect and the reprobate, it is our duty to pray for all who trouble us; to desire the salvation of all men; and even to be careful for the welfare of every individual." (Emphasis added.)

Commenting on John 1:40, Calvin wrote: "The circumstance of Andrew immediately bringing his brother expresses the nature of faith, which does not conceal or quench the light, but rather spreads it in every direction. Andrew has scarcely a spark, and yet, by means of it, he enlightens his brother. Woe to our indolence, therefore, if we do not, after having been fully enlightened, endeavor to make others partakers of the same grace."
(Emphasis added.)

Commenting on Mark 8:12, Calvin wrote: "By these words Mark informs us that it occasioned grief and bitter vexation to our Lord, when he saw those ungrateful men obstinately resist God. And certainly all who are desirous to promote the glory of God, and who feel concern about the salvation of men, ought to have such feelings that nothing would inflict on their hearts a deeper wound than to see unbelievers purposely blocking up against themselves the way of believing, and employing all their ingenuity in obscuring by their clouds the brightness of the word and works of God."
(Emphasis added.)

In his sermon on 1 Timothy 2:3-5, Calvin wrote: "God will have His grace made known to all the world, and His gospel preached to all creatures. Therefore, we must endeavor, as much as possible, to persuade those who are strangers to the faith, and seem to be utterly deprived of the goodness of God, to accept of salvation."
(Emphasis added.)

"For God there is nothing higher than the preaching of the gospel... because it is the means to lead people to salvation."
(John Calvin, Supplementa Calviniana, Sermons inedits, ed. Erwin Mulhaupt [Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1961], 8:21, quoted in Herman J. Selderhuis, John Calvin: A Pilgrim's Life [USA: IVP Academic, 2009], p.111. Emphasis added.)

From the quotations above, we know that Calvin certainly prioritized the proclamation of a message of individual salvation (or in his parlance, the "salvation of souls"). Due to his missionary enthusiasm, the Genevan church's mission expanded tremendously. As Bruce Gordon wrote:

"In the years between 1555 and 1562 just under a hundred ministers left the relative safety of Geneva and the Vaud to face appaling risks; they travelled in clandestine manner to avoid detection, and knew that capture meant torture and death. [...] Calvin recognized the opportunities and the challenges and sought to educate the ministers as best he could [...]. Calvin was involved in every aspect of this missionary activity. He taught scripture to the ministers, oversaw their pastoral training in Geneva, Neuchatel and the Vaud, examined them and presented them to the council. [...] During the years 1560-1 the growth of the Reformed churches in France was nothing short of spectacular. In Rouen about 20 per cent of the population had embraced the faith."
(Bruce Gordon, Calvin [USA: Yale University Press, 2009], pp.312-315.)

This is not to dismiss Calvin's social activism but to point out his enthusiam in missionary work and his prioritization of proclaming the message of salvation. As shown in one of the quotations above, Calvin even saw that nothing is higher for God than the preaching of the gospel which leads people to salvation. 
 

It is unfortunate that Vinoth had to make John Calvin into his own image to suit his complaint against some contemporary Reformed pastors. To think about it, it is rather ironic that Vinoth is presenting a false picture of Calvin in the world-wide-web while accusing some Reformed pastors for exporting "their theological blind-spots" to the global south. 

2. Vinoth's TGC

The Reformed movement, of which TGC is part of, traces their heritage back to Calvin (some to Zwingli). If Calvin had indeed prioritized the proclamation of a message of individual salvation while remained a social activist, then it is only fair for those in the present who claimed to be guardians of Reformed orthodoxy to follow suit. 

As far as I can see, those involved in TGC are faithful to Calvin and the Reformed tradition in that they see the church's mission as primarily one of proclaiming a message of individual salvation while maintaining social activism.

The reason why Vinoth does not see certain contemporary Reformed pastors (of which some are involved with TGC) following the footsteps of Calvin is because Vinoth has a wrong impression of the magisterial reformer. In other words, Vinoth's critique is based on his own mistake.

Besides, it seems that Vinoth has no idea what TGC is about. The coalition's theological vision for ministry lists 5 characteristics of a gospel-centred ministry: (1) Empowered corporate worship, (2) Evangelistic effectivenes, (3) Counter–cultural community, (4) The integration of faith and work, and (5) The doing of justice and mercy.

 
As reported of its first national conference in 2007, TGC aims to create "an evangelical movement led by churches that grow by multiplying, preach with theological substance and winsome apologetics, encourage holiness among members, engage their communities in areas such as politics and art, and even share economic resources and welcome the poor."

TGC is more holistic than the one portrayed by Vinoth. One (like myself) does not need to be affiliated with TGC to see the wrong in Vinoth's misrepresentation of the group.

 

3. Vinoth's Unfair Critique on TGC's International Outreach
Vinoth critiques TGC's International Outreach as "paternalistic, colonial “mission”" that reproduces "carbon-copies of themselves in the global South rather than nurturing real leaders." 

Vinoth stated rhetorically,

"who decides who is theologically famished and who is not? who selects what “resources” to send the famished? who decides what constitutes “equipping” and who should be doing it? The answer is always the same. A small group of white, well-to-do American or British males. We have experienced such paternalistic, colonial “mission” before- others deciding what is the “Good News” for us, what is “sound doctrine”, which authors to read and whom to avoid, etc. They have exported their theological blind-spots and sectarian rivalries, reproducing carbon-copies of themselves in the global South rather than nurturing real leaders. The learning and theological traffic is all one-way."

First, I think Vinoth is aware that one of the resources that TGC is sponsoring is a book written by Vinoth's own countryman, Ajith Fernando. If so, how can one just dismiss TGC's project as paternalistic and colonizing?

