Upon the invitation of Bridget Lew of H.O.M.E. I visited her project in setting up an NGO, Yayasan Dunia Viva Wanita (YDVW), which seeks to empower women and changing the lives of the slum dwellers in Batam caught in the process of urbanization and industrialization.
Her aim is to decrease the vulnerability of people from engaging in trafficking and exploiting workers.
I was interested to see how Batam was dealing with the issue of HIV/Aids and how Bridget has linked up with the government and non-governmental programmes on this important public health issue.
We met with Pieter P Pureklolong who is the Executive Secretary of the local government Commission on Aids who briefed us on the situation in Batam which is known in Singapore as a sex tourist destination.
His official report indicated that there was a 15% rise of 273 with HIV in 2009 to 317 in 2010. There were 77 who developed Aids in 2009 and 134 in 2010. The number of deaths was 36 in 2009 and 74 in 2010. The government provides free testing, free Aids medication, free male and female condoms produced in the country.
We visited the main red light district with sex workers plying their trade in a block of apartment flats just off the main street near two shopping malls. A private clinic offers medical services to the sex workers just across the street. Working with the clinic are volunteers who provide counseling services and safe sex education to the sex workers. Along with the government hospital are private hospitals that take in Aids patients. There is close co-operation between the private and public agencies in addressing the issue of HIV/Aids.
In an industrial zone known as Batammindo there is established a community centre where social agencies are able to provide various educational, recreational, and social services to the 40,000 workers from different islands working in the different manufacturing factories. On the day we visited the workers were on a national strike for an increase of their minimum monthly salary from about SGD180 to 200. Bridget's project has a computer training centre with donated computers from Body Shop to train the workers. She has plans to provide an educational programme on HIV/Aids in order to work on prevention and stigmatization.
We went to an urban slum known as Kampong Air close to a rubbish dumping site where
YDVW in co-operation with local agencies and support from H.O.M.E., Healthserve, Bethany Church in Singapore have established a comprehensive development project.
200 children are in a Little Angel Reading House with a library and play activities. The youths will be given enrichment programmes including sex education and safe sex. Women have formed a Co-operative to sell basic supplies like rice, cooking oil etc. A micro-credit scheme will be in place to enable the slum dwellers to generate family income. Seminars will be conducted on Sanitation & Health including HIV/Aids and Human Trafficking.
Rumah Wanita in a secluded neighbourhood is the Shelter is for abused women from domestic violence, migrant workers from other islands, victims of human trafficking and unmarried mothers. They find safety and security and receive guidance and training for them to be integrated into society.
It was an enriching experience which energises me for wider development services to marginalized communities. It is a privilege to be support the work of H.O.M.E. in Singapore and with YDVM in Batam.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Sunday, July 31, 2011
When Mel White Calls
Mel White called on Free Community Church on Sunday July 31, 2011 and exhorted the congregation in these challenging times to respond in faith to its mission. I read earlier in his Facebook posting about his visit to his Bali project for street boys and his Phnom Penh orphanage. I commented and invited him to drop by to visit us.
During the worship service, Mel lamented about the decline of the American Empire and the impending collapse of the earth and even Singapore could be submerged due to the greed and arrogance of humankind.
Mel is here as the house guest of Prof Kerry Sieh, his former church member, of Nanyang Technological University. Mel White had introduced Kerry Sieh and his partner to FCC during a previous visit.
On 13 Oct 09, Channel News Asia broadcast a newsclip featuring an interview with Prof. Kerry Sieh, the openly gay head of Singapore’s Earth Observatory. Sieh, who was actively courted by the Singapore government for his expertise, moved to Singapore with his male partner after Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in July 2007 that “Homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their private lives”.
Before becoming Director of the Earth Observatory of Singapore, Prof Sieh was a tenured geology professor with an endowed chair at the California Institute of Technology's Tectonics Observatory, a US$30 million privately funded scientific effort, which he and others created at the university. He uprooted and joined NTU when the Singapore government made him an offer he could not refuse – to build a research centre of excellence for the study of earthquake sciences with S$150 million funding.
This visit of Mel reminded me of an earlier article written by Joe Dallas who is critical of Mel who is the founder of Soulforce. It was Soulforce who was instrumental in the decision of Bill Hybels to dissociate recently from Exodus International. It is amazing to me that such an description of Mel was penned by a anti-gay leader.
When Soulforce Calls
JAF4322
Joe Dallas
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 32, number 2 (2009). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
Synopsis
The gay advocacy group Soulforce presents itself as a faith-based, civil rights organization, promoting justice for homosexuals by confronting churches and Christian leaders who promote the traditional biblical view of homosexuality. Soulforce has adopted teachings from both Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and views itself as a modern civil rights movement following the traditions of nonviolent protest. Founded by Mel White, a former ghost writer for Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, Soulforce believes the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, damaging to homosexuals, and must be confronted as its promoters must also be confronted, converted, or ultimately silenced. To this end, it has sponsored demonstrations at denominational conventions, churches, and conferences across the country, and has visited numerous Christian and secular universities. If pastors or Christian leaders choose to dialogue with this group, they should be aware of its erroneous theological positions and should clearly assert their disagreements with Soulforce’s beliefs and goals.
“We must stage powerful and long term direct actions against local churches and local pastors who are the primary source of the antigay propaganda in our communities....”
—Rev. Mel White, founder of Soulforce1
In the spring of 2008, pastors Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, T. D. Jakes, and Bill Hybels shared a dilemma. Each had been informed that his church was selected for a visit from Soulforce, a pro-homosexual religious organization that was sending a group of openly gay couples, along with friends and allies, to attend their worship services and inform their congregations of the “damaging impact of religion based discrimination” towards homosexuals.2
That wasn’t all, however. Soulforce would also “require” a forum for “personal and direct interaction” with each church and its leadership, which could take the form of a shared meal, panel discussion, or private meeting. If the pastors refused, they could expect “creative and visible nonviolent direct action.”3
They weren’t alone. Administrators at Biola University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and numerous other Christian campuses around the country have received similar notice from Soulforce, often resulting in on-campus trespassing, additional security requirements, and arrests.4 Additionally, Focus on the Family’s facilities in Colorado Springs are visited regularly by Soulforce demonstrators, some of whom refuse to leave the property until their demands are met;5 the annual conference of American Catholic Bishops has had its mass interrupted by Soulforce activists;6 denominational conventions have been subjected to Soulforce-engineered demonstrations and disruptions of business;7 and Christianity Today magazine, commenting on the group’s activities, cited Soulforce as an example of “an inescapable conflict for every church” over homosexuality.8
Thus, an increasing number of Christian leaders are facing the question: What should we do when Soulforce calls? This article will attempt to answer that question by examining the history, beliefs, and tactics of Soulforce, and by offering biblical principles and strategies to assist pastors and leaders who will one day encounter this growing and aggressive organization.
REV. MEL WHITE AND THE HISTORY OF SOULFORCE
Soulforce was birthed in 1999 by Rev. Mel White and his partner Gary Nixon, with the intention of recruiting and training volunteers to join in “confronting the antigay words and actions of fundamentalist Christians.”9 White, a former pastor and professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, had ghostwritten books for some of America’s foremost Christian leaders, including Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, and was recognized as an accomplished film producer and communicator. In his autobiography Stranger at the Gate, however, he describes what was not well known about him: his private and lifelong struggle with homosexuality, a struggle he was aware of from his boyhood in the 1950s. Raised devoutly Christian, he felt his only option was to keep his sexual feelings a secret and marry, which he eventually did, fathering two children, one of whom became the well-known comic actor and screenwriter Mike White.
White recounts, movingly, his attempts to change his sexual orientation through counseling, intensive prayer, and even electroshock therapy.10 Unable to find relief from his attractions to men, he engaged in a number of clandestine homosexual encounters, even while ghostwriting for prominent leaders such as Graham and Falwell, none of whom knew of his sexual leanings. For most of his adult life, he’d believed homosexuality to be wrong, so his lapses into same-sex encounters caused him considerable guilt. His thinking gradually changed, influenced largely by a psychologist at Fuller who advised him, in 1980, that even though he was a married Christian father, he was also a gay man who needed to accept it, fall in love with another man, and move on.11 An epiphany followed: “For twenty five years I had been in a kind of bondage, judging myself, hating myself, trying to change something in the heart of me that could not, should not, be changed.”12
He began discussing his sexuality with his wife, Lyla, and by 1984 he’d begun seeing Nixon, though still married, and eventually was amicably divorced from his wife (who is on record as supporting him in his work with Soulforce). He then formed a partnership with Nixon that was solidified in a California marriage ceremony in 2008.13 His “coming out” in 1993 sent shock-waves through evangelical circles, and the release of his autobiography the next year was accompanied by generous media coverage, from featured newspaper articles to interviews on 60 Minutes and Larry King Live. White was soon to became the most visible and vocal representative for those claiming to be genuinely Christian and openly gay.
From the beginning, though, his goal was not just to “come out,” but also to come out against.” I will not remain silent any longer,” he declared in 1993 while issuing a public challenge to those he referred to as the religious right. “I pledge myself to do my best to prove you wrong with all the courage, wisdom and love I can muster.”14 On this promise he made good. He would soon stage a demonstration against Pat Robertson’s CBN headquarters in Virginia Beach, resulting in trespassing charges for which he would be jailed and then, in Ghandi-style protest, begin a well-publicized hunger strike that would only end when Robertson came to him in jail and promised to change his rhetoric when speaking about homosexuals.15 A similar “Fast for Understanding” was staged in Colorado Springs in protest of Focus on the Family.16 Jerry Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church would soon face many similar public displays from White and his allies.17
By 1999, White and Nixon had organized and recruited others who shared their concerns and Soulforce was formed, seeking “freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.”18 The ensuing decade has seen the group’s visibility and aggression expand, making itself known at annual denominational conventions, church trials for pastors charged with violating their denomination’s standards regarding homosexuality, Christian universities, and churches, both national and worldwide. With public support from allies such as Jay Bakker (son of PTL founders Jim and Tammy Faye Baker),19 Arun Gandhi (grandson of Mohandas Gandhi),20 and Yolanda King (daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr.),21 Soulforce has solidified its image as both a civil rights and progressive religious organization.
SOULFORCE BELIEFS
White continues to identify himself as a bible-believing Christian,22 and the frequent references Soulforce volunteers and associates make to scripture, along with personal claims of faith, suggest a specifically Christian organization.23 Soulforce’s approach to the faith, however, is ecumenical: “Our Creator is not confined to any church or synagogue, any temple or mosque. Our Creator is on the front lines where people are suffering injustice. And when we join God there, we discover what it means to be a son or daughter of God, what it means to be truly human.”24
Soulforce therefore believes that we are all children of God by birth (not rebirth, as Jesus claimed in John 3:3) who discover God’s fatherhood by doing social justice. In fact, the first of the “Six Soulforce Beliefs about Myself ” announces: “I am a child of a loving Creator, a daughter or a son of the Soulforce at the center of the universe.”25 This belief stands in stark contrast to John’s declaration that “as many as received him [Christ] to them gave the power to become the sons of God” ( John 1:12 KJV), and to Jesus’ assertion that no one can come to God but by Him ( John 14:6).
So, while some Soulforce advocates may identify themselves as Christian, the organization’s self-description, posted on its Web site, is apt: “Soulforce is an interfaith and ecumenical movement.”26 The name Soulforce refers to teachings by Gandhi called satyagraha, his term for “truth force.” Gandhi taught that people should live by this truth force through defining a “plan of action that developed inner lives while working to transform society.” These teachings influenced first Gandhi, then King, both of whom White claims as inspirations and models: “Gandhi developed and refined his Satyagraha or ‘soul force’ principles while leading justice movements in South Africa (1893–1915) and India (1915–1948). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., discovered Gandhi’s ‘soul force’ rules and used them to shape his own nonviolent civil rights movement in America.”27 White asks, “How would our [gay] civil rights movement be different if we rediscovered and applied those ‘soul force’ principles…?”28
Seeing itself as following in Gandhi and King’s footsteps— the oppressed (gays) taking a righteous stand against the oppressor (the church)—Soulforce holds to three primary beliefs concerning homosexuality and Christianity: (1) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, (2) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is damaging, and (3) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality must be changed or silenced. Understanding Soulforce requires an understanding of each point.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Is Wrong”
Soulforce promotes a revision of the Bible as it regards homosexuality. In doing so, it joins established pro-gay religious organizations such as the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, The United Church of Christ, and Evangelicals Concerned, all of whom regard the Bible as inspired, but believe that scriptural references to homosexuality found in Genesis 19:1–11, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:24–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, or simply misunderstood. White explains his position on homosexuality and the Bible: “Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the Biblical texts used by some people to condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children. The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it. The prophets, Jesus, and the Biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today.”29
To Soulforce, the traditional Christian view that homosexual acts are biblically prohibited, and that homosexuality itself is abnormal, is wrong. By extension, then, all Christians who hold such views are equally wrong.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Is Damaging”
Here Soulforce goes further than many pro-gay theologians, who simply declare the traditional viewpoint on homosexuality to be incorrect.30 Soulforce insists it is also damaging, causing depression and suicide among homosexuals, and violence against them as well.
Sometimes they claim the traditional view is damaging because unbalanced, homophobic people may use it as an excuse to assault homosexuals. In such cases it’s not the view itself, but its potential for misuse, that’s the problem. One Soulforce volunteer remarked: “I think over and over again how we must help all preachers understand how their negative ‘Biblical pronouncements’ about LGBT persons harms and hurts LGBT persons and gives some violent persons rationale for their violence against them.”31 White, in an open letter to a Catholic Bishop, makes a similar argument: “If God rejects us and you reject us, is it any wonder that our families and friends reject us, that we are demeaned by our classmates, fired from our jobs, evicted from our apartments, hunted down and hounded out of the military, harassed and taunted in the streets, and even killed by teenagers with knives and baseball bats?”32
More often, though, Soulforce claims the traditional view is damaging in and of itself. For example, if you say homosexuality is a sin, that statement not only inspires others to hurt homosexuals, but the statement itself emotionally or spiritually violates them. White argues accordingly: “I’d rather suffer psychological or physical violence any day than be told over and over again the untruth that my sexual orientation is a sickness and a sin; that my Creator doesn’t love me as I am; and that my fifteen year relationship with Gary Nixon isn’t blessed by God.”33
According to Soulforce, then, if you preach that homosexuality is a sin, you inspire others to commit violent acts against homo sexuals, and you yourself, by making that statement, commit violence against them as well. You diminish their sense of worth; you generate depression within them; you inspire rejection, abuse, and violence against them. Thus all Christians (Christian leaders, especially) who hold the traditional view are an ongoing source of suffering to the homosexual population. Consider a few more of White’s statements in this vein:
“These antigay, religion-based teachings and actions have become the primary source of misinformation against sexual and gender minorities, misinformation that leads to suffering and death.”34
“We know that all Christian churches share responsibility for the mistreatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans.”35
“Religious leaders are the primary source of misinformation that leads to suffering and death for sexual and gender minorities.”36
Mistreatment, suffering, violence, death—no wonder Soulforce declares itself “determined to help change the minds and hearts of religious leaders whose anti-homosexual campaigns lead (directly and indirectly) to—suffering.”37 If you believe that a certain teaching causes emotional suffering, physical violence, or death to any group, you’ll no doubt do what’s within your power to change the minds of the people behind the teaching, or silence the teaching itself. Inevitably, then, Soulforce’s first two primary beliefs generate its third.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Must Be Changed or Silenced”
“This spiritual violence must end,” declares White. “We love…the body of Christ too much to allow it to continue these policies that lead to suffering and death.”38 Elsewhere he warns, “The toxic rhetoric flows unabated, primarily from sincere but misinformed religious leaders. It is poisoning the national discourse, dividing homes and churches, ruining families and wasting lives. We must do our best to stop that flow of poison at its source.”39
Traditional teaching on homosexuality sparks violence; religious leaders dispense a toxic flow of traditional teaching; the flow must be cut off at its source—churches, Christian schools, evangelistic institutions, or any other places where the traditional biblical view on homosexuality is promoted. But how? “What I suggest to all homosexuals and their supporters,” White advises, “is to create tension between the church and the gay community.”40
To create that tension, Soulforce chooses a church, Christian college, denominational conference, or organization, then contacts them to request a meeting, warning of potential demonstrations or other “direct actions” if they refuse. Such “direct actions” may disrupt or inconvenience, but the group adheres to a strict policy of nonviolence, and there’s no evidence of Soulforce demonstrators ever threatening, vandalizing, name calling, or using obscenity in any form. Some leaders who’ve hosted meetings with Soulforce have positive things to say about the encounters,41 while others who’ve refused to meet their terms have been obliged to have them forcibly removed from their property.42 The meeting they request normally includes an allotted time to present their views to the church or campus, informal discussions, distribution of their literature, and meetings with the church or college leaders.
