stillhaventfound.org

I want to talk about how Christians can show love to gays. And I want your opinions too - from Christians and non-Christians, gays and straights, fundamentalists and liberals. I’ve already mentioned in my previous post that I hold to a more progressive and liberal view of homosexuality than most Evangelical Christians. I’m not particularly dogmatic about my view because I’m quite open to the fact that I may be wrong. The issue is complex. But let’s just for a moment (throughout this post) assume I’m speaking as an orthodox (conventional) Christian - as most Christians in Singapore are. As such a Christian, I would still be thoroughly unsatisfied with how many Christians have related to gays and continue to do so. As I mentioned before, we can say that we love the sinner but hate their sin, but in general gays certainly don’t feel love from Christians.

My 4th and 5th point in my previous post was about the importance of showing love to gays. I mentioned how Jesus related to sinners, how he was known as welcoming and accepting, rather than judgemental and condemning. And I talked about how it was the power of His love that transforms lives. That’s how I feel we should relate to gays. We should be first and foremost known as a people who love them. But how would that work out practically? How can we demonstrate love to them and be known as a loving community? This is what I’d like to explore in this post - or more accurately, what I’d like you to explore with me because I don’t have a lot of answers.

Some Christians may say that when we tell them God is angry with their sin and they have to change, we’re not being mean to them but actually loving them because we’re being concerned for their souls. This argument is used very often. I reject that because that’s clearly not how Jesus related to sinners, nor the woman in adultery. Jesus didn’t use fear to drive them from sin to God. He used love to attract them to Himself.

Let me just turn a bit to another issue that’s very controversial - abortion - to illustrate what I mean by showing love. I hold to a more conservative view of abortion in that I think abortion is wrong. But like the issue of homosexuality, this is an area I’m thoroughly dissatisfied with the Church’s response. In both issues, the Church tends to talk a lot, but do very little. And if there’s any doing, it’s in the form of protests - i.e. the doing is negative. So the words and actions are negative, and they’re not backed up with positive actions of love. Is it any wonder gays and women seeking an abortion don’t feel the Church or Christians love them? Like the title of this post, I propose we Christians ought to speak softly and love loudly. At the moment, the Church is shouting (condemnation and judgement) and not loving at all. When we start speaking softly (i.e. you do not have to let go of your belief that homosexual acts are sinful or that abortion is wrong, but just tone it down a little) and loving loudly (doing positive actions of love that touches people and speaks louder than your words), I believe we’ll see more transformation in lives. Like I wrote before, love always wins out in the end simply because love is the most powerful thing in the world and love transforms.

Going to the abortion issue and how the Church can demonstrate love. There is so much we can do to try and prevent abortion besides protesting outside abortion clinics or trying to use political force to make abortion illegal. These things are hardly going to reduce the number of abortions. What can have the double effect of actually reducing abortions and also showing the world that Christians are a community of love?

The Liberals tend to focus on reducing poverty as a way to reducing abortion because one big reason (not the only reason, admittedly) for women aborting their babies is the inability (financially) to take care of the child. Studies tend to agree that reducing poverty will reduce abortion. So even if Liberals are wrong in placing women’s choice above the baby, at least their focus on poverty alleviation reduces the need for abortion. Conservatives (Christians), on the other hand, mainly focus on political action to outlaw abortion, thinking that this is the best way to do so. Christians are known for their anti-abortion political rhetoric, not for their actions to reduce poverty in order to reduce abortion. Yet, why don’t we focus equally as much, if not more so, on reducing poverty and helping women bring up their child? This, to me, would be an awesome demonstration of the love of God. If Christians focused most of their energies on doing these positive actions that would save babies and demonstrate God’s love, and less on political action against abortion, I think our actions would be closer to what Jesus would do.

Let me quote from this brilliant website called All Expenses Paid (hopefully it’ll be developed!) started by a friend of mine. He is passionately pro-life, but so different from most pro-life Christians. Just read on:

The vision:…a network of pro-life Christians across the USA who are prepared to cover any and all expenses (and to sacrifice in myriad other ways) to ensure that every woman has every reason to “choose to keep” her baby rather than to kill it. This includes readiness to open our homes to provide short or long-term food and housing, readiness to pay for all medical costs from prenatal checkups through birth through postnatal care, readiness to adopt 20 kids per family as needed, readiness to not adopt if mothers decide to raise their own babies, readiness to provide vocational and career training that a woman (rightly or wrongly) fears she might miss out on due to an unplanned pregnancy, and readiness for such generosity to be taken advantage of. Finally, this network of pro-life Christians makes its offer known continuously in front of every abortion clinic in America and through the media in such a way that no parent could ever again claim financial burden as a motivation for killing their baby.

Fuel for the vision: For those who have trusted in Him, Jesus Christ has already paid all the expenses (our infinite sin debt) on the the cross to make us right with God. Thus as beloved children of the Creator and King of the universe we have no need to seek our own in anything but rather are free to become slaves and servants to all men.

Wow! Can you imagine that? If Christians rose up like this against abortion, you can bet that the number of abortions will be reduced and people will stop thinking of Christians as hypocritical and judgemental. To be sure, abortions won’t totally disappear because there will still be those who choose an abortion for reasons other than financial reasons. But what a witness that would be! What an expression of sacrifice and love which I think would win the world over and reduce abortions.