Of course Vinoth can argue that Ajith though a Sri Lankan is a colonized theological victim. If that is the case, we have to ask Vinoth, so who is not a theological victim to him? Only those who accept Vinoth's false portrayal of John Calvin is considered "real leader"?

Second, TGC's project is not "colonizing" in the sense of forcing people to accept what they have to offer. People are free to ask for the resources. TGC does not demand those who accept these free resources to commit to their doctrinal statement. How is this being theological colonizing? 

If so, then am I being paternalisitc and colonializing when I buy Vinoth's books and give them to a friend for free? Or I am being paternalistic and colonializing only when I buy books authored by TGC's members and pass them around for free? 

Besides, how is passing books written by white well-to-do American and British males is paternalistic and colonializing, while passing books written in English by a Sri Lankan who holds doctoral degrees in nuclear engineering from University of London is less so?

I think it is unfair to categorize people as paternalistic and colonializing only when they pass TGC's books around, and not so when it comes to Vinoth's books. If this is what Vinoth thinks, then it is (again) ironic for someone who champions fairness can be so unfair.

In his comment, Vinoth said that he failed to get an audience with the TGC members and hence they are "isolationist" and "exclusivist", a resemblance he noticed in Asian groups that are linked to TGC. But is not the case that any correspondence between two willing persons needs, well, two willing persons?

Can we fault people as isolationist and exclusivist simply because they do not want to talk to us? We must have huge ego to think that people should talk to us regardlessly. Of course, we can ascribe impoliteness to those who do not want to talk to us even after we initiated the correspondence. But not so much of "isolationist" and "exclusivist", I think.

Anyway, someone who is affiliated with TGC has notified Vinoth of his availability to talk.

These are the problems that I have observed in Vinoth's post. Agree, disagree?

Interview by New Mandala on Malaysia's upcoming General Election

Australian National University's New Mandala is interviewing people for "views on the two coalitions vying for power at the 13th general election in Malaysia". Here are the questions:

1. What do you think will be the most important issue that the new government must address?

2. What do you think is Barisan Nasional’s greatest strength?

3. What do you think is Barisan Nasional’s greatest weakness?

4. What do you think is Pakatan Rakyat’s greatest strength?

5. What do you think is Pakatan Rakyat’s greatest weakness?

6. What is your hope for Malaysia?

My view is published today. For those interested, you can read it here.

Presbyterians' strange view on the sacred/secular divide

Do you all think it is strange that nowadays Presbyterians think and taught to think that the sanctuary in church building is not sacred (to avoid having congregational members think that the building is holy)... But on the other hand, think and taught to think that their secular work outside of the church is sacred (with all the prevailing 'theology of work' and the notion that there is no distinction between sacred/secular and private/public going around)?

Have you come across this tendency among Presbyterians to vacate sacredness from the spot for Sunday service, yet insert sacredness in the everyday routine of work and family life?

It seems that the notion of 'priesthood of all believers' has made everything, everywhere, and everyday priestly except things in the sanctuary, the sanctuary itself, and Sunday.

And then we wonder why congregational members is so slack during Sunday service in their late arrival to service, reluctant to participate in ministries, don't see a point in attending prayer meeting, and read their phones during sermon. While they arrive early for work meeting, active in volunteering in company's events, switch off their phones during business meeting, etc.

Of course this observation is not confined only among the Presbyterians, but across the local Protestant communities.

Our belief in and suspicion over authority

Take Sherman Kuek, the Director of the Diocesan Pastoral Institute, as an example. On one hand, he is very suspicious of those in powerful offices,

"The truth is, I don't need any politician to preach 1Malaysia at me. There are very good people in Malaysia - non-political people - who recognise our differences in colour, culture and religion, and who celebrate these diversities. My own religion has preached 1Humanity long before the very political entities who polarised the races in Malaysia started ironically preaching 1Malaysia.

"I believe in Malaysia. But leaders, I don't believe in you."

On another hand, he has no qualm pledging all allegiance to whoever who occupies the papal office, the most powerful office in the Roman Catholic church (emphasis added):

"...there is no need to for me to announce so overtly that I intend to render my unconditional obedience to this new pontiff. It is an understood reality. Whoever sits on the Chair of Peter is the supreme and universal shepherd of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and deserves nothing less than my allegiance, my submission of intellect and will and even my religious assent. It is my intention to continue living the Catholic life and my vocation cleaving to the Petrine Office upon which the Church of Jesus Christ is built and continues to stand. This promise of obedience stands regardless of the man who holds the office and remains untainted by whatever subjective feelings or sentiments I may have about the man himself."

Most of us are suspicious of all office holders regardless whether religious or secular, yet at the same time recognize "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy" (Phil. 4:8) in any given moment in history. Therefore, we can celebrate the secular rulers as well as the Pope according to their merit, and distance from them according to their demerit. 

This meritocratic position is not to be played into the binary between the community and the individual. It is not as if one has to give up entirely one's allegiance to a communal tradition nor be critical over everything except the individual self. 

What matters here is the recognition of merit/demerit which presumes the tentative three sequential basic beliefs: First, the authority discourse between scripture, tradition, experience, reason, and imagination; second, the fallibleness of all human persons except the God-Man; and third, the availability of common and special grace. It is from this recognition that we evaluate everything, including the basic beliefs themselves. 

Boris Dittrich on the legislation development of civil marriage

Very interesting to hear Boris Dittrich (the Advocacy Director of the LGBT Rights Program of Human Rights Watch, and the politician who successfully fought for the world's first same-sex marriage in Netherlands) talks about changing forms of "civil marriage":

"We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships. And it appeared to be a good decision, because once we have registered partnership in 1998, people got used to the idea that two men or two women went to the municipality, had their relationship recognised by the law.... So then the next step of marriage equality, and really being equal, was a logical step.... There is now a discussion in the Netherlands that sometimes people want to marry with 3 people or may be even more. But that is the beginning of something completely new. And that'll take a lot of years, I guess."

