stillhaventfound.org

Those who know a bit about me through this blog know that I came from the Reformed/Calvinistic Christian tradition. It’s a wonderful Christian tradition with a rich theological heritage. I will not say I’m Reformed anymore as I’m more eclectic in my theological views now, but I still follow a lot of what’s going on in that tradition as there is so much I can learn from there. This post is going to touch on a big debate going on in the Reformed circles now which I think parallels to a certain extent the big debate surrounding New Creation’s message on grace.

The understanding I have of grace and the law and gospel first came to me when I read about it from Michael Horton and his gang of friends at White Horse Inn about 10 years ago. Through my many blog posts on grace and New Creation Church, I’ve actually referred back to Reformed authors in defense of what Pastor Joseph Prince teaches on grace. Michael Horton’s passion for the gospel has a lot of similarities with that of Joseph Prince. I know putting the two names together would probably horrify many people, but take away Pastor Prince’s charismatic views on healing, prosperity and blessings and look at things a bit more objectively and you’ll recognize a lot of similarities there in their messages of the gospel of grace. Yes, there are huge differences in other areas, but let me quote from a review of Michael Horton’s recent book Christless Christianity in which those appreciative of New Creation’s grace message would say a hearty “Amen!”:

The focus of the message in the contemporary church now tends to be more about us and our activity versus God and His work accomplished in Jesus Christ… The new legalism, Horton argues, consists of sermons that focus in on principles, rules, steps, laws, codes and guidelines as the central application, that if followed will reap psychological rewards. Preaching of this kind, he calls ‘moralistic therapeutic deism’. But Horton does not merely critique, he also points to Christ as the solution. While this may outwardly seem simplistic, Christianity, Horton says, is news about what Christ has done for us (a divine rescue) not what we do for Him (a self-salvation project or steps to victory). In other words, the gospel is first about divine accomplishment, not human attainment (or principles for living). What we do as Christians is always as a response to the finished work Christ has already accomplished for us. If it is not preached this way in every sermon then Christianity cannot be sharply differentiated from any other religion ascending to God, rather than a message showing our utter helplessness and the need to God to descend to rescue us. This, Horton emphasizes is the key, not only to salvation but to Christian sanctification as well.

…Horton’s tonic for the crisis is to focus on what God does for us rather than what we do for God. “Gifts do not go up to God but come down from the God who does not need anything that would obligate a return (Acts 17:24-35; Rom 11:35-36).” The Son of God did not come to be served, but comes to serve us – “we are the ones who need to be bathed, clothed and fed, not God.”

The current debate in Reformed circles is about Horton’s Christless Christianity book and I guess his views in general. I haven’t read that book and I don’t exactly plan to because I’ve read tons of Horton’s writings and he’s probably been the Christian author who has influenced my thinking the most. So I think I know what to expect from his book. I’m sure I would agree mostly with the book. Not everything, but I think I would certainly agree wholeheartedly with the general thrust of the book which is that preaching nowadays tends to be more about what we are to do for God, rather than what Christ has done for us - and that this should be reversed as the gospel needs to be central. Wonderful stuff. I like it and so would every New Creation member. Not only that, but great reviews from most of the evangelical Christian world.

And so in steps John Frame, who writes a scathing critique of Horton’s book, which sets the Reformed blogsphere on fire - for example, see responses to Frame’s review here, here and here. The interesting thing is that Frame is a pretty heavyweight Reformed theologian himself, and yet chose to write a very critical review. But perhaps it’s unsurprisingly as there’s a lot of history in all of this (i.e. the differences in viewpoints going back years), so I’ve read.

I haven’t read much from Frame, but I do like the stuff I’ve read. He’s the kind of guy who writes about a lot of things and makes you reflect. You may not agree with him, but he makes you think about things in a different way. He’s kind of a non-conformist too, not afraid to differ from what others say and stand up for what he believes in, which is another plus point in my eyes. I read his wonderful book Contemporary Christian Worship and loved it. In it he defends the contemporary / charismatic style of worship. That’s no big deal in and of itself but you must remember he comes from a tradition (Reformed) that’s generally quite anti anything that’s charismatic. The tradition is full of churches whose worship service is anything but contemporary in style. And the tradition has lots against contemporary / charismatic worship. And so he writes a book defending contemporary christian worship! What audacity! And in my opinion it was a great book and very balanced. Of course the majority in the Reformed tradition would differ from me!