I brought up the abortion issue here because I’m a bit clearer as to how the Church can show love in practical ways. The above actions are very radical, but that’s how we’re called to love others as Christians. It’s easy to shout and demonstrate and all. It’s so much more difficult and sacrificial to take the above steps. Yet if Christians are really as concerned about the dying babies as they say they are, I’d like to see them channeling their energy into something positive (like the above actions) that actually helps reduce abortions, win lives to Christ and brings glory to God.

If the above are good and positive ways of showing love to women who are considering abortion, what positive actions can be done by Christians that will demonstrate our love to homosexuals and see them won to Christ and transformed? I’ll mention 3 things we shouldn’t do because it doesn’t show love at all, but rather the opposite, then 2 things I think we should do:

1) Don’t use dishonest means. I will try not to say a lot more about the AWARE saga here, but the whole incident gave a really bad name to Christians. It’s a lesson in what actions shouldn’t be done. The ends do not justify the means. Even the Anglican Bishop Dr. John Chew said:

Their “takeover” actions, though not contravening AWARE’s Constitution, nevertheless raised ethical and proprietary difficulties and challenges even in the minds of many Christians.

Even if the means were legal, the spirit of it all was not. You don’t just want to be right, but to be perceived and seen to be right so that you don’t provoke anger in those you want to reach out to.

2) Don’t use fear and alarmist tactics. The accusation and fear that there’s going to be a generation of gays raised if we don’t stand up against the gays is plain stupid and dishonest. And it’s not a fear that was expressed only during the AWARE saga. Such imaginary fear is also what makes Christians dishonestly claim that there’s a gay agenda which seeks to to promote the gay lifestyle and make straights become gay. This is just so ridiculous. I hope we Christians think before we say such things. It’s dishonest, it doesn’t help and it’s not loving.

3) Don’t use the law unfairly. When some Christians rose up against the repealing of Section 377A (which criminalizes gay sex), what were they trying to achieve? Is that the way we show love to gays? Would Jesus have tried to get the law to criminalize adultery or prostitution or divorce? Do we want to win them with our love or do we just delight in getting rid of them and putting them into jail and seeing them suffer?

4) Understand gays. I don’t claim to understand gays fully even though I’m sure I have more experience with gays than the typical conservative Christian out there. I attended a gay-affirming church in Singapore for about a year or so and I’ve read a bit about homosexuality. But I’ve still so much to learn.

I think most Christians do not know what they are talking about when they think it’s so easy for gays to change or that the homosexual lifestyle is always a lifestyle of choice. We can debate whether there’s a gay gene or whether homosexual tendencies are a result of nature or nurture, but ultimately all these studies are inconclusive. I’m sure both play a part, and nature may play a bigger part in certain individuals, with nurture playing a bigger role in other individuals. Pure common sense tells me that because gays are a marginalized group, it would be foolish for gays to choose to become gays and thus become marginalized. Gays have committed suicide due to depression as a result of being gay and rejected by society. If it were so easy to turn straight, they would have done so already! Nobody yearns to become marginalized and rejected! Of course there are some who don’t struggle as much. But there’s no doubt that there are many who, if given the choice, would not choose to have such gay inclinations and for us to not recognize the struggles of the many is not being understanding.

As a Christian who believes in a loving and powerful God, I believe by faith that God can transform a person from gay to straight. I’m sure there are many of such testimonies, as there are wonderful testimonies of other forms of healing - physical and emotional. But again, a simple search on the Net will show us that it’s not as easy to change and remain changed as we’re made to think by most Christian leaders. Many who have gone through programs in ex-gay ministries have fallen back into homosexuality, even the leaders of such ministries. What does this tell us?

Remember that throughout this post I’m speaking as a conventional Christian. You can be such a Christian who believes that homosexual acts are sinful and yet still treat homosexuals with understanding and empathy. Some of the above facts are things that many Christians are ignorant of or things they choose to ignore. Ignoring them doesn’t help us in our understanding of the complex situation gays are in. Understanding the above would make us treat homosexuals with much more compassion. And I think gays would appreciate that we took the time to understand their situation and the difficulties they face.

5) Understand our God of love and grace. I think this is one of the most important things we can do - if not the most important thing - if we want to learn how to demonstrate love to gays. The more we understand how loving and gracious God is towards us, the more we will love God and others. The more we understand how much we’ve been forgiven, the more we’ll love God and others.

I already mentioned a bit in my previous post about how Jesus treated the adulteress woman and other sinners. To me, the way he related to sinners is a stark contrast to the way many Christians relate to gays. Love comes first, not judgement. Jesus was so empty of self-righteousness and so full of a non-judgemental, non-condemning and non-fear inducing attitude that sinners were not afraid of relating to Him. Jesus never condemned sinners but He rebuked the Pharisees who were self-righteous and condemned and judged others. They were the ones who were so concerned about rules and laws that they missed the whole spirit of love. They were the ones He rebuked, and not the sinners. If Jesus were here today, I have no doubt which side He’d be welcoming and accepting towards, and which side He’d be rebuking.

Love and grace are so powerful that it transforms. If we focus on God’s love and grace, it’ll transform us. And I believe if we tell gays about God’s love and grace, rather than speak messages of judgement, condemnation and fear to them, it’ll transform them.

