stillhaventfound.org

I’ve been reading Bill Johnson’s books and I came across this quote:

By nature love does not require anything in return, or it is not love… I have heard teaching on the subject of giving to the poor and needy that emphasizes our stewardship instead of compassion. It basically means that you don’t want to give to someone who will not use what was given properly. My opinion is that there is too much concern about giving something to someone who might misuse what is given. That didn’t stop God. While we do have a responsibility for good management of what God has given us, we are not responsible for what another person does with what we’ve given them. We are responsible to love, and love requires giving. Even if a person misuses the money or gift I gave them, the message of love has been demonstrated. Giving His love away is the goal. (Bill Johnson, Face To Face With God, p. 187-188)

Because the subject of helping the poor has been a big part of my life for some time, I’ve thought a lot about the issues that Bill Johnson wrote about above. Like him, I agree that in focusing on stewardship instead of compassion when addressing the subject of giving, we could miss the essence of what love and grace is about - actions which do not “require anything in return”.

We hear so much about that famous Chinese proverb:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

While I think there’s certainly truth and wisdom in it, I also think that pushing the implications of the above to the extreme can actually cause one to miss the essence of what grace and love is.

In 2003, while in Colombia (teaching English and learning Spanish), I was faced with the question of whether to continue to give money to a beggar and her family I met on the streets. Was it wise to continuously give them fish, or should I make sure that my money goes to teaching them how to fish? I pondered the above proverb and I reflected upon the meaning of grace. Below are my reflections taken from here:

“So I was confronted with the question of whether my helping Isabel and giving her family money was a good thing. Or perhaps, it was a good thing, but was it a wise thing? Or was it the wisest response in such a situation? In a way, it’s like when one meets a beggar. Should we give money to him/her? Giving to the beggar is just like giving to Isabel (she is after all begging for money) – in both circumstances, we would be giving a fish to the recipient rather than teaching him/her how to fish.

Should I continue giving to Isabel or somehow make sure that my giving to her would result in her working and thus earning her way to self-sufficiency? If I were to continue giving “fishes” to Isabel, rather than making sure she fishes for herself, would I thus be considered a bad steward of my money? Wouldn’t I be of better use if I were to somehow help her to get a job? Wouldn’t it be more right for her too if she were to earn her wages rather than depend on charity to survive?

Although the reasoning behind the “fish” quote is indeed true and wise, I realized that we could indeed take all this too far. What I mean is that we could start thinking that we should not give to the poor if indeed nothing comes out of it – if there is no long-term results to show for our charity. We could start thinking that we need to make them earn their wages and not rely on us for charity. In a way, we could fall into the spirit of the very famous saying (which many people think is taken from the Bible, but is in actual fact not) that “God helps those who help themselves” and thus think it wrong to help those who do not show they want to put in effort to help themselves. While all this in some sense no doubt true, I realized it is dangerous because this spirit could easily go contrary to the spirit of grace. That is, we could forget what grace means. Grace is unconditional giving. It is not conditional at all. By coming up with criteria to be fulfilled before we start giving, our giving ceases to be unconditional. Whether the criteria is imposed on the recipient or merely guides us as to whom we should be giving doesn’t really matter. As long as we don’t give freely – as long as we are being in any way conditional in our giving – we do not understand what grace really is. After all, Jesus didn’t die for the sins of certain people who fulfilled certain criteria, He died for all. When He loved us, he didn’t love only some but all. And when He called us to love others, He didn’t specify who we are to love – except that we are to love all without exception. When we give to others, we are called to give without expecting anything in return. We aren’t asked to give only to those who would use our money wisely. Rather, the only criteria, if any, which needs to be fulfilled before we give, is that those given ought to have needed it.

I came to this conclusion after much struggle within me. Initially, I had told myself that I should be giving for a good purpose. And a good purpose would be if my giving would help Isabel to get a job and thus support herself. There would thus be a long-term effect. In a sense, I would be leaving a little “legacy” of my giving. I would be proud in future to let others know that I gave to help this person who now has a job and is self-supportive. But I realized that this kind of thinking could go very much against the spirit of grace. I wanted to get something out of it – to get the satisfaction of having made a big difference to Isabel’s life. In a sense, my giving was conditional upon the fact that it would lead to something big. But I realized grace doesn’t make such conditions. Jesus loved us all and died for us all even if some would never have accepted His love. Or even if some would have accepted His love but still fail over and over again. That’s grace!

I’m not saying that using our money wisely is not something we ought to do. Obviously we should do that. The parable of the talents encourages us to be responsible for the use of our money. We should use it in such a way that it blesses others and that there are results to show. If we were to go by the parable of the talents alone, then the “fish” quote would indeed be wise and right and ought to be followed. Then we should think about using our money as best as we can and not just give unconditionally, but making sure that results follow. Indeed, the parable of the talents reminds us that we should not be lazy and thus when we give money to people, we need to make sure they are not just lazy and “consume” our gifts but they will invest wisely with it – preferably to learn how to fish, not just to buy fishes! The parable of the talents has a sort of “meritorious” feel to it.

I acknowledge that God does want us to be responsible with the way we use money. We need to put it to good use. But on the other hand, there’s the notion of grace. And grace has absolutely no “meritorious” feel at all! God is a God of grace. His love for us is more of reckless abandon than a calculative sort. The parable of the talents has to be balanced with the understanding of what grace is all about. When we think about grace, we banish all notions of merits or conditions. After all, in the bible there are hints of both capitalism (in the parable of the talents and such) and communism/communalism (Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:32-35, 2 Corinthians 8-9). And let us not forget that the idea most prominent and preeminent in the bible is that of love and grace.