So we have two authors here that I admire greatly, but for different reasons. Michael Horton and gang have taught me so much about the gospel, its centrality and the law/gospel distinction. His writings have shaped how I view God and the Bible. His writings have made me appreciate a church like New Creation that has got its emphasis purely on the gospel of Jesus Christ. John Frame, on the other hand, challenges me to see things from different perspectives and to keep things in balance and make sure truths are not out of proportion or carried out to the extreme or at the expense of other truths. As regards to where Frame stands regarding the gospel and law/gospel distinction, I’m on Horton’s side. Yet, I think there’s much that we can learn from Frame too.

Because most of my blog readers are not Reformed and probably couldn’t be bothered with an internal debate involving mainly Reformed Christians, the rest of this post (and the next) will be me basically trying to relate this controversy to the controversy surrounding New Creation and what we can learn through it. So here are some points:

1) The importance of the centrality of the gospel: One thing I’ve learned from Horton is that the gospel of Jesus Christ ought to be central in everything. By the gospel of Jesus Christ, I mean the fact that God in Christ died for our sins. The gospel is about what God did in Christ, not what we do for God. It’s about God giving to us, not about us giving to God. And this message ought to be central in the church and in the preaching.

Most churches talk more about what we ought to do for God and other people. That’s not wrong, but that just should not be central to the preaching we constantly hear and our faith. The reason many churches preach a lot about what we ought to do and little on what Christ has done for us is because many preachers think that the gospel message is just for unbelievers and believers have “graduated” from such a message and don’t need to constantly hear it proclaimed. This kind of attitude to the gospel message is what many others have called assuming the gospel. Many assume that Christians know the gospel message and understand it. The problem is not that that preachers today deny the gospel. It’s just that they don’t think it’s important enough to place it central.

Horton writes:

There need not be explicit abandonment of any key Christian teaching, just a set of subtle distortions and not-so-subtle distractions. Even good things can cause us to look away from Christ and to take the gospel for granted as something we needed for conversion but which now can be safely assumed and put in the background. Center stage, however, is someone or something else. (p. 20)

So the gospel message of Christ’s death and resurrection needs to be central. The message of what God has done for us on the cross ought to be more important and central in the church than what we ought to do for God. This has been Horton’s message for many years and all who attend New Creation know that this is precisely what New Creation is all about. The most important message of the Bible according to Paul is the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4; Gal. 6:14). And it is this message that is for both the non-Christian and even the Christian as it is understanding the goodness of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ that transforms us and teaches us to deny ungodliness (Rom. 2:4; Titus 2:12).

2) Using extreme language unnecessarily: Let’s go to Frame’s review. In the beginning he comments on Horton’s use of extreme language like “Christless” and “alternative gospel”. Frame reminds us, based on Galatians 1:8-9, that

It is time we learned that when we criticize someone for preaching “another gospel” we are doing nothing less than cursing him, damning him to Hell.

Frame’s concern is that we don’t use such extreme terms flippantly and that it doesn’t help when we use extreme labels when describing other Christians or sections of Christianity. Yes, sometimes we over-exaggerate to make a point. However, we also have to be sensitive to the implications of using such terms. By saying this preacher or that preacher is preaching another gospel is not something we should be saying lightly at all as we’re really saying that they are cursed.

I’m all for Horton’s call to place more emphasis on the gospel. However, we need to be careful and not describe those who don’t emphasize the gospel as much as we think they should as adopting or as being close to adopting a Christless Christianity or an alternative gospel. As Frame wrote,

We ought to discuss these matters in an atmosphere of brotherhood, charity, and civility. Certainly we should hold back on extreme language like “Christless” and “alternative gospel.”

I love New Creation’s emphasis on the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’ve been to many churches and have sat under years and years of preaching in Singaporean churches and have never come across a church that emphasizes the gospel of Jesus Christ like New Creation. I wish all churches in Singapore would grasp the significance of the centrality of the gospel, just as Michael Horton and Joseph Prince have.

But let me say this. I hear a lot of preaching that touches on Galatians 1:8-9 (and other passages like that) that make it sound as if other churches other than New Creation (especially those which criticize New Creation) are preaching another gospel. The quote is about starting by grace but continuing by works. To Paul, this is about preaching another gospel. To Paul, people who promote such a gospel are cursed.

My point here, like Frame’s, is that we have to be careful with our words. I think that in an important sense, New Creation preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ more faithfully than perhaps any other Church in Singapore. New Creation is very clear on the gospel. Clarity is important especially as it relates to the gospel message. Many other churches tend to be less clear on the gospel, perhaps even confusing. But I would not even imply or hint that those who disagree with the way New Creation preaches the gospel are preaching another gospel. To do so is really to imply that all other churches or Christians are damned to hell.

Caution is also in order when we talk about the Ten Commandments. I’m solidly behind New Creation in their view that the Ten Commandments are not for Christians today. Other Christians from different Christian traditions believe the same thing. But there are many churches who still believe that the Ten Commandments are for today. We may disagree with that. But we have to recognize that these Christians are NOT saying that we are saved by obeying the Ten Commandments. We thus have to be careful with our criticism and refrain from saying that those who believe that the Ten Commandments are for today are preaching another gospel or preaching that they believe we have to obey the Ten Commandments to be saved, etc. Similarly, those who disagree with New Creation and other Christians who believe the Ten Commandments are not for Christians today should refrain from accusing these Christians of being antinomian or believing that we can sin all we want, etc.

Let me be clear. Scripture does use extreme words to describe those who advocate that we’re saved by works or by obeying the Ten Commandments. I’m not saying we should refrain from using such extreme language so we can all get along. No. By all means, use such extreme language if there are Christians and pastors who are advocating such deception. But as far as I know, no church or pastor does that. Some may preach a confusing message but that doesn’t warrant our extreme use of language to describe them or their teaching. I know what many New Creation members mean when they testify of how their view of Christianity was generally a legalistic one before they encountered the grace and freedom in New Creation. Their view of God was less than biblical because of what their pastors preached previously. I understand this because I’ve been in many such churches. A lot of preaching in many churches is confusing and gives the impression that we have to do good to please God. Furthermore, I know a lot of people do get the impression because of such teaching that God is angry with them and perhaps will not even save them if they do not lead good or godly lives. I’m all against such teachings. But talk to the pastor or leader about the confusing message and while his/her preaching wasn’t so consistent or clear, he/she will tell you that he believes we’re saved by faith alone through grace alone. Such preachers could learn a lot from New Creation about being clear about the message of the gospel and grace, but I would certainly not go so far as to say that they are preaching another gospel and are cursed.

This works both ways of course. Just as I’d like to see less preaching from New Creation that sets up an “us” vs “them” mentality implying that other Christians and churches (those not part of the “grace revolution”) are preaching another gospel, I’d like to see less preaching from other Churches which paints churches like New Creation as though they are antinomian or preach that Christians can sin all they want. Both sides need to be careful not to create straw man arguments and tear them down using the extreme language of Scripture.

To be continued in Part 2…

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…

Yesterday night, I went out with a group of Christians for an exposure walk around Geylang. For those not familiar with Singapore, Geylang is Singapore’s infamous red-light district - although also famous for its good food! Each group spent about 40 minutes walking along 4 streets. We also entered the alleys. It was definitely an insightful experience for me.

This group was a bunch of progressive-leaning Christians from the Student Christian Movement (SCM) and Free Community Church (FCC).They’re hoping to start a ministry to the sex workers in Geylang and so this was an awareness trip organized for people interested in the ministry.

I brought an East-Timor missionary friend I met at the YWAM gathering I attended two weeks ago. Incidentally, YWAM has also been working with sex workers. Just before that gathering took place two weeks ago, YWAM held a mooncake party for sex-workers in the same room. Both FCC and YWAM are situated in Geylang and so it’s good that they’re working with these people.

Anyway, this group hopes to use some form of English classes to reach out to the sex workers. That’s definitely interesting and it’s been done before. For example, there’s an x:talk project in London which gives “free English classes for sex workers by sex workers”. A Thai NGO, Empower, also offers English classes to sex workers. From a Christian bent, you have Rehab Ministries.

For these people, improving their English empowers them:

Many foreign sex workers struggle to string a sentence together when they are negotiating prices and sexual acts with clients. When men put pressure on them to provide sex acts without a condom, it is much harder to refuse when they are unable to cajole punters into accepting something safer. The language barrier means they also fail to secure themselves the best possible deals and working conditions with brothel owners.

But of course there are many important issues to think about. For example, by teaching English, are we thus “encouraging them to do the work”, which was a criticism of the Thai NGO Empower (see Robert Preece’s “The Edge of ESP: English for Sex Workers” article in the Aug/Sep 1997 edition of TESOL Matters). That is, are we legitimizing their kind of work?

And if we see this as “ministry” to sex workers, what is the purpose of our ministry? What are we trying to help them for? Should we even be seeing what we do as trying to “help” them? Is that being too condescending? Or should our work been seen as more of coming alongside them? x:talk quoted Australian Aboriginal activist Lila Watson in their website:

If you have come here to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.

How do we define our success? Do we seek that they quit their jobs and find a new one? But what if they can’t find a better job - in their home country or here? The problem is definitely more complex than just getting them to quit their job, if indeed that is one of our goals.

Do we see this from a moralistic (”oh, sex work is really bad and it’s a sin!”) point of view, or do we see this from another perspective? And very importantly, because we’re Christians, how does the gospel of Jesus Christ fit into all this? A lot of tough questions to think about. And how we answer, I would argue, depends a lot on our ideology and Christian beliefs. The more progressive SCM/FCC would view their ministry differently from how YWAM views their ministry. I’m sure both will have similarities, but also differences. For me, I’m more progressive in relation to most evangelicals, but more conservative in relation to SCM/FCC.

Anyway, this last month or so has opened up my eyes to the opportunities in using teaching English to reach out to people beyond international students. I’ve been working with Christian friends over the past few months to start a weekly free English class for international students. That’s been going well, but we still need more support and help so if you’re reading this and would like to be involved in any (however small) way, do get in touch with me! But along the way I’ve come across people who have asked me to consider free English classes for migrant workers and now I’m thinking about how such can be done for sex workers. I’m not sure I’ll really get into working with migrant or sex workers just yet because working with international students and working with migrant/sex workers is very different. At least I can relate better to the international students who are around my age and with whom I have a lot in common. But I definitely want to move towards working with the migrant and sex workers in the (hopefully near) future.

I started learning Spanish in 2001. I attended a beginner’s course in a language school in Singapore. Then in University, I studied a total of 5 semesters of Spanish language in Australia and Canada. I also lived in Bogotá, Colombia for 4 months in 2003 and Spain for about a month in 2004. I wrote here how I came to be interested in the Spanish language.

I can’t say I’m very competent in my Spanish. On the one hand, I definitely haven’t forgotten it totally like many people do when they have few opportunities to practice it. I have a very good friend with whom I have been practicing Spanish with since I started learning it. On the other hand, I’m not where I should be with all my experience in a Spanish speaking country and studies in the language. My speaking is pretty OK - it’s better than my speaking of Mandarin. However, my listening is quite poor (worse than that of Mandarin) and one area I hope to work on.

Since I took up the language, I’ve never ceased in my desire to improve. However, I haven’t always put in the necessary time nor did I go about seeking to improve my Spanish in the right way. I’ve got a lot of resources in Spanish, but I think one has to be smart in the way one goes about improving in a language. For example, a lot of my resources are just too difficult for me and what happened was I started to give up in using them.

Most Spanish materials you buy in Singapore are of the beginner’s level. You don’t find many intermediate to advanced materials around - simply because there isn’t that much of a demand for them. And that’s one of the problems I faced with improving my Spanish. Over the past few years, I ended up buying a lot of materials from overseas but they proved too difficult for me and had a demotivating effect upon me.

Having gone into English Language Teaching (ELT) or Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in the past year, I’ve also learned a lot about the best way for one to learn a language which I hope to apply to my own learning of Spanish. Anyway, the below are some resources which have excited me recently.

I just ordered and received 7 Spanish graded readers from European Schoolbooks. I think one of the most important ways to improve one’s first or second language is through reading. I improved my English when I started reading English books. For many years, I’ve been trying to find Spanish books to read. I bought the first book of Harry Potter and many Spanish magazines but I ended up giving up. Why? Because there were too many new words I didn’t understand and going to the dictionary always eventually demotivated me. That’s why graded readers are so important. These are books that contain grammatical structures and vocabulary at certain levels. Language learners can buy such books that are at their level and enjoy the book without having to always look up words in the dictionary. I bought these books with the audio CDs so I can also improve my listening.

A website which I recently discovered is SpanishPod. I plan to listen to these free podcasts to improve my Spanish. There are hundreds of free 10 minutes or so podcasts whereby Spanish is explained with English. They’re pretty good! You can pay a bit for the transcripts and some exercises. If not, you can just download the podcasts for free. There’s also a ChinesePod version which I should really start on too! Haha!

Another interesting website which I thought of subscribing to (but I decided it was too expensive) is LoMasTV. I think it’s an awesome way to improve one’s Spanish. It’s basically Spanish videos with both English and Spanish subtitles.

Recently I also decided to start buying DVDs that have Spanish audio and Spanish subtitles. Rather than buying movies, I decided that getting Comedies would be good because each doesn’t last that long. If it’s too long (like movies) and you don’t fully understand what’s going on, you kinda lose motivation because you can’t follow what’s going on. So I’m hoping to watch one episode each day.

I’m also going to try and read more of my Spanish Bible. I have about 10 Spanish Bibles - mostly Spanish-English parallel Bibles. I bring my New Testament Spanish-English parallel Bible everywhere I go although I tend to read only the English side. I have to start to read the Spanish side more often.

There’s also this cool Spanish program I downloaded that I hope to use - WordsGalore. It’ll help me improve my Spanish vocabulary.

I got to know some of the above resources from this good Learning Spanish Blog. Lastly, for Singaporeans who hope to get to know other Singaporeans who are interested in Spanish things, you can go to the Spanish in Singapore Yahoogroups. Lastly, anyone interested to find out more about learning Spanish, please feel free to contact me at idealist@stillhaventfound.org and I’d be glad to give you some advice based on my experience.

I attended a workshop at the GoForth National Missions Conference last week. I wish I could have attended the whole conference but I was working. The last time I attended the conference was in 2005 and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s so wonderful to be around other Christians passionate about missions. It really brings you perspective - this is what a Christian ought to be living for!

The workshop I attended was called “Reaching International Students in Singapore”. This is of course the topic I’ve been into recently. The session was led by the people from the Fellowship of Evangelical Students (FES). These are the people in charge of the Christian Fellowship (CF) groups at the various University and Polytechnic campuses throughout Singapore.

The 2.5 hours session consisted of introductory talks and some activities. I’ll just mention some interesting things that were mentioned. One speaker mentioned that Singapore was previously seen as the Antioch of Asia. That is, we’re a base to send out missionaries to the surrounding countries. And while that’s still true, he pointed out that many people are now flocking to Singapore - foreign workers and students. It’s interesting to see it this way. While there’s still a great need for missions in terms of moving cross-culturally, it’s good to recognize that a lot of students and workers are coming to Singapore and there’s a huge harvest field here in Singapore.

It was also mentioned that the top 6 countries from which foreign students come are, in order, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, India, Vietnam and South Korea. It’s also important to note that Singapore is aiming for 150,000 foreign students in Singapore by 2015. So there’s only going to be more of them coming.

While I thought the session was pretty OK, I felt it didn’t give a very good big picture of what’s involved in reaching out to international students here. The reason is because the speakers were only from one organization. FES does a lot of good work in the Universities and Polytechnics but it has to be noted that most international students do NOT study in these campuses. Most international students do not enter the Government/Public school systems. It was pointed out that only 35% of international students study in this sector. Meanwhile, the majority (65%) study in the private school system. That is, they study in private schools like United World College (UWC) or Singapore American School, but they also study in tertiary-level commercial schools that are sprouting out all over Singapore. These are the schools that offer external diplomas and degrees. For example, a famous tertiary-level private educational organization is Management Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS). This is one of the biggest around. There are other big ones like Asia Pacific Management Institute (APMI) or PSB Academy. However, there are tons and tons of smaller organizations too that most of us have never heard of.

For me, I’m interested in the international students in these organizations as opposed to those in the campuses that FES has a base in or those in government Primary or Secondary schools or those in International schools like UWC. Why? Because the international students in schools like MDIS or APMI and also in the smaller commercial schools are the most neglected and isolated of all international students. Ok, maybe not so much the bigger commercial schools like MDIS as you have a lot of Singaporean students studying in MDIS. But for the smaller commercial schools, a lot of them consist mostly of international students and hardly any Singaporean students. That means you’ll have fewer Singaporeans to reach out to such students. An international student in UWC or NUS or in local Primary or Secondary schools will have a lot of connections to Singaporean Christian students or churches. Not so for the international students in the smaller tertiary-level private schools. Not only is it more unlikely for such students to hear the gospel due to a lack of Singaporean Christian friends in these schools, but such students are also so much more open to friendships because most of their friends are fellow international students and so they long to get to know Singaporean friends to practice their English and also integrate to Singaporean society.

Therefore, I think it’s these students that are the most interesting lot. They are extremely open and they are longing to get to know other Singaporeans. Another interesting group of international students is the group that comes to Singapore solely to learn English in language schools. They may stay for 3 months or 6 months or a year. Their purpose is only to learn English and most of them do not have any Singaporean friends and so are also extremely open to friendship.

I’ve taught in both kinds of schools before. Right now, I’m teaching in a language school, but before I taught in private school that offers external diplomas/degrees and where about 90% of the students are from China and most of them do not have any Singaporean friends. These people are so open to friendship with Singaporeans and also pretty open to the gospel.

So how do we reach out to these two neglected groups? I believe the best way is to offer free English classes to them…

I haven’t been posting because I’ve been pretty busy the past few weeks. I was looking for a job more intensively. And I’ve also been busy completing an essay for one of my Master of Education (TESOL) modules.

I left my previous English teaching job in April after fulfilling my commitments there. Then I started my Masters and worked part-time at one of my previous jobs. This was also an English teaching job but to 1-3 students at a time. Also, the students were already quite good at English. Though English was their Second Language (they were mainly Koreans who have come to study in Singapore schools), they were very young and thus caught up very fast - a case for the Critical Period Hypothesis that states that if people below a certain age learn another language, they’d do so much more easily than if the person started their learning past that critical period. Teaching to these students was thus quite boring for me and not very challenging. Firstly, it was not the kind of students I wanted to teach. I want to teach young adults who truly have difficulty learning English. And I want to teach in a classroom setting. The dynamics are very different when teaching in a classroom. It’s much more challenging and different skills are involved. This is what I want to do in future and thus while working part-time there, I was also searching for another job.

I wrote about the reasons why I left my previous English teaching job here. The major reason was because it didn’t really care about the students, but only about making money. More specifically, three things really made me leave. Firstly, I was made to use their coursebooks which they created by themselves. To say the least, it was pathetic and not fit to be used as a text. Secondly, they didn’t grade their students properly. Their students only had two levels to go to! Most language schools would have about 6 levels - Beginner, Elementary, Lower-Intermediate, Intermediate, Upper-Intermediate and Advanced. The implication of having two levels only was that in my class, there were students of varying levels. Of course, that always happens in a language classroom because no two students would have the exact level of language competence. But having only two levels meant that the difference in language ability within each class is even greater than it should be. And you can’t teach well like that. Thirdly, they had an absolutely ridiculous number of students in each class. For example, there were classes with over 40 (nearly 50) students in the register. So I brought up these points to my boss many times but she didn’t understand.

I feel strongly about all this because I know no language school in Australia (and I would probably say also America, Canada, UK and New Zealand, except for the fact that I don’t have any experience there) who would allow what I experienced to occur in their school. They are just too professional to allow all that. It’s about being professional in one’s job. It’s about going along with best practices and measuring up to international benchmarks. Singapore is a country which has always been pretty advanced and modern (except in their human rights and politics) in what they do. But in this area, it’s so far behind that it’s laughable. I do believe we are one of the best in our mainstream education system. I don’t agree with a lot of things, but if you’re talking about the system and the orthodoxy of the system, you can’t complain. It’s up there with the best. But when it comes to their English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, we are just so far behind.

I say the above not just based on my experience of my previous school. But I’ve also been to many job interviews over the past few weeks. I know there are language schools that are trying to do the best that they can with what they have. These are schools with ESL departments led by experienced professionals and they know what they’re doing. But I’ve also come across many schools where it’s only about the money they make.

A lot of schools have no clue what ESL teaching is. People don’t know that the ESL/EFL industry is huge and there’s been decades and decades of research and practical experience to draw from. In Australia (and other English-speaking countries too I’m sure), eventhough you’re a teacher who’s qualified to teach English in a mainstream school, you’ll never be able to teach ESL. You need a TESOL/TEFL/TESL certificate because they know that ESL teaching is totally different from normal English teaching. The methodology is unique. But in Singapore, many schools think that just because you have experience in teaching English in a mainstream school means you’re qualified to teach ESL. I know many schools which advertise that they’ll consider those who have a Bachelor of English or Mass Communications or Arts. What?? Having studied English (let alone the others) in University would definitely not prepare you to teach ESL simply because the way one teaches ESL students requires a set of skills that studying English in University will not give you. I’d go so far as to say that through my experiences in teaching in other areas, I think teaching ESL is probably one of the most, if not the most, difficult kind of teaching there is. If you teach other subjects, the major requirement is to have expert knowledge in that subject area. For teaching ESL, one needs to have both expert knowledge (i.e. of the English language), but it also requires a set of teaching skills that is unique. This is because you aren’t just teaching the content of the English language. That’s just a small part of ESL teaching. You’re also teaching language skills and you yourself have got to possess the skill of using the English language to facilitate English learning. I know of qualified mainstream teachers in Australia who’ve said that they’ve benefited and learned more from their TESOL certificate than from their Postgraduate Diploma of Education. I’ve gone through my TESOL/CELTA certification - all 120 hours of input and 6 hours of meticulously evaluated teaching practice - and till now I still feel so inadequate because there’s so much more to learn.

I did a little bit of research on Australia’s high standards of ESL education. Australia has an ELT (English Language Teaching) accreditation scheme called The National ELT Accreditation Scheme (NEAS). The aim of NEAS Australia is to “establish and uphold high standards of service provision in English Language Teaching in Australia”. Not all English language schools in Australia are accredited by NEAS and of course that just means it hasn’t reached such standards. But many schools are (check it out under the “approved elt centres” link). Looking through the criteria for being accredited, I would posit a guess that probably less than 5% or 3% of language schools in Singapore (or other private schools that have an ESL department) would be able to attain the standards needed for accreditation. I would not be surprised if no school/department here would be able to.

Here are some important standards that I know many language schools/departments would not be able to meet (you can view their Standards and Criteria for ELT Accreditation here):

1) Under the Academic management section, it states that the centre has to appoint “a suitably qualified and experienced person responsible for the academic management” and beyond having a recognized degree, this person has to have “five years experience in managing and/or teaching on ELT programs” and also a “TESOL qualification at postgraduate diploma level or about”.

I have come across many schools/departments headed by people who would not even come near to such qualifications or experience. I’ve been to many interviews and I don’t recall a single person who’s interviewed me with such qualifications or experience. In fact, most have not taught ESL for many years and most do not even have a TESOL certification. I think I’ve only come across two or three interviewers who I would say have a good knowledge of what teaching ESL is about and who have good qualifications.

2) Under the Teachers section, all teachers need to have not just a degree but also some sort of TESOL qualification. A teaching qualification would not do. That means, as I’ve already said, that a person can be qualified to teach in mainstream schools with some sort of Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE), but still not be able to teach in the ELT centre. Why? Because teaching ESL is a totally different ballgame.

As I mentioned above, I know many teachers teaching ESL in Singapore who would not be able to qualify as ESL teachers in Australia.

3) Under Teacher professional development, it’s stated that the ELT centre needs to facilitate “ongoing professional development of teaching staff, to ensure teachers are kept up-to-date with current theory, knowledge and practice in the field”. Also, “newly qualified staff are provided with mentoring and support during their first year of employment”.

Again, I know no English school/department in Singapore that does this. And I think this is very important because the new staff need guidance and all the teaching staff need to receive ongoing professional development. Why? Because I think that a TESOL certificate is really the bare minimum that an ESL teacher ought to have. It hardly makes a person a good teacher and there’s still so much more to learn. A school that really cares for its students and its teachers would think about how they can provide teacher development.

4) Under Program delivery, “the student:teacher ratio for classroom based instruction does not exceed 18 students per teacher per class.”

As mentioned above, my first school had about 40 students on average on the class register. I’ve heard of at least 2 classes there just hitting under 50 students!! My previous boss told me the school went by the Ministry of Education’s standards of 40 students per class. I argued back that such standards are not appropriate for ESL teaching.

I’m glad to know, however, that I know no other schools that accept that number of students per class. The most elsewhere I know would be 25 to 30, which is still too high. Many schools I know have between 10 and 20 students, but probably only because they can’t get more per class. If they could get more, I have no doubts that a lot of them would just squeeze them all into one class because it makes good business sense.

Just a note here regarding certification. A certificate or a degree is a just a paper. One can be certified and qualified, and yet be a bad teacher. And one can lack paper qualifications and yet be a great teacher. One owner of a school who interviewed me didn’t care whether its teachers were certified or not. I was quite shocked, not because I think certification is the be all and end all of ESL teaching, but because I think it shows a lack of awareness of TESOL being a very specialized field that requires a unique set of skills to be good at it. Of course, such skills can be learned on the job. It could be learned internally in the school. But schools here don’t train their teachers. Many just think that if you’re experienced in teaching before or if you’re good at teaching in general, you’d make a good ESL teacher as there isn’t much difference between teaching in general and ESL teaching in particular.

Anyway, on to some specific encounters during my search for a job. I’ve talked to at least two people whose experience have further confirmed to me how education is becoming more of a business than about the learning of students. One person was part of a group that came together to start a school because they got so sick of their past experiences in the education industry and how the people there only wanted to make money. Another person talked about being cheated by a partner.

I also had a good talk with a HR personnel who interviewed me. This person honestly shared with me that the White teachers in the school were given a higher starting salary and didn’t have to do as much administrative work as local teachers. This (along with other repulsive company practices) made me sick and this person shared that she didn’t agree with it, but it was the owner’s policy. We got along well during our talk and so I asked why he continued in his job if he didn’t agree with such practices. I got a good enough answer from him.

In a way, I don’t blame the school for such policies. The students want white teachers, so the school has to provide for them if it wants their business. But it just shows how ignorant the students are and how much of an unprincipled money-grabbing fool the owner is. The owner is a typical Singaporean with a hangover colonial mentality. Compare him and his school with another school owned by a British. I had one of my first interviews (for an ESL teaching job) in Singapore with him. He offered me a job which I didn’t take for some reasons. But I asked him honestly whether it’s hard for a non-White to get an ESL teaching job in Singapore. He said he had no problems hiring a non-White as long as the person is qualified and able to teach well. Skin color didn’t make a difference to him. And he went on to say that if his students came to him to ask for a White teacher, he’d tell the student to either accept the teacher he has or leave. What can I say? Either a very lousy businessman, or one with principles.

I wrote to the Ministry of Education here and asked whether there are any standards for ESL schools and teaching here in Singapore - just like NEAS in Australia. And I’m looking forward to hearing from them if they bother to reply me. While being critical of the many ESL schools here, I do understand that a lot of unprofessionalism comes from a general desire to make money and also ignorance of what ESL is all about. The latter is understandable because we don’t have that long a history of being into ESL like other places like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. These countries have much better standards of professionalism because they’ve been doing this for ages. The ESL industry is only starting to come alive due to more intense globalization. More and more foreign students are coming to Singapore - especially from China, but also from Southeast Asia - and the numbers are only going to increase further as the Singapore government pushes hard to reach its goal of attracting 150,000 foreign students by 2015. All this only means more money and bigger business for many private education organisations. It remains to be seen how the ESL industry in Singapore will develop.

One thing I’ve realized is that there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to provide good education for foreign students. From what I know (which may be wrong), students who come to further their studies in private education organisations here do not really know much about the schools here. That’s because there are just so many around. Sure, there are some of better reputation. But then there are so many other small ones offering education programs. Students overseas mostly go through agencies in their home countries. By the time they reach Singapore, most would already have chosen which school to go to. And agencies over there don’t care whether the school is good or not, but only how much commission they get from the school. So the agencies would probably recommend a school that pays them more per student.

Therefore, a good language school which puts the students’ language learning above making money and which thus invests in good teachers and good facilities and makes sure that the classroom size is small, etc., may not make as much business as a school which puts money first and doesn’t care so much about the students’ learning, but which has more money to pay agents overseas. There’s thus very little monetary incentive to be a good language school.

Of course, Singapore does have accreditation schemes for private education organisations, but I don’t think they have any yet in regards to ESL teaching. I hope one day they will come up with one like NEAS in Australia, although I think it’s still a long way away.

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.

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.

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.