[I didn't originally think of bringing in my church here but I'm going to anyway :) This is more for any gays - Christian or otherwise - who are reading, than for other straight Christians reading this. Christians who get easily offended may skip this part. But this is what I have to say: I would recommend attending New Creation Church for any gays who want to overcome homosexuality. It's not a perfect church, but it's the perfect environment to understand and experience God's love and grace. It's a place you will not get judged or condemned. I'm speaking here more about the message and the whole service, than about the people you'll meet. In a church of about 18,000+ people or so, you'll meet all sorts of people and many of us are still learning how to show grace and love and acceptance to others.

Pastor Prince believes that homosexual acts are wrong, but he also realizes that victory over sin comes through experiencing the love and grace of God in Christ, and not through feeling condemned and fearful. It is through hearing the gospel of grace that will give you power over sin and heal you of everything. So you won't get any condemnation there. You can just experience the message of God's love and I believe that's the best environment to be transformed.

In New Creation, you won't hear about what's wrong with you, about how sinful you are. The focus is different. It's not on sin or judgement or fear. And as Pastor Prince always says, we focus on Jesus, and not on sin, not because we make light of sin. Rather, it's because we make much of Jesus. If we focus on what's right with us in Christ, what's wrong with us will fall away. You'll hear a lot about Jesus in New Creation and very little about man and how sinful he is. The reason is because the more we focus on Jesus and understand everything about Him - the more we behold the glory of Jesus -, the more we'll be transformed into His image (2 Cor. 3:18).

I didn't forget what I wrote above about the difficulty of change. I believe change is possible, though a quick survey of people's past experiences tell me it's not easy. But if there's any place I'd recommend first and foremost for gays who desire to be transformed, then it'll be New Creation Church. I'm not ignorant that the whole issue is complex and change is difficult, but on the other hand I do believe in the power of love and grace and the importance of being in an atmosphere of love and grace so that it'll inspire faith. Condemnation and judgement don't inspire faith. Only the power of Christ's love does.]

I’d appreciate the opinions of others on more practical ways we Christians can show love to gays.

PS: Books & Culture just posted a review of Andrew Marin’s Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation With the Gay Community.  Andrew founded the Marin Foundation, whose mission is “to build a bridge between the religious and GLBT communities through scientific research, and Biblical and social education.” I don’t think it’ll definitively answer our theological questions (the book probably wasn’t meant to do that anyway), but I’m guessing it’ll be a good read for most Christians just to get to know more about the gay community.

I’ve been wanting to write about the AWARE saga for a long time. In fact, I’ve been wanting to write about a lot of things - not least the events relating to New Creation Church that’s been on the news recently. I can’t believe I’ve not written for over 6 months. I guess that’s the procrastinating me. I wanted to do at least two things with my blog and I’ve finally gotten down to doing these things. Next up is actually changing the theme and adding some widgets to this blog. I think I should be able to do this by this year :)

The AWARE saga has so thoroughly enthralled me because it has touched on so many issues that’s been so close to my heart for the past 10 years or so. Here are 5 things I want to say:

1) There is a great diversity of views among Christians. It’s important to note that this post is from the perspective of just one Christian. I don’t claim to represent the whole of Christianity. Nobody should. Nobody fully knows the truth and the true Christian position on every matter infallibly - only God who inspired the Scriptures. On fundamental and essential doctrines, we believe it by faith. On other matters and doctrines, it’s better for us to acknowledge that we’re not infallible in our interpretation of Scripture or view of what we think God wants us to do. No Church or Christian group or organisation - even the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) - should claim to be the true spokesperson of God. They can if they want to, and they often do so, but that’s just pure arrogance. All of us would like to think that God’s on our side. I like to think so too. But I know I may be wrong and thus nobody has to agree with me. Taking God out of the picture for a while, there’s a lot of diversity within Christianity simply because we’re not infallible. So don’t let any one person or group say that this is what Christians should do if they want to be good Christians or want to please God and all that nonsense. The issue is far too complex for simplistic solutions. We all have good intentions and we often have truth on our side. Whether it’s the full truth, I doubt it.

I’m writing my thoughts not because I want to tell every Christian how or what to believe. Rather, I write because I think I have some good things to say (it’ll be considered horrible and demonic to some I’m sure), but certainly I don’t claim to be infallible.

2) There are Christians who do not support Josie and gang. Perhaps my main reason for writing this post is to tell the world that there are Christians out there who are not like Josie and gang.

Before moving on with the rest of my post which is mostly about why I disagree with them, I want to say two things in support of them. Firstly, they ought to be congratulated for their courage. Now, courage to me is an amoral term. By saying they were courageous doesn’t mean I agree with them. It just means that I acknowledge that they had the guts to stand up for what they believe in. I happen to also believe that the way they stood up for what they believe was wrong. There’s a lot of talk about how they were “persecuted” during the EGM and in the media - both mainstream and non-mainstream ones. And this brings me to my second point. I do believe that the media was very biased against them. On the other hand, for Josie to say that she’s not sure why so many people are angry shows that she’s either very dishonest or really out of touch with reality. The media wasn’t fair, but I think Josie and gang deserved most of the flak they got, though not everything. Were they persecuted? I think it’s nice for their supporters to think that they were. But I think that’s stretching the use of the word too far - at least the Christian use of the word. Full marks to them if they were persecuted for doing what’s right. But I don’t agree what they did was right in the first place so I wouldn’t consider it persecution. Courageous they were. And yes, the media was biased against them. But they were not persecuted - at least not for doing good - in the Christian sense of the word.

So going back to my main point here. There are Christians who profoundly disagree with what they did. There are Christians out there who differ from Church of Our Saviour (COOS) and Cornerstone Community Church on their “official” attitude towards homosexuals. I stress “official” because it’s about the church leadership’s position, and not all the Christians who attend these churches. I believe the reason why a lot of the COOS emails and sermon videos were leaked onto the Net was because there were members there who didn’t agree with the church’s position and way of doing things. To me, it’s great to know that because we should never just blindly follow what our leaders say or tell us to do. We should never give so much respect to our leaders to think of them as infallible or as always leading us onto the correct path. For me, I respect Joseph Prince of New Creation, but I don’t think he’s perfect or agree with everything he says, as I’ve written in my blog. I accept what I see as the good (a lot of it) and reject things I don’t think is right. I’ve had some experience with Church of Our Saviour and I really like the church in many ways with regards to their physical and emotional healing ministry to heterosexuals - though I’m not too fond of their Choices ministry to homosexuals. But they are a great church with many positive things and I’m quite sure the same for Cornerstone. I’m not against these two churches. But I will state my profound disagreement with their attitude towards homosexuals and the stuff they’ve done to promote their agenda against homosexuals. (Yes, we all have agendas. If the gay has one, so do Christians).

It’s been very heartening for me is to see many Christians speaking out. I wanted to go to the AWARE EGM (eventually I didn’t) to speak out and let others know that being a Christian doesn’t mean we agree with the views or methods of Josie and gang. I’m glad to hear there were Christians out there (on the Net and in the EGM) speaking out to let the world know that Josie and gang are not representative of all Christians. I feel it’s important to speak out for the simple reason that I don’t want the world to get the wrong impression that Christians are all like that. I felt this same way during George Bush’s time as President. Many people thought then that all Christians supported George Bush when that was just plain wrong. And I thought it was right then to let the world know that Christians are not all like that. Not all Christians supported the wars, inhumane treatment of terrorists or are narrow-minded unilateralists.

Why bother speaking out on this issue? Why criticize other Christians and churches? Why not just be quiet even if you think other Christians are wrong? Wouldn’t it harm the unity of the Church to speak out? And, for goodness sake, isn’t it more loving just to keep quiet rather than criticize?

In this blog I’ve tried not to criticize other churches or Christians. That’s because I hate blogs who criticize every small little thing about other Churches or Christians. But if I do criticize, I try to do so in as objective a way as I can (and I know I’m not 100% objective and no one is). I’ve always had this belief that sometimes you can’t be on both sides. If you keep quiet because you don’t want to confront the side that oppresses, you end up allowing the oppression to continue and are doing harm to the oppressed side. If you think that by keeping quiet you’re being loving and gracious to the side that oppresses or does wrong, you have to realize that this act of “love” is actually doing harm to the side that is oppressed or wrong. So sometimes we can’t have it both ways.

For small matters, there’s no need to be so critical.  But the AWARE saga was not a small matter. There were many people watching and there were many gays and others who may have been given the impression that Josie and gang represent true Christianity. I couldn’t just let this distorted representation of Christianity as a religion of judgement, condemnation and dishonesty go unanswered and that’s why I’ve written this post.

I speak out because the world needs to know that there are Christians who have a totally different view of God from Josie and gang. The world needs to know that God is first and foremost a God of love, grace, mercy and compassion, more than anything else. Jesus came to save the world, not to condemn it. The most defining characteristic of God is that of love and that’s what I want the world to know of God and Jesus Christ. And I want especially homosexuals and transexuals to know this. Jesus loves you… And if any Christian gives you the impression that God is a God of anger, condemnation and judgement, then please disregard what they say because I believe that God’s first word to you is not of judgement, but of love. And I would gladly invite you to attend church with me - a church where I believe you’re experience the wonderful love of Jesus Christ that will transform your life - and come to see and experience a different view of God than the one that is so often portrayed by Christians.

3) The issue of disagreement wasn’t really about one’s view of homosexuality. Yes, I have a more progressive and liberal view of homosexuality than most Christians. My view on homosexuality is free for all to read here (if you don’t want to read my four posts there, then just read this article written by another Christian which I mostly agree with). Many Christians would disagree with it and that’s fine. Nobody has to agree with it, but they have every right to be challenged by it. But my view is not the (extreme) liberal view. That’s the reason why I left Free Community Church (FCC) - although I’m quite supportive of a lot of what they are doing. They hold to a more liberal view than me. But I won’t deny that my view of homosexuality is more liberal than most Christians.

But let’s just discount my view of homosexuality because I don’t want Christians to say, “Oh, you’re just a liberal (or hold to a more liberal view than most Christians) and that’s why you disagree with Josie and gang.” Even if I held to a totally orthodox and conservative Christian view of homosexuality, I would still very much disagree with Josie and gang. I think many Christians who hold to an orthodox view of homosexuality were upset with what they did and the way they did it. Much disagreement had nothing to do with one’s theological view of homosexuality. And I think that’s why even Christians who may view homosexual acts as sinful and come from COOS were quite upset with Josie and gang. Why? Other Christians on the Net have already written about it. See especially Gwee Li Sui’s take here that has been making its rounds.

4) Christianity is primarily about love. My biggest disagreement with Josie and gang is not a theological one about homosexuality. It’s simply that, in my opinion, their actions do not represent the God of the Bible, nor the love that He is. To me, the most important thing in Christianity is the gospel of Jesus Christ - the cross of Jesus Christ. Everything has to be evaluated by that event. The whole of Christianity is about Jesus and Jesus dying to take our place. Paul refused to boast except in the cross of Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:14). The gospel and the cross of Jesus Christ is love exemplified. That’s what the whole of Christianity is about. But is that what the world sees that Christianity and Christians are all about? No!

Christianity has an image problem. And this is fueled by the kind of things that Josie and gang have done and said. This is actually the kind of thing you expect of conservative Christians in America. It’s nothing new in America. And that’s why young people view Christians as anti-gay, hypocritical, judgemental and not like the Jesus of the Bible. At least, I’m thankful that unbelievers know that Jesus, the Christian’s true leader, wasn’t about judgement!

To me, I think part of the problem stems from a misunderstanding of the Bible and a lack of depth in one’s understanding of the grace and love of God as demonstrated in Jesus Christ. There’s just too many theological issues related to all this. But the most important issue relating to all this is a really simple one. It’s about love. The whole Bible is all about the love of God. No, I’m sorry, but it’s not about the judgement of God. It’s not about a righteous and angry God who wants to judge sin. While these are legitimate messages of the Bible, it’s no way the primary message of the Bible. God’s innermost essence is that of love, not judgement.

And yet Christians in America (and slowly in Singapore too) are known more for what they are against, than what they are for. Jesus wasn’t known for what He was against, but what He was for. That’s why He attracted sinners to Him. If Jesus was known as a person who came to judge sin, the sinners wouldn’t dine with Him. If we get our focus correct - the focus on the love and grace of God - then we’ll talk more about God’s love and grace than speaking against homosexuality or abortion or euthanasia or whatever. Don’t get me wrong. I think those are legitimate issues to talk about. But when the Church is known more for her opposition against these things than our love and acceptance of all people because we have first been loved and accepted by God, then I think we’ve missed what the Bible is really all about and are misrepresenting our God of love.

Again, this isn’t about one’s theological view of homosexuality. You can be totally conservative on this area, yet act like Jesus would towards homosexuals.

Jesus did not seek to influence the political sphere so as to stop the sinful tide of the nation of Israel. He wasn’t interested in power, nor was He interested to let everyone know how angry His father was about their sins. He welcomed and accepted the prostitutes and tax collectors. He welcomed them and talked with them not to tell them how angry God will be with them and how judgement awaits them if they don’t stop sinning. No, he welcomed them to show them love so that love could transform them. He made sure that such sinners were accepted and loved. This is such a contrast. How do Christians treat gays? We can all go on about the fact that we love the sinner and hate the sin and hide behind such a theologically correct (in the conservative Christian’s opinion, as I’m putting myself in their shoes now) phrase, but just go out and ask gays and transsexuals whether they feel loved and accepted. Sorry, but I’m truly sick of hearing that phrase sprouted by conservative Christians because the assumption is that they’ve been loving the sinner when they so clearly have not. Homosexuals certainly do not feel their “love”. I’m sure Jesus who certainly acted in love in all He did would not treat homosexuals the way many conservative Christians treat them.

Jesus didn’t go to the adulterous woman to make her feel guilty and bring God’s judgement upon her. That’s not love. Jesus came to accept her and through his word of “no condemnation” gave her the power to “go and sin no more”. Love comes first, then transformation. Love transforms. Meanwhile, we Christians get it the other way round, just like the Pharisees. Jesus had his harshest words of judgement not for sinners, but for those who thought they were better than others and judged others. The way Jesus treated the adulterous woman, and not the way the pharisees treated her, is a model of how we’re to treat sinners .

When he said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, it was sure to anger the Pharisees and those who were so focused on judgement and condemnation of sin. But Jesus was more concerned that his actions and statements welcomed sinners to Him, not scare them away. To me, that’s the litmus test. The way we act and speak is very important. If it causes gays and sinners to move further away from Christianity because they feel that we’re judging them, then we’re acting like the Pharisees. If it causes gays and sinners to be drawn towards us because of our love and acceptance of them, then we’re acting more like Jesus. We Christians can say that we love the sinner but hate the sin, but if the result of what we say and how we act puts sinners off, then we’re not acting in love like Jesus did.

5) Christians have a love of power; Jesus understood the power of His love. I had an argument with a friend who is the leader of one of the biggest Christian organizations in Singapore. He insisted that while Josie and gang made some mistakes, we Christians should stand against the gay activists who are promoting homosexuality. I disagreed that homosexuals wanted to promote homosexuality, saying that I believed they only wanted acceptance. And I still believe that now. I don’t think gays are out to make straights become gay the way that many straights want to see gays become straight. Maybe I’m wrong, but to me, it doesn’t really matter.

You see, the way I see it, love is the most powerful thing in the world. If the gays are well-organized and have an agenda to make the whole of Singapore gay or the whole world gay, then my response would just be to overwhelm them with the power of God’s love. No, I’m not going to fight power with power because that’s not how it works in God’s kingdom. If you want to defeat me and destroy my values, do that even if it means killing me, but I’ll still love you. And I’ll win you over to my side through my love. Ridiculous? Well, it sounds like the gospel of Jesus Christ…

Jesus didn’t use power to win over the world. He let the power of His love, the power of His death, transform the world. I think this is perhaps the most profound truth in the whole of this post. And this is so often lost among Christians. We love and crave political power so we can defeat the other side. So we can overcome the other side’s agenda. That’s why so many Christians called for Christians to attend the EGM - to show their power and strength. That’s why some Christians rallied other Christians against the decriminalization of homosexuality in Singapore.

We think the world’s power can transform the world. Jesus thought differently. He knew that the greatest power is the power of God’s love. Sometimes showing love means we let the world’s power overcome us. That didn’t matter to Jesus. We human beings like to fight for our “rights” and stand up for our “rights”. Jesus didn’t stand up for His right eventhough as God He had more rights than any of us! His agenda was love even unto death. There’s something more important than demanding our “rights”: to show love. Jesus let the power of His love - which involved letting the world’s power overcome Him to such an extent that he died - transform the world. But guess what? In the end, He won. You don’t win by power; you win by giving up power. You don’t win by asking others to serve you; you win by serving others. You don’t win by showing you are stronger; you win by suffering. You don’t win by coming first; you win by coming last. That’s the upside down kingdom of Jesus.

Putting another way, we want power to win the battle. The tragedy is that we end up losing the war because in the long run with all our “standing against the gay agenda” and “standing against the decriminalization of homosexuality”, we will fail to reach homosexuals with Christ’s love. Instead, like Jesus, we should learn to let go and show love even if it means losing the battle, for in the long run we would win the war, because love always wins out in the end. That’s the way the Kingdom of God works…

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.

I’ve thought of becoming a vegetarian for many years. Well, I’ve not exactly thought extremely hard about it, but the thought has been there many times over the past 10 years or so. I bought a good Christian book about vegetarianism years back but have yet to read it. I’ve probably avoided reading up on this issue simply because I knew it would be hard for me to let go eating meat! Not that I’m crazy over meat. I’m not fussy at all about what I eat and can refrain from eating meat if I really want to. But maybe it’s more of the inconvenience. It’s not easy to live as a vegetarian in Singapore. And perhaps harder to do so in many parts of the developing world where I hope to live in in future.

But I’ve always known deep down inside that I should strive to become a vegetarian because of my faith. Well, I should do many things, shouldn’t I? I should get the hell out of Singapore and serve the poor in the developing world. I should go and do all I can to reach the unreached peoples. And ya, I should really think about becoming a vegetarian. If not now, then soon. If not dogmatically, then at least more fully.

Greg Boyd has recently written on his blog the reasons as to why he’s a vegetarian. His reasoning is quite simple. I summarize it here:

1) God originally intended for humans and all other creatures to eat plants for food (Genesis 1:29-30). This is confirmed by Genesis 9:1-4, where God said:

Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

Notice how God’s allowance for fallen humanity to eat animals was something new: “I now give you everything.” Why did God now allow man to eat animals? Because the “fear and dread” of man that now falls on the animals (due to the fallenness of all creation) has disrupted the peaceful and non-violent nature of creation. I think this means that animals will no longer act peaceful towards man and so God allowed man to eat animals.

2) The non-violent and peaceful nature of God’s kingdom which existed before the fall will be restored at the end of this age:

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. Infants will play near the hole of the cobra; young children will put their hands into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea (Isa 11:6-9).

3) Therefore, in the past before the fall, humans did not eat animals. In the future when we dwell with God, we will not eat animals. But, what ought we to do now? I’ll end with Boyd’s own conclusion:

Now, the most fundamental job of followers of Jesus is to manifest the reign of God. I take this to mean that we’re called to put on display now what the world will look like when God fully reigns over it in the future. In theological terms we’re to be “the eschatological community.”

One way the New Testament expresses this truth is by referring to Kingdom people as the “first fruits” of a coming harvest (2 Thess 2:13; Ja 1:18; Rev. 14:4). The “first fruits” referred to fruit that ripened and was picked before others. In the Old Testament, first fruits were consecrated (set apart) to God and were a sign that God will faithfully bring the remainder of the harvest to fruition (e.g. Ex. 23:19). In the same way, Kingdom people are consecrated to God as a sign that God will faithfully bring his Kingdom to complete fruition.

As the “first fruits” of the Kingdom, our call is to be in the present what the entire world will be in the future, when the Kingdom is fully manifested. In a world that is yet under bondage to the rebel Powers, we’re to display what it looks like to live in the reign of God. Our lives are to reflect God’s will being done “on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10). We’re to be, as much as possible, heaven on earth and thus a window through which people can see the future into which God is leading the world.

If God’s original ideal of a creation free of violence will be achieved in the future, it seems to me that the job of Kingdom people is to manifest this ideal now, as much as possible. Which to me suggests that since humans won’t be killing animals and eating them in heaven, we shouldn’t be killing them and eating them now.

I’m partly Australian - don’t ask me to explain what I mean by that :) But I have to say I’ve never been exactly proud to be an Aussie and have never really felt like one since I’ve spent most of my years in Singapore.

Because John Howard was Prime Minister during most of my grown up years, that kind of made it even harder for me to identify with being an Australian. But living in Australia last year changed my thinking quite a bit. One of my happiest days last year was when Kevin Rudd thoroughly defeated Howard and the conservative Liberal-National Party coalition. Good riddance to them. And today, as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued an apology to Australia’s Stolen Generation, I feel proud once again.

I feel proud that the leader of Australia did the right thing. That was the compassionate thing to do. I guess it says a lot that it took so long. And I do know that many Australians are not in agreement with Kevin Rudd on this - which is really sad. And yes, I think there’s a lot more that needs to be done than merely this apology. But I’ll savour the moment anyway.

I don’t think I’ll ever feel totally like an Australian. Socially, I’m more at home in Singapore. Having lived most of my life here, there’s that great connection that I can’t deny. However, politics means a lot to me because it’s about how the government (and people) treat other people - especially the least of them. It’s reflects one’s values and what you view as important. That speaks a lot to me. My heart will always have a place for Singapore, but I can’t identify with the political culture (or party?) that prefers pragmatism rather than standing up for what’s right. As someone said, society is judged by how we treat the least among us.

When millions of people are dying of AIDS and malaria in Africa, it is hard to justify the umpteenth society gala held for the benefit of a performing arts center or an art museum. A $30 million gift to a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation. (William H. Gross)

When I first started doing this, I made a contribution to some organization, Harvest something or other, I think, that was working on homelessness. The next thing I knew, I got a plaque in the mail and an invitation to an awards ceremony. I never gave them another nickel. What were they spending money on plaques for? (Thomas M. Siebel)

It is indeed heartening to know of what Dove is doing with its Campaign for Real Beauty and Self-Esteem Fund. Investing part of its profits into a good social cause ought to be the way to go for corporations. Whatever has come out from their advertisements, commercials and educational programs aimed at changing mindsets deserves our praise, but more importantly, our reflection on how we ought to perceive beauty.

Having said the above, imagine my shock and disappointment in discovering that the parent company of Dove, Unilever, also owns brands like Fair & Lovely and Pond’s. Both products pride themselves in offering more beautiful skin. And one important aspect of being beautiful, according to them, is having fairer (i.e. whiter) skin.

This unbelievably racist idea clearly shines through their commercials. These can be viewed at Youtube.com. (Just search for “Fair & Lovely commercial” or “Pond’s commercial“). In the beginning of these commercials, dark-skinned women are shown leading less happy and less successful lives. After using the skin-whitening product, their skin becomes lighter and amazingly their lives become happier and more successful.

The racist stereotype that black is ugly and white is beautiful is a very common perception throughout the world. Just like the idea that being thin or having double eye-lids is beautiful, this is something that ought not to be promoted, let alone harnessed to make money off the vulnerable. And yet Dove’s parent company is doing precisely that. Indeed, it’s hard to understand the disconnect here. As someone else has said, and I have no reason now to disagree, “What Dove gives with one hand, Unilever’s other brands take away with the other”.

I wonder what representatives of Dove and/or Unilever have to say about these advertisements and the message being promoted through them? Why is there such a conflict in the messages? I would also like to know whether Dove thinks the idea of equating beauty with white skin is as wrong as equating it with slimness.

(The above was what I wrote to the Straits Times Forum page on 23rd February 2007. The actual published version of my letter can be viewed below. You can read more about this topic at:

- The New York Times‘ Telling India’s Modern Women They Have Power, Even Over Their Skin Tone
- The Situationist’s Shades of Fairness and the Marketing of Prejudice
- Guardian’s Beyond the pale
- CounterPunch’s Pigmentation and Empire
- Salon’s Race, poverty and skin-whitener
- Feministing’s Who’s the fairest of them all?
- The Wall Street Journal’s Critics Say Ads for Skin Whiteners Capitalize on Malaysian Prejudice)

———-

The Sunday Times’ Inbox, 4th March 2007

Ads’ idea of beauty biased

IT IS heartening to see what Dove is doing with its Campaign for Real Beauty and its Self-Esteem Fund. Investing part of its profits in a social cause is the way to go for corporations. Advertisements and educational programmes aimed at changing mindsets on how we perceive beauty deserve our praise.

However, I am dismayed to learn that Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also owns brands like Fair & Lovely and Pond’s, which have commercials that promote a very narrow and, some might say, racist idea of beauty. Both products pride themselves on making skin more beautiful. But being beautiful, according to their ads, is having fairer – that is, whiter – skin.

In the beginning of these commercials, dark-skinned women are shown leading less happy and less successful lives. After using a particular skin-whitening product, however, their skin becomes lighter and, amazingly, they become happier and more successful.

This stereotype that black is ugly and white is beautiful is very common. But just like the idea that being thin or having double eyelids is beautiful – and, by extension, that being fat or having single eyelids is not – this is something that should not be promoted, let alone harnessed to make money off the vulnerable. And yet Dove’s parent company is doing precisely that.

Three cheers to both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. In the past month, both have announced decisions that can only be good for the world as a whole, and especially the poor. On the 15th of June, Microsoft announced a two-year transition period that would eventually see Bill Gates move out of his present day-to-day involvement in Microsoft into spending more time with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Less than two weeks later, the second richest man in the world (after Bill Gates) decided to donate around US$30 billion to the Gates Foundation - which already has around that amount in assets.

Both men deserve great credit for not passing down most of their money to their children but instead giving it back to society. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, Buffett said:

Certainly neither Susie nor I ever thought we should pass huge amounts of money along to our children. Our kids are great. But I would argue that when your kids have all the advantages anyway, in terms of how they grow up and the opportunities they have for education, including what they learn at home - I would say it’s neither right nor rational to be flooding them with money. In effect, they’ve had a gigantic headstart in a society that aspires to be a meritocracy. Dynastic mega-wealth would further tilt the playing field that we ought to be trying instead to level.

Jacob Weisberg wrote this of him in a Slate article:

At the moral level, Buffett does not believe anyone has the right to be as rich as he is. He described wealth on the scale he has accumulated as a “claim checks on the activities of others in the future”—claim checks that he has long ago recognized would have to be returned to society rather than passed on to his descendants.

On why he didn’t start another foundation in his name, Buffett responded in the Fortune Magazine interview:

The short answer is that I came to realize that there was a terrific foundation that was already scaled-up - that wouldn’t have to go through the real grind of getting to a megasize like the Buffett Foundation would - and that could productively use my money now.

I think this shows truly what a great man he is. That’s humility - something lacking frequently in famous people. So many foundations are named after the philanthropist. Worse still, how many Christian ministries are named after the minister?

What’s most remarkable for me, however, is Buffett’s recognition that his riches boils down ultimately to luck. Jacob Weisberg wrote:

As he made the rounds Monday, he consistently emphasized the role of chance in getting rich. “A member of the lucky sperm club” as he described himself to Charlie Rose, he happened to born in the right country, to the right parents, at precisely the right moment, to absurdly reward his special talent at asset allocation. Few successful businessmen truly believe they owe their rewards to luck, even if they pay lip service to their good fortune.

I wrote elsewhere about how I feel arbitrary factors (or luck) play an important role in the spiritual decisions of many people. I think a lot achievements or lack of achievements we see today can ultimately be attributed to luck. Buffett understood that and that’s why he felt he didn’t deserve to keep his money for himself. Both he and Bill Gates were fortunate enough to be members of the lucky sperm club.

That some are born into this club and some aren’t - that some are lucky and some aren’t - seems to be unfair. No doubt this world is unfair in many ways. That’s not to mean that we despair. No, we ought to seek to do our best. If we do well and succeed, we ought to never forget those who didn’t. If we don’t do well, we should try to persevere to the end. Ultimately, I believe all things will be corrected in future. I trust God to dispense justice justly.

Just finished watching the DVD of “The Motorcycle Diaries”. I read a bit about Che Guevara’s life many years back. Here in Singapore, as in many places in the world, Che’s face has become a famous icon seen frequently on many T-shirts. Yet few know who he really was. To many, his rugged good looks is seen as “cool”. For me, I’ve always associated Che with being an exemplary and compassionate human being since I first read of him.

The movie is really about the Che’s journey throughout Latin America. I knew this much before. People who know me well know that I seldom watch movies in cinemas because they are just too expensive. And I have better things to do when out with my friends than to spend it on an anti-social activity. And so I had never watched this movie before. Had I known this wasn’t just about Che’s journey but really about how this journey transformed his life and planted the seeds that made him a revolutionary, I would have watched it sooner.

In the movie, we see the virtues that mattered to Che: honesty, truth, compassion and idealism. We see how the poor and suffering moved him and how his experience and knowledge of poverty and injustice in Latin America forever changed the direction of his life. We see compassion in action: giving his only US$15 to a poor couple, sacrificing his own asthma medicine for a dying woman, being the first person in a leper colony to shake hands with lepers without the compulsory protective gloves (thus recognizing the dignity they deserve as human beings) and swimming bravely across the Amazon River (which nearly cost him his life) which seperated the health care workers from lepers in order to celebrate his birthday with the lepers as well. He had no patience for such inhumane segregation.

The movie is definitely an inspiration for me. I love reading and watching about how experiences transform people’s lives, making them want to live more radical and compassionate lives for the poor, suffering and oppressed. I hope more people who are familiar with Che the icon will find out what truly made this man great.

Watching this movie in Spanish - as when I watch other movies with a Latin feel to it - makes me fall in love with the Spanish language and the region of Latin America all over again. I really need to improve my Spanish!

Lastly, when one day I speak fluent Spanish, I would really love to travel Latin America just like Che did. Argh…that would be a bloody awesome experience! Won’t be terribly safe, but I don’t really care! Inside, there is this adventurous spirit in me. When I was in Bogotá, Colombia, I really didn’t care whether I would be kidnapped by the FARC. Actually, I thought that would be a wonderful experience. Coz I know that nothing bad would happen to me because I’m not White =) But seriously, travelling Latin America would be a dream. I would love to take a couple of years just travelling and going where the mighty Wind leads me - without much money, without much possessions, without any planning but just going with the flow. And who knows, I may settle down somewhere and start doing development & missions work and helping the poor. Now, that’s a dream - that will probably never come true…