My point in all of this is that I realized how easily it is for one to forget the idea of grace. And in terms of giving and development, I believe remembering about grace should cause us not to think so much about how our giving produces good long term results, but should instead remind us that even if our giving were to produce nothing in the long term, but were only to be a short term and one-time expression of grace and love, grace would compel us to do it anyway.”

I’m an Obama supporter. Not a huge one. But if I were an American, I would vote for Obama. I have my own reasons (and they stem from my Christian convictions) and I’ve done my own research. But I try not to make politics too divisive an issue and so you’re not going to get me to convince you to be an Obama supporter, although I’ll try to explain why I am one.

I’m passionate about social justice. But politics? I try not to be too passionate about it because both sides of the political divide are all imperfect and play the game of politics well. Neither McCain/Palin nor Obama/Biden are going to be our saviours. And I’m sure God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

Recently, I got into a little email-conversation with someone who was totally anti-Obama. I was meant to receive Christian emails from him. But in addition to that, he thought it necessary to also send his mailing list anti-Obama emails - probably to make sure that we Christians become on the side that (he thinks) God is on. I endured this for a while but after receiving more of such emails (than the Christian mails that I signed up for to receive), I wrote to him and told him I was offended by the emails because they were not balanced. I said I didn’t mind discussion and debate on the issues, but the articles he sent were just too one-sided. One promoted an awful Focus on the Family letter that’s mentioned here. I told him that I wanted to receive his Christian emails, but not his political ones. Too much passion and too little substance. That’s politics. Just like some of our theological debates.

I’m all for conversation and discussion about politics, just as I’m all for conversation and discussion about theology. However, I’ve seen theological and political discussion become too dirty and un-Christian. I’ve tried to make sure that the theological discussions here don’t go overboard. So far, I don’t think it has. But I know how often it can. People talking past one another. People just trying to show that they are right and everyone else is wrong. People starting to attack the character of others.

To be sure, I think discussing political and theological issues are important. But there are some rules I think we should all abide by when we have such sensitive discussions. In the first place, don’t start to attack people’s characters who differ from you. Don’t denigrate their intelligence because they differ from you. And please don’t insinuate that others are a lesser Christian than you because they hold to a different theological or political stance. Instead, we should focus on the issues. And do so in a level-headed way and without inciting fear and hatred against those you disagree with, like the above article.

While I’m very interested in politics, I don’t see the need for it to be divisive simply because there are much more important things than politics in this world. The church is not called to take over the world or any government. We’ve already seen how that worked out in history and I don’t think we want to go back to that. But of course, there are Christians who think that God is on one side of the political divide in America. It’s only recently that more and more younger Christians are recognizing that God is not a Republican. That doesn’t mean He’s a Democrat, either. I think He’d rather us channel our passion into preaching the gospel and loving others.

But because so many Christians still think that a Christian has to support the Republican candidate because it’s God’s will, I’ll list some points (and refer to other websites) on why I think it’s OK for a Christian to support either side (even the Democratic side) and why we shouldn’t let such politics divide us:

1) Let me start with John Piper on the “prophetic perspective” and the “gospel” which he shares here.

The prophetic perspective is what the church needs here. By that I mean, we don’t live for politics. We don’t base our confidence about the future on whoever gets elected… Let those who vote and do politics do it as though they were not doing it. Which means there’s a kind of engagement that is not all-consuming. There’s a kind of voting, a kind of doing politics, a kind of advocacy which is not investing our whole selves into it. Because we’re not here fully. We have a foot in heaven and a foot on the earth. We’re citizens of two kingdoms. This is not our main home. This world is passing away… This system is disappearing so therefore we shouldn’t be so worked up about our opponent getting elected that it’s going to undo our life… So the prophetic perspective says, “I am God’s child. Jesus is my King. America is not my allegiance. God and heaven are my allegiance and God can turn this for good no matter who gets elected and I will always be pursuing his kingdom first and let the political chips fall where they will.”

…We need the gospel. We need to say the reason we’re on planet earth is not to advocate for any political party. We’re here to advocate for Christ and Him Crucified. And that gospel may run a thousand times better during the worst of economic times than it does during the best of economic times.

There’s no need to invest so much in this election or in one’s candidate as though it’s a life and death matter. It’s not. We need a proper perspective here. For this, understanding (see point two below) what it means by us being “citizens of two kingdoms” is imperative.

2) The White Horse Inn is an excellent radio program that has shaped a lot of my Christian thinking since about 10 years plus ago. This program addresses things from a Reformation perspective. In fact, the people of this program (e.g. Michael Horton) have been instrumental in me forming the kind of view of grace and the gospel which I hold to now. I may not agree with everything they say but they are definitely one of the better Christian ministries out there of an intellectual bent that keep the central things (the gospel) central.

In a recent two-part series (part one & part two) on Christianity and Politics, the program tackles this “from the vantage point of Reformation Christianity where there is a whole history here that has a lot to say about the two kingdoms, about the way the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world relate to each other, about our citizenship in both kingdoms.” They bring a Democrat and a Republican to the table.

3) One of the major reasons why Christians have traditionally voted Republican is because of the party’s anti-abortion stance. As Christians, we should no doubt be against abortion. But does that mean we automatically support the Republican candidate? I don’t think it’s an automatic choice and more and more Christians are starting to realize that.

As with most issues, this is more complex than many Christians make it out to be. All Christians ought to be united against abortion, but also against poverty and racism and many other issues. Traditionally, the Republican side is strong on the abortion issue, but weak in many others in which the Democratic side is strong. It’s thus a tricky question as to which side we ought to support. Those who say that the abortion issue is more important than other issues may have a strong argument. But then again, it’s not as easy as that. There are lots of other issues to consider in terms of implementing one’s ideal, which John G. Stackhouse Jr. does well of addressing in his Christianity Today article. Check out his description of three kinds of people who undertake political action: ideologue, pragmatist and pluralist:

The ideologue has it easiest. He simply asks himself, in any situation on any issue, what’s ultimately right. Then he does everything he can to realize that ideal. That’s the way many Christians have engaged in political action, whether on the Left, Right, or whatever.

…The pragmatist also starts with the question of what’s ultimately right. But then she carefully appraises the situation and works for what she deems currently possible. If abortion is wrong, but the best she can do is get a ban on partial-birth abortions, she works for that. If gay marriage is wrong, but the best she can do is see “civil unions” instituted instead, then that’s what she aims for.

The pluralist asks what’s ultimately right and what’s currently possible. But he interposes a third, admittedly odd question between those two: What is penultimately right? Might it be God’s will that what is ultimately right not prevail immediately?

The pluralist Christian might have strong views about x. He is also pragmatic enough to know that a total ban on alternatives to his views of x is unlikely in his society. But he is also willing to consider the possibility that in God’s providence, it is better for there to be more than one view of x allowed in society. He might see that, yes, ultimately God’s will is to get rid of this or that, but penultimately it serves God’s purposes for society to allow this or that to remain.

Let’s consider an easy example. It is ultimately better that all speech be accurate, eloquent, and edifying. But most of us Christians think it’s best for our societies to allow for considerable freedom in speech. For some good things to happen, we concede, some not-so-good things and even some bad things must be allowed to remain.

Understanding the above, one would understand how a Christian who is against abortion can still vote for a party that is pro-choice. John tackles the issue of same-sex marriage/civil-unions here:

She (the Christian politician) might also, however, ask the third, intermediate question as to whether it is best, all things considered (including the face that Christians want to present to the general public on behalf of the gospel), for Christians to push for their own view of marriage. Might the values of the kingdom of God be advanced better by Christians compromising on that question at least somewhat, while preserving state support for such values as covenantal faithfulness between people, mutual support, and so on? Or will the gospel go forth better and more shalom be made even if Christians are widely seen as homophobic and imperialistic, rather than accommodating and tolerant of some things they clearly don’t like?

Thus, the Christian politician might vote for the state to call same-sex unions “marriages,” while preserving the rights of religious groups to reserve their own marriage ceremonies only for those unions they can conscientiously bless. Or she might want to take the word “marriage” out of the state’s vocabulary entirely and endorse “civil unions” or “registered domestic partnerships” instead. Or she might well decide instead that traditional Christian teaching about marriage is exactly what is needed in her society, and so she votes that way.

The crucial thing to note is that she might well have done her job properly to come out in support of any of those three alternative policies. She has voted according to what she felt was the way to secure the most shalom for her constituencies and for her country, and according to what she thinks will best advance the redemptive plan of God.

Understanding the complexity of the abortion issue, we’ll refrain from accusing others of being a bad Christian if they don’t support the Republican Party. If one can get over the fact that it’s OK to support a party that is pro-choice, then I think the choice should be clear - at least to me! :) In my opinion (see below), in terms of integrity, honesty, temperament and policies (especially as it relates to the poor), there’s just too much in favor of Obama. Obama’s campaign has not been perfect and like every other political campaign, there’s been dishonesty involved. But that can’t be compared to McCain’s campaign, with even many Republicans criticizing the level he’s been stooping to in order to win people over. We’re all for good discussion and debate, but using fear tactics just don’t win many people (especially the younger crowd) over. However, I do acknowledge that a Christian can still vote for McCain for his policies (especially his stance on abortion), eventhough I do hope they disavow some of his more extreme and un-Christian tactics.

(A point to note here in relation to integrity, honesty and policies is that the McCain of old is widely acknowledged to be much better than the recent one we’ve seen. In terms of policies, he was more independent of the Republican party (he WAS a true maverick) and in terms of integrity and honesty, he wouldn’t have stood for a lot of the politically motivated and dishonest attacks on Obama that his campaign has made up recently. But that’s what running for an election can do to one. Politics is dirty and it always will be. I’ve also been disappointed with some of Obama’s campaign stuff but they haven’t been as extreme or dishonest as some of McCain’s stuff. Ultimately, this is politics and no doubt the two of them have played the game of politics. That’s how it’ll always be for in politics it’s often about the ends justifying the means - which as I state here that while I’m not a fan of such an approach, I recognize it may sometimes be necessary.)

Again, the point is not that Christians should vote for Obama, but rather that there’s a legitimate case for both candidates. We wouldn’t be any less of a Christian if we voted for Obama or McCain.

4) Here’s a list of links that state the case for a Christian supporting Obama. This is only because I think many Christians don’t understand how a Christian could support him. There are far too many pro-McCain/Palin Christian articles that we need to hear the case for the other side too. At least then we’ll have a better grasp of the issues involved. Again, even if you don’t agree, you wouldn’t hear me tell you you’re not a good Christian. I’ll just say, “That’s great. Now, let’s focus on the gospel together!”

- The Pro-Life Pro-Obama and Matthew 25 website. Naturally biased. Read with a pinch of salt as when you read pro-McCain websites. But at least one will understand the complexities of the abortion issue.

-  Read some thoughts by Don Miller, the evangelical leader who prayed during the Democratic National Convention: his blog and Christianity Today’s blog.

- Read why two Christians in Singapore support Obama. One is Tony Siew, a NT lecturer in Trinity Theological College (who has a series on “Barracking 4 Barack” if you search his archives) and the other is Kenny (aka Blogpastor) who pastors a church in Singapore.

- Let me also add a link to theologian Ben Witherington’s An Evangelicals Voters Guide which I don’t think is pro-Obama, but definitely worth a read. Also The Seattle Times has  an article that describes why many young evangelicals are moving away from supporting the Republican party.

5) Lastly, I want to end with some of my own thoughts. Brothers and sisters, even if you disagree passionately with my support for Obama, explain your disagreement with level-headedness and substance, not just raw passion. It’s stuff like what Focus on the Family put out that makes many Christians (both McCain and Obama supporters) cringe. There’s a way to debate and there’s a way not to debate.

As for my thoughts, they are not cast in stone. I believe many Christians believe the same way as me, and so if you’re a Christian that think that other Christians should only vote Republican, I invite you to read what the above people have to say and what I have to say below.

Firstly, I’m very sympathatic to Christians who share the same sentiments as John Piper when he said here:

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office… I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office.

I’m very sympathatic to what John Piper says here, though this doesn’t convince me to deny my support for Obama. In the first place, Obama isn’t pro-abortion; He’s pro-choice. He may have a different view about abortion from many Christians, but that doesn’t mean he is pro-abortion, and this needs to be recognized. He made his pro-choice decision after taking into consideration many complex factors. Personally, he’s said he’s against abortion, and I believe that. Still, most Christians may differ from him, but that doesn’t make him a person who is happy to kill unborn children as many Christians make pro-choice candidates out to be. To portray pro-choice candidates as happy murderers without also acknowledging the complexity of the issue involved is as simplistic as thinking that voting Republican would reduce abortions or eventually result in the banning of abortion, and also as simplistic as thinking that banning abortion will solve the abortion problem. It’s as simplistic as viewing Obama or McCain as the saviour or devil incarnate.

Being too simplistic is not being honest. And speaking of dishonesty, there’s also been a lot of dishonest stuff about Obama’s views on abortion going around. But eventhough one acknowledges the above complexities involved in the abortion issue, I still think there’s a good case for Christians taking a much stronger stance against abortion than Obama has taken. So I’m sympathetic to the view of many Christians who say that they can’t support Obama. But that still doesn’t convince me not to do so.

Maybe I’ll be convinced when the Republican party actually does more to reduce abortions than the Democratic candidate. It’s one thing to hold a theoretical stance against abortion (and for the most part, it’s merely a theoretical stance at the moment), but another to actually create policies that help women choose to avoid abortion. I don’t see the point in endorsing a candidate/party which is pro-life in theory but doesn’t do much to actually make a difference in terms of reducing abortions now. Ultimately, it’s about the number of lives saved, not about theoretical beliefs, not even about one’s ideals and goals if they face very little possibility of being achieved. And I think one must recognize that even if one day abortion is banned throughout America, the problem won’t be fully solved. Rather, it will actually create a whole lot of other problems (e.g. underground abortions), not the least of which is how our Christian witness would be affected. This IS a big deal because we Christians have a really huge image problem of being judgmental and anti-this and anti-that and I think that’s way off from the image Jesus portrayed. Kinda contradicts the message of love and acceptance that the gospel is all about. I’m not saying this is a reason not to try and get it banned, but clearly whatever we do, we can do it in an infinitely wiser, more thoughtful and more compassionate way.

So looking at things from the perspective of now and the near future, I can’t see how the Republican policies can actually do a better job at reducing abortions than the Democratic policies, which are more holistic and comprehensive in nature. And even if the Republican policies do a better job at saving lives now, they would only do a slightly better job. Probably not enough to win me over because I see the Democratic party as offering so much more overall - in terms of a better foreign policy (that incites less hatred and war), better creation-care and better help for the poor. All these are consistent with my Christian values. In fact, my Christian convictions demands that I be concerned about promoting peace (and not war), that I care for God’s creation and that I help the poor.

So I’m sympathetic with “single-issue” Christian voters who harp on abortion. I’m not going to say this single-issue is only one of many, because it may be true that it’s the biggest of all and it’s the most important one. But unless the Republican party can really make that great a difference in terms of saving so much more lives than the Democratic party can, I’ll refrain from giving my support based on any single issue, but would consider a wide range of issues that appeal to me as a Christian.

(I just want to say here that I would also like to see Christians not just talk about abortion being the greatest evil, but actually sacrificially contribute to reducing abortions. We Christians are known for a lot of rhetoric about abortion and that doesn’t do our witness good if we’re not willing to walk the talk. Not just in supporting more and better government policies that help prevent women from making the decision to abort their babies. But are we willing to personally get involved? For example, would we be willing to support greater taxes (even if it’s just on Christians - since after all it’s seen as a great evil to us, not non-Christians) so that the money can be used to support adoption or even house unwanted babies? Would we personally sign-up to adopt an unwanted baby? If we really believe in the preciousness of such lives, we would not hesitate to do all this. I’m not saying that if we fail to commit to such sacrificial efforts then we should stop talking so much about banning abortion. But rather, we should do both and it’ll greatly help our witness and give us credibility if we’re willing to walk the talk.)

I said above that I may be won over to the Republican side if they actually do more to reduce abortions and not just talk about it. However, I would also hope to see the anti-abortion party (be it the Republican or otherwise) actually care for the poor and not just the rich. I’m stunned to see Christians latching onto Obama’s plan to distribute wealth to the less well-off and taking this opportunity to label him as a socialist, which to Americans at least (see below) is meant to be an insult. Though I’m not surprised. In recent history at least, Christianity hasn’t been known for its heart for the poor. I think Christians shouldn’t make a big deal when the rich are taxed higher so that the poor can benefit. I’m wondering what the world thinks of us Christians if we get so worked out when that happens. Sure, the NT supports voluntary giving and sharing, not compulsory redistribution by the government. Although I do think that there’s a huge case to be made that the OT laws, while not directly applicable to us as we’re under the New Covenant and no country is a theocracy, have a lot to say about compulsory redistribution by the government.

Whatever the case, how exactly does it reflect upon us Christians if we boast in not wanting our tax money to help the poor? Are we so self-centered that we’d rather claim our “right” to our hard-earned money (I’m not sure what “rights” we have as Christians at all - we ought to have it all surrendered unto the Lord), than see the poor be helped by allowing the government to redistribute some? And what does it say when most of the people who accept such redistribution (traditionally and still a Democratic value) are actually non-Christians - as most voters to the Democratic party have been non-Christians.

While to many Americans, socialism is a dirty word, it’s striking to hear how Singapore’s Vivian Balakrishnan actually sees it as something positive. He said very recently:

We are still socialist. If you go anywhere in the world and you pick the poorest 10 per cent and you compare their homes, their schools, their hospitals and their jobs, we have done better than all Communist countries and all capitalist countries. Don’t ever let the opposition paint us as people who do not care about those who are less well-off.

I’m no fan of the PAP government, but he’s absolutely right. An extreme socialist government (hardly what America would be under the Democrats) is of course no good, but a bit of redistribution is actually a good thing for the poor! Yes, it’s not good for the rich. But since when would God support the rich over helping the poor?

While I agree that at least in terms of position (and not actual results), the Republican party’s stance on abortion is the one that evangelicals ought to support, on almost every other important issue that relates to Christianity (healthcare, taxes, foreign policy, creation care & poverty), the Democratic side is, at least in my opinion, clearly more in line with the values of Christians. Therefore I believe both parties have their strong points and that’s why I believe that a Christian can vote for either party. For me at least, it’s not become so clear that one party is overwhelmingly better than the other. I disagree with Christians who say that the Democratic party is overwhelmingly a better choice for Christians, just as I disagree with Christians who say the same of the Republican party. I wish for a party that adopts the anti-abortion stance of the Republican party (though adopts it in a much wiser and results-driven way) and the anti-poverty, pro-creation care, healthcare and foreign policy stance of the Democratic party. Till that happens, I can’t passionately support any party. And even if that happens, I would be wise to remember to temper my support for such a party, for politics ought never to evoke more passion from a Christian than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ultimately, whatever happens in a day’s time or so will be good for the church as we (hopefully) get our focus right once again, uniting on the gospel and loving the world to Jesus Christ!

UPDATE: He won :) The world is very happy and I am too. Maybe a bit guilty for being so happy. Haha. After all, I have to remember that it’s all about Jesus and His kingdom. I know Obama has a lot on his hands, but I’m confident that he will be a great President, though my hope is not in him, but Him! I don’t think I’ll be disappointed because I don’t expect the world from him. He’s still a politician after all. The world is still complex (if not more), and decisions are always going to be difficult to make - and not all will be popular. While he’s not perfect and he’s definitely no savior, I do believe that deep inside he’s someone who cares and truly wants to help people. I did believe (more or less) the same of George W. Bush (I think we should always try to give people the benefit of the doubt!), but the difference I think is that in Obama we have a more intelligent, more thoughtful and a wiser person with much better policies for America and the world.

I’m glad to see more Christians are moving over to support the Democratic party. I do NOT support Obama’s pro-choice policies or views on abortion and a lot of us progressive evangelicals who supported Obama are pro-life and still care much about this issue - just that we do so in a different way from the religious right.

I do believe the many progressive pro-life evangelicals that supported Obama will continue to put pressure on him on the abortion issue. I’ll definitely be praying for great wisdom for Obama in this area, but also that he’ll be a great president for the poor countries and people around the world by doing more to help them.

My thoughts are with the Burmese people. It’s good to see some people in Singapore (not all Burmese, some Singaporeans too) caring about what’s happening there (see here, here and here). Here’s an article on the role of my pragmatic (read: spineless) and hypocritical government in the oppression of the Burmese people.

Ever since I first became interested in climate change 20 years ago, there was something nagging in the back of my mind. I’d heard this story before and I couldn’t pin it down; I just couldn’t. And then one night I was trying to get to sleep, but my brain was racing too fast, and it suddenly came to me. It was Faust. Both Doctor Faustus in Christopher Marlowe’s version, and Faust in Goethe’s version could be metaphors for climate change.

In Marlowe’s version, Doctor Faustus strikes a deal with the devil that if he can have 24 years living in luxuriousness, the devil can then have his soul. He prepares himself for this by denying that hell exists, and at the end, he’s carried off.

Faust is humankind - always striving, curious, restless, never satisfied, wanting to discover more, to explore more, to consume more, create more, destroy more. He is all of us. And, indeed, Marlowe intended that he is all of us.

The years in which he can live in all voluptuousness are the years of extraordinary freedom that we have been granted by fossil fuels; to do things which previous generations have only dreamt of doing; to have magical powers very similar to Faust’s powers.

Now in Goethe’s version, Faust strikes his bargain with the devil, but it’s a slightly different bargain. He says, “You can have my soul after 24 years, but on one condition: only if I become complacent and smug, and stop striving and stop questioning.”

So he begins by living in all voluptuousness, getting everything he wants, the wine, the women, the amazing food and the power to astonish people. He enjoys all that for a few years, and he thinks, “I’m wasting these extraordinary diabolical powers that I have been granted. I ought use them for the good of human kind. I want to create better conditions for people to live in.” And he strives to use these powers - fossil fuels, in my reading - to create a world that didn’t require diabolical powers, in which everybody could be comfortable without having to call on the devil.

(George Monbiot)

But taking a serious look back… I do have one big regret.

I left Harvard with no real awareness of the awful inequities in the world—the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity that condemn millions of people to lives of despair.

I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas in economics and politics. I got great exposure to the advances being made in the sciences.

But humanity’s greatest advances are not in its discoveries—but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity—reducing inequity is the highest human achievement.

I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developing countries.

It took me decades to find out.

(Bill Gates, Commencement address to the Harvard University class of 2007)

I dunno whether I’ll continue to write much here this year. I think it’s a sign that I’m living closer to my dreams if I read and write less! It’s about living the life after all, not just thinking about it.

No doubt, the mind is important. The two most important and fascinating intellectual pursuits over the past few years for me have been Theology and International Development. Interest in the former dates back at least 10 years when I truly became a Christian, while that of the latter started from around 2001.

I do have a great interest in going into the more academic arena. I love to read and do research, and I also love to teach. I love to reflect and think - and also to challenge people (especially youths) to do that.

Some people who know me well have encouraged me to further my studies and get my PhD. No doubt, that’s been a bit of a temptation, but never much. I’ve never really believed in furthering my studies. In a way, it goes against my principles. It’s too costly and time consuming and I don’t think it’s what the world needs.

I know people will say that your PhD and your certificates get you places. It gives you the credibility you need and allows your voice to be heard. No doubt that’s true. The world looks well upon such degrees. But that doesn’t mean we need to conform to what the world wants. I don’t think God gives a damn about whether you have a PhD or even whether you have a basic Bachelor degree. I don’t think God cares even 1% as much as we do about our titles, awards and certificates. These are all wordly concerns, things we easily put our trust in - to the detriment of our own faith in God.

(I’ve always believed that the greatest in the Kingdom of God aren’t those we hear about - be it that great theologian, that great pastor or that great leader. All the greatest have probably never been in the limelight. They probably don’t network as well or have as many friends as the leaders we know. The greatest are simply those who fear God - not man - the most, those who seek the praises of God first, not that of man.)

Make no mistake. I am all for thinking critically. I think Christians would practice their faith better if they were more critical (and holistic!) in their theological understanding. I think development practitioners and NGOs would better be able to help the poor if they were more critical in their understanding of development issues. Furthermore, as a Christian, Jesus also asked us to worship God with our minds. So using one’s mind is very important.

But having said that, I think we have too many people who only read, talk and write. Too many people who read too much, talk to much and write too much - and live too little. There’s just too little living of the life.

The Christian world doesn’t need more theologians, it needs more missionaries. It needs to de-emphasize the importance of academic requirements for entry into pastoral or missionary ministry. Since when in the early Church did missionaries or pastors need to go through theological training to qualify? The focus on all other matters but living needs to decrease. And I’m all for young Christians [in terms of both their spiritual or physical (age) maturity level] becoming a pastor or missionary.

I spent the last 6 months on a huge charity project, and as meaningful as that may be, it’s not something that truly satisfies me. In fact, it leaves me deeply unsatisfied - just like my life for as long as I can remember.

I don’t really care about my “career”. I am not interested in making as many friends as possible or networking widely to get places. I don’t really care about my reputation or name. People seek comfort in all these things. People take years to increase their stature in these areas. But to me, I’ve always wanted something different. None of these ultimately satisfies.

To me, the most important thing is to serve the poor and lost together with a person I can love and treasure. Even if that meant leaving blogging, leaving writing, leaving reading, leaving my family, leaving my friends, leaving the modern and developed world to start really living the life - that would still be more than satisfying.

There is no greater meaning or satisfaction than to serve the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ wholeheartedly - even if it means dying for Christ. Many in this world are lost and dying. Billions are in poverty. If only I could leave Singapore this year and serve Him wholeheartedly with someone I love. It’s not about whether one is ready. The time is always now…

That would be my new year’s wish…

There’s been a lot of excitement here as we welcome over 15,000 foreigners to Singapore for this year’s IMF/World Bank meetings from 12 to 20 September. The IMF and World Bank are two of the four most powerful international organizations that deal with development issues - the other two being the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The World Bank job scope is loans for the development of developing countries while the IMF deals with the stabalization of the international monetary system and the world’s currencies.

I’ve decided not to touch on controversies surrounding Singapore’s ban on outdoor protests because, simply put, international issues are infinitely more interesting than local ones =) These meetings aren’t about Singapore, but about the World Bank and the IMF. And if we should be discussing about anything, it’s about them and how their policies have affected the developing countries. And so I’ll share my thoughts about this below, which will also reflect where I am in terms of my views on various development issues:

Let me start by saying that I began getting interested in international development issues in around 2000 or 2001. From 2002 to 2005, I studied in Australia (University of New South Wales) and Canada (University of Toronto) and worked some time in Colombia in South America. I graduated with an Arts degree with majors in both Development Studies and Politics & International Relations. Most of my courses focused on development theory and development economics, which are really about international politics and economics, which are really about many things related to globalization. So all these have been my interest for years.

And very early on in this journey, I adopted a more leftist and radical viewpoint. Within the first few weeks of the start of my university life, I attended a socialist conference. I attended many other meetings and events by the socialist groups there. The anti-globalization movement was more vibrant then than it is now. And back then, I considered myself part of the anti-globalization movement. To me, free trade was close to being evil and those who promoted it only had the interests of the rich in mind. I even wrote some letters to The Straits Times defending the movement. Most of my professors too were very leftist. Some were more moderate, but I don’t recall any of right-wing persuasion. So during these early years of my encounters with development issues, I was firmly rooted in the anti-globalization camp.

However, as I started to delve more and more into the issues, I started to realize that globalization (free trade, foreign direct investment, etc.) has its pros and cons. I started to realize that things weren’t so simple after all. All these issues were more complex than I had thought or than the anti-globalization movement had made it up to be. Indeed, one thing I’ve come to realize in life is that things are seldom simple or straight forward. There are reasons for different viewpoints of an issue and it’s important to understand both sides well before taking a strong position. That’s one thing I learnt in my journey as a Christian and that’s one thing I have come to learn in this journey too.

So where am I now? I would consider myself more moderate right now. I would describe my political persuasion as centre-left. I still hold quite leftist views, though I also understand why others may hold a more right-wing view. I do not simplistically think that those who believe strongly in market forces only do so because it benefits them (the rich). I may not agree with the right-wing view but at least I do understand where they are coming from.

As I’m critical of the right-wing placing too much emphasis on the magic of the market, so I’m critical of many in the left-wing who overreact in the opposite manner by demonizing the market. Another thing I’ve learnt in life: we overreact. Things normally happens like this: Group A starts to underemphasize a particular area. People start to realize this underemphasis and come together to address the problem. They become group B. In reaction to the lack of emphasis by group A in that particular area, group B overreacts and so places too much emphasis on that particular area.

After the Second World War, the Dependency Theory (left-wing) school of thought which emphasized the importance of the role of the state and government reigned. Eventually, inefficiency and corruption became prevalent due to strong government intervention. From the 1970s and especially from the 1980s onwards, the reaction to what was perceived as an over-emphasis on the state and an underemphasis on the markets took place. The right-wing conservative economic ideology (you can call it the Washington Consensus, neoliberalism, market fundamentalism, etc.) started to become more dominant. This wasn’t just a reaction. It was an over-reaction. Whereas before the left-wing thought that a strong state would cure poverty, the right-wing now started to push the idea that unfettered free markets were the way to go.

The anti-globalization movement is a movement against this free market ideology. It has done much good in pointing out the faults of a pervasive free market economy. But alas, I believe it still is a movement that has overreacted - at least the majority in it has overreacted. Seeing hardly any positives in markets is just as bad as seeing hardly any positives in state intervention. Both views hardly do any good for poor countries.

I believe nowadays the consensus (mainstream, at least) is quite clear: both the market and the government have a role to play. It’s not about either the market or the government. It’s both/and. It may be surprising for many in the anti-globalization movement to know that the World Bank nowadays does not hold to an extreme pro-free market view. They do not hold to an extreme Washington Consensus / market fundamentalism / neoliberal economic view. They actually realize that a balance is needed between market and state. It is common to hear people criticizing the World Bank and IMF about their imposition of Structural Adjustment Programs on developing countries and how that has exacerbated poverty. While I have no doubt that all this is true, a lot of this probably has to do more with the past than the present. These two organizations have realized their mistakes. They have learnt from them. Organizations do learn. If they stay stagnant, they die. I think we need to realize too that the World Bank and IMF, while they still have got to reform in a lot of ways, have changed their thinking over the years. For example, in a great paper (totally worth a thorough read through) co-authored by the World Bank’s former President James Wolfensohn, he acknowledges that

The development community has also adopted more pragmatic means of achieving development, moving toward country specificity and flexible analysis and away from the twin dogmas of pervasive state control (1960s-1970s) and unregulated markets (1980s-early 1990s).

…With the dogmas of the state-market debate came an insistence on “monocausal” explanations of development. This led to one-size-fits-all policy approaches, as the general models left little room for actual conditions. When mainstream development thinking discarded one model in favor of another, the result was too often major changes in policy recommendations without room for nuance. The most recent (though certainly not most simplistic) manifestation of this was the Washington Consensus at the beginning of the 1990s. Its list of preconditions for growth encapsulated many neoliberal precepts in what was often interpreted as a neat recipe for development. Perhaps unfairly, that Consensus came to stand for a package of measures aimed largely at getting the government out of the economy - and it was applied with excessive uniformity across countries.

Common sense tells us that no one approach will work everywhere, since the binding constraints to development are unlikley to be the same across countries.

To be sure, saying one believes in one thing is very different from actually practicing it. However, I doubt what Wolfensohn wrote was merely for political correctness. I do believe that the World Bank as an organization endorses the above call to 1) recognize the complementarity of states and markets and 2) recognize that the country context is crucial when going from general theory to specific policy. But one ought also to note that it takes time for theory to get to the ground. Many countries may still be suffering from policies World Bank imposed years back when it still leaned strongly towards a market-fundamentalism view of economics.

What all these shows is that the World Bank is not ignorant of its failures. It is not ignorant of what critics of Structural Adjustment and neoliberalism say. It is aware and it has responded by an evolution of its policies. This is not to say that the World Bank and the IMF have got it all right now or that there is no need for protests and criticisms when their policies fail. However, it is to say that the World Bank isn’t filled with people who are out to do evil. The economists there aren’t out to create more poverty, but to eradicate it. If they have failed, it’s just that: they have failed. Yes, if they have failed, they ought to be criticized. Indeed, it’s a big thing to fail in what they do as many lives are at stake. And yes, they do need to be more careful in future. But there is simply no need to demonize the World Bank as if they are out to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I’m sure the World Bank economists have good hearts and genuinely desire to see poverty eradicated. It is also good to remember that the World Bank isn’t one person. The institution isn’t autocratically run and I’m sure not all economists there agree with each other.

All in all, I think while there is no doubt that the World Bank and IMF had put its weight behind the neoliberal economic ideology of unfettered free markets for many years, things have been changing and they have been learning from past mistakes.

However, I do think that such changes could not have taken place without the pressures by civil society groups throughout the world. The anti-globalization movement has thus had a good effect upon these institutions. Without such pressures, the institutions may not have learnt or changed and people may not have realized the detrimental effects neoliberal economic policies have had in the developing countries. So full credit to the protests of the movement. Full credit to civil society organizations. My hope, however, is that protesters start to wise up and be more familiar with the issues. Protesters should not just make a lot of noise; they should also make the right kind of noise. They should criticize the right thing and fight for the right kind of change. For the sake of the poor and the integrity of the movement, it behooves them to be more acute in their analysis and understanding of the issues. They need to be moved less by rhetoric and guided more by accurate reasoning.

—–

I think it is very important for anti-globalization activists and the public to know that there are nuances in the views of those within the anti-globalization movement. There are more radical voices as well as more moderate ones within the movement. Different NGOs disagree with each other on issues like trade and the future of International Organizations like the IMF, World Bank and the WTO.

A more moderate voice in the movement is that of Oxfam, one of the most well-known International NGOs dedicated to development. Their Make Trade Fair campaign calls for fairer trade rules in the world (i.e. trade justice) that would benefit the developing countries. Their position on globalization and trade is reflected in their famous Rigged Rules and Double Standards report. However, many other well-known International NGOs disagree with Oxfam’s position on trade.

At the more radical end are voices calling for localization and thus limited (not merely fair) trade. Such groups are against too much trade because trading harms the environment and prevents participatory democracy (as people are affected by decisions made far away). Most of these groups would also advocate the abolition of the three International Organizations mentioned above, rather than merely reforming them.

Therefore, the anti-globalization movement contains varied positions on important issues. Not many people realize this. In fact, my guess is that most people who protest are not that familiar with the issues. Most are probably also not sure what they believe in. No doubt, they probably know what they are against. However, it’s more important to know what they are for, what the solutions are. More people in the movement thus ought to think through the issues a bit more.

—–

To end, I want to state a challenge to the people of the World Bank, the IMF and the Anti-Globalization Movement. My challenge is:

Live your lifestyle consistent with your beliefs.

By this I mean that every decision we make in our lives ought to be as consistent as possible with our claims to want to eradicate poverty. If not, we’re being hypocritical.

We need to make every decision in life count and every decision in life reflect our heart’s desire. An economist in the World Bank or IMF who earns big bucks (and they normally do) and spends his money lavishly - without much consideration to giving to aid the poor - is living a lifestyle inconsistent to his beliefs. So is the development consultant who accepts up to US$1,000 a day pay while helping those who earn less than US$1 a day. And also the anti-globalization activist who travels extensively to attend this and that protest or this or that event without due consideration to the sufferings of the earth (that result from his travel) and the fact that his money could be more wisely spent in helping the poor.

I’m much less upset when rich World Bank/IMF economists spend unnecessarily. It’s really the people who fight passionately for the poor and yet do not think twice about how their personal lifestyle decisions contradict their belief in helping the poor that greatly disappointment me.

Yes, we’re not perfect and all of us are hypocrites. I’ll be the first to admit this. I hope we all don’t shy away from admitting our hypocrisy. That’s the first step to challenging ourselves to live a more consistent lifestyle. Such would only draw more people to our cause (nobody is going to be won over by the activist who lives a hypocritical lifestyle) and the poor and the environment will ultimately benefit from our decision to live it out.

Even the good hearted wants to live a good life. Even development practitioners seek to have their cake and eat it too. Nobody wants to be a Mother Teresa. Hypocrosy reigns strongly even in one of the most selfless and altruistic fields of work.

ActionAid’s Real Aid 2 reported:

In Cambodia… typical adviser costs were found to be in the region of $200,000 per year, with similar costs observed in Tanzania. In Ghana, one UNICEF official said that $10,000 per month was usual for a highly qualified education consultant, which put them at the lower end of the pay scale, with the World Bank and African Development Bank paying as much as double this rate.

High salaries paid to expatriate advisers do not only raise questions in terms of value for money. They can also cause significant resentment among counterparts and the public in the south. In Cambodia, for example, adviser fees of $17,000 per month are several hundred times higher than the salary of a typical government employee, at only $40 per month. Salary differentials were raised as key concern by interviewees in Cambodia, Tanzania and Ghana. In the Ghana education service headquarters, government officials receive about $300 a month, what a relatively inexperienced Ghanaian consultant could expect to earn in a day, and a foreign consultant in a few hours.

Shocking, but not surprising.

The development industry is a huge business. It’s not merely about good will. Sad to say, it’s filled with some of the most hypocritical people in the world.

Yes, the development community is widely known and heavily criticized for not being to do an effective job of eradicating poverty. The benefits of foreign aid have been questioned. The effectiveness of many of the prevailing development policies and theories have been challenged. No doubt, these macro issues are important and need to be confronted. But so is the personal.

I’m not sure how any development consultant could think about accepting an utterly ridiculous amount of US$1,000 a day when most of the people they are seeking to help are earning less than a US$2 a day?

In low-income countries, the average income is only $500. This means that a typical western consultant will be earning twice as much in day as the average person living in that country lives on in a year. (Real Aid 2 key facts and figures)

Such astounding incongruity needs to be challenged…