Why interesting? Because it resonates with my discussion with a local activist for the LGBT movement over the weekend. The activist lamented over the many censoring mechanisms put in place at various levels of the local society that bar LGBT from getting their voice heard and lifestyle recognized by the public. She said that there should be a public space provided for the LGBT to voice themselves so that they are heard. 

I told her that we should not stop at LGBT censorship. If we want to lift up censorship, why do we stop at LGBT? If the civil society should provide a space for the LGBT to be heard, I don't see why can't the civil society do the same for polygamist and various other arrangements?

The activist looked stunned, and hesitantly noded in agreement.

Then another person spoke up, "If we allow all kinds of the discussions to carry out, what we will have are just talks; when can the society act and move?"

That's precisely the point I wanted to drive at: Do we even know where should the society be moving towards with all the talks about 'civil society', 'equality', etc?

To the Christians, the clue lies in the canonical scripture and tradition.

Upcoming talk: Ravi Zacharias on 'What does it mean to be human?'

Evangelism and interfaith engagement

I was at a recent interfaith conference and facilitated a session on 'Christian Mission and Interfaith Engagement'. One of the participants of my session was a Roman Catholic priest. I thought it was very interesting to hear him say that Christians are not tasked to carry out Matthew 28:18-20. The priest mentioned that the apostle Paul asked us to share the "good news" but if we seek to evangelise by inviting people to consider Christianity, then that is not good news. 

I disagreed with him respectfully. I remarked that the very word "good news" is 'euangelion' in Greek, and when used in the New Testament it is referring to the message of Jesus Christ. In fact it is from the word 'euangelion' we get 'evangelism', 'evangelical', evangelization', 'evangelist', etc. Besides, apostle Paul's entire life testifies to the mission to evangelise.

I found my encounter very interesting because what the priest said was in direct disagreement with what Pope Benedict XVI wrote to all Roman Catholic bishops September last year:

Jesus Christ desired to entrust the mission of proclaiming the Gospel first of all to the body of Pastors who must work together and with the Successor of Peter (cf. ibid., n. 23), so that it may reach all people. This is particularly urgent in our time which requires you to be bold in inviting people of every state to encounter Christ and to consolidate their faith (cf. Christus Dominus, n. 12).

Between the Roman Catholic Pope and a priest, who is more representative of the Roman Catholic church?

It is perfectly understandable for those who are involved in interfaith engagement to feel compelled to reject the mission to evangelise. But one can see this as the other around too: Those who reject the mission to evangelise are attracted and more enthusiastic to involve in interfaith engagement.

My session was crafted precisely to address the seemingly tension between Christian mission and Christians' participation in interfaith work. Christian mission and interfaith engagement go along hand-in-hand out of our gratitude to God's love for us and our love for others.

Besides the Roman Catholic priest, there were Buddhists, agnostics, Protestant Christians, and others who attended the session. I hope I managed to accomplish what the session was set out to do given the diverse nature of the group. And it was assuring that one of the participants, who was not a Christian, told me that the session was clear.

First thing to do in office today: Clear my desk!

Book Review: 'Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality' by Wesley Hill

The book’s author, Wesley Hill, is sexually attracted to other men, and he thinks that same-sex attraction is not God’s intention for the world. This intimate book records Hill’s challenging journey as a Christian who is trying to make sense of his homosexuality and his calling to struggle with it in the light of the Scripture and Church tradition. 

There are 3 important lessons that one can learn from Hill, who is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity School for Ministry.

Lesson 1: Same-sex attraction is real---the need to struggle with it.
There are those among us who are really and genuinely feel attracted to people of the same gender. For this reason, many have tried to find a connection between same-sex attraction and their childhood. Some even try to link sexuality to gene. Hence the whole debate between ‘nature versus nurture’. Accordingly, there are ‘therapies’ designed to help people to change their sexuality. 

The author cuts through this impasse debate by talking about his own personal discovery of his homosexual orientation. He was brought up in a non-abusive childhood and had a fairly good upbringing. It was during high school years that he sensed a “steady, strong, unremitting, exclusive sexual attraction to persons of the same sex” (p.13). The unchangeable sexual desire for homosexual relationship is real to him and to those who experience it. Since then his life is marked by fear, persistent loneliness and inner conflict.

Hill asked a probing question, which I think many homosexual Christians are asking as well, “Can we gay and lesbian Christians who experience no change in our homoerotic desires live in the joyful assurance that our lives are satisfying to God? Can we who remain homosexually inclined actually please God?” (p.135). 

To Hill, the answer depends on our understanding of homosexuality: What do the Scripture and Church tradition say? Hill is clear that same-sex attraction is “one of the myriad tragic consequences of living in a fallen world stalked by the specters of sin and death” (p.32). With full conviction and tireless struggle, Hill writes, “I abstain from homosexual behaviour because of the power of that scriptural story” (p.61), and such endurance is a “daily dying” (p.71). As Hill further affirms, “I am waiting for the day when I will receive the divine accolade, […] “Well done, good and faithful servant” (p.150). Hill’s spiritual persistence is exemplary for all Christians in dealing with our own temptation, be it on sexuality or otherwise.