Annual events include the Equality Ride (bus riders visiting Christian seminaries and Bible colleges), the American Family Outing (delegates visiting megachurches), and Soulforce Q (international outreach). Clearly, then, Soulforce’s attempts to change the church’s views on homosexuality are expanding. So let me offer three general suggestions to consider when Soulforce calls.
DIALOGUE IS OPTIONAL, NOT MANDATORY
We are not biblically required to respond to every charge leveled against us, nor to every request for a conversation. Jesus at times refused to engage in dialogue when dialogue seemed useless or distracting, or when those “baiting” Him hoped to provoke an argument (Matt. 21:24). Paul likewise reserved the right to deny audience to men who would introduce false doctrine to churches he was responsible for (Gal. 2:5). Soulforce presents its concerns as though every pastor or administrator is obliged to consider them, but the fact is, a leader’s responsibility is first to the people he serves, not to an outside group demanding his attention.
There is scriptural precedent for avoiding conversations or debates that may divert a group from its primary goal, as there’s precedent for pastors protecting their flock from error. Nehemiah, for example, knew his responsibility was to rebuild Jerusalem, leading his men to fulfill his God-given vision. When Israel’s enemies tried to distract him from this, first by mockery (Neh. 4:1–3), then by threats (Neh. 4:11), then finally by an invitation to dialogue (Neh. 6:5–7), he ignored their attempts, focusing instead on the work at hand. In doing so he was hardly mistreating those who wanted to distract him. Rather, he knew his priorities, recognized his limited time and energy, and refused to engage with others who would divert him from his primary purposes.
Any leader contacted by Soulforce should “go and do likewise” by considering, first and foremost, his priorities. How does their request for access to his congregation or group match the needs of the group itself, and his God-given vision for it? If it doesn’t, then a polite but clear refusal of their invitation is called for. But if after prayerful consideration, he concludes that an encounter with Soulforce would be in the best interest of his organization or flock, then two more points should be considered.
SOULFORCE PREMISES ARE ERRONEOUS
Space prohibits a detailed response in this article to Soulforce’s claim that the Bible verses traditionally understood to condemn homosexuality have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, or misunderstood. A clear reading of these verses in context, utilizing common sense and respect for the inspiration of both testaments, leaves little doubt, however, as to their unambiguous prohibition of homosexual relations of any sort, under any circumstances. Still, an effective response to the pro-gay interpretation of Scripture requires an understanding of that interpretation and a detailed rebuttal of it.
It’s essential that those deciding to dialogue with Soul force first brush up on the finer points of pro-gay theology, because any dialogue with a group claiming homosexuality and Christianity are compatible must begin with either a concession to their claim or a challenge to it. Two helpful resources would be The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas (Harvest House, 2007) and The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert Gagnon (Abingdon Press, 2002).
Likewise, the premise that traditional teaching on homosexuality leads to the suffering of homosexuals calls for rebuttal. No doubt there is prejudice against homosexuals, evidenced at times in acts of violence and cruel words. Proof of a link between biblical teaching and violence against homosexuals, however, is lacking, though Soulforce presents this premise as established fact. One might respond that Anti-Semitism (prejudice against Jews) exists, and Christians generally believe Jews who reject Jesus the Messiah are unsaved. Does it logically follow that those who recognize Christ as Messiah therefore create Anti-Semitism? Likewise, Scripture teaches that parents should train their children, and some parents abuse their children. Shall biblical teaching on parenting be blamed for the horrors of child abuse, or shall we admit the obvious and significant distinction between a belief and its perversion or misapplication? Soulforce claims to the contrary, saying that homosexuality is wrong is one thing; encouraging hatred towards homosexuals is something obviously and entirely different.
Consider Soulforce’s Concerns; Assert Your Own
Respectful dialogue requires a careful analysis of the other’s claims, so when dialogue with Soulforce is decided on, then hearing their concerns is necessary. Much can be learned in doing so. But an error Christians often make when dealing with homosexual activists is to overindulge their desire for us to hear their concerns, while offering none of our own. “The servant of the Lord must not strive,” Paul warned, “but must be gentle to all men” (2 Tim. 2:24). Some leaders who have dealt with Soulforce seem to have achieved at least that part of the passage, congratulating themselves for having been gentle and respectful, leaving the meeting keenly aware of Soulforce’s complaints and concerns. One wonders, though, if Soulforce had a clue about any concerns the pastors themselves may have had.
Paul did, after all, continue by saying God’s servant must be “apt to teach…instructing those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:24–25 KJV). Surely a Christian leader who believes that homosexuality is wrong will be concerned for the spiritual welfare of Soulforce delegates who claim to be both gay and Christian (as many do). Surely such leaders, believing homosexuality to be sin, will be concerned about this group’s aggressive commitment to encouraging its normalization and celebration. And surely such leaders will feel some injunction to, as Paul said, “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather, reprove them” (Eph. 5:11 KJV). So those hosting a dialogue should insure that time spent expressing these concerns to Soulforce is equal to the time spent hearing theirs. If a conversation is requested, then let it be understood in advance as a mutual dialogue, not a monologue, because in the end, this dialogue is inevitable and unavoidable.
The past year (2008) saw unprecedented aggression from the gay rights movement, as it sought legitimization of homosexuality and the marginalization of any group or individual who opposes it. And since the last organized force resisting this movement is, for the most part, the Christian church, Christianity Today’s editorial on Soulforce and a Christian response to it seems both relevant and ominous:
“Soulforce’s message to evangelicals is clear: You are next.”43
Joe Dallas is the program director of Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California, a Christian counseling service to men dealing with sexual addiction, homosexuality, and other sexual/relational problems. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors and is the author of three books on human sexuality, including Desires in Conflict (Harvest House, 1991) and A Strong Delusion (Harvest House, 1996).
notes
1 “Why We Can’t Wait to End This Debate!” Interview in Gay Today.com, http://www.gaytoday.com/garchive/ viewpoint/051302vp.htm.
2 “Soulforce: The American Family Outing,” http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/AFOcomplete.pdf.
3 Ibid.
4 “The Equality Ride,” http://www.soulforce.org/equalityride.
5 “Pro-Gay Protestors Arrested at Focus,” citizenlink.com, May 2, 2005,http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/ A000000335.cfm.
6 “History of Soulforce 1999–2006,” http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
7 Ibid.
8 “Coming Attractions: Gay Activism Is Not Just Found in Liberal Churches,” Christianity Today, August 1, 2003, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/august/31.33.html.
9 “Soulforce 1999–2006,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
10 Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994).
11 Ibid., 155.
12 Ibid., 155–56.
13 http://www.allsaints-pas.org/site/DocServer/JEB080618_Mel_White_and_Gary_Nixon_Wedding_ Homily.pdf?docID=4624.
14 Stranger, 269.
15 “Partners in Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/10.
16 “Mel White Launches ‘Fast for Understanding,’” Holysmoke.org, http://www.holysmoke.org/ sdhok/homo06.htm.
17 “Jerry Falwell, Mel White, and the Model of Intervention,” Colorado Confidential, http://coloradoconfidential.com/ showDiary.do?diaryId=2068.
18 Soulforce Vision Statement from http://www.soulforce.org.
19 “Soulforce Meets with Joel Osteen; New Birth Next Target,” Gay Christian Movement Watch, http:// gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/soulfarce-meets-with-joel-osteen/.
20 “Media Photos,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/746.
21 Ibid.
22 Stranger, 238.
23 See, e.g., testimonials of the Freedom Riders at the “Equality Ride Blog,” http:// www.soulforce.org/article/1440.
24 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
25 “Six Soulforce Beliefs,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/567.
26 Ibid.
27 Mel White, “A Soulforce Call for Direct Action: Bringing Truth and Love to Lynchburg,” February 22, 1999, http://www.soulforce.org/article/525.
28 Mel White, “The Original 17 Step Journey,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/531.
29 “What The Bible Says—And Doesn’t Say about Homosexuality,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/ homosexuality-bible.
30 See, e.g., John Boswell’s prominent defense of pro-gay theology, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), and for detailed rebuttal see Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), and Joe Dallas’ The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2006).
31 “Bishop T. D. Jakes Agrees to Ongoing Dialogue with LGBT & Straight-Ally Families,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/email_campaign/email_5_22_2008.html.
32 http://www.whosoever.org/v5i4/mel.html.
33 Mel White, “The Second Trial of Jimmy Creech,” Whosoever, http://www.whosoever.org/ editorial/creechtrial.html.
34 Mel White, “Why We Can’t Wait for This Debate to End!” Gay Today, http://www.gaytoday.com/garchive/ viewpoint/051302vp.htm.
35 http://www.soulforce.org/article/469.
36 http://www.soulforce.org/article/395.
37 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
38 “Declaring an Unholy War,” Circuit Rider’s Range, http://www.crrange.com/soulwar.html.
39 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
40 “Mel White Speaks about Being Gay and Christian in America,” Collegiate Times, http://www.collegiatetimes.com/ news/1/ARTICLE/8052/2006-11-16.html.
41 See http://www.soulforce.org/article/1107 for comments.
42 See http://www.soulforce.org/article/1483 for one of many examples.
43 “Coming Attractions: Gay Activism Is Not Just Found in Liberal Churches.”
During the worship service, Mel lamented about the decline of the American Empire and the impending collapse of the earth and even Singapore could be submerged due to the greed and arrogance of humankind.
Mel is here as the house guest of Prof Kerry Sieh, his former church member, of Nanyang Technological University. Mel White had introduced Kerry Sieh and his partner to FCC during a previous visit.
On 13 Oct 09, Channel News Asia broadcast a newsclip featuring an interview with Prof. Kerry Sieh, the openly gay head of Singapore’s Earth Observatory. Sieh, who was actively courted by the Singapore government for his expertise, moved to Singapore with his male partner after Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in July 2007 that “Homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their private lives”.
Before becoming Director of the Earth Observatory of Singapore, Prof Sieh was a tenured geology professor with an endowed chair at the California Institute of Technology's Tectonics Observatory, a US$30 million privately funded scientific effort, which he and others created at the university. He uprooted and joined NTU when the Singapore government made him an offer he could not refuse – to build a research centre of excellence for the study of earthquake sciences with S$150 million funding.
This visit of Mel reminded me of an earlier article written by Joe Dallas who is critical of Mel who is the founder of Soulforce. It was Soulforce who was instrumental in the decision of Bill Hybels to dissociate recently from Exodus International. It is amazing to me that such an description of Mel was penned by a anti-gay leader.
When Soulforce Calls
JAF4322
Joe Dallas
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 32, number 2 (2009). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
Synopsis
The gay advocacy group Soulforce presents itself as a faith-based, civil rights organization, promoting justice for homosexuals by confronting churches and Christian leaders who promote the traditional biblical view of homosexuality. Soulforce has adopted teachings from both Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and views itself as a modern civil rights movement following the traditions of nonviolent protest. Founded by Mel White, a former ghost writer for Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, Soulforce believes the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, damaging to homosexuals, and must be confronted as its promoters must also be confronted, converted, or ultimately silenced. To this end, it has sponsored demonstrations at denominational conventions, churches, and conferences across the country, and has visited numerous Christian and secular universities. If pastors or Christian leaders choose to dialogue with this group, they should be aware of its erroneous theological positions and should clearly assert their disagreements with Soulforce’s beliefs and goals.
“We must stage powerful and long term direct actions against local churches and local pastors who are the primary source of the antigay propaganda in our communities....”
—Rev. Mel White, founder of Soulforce1
In the spring of 2008, pastors Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, T. D. Jakes, and Bill Hybels shared a dilemma. Each had been informed that his church was selected for a visit from Soulforce, a pro-homosexual religious organization that was sending a group of openly gay couples, along with friends and allies, to attend their worship services and inform their congregations of the “damaging impact of religion based discrimination” towards homosexuals.2
That wasn’t all, however. Soulforce would also “require” a forum for “personal and direct interaction” with each church and its leadership, which could take the form of a shared meal, panel discussion, or private meeting. If the pastors refused, they could expect “creative and visible nonviolent direct action.”3
They weren’t alone. Administrators at Biola University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and numerous other Christian campuses around the country have received similar notice from Soulforce, often resulting in on-campus trespassing, additional security requirements, and arrests.4 Additionally, Focus on the Family’s facilities in Colorado Springs are visited regularly by Soulforce demonstrators, some of whom refuse to leave the property until their demands are met;5 the annual conference of American Catholic Bishops has had its mass interrupted by Soulforce activists;6 denominational conventions have been subjected to Soulforce-engineered demonstrations and disruptions of business;7 and Christianity Today magazine, commenting on the group’s activities, cited Soulforce as an example of “an inescapable conflict for every church” over homosexuality.8
Thus, an increasing number of Christian leaders are facing the question: What should we do when Soulforce calls? This article will attempt to answer that question by examining the history, beliefs, and tactics of Soulforce, and by offering biblical principles and strategies to assist pastors and leaders who will one day encounter this growing and aggressive organization.
REV. MEL WHITE AND THE HISTORY OF SOULFORCE
Soulforce was birthed in 1999 by Rev. Mel White and his partner Gary Nixon, with the intention of recruiting and training volunteers to join in “confronting the antigay words and actions of fundamentalist Christians.”9 White, a former pastor and professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, had ghostwritten books for some of America’s foremost Christian leaders, including Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, and was recognized as an accomplished film producer and communicator. In his autobiography Stranger at the Gate, however, he describes what was not well known about him: his private and lifelong struggle with homosexuality, a struggle he was aware of from his boyhood in the 1950s. Raised devoutly Christian, he felt his only option was to keep his sexual feelings a secret and marry, which he eventually did, fathering two children, one of whom became the well-known comic actor and screenwriter Mike White.
White recounts, movingly, his attempts to change his sexual orientation through counseling, intensive prayer, and even electroshock therapy.10 Unable to find relief from his attractions to men, he engaged in a number of clandestine homosexual encounters, even while ghostwriting for prominent leaders such as Graham and Falwell, none of whom knew of his sexual leanings. For most of his adult life, he’d believed homosexuality to be wrong, so his lapses into same-sex encounters caused him considerable guilt. His thinking gradually changed, influenced largely by a psychologist at Fuller who advised him, in 1980, that even though he was a married Christian father, he was also a gay man who needed to accept it, fall in love with another man, and move on.11 An epiphany followed: “For twenty five years I had been in a kind of bondage, judging myself, hating myself, trying to change something in the heart of me that could not, should not, be changed.”12
He began discussing his sexuality with his wife, Lyla, and by 1984 he’d begun seeing Nixon, though still married, and eventually was amicably divorced from his wife (who is on record as supporting him in his work with Soulforce). He then formed a partnership with Nixon that was solidified in a California marriage ceremony in 2008.13 His “coming out” in 1993 sent shock-waves through evangelical circles, and the release of his autobiography the next year was accompanied by generous media coverage, from featured newspaper articles to interviews on 60 Minutes and Larry King Live. White was soon to became the most visible and vocal representative for those claiming to be genuinely Christian and openly gay.
From the beginning, though, his goal was not just to “come out,” but also to come out against.” I will not remain silent any longer,” he declared in 1993 while issuing a public challenge to those he referred to as the religious right. “I pledge myself to do my best to prove you wrong with all the courage, wisdom and love I can muster.”14 On this promise he made good. He would soon stage a demonstration against Pat Robertson’s CBN headquarters in Virginia Beach, resulting in trespassing charges for which he would be jailed and then, in Ghandi-style protest, begin a well-publicized hunger strike that would only end when Robertson came to him in jail and promised to change his rhetoric when speaking about homosexuals.15 A similar “Fast for Understanding” was staged in Colorado Springs in protest of Focus on the Family.16 Jerry Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church would soon face many similar public displays from White and his allies.17
By 1999, White and Nixon had organized and recruited others who shared their concerns and Soulforce was formed, seeking “freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.”18 The ensuing decade has seen the group’s visibility and aggression expand, making itself known at annual denominational conventions, church trials for pastors charged with violating their denomination’s standards regarding homosexuality, Christian universities, and churches, both national and worldwide. With public support from allies such as Jay Bakker (son of PTL founders Jim and Tammy Faye Baker),19 Arun Gandhi (grandson of Mohandas Gandhi),20 and Yolanda King (daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr.),21 Soulforce has solidified its image as both a civil rights and progressive religious organization.
SOULFORCE BELIEFS
White continues to identify himself as a bible-believing Christian,22 and the frequent references Soulforce volunteers and associates make to scripture, along with personal claims of faith, suggest a specifically Christian organization.23 Soulforce’s approach to the faith, however, is ecumenical: “Our Creator is not confined to any church or synagogue, any temple or mosque. Our Creator is on the front lines where people are suffering injustice. And when we join God there, we discover what it means to be a son or daughter of God, what it means to be truly human.”24
Soulforce therefore believes that we are all children of God by birth (not rebirth, as Jesus claimed in John 3:3) who discover God’s fatherhood by doing social justice. In fact, the first of the “Six Soulforce Beliefs about Myself ” announces: “I am a child of a loving Creator, a daughter or a son of the Soulforce at the center of the universe.”25 This belief stands in stark contrast to John’s declaration that “as many as received him [Christ] to them gave the power to become the sons of God” ( John 1:12 KJV), and to Jesus’ assertion that no one can come to God but by Him ( John 14:6).
So, while some Soulforce advocates may identify themselves as Christian, the organization’s self-description, posted on its Web site, is apt: “Soulforce is an interfaith and ecumenical movement.”26 The name Soulforce refers to teachings by Gandhi called satyagraha, his term for “truth force.” Gandhi taught that people should live by this truth force through defining a “plan of action that developed inner lives while working to transform society.” These teachings influenced first Gandhi, then King, both of whom White claims as inspirations and models: “Gandhi developed and refined his Satyagraha or ‘soul force’ principles while leading justice movements in South Africa (1893–1915) and India (1915–1948). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., discovered Gandhi’s ‘soul force’ rules and used them to shape his own nonviolent civil rights movement in America.”27 White asks, “How would our [gay] civil rights movement be different if we rediscovered and applied those ‘soul force’ principles…?”28
Seeing itself as following in Gandhi and King’s footsteps— the oppressed (gays) taking a righteous stand against the oppressor (the church)—Soulforce holds to three primary beliefs concerning homosexuality and Christianity: (1) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, (2) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is damaging, and (3) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality must be changed or silenced. Understanding Soulforce requires an understanding of each point.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Is Wrong”
Soulforce promotes a revision of the Bible as it regards homosexuality. In doing so, it joins established pro-gay religious organizations such as the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, The United Church of Christ, and Evangelicals Concerned, all of whom regard the Bible as inspired, but believe that scriptural references to homosexuality found in Genesis 19:1–11, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:24–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, or simply misunderstood. White explains his position on homosexuality and the Bible: “Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the Biblical texts used by some people to condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children. The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it. The prophets, Jesus, and the Biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today.”29
To Soulforce, the traditional Christian view that homosexual acts are biblically prohibited, and that homosexuality itself is abnormal, is wrong. By extension, then, all Christians who hold such views are equally wrong.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Is Damaging”
Here Soulforce goes further than many pro-gay theologians, who simply declare the traditional viewpoint on homosexuality to be incorrect.30 Soulforce insists it is also damaging, causing depression and suicide among homosexuals, and violence against them as well.
Sometimes they claim the traditional view is damaging because unbalanced, homophobic people may use it as an excuse to assault homosexuals. In such cases it’s not the view itself, but its potential for misuse, that’s the problem. One Soulforce volunteer remarked: “I think over and over again how we must help all preachers understand how their negative ‘Biblical pronouncements’ about LGBT persons harms and hurts LGBT persons and gives some violent persons rationale for their violence against them.”31 White, in an open letter to a Catholic Bishop, makes a similar argument: “If God rejects us and you reject us, is it any wonder that our families and friends reject us, that we are demeaned by our classmates, fired from our jobs, evicted from our apartments, hunted down and hounded out of the military, harassed and taunted in the streets, and even killed by teenagers with knives and baseball bats?”32
More often, though, Soulforce claims the traditional view is damaging in and of itself. For example, if you say homosexuality is a sin, that statement not only inspires others to hurt homosexuals, but the statement itself emotionally or spiritually violates them. White argues accordingly: “I’d rather suffer psychological or physical violence any day than be told over and over again the untruth that my sexual orientation is a sickness and a sin; that my Creator doesn’t love me as I am; and that my fifteen year relationship with Gary Nixon isn’t blessed by God.”33
According to Soulforce, then, if you preach that homosexuality is a sin, you inspire others to commit violent acts against homo sexuals, and you yourself, by making that statement, commit violence against them as well. You diminish their sense of worth; you generate depression within them; you inspire rejection, abuse, and violence against them. Thus all Christians (Christian leaders, especially) who hold the traditional view are an ongoing source of suffering to the homosexual population. Consider a few more of White’s statements in this vein:
“These antigay, religion-based teachings and actions have become the primary source of misinformation against sexual and gender minorities, misinformation that leads to suffering and death.”34
“We know that all Christian churches share responsibility for the mistreatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans.”35
“Religious leaders are the primary source of misinformation that leads to suffering and death for sexual and gender minorities.”36
Mistreatment, suffering, violence, death—no wonder Soulforce declares itself “determined to help change the minds and hearts of religious leaders whose anti-homosexual campaigns lead (directly and indirectly) to—suffering.”37 If you believe that a certain teaching causes emotional suffering, physical violence, or death to any group, you’ll no doubt do what’s within your power to change the minds of the people behind the teaching, or silence the teaching itself. Inevitably, then, Soulforce’s first two primary beliefs generate its third.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Must Be Changed or Silenced”
“This spiritual violence must end,” declares White. “We love…the body of Christ too much to allow it to continue these policies that lead to suffering and death.”38 Elsewhere he warns, “The toxic rhetoric flows unabated, primarily from sincere but misinformed religious leaders. It is poisoning the national discourse, dividing homes and churches, ruining families and wasting lives. We must do our best to stop that flow of poison at its source.”39
Traditional teaching on homosexuality sparks violence; religious leaders dispense a toxic flow of traditional teaching; the flow must be cut off at its source—churches, Christian schools, evangelistic institutions, or any other places where the traditional biblical view on homosexuality is promoted. But how? “What I suggest to all homosexuals and their supporters,” White advises, “is to create tension between the church and the gay community.”40
To create that tension, Soulforce chooses a church, Christian college, denominational conference, or organization, then contacts them to request a meeting, warning of potential demonstrations or other “direct actions” if they refuse. Such “direct actions” may disrupt or inconvenience, but the group adheres to a strict policy of nonviolence, and there’s no evidence of Soulforce demonstrators ever threatening, vandalizing, name calling, or using obscenity in any form. Some leaders who’ve hosted meetings with Soulforce have positive things to say about the encounters,41 while others who’ve refused to meet their terms have been obliged to have them forcibly removed from their property.42 The meeting they request normally includes an allotted time to present their views to the church or campus, informal discussions, distribution of their literature, and meetings with the church or college leaders.
Annual events include the Equality Ride (bus riders visiting Christian seminaries and Bible colleges), the American Family Outing (delegates visiting megachurches), and Soulforce Q (international outreach). Clearly, then, Soulforce’s attempts to change the church’s views on homosexuality are expanding. So let me offer three general suggestions to consider when Soulforce calls.
DIALOGUE IS OPTIONAL, NOT MANDATORY
We are not biblically required to respond to every charge leveled against us, nor to every request for a conversation. Jesus at times refused to engage in dialogue when dialogue seemed useless or distracting, or when those “baiting” Him hoped to provoke an argument (Matt. 21:24). Paul likewise reserved the right to deny audience to men who would introduce false doctrine to churches he was responsible for (Gal. 2:5). Soulforce presents its concerns as though every pastor or administrator is obliged to consider them, but the fact is, a leader’s responsibility is first to the people he serves, not to an outside group demanding his attention.
There is scriptural precedent for avoiding conversations or debates that may divert a group from its primary goal, as there’s precedent for pastors protecting their flock from error. Nehemiah, for example, knew his responsibility was to rebuild Jerusalem, leading his men to fulfill his God-given vision. When Israel’s enemies tried to distract him from this, first by mockery (Neh. 4:1–3), then by threats (Neh. 4:11), then finally by an invitation to dialogue (Neh. 6:5–7), he ignored their attempts, focusing instead on the work at hand. In doing so he was hardly mistreating those who wanted to distract him. Rather, he knew his priorities, recognized his limited time and energy, and refused to engage with others who would divert him from his primary purposes.
Any leader contacted by Soulforce should “go and do likewise” by considering, first and foremost, his priorities. How does their request for access to his congregation or group match the needs of the group itself, and his God-given vision for it? If it doesn’t, then a polite but clear refusal of their invitation is called for. But if after prayerful consideration, he concludes that an encounter with Soulforce would be in the best interest of his organization or flock, then two more points should be considered.
SOULFORCE PREMISES ARE ERRONEOUS
Space prohibits a detailed response in this article to Soulforce’s claim that the Bible verses traditionally understood to condemn homosexuality have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, or misunderstood. A clear reading of these verses in context, utilizing common sense and respect for the inspiration of both testaments, leaves little doubt, however, as to their unambiguous prohibition of homosexual relations of any sort, under any circumstances. Still, an effective response to the pro-gay interpretation of Scripture requires an understanding of that interpretation and a detailed rebuttal of it.
It’s essential that those deciding to dialogue with Soul force first brush up on the finer points of pro-gay theology, because any dialogue with a group claiming homosexuality and Christianity are compatible must begin with either a concession to their claim or a challenge to it. Two helpful resources would be The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas (Harvest House, 2007) and The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert Gagnon (Abingdon Press, 2002).
Likewise, the premise that traditional teaching on homosexuality leads to the suffering of homosexuals calls for rebuttal. No doubt there is prejudice against homosexuals, evidenced at times in acts of violence and cruel words. Proof of a link between biblical teaching and violence against homosexuals, however, is lacking, though Soulforce presents this premise as established fact. One might respond that Anti-Semitism (prejudice against Jews) exists, and Christians generally believe Jews who reject Jesus the Messiah are unsaved. Does it logically follow that those who recognize Christ as Messiah therefore create Anti-Semitism? Likewise, Scripture teaches that parents should train their children, and some parents abuse their children. Shall biblical teaching on parenting be blamed for the horrors of child abuse, or shall we admit the obvious and significant distinction between a belief and its perversion or misapplication? Soulforce claims to the contrary, saying that homosexuality is wrong is one thing; encouraging hatred towards homosexuals is something obviously and entirely different.
Consider Soulforce’s Concerns; Assert Your Own
Respectful dialogue requires a careful analysis of the other’s claims, so when dialogue with Soulforce is decided on, then hearing their concerns is necessary. Much can be learned in doing so. But an error Christians often make when dealing with homosexual activists is to overindulge their desire for us to hear their concerns, while offering none of our own. “The servant of the Lord must not strive,” Paul warned, “but must be gentle to all men” (2 Tim. 2:24). Some leaders who have dealt with Soulforce seem to have achieved at least that part of the passage, congratulating themselves for having been gentle and respectful, leaving the meeting keenly aware of Soulforce’s complaints and concerns. One wonders, though, if Soulforce had a clue about any concerns the pastors themselves may have had.
Paul did, after all, continue by saying God’s servant must be “apt to teach…instructing those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:24–25 KJV). Surely a Christian leader who believes that homosexuality is wrong will be concerned for the spiritual welfare of Soulforce delegates who claim to be both gay and Christian (as many do). Surely such leaders, believing homosexuality to be sin, will be concerned about this group’s aggressive commitment to encouraging its normalization and celebration. And surely such leaders will feel some injunction to, as Paul said, “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather, reprove them” (Eph. 5:11 KJV). So those hosting a dialogue should insure that time spent expressing these concerns to Soulforce is equal to the time spent hearing theirs. If a conversation is requested, then let it be understood in advance as a mutual dialogue, not a monologue, because in the end, this dialogue is inevitable and unavoidable.
The past year (2008) saw unprecedented aggression from the gay rights movement, as it sought legitimization of homosexuality and the marginalization of any group or individual who opposes it. And since the last organized force resisting this movement is, for the most part, the Christian church, Christianity Today’s editorial on Soulforce and a Christian response to it seems both relevant and ominous:
“Soulforce’s message to evangelicals is clear: You are next.”43
Joe Dallas is the program director of Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California, a Christian counseling service to men dealing with sexual addiction, homosexuality, and other sexual/relational problems. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors and is the author of three books on human sexuality, including Desires in Conflict (Harvest House, 1991) and A Strong Delusion (Harvest House, 1996).
notes
1 “Why We Can’t Wait to End This Debate!” Interview in Gay Today.com, http://www.gaytoday.com/garchive/ viewpoint/051302vp.htm.
2 “Soulforce: The American Family Outing,” http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/AFOcomplete.pdf.
3 Ibid.
4 “The Equality Ride,” http://www.soulforce.org/equalityride.
5 “Pro-Gay Protestors Arrested at Focus,” citizenlink.com, May 2, 2005,http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/ A000000335.cfm.
6 “History of Soulforce 1999–2006,” http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
7 Ibid.
8 “Coming Attractions: Gay Activism Is Not Just Found in Liberal Churches,” Christianity Today, August 1, 2003, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/august/31.33.html.
9 “Soulforce 1999–2006,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
10 Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994).
11 Ibid., 155.
12 Ibid., 155–56.
13 http://www.allsaints-pas.org/site/DocServer/JEB080618_Mel_White_and_Gary_Nixon_Wedding_ Homily.pdf?docID=4624.
14 Stranger, 269.
15 “Partners in Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/10.
16 “Mel White Launches ‘Fast for Understanding,’” Holysmoke.org, http://www.holysmoke.org/ sdhok/homo06.htm.
17 “Jerry Falwell, Mel White, and the Model of Intervention,” Colorado Confidential, http://coloradoconfidential.com/ showDiary.do?diaryId=2068.
18 Soulforce Vision Statement from http://www.soulforce.org.
19 “Soulforce Meets with Joel Osteen; New Birth Next Target,” Gay Christian Movement Watch, http:// gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/soulfarce-meets-with-joel-osteen/.
20 “Media Photos,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/746.
21 Ibid.
22 Stranger, 238.
23 See, e.g., testimonials of the Freedom Riders at the “Equality Ride Blog,” http:// www.soulforce.org/article/1440.
24 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
25 “Six Soulforce Beliefs,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/567.
26 Ibid.
27 Mel White, “A Soulforce Call for Direct Action: Bringing Truth and Love to Lynchburg,” February 22, 1999, http://www.soulforce.org/article/525.
28 Mel White, “The Original 17 Step Journey,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/531.
29 “What The Bible Says—And Doesn’t Say about Homosexuality,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/ homosexuality-bible.
30 See, e.g., John Boswell’s prominent defense of pro-gay theology, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), and for detailed rebuttal see Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), and Joe Dallas’ The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2006).
31 “Bishop T. D. Jakes Agrees to Ongoing Dialogue with LGBT & Straight-Ally Families,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/email_campaign/email_5_22_2008.html.
32 http://www.whosoever.org/v5i4/mel.html.
33 Mel White, “The Second Trial of Jimmy Creech,” Whosoever, http://www.whosoever.org/ editorial/creechtrial.html.
34 Mel White, “Why We Can’t Wait for This Debate to End!” Gay Today, http://www.gaytoday.com/garchive/ viewpoint/051302vp.htm.
35 http://www.soulforce.org/article/469.
36 http://www.soulforce.org/article/395.
37 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
38 “Declaring an Unholy War,” Circuit Rider’s Range, http://www.crrange.com/soulwar.html.
39 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
40 “Mel White Speaks about Being Gay and Christian in America,” Collegiate Times, http://www.collegiatetimes.com/ news/1/ARTICLE/8052/2006-11-16.html.
41 See http://www.soulforce.org/article/1107 for comments.
42 See http://www.soulforce.org/article/1483 for one of many examples.
43 “Coming Attractions: Gay Activism Is Not Just Found in Liberal Churches.”
Monday, July 25, 2011
Progress Report on Vavuniya Project
Progress Report on Vavuniya Project
I just returned from another arduous visit to the Chen Su Lan Education Center in Vavuniya, the Gateway to the North in Tamil majority region in Sri Lanka. This morning’s news headlined “Tamil Tiger-linked party wins big in local polls,” in reporting on last Saturday’s Local Councils elections. This is the first local election after the four decades of ethnic conflict in which the Tamil National Alliance seized victory in 18 of the 26 contested councils amid alleged voting buying and intimidation.
My journey by car took a strenuous eight hours of driving and with stops leaving from Vavuniya at eleven in the morning to reach the Colombo International Airport to catch the midnight flight to Singapore in the morning at six. After some rest I gave an address in a first ever half-day public Interfaith seminar on Religious faiths and Sexual Orientation.
On this trip I was made aware of the spirit of D T Niles whom I regard as my spiritual mentor. I began my ministry in 1954 fresh out of seminary from Boston University to deliver an address reflecting on Rajah Manikam’s “Christianity and the Asian Revolution.” Around the same period I met up with D T who was influential in setting the course of my ministry. He personally invited me to have my first ecumenical conference in 1965 in what was then in serene surroundings of the “colonial” Queens Hotel along the picturesque lake in Kandy. It was a meeting on “Confessional Families and the Churches in Asia.”
This was followed by an invitation to be the Conference Preacher in the Methodist Conference in which D T was the President. Here was a giant of a preacher inviting me a novice preacher. As expected you cannot refuse D T and he even gave me the “text” which he took from a classic Chinese poem – “The trees would like to be still but the winds keep blowing.” The winds continue to blow all these years. That imagery stuck in my mind.
Surprisingly when I was interviewing the candidates who applied for teaching positions at the CSL Center for O and A level students and Adults I opened up the application form of Niles Jayanayaki William. The name of Niles leapt from the form and before me was one of the members of the extended Niles family. She had just retired from teaching at the age of fifty last year and came to the CSL Center to take a computer course. When she found that we needed English teachers she applied. To me it is an act of providence and she is exactly the kind of person that I was looking for. She was able to finish her university education in English and was teaching since then in the government schools. I am not surprised if the spirit of D T is behind this too!
The level of English in the schools now is pathetically low and compounded with the lack of teachers even those below the required minimum for teaching. But English periods are scheduled for schools from primary to A levels. It was not difficult for me to identify that we need help to upgrade the low level ofEnglish instruction and I am of focussing on students from two years before the O level to A level and the adults in the community.
Unless the level of English education is improved they will not be able to take advantage from the courses which we will teach to use the Computer. There is neither Sinhala or Tamil full and direct access to the internet except through using the English keyboard. There is excitement about Computer courses but if they do not have a minimum command of English they cannot benefit from the Internet.
The CSL Center is poised to provide free quality English instruction to reach the students and adults who have the capacity to upgrade themselves. Free computer training is an extra tool for their educational development.
For another project I am looking for responsible people who can administer a micro financing scheme to help the poor generate income through developing small business. The money is already available but I need people on the ground to manage the programme.
There are some encouraging signs appearing. An NGO was organizing a walk from the south to Jaffna to raise money for the first Cancer Hospital there. Groups along the way participated in the walk. When it passed Vavuniya I was invited by Brigadier General Napagoda who is commanding the 56 Division to join him in meeting the walkers passing through the Army Camp and then had breakfast in his home before we followed them to the border crossing in Omanthe.
The trains are able to reach only Omanthe now and there is free access across the border to Jaffna. But travellers from the north still have to pass through the border and may face some security checks at this checkpoint point after they alight from the buses.
BG Napagoda then drove us for my second visit to Kela Bogaswewa which is about two hours through the jungle to some Sinhala villages. We saw elephant tracks and people repairing the irrigation canals and “tanks” for storing water during the rainy season for the rice fields. The last time I visited the clearing of the land mines was taking place for the area which was a battleground. With the villages returning and the water made available the fields will soon be lush with rice plants.
The Minister Agriculture whom I met earlier had informed me that Sri Lanka is now self-sufficient in rice but not enough to export.
I visited another former battle zone in Mannar on the way to meet Father Emilianuspillai of the Shrine of our Lady of the Rosary in Madhu Church. I have met Father earlier when he was serving in the Church in Vavuniya. He was preparing for the annual festival where around 500,000 pilgrims gather. The church buildings which were damaged have been restored. This church has a long history reaching back to around 400 years ago when the country was under Portuguese colonial rule.
Much more needs to be done for education and to open more land for agricultural purposes. There is lack of employment opportunities and people are struggling to survive under harsh conditions. The area is a safe place and I am trying to reach out to the religious leaders in Vavuniya to use the Centre to further interfaith relations and together develop community service to the people. Again resources are available but project carriers are hard to come by. Faith communities will have to assume responsibility to assist in developing the community.
The CSL Trust will continue to explore ways to help to bring about reconciliation and to promote peace and assist in development of the people.
I just returned from another arduous visit to the Chen Su Lan Education Center in Vavuniya, the Gateway to the North in Tamil majority region in Sri Lanka. This morning’s news headlined “Tamil Tiger-linked party wins big in local polls,” in reporting on last Saturday’s Local Councils elections. This is the first local election after the four decades of ethnic conflict in which the Tamil National Alliance seized victory in 18 of the 26 contested councils amid alleged voting buying and intimidation.
My journey by car took a strenuous eight hours of driving and with stops leaving from Vavuniya at eleven in the morning to reach the Colombo International Airport to catch the midnight flight to Singapore in the morning at six. After some rest I gave an address in a first ever half-day public Interfaith seminar on Religious faiths and Sexual Orientation.
On this trip I was made aware of the spirit of D T Niles whom I regard as my spiritual mentor. I began my ministry in 1954 fresh out of seminary from Boston University to deliver an address reflecting on Rajah Manikam’s “Christianity and the Asian Revolution.” Around the same period I met up with D T who was influential in setting the course of my ministry. He personally invited me to have my first ecumenical conference in 1965 in what was then in serene surroundings of the “colonial” Queens Hotel along the picturesque lake in Kandy. It was a meeting on “Confessional Families and the Churches in Asia.”
This was followed by an invitation to be the Conference Preacher in the Methodist Conference in which D T was the President. Here was a giant of a preacher inviting me a novice preacher. As expected you cannot refuse D T and he even gave me the “text” which he took from a classic Chinese poem – “The trees would like to be still but the winds keep blowing.” The winds continue to blow all these years. That imagery stuck in my mind.
Surprisingly when I was interviewing the candidates who applied for teaching positions at the CSL Center for O and A level students and Adults I opened up the application form of Niles Jayanayaki William. The name of Niles leapt from the form and before me was one of the members of the extended Niles family. She had just retired from teaching at the age of fifty last year and came to the CSL Center to take a computer course. When she found that we needed English teachers she applied. To me it is an act of providence and she is exactly the kind of person that I was looking for. She was able to finish her university education in English and was teaching since then in the government schools. I am not surprised if the spirit of D T is behind this too!
The level of English in the schools now is pathetically low and compounded with the lack of teachers even those below the required minimum for teaching. But English periods are scheduled for schools from primary to A levels. It was not difficult for me to identify that we need help to upgrade the low level ofEnglish instruction and I am of focussing on students from two years before the O level to A level and the adults in the community.
Unless the level of English education is improved they will not be able to take advantage from the courses which we will teach to use the Computer. There is neither Sinhala or Tamil full and direct access to the internet except through using the English keyboard. There is excitement about Computer courses but if they do not have a minimum command of English they cannot benefit from the Internet.
The CSL Center is poised to provide free quality English instruction to reach the students and adults who have the capacity to upgrade themselves. Free computer training is an extra tool for their educational development.
For another project I am looking for responsible people who can administer a micro financing scheme to help the poor generate income through developing small business. The money is already available but I need people on the ground to manage the programme.
There are some encouraging signs appearing. An NGO was organizing a walk from the south to Jaffna to raise money for the first Cancer Hospital there. Groups along the way participated in the walk. When it passed Vavuniya I was invited by Brigadier General Napagoda who is commanding the 56 Division to join him in meeting the walkers passing through the Army Camp and then had breakfast in his home before we followed them to the border crossing in Omanthe.
The trains are able to reach only Omanthe now and there is free access across the border to Jaffna. But travellers from the north still have to pass through the border and may face some security checks at this checkpoint point after they alight from the buses.
BG Napagoda then drove us for my second visit to Kela Bogaswewa which is about two hours through the jungle to some Sinhala villages. We saw elephant tracks and people repairing the irrigation canals and “tanks” for storing water during the rainy season for the rice fields. The last time I visited the clearing of the land mines was taking place for the area which was a battleground. With the villages returning and the water made available the fields will soon be lush with rice plants.
The Minister Agriculture whom I met earlier had informed me that Sri Lanka is now self-sufficient in rice but not enough to export.
I visited another former battle zone in Mannar on the way to meet Father Emilianuspillai of the Shrine of our Lady of the Rosary in Madhu Church. I have met Father earlier when he was serving in the Church in Vavuniya. He was preparing for the annual festival where around 500,000 pilgrims gather. The church buildings which were damaged have been restored. This church has a long history reaching back to around 400 years ago when the country was under Portuguese colonial rule.
Much more needs to be done for education and to open more land for agricultural purposes. There is lack of employment opportunities and people are struggling to survive under harsh conditions. The area is a safe place and I am trying to reach out to the religious leaders in Vavuniya to use the Centre to further interfaith relations and together develop community service to the people. Again resources are available but project carriers are hard to come by. Faith communities will have to assume responsibility to assist in developing the community.
The CSL Trust will continue to explore ways to help to bring about reconciliation and to promote peace and assist in development of the people.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Call for Religious Tolerance
It is important and necessary to understand a religious interpretation from the perspective of a member of his/her own faith community. This was my experience when I removed my Christian reading spectacles and put on the Muslim spectacles of Ibrahim Kalin in his article "Sources of Tolerance and Intolerance in Islam." He had primarily written to a pluralistic audience for he published it in the book "Religious Tolerance in World Religions" edited by Jacob Neusner & Bruce Chilton.
The Qur'an and the Hadith or sayings and acts of Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) reveal the multi-religious environment in which Islam finds itself and it had to deal with the issue of religious tolerance.
The special relationship with Judaism and Christianity is acknowledged because along with Islam they are regarded as People of the Book and Children of Abraham. Historically Islamic laws grant rights to non-Muslims including freedom of religion, property, travel, education and government employment. Socially, there is no caste system. Politically, Muslim rulers are pragmatic and forced conversions and economic discrimination are not to their interest.
The three Abrahamic faith communities are called to uphold monotheism. However, the diversity of faith communities is to test them in their struggle for virtue and common good. The true religion is one that surrenders oneself to God fully and unconditionally.
God could have created one single faith community but the diversity is for each to engage in vying with one another for the common good. It is on this basis that we build religious tolerance.
Divine revelation is acknowledged but God works with different religious societies. According to the Hadith, the different human communities develop different theological languages and form their distinctive identities.
"O humans! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and female, and have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know one another" (al Hujurat 49:13).
The oneness of God is confessed and the plurality of ways or paths to God is affirmed. "Unto every one of you have We appointed a (different) law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but He(willed it otherwise)in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then with one another in doing good works! Unto God you must all return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ." (al Madiah 5:48).
While there exists religious and sectarian differences we are called to transcend them. The Qu'ran defines true piety "as having full consciousness of God, believing in his books and prophets, and doing such virtuous acts as praying, alms-giving, and helping the poor and the needy.
Christians remained loyal to the Medinan Treaty against the Meccan polytheists. Whereas some prominent Jews at that time were supporting the Meccans in their war against the Muslims. However, the Muslims criticize the Christians for introducing the corrupting elements like the divine nature of Jesus as the Son of God.
On the problem of conversion al Baqarah 2:256 proclaims that "there is no compulsion in religion." Fakh al-Din interprets that "God has not built faith upon compulsion and pressure but on acceptance and free choice."
The teaching regarded as "sword verses' on violence and war stems from the conflict with the Meccan polytheists. This is because Islamic teaching on the unity of God cannot be reconciled with paganism and polytheism. Further, the Meccans plotted to kill the Prophet, expel the Muslims from their homeland and destroy the Muslim community.
On the question of apostasy the Hadith rule is to "kill those who change their religion." It is based on the changing political alliance and betraying the Muslim community especially when they are at war. Contemporary Islamic scholars conclude that present socio-historical context prevents applying that ruling.
Faith communities today are called to evolve a culture of tolerance and accommodation. All must show respect for one another without compromising the integrity and distinctiveness of one's religion.
Peace be upon you.
The Qur'an and the Hadith or sayings and acts of Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) reveal the multi-religious environment in which Islam finds itself and it had to deal with the issue of religious tolerance.
The special relationship with Judaism and Christianity is acknowledged because along with Islam they are regarded as People of the Book and Children of Abraham. Historically Islamic laws grant rights to non-Muslims including freedom of religion, property, travel, education and government employment. Socially, there is no caste system. Politically, Muslim rulers are pragmatic and forced conversions and economic discrimination are not to their interest.
The three Abrahamic faith communities are called to uphold monotheism. However, the diversity of faith communities is to test them in their struggle for virtue and common good. The true religion is one that surrenders oneself to God fully and unconditionally.
God could have created one single faith community but the diversity is for each to engage in vying with one another for the common good. It is on this basis that we build religious tolerance.
Divine revelation is acknowledged but God works with different religious societies. According to the Hadith, the different human communities develop different theological languages and form their distinctive identities.
"O humans! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and female, and have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know one another" (al Hujurat 49:13).
The oneness of God is confessed and the plurality of ways or paths to God is affirmed. "Unto every one of you have We appointed a (different) law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but He(willed it otherwise)in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then with one another in doing good works! Unto God you must all return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ." (al Madiah 5:48).
While there exists religious and sectarian differences we are called to transcend them. The Qu'ran defines true piety "as having full consciousness of God, believing in his books and prophets, and doing such virtuous acts as praying, alms-giving, and helping the poor and the needy.
Christians remained loyal to the Medinan Treaty against the Meccan polytheists. Whereas some prominent Jews at that time were supporting the Meccans in their war against the Muslims. However, the Muslims criticize the Christians for introducing the corrupting elements like the divine nature of Jesus as the Son of God.
On the problem of conversion al Baqarah 2:256 proclaims that "there is no compulsion in religion." Fakh al-Din interprets that "God has not built faith upon compulsion and pressure but on acceptance and free choice."
The teaching regarded as "sword verses' on violence and war stems from the conflict with the Meccan polytheists. This is because Islamic teaching on the unity of God cannot be reconciled with paganism and polytheism. Further, the Meccans plotted to kill the Prophet, expel the Muslims from their homeland and destroy the Muslim community.
On the question of apostasy the Hadith rule is to "kill those who change their religion." It is based on the changing political alliance and betraying the Muslim community especially when they are at war. Contemporary Islamic scholars conclude that present socio-historical context prevents applying that ruling.
Faith communities today are called to evolve a culture of tolerance and accommodation. All must show respect for one another without compromising the integrity and distinctiveness of one's religion.
Peace be upon you.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Abraham - Curse or Blessing?
Abraham's Curse: Child Sacrifice in the Legacies of the West by Bruce Chilton is a book donated by Old Testament Professor Seow Choon Leong of Princeton University to Trinity Trinity College Library in Singapore. I stumbled upon this book and was captivated by the interpretation that Chilton made on sacrificial violence.
Chilton has traced the roots of violence in the three Abrahammic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The roots were grounded in the story of Abraham who heard the command of God to sacrifice his son as a ritualistic offering to God as recorded in the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur'an.
The Jewish/Christian tradition identifies Abraham/Sarah's son as Isaac whereas the Islamic tradition regards Abraham/Hagar's son as Ishmael who was to be sacrificed.
While the offering of Abraham's son was interrupted by God and the offering was replaced by a ram(Genesis 22:11-14), the Islamic tradition teaches that it was also a test of faith and for "those devoted to doing good" will be rewarded "as if seeing God." (As Saffat Surah 37:105.
The Abrahammic tradition is the conviction that God calls for the sacrifice of the offering of Isaac/Ismael or Jesus. The sacrifice of the son or self-sacrifice of Jesus is required. Upon this belief the followers of this tradition have extolled martyrdom and justified violence. Offerings of themselves and of their children and youths and citizens upon the different altars in defense of their faith and country have been regarded as just and honorable.
As a result violence prevails and persists down through history in situations of conflict and war that human kind find themselves. Blood sacrifice not only of animals but of humans are deemed to be necessary.
The question that we need to ask, "Did God really ask for such sacrifices leading to violence to resolve human conflicts." Or is an attempt for sinful human creatures to justify themselves when they resort to violence which destroys and kill.
We tend to follow the tradition from the very beginning that God desired and accepted human sacrifice. This was the practice of the other religions around them although the offerings were made to different gods. Such sacrifices were practiced in primitive societies. This led also to the promotion of martyrdom that glorified those who gave their lives as a ritual offering to God and for the cause of their religious faith.
Jews, Christians and Muslims demand literal sacrifice from their followers. Jews have died in resisting persecutions, Christians have engaged in Crusades and Muslims have participated in jihads. They based their sacrifice on the example of Abraham willingly offering his son.
The question today is whether sacrificial violence is inevitable and is it a matter of one's religious faith.
One interpretation of the Genesis story is that after Yahweh saw the dedication of Abraham the divine declaration was made that all human sacrificial action in relation to Isaac should cease and never again to be repeated.
The Qur'anic conclusion is that "You have already fulfilled the dream (which tested your loyal obedience to the command so you no longer have to offer your son in sacrifice. Thus do WE reward those devoted to doing good as if seeing God (As Saffat Surah 2:105.) In doing good we all see or meet God.
Christians are to understand that the self-sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is because he was convinced that his death will benefit others and will reveal the necessity to live under the reign of God.
According to the teaching of the Prophet in Al Baqarah Surah 2:256, there should be "no compulsion in religion." Jihad was necessary to preserve the freedom to make Islam possible when confronted with the attacks from their enemies. It is not toi force or coerce others to submit to Allah.
History is strewn with the carcases of those who were placed upon the altars of war and no one religion inasmuch as they claim to be engaged in just wars is not implicated by the evil of violence itself.
The more the members of the Abrahammic faith relate to one another in mutual challenge in understanding one's faith the quicker we turn the curse of
Abraham during all this time of violence and conflict into the blessings of
Abraham of peace and fruitfulness.
The concluding message of Chilton is "Resisting that prospect as part of the purpose of theological reflection within the Abrahammic traditions for millennia, and is now the common vocation of all those who see that we have no human future if we insist on remaining on Mount Moriah. The distinctive voices of the Torah, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) agree that Moriah is behind us, never to be visited again in whatever form it takes in its myriad disguises, is not God's. It is time for us, whether believers or not, to come down to the place of promise, where we can see that no moral value attaches to sacrificing any human life to any cause, with the possible exception of one's own.
Chilton has traced the roots of violence in the three Abrahammic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The roots were grounded in the story of Abraham who heard the command of God to sacrifice his son as a ritualistic offering to God as recorded in the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur'an.
The Jewish/Christian tradition identifies Abraham/Sarah's son as Isaac whereas the Islamic tradition regards Abraham/Hagar's son as Ishmael who was to be sacrificed.
While the offering of Abraham's son was interrupted by God and the offering was replaced by a ram(Genesis 22:11-14), the Islamic tradition teaches that it was also a test of faith and for "those devoted to doing good" will be rewarded "as if seeing God." (As Saffat Surah 37:105.
The Abrahammic tradition is the conviction that God calls for the sacrifice of the offering of Isaac/Ismael or Jesus. The sacrifice of the son or self-sacrifice of Jesus is required. Upon this belief the followers of this tradition have extolled martyrdom and justified violence. Offerings of themselves and of their children and youths and citizens upon the different altars in defense of their faith and country have been regarded as just and honorable.
As a result violence prevails and persists down through history in situations of conflict and war that human kind find themselves. Blood sacrifice not only of animals but of humans are deemed to be necessary.
The question that we need to ask, "Did God really ask for such sacrifices leading to violence to resolve human conflicts." Or is an attempt for sinful human creatures to justify themselves when they resort to violence which destroys and kill.
We tend to follow the tradition from the very beginning that God desired and accepted human sacrifice. This was the practice of the other religions around them although the offerings were made to different gods. Such sacrifices were practiced in primitive societies. This led also to the promotion of martyrdom that glorified those who gave their lives as a ritual offering to God and for the cause of their religious faith.
Jews, Christians and Muslims demand literal sacrifice from their followers. Jews have died in resisting persecutions, Christians have engaged in Crusades and Muslims have participated in jihads. They based their sacrifice on the example of Abraham willingly offering his son.
The question today is whether sacrificial violence is inevitable and is it a matter of one's religious faith.
One interpretation of the Genesis story is that after Yahweh saw the dedication of Abraham the divine declaration was made that all human sacrificial action in relation to Isaac should cease and never again to be repeated.
The Qur'anic conclusion is that "You have already fulfilled the dream (which tested your loyal obedience to the command so you no longer have to offer your son in sacrifice. Thus do WE reward those devoted to doing good as if seeing God (As Saffat Surah 2:105.) In doing good we all see or meet God.
Christians are to understand that the self-sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is because he was convinced that his death will benefit others and will reveal the necessity to live under the reign of God.
According to the teaching of the Prophet in Al Baqarah Surah 2:256, there should be "no compulsion in religion." Jihad was necessary to preserve the freedom to make Islam possible when confronted with the attacks from their enemies. It is not toi force or coerce others to submit to Allah.
History is strewn with the carcases of those who were placed upon the altars of war and no one religion inasmuch as they claim to be engaged in just wars is not implicated by the evil of violence itself.
The more the members of the Abrahammic faith relate to one another in mutual challenge in understanding one's faith the quicker we turn the curse of
Abraham during all this time of violence and conflict into the blessings of
Abraham of peace and fruitfulness.
The concluding message of Chilton is "Resisting that prospect as part of the purpose of theological reflection within the Abrahammic traditions for millennia, and is now the common vocation of all those who see that we have no human future if we insist on remaining on Mount Moriah. The distinctive voices of the Torah, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) agree that Moriah is behind us, never to be visited again in whatever form it takes in its myriad disguises, is not God's. It is time for us, whether believers or not, to come down to the place of promise, where we can see that no moral value attaches to sacrificing any human life to any cause, with the possible exception of one's own.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Embrace Difference Celebrate Diversity
Free Community Church
June 12, 2011
Embrace Difference Celebrate Diversity
Acts 2; I Corinthians 12
Musical Prelude: You tube Dealing with Diversity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2PgFn01mEk&feature=related)
You have watched how to deal with diversity in the You Tube video from Phil Collins Academy Award song “You’ll be in my Heart.” The title of the video is however “Dealing with Diversity” which seems to me to relate to Pentecost Sunday and the building of a community.
I have submitted my article in support of Pink Dot 2011 in response to Sylvia Tan’s request after she first watched the promotional video. That was published in Fridae last Friday night and I posted it also in my Facebook and blog. The title that I used is “Embrace Difference - Celebrate Diversity.”
Our lectionary for today is from the Acts of the Apostles account of Pentecost which is being read in Christian congregations today throughout this Christian world and will be dramatically presented as the descent of the Holy Spirit like tongues on fire upon the crowd gathered in Jerusalem fifty days after the Resurrection of the Crucified Jesus. This day is generally regarded as the birthday of the Christian Church. I could join them like I did before on every Pentecost and give the usual interpretation and preach the traditional message. But how do I discern its significance for us today.
Just look at these artistic presentations of Pentecost from the modern European backwards to the traditional Middle Eastern and the ancient past. Each is a different portrayal.
It is a matter of perspective on how it is being viewed and through what kind of lenses and time and circumstances.
Desmond Tutu in his new book “God is not a Christian and other Provocations” tells the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, "I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?" The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, "That side, of course!" The drunk said, "Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide."
Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.
But being in FCC I have the opportunity to examine the Biblical text more closely and from a different perspective – from the perspective of the LGBTQ or Queer Theology or seeing with queer eyes. We have to put on this distinctive lens to view that historical event recorded over 2,000 years ago. Otherwise it will only have antiquated or classical interests with little relevance to what we need to experience in the contemporary world.
The person who wrote about that event is reputed to be Luke the physician and scholars tell us that he did it about fifty years after the first Pentecost in 80 Common Era. It served a purpose more in formulating Christian doctrine than recording a historical event.
The undeniable historical fact is that Jesus was crucified as a common criminal for a political crime of subverting the Roman government. Jesus was accused of leading a movement agitating the poor peasants in Galilee suffering from the heavy tax burden to support the Roman colonial power and the religious hierarchy in the Temple of Jerusalem. These rebellious Jews recalled their religious history and regarded Jesus as the long expected Messiah who will restore the glorious Jewish kingdom like that of King David in the past. So the religious and political authorities conspired to put to death Jesus. The hopes of the people were crushed and some leaders even abandoned the movement and returned to their former jobs. Some were so bewildered that they had to remain in the Upper Room and wait for help and direction.
If we look at the text more closely we will discover there is some exaggeration about the actual incident. The people who first gathered in the “room upstairs” were a few of the disciples, “together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.” Location is the small room in a house.
On the day of Pentecost this intimate family circle were in the same Upper Room , “One place” and “the rush of the wind filled the entire house where they were sitting.”
The scene abruptly shifted.
It moved to the outdoors around the Temple where a massive crowd came together of Jews living in Jerusalem and Jews in diaspora who came from different nations who spoke different languages. They were listed as “Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Phyrgia, Pamphylia, Libya, Rome, Cretan, and Arabs. They were Jews and proselytes or converted Jews. It was a very diverse group in those days. They heard the small Galilean group speaking and the strange thing was that they heard them speaking in their “own native language.” Initially they mocked them as being drunk. Then Peter rose and spoke to them and interpreted the event as the fulfilment of the teaching of the Prophet Joel who taught that the Spirit of God will be present “upon all flesh” including sons and daughters, young men and old men, men and women slaves. They were called to repentance and three thousand were baptized and received the Holy Spirit. Hence the birthday of the Christian Church was regarded to have taken place then.
Here is an example of how a number of issues were clustered together. From this account what actually happened is hard to decipher even though it was recorded in the Bible as the historical event of Pentecost.
There are different ways of interpreting this or any narrative. Dominic Crossan has perceptively identified the way which most religious people will do - either as history remembered or prophecy historicized. For the historian or religionist it is usually a mixture of history and doctrine or prophecy. That is to say there is the literal way of regarding this story as recorded history. Even then eyewitnesses record it differently. When religion comes into play there is interpretation and trying to appear historical and not theological. Then there is an attempt to believe that all events are determined by God and in fulfilment of God's prophecy. This view does not recognize the freedom of human beings sinful as we all. We are provided with choice and decide. Most of the time we deliberately do what we even can admit though reluctantly to be contrary to what God expects us to do. Look at the prophecy of Joel
Take another example in the contrasting story of Pentecost with that of the Tower of Babel. It was the contention that human kind is one human family – one nation, one language and even one religion. So they came together and with arrogance built this tower piercing the clouds above and stabbing the skies with the attempt of reaching heaven. Then the story goes to say that God punished the pride of humankind and caused the tower to tumble down and scatter the one human community in different places and each speaking their own language.
One way for the people to understand differences is that God punished the people who wanted to continue to live in unity of one race and one common language. But they have to give an explanation for all the differences that the Israelites found around them. They continued to take pride as Chosen People blessed by God and aided to fight the holy wars against the other tribes and those who do not share their religious beliefs. God was believed to be on their side to go to war to eliminate the pagans, slaughter the innocent women and children and establish the holy kingdom like what King David did. This is again all in fulfilment of prophecy of God’s will.
Fundamentalist and conservative approaches have a way and the only way to interpret sacred writings of their faith. They follow the only one way to heaven or even to earthly salvation of humankind.
Take the recent example of prophecy historicised of Rev Harold Camping who is still at it. Turns out the end of the world, scheduled for Saturday, May 21, 2011, was not, after all, the end of the world. Or maybe it was. Camping is saying now that it was an “invisible judgment day” and that the revised end-time date is October 21, 2011, five months hence. He is not the only one. A number of other cult leaders have done that before and will continue to do so.
When I was in the seminary in Boston in 1954, we have the account of the beginning of the historic Old Howard burlesque or strip-tease theatre. The local history recorded that it was built originally in 1843 as a Church by a Christian sect led by William Miller who predicted end time to come in 1844. It was used as the gathering of people who believe in the literal end time. This Boston group with such a belief were clothed in clean white robes and waited for it to occur and were in the Theatre for the rapture. The predicted time of prophecy went by and nothing happened. What did they do. Local legend says that they stripped off their clothes and paraded out. And Old Howard Theatre has been stripping since then to entertain tourists. It has some years ago been re-developed into a Government Centre and still stripping – stripping the people of their money.
Embrace Difference
We have in the slow march of history come to deal with the irreversible fact of difference. Even at the stage of the first Pentecost it was still essentially a Jewish event. In our hurrying to change our lenses from the Jewish to Christian ones we are caught with viewing it as the birthday of the Christian Church. It was really the birthday of the Jesus movement or the Jewish followers of Jesus of Nazareth, the Crucified One. They were from their ancestral lands and in dispersion or diaspora in the regions around them as listed in the Biblical account. They were Jews and some who have been converted and embraced Judaism from other than the Twelve tribes of Israel. Christianity as a religion developed much later towards the end of the century. When the event of Pentecost unfolded Paul was not on the scene. With Paul's leadership in his mission to the non-Jews or Gentiles we see the real beginnings Christianity which eventually separated itself from the Jewish religion. There were more Gentiles than Jews who followed Jesus that composed the Christian community. Under Paul’s mission the distinctive act of circumcision was set aside and the non-Jews were welcomed into this new diverse wider community of former Jews and pagans.
Paul goes further to extend this wider community beyond the Jewish and the Christian. He talks the unity between Jew and Gentile, slave and free for we are all born of the same Spirit.
In the globalized and inter-connected world in which we live we have to make the paradigm shift to embrace difference and celebrate diversity. This is the theme of my message in support of Pink Dot 2011. The LGBTQ community as one which has been stigmatized and marginalized know what is to be regarded as different from the majority and rejected by them.
It is crucial and fundamental that we have to accept ourselves as we are with our different sexual orientation. Self-acceptance is the first step. The faith we profess must enable us to love ourselves for the more excellent way is that of love. God loves us as we are. We do not have to conform to the majority.
Yes we can affirm that God has created difference. In our conservative and conformist society we tend to fear difference and shun diversity. It is difficult for most of us to accept difference and value diversity. Look at the way we try to conform to the majority and hide our difference and blend with them. We really ought to accept ourselves individually distinct and different from others. On the other hand we in our rebellious mood and in our frustration highlight our differences just to be recognized. We colour ourselves in different shades from the hair at the top of our heads and to the nails to the toe nail in our feet. We put on strange styles of apparel and behaviour and act in a weird or bizaar manner. Can we be just normal and natural in the manner in which we were created. Could we stop feeling guilty for being different. Individually each one of us is different and queer.
Celebrate Diversity
What follows when we accept ourselves. Even when we admit that we have different gifts including sexual orientation there is a tendency to succumb to exclusivism. We have to shift from individualistic tendencies to relational opportunities to shape the spirit of community. The human person is an important feature of first-century Mediterranean culture and Asian. It is group- oriented and not individualistic in contrast with Western culture.
The variety of gifts when brought together builds community. The common vision is one of peace and harmony which serves to build up further the community common good. That is why Paul in Corinthians encouraged mutual interdependence in the metaphor of the body.
We have to resist the powers of exclusion. Theologies in line with Queer Theology must take seriously the issues of marginalization and oppression. We are placed in better position because we have been victims and suffered for we have captured the roots of our common pain. Attention to other specific structures of exclusion beyond sexual orientation seems to be a necessary step in promoting greater inclusivity. Paul has enlarged the community further beyond to Jew and Gentile, slave or free.
Shaping Community
Earlier the followers of Pentecost subsequently were called by Peter in his sermon to save themselves from this corrupt generation. “And who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions of goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as many as had need. Day by day they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home, and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people.” (Acts 2:41-47)
Our common calling is to continue to use the above metaphor and build communities relevant to our situation. It has to been an inclusive community where we do not exclude any of God’s children. In embracing difference we are valuing diversity. We are to relate and learn from one another and together render mutual support and work for our common good. This is the form of celebration of our diversity. Discriminated against groups like FCC have this unique role to play in the wider community of not just the church but also to live and work in mutuality in our diversity.
Together we are to be caring and compassionate of those who are in need. We are to ensure justice and equality for all. This is the implication of the celebration of diversity even as we embrace difference. On this Pentecost
Sunday let each one of us in our own way and together in community embrace difference and celebrate diversity in shaping community.
Let me close with a message which I came across yesterday in a posting a response to my article in Fridae. “Astra”posted this reply close to midnight on Friday evening. This is what he shared:
astra
astra
2.
2011-06-10 22:52
Reverend Yap
I would like to thank you for your kind words.
I don't understand why I get teary and bawling when I read this article. "Tears of comfort" came to my mind, I feel so relieved when I was crying, I could not fully explain it. Maybe it is because your words speak to the sense of loss from trying to live against a christian upbringing, mission school doctrines, cruel classmates, homophobic pastors that shaped my young mind with dread and guilt about myself, intolerant family.
After the tears, I felt tired and relieved at the same time. I guess it matters to know I am not a mistake, coming from a man of spiritual authority. I feel I can claim my past once again, able to stand a little taller knowing that I do matter and I am worthy as like everyone else.
Life is fleeting and your words lighten my continuing journey in it.
I can come home again.
June 12, 2011
Embrace Difference Celebrate Diversity
Acts 2; I Corinthians 12
Musical Prelude: You tube Dealing with Diversity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2PgFn01mEk&feature=related)
You have watched how to deal with diversity in the You Tube video from Phil Collins Academy Award song “You’ll be in my Heart.” The title of the video is however “Dealing with Diversity” which seems to me to relate to Pentecost Sunday and the building of a community.
I have submitted my article in support of Pink Dot 2011 in response to Sylvia Tan’s request after she first watched the promotional video. That was published in Fridae last Friday night and I posted it also in my Facebook and blog. The title that I used is “Embrace Difference - Celebrate Diversity.”
Our lectionary for today is from the Acts of the Apostles account of Pentecost which is being read in Christian congregations today throughout this Christian world and will be dramatically presented as the descent of the Holy Spirit like tongues on fire upon the crowd gathered in Jerusalem fifty days after the Resurrection of the Crucified Jesus. This day is generally regarded as the birthday of the Christian Church. I could join them like I did before on every Pentecost and give the usual interpretation and preach the traditional message. But how do I discern its significance for us today.
Just look at these artistic presentations of Pentecost from the modern European backwards to the traditional Middle Eastern and the ancient past. Each is a different portrayal.
It is a matter of perspective on how it is being viewed and through what kind of lenses and time and circumstances.
Desmond Tutu in his new book “God is not a Christian and other Provocations” tells the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, "I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?" The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, "That side, of course!" The drunk said, "Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide."
Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.
But being in FCC I have the opportunity to examine the Biblical text more closely and from a different perspective – from the perspective of the LGBTQ or Queer Theology or seeing with queer eyes. We have to put on this distinctive lens to view that historical event recorded over 2,000 years ago. Otherwise it will only have antiquated or classical interests with little relevance to what we need to experience in the contemporary world.
The person who wrote about that event is reputed to be Luke the physician and scholars tell us that he did it about fifty years after the first Pentecost in 80 Common Era. It served a purpose more in formulating Christian doctrine than recording a historical event.
The undeniable historical fact is that Jesus was crucified as a common criminal for a political crime of subverting the Roman government. Jesus was accused of leading a movement agitating the poor peasants in Galilee suffering from the heavy tax burden to support the Roman colonial power and the religious hierarchy in the Temple of Jerusalem. These rebellious Jews recalled their religious history and regarded Jesus as the long expected Messiah who will restore the glorious Jewish kingdom like that of King David in the past. So the religious and political authorities conspired to put to death Jesus. The hopes of the people were crushed and some leaders even abandoned the movement and returned to their former jobs. Some were so bewildered that they had to remain in the Upper Room and wait for help and direction.
If we look at the text more closely we will discover there is some exaggeration about the actual incident. The people who first gathered in the “room upstairs” were a few of the disciples, “together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.” Location is the small room in a house.
On the day of Pentecost this intimate family circle were in the same Upper Room , “One place” and “the rush of the wind filled the entire house where they were sitting.”
The scene abruptly shifted.
It moved to the outdoors around the Temple where a massive crowd came together of Jews living in Jerusalem and Jews in diaspora who came from different nations who spoke different languages. They were listed as “Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Phyrgia, Pamphylia, Libya, Rome, Cretan, and Arabs. They were Jews and proselytes or converted Jews. It was a very diverse group in those days. They heard the small Galilean group speaking and the strange thing was that they heard them speaking in their “own native language.” Initially they mocked them as being drunk. Then Peter rose and spoke to them and interpreted the event as the fulfilment of the teaching of the Prophet Joel who taught that the Spirit of God will be present “upon all flesh” including sons and daughters, young men and old men, men and women slaves. They were called to repentance and three thousand were baptized and received the Holy Spirit. Hence the birthday of the Christian Church was regarded to have taken place then.
Here is an example of how a number of issues were clustered together. From this account what actually happened is hard to decipher even though it was recorded in the Bible as the historical event of Pentecost.
There are different ways of interpreting this or any narrative. Dominic Crossan has perceptively identified the way which most religious people will do - either as history remembered or prophecy historicized. For the historian or religionist it is usually a mixture of history and doctrine or prophecy. That is to say there is the literal way of regarding this story as recorded history. Even then eyewitnesses record it differently. When religion comes into play there is interpretation and trying to appear historical and not theological. Then there is an attempt to believe that all events are determined by God and in fulfilment of God's prophecy. This view does not recognize the freedom of human beings sinful as we all. We are provided with choice and decide. Most of the time we deliberately do what we even can admit though reluctantly to be contrary to what God expects us to do. Look at the prophecy of Joel
Take another example in the contrasting story of Pentecost with that of the Tower of Babel. It was the contention that human kind is one human family – one nation, one language and even one religion. So they came together and with arrogance built this tower piercing the clouds above and stabbing the skies with the attempt of reaching heaven. Then the story goes to say that God punished the pride of humankind and caused the tower to tumble down and scatter the one human community in different places and each speaking their own language.
One way for the people to understand differences is that God punished the people who wanted to continue to live in unity of one race and one common language. But they have to give an explanation for all the differences that the Israelites found around them. They continued to take pride as Chosen People blessed by God and aided to fight the holy wars against the other tribes and those who do not share their religious beliefs. God was believed to be on their side to go to war to eliminate the pagans, slaughter the innocent women and children and establish the holy kingdom like what King David did. This is again all in fulfilment of prophecy of God’s will.
Fundamentalist and conservative approaches have a way and the only way to interpret sacred writings of their faith. They follow the only one way to heaven or even to earthly salvation of humankind.
Take the recent example of prophecy historicised of Rev Harold Camping who is still at it. Turns out the end of the world, scheduled for Saturday, May 21, 2011, was not, after all, the end of the world. Or maybe it was. Camping is saying now that it was an “invisible judgment day” and that the revised end-time date is October 21, 2011, five months hence. He is not the only one. A number of other cult leaders have done that before and will continue to do so.
When I was in the seminary in Boston in 1954, we have the account of the beginning of the historic Old Howard burlesque or strip-tease theatre. The local history recorded that it was built originally in 1843 as a Church by a Christian sect led by William Miller who predicted end time to come in 1844. It was used as the gathering of people who believe in the literal end time. This Boston group with such a belief were clothed in clean white robes and waited for it to occur and were in the Theatre for the rapture. The predicted time of prophecy went by and nothing happened. What did they do. Local legend says that they stripped off their clothes and paraded out. And Old Howard Theatre has been stripping since then to entertain tourists. It has some years ago been re-developed into a Government Centre and still stripping – stripping the people of their money.
Embrace Difference
We have in the slow march of history come to deal with the irreversible fact of difference. Even at the stage of the first Pentecost it was still essentially a Jewish event. In our hurrying to change our lenses from the Jewish to Christian ones we are caught with viewing it as the birthday of the Christian Church. It was really the birthday of the Jesus movement or the Jewish followers of Jesus of Nazareth, the Crucified One. They were from their ancestral lands and in dispersion or diaspora in the regions around them as listed in the Biblical account. They were Jews and some who have been converted and embraced Judaism from other than the Twelve tribes of Israel. Christianity as a religion developed much later towards the end of the century. When the event of Pentecost unfolded Paul was not on the scene. With Paul's leadership in his mission to the non-Jews or Gentiles we see the real beginnings Christianity which eventually separated itself from the Jewish religion. There were more Gentiles than Jews who followed Jesus that composed the Christian community. Under Paul’s mission the distinctive act of circumcision was set aside and the non-Jews were welcomed into this new diverse wider community of former Jews and pagans.
Paul goes further to extend this wider community beyond the Jewish and the Christian. He talks the unity between Jew and Gentile, slave and free for we are all born of the same Spirit.
In the globalized and inter-connected world in which we live we have to make the paradigm shift to embrace difference and celebrate diversity. This is the theme of my message in support of Pink Dot 2011. The LGBTQ community as one which has been stigmatized and marginalized know what is to be regarded as different from the majority and rejected by them.
It is crucial and fundamental that we have to accept ourselves as we are with our different sexual orientation. Self-acceptance is the first step. The faith we profess must enable us to love ourselves for the more excellent way is that of love. God loves us as we are. We do not have to conform to the majority.
Yes we can affirm that God has created difference. In our conservative and conformist society we tend to fear difference and shun diversity. It is difficult for most of us to accept difference and value diversity. Look at the way we try to conform to the majority and hide our difference and blend with them. We really ought to accept ourselves individually distinct and different from others. On the other hand we in our rebellious mood and in our frustration highlight our differences just to be recognized. We colour ourselves in different shades from the hair at the top of our heads and to the nails to the toe nail in our feet. We put on strange styles of apparel and behaviour and act in a weird or bizaar manner. Can we be just normal and natural in the manner in which we were created. Could we stop feeling guilty for being different. Individually each one of us is different and queer.
Celebrate Diversity
What follows when we accept ourselves. Even when we admit that we have different gifts including sexual orientation there is a tendency to succumb to exclusivism. We have to shift from individualistic tendencies to relational opportunities to shape the spirit of community. The human person is an important feature of first-century Mediterranean culture and Asian. It is group- oriented and not individualistic in contrast with Western culture.
The variety of gifts when brought together builds community. The common vision is one of peace and harmony which serves to build up further the community common good. That is why Paul in Corinthians encouraged mutual interdependence in the metaphor of the body.
We have to resist the powers of exclusion. Theologies in line with Queer Theology must take seriously the issues of marginalization and oppression. We are placed in better position because we have been victims and suffered for we have captured the roots of our common pain. Attention to other specific structures of exclusion beyond sexual orientation seems to be a necessary step in promoting greater inclusivity. Paul has enlarged the community further beyond to Jew and Gentile, slave or free.
Shaping Community
Earlier the followers of Pentecost subsequently were called by Peter in his sermon to save themselves from this corrupt generation. “And who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions of goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as many as had need. Day by day they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home, and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people.” (Acts 2:41-47)
Our common calling is to continue to use the above metaphor and build communities relevant to our situation. It has to been an inclusive community where we do not exclude any of God’s children. In embracing difference we are valuing diversity. We are to relate and learn from one another and together render mutual support and work for our common good. This is the form of celebration of our diversity. Discriminated against groups like FCC have this unique role to play in the wider community of not just the church but also to live and work in mutuality in our diversity.
Together we are to be caring and compassionate of those who are in need. We are to ensure justice and equality for all. This is the implication of the celebration of diversity even as we embrace difference. On this Pentecost
Sunday let each one of us in our own way and together in community embrace difference and celebrate diversity in shaping community.
Let me close with a message which I came across yesterday in a posting a response to my article in Fridae. “Astra”posted this reply close to midnight on Friday evening. This is what he shared:
astra
astra
2.
2011-06-10 22:52
Reverend Yap
I would like to thank you for your kind words.
I don't understand why I get teary and bawling when I read this article. "Tears of comfort" came to my mind, I feel so relieved when I was crying, I could not fully explain it. Maybe it is because your words speak to the sense of loss from trying to live against a christian upbringing, mission school doctrines, cruel classmates, homophobic pastors that shaped my young mind with dread and guilt about myself, intolerant family.
After the tears, I felt tired and relieved at the same time. I guess it matters to know I am not a mistake, coming from a man of spiritual authority. I feel I can claim my past once again, able to stand a little taller knowing that I do matter and I am worthy as like everyone else.
Life is fleeting and your words lighten my continuing journey in it.
I can come home again.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
A Love Story with God
Excerpts from an interview published by Religion Dispatches:
Sarah Sentilles is the author of A Church of Her Own: What Happens When a Woman Takes the Pulpit (Harcourt, 2008) and Breaking Up with God (HarperOne, 2011).
Breaking Up with God: A Love Story
Sarah Sentilles
HarperOne (2011)
What inspired you to write it? What sparked your interest (person, event book)?
...I was almost an Episcopal priest, and now I don’t call myself a Christian. How did that happen? In the writing of the book I realized that the story I had been telling about what happened was not the whole story. I had been telling people that I left institutional Christianity because the church was sexist—which is true—but I also left institutional Christianity because my faith in God had changed dramatically. I no longer believed what I had once believed. I also told people that I lost faith in God, but I realized that isn’t exactly right either. I didn’t lose my faith. I left it. Writing this book I had to face deep parts of myself that were hard for me to look at, hard for me to admit.
What’s the most important take-home message for readers?
That there is more to God than most of us have been taught in church. That faith is an imaginative, constructive, ethical enterprise. That theology matters. That the way we think about God has a real effect on the earth and on other human beings. That we are the ones we have been waiting for. In the book I write, “This is my faith: a fragile hope in what humanity might be able to do when we stop looking for someone else to save us,” and I think that sentence sums up what the book is about.
I also think the book is an invitation, a way to let other people know that they don’t have to stay in faith communities just because they find themselves there by birth or by choice. It’s an invitation to come out as a seeker, an atheist, an agnostic, a dissatisfied believer, a questioner. Sometimes you know something doesn’t feel right, but you force yourself to stay—whether it’s in a relationship that isn’t working, in a job that is making you miserable, or in a faith community that is making you feel small and scared. That is part of why I figured my faith in God as a romantic relationship. Just like you wouldn’t tell your friend to stay with a partner who hits her, you shouldn’t tell someone to stay with a version of God that makes them sick or scared or impedes her ability to thrive and shine and be her biggest self in the world.
What are some of the biggest misconceptions about your topic?
People assume I’m an atheist, but I’m not. I don’t know what I am, but if I had to choose a label I’d choose agnostic. When I say that people usually ask me if I think God exists, and I usually give them the answer that my teacher, Gordon Kaufman, used to give me: The question of God’s existence isn’t the right question because it won’t get you very far. It’s a question human beings can’t answer. If we take God’s mystery seriously, then we can never know. I think there are better questions that we can be answering: What does a particular vision of God do to those who submit to it and to those who won’t submit to it? What difference is my version of God making? Who is it harming? In one of his books, Kaufman writes, “The central question for theology... is a practical question. How are we to live? To what should we devote ourselves? To what causes give ourselves?” He argues that theology that does not contribute significantly to struggles against inhumanity and injustice has lost sight of its point of being.
I can’t know if God exists, but I do know the word God is operating in the world, running around doing all kinds of work, good and bad, and I think, as a theologian, I have a responsibility to think critically about the kinds of gods we make and worship and to try to come up with versions of god that might make the world a more just and life-giving place for everyone.
Are you hoping to just inform readers? Give them pleasure? Piss them off?
I am hoping to do all three. I hope to help people see the wide range of possible ways to think about God. There are so many more versions of God in the Christian theological tradition than most people know about. Why has our own tradition been kept from us? And I’m not just talking about feminist and liberation and black and womanist and queer theology, which I wish everyone would read. I’m also talking about the old white male theologians who wrote amazing stuff—like Freidrich Schleiermacher and Paul Tillich. These guys wrote powerful, revelatory, life-changing stuff about God, and I feel like most theology has been lost and forgotten, or just plain ignored. Communities need to reclaim their histories. I hope to help people expand their visions for God. And I hope that will be a pleasurable experience.
I am sure my book will piss people off. I seem to do that no matter how sweet I try to be. I’m trying to embrace that fact and let go of my “good girl” self who tries to please everyone all the time. My dad always says if they aren’t shooting at you, you probably aren’t doing anything worthwhile. Or, as James Cone says, “Now is not the time to be polite.”
What alternative title would you give the book?
I love the title of my book. It’s my best title yet, I think. I write in the preface about my hesitation to figure my relationship with God as a love relationship. It seemed simultaneously so medieval-mystic, so patriarchal, so oedipal that it made me cringe. Calling it a break-up also meant I had to come out: I had to admit to myself and to the rest of the world that the God I’d been dating was a man. I’m a feminist theologian. I was mortified.
I used “A Love Story” as the subtitle because at its heart the book is about love. I loved God because I wanted God to love me. Underneath my faith was a deep need to be unconditionally loved. How we think about God—the kind of relationship in which we imagine ourselves—influences how we approach our relationships with other people. Once I let go of my version of God that linked love with shame and anger and fear, I became better able to love myself and other people.
Sarah Sentilles is the author of A Church of Her Own: What Happens When a Woman Takes the Pulpit (Harcourt, 2008) and Breaking Up with God (HarperOne, 2011).
Breaking Up with God: A Love Story
Sarah Sentilles
HarperOne (2011)
What inspired you to write it? What sparked your interest (person, event book)?
...I was almost an Episcopal priest, and now I don’t call myself a Christian. How did that happen? In the writing of the book I realized that the story I had been telling about what happened was not the whole story. I had been telling people that I left institutional Christianity because the church was sexist—which is true—but I also left institutional Christianity because my faith in God had changed dramatically. I no longer believed what I had once believed. I also told people that I lost faith in God, but I realized that isn’t exactly right either. I didn’t lose my faith. I left it. Writing this book I had to face deep parts of myself that were hard for me to look at, hard for me to admit.
What’s the most important take-home message for readers?
That there is more to God than most of us have been taught in church. That faith is an imaginative, constructive, ethical enterprise. That theology matters. That the way we think about God has a real effect on the earth and on other human beings. That we are the ones we have been waiting for. In the book I write, “This is my faith: a fragile hope in what humanity might be able to do when we stop looking for someone else to save us,” and I think that sentence sums up what the book is about.
I also think the book is an invitation, a way to let other people know that they don’t have to stay in faith communities just because they find themselves there by birth or by choice. It’s an invitation to come out as a seeker, an atheist, an agnostic, a dissatisfied believer, a questioner. Sometimes you know something doesn’t feel right, but you force yourself to stay—whether it’s in a relationship that isn’t working, in a job that is making you miserable, or in a faith community that is making you feel small and scared. That is part of why I figured my faith in God as a romantic relationship. Just like you wouldn’t tell your friend to stay with a partner who hits her, you shouldn’t tell someone to stay with a version of God that makes them sick or scared or impedes her ability to thrive and shine and be her biggest self in the world.
What are some of the biggest misconceptions about your topic?
People assume I’m an atheist, but I’m not. I don’t know what I am, but if I had to choose a label I’d choose agnostic. When I say that people usually ask me if I think God exists, and I usually give them the answer that my teacher, Gordon Kaufman, used to give me: The question of God’s existence isn’t the right question because it won’t get you very far. It’s a question human beings can’t answer. If we take God’s mystery seriously, then we can never know. I think there are better questions that we can be answering: What does a particular vision of God do to those who submit to it and to those who won’t submit to it? What difference is my version of God making? Who is it harming? In one of his books, Kaufman writes, “The central question for theology... is a practical question. How are we to live? To what should we devote ourselves? To what causes give ourselves?” He argues that theology that does not contribute significantly to struggles against inhumanity and injustice has lost sight of its point of being.
I can’t know if God exists, but I do know the word God is operating in the world, running around doing all kinds of work, good and bad, and I think, as a theologian, I have a responsibility to think critically about the kinds of gods we make and worship and to try to come up with versions of god that might make the world a more just and life-giving place for everyone.
Are you hoping to just inform readers? Give them pleasure? Piss them off?
I am hoping to do all three. I hope to help people see the wide range of possible ways to think about God. There are so many more versions of God in the Christian theological tradition than most people know about. Why has our own tradition been kept from us? And I’m not just talking about feminist and liberation and black and womanist and queer theology, which I wish everyone would read. I’m also talking about the old white male theologians who wrote amazing stuff—like Freidrich Schleiermacher and Paul Tillich. These guys wrote powerful, revelatory, life-changing stuff about God, and I feel like most theology has been lost and forgotten, or just plain ignored. Communities need to reclaim their histories. I hope to help people expand their visions for God. And I hope that will be a pleasurable experience.
I am sure my book will piss people off. I seem to do that no matter how sweet I try to be. I’m trying to embrace that fact and let go of my “good girl” self who tries to please everyone all the time. My dad always says if they aren’t shooting at you, you probably aren’t doing anything worthwhile. Or, as James Cone says, “Now is not the time to be polite.”
What alternative title would you give the book?
I love the title of my book. It’s my best title yet, I think. I write in the preface about my hesitation to figure my relationship with God as a love relationship. It seemed simultaneously so medieval-mystic, so patriarchal, so oedipal that it made me cringe. Calling it a break-up also meant I had to come out: I had to admit to myself and to the rest of the world that the God I’d been dating was a man. I’m a feminist theologian. I was mortified.
I used “A Love Story” as the subtitle because at its heart the book is about love. I loved God because I wanted God to love me. Underneath my faith was a deep need to be unconditionally loved. How we think about God—the kind of relationship in which we imagine ourselves—influences how we approach our relationships with other people. Once I let go of my version of God that linked love with shame and anger and fear, I became better able to love myself and other people.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Pink Dot 2011
Embrace Difference - Celebrate Diversity
"If only gay people could stop feeling guilty for being different" is my tag line for Pink Dot 2011 in Singapore on the theme “Support Freedom to Love.” Credit must go to Boo Junfeng who directed the promotional video. As I repeated the line a number of times in its filming and further reflected upon it, I was made more aware of its meaning and significance.
The situation on homosexuality will most certainly be more favourable if more from the LGBTQ (lesbian,gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer} community could with courage come out of their closets and take pride and carry no guilt about their sexual orientation. If only more straight people could comprehend the wide spectrum of human sexuality and regard homosexuality as normal and natural and step forward to lend their support.
Pink Dot in its brief history has obtained credibility and gained favour. We are on the way to reach the tipping point just as the political rallies of the Opposition have demonstrated in the massive crowds that participated in the recent election. I recall how in the earlier political campaigns, I went sheepishly to join the small crowds who were fearful of standing in solidarity with the opposition. Changes have occurred dramatically and people proudly gave their votes to the opposition candidates. The same is going to happen on the issue of homosexuality. It is really getting better and it is merely a matter of time.
In voluntary service to the LGBTQ community through Free Community Church since its inception over seven years ago, I have observed the people who were assisted in eradicating guilt and achieving self-acceptance . With fear and trepidation they appeared and discovered courage and liberation. I remember a lesbian teacher who pulled her baseball cap down to try to hide her face and now able to stand before the congregation to witness to Christian truth. Likewise, the gay university student who came by himself and sat quietly afraid to engage with others now sings in the musical team to encourage other worshipers.
It is striking that FCC singularly “ affirms that same-sex and transgendered relationships, when lived out in accord with the love commandments of Jesus, are consistent with Christian faith and teachings. Indeed, we find discrimination based on negative judgment of others, fear of difference, and homophobia inconsistent with Christian teachings.” It is a strong statement on freedom to love.
LGBTQ need a secure place to help them to stop feeling guilty and build self-acceptance. Many others in society need a safe place where they no longer need to face discrimination and condemnation. The celebration of Pink Dot is a stage towards a society which is on the road to gay-affirming.
Self-acceptance is essentially what is needed for LGBTQ people. Why do we have to succumb to the dictates of cultural conditioning enforced by anachronistic religious teaching. Much has been attributed to what is taught about same-sex relations particularly in the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Historical-critical studies of these religions and their sacred writings have shown how they themselves are culturally bound and historically related and each claim universal and timeless relevancy. History records that contrary to sacred texts, religions have rejected patriarchy, racism, slavery, and violence. Prejudice based on sex, race, sexual orientation and economic status are no longer just and valid. This came about through the fresh interpretation of the sacred texts from the perspectives of the feminists, racial minorities, poor, and queer people.
We do not have to bear the heavy burden of guilt that the conservative community has placed upon the shoulders of LGBTQ because of its minority and marginalized position. We all must accept ourselves by embracing difference and celebrating diversity.
Due to the inter-connected and globalized community we know now how a growing majority of people are gay-affirming even though LGBTQ remain always a significant minority of the population. That the numbers of LGBTQ people are not increasing proportionately itself is a mystery. We have escalating numbers of those who understand sexual orientation and acknowledge same-sex relationships as natural and normal.
We are making progress in embracing differences. Each one of us is unique and different. A gay professor gave me a gift of a tee-shirt with the line: "Gay fine by me." I took a picture and published it in my memoir to declare my positive view on gays. Just last month I attended a retreat of Methodist pastors from Malaysia and Singapore. I took along a tee-shirt with the words "Same-same" in front and "but different" at the back. A number of the pastors recognized the statement that I was making and quietly agreed with it.
I did not realise that over forty years ago when I was the Bishop, I was appointing gay and lesbian Methodist pastors and missionaries to serve faithfully in the churches and schools throughout Malaysia and Singapore. It was then an unwritten policy of "Don't ask, don’t tell." But it was known then and even now that they were violating the teaching of the Church which still regards homosexuality as a sin. That too is in the process of changing and rather rapidly. I am certain that there are a number of gay and lesbian clergy and laypersons who are serving in different religious institutions today.
This is an exciting time and we are being caught in the tide of diversity in the affairs of men and women, straight or gay. Each one of us is differently gifted and has a contribution to make in the human community both local and global. The appeal is to get rid of guilt. The call is for self-acceptance about who we are and what we can become. It is to maximize our potential and become that kind person who live and work in community which is mutually accepting, caring and supporting one another in the creating of a better future for all.
Those of you in the LGBTQ community who love and accept yourself and relish the freedom that it brings have a special responsibility to help others who are still struggling to resolve their gay identity. You are able to save them from their loneliness, suffering and misery.
Those of us who are straight should regard all people are of sacred worth who deserve respect and ought to have freedom to love and to become who they have been created to be - unique, different and distinctive.
Together we share the awesome task to shape a community which is more caring and compassionate, more free and just that strives for the well-being of all.
Participate in Pink Dot 2011 Support the Freedom to Love on June 18 and make Singapore more open-minded and inclusive.
YAP KIM HAO
"If only gay people could stop feeling guilty for being different" is my tag line for Pink Dot 2011 in Singapore on the theme “Support Freedom to Love.” Credit must go to Boo Junfeng who directed the promotional video. As I repeated the line a number of times in its filming and further reflected upon it, I was made more aware of its meaning and significance.
The situation on homosexuality will most certainly be more favourable if more from the LGBTQ (lesbian,gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer} community could with courage come out of their closets and take pride and carry no guilt about their sexual orientation. If only more straight people could comprehend the wide spectrum of human sexuality and regard homosexuality as normal and natural and step forward to lend their support.
Pink Dot in its brief history has obtained credibility and gained favour. We are on the way to reach the tipping point just as the political rallies of the Opposition have demonstrated in the massive crowds that participated in the recent election. I recall how in the earlier political campaigns, I went sheepishly to join the small crowds who were fearful of standing in solidarity with the opposition. Changes have occurred dramatically and people proudly gave their votes to the opposition candidates. The same is going to happen on the issue of homosexuality. It is really getting better and it is merely a matter of time.
In voluntary service to the LGBTQ community through Free Community Church since its inception over seven years ago, I have observed the people who were assisted in eradicating guilt and achieving self-acceptance . With fear and trepidation they appeared and discovered courage and liberation. I remember a lesbian teacher who pulled her baseball cap down to try to hide her face and now able to stand before the congregation to witness to Christian truth. Likewise, the gay university student who came by himself and sat quietly afraid to engage with others now sings in the musical team to encourage other worshipers.
It is striking that FCC singularly “ affirms that same-sex and transgendered relationships, when lived out in accord with the love commandments of Jesus, are consistent with Christian faith and teachings. Indeed, we find discrimination based on negative judgment of others, fear of difference, and homophobia inconsistent with Christian teachings.” It is a strong statement on freedom to love.
LGBTQ need a secure place to help them to stop feeling guilty and build self-acceptance. Many others in society need a safe place where they no longer need to face discrimination and condemnation. The celebration of Pink Dot is a stage towards a society which is on the road to gay-affirming.
Self-acceptance is essentially what is needed for LGBTQ people. Why do we have to succumb to the dictates of cultural conditioning enforced by anachronistic religious teaching. Much has been attributed to what is taught about same-sex relations particularly in the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Historical-critical studies of these religions and their sacred writings have shown how they themselves are culturally bound and historically related and each claim universal and timeless relevancy. History records that contrary to sacred texts, religions have rejected patriarchy, racism, slavery, and violence. Prejudice based on sex, race, sexual orientation and economic status are no longer just and valid. This came about through the fresh interpretation of the sacred texts from the perspectives of the feminists, racial minorities, poor, and queer people.
We do not have to bear the heavy burden of guilt that the conservative community has placed upon the shoulders of LGBTQ because of its minority and marginalized position. We all must accept ourselves by embracing difference and celebrating diversity.
Due to the inter-connected and globalized community we know now how a growing majority of people are gay-affirming even though LGBTQ remain always a significant minority of the population. That the numbers of LGBTQ people are not increasing proportionately itself is a mystery. We have escalating numbers of those who understand sexual orientation and acknowledge same-sex relationships as natural and normal.
We are making progress in embracing differences. Each one of us is unique and different. A gay professor gave me a gift of a tee-shirt with the line: "Gay fine by me." I took a picture and published it in my memoir to declare my positive view on gays. Just last month I attended a retreat of Methodist pastors from Malaysia and Singapore. I took along a tee-shirt with the words "Same-same" in front and "but different" at the back. A number of the pastors recognized the statement that I was making and quietly agreed with it.
I did not realise that over forty years ago when I was the Bishop, I was appointing gay and lesbian Methodist pastors and missionaries to serve faithfully in the churches and schools throughout Malaysia and Singapore. It was then an unwritten policy of "Don't ask, don’t tell." But it was known then and even now that they were violating the teaching of the Church which still regards homosexuality as a sin. That too is in the process of changing and rather rapidly. I am certain that there are a number of gay and lesbian clergy and laypersons who are serving in different religious institutions today.
This is an exciting time and we are being caught in the tide of diversity in the affairs of men and women, straight or gay. Each one of us is differently gifted and has a contribution to make in the human community both local and global. The appeal is to get rid of guilt. The call is for self-acceptance about who we are and what we can become. It is to maximize our potential and become that kind person who live and work in community which is mutually accepting, caring and supporting one another in the creating of a better future for all.
Those of you in the LGBTQ community who love and accept yourself and relish the freedom that it brings have a special responsibility to help others who are still struggling to resolve their gay identity. You are able to save them from their loneliness, suffering and misery.
Those of us who are straight should regard all people are of sacred worth who deserve respect and ought to have freedom to love and to become who they have been created to be - unique, different and distinctive.
Together we share the awesome task to shape a community which is more caring and compassionate, more free and just that strives for the well-being of all.
Participate in Pink Dot 2011 Support the Freedom to Love on June 18 and make Singapore more open-minded and inclusive.
YAP KIM HAO
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Singapore General Election 2011
ARE YOU LISTENING?
Throughout the General Election campaign and its aftermath the word that kept popping up is LISTEN.
Everyone claims they want to listen. Candidates from the opposition initiated this approach by stating that they have been listening to the voters and responding to their cries. They then listed the litany of woes of those who especially find their present living situation difficult and the future bleak. Government candidates had to defend and even apologise that they have not listened enough to the grievances of the citizens and promise to do better the next time. The opposition pledged further to continue to listen carefully and help them to speak for them. Most of the citizens who have arrived with their different degrees of comfort are indifferent and felt they do not need to listen and support the status quo and voted as they have voted decades ago.
It is necessary for us to listen to all the classes of people in the community. We are pleased to listen to those who succeed and able to manage their lives. We need to listen and empathise with those who are struggling for the basic necessities of life in the midst of our relative affluence. The suffering of others in our human community is also mine as a fellow human being. When one suffers all share in the suffering.
Some issues have surfaced in a stark manner that need to be addressed for the total well-being of the nation. Are we really listening to what the people are saying. All will have to work together in the solving of the issues that we hear about.
1. High Salaries. We have reached beyond the embarrassing stage that those who hold political office are paid the highest salaries in the world and beyond comparison with the more developed and larger countries. It is on the scale which is truly “out of this world.” Others even regard it as obscene and a form of corruption. It can no longer be justifiable by any means or measure. The opposition has shown convincingly that they were able to recruit equally outstanding and talented people who were not tempted with astronomical remunerations.
2. Casinos. While it is true that the government revenues have increased significantly and that a large number of new jobs were created, the question remains whether the gambling industry is the one that we need to engage in and the kind of jobs that we need to train workers for. The social costs are alarming and unbearable. The human/family lives are too precious to be squandered. The “house” is calibrated to win always and millions of dollar are being siphoned out daily to the owners of our casinos. Lives are being sacrificed at the casino altars
3. Minimum Wage. Wages need to consider the living wage for our workers and their families. Foreign workers who compare their own living conditions in their own countries are willing reluctantly to accept lower than living wages while there are here by themselves. Corporations in our borderless economic world will seek out countries that pay the lowest wage for workers in order to maximise their profits. Without a minimum age policy we are exploiting poor foreign workers and enriching the companies especially in the manufacturing sector. Human resource is the one that we can provide for we lack natural resources.
4. Gerrymandering. It is obvious enough that there is gerrymandering to ensure the continued control of those in power. Whatever name we use it is a deliberate attempt through the electioneering process to benefit the party in power. The degree and the manner which we have done in the GRC’s have made its continuance highly problematic. We do not train people for political office by getting them to hang on to the coat-tails of successful office holders and bypass the proper election process of having the candidate to contest in his or her own single constituency.
5. Widening Gap. The ever widening gap between the rich and poor has no other option but to narrow. When the poor cannot afford to retire and continue to work in order to survive we see that could be one’s fate when one retires. When we depend upon our children’s medisave to pay our hospital bills we are spending not only our children’s inheritance but their present savings. The need for more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth is crying out from the more deprived segments of our community.
6. Social capital. When I watch the tremendous crowds attending the political rallies, I look at other massive crowds gathered in many parts of our world today demonstrating for change and succumbing even to the violent overthrow of authoritarian regimes that have been in power for decades. There is an urgency to build up the social capital of people who are committed to peaceful change. We need people to show fairness and to commit to compassion and to engage in caring for one another.
These are the pressing issues that come to mind when we listen to the voices from all directions when we go through a general election. They are the voices for change. If changes do not occur fast enough violence becomes the only option and we all suffer. We listen to the pleas and the cries of the people who suffer from the pressures of these problems. We can eavesdrop and listen to the voices from afar and they are reaching our shores. The listening process must necessarily lead to action to solve these issues in our society. Are you listening?
Throughout the General Election campaign and its aftermath the word that kept popping up is LISTEN.
Everyone claims they want to listen. Candidates from the opposition initiated this approach by stating that they have been listening to the voters and responding to their cries. They then listed the litany of woes of those who especially find their present living situation difficult and the future bleak. Government candidates had to defend and even apologise that they have not listened enough to the grievances of the citizens and promise to do better the next time. The opposition pledged further to continue to listen carefully and help them to speak for them. Most of the citizens who have arrived with their different degrees of comfort are indifferent and felt they do not need to listen and support the status quo and voted as they have voted decades ago.
It is necessary for us to listen to all the classes of people in the community. We are pleased to listen to those who succeed and able to manage their lives. We need to listen and empathise with those who are struggling for the basic necessities of life in the midst of our relative affluence. The suffering of others in our human community is also mine as a fellow human being. When one suffers all share in the suffering.
Some issues have surfaced in a stark manner that need to be addressed for the total well-being of the nation. Are we really listening to what the people are saying. All will have to work together in the solving of the issues that we hear about.
1. High Salaries. We have reached beyond the embarrassing stage that those who hold political office are paid the highest salaries in the world and beyond comparison with the more developed and larger countries. It is on the scale which is truly “out of this world.” Others even regard it as obscene and a form of corruption. It can no longer be justifiable by any means or measure. The opposition has shown convincingly that they were able to recruit equally outstanding and talented people who were not tempted with astronomical remunerations.
2. Casinos. While it is true that the government revenues have increased significantly and that a large number of new jobs were created, the question remains whether the gambling industry is the one that we need to engage in and the kind of jobs that we need to train workers for. The social costs are alarming and unbearable. The human/family lives are too precious to be squandered. The “house” is calibrated to win always and millions of dollar are being siphoned out daily to the owners of our casinos. Lives are being sacrificed at the casino altars
3. Minimum Wage. Wages need to consider the living wage for our workers and their families. Foreign workers who compare their own living conditions in their own countries are willing reluctantly to accept lower than living wages while there are here by themselves. Corporations in our borderless economic world will seek out countries that pay the lowest wage for workers in order to maximise their profits. Without a minimum age policy we are exploiting poor foreign workers and enriching the companies especially in the manufacturing sector. Human resource is the one that we can provide for we lack natural resources.
4. Gerrymandering. It is obvious enough that there is gerrymandering to ensure the continued control of those in power. Whatever name we use it is a deliberate attempt through the electioneering process to benefit the party in power. The degree and the manner which we have done in the GRC’s have made its continuance highly problematic. We do not train people for political office by getting them to hang on to the coat-tails of successful office holders and bypass the proper election process of having the candidate to contest in his or her own single constituency.
5. Widening Gap. The ever widening gap between the rich and poor has no other option but to narrow. When the poor cannot afford to retire and continue to work in order to survive we see that could be one’s fate when one retires. When we depend upon our children’s medisave to pay our hospital bills we are spending not only our children’s inheritance but their present savings. The need for more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth is crying out from the more deprived segments of our community.
6. Social capital. When I watch the tremendous crowds attending the political rallies, I look at other massive crowds gathered in many parts of our world today demonstrating for change and succumbing even to the violent overthrow of authoritarian regimes that have been in power for decades. There is an urgency to build up the social capital of people who are committed to peaceful change. We need people to show fairness and to commit to compassion and to engage in caring for one another.
These are the pressing issues that come to mind when we listen to the voices from all directions when we go through a general election. They are the voices for change. If changes do not occur fast enough violence becomes the only option and we all suffer. We listen to the pleas and the cries of the people who suffer from the pressures of these problems. We can eavesdrop and listen to the voices from afar and they are reaching our shores. The listening process must necessarily lead to action to solve these issues in our society. Are you listening?
Friday, May 6, 2011
BORN FREE
Right to be Free
The Cooling Off Day after a hectic period of political campaigning is a time to pause and reflect. The whole nation became a classroom when issues were vigorously debated in order to capture the hearts and minds of the electorate. Analysis in the new media which naturally embodies more freedom brings about the important and essential role of freedom of expression in the body politic. But the academic community where one would expect should play a more objective role is clouded by the political climate they had to work under.
It is heartening to read the articles especially in The Online Citizen and The Temasek Review and responsible bloggers on salient issues like honour and chivalry, power and responsibility. In the flush of freedom they have shared their candid insights without fear or favour.
In my reading today I chanced to read the Asian classic published back in 1999, “Development as Freedom” by Amartya Sen. It made pointed reference then to what is being reflected at this time.
Amartya Sen in the chapter “The Importance of Democracy” in his book reminded me of the significance between political freedom and economic needs.
They are often contrasted and one is called to trade-off freedom for the sake of wealth. So we hear the cries in the election rallies that life is more than just increasing GDP.
The author argues against the approach to “undermine the relevance of political freedom because the economic needs are so urgent.” He calls this the "Lee Thesis" after Lee Kuan Yew which claims that civil and political freedom hamper economic growth and development. On the contrary, the writer contends there is not only a relevance but an interconnection and that freedom is more urgent and basic and fundamental.
He further refutes the observation that authoritarian governments have a faster rate of economic growth. He believes that there are other factors that we have to take into consideration for growth. Development is not to be measured only in terms of dollars and cents. Hence the shouts for consideration of other factors than the drive for wealth accumulation.
The call is to understand the impact of political freedom in the lives of the citizens. The large crowd participating in the political rallies and coffee-shops indicate its importance when given the opportunity to exercise their right to express themselves. We have to acknowledge especially the new media for making this possible.
The positive value of freedom is in the formation of values and goals. The openness to discuss issues by the people has to be sustained. Those in authority and who serve are to listen to what people say and face their criticisms and ready to apologise always when they are wrong in order to merit their electoral support. It is only beginning to happen. It is heartening that at the beginning of the election campaign the attempts to smear were snuffed out, incivility in personal attacks were crushed and threats were muted. We are moving in the direction of the more gracious level of discourse. The tears shed are signs of care and compassion for the suffering of those who are being discriminated upon and show we have a heart.
Open discussion leads to the formation of values and priorities of economic needs themselves. No one assuming power can claim a personal right to rule and through self-authentication. Credible people have to earn their right to rule. Leaders rule upon the consent of the citizens. People need to be free to choose the kind of government they want and the economic needs they seek.
Essentially political freedom and civil rights are important on their own and need no justification. People must be given the freedom to lead their own lives and to have the opportunity to participate freely in deciding their political destiny.
May the values, priorities and goals that emerge through an election continue to be reviewed, evaluated and decided upon by the free citizens in a free nation.
The Cooling Off Day after a hectic period of political campaigning is a time to pause and reflect. The whole nation became a classroom when issues were vigorously debated in order to capture the hearts and minds of the electorate. Analysis in the new media which naturally embodies more freedom brings about the important and essential role of freedom of expression in the body politic. But the academic community where one would expect should play a more objective role is clouded by the political climate they had to work under.
It is heartening to read the articles especially in The Online Citizen and The Temasek Review and responsible bloggers on salient issues like honour and chivalry, power and responsibility. In the flush of freedom they have shared their candid insights without fear or favour.
In my reading today I chanced to read the Asian classic published back in 1999, “Development as Freedom” by Amartya Sen. It made pointed reference then to what is being reflected at this time.
Amartya Sen in the chapter “The Importance of Democracy” in his book reminded me of the significance between political freedom and economic needs.
They are often contrasted and one is called to trade-off freedom for the sake of wealth. So we hear the cries in the election rallies that life is more than just increasing GDP.
The author argues against the approach to “undermine the relevance of political freedom because the economic needs are so urgent.” He calls this the "Lee Thesis" after Lee Kuan Yew which claims that civil and political freedom hamper economic growth and development. On the contrary, the writer contends there is not only a relevance but an interconnection and that freedom is more urgent and basic and fundamental.
He further refutes the observation that authoritarian governments have a faster rate of economic growth. He believes that there are other factors that we have to take into consideration for growth. Development is not to be measured only in terms of dollars and cents. Hence the shouts for consideration of other factors than the drive for wealth accumulation.
The call is to understand the impact of political freedom in the lives of the citizens. The large crowd participating in the political rallies and coffee-shops indicate its importance when given the opportunity to exercise their right to express themselves. We have to acknowledge especially the new media for making this possible.
The positive value of freedom is in the formation of values and goals. The openness to discuss issues by the people has to be sustained. Those in authority and who serve are to listen to what people say and face their criticisms and ready to apologise always when they are wrong in order to merit their electoral support. It is only beginning to happen. It is heartening that at the beginning of the election campaign the attempts to smear were snuffed out, incivility in personal attacks were crushed and threats were muted. We are moving in the direction of the more gracious level of discourse. The tears shed are signs of care and compassion for the suffering of those who are being discriminated upon and show we have a heart.
Open discussion leads to the formation of values and priorities of economic needs themselves. No one assuming power can claim a personal right to rule and through self-authentication. Credible people have to earn their right to rule. Leaders rule upon the consent of the citizens. People need to be free to choose the kind of government they want and the economic needs they seek.
Essentially political freedom and civil rights are important on their own and need no justification. People must be given the freedom to lead their own lives and to have the opportunity to participate freely in deciding their political destiny.
May the values, priorities and goals that emerge through an election continue to be reviewed, evaluated and decided upon by the free citizens in a free nation.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
May Peace be Upon Us
Sunday April 17, 2011
After the conclusion of the election in the State of Sarawak where the spectre of inter-racial and inter-religious conflicts rear their ugly heads, I am reminded of the following article published over a year ago by Tuanku Sultanah Raja Zarith Sofia binti Sultan Idris Shah issuing an appeal for peace.
Grace & Peace
Yap Kim Hao
Sunday January 10, 2010
May peace be upon us
Mind Matters
By RAJA ZARITH IDRIS
Compared to the people of war-torn countries, we have a lot to be thankful for. But perhaps it is because we are at peace that we bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
AND so a new year begins, carrying with it last year’s “1Malaysia” theme for the country.
It perhaps signifies a realisation that we have many problems to overcome together as a nation. The encouragement for unity suggests that we all, knowingly or otherwise, realise that something is seriously wrong: we have become unhealthily obsessed with petty issues regarding race and religion.
We’ve all heard whispered comments about parents telling their children not to befriend their classmates who are not of the same race or religion. These whispers have become part of conversations, which leave us frustrated.
We are now facing a wall – quite a solid one at that – made up of bigoted remarks which stem from ignorance, intolerance, suspicion, a shunning of our own neighbours, and, yes, even hatred.
Last year, Muslims brought with them the severed head of a cow to a mosque to show their anger over the building of a Hindu temple.
During the second week of this new year, incendiary devices were thrown into churches – the Metro Tabernacle Church in Kuala Lumpur, the Assumption Church, the Life Chapel Church and The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, all in Petaling Jaya.
And yet, it is written in the Holy Quran: “And argue not with the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), unless it be in a way that is better (with good words and in a good manner... except with such of them as do wrong.” — Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 46.
In his own lifetime, the Holy Prophet Muhammad S.A.W (May Peace Be Upon Him) dealt fairly with the Christians.
The Prophet ordered two of his followers – Abu Musa Al-Ash’aree and Mu’aadh ibn Jabal – to go to Najran (part of present-day Yemen) to speak to the Christians.
This is recorded in the Hadiths (Islamic Traditions) according to both Al-Imam Muslim and Al-Imam Al-Bukhari: “... he said to them: ‘Facilitate things for the people (treat the people in the most agreeable way), and do not make things difficult for them, and give them glad tidings, and let them not have aversion (i.e. to make the people hate good deeds) and you should both work in cooperation and mutual understanding, obey each other’...” —Kindness & Gentleness by Doctor Fadl Al-Ilaahi, translated by Tarik Preston.
The treaty made then has become the basis of Islamic relations with other religions: “Najran and their followers have the protection of God and the protection of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God, for themselves, their community, their land and their goods, both those who are absent and those who are present, and for their churches and their services (no bishop will be moved from his episcopate, and no monk from his monastery, and no church warden from his wardenship) and for all, great or little, that is under their hands...” — Demystifying Islam: Your Guide to The Most Misunderstood Religion of the 21st Century by Dr Ali Shehata.
After the Prophet’s death, the second Caliph, Saidina Omar bin Khattab, signed a peace treaty with the Christians in Jerusalem: “In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, This is the protection which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya (Jerusalem). The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their co-religionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion ... Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya (the tax for their defence) imposed on them.” — www.
gawaher.com
It is a sad irony that at an age when there is so much information available to us via telecommunication and the Internet, we have become even more paranoid than ever.
We all call Malaysia home, do we not?
As fellow citizens, we can choose to see what we have in common or we can just look at the differences.
We can choose to remain ignorant or we can ask for guidance from our religious leaders and officials.
A year ago, we saw television footage and news items about the war in Gaza. Every day, our newspapers showed us images of the wounded and the dead. We saw homes and hospitals bombed into broken skeletons of bricks and metal.
Compared to the people of Gaza, we have a lot to be thankful for. We do not have an armed enemy attacking us. Our country is not at war. There are no missiles, no bombs, no air raids.
It is perhaps because we are at peace that we have come to bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
Most families have enough to eat decent meals. We have no shortage of petrol. Our homes remain intact. Because we do not have a common enemy, we have, it seems, the time and energy to destroy places of worship.
Let us remind ourselves that the Muslim greeting or salam is “May Peace Be Upon You”.
> The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, UKM, Chairperson of the Community Services Committee of the Malaysian Red Crescent Society, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Oxford.
After the conclusion of the election in the State of Sarawak where the spectre of inter-racial and inter-religious conflicts rear their ugly heads, I am reminded of the following article published over a year ago by Tuