this IS christianity in singapore…

 

(source)

Thailand. The land of the free. The constitutional monarchy with a very well-loved and respected King. The country of smiles.

But did you know? Thailand is a place of little true joy. Buddhism is so much a part of the Thai national identity and permeates into every level of society and culture that only about one hundred Thais accept Christ each year in the country of over 68 million people.

Do you share the burden of being that one small change agent, bringing the gospel to the Thais, one at a time?

With its many temples and monks, it is hard to ignore the fact that Buddhism is Thailand’s national religion. With only 16% christians, most Thai students see christianity only as a foreign religion. The land of smiles needs to hear the gospel message. Come and share with Khonkaen University students that Jesus is the way, the true and the life!

Go Change. World.  

 

For someone who lives under the christian subculture in Singapore, it is easy for me to mock the online cacophony over the poster above as white noise. In fact, I invite any practising christian in Singapore, to challenge me on this – that the above IS REPRESENTATIVE, very accurately indeed, of grassroots christianity as subscribed (orthodoxy) and practised (orthopraxy) in this country.

 

NUS student group says sorry for insensitive remarks

 

For anyone blissfully ignorant of Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC), of which the NUS (National University of Singapore) campus branch is responsible for the above advertisement (which caused much noise in the online community), it is an evangelical parachurch organisation founded by an already deceased William (Bill) Bright. Its main purpose is to spread (really, to proselytise) the christian religion all over the world. It has many branches, with sub “ministries” in tertiary campuses, all over the world. The main polytechnics in Singapore, namely Singapore, Ngee Ann, Temasek and Nanyang, have CCC ministries (I am not sure about the newest polytechnic, Republic) along with the two main universities, NUS and NTU (Nanyang Technological University).

 

I was a member in one of those branches during my school days.

 

And so let anyone accuse, dishonestly and deceptively, that I have no credibility to assert what I am asserting now. In fact, in the deluded madness of my youth, I wanted to enter the seminary to become a pastor. This led me to years of personal study and research (and anguish) into christian theology, biblical studies and historical criticism (which eventually led me to my free-thinking secular humanism). I suppose that is one of the reasons why I am still earnestly interested in the academic study of the bible.

 

Now, contrary to what CCC Singapore as well as the rest of the christian community who want to distance themselves from CCC claim; the theological premise which undergirds the alleged poster has always been constant in christianity, at least as practised and believed in this country; which is namely, that the person of Jesus Christ, as the Son of God (jews and muslims would disagree), is the ONLY way to personal salvation (of the soul) and thus upon death, the ONLY way to an eternity in heaven. This means that in the perception of christians, buddhists, muslims, hindus and free thinkers are all DAMNED to an eternity in hell. Full stop.

 

Now, a conniving dishonesty comes when a non-christian confronts the christian in a media or national capacity.  It is common for the christian to make the non-sensical statement that it is not up to him to judge anyone – only god knows – the destiny of all men. No streetwise christian would be so daft as to state the truth point blank that the poor interviewer will be damned to hellfire. But this is a red herring which distracts the public from the real issue – what does christian theology teach?

 

Classical christian theology has always been religiously exclusive – there is only ONE TRUE religion – and ONE TRUE scripture. It is precisely this very deluded view that compels practitioners to proselytise non-christians as much as possible – they are really sincere about it – they want you to go to heaven!

 

So let me be clear. Any christian who claims that CCC is not representative of christianity is being deliberately dishonest.

 

In making this assertion, I am not claiming that no christian in Singapore disagrees with the bigoted exclusivity of classical christianity; there are perhaps many who do privately. But as an institution and a social movement in Singapore, christianity is religiously exclusive, and theoretically unaccepting towards other religious or nonreligious traditions.

 

There is no point in interviewing, let’s say, a spokesperson for the National Council of Churches in Singapore. Or some lecturer in Trinity Theological College Singapore. Folks like these do not represent the average church pastor, let alone the christian person on the street. In classic Singaporean style, bishops and theologians would offer politically correct and nuanced views on the matter, deflecting any potential conflict.

 

Politically correct spin are nothing but half-truths and testicle-licking lies.

 

Anyhow, the alleged poster is very tame by my book. Just drop by any of the tongue-speaking, hand-raising, demon-casting and chriss angel-like magic mumbo-jumbo charismatic megachurches in Singapore and you will see that Jesus Camp and Teen Mania is more closer to the truth than meets the eye.

 

*******

 

evolution sunday

 

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

- The Clergy Letter Project

 

Today, February 12, is the birthday of Charles Darwin. Progressive and liberal churches all over the world would be remembering this day by either preaching about evolution, the life of Darwin, or at least wax meaningful about the significance of darwinian evolution on the christian religion.

 

Alas, Singaporean christians, like much of Asia and Africa, still wallow in the dirt of premodernity and intellectual ignorance.

 

Miserable day for me.

 

*******

 

are there any liberal “christians” in singapore??

 

Are there any liberal “christians” in Singapore?

 

Are there “christians” in Singapore who accept darwinian evolution as fact, are naturalistic (contra supernaturalistic) in worldview, are pluralistic in their attitudes towards other religions, who value reason, empiricism and the scientific method as one of the main, if not the sole reliable means of discovering the truth about our world, who reject the value of petitionary and intercessory prayer, who sees the bible NOT as an inerrant and infallible but a very human text using the language of myth, fable and metaphor to express spiritual truths, who do NOT subscribe to the mythic elements of the bible such as the narrative accounts of the Tanakh, the birth narratives, miracles and bodily resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity, etc – but view them as symbols and metaphors that aid to explain the ineffable sacred??

 

Or at least “christians” who identify themselves as progressive who realise the very errant nature of the bible and attempts to re-construct a new christianity for the 21st century?

 

I know that there are numerous of such kin in the mainline churches in the United States as well as the United Kingdom, and probably the majority of “christians” in Europe. But there is death all around in this part of the world – only the evangelical and fundamental form of christianity exists in Singapore – a christianity that is anti-intellectual, that spurns the scientific method, that espouses creation myths as natural history, that is homophobic, that consigns practitioners of every other religious tradition to hell, that practically leaves the brain outside the church.

 

Everywhere I turn, there is only wilderness and the desert. Alas, my beloved wife is numbered among such automatons. For almost two hours last night, I almost “exploded” in passionate diatribe against her uncritical acceptance of creationism and her stubborn stance on christian exclusivitity. In her worldview, I am treading on very very dangerous ground, perhaps even bordering on going to hell.

 

I remarked to her that if there is a literal place called heaven after death, it would be APPALLING to any decent human sense to think that good human beings like Gandhi, Mother Theresa and even the Buddha would be absent, burning in hell. It would be insulting to my dignity as a human being to think that genocidal leaders like Moses and Joshua would be in heaven.

 

She would have none of it. Like almost ALL of the evangelical world in Singapore, she is blinded into full acceptance of all of the crimes against humanity as narrated in the bible just because it IS the bible.

 

Can’t I discuss religion without all this idiocy? Can’t I have a civilised and enlightened discourse on religious morality without resorting to fundamentalist tendencies? Can’t I value evolution, humanism and free thought while being part of a religious community?

 

Is there any Singaporean who is going through the same thing as me and understand????

 

Sigh and sob.

 

*******

 

is it true??

 

A doctoral student from Baylor University in the US was recently awarded a very prestigious student award for a student paper he wrote on the connections between the educational qualifications of one’s fellow church members and how one interprets the Bible.

 

How You read the Bible is linked to whether your Fellow Worshippers went to College

 

The study included more than 380 churches with over 100,000 people and the conclusions were that regardless of an individual’s educational background, he/she is less likely to be a biblical literalist if he/she is surrounded by a greater number of people who were College-educated (equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree in Singapore).

 

The results are peculiar to say the least as it is NOT one’s own educational background that is the issue but that of one’s fellow christians in a given church community. Yet I wonder if education plays a part in biblical interpretation in this part of the world, especially in Singapore where the majority of the church-going demographics belong to the tertiary-educated and above.

 

And one of the unique features of Singaporean christianity is its predominantly evangelical nature – and its primary focus on biblical literalism, creationism and conservative theology. And yet many in the pew who subscribe to such views are very educated individuals, from the basic Bachelor’s holder to medical doctors and even university professors. I know of one university don who is also an elder in a local charismatic congregation.

 

What is wrong with these people?

 

There is apparently a dialectical shift for most Singaporeans when it comes to the Bible. Yes, they may grapple with historical-critical issues when reading world history or English literature or sociology in the university. They may handle methods in logical reasoning and argumentation when reading philosophy or law. But when it comes to the biblical texts, many discard their mental caps and become as little children, reading and interpreting fairy tales as though they were literally true.

 

That is Singapore.

 

*******

 

jesus camp in singapore!?!

 

 

The above is the image of the flyer that advertised about a young teens’ retreat in Johor Bahru, organised by Bethany Church Singapore and faciliated by the guest speaker, the infamous Becky Fischer, of JESUS CAMP notoriety!

 

Yes, the same Becky Fischer who was featured in the award-winning documentary about religious indoctrination of children in the US.

 

It is all thanks to the New Nation blog, from which the above flyer is taken, that I realised how stubborn this bitch is in attempting to force her bigoted religious beliefs on others.

 

Here are some youtube clips on the alleged events:

 

Jesus Camp Singapore pt 1

Jesus Camp Singapore pt 2

 

It is also revealing as to the nature of christianity in Singapore. Although some people would like the public to believe that christianity in Singapore is not as crazy as that in the US, the truth is indeed as crazy as it sounds.

 

Apart from political power, christianity in Singapore is largely influenced by Pentecostalism and Charismatism – just look at the largest churches in Singapore – all of them are either pentecostal or independent charismatic congregations. And charismatic christianity is reputed for its extreme ideas about exorcism, demonic spirits, speaking in tongues, faith healing, and the paranormal.

 

Even if one ignores charismatism for the sake of argument, one of the most fundamental doctrines in traditional christianity is the doctrine of salvation in jesus alone. This makes all practising and believing christians in Singapore fundamentally opposed to religious pluralism in theory. Of course, because of the government’s firm stance on religious tolerance, christians in Singapore are pussyfooting in their statements whenever cornered by the media.

 

This does not at all excuse christians from being a very dangerous group of people in a modern secular society.

 

*******

 

get back in line!!

 

 

 

The above cartoon is courtesy of David Hayward of Nakedpastor blog.

 

Although cheeky and humorous, the cartoon is so revealing of contemporary religion – paying lip service to interfaith tolerance, diversity and unconditional love, while often persecuting individuals and groups within the larger flock who do not toe the party line or do not seem to “catch the vision”.

 

I used to attend a local independent charismatic congregation, more than ten years ago, located in the eastern part of Singapore, that adopted precisely such an authoritarian policy in dealing with people within their fold who expressed theological views that are different from their own. Small group leaders often act as the SS police who report any deviance from the members to their supervisory heads who in turn would either “do something about it” or report it to the zonal pastors.

 

No wonder the biblical simile for christians is so damn apt – sheep. Christians are supposed to be as daft and dumb as sheep, to behave like automatons with no individual beliefs of their own. Even if many do, they are not to express them so as to “rock the boat”.

 

And many christians seem to be comfortable with such an arrangement, considering the numerical growth of this particular church over the years since I unceremoniously left. They have thus far two building locations, one in the east and the other in the north of Singapore. As expected, the more luxuriant and lavish auditorium of the north is now the regular pulpit of the church’s big boss and CEO, the Senior Pastor.

 

Who has, over the years, revealed his lack of theological training (he dropped out of Singapore Bible College more than thirty years ago) by many of his silly pulpit shenanigans and intellectual mistakes.

 

One incident, nevertheless, propelled him to national notoriety and stardom when he supposedly made some derogatory remarks about buddhism and homosexuals. Being the hypocrite that evangelical christians are, he apologised to the buddhist society for his remarks.

 

Then again, he was apologising for something that he would never recant – no evangelical christian who is worth his salt would admit that all religions are the same – put a gun to their heads and many would confess the truth of their bigoted beliefs, that only they have the real truth and that all others are condemned to an eternity of hellfire.

 

That – is the traditional understanding of evangelical christianity of other religions. It is the sheer antithesis of all things Singaporean, which is a SECULAR country with a religiously pluralistic society.

 

I challenge any spokesperson for the National Council of Churches Singapore to contradict that. If they are honest with themselves and to the public, they wouldn’t. The least they would do is to engage in some spin doctoring as usual – making ludicrous statements like “Oh, it is not up to me to decide who goes to heaven or to hell; it is up to god. Only god knows.”

 

Although in christian theology there is some truth in that statement that after all is said and done, god is the final arbiter of man’s destiny – it is also equally clear that classical christian theology espouses the doctrine that only through the god-man Jesus that all humankind can be “saved”.

 

Grassroots christianity in Singapore has always believed that insidious doctrine. Otherwise there would be no need to insist on proselytising people of other faiths. Otherwise there would be no need for “evangelism”.

 

All that talk about unconditional love and acceptance is just rubbish. Christians do not love homosexuals unconditionally – they expect them to change their sexual orientation. Christians do not love atheists and humanists unconditionally – they secretly desire them to be “born again” – in my case, “reborn again”! Christians do not love buddhists, taoists, hindus and muslims unconditionally – they expect them to become christians!

 

Otherwise, when the “rapture” happens, and when the world ends with Jesus returning; all of us who do not accept any of their bigoted and silly beliefs would be frying in hell.

 

The real enemy of civilisation and all things proper and decent is not atheism. It is fundamentalist religion.

 

*******

 

bevere has no theological training

 

Popular evangelical christian speaker and author John Bevere was in town the weekend before National Day as keynote speaker at the annual Festival of Praise conference in Singapore.

 

Although The Christian Post Singapore Edition calls him a “Reverend”, he is in every respect unqualified to be a teacher to the christian community.

 

Holiness comes through Faith in God’s Empowerment

 

First, he has never been ordained and thus sanctioned by any church or ecclesiastical governing body.

 

Second, as far as I know, Bevere has no theological education which would allow him to be credible as a bible teacher in the christian community. It would be akin to having an engineering graduate to lecture on evolutionary biology in a university.

 

But since this bloke is part of the larger charismatic christian community that seems to endorse uncritical thinking and anti intellectualism, proper education is not needed. In fact, education is often viewed as detrimental to genuine spiritual growth!

 

Anyhow, the Festival of Praise is an annual event that appeals to a predominantly charismatic and youthful crowd. No mature individual would want to be associated with such a rag tag group of rabble rousers.

 

*******

 

it is old news, really

 

According to the Christian Post Singapore edition, who interviewed the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, Hugh Williamson; some parts of the Old Testament narratives should not be read as history.

 

Read Old Testament in its Own Terms

 

This is old stuff, which has been taught in many credible mainline universities for decades – that not only the Hebrew scriptures but much of the whole bible is NOT history, in the modern sense of the word.

 

And as such, biblical inerrancy is a philosophical dinosaur that is only the province of the theologically ignorant or biased, in the case of the fundamentalist.

 

The problem with Singaporean Christianity though, is that many of our pastors, having being taught the truth, decided to return to the ignorant theological naivete of their youth so as to cope with the resulting uncertainty that is often the case when one slips into agnosticism.

 

Or that they decided to be two-faced about it – closet agnostics or atheists in their personal lives – while teaching and preaching the bible as though all of it is absolutely true to their parishioners for fear that they couldn’t digest the truth.

 

Intellectual dishonesty.

 

*******

 

 

an ordinary christian’s thoughts on the historical-critical approach

 

I love the bible.

 

It is the only work of ancient literature of which I have read and re-read ever since I learnt to read.

 

Of course, it was in the English language. A translated work. And any lover of literature will know that the only way to enjoy the full texture of any piece of literary work is to read it in its original language.

 

And thus many have done so by learning hebrew, aramaic and koine greek.

 

I wished I could too but my current station in life does not permit me to. Then again, it has always been one of my fantasies to revel in the world of biblical academia, of poring over delicious texts of ancient literature, of delighting in fresh discoveries of how the ancient world was and what the historical Jesus might really be.

 

It is so fascinating.

 

As a Christian, I take the bible seriously. And because I take the bible seriously, I treat it as any other sacred text – perusing them with a critical eye for historicity, authenticity, authorship, forms, traditions, etc. I try to get at the meaning of the texts by placing them in their appropriate historical contexts, within a framework of parallel ancient near eastern literature, ancient Jewish and graeco-roman culture, etc.

 

And my past training in undergraduate level theology forces me to view the Christian bible like any other product of literature, namely, a human product that is relative to its cultural and historical moorings.

 

But as a Christian, what about my confessional priority? What about my faith presuppositions?

 

As I speak for myself, I know that many others in Singapore and probably Asia would not agree with me. The ordinary Christian in the pew (of whom I am a part of) rejects any notion that the bible is a human product. He/she wants to believe that every jot and tittle of the bible is accurate and true, without any mistake whatsoever.

 

He/she wants to believe that God really created the world in six days (what about geological dating?), created Adam and Eve as our human ancestors (what about our pre-human ancestors?), put a real talking snake in the garden who eventually deceived the couple and brought “sin” into the world (where does it say “sin” in the actual portion of the text?), sent the ten plagues upon Egypt (why did such a momentous event not recorded in any ancient record?), used Moses to part the Red Sea, used Joshua to bring down the walls of Jericho (what about archaeological evidence that contradict this?), impregnate a virgin via the Holy Spirit to give birth to His Son (when it is so common for ancient deities and even great men to have virgin births), in Bethlehem (when all the evidence points to Nazareth as the authentic birthplace), and raised a God-man who would eventually die for the sins of the world.

 

The ordinary Christian would accept, by faith, the bible at face value and reject any EVIDENCE, history or otherwise, that would somehow undermine his/her belief in God.

 

I cannot.

 

Just because I believe in the sacred, just because I believe in the beauty of existence; does not give me a moral right to reject what the fields of modern enquiry has given me. A faith presupposition will do much damage to a serious study of the bible. It is a mockery of the standards of historical inquiry that we know today.

 

I know that Christians in the past have rejected the view that it was the sun and not the earth that was the centre of the solar system; that the earth was flat and not globish, that the male sperm is all that is needed to create life (the female contributes only the container), etc; but they were all wrong! They can reject science all they want – but history has recorded their mistake for all to see.

 

Similarly, many Christians today, and even some pig-headed scholars, definitely of the evangelical and fundamentalist stripe; stick stubbornly to the “face value” of the biblical text; rejecting our evolutionary origins, rejecting a very old earth, rejecting the very human origins of Jesus but would one day be found out as sorely mistaken.

 

Just like the Christians of old.

 

They seem to think that the ancient peoples write just like we do. They seem to think that they value historicity, factuality and science just like we do.

 

The future histories of the world will vindicate liberal theology as the correct path to tread as Christians. The future histories of the world will expose religious fundamentalism for what it truly is. A pig-headed enterprise.

 

Hmm. I am still a Christian. I still profess my standing in the community of saints that for two thousand years have been proclaiming the resurrection power of our Living Christ.

 

I still follow Jesus in desiring to demonstrate the kingdom of God here on earth. Through social justice and compassion for the poor, the diseased, the less fortunate, the marginalised, and the weak.

 

But then again, this Jesus of whom I follow, need not be divine in the historical sense, although he is the Son of God who has risen and is alive today in his post-easter incarnation.

 

The Bible need not be historically true to be an effective sacrament through which I see and perceive the world. It is not a set of propositions that I have to believe. It is a window through which I experience the sacred, the God in the mess of things.

 

Ah. I love that phrase.

 

God. In the mess of things.

 

*******

 

 

 

some thoughts on judaism

 

Popular Christian thought , for decades now, have often been disfigured and marred by a theological prejudice against Judaism and its followers. Churches in Singapore have often taught that although the Jewish people should be loved as a people, they would perish in an eternity without God if they do not embrace Jesus as their messiah.

 

Although much of evangelical Christianity, especially the dispensational premillennial camp, have prided themselves in supporting the nation of Israel, there is often that theological discrimination against Judaism as a credible religious theology, capable of standing on its own ground.

 

The moment we Christians open our bibles, our discrimination is there for all to see. Our Christian bible, whether Protestant or Catholic, labels the first three quarters of the text as the “Old Testament”, followed by the “New Testament”. It is common knowledge among Christians in the pew that the New supercedes the Old, that the New Covenant in God through Jesus is much more superior than the Old Covenant in God through Moses.

 

It is to their credit that the Reformers still at least hold to the view that the Old Testament is still valid for the New Testament christian, via the universal moral law of the Ten Commandments. Modern dispensationalists, however, tend to view the ten commandments in very derogatory terms. They view the law as not binding on believers today as Christians follow the “law of Christ”.

 

To come back to the bible, we Christians also have this misguided tendency to interpret the Hebrew scriptures (I prefer this term to the Old Testament) with the lenses of the New Testament. We read many of the texts in the Hebrew bible as though they are texts originally intended for the Christian.

 

This is so incorrect. They are never meant for us at all! They are for the Jews. They are to be interpreted with Jewish lenses! I could still remember when I was a young Christian when I often wondered why the Jews are so stupid in rejecting Jesus as their messiah. I thought that because there were so many “prophecies” in the hebrew scriptures of which Jesus the man fulfilled, how could the Jews miss it?

 

Were they spiritually blind? Were they corrupt in their sin?

 

It was only when I was a bit older and a bit wiser that I realised the truth.

 

Christian scholarship (with the exception of the pig-headed fundamentalists) had never understood those alleged prophetic verses as prophetic in the first place. If you sit down and read the Hebrew Scriptures as they are meant to be read (throw away your Christian bias), you will discover that many of the so-called prophecies have either been fulfilled in Old Testament times (such as the famous “virgin” verse of Isaiah 7), or are interpreted as refering to the nation of Israel itself and not Jesus (such as the Suffering servant in Isaiah 53).

 

Besides, as the Hebrew scriptures were written and compiled first, before the Christian scriptures, there is no way to “prove” that those alleged verses were prophetic and hence testify to the divine origins of the Scriptures – as often espoused by fundamentalist apologists like Josh MacDowell and Norman Geisler.

 

It should be common sense that the writers of the New Testament, especially the four gospels, used the Hebrew Scriptures as their foundational texts and from there, penned the gospels as theological and metaphorical narratives, with bits of historical fact laced here and there.

 

Thus the gospel writers “interpreted” the person of Jesus as fulfilling the Hebrew “prophecies”. It isn’t a case of prophecy fulfilled, but prophecy remembered. There is no evidence, in the first place, that the gospels were accurate biographies and historical accounts, in the modern sense of the word.

 

Furthermore, there is also this impression that the Jews were the ones responsible for the death of Jesus. This is due to the gospel of Matthew and its portrayal of the Jews. But that is not the case at all. It was simply the case of the Roman authorities deciding to get rid of Jesus because they saw in him a potential act of high treason and betrayal.

 

The moment we learn to reread the Hebrew bible not as our own but the treasured heritage of both our theological communities, then we are able to view the Jew as a cherished brother in the faith of our one God.

 

They were our theological precursors and ancestors. And as such, our founding fathers, so to speak.

 

Our co-heirs of the Holy other.

 

Amen.

 

*******

 

 

some thoughts on homosexuality

 

Two friends and myself had a conversation this afternoon at a friend’s house after having a delectable lunch at a Thai restaurant in East Singapore.

 

It was a warm chat among friends, sharing about flying and holidays (both of them are pilots, one from the Air Force and the other commercial), cultural and educational differences between East and West (I am often perturbed by the American penchant for unrealistic optimism and bravado), ancient catholic architecture (which I absolutely adore) and somehow winding down to the issue on homosexuality.

 

The commercial pilot friend, whose ecclesiastical tradition was Anglican, was quite profoundly uncertain on the issue of practising homosexual clergy in the church. He seemed torned apart between the so-called damnable verses on homosexuality in the bible and his liberal sensibilities.

 

The fighter pilot friend, however, was firmly against the whole “heretical” idea of allowing men of the cloth, men of God, to be practising SIN – in this case, the SIN of homosexuality.

 

It is condemned in the bible, he said, and thus we as Christians should accept it as a sin.

 

I wasn’t so sure about that though. My tertiary training in theology came to the fore. Much of mainline biblical scholarship is not dogmatic about the homosexual issue. In fact, the condemnation of homosexuality in the Holiness Code of Leviticus have to be contextualised to the ancient people of Israel and their mission of being set apart from the rest of the ancient Near Eastern world. It was an abomination to practise homosexual sex because it did not contribute to the propagation of the species, as ejaculating the semen outside of the vagina.

 

The latter was also condemned by God (Genesis 38:8-10) but Christians today still practise ejaculating outside as a contraceptive (apart from using a condom or pill). I haven’t heard of an evangelical pastor today who condemns such an act.

 

My contention with such “proof-texting” by evangelical Christians (as my friend certainly was) is that they often appeal to texts that seem to condemn a particular “sin” without interpreting them in context. They do not seem to ask themselves why certain acts are condemned while others within the same portions of Scripture are not? There seemed to be a bit of hypocrisy and cherry picking.

 

The example of slavery was then also brought up by my commercial pilot friend. The bible also seemed to be “so clear” about condoning slavery as does its condemnation of homosexuality. But it is almost a given these days to condemn slavery at all costs, despite the “clarity” of the bible. Why?

 

The fighter pilot addressed the issue by claiming that it was “good slavery” that was condoned in the bible, not bad slavery, which was prevalent in the slave trade. Besides, we are all slaves, he said, slaves either to sin or to God.

 

Hmmm. You can’t reason with such fundamentalist logic.

 

I added the issue of women preachers. If one takes the verses in the Pauline epistles to Timothy at face value, it would seemed a no-brainer that Paul was forbidding women to teach and preach in public when men are around.

 

But why the apparent disregard for such a “commandment” by some Christians? This fighter pilot friend too had no problems with women preachers. But if he is to be consistent and honest with himself, he should be against it.

 

Of course, there are Christians today who are adamantly against the ordination of women – the popular advocates including John Macarthur of Grace Community Church, John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church, James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and RC Sproul of Ligonier Ministries.

 

All of them fundamentalist and calvinistic.

 

The majority of Christians, however, would contextualise the verses in Timothy, placing those prohibitions in the context of the early Christians. But then, why not homosexuality then?

 

Anyhow, my personal views on homosexuality is rather sympathetic. It is NOT a sin as it is NOT a moral evil. It is an inborne orientation that is God-given and thus should be respected. And because I am contrained by the kingdom ethos of Jesus to proclaim and exercise justice and equality, I have no problems with LGBT people being married and have the same rights as any other heterosexual human being.

 

It violates common sense to discriminate a fellow human being just because he or she is gay. It is not right.

 

Of course, I kept such sentiments to myself, especially not in front of my fighter pilot friend.

 

Alas in Singapore, it is still quite a taboo in Christian circles to speak of homosexuality as being acceptable.

 

Besides, secular society in Singapore is still rather antiquated. Although homosexuality is tolerated, it is still not accepted as normal. It is constantly being frowned upon by many sectors of society.

 

It is also one of the final sins of Christianity that have yet to be purged from the historical and ongoing consciousness of the ecclesia of Jesus.

 

God forgive us for being witch hunters. Forgive us for being murderers. Forgive us for behaving so unlike Jesus.

 

*******