Lesson 2: Homosexuality comes with unbearable loneliness---the necessity of a trustworthy and supportive community within the church.
The loneliness experienced by those with homosexual inclination is not easily understood by heterosexuals. Gay Christians cannot relate to their heterosexual peers’ interest in the opposite gender. They have to be careful not to jeopardize their friendship by developing romantic interest with friends of the same gender. They are afraid that they will be rejected and discriminated when their sexuality is known by their family, friends, and church-mates. They have to constantly struggle against the desire of entering into a monogamous homosexual relationship, especially in society where homosexual practice is widely accepted and legally protected (e.g. civil partnership and same-sex ‘marriage’). On top of these, they have to face negligence in various degrees by their heterosexual friends who eventually get married and start their own family. To Hill, loneliness is the “defining struggle” of his life (p.92) that makes him feels “painfully contradictory” (p.115).

“What I wish,” as Hill once said to his pastor, “is that I could feel the church to be a safe place” (p.42). “The remedy for loneliness—if there is such a thing this side of God’s future—is to learn, over and over again, to do this: to feel God’s keeping presence embodied in the human members of the community of faith, the church” (p.113). Writing from Hill’s own experience with his church, “I began to learn to wrestle with my homosexuality in community over many late-night cups of coffee and in tear-soaked, face-on-the-floor times of prayer with members of my church” (p.48, italics original) Are we, as part of the local churches, willing to learn to provide the kind of safe space for our brothers and sisters in Christ to wrestle with their same-sex attraction?

Lesson 3: Christians’ struggle against same-sex attraction is great encouragement for the church. 
In the book, Hill is trying to see broken sexuality as an (in the words of Thomas Hopko) “extraordinary opportunity for imitating Christ and participating in his saving Passion” (p.145). On Hill’s part, his gay and celibate journey is a mark of the Holy Spirit’s transformation. Based on Heb. 12:3-4, 10:37-39 and Rom. 6:12-13, 22, Hill is learning to see his “flawed, imperfect, yet never-giving-up faithfulness” to struggle against his homosexuality as the spiritual fruit that God will recognize (pp.145-146). In this way, the struggle against homosexuality is exemplary. The resistance against the intimate yet broken desire displays God’s sanctifying work in the church and for the encouragement for all.

The book is a witness to God’s power and the author’s incomplete yet faithful discipleship. I am touched, encouraged, and strengthened by Hill’s journey in my struggles against my own different brokenness. I highly recommend Hill’s book to those who are struggling with same-sex attraction, to church leaders, and to those who want to learn how to relate to their homosexual family members and friends.

Gandhi on religion and politics

 (Erik H. Erikson, Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence [USA: W. W. Norton & Co., 1969], p.22.)

ESSENTIAL tools for ministry!

Notice the bottom part: "Creative financing available to avoid unnecessary accountability!"

Population woes; then, now and future

More than 20 years ago, overpopulation was a concern. Hence the "Two is enough" campaign. Now, overpopulation is again a concern. Hence the "Hong Lim Park" gathering.

Then and now share the same concern: there is not enough supporting infrastructure and resources to cater to the increasing number of people.

The source of overpopulation in the past was internal. The present is external.

Many see today's underpopulation as the result of the 1980s campaign. So, they blame the campaigner. How would people in 2030s look at the present, and who would they blame?

Letter to Michelle Ng

To my dear sister in Christ Michelle Ng,

Thank you for taking time to write an encouraging letter to our Muslim friends. Besides being an apology and an act of building trust with Muslims, your letter rightly serves as a reminder to the rest of us, Christians, who constantly need to take care of the plank of our own eye. Indeed, and rightly so. If I may, I would like to share with you three thoughts on behalf of our Muslim friends regarding those issues you have highlighted in your letter.

First, Muslims are more generous and inclusive than your letter implies. While there are indeed Muslims who demand exclusive right over the use of 'Allah', we should not forget our other Muslim friends in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore as well as those in middle eastern countries who see no problem at all for non-Muslims to use that word.

You have helpfully noted that our relationship with God is not constrained by any form of human’s linguistic expression. While this is true, let us not forget that many of our Muslim friends think likewise too for their own faith. They call this transcendence tanzih. This is part of the reason they are as puzzle as Christians when they found out that their own fellow Muslims demand exclusive use for ‘Allah’, as if the transcendent God can be compared and equated with a human word.

Second, Muslims are more understanding than your letter allows. The call to burn Bibles is not only condemned by Christians but by Muslims too. Individuals from both religious traditions have jointly lodged police report on it. I think they condemn such a call not because they are holding grudge or acting impulsively. Rather, it is because such a call disrupts the cordial relationship and threatens the harmonious co-existence of both communities in the country.

Third, Muslims are more loving and hospitable than your letter assumes. You assure our Muslim friends that Christians will still be hospitable and charitable to them should the day come when Christianity is prohibited in Malaysia. While Christian hospitality for everyone at all times is a must, let us not forget that Muslims are as much capable of loving those who do not share their religion and be hospitable to those who are politically persecuted regardless of their religion. Your assurance seems to imply that Muslims are somehow morally inferior. It is worth remembering that the Albanian Muslims risked their lives to save thousands of Jewish families from being deported and executed during the Holocaust. Nearing to home, a personal Christian friend of mine was protected by his kampong’s Malay-Muslim penghulu during the 1969’s riot in Klang.

There are many Muslims who are more generous, understanding, and loving than those who have been trying to wreak havoc in the country. The Christians are not alone in responding to those unjust matters that have surfaced in recent months. We have Muslim friends who are in solidarity with us, just as us with them. Therefore any condemnation or critique of our responses to these matters is unfortunate because it implicates our Muslim friends, who are marching side-by-side with us, to be less generous, understanding, and loving than they have always been.

Thank you for reading this. May God continue to bless you in your life and work.

Joshua Woo Sze Zeng
A brother in Christ.

An Open Letter to Brother Robert Judah Paul

Two days ago (Bishop Dr.) Robert Judah Paul is reported to say the following in response to Ibrahim Ali's calling for the burning of Bibles in Penang this Sunday:

"Burning the Bible is equivalent to burning churches and the churches have every right to bring it to their highest authority. [...] Christians will take to the street if our voices are not heard legally. Ibrahim and whoever are behind him are very narrow-minded and are not looking at the bigger picture."

My friends and I were taken a back by his statement. We think that what the Malaysian society and churches need now is clarity and not further confusion or provocation. For this reason, we have published an open letter to him on several websites. The most comprehensive one (with footnotes) is posted on Projek Dialog:

An Open Letter to Brother Robert Judah Paul

Living as a religious minority in a plural society is never easy. It is made even less easy when we as members of this minority try to make a difference to the society around us. Nonetheless, your love for the urban destitute and your work among them are known and can only be seen as a manifestation of Christ’s call for us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

We are nonetheless troubled by a quote attributed to you in Free Malaysia Today that “Christians will take to the street if our voices are not heard legally”.[1] What troubles us is the word ‘will’ because if ‘take to the streets’ means displaying our anger with placards and reacting with provocative slogans, we will not do that.

As part of the Christian community in Malaysia, we are, of course, alarmed at the call by Ibrahim Ali of PERKASA as well as the threat to organize a Bible Burning Festival in Butterworth on the 27th of January 2013.[2] We are nonetheless compelled to heed what our Scriptures clearly command us to do, to be “quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger” (James 1:19).

We find it wise to take counsel in the statement of the Christian Federation of Malaysia, a body that represents more than 90% of the Christian community in Malaysia, who have, through Bishop Datuk Ng Moon Hing that “Christians are peace-loving people who will continue to seek peace and harmony across all religious groups for the well-being of our great country. We pray that good sense and moderation will prevail for all people in times such as these.”[3]

We also take heed of the warning from our fellow Malaysian theologian, Dr. Ng Kam Weng, who has counseled all concerned parties to avoid polemics.[4]

Similarly we note that politicians on both sides of the political divide like MCA’s Loh Seng Kok and YB Baru Bian who have come out not just to condemn Ibrahim Ali for his inflammatory and seditious call but also to exercise restraint with reference to the “Allah” issue. [5]

This is especially so during an electoral season where there may be irresponsible actors who would be more than happy to brew religious controversy for personal gain.

And to our delight, we take comfort and encouragement in the fact that our fellow Malaysians of different walks of life as well as faiths have stood in solidarity with the Christian community by issuing public statements condemning the Bible burning threat as well as making police reports against this.[6]

Our first call as Christians in the light of these challenges is to take to the prayer room rather than the streets. We ought not to add fuel to the embers stoked by the original provocateurs and become a party to the ‘bridge burners’.

We do not deny that Christ calls us to speak out against injustice and to confront ‘bridge burners’ as we continue our work as ‘bridge builders’ with all Malaysians. We stand, as we must, in solidarity with victims of injustice regardless of religion. We oppose, as we must, tyranny that terrorizes all communities in this country. But we must also act justly, with mercy and humility (Micah 6:8) and seek to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9), building bridges across communities.

These are trying times for Christians and other minorities in this nation. We call for Christians to be discerning and prayerful while modeling the way of Jesus in confronting these trials.

We urge Christian leaders to be in consultation with the relevant institutions like the Christian Federation of Malaysia and the Bible Society of Malaysia who have labored hard for the last 30 years to resolve the difficulties that have arose from the restrictions imposed on Christian worship in our national language, Bahasa Malaysia.

Your fellow Malaysian pilgrims in Christ,

Yee Siew Meng (Theology student, Seminari Theoloji Malaysia

Wong Tien Li (Layperson, Friends in Conversation)

Steven Foong (TEE Student, Seminari Theoloji Malaysia)

Rev Sivin Kit (Pastor, Lutheran Church in Malaysia, PhD Student in Religion, Ethics, Society, University of Agder)

Rev Pax Tan (Pastor, Baptist)

Rev Ng Kok Kee (Pastor, Pentecostal, Theological Educator)

Rev Dr Lim Kar Yong (Pastor, Petaling Jaya Evangelical Free Church, Adjunct Lecturer, Seminari Theoloji Malaysia & Malaysia Bible Seminary)

Lim Swee Bin (Mother, Focus on Sarawak)

Lee Soo Choo (Layperson, Lutheran)

Kevin Thomas (Layperson, Baptist)

Joshua Woo (Preacher, Presbyterian)

Gina Phan (Layperson, Lutheran)

Freddie Acho Bian (Layperson, Sidang Injil Borneo Sarawak)

Eugene Koo (Layperson, Methodist)

Dr Samuel Ong (Cardiologist, Methodist)

Dr Alex Tang (Elder, English Speaking Presbytery of Malaysia)

Davin Wong (Layperson, Anglican)

Daniel Lee (Layperson, Brethren)

Chris Chong (Layperson, Friends in Conversation)

Bob Kee (Layperson, Lutheran)

Alwyn Lau (Layperson, Lutheran)

Adrian Pereira (Human Rights Activist, Catholic, Coordinator, Community Action Network

Rev Tryphena Law (Pentecostal, Social Concern friend, Pastoral Counselor, teacher)

Christopher Cheah (Layperson, Methodist)

Ramanathan M (Layperson, Lutheran)

Supported by Friends in Conversation (FIC)

http://friendsinconversation.wordpress.com/

---

[1] Quoted in Burn the Bible, and you burn the church, http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/01/24/burn-the-bible-and-you-burn-the-church/ (Accessed 24 January 2013).

[2] At the time of writing, the police have begun investigations, Ibrahim Ali called up by cops, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/219839  and made a statement with reference to the notice to burn Bibles, Ignore Bible-burning rumour, say police, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/219856  (Accessed 24 January 2013).

[3] CFM Media Statement, Proposed Bible-burning an abhorrent act, http://www.themicahmandate.org/2013/01/proposed-bible-burning-an-abhorrent-act/ (Accessed 24 January 2013).

[4] Ng Kam Weng, Resolving the Allah Controversy: Going beyond polemics and call for constructive dialogue, http://www.themicahmandate.org/2013/01/resolving-the-allah-controversy-going-beyond-polemics-and-call-for-constructive-dialogue/ (Accessed 24 January 2013).

[5] Please refer to statements by Loh Seng Kok, MCA charges back at Ibrahim Ali over bible-burning threat, http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mca-charges-back-at-ibrahim-ali-over-bible-burning-threat, and Baru Bian, The Allah debate, a plea for restraint ,http://www.themicahmandate.org/2012/12/the-allah-debate-a-plea-for-restraint/ (Accessed 24 January 2013).
[6] Please refer to the joint statement by Aliran, Sisters in Islam, Islamic Renaissance Front and Projek Dialog, Why Bible-burning poser is bridge-burning in multi-religious Malaysia,  http://aliran.com/11367.html , and a Statement by Kumpulan Sasterawan Kavyan (Kavyan) Jangan Bakar Kitab Suci http://kavyan.blogspot.no/2013/01/jangan-bakar-kitab-suci.html?zx=5664f28d5acc881a as well as Police report lodged against Ibrahim Ali Bible-burning call, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKSLbuwPe48 (Accessed 24 January 2013).

Why get involved in church?

I forget how many times have I come across Christians who don't see value to get involve in church. Some of them don't even want to attend Sunday service. When asked why, they said that there is no point to do that because God is in us and we are the temple of God, hence no need to gather in a building to perform ritual. I've experienced this tendency myself. 

Someone once wrote that there are theologians who choose to read, contemplate, and write about ecclesiology on Sunday morning than participating in service. Ironic.

Regarding this matter, David Roach helpfully gives 10 reasons why get involved in church?

1. Gathering with a church encourages believers to love others and do good deeds (Hebrews 10:24-25).

2. A church is the main venue for using your spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-31). God has given you abilities and talents intended to help other Christians. If you’re not involved in a church, others are being deprived of what you have to offer.

3. A church helps keep you from abandoning the faith. According to the author of Hebrews, the antidote to developing an “unbelieving heart” that leads you “to fall away from the living God” is to “exhort one another” (Hebrews 3:12-13)—an activity that occurs most prominently in the church.

4. A church helps you defend Christianity against those who attack it. When Jude told the early Christians to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3), he directed his instruction toward a group of believers, not a scattering of lone-ranger Christians. Answering challenges from coworkers, friends, and family members is always easier when you can ask fellow church members for help and wisdom.

5. A church is a great venue for pooling resources to support missions and benevolent works (2 Corinthians 8:1-7; 3 John 5-8). Your money combined with that of fellow church members can do a lot for Christ.

6. A church helps its members maintain correct doctrine (1 Timothy 3:15). You might begin to adopt unbiblical ideas without realizing it yourself. But you probably won’t adopt unbiblical ideas without someone at your church realizing it, and they can help you get back to the truth.

7. After your family, a church is the best group of people to meet your physical needs in an emergency (1 John 3:16-17; 1 Timothy 5:3-16).

8. A church supports you when you face persecution (Acts 4:23-31; 12:12-17). You may not be imprisoned for your Christian beliefs like the apostles were, but a church family is still a great source of comfort when you face stinging words or unfair treatment.

9. A church is where you can be baptized and take part in the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34; Ephesians 4:4-6). These two ordinances are a vital part of any believer’s walk with Jesus.

10. A church provides the setting for corporate worship (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Though it’s a blessing to praise God alone, there is a unique joy that accompanies singing God’s praises with an entire congregation of Christ followers.

Recommending Wesley Hill's book

Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality

Theological considerations on the present 377A issue

How certain Christian communities interpret the current debate on whether to repeal 377A or not is not doing good to the society or the Church, methinks.

They have come to see this as a "battle" for God. And I'm not sure if God wants this case to be his battle. While we are deciding over this matter, there are several theological considerations to bear in mind:

1) The Church is to be the salt and light in the world, and seeks the welfare of the city. So at certain times and on certain issues, it is taken for granted that the Church should be involved in the country's legislation. For eg. the criminalization of infanticide, which was common, through Christian influence in the Roman imperial court. So the question the Church needs to decide is to discern whether consensual-non-heterosexual-sex-between-adults is an act so sinfully intolerable that it should be criminalized like infanticide?

2) The demarcation between the Church and the world will never be clear until Christ's coming again. Hence the weed and wheat are existing together (Matt. 13). This is the Church condition. If the Church herself is not entirely pure and perfect in knowledge and conduct in this present age then perhaps this parable can serve as the guiding principle for co-existence not only among the worldly and the godly in the Church, but also between the Church and the world.

3) Notwithstanding the Church condition, our theological position on homosexuality must constantly be negotiated based primarily on our reading of the scriptures. We should recognize the main texts related to this matter and should not re-use defunct interpretation or irrelevant passages (eg. the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is primarily homosexuality despite Eze. 16:49-50). To me, the main texts are Lev. 18, 20, 1 Cor. 6, and Rom. 1 vis-a-vis 1 Cor. 11:14.

4) How (1), (2), and (3) above be connected to each other. For example, if we have come to conclude from (3) that the homosexual act itself is sinful, then we have to link it to (1), whether is such act so sinfully intolerable that it should be criminalized even among the non-Christians? If so, then should the Church also advocate for the criminalization of all acts considered sinful, such as adultery and abortion? On the other hand, if our reading of scriptures conclude that homosexual act itself is NOT sinful, does that mean we should decriminalize it despite there are many acts that are not sinful but are crime such as jay-walking?

May God help us to discern over this issue.

Update (23 January 2013): Yesterday, the Attorney-General's Chambers has issued this statement: "All parties are therefore advised to refrain from making any public comments on these matters that are sub judice, pending final determination by the courts. (The AGC) takes a serious view of any statements which are sub judice and will, if necessary, act to protect the integrity of the administration of justice." It is therefore important for me to clarify that this blog post is not a comment on the court proceeding on the case, but a comment on how certain local Christian communities are interpreting their social activism.

Upcoming lecture: John Walton on 'Origins Today: Genesis Through Ancient Eyes'

Non-Christian scientists on Richard Dawkins

Philosopher of science Michael Ruse famously said that Richard Dawkins made him feel embarrassed to be an atheist.

Ruse graced Alister McGrath's book with this blurb: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why."

Recently Peter Higgs, the scientist who theorized the Higgs boson particle in the 1960s before it was discovered this year, is reported to have said the same thing about Dawkins: 

"He agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist's approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing".

Book Review: 'Unapologetic' by Francis Spufford

This is a very rebellious book! It is no less an apologetic work, yet rebels against the standard approaches to defend Christianity. Rather than giving reason why Christianity is true, Spufford is defending Christian emotions "of their intelligibility, of their grown-up dignity." (p.23)

The book's main argument is that "belief is made of, built from, sustained by, emotions" which are the stuffs that make Christianity "real". (p.19) Spufford demonstrates throughout the book how the Christian doctrines such as sin, Christology, ecclesiology, theodicy, and grace makes good emotional sense. Of course, it is not that easy to go into the distinction between reason and emotion, but that's not the point of the book. 

This book is an attractive read. By that, I mean it is easy to read and witty. It is written in common language, which means it has all the words we don't commonly read in books arguing for Christianity. For instance, Spufford described the sinful human nature as HPtFtU, short for 'human propensity to fuck things up'. So, those who take offense at words like this be warned. 

Though this book is a defense of the Christian faith, some of its notes may not sound right to Christian readers; for instance the author doesn't believe in hell. (p.181-182) Nevertheless, it contains very good explanation of sin, which I can immediately identify with:

[Sin] need not be dramatic, though. It can equally well just be the drifting into place of one more pleasant, indistinguishable little atom of wasted time, one more morning like all the others, which quietly discloses you to yourself. You're lying in the bath and you notice that you're thirty-nine and that the way you're living bears scarcely any resemblance to what you think you've always wanted; yet you got here by choice, by a long series of choices for things which, at any one moment, temporarily outbid things you say you wanted most. And as the water cools, and the light of Saturday morning in summer ripples heartlessly on the bathroom ceiling, you glimpse an uflattering vision of yourself as a being whose wants make no sense, don't harmonise: whose desires, deep down, are discordantly arranged, so that you truly want to possess and you truly want not to, at the very same time. You're equipped, you realise, for farce (or even tragedy) more than you are for happy endings. The HPtFtU dawns on you. You have, indeed, fucked things up. Of course you have. You're human, and that's where we live; that's our normal experience. (p.28-29)

This book taught me that during the Second World War, when Randolph Churchill (son of Winston Churchill) read the Old Testament stories of plagues and tribulations, he said, "What a shit God is!" Yet more importantly, it also showed me how one can deal with such exasperation.

Spufford is a good writer (he is Senior Lecturer in Creative Writing at University of London), and the book is meant to present a fresh side of Christianity to those who seek ways to connect their intellectual admission with their emotion. To do that, the author repeatedly appealed to common experiences.

A reason to be merry, from Richard Bauckham

"The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology."
(God Crucified: Monotheism And Christology in the New Testament [UK: Paternoster Press, 1998), p.viii. Emphasis added.)

Bibliophile curse...

Some day in the distant future when I hit mid-life crisis, and my wife came home horrified seeing this set on the shelves, I'll say, "Babe, others collect antique plates and telephones..."

Upcoming course: Science Triumphant? Exploring Issues of Science and Faith

Click here to sign up.

Book Review: 'A Fine-Tuned Universe' by Alister E. McGrath

This volume is the expanded version of Alister McGrath's 2009 Gifford Lectures. Its main thesis is that "certain facts are observed which are indeed "surprising." Yet we can easily imagine a standpoint from which they are not surprising and might even be anticipated. The Christian vision of reality, which has its own distinct evidential basis and intrinsic rationality, offers us a standpoint from which we may view the natural world and see certain things that others might indeed regard as puzzling or strange---such as fine-tuning---as consonant with the greater picture that the Christian has to offer." (p.xiii, emphasis original)

To put it simply, McGrath is arguing that Christianity can help us to make sense of the "anthropic principle" (the universe's intriguing friendliness towards life) holistically, comprehending it for its truthfulness, goodness, and beauty. However, McGrath emphasizes the modest scope of this attempt, saying that it is not a proof of the Christian belief in God, but more like a lens to perceive nature as an "authorized sign of the transcendent." (p.12) The book is separated into 2 major parts: A Trinitarian Natural Theology and Fine-Tuning: Observations and Interpretations. 

McGrath began by announcing the crisis of natural theology, saying that it has been marginalized by theologians. There are 3 reasons for this crisis. First, the classical natural theology is a product of modernity, out of the Enlightenment. (p.15-16) Hence it doesn't fit in the present era of postmodernity. Secondly, the ambivalence of nature leads "as much to natural atheology as to a natural theology." (p.18, emphasis added) Therefore it is seen as a failure to provide reliable foundation for belief in God. Thirdly, Karl Barth's devastating critique that natural theology is dictated by human rather than God has left a lasting legacy among theologians. (p.18-19) A Trinitarian natural theology is McGrath's remedy for this crisis.

By 'Trinitarian', McGrath meant an understanding of the natural world and our engagement with it as articulated by Christian orthodoxy, "a consequence of Christian revelation." (p.36) This renewed natural theology differs from Deism and Theism in that it "holds that God created the world, continues to direct it through divine providence, and guides the interpreters of both the books of nature and Scripture through the illumination of the Holy Spirit." (p72) It is through this Trinitarian natural theology that we can appreciate the truthfulness, goodness and beauty of the universe's surprising intriguing friendliness to life.

McGrath does not shy from acknowledging that this way of relating Christian revelation to our observation of the natural world is a circular explanation. This circularity set out as "A explains B while B justifies A." By drawing from Carl Hempel's philosophical discussion on science and examples of scientific explanations such as Peter Lipton's theory of cosmology, McGrath argued that, "There is nothing invalid or improper about this form of explanatory argument, which is widely encountered in scientific explanation." (p.52-53) 

The rest of the book is McGrath's application of this renewed natural theology to the anthropic principle seen in cosmology, biogenesis, chemistry, and the evolutionary history and complexity of life.

McGrath's project can be summarized as such: The sciences have produced some surprising and puzzling observation about the world, that is it is friendly towards life. And sciences can't tell us why is this so. Natural theology on the other hand, when renewed according to its Trinitarian orientation, can provide the framework to explain sciences' puzzling observation. This is not a proof for God's existence but merely a lens when used provides a clue to the divine. By relating the anthropic principle with the proposed Trinitarian natural theology, McGrath saw "potential to illuminate and enrich both science and religion," and "further the human quest for meaning in this often puzzling and bewildering universe." (p.221)

I have some questions to this volume. First, it has to do with McGrath's anachronistic categorization of natural theology that predates its emergence in the 18th century. If natural theology was recognizably as what it was only from 18th century onwards as "theology that seeks to prove the existence and attributes of God from the evidence of purpose and design in the universe" (p.12), how then could McGrath say there was natural theology recognizably as what it was prior to that?  

McGrath categorized Paul's "Areopagus address" and some of the early Church fathers' works as natural theology (p.11), yet if one wants to be categorically precise, these are at best proto-natural-theology and not natural theology.

Unless of course McGrath categorizes these proto-natural-theology as natural theology, which brings me to my second question. One of the main, if not the main, characteristics of natural theology is its contrast from "revelatory" or "revealed theology". For instance,

Natural theology is the practice of philosophically reflecting on the existence and nature of God independent of real or apparent divine revelation of scripture. Traditionally, natural theology involves weighing arguments for and against God's existence, and it is contrasted with revealed theology, which may be carried out within the context of ostensible revelation of scripture. For example, revealed theology may take as authoritative certain New Testament claims about Jesus and then construct a philosophical or theological model for understanding how Jesus may be human and divine. Natural theology, on the other hand, develops arguments about God based on the existence of the cosmos, the very concept of God, and different views of the nature of the cosmos, such as its ostensible order and value.
(Charles Taliaferro, 'The Project of Natural Theology,' in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, eds. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland [UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009], p.1. Emphasis original.)

McGrath knows about this antithesis between natural theology and revealed theology. Any discussion of the former assumes its contrast from the latter as it is from this antithetical characteristic that each is known to the other. Any coercion of revealed theology into the category of natural theology, or vice versa, one creates a pseudo category. And this seems to be what McGrath has done:

What if natural theology is itself seen as a subordinate aspect of revealed theology, legitimated by the revealed theology rather than by natural presuppositions or insights? What is the authorization of natural theology is understood to lie, not in its own intrinsic structures, nor in an autonomous act of human self-justification, but in divine revelation itself? (p.20)

McGrath envisioned the project as a contribution to the "longstanding debate within the Christian academic community concerning the theological legitimacy and significance of natural theology" (p.xiv), yet ironically in his subordination of natural theology under revealed theology, he has unwittingly confirming and perpetuating its illegitimacy.

So, if classical natural theology is the opposite to revealed theology, and if McGrath's Trinitarian natural theology is "vision of reality articulated by Christian orthodoxy" or "way of looking at things" as "consequence of the Christian revelation" (p.36), then isn't his theology really a revealed theology? If yes, then what McGrath is doing is not so much renewing natural theology but renaming revealed theology.

McGrath distinguishes his Trinitarian approach from the classical natural theology, saying that the latter is 

merely one approach to natural theology, in this case shaped by the fundamental assumptions and agendas of the Enlightenment. Yet there are other approaches, such as that adopted and commended in the present volume: the attitude to nature that is mandated and facilitated by the Christian revelation. (p.19)

However, without the characteristic contrast from revealed theology, what is left of natural theology? And this brings me back to the point of McGrath's anachronistic categorization of natural theology: He transposes the renamed revealed theology unto Paul and the early Church fathers so that he can call their proto-natural-theology as natural theology.Besides, is there really other versions of natural theology which predates 18th century other than McGrath's anachronistic category? If not, how then could there be other approaches as claimed? If McGrath insists that his version is really a natural theology---not a renamed revealed theology---then he has not demonstrate what of it that is recognizably as one?

These questions should not overshadow the merit of the book. McGrath's insistence to interpret the natural world through revelation is a call to uphold the centrality of the scripture in Christian's engagement in the sciences. And McGrath has shown how this can be done in the second half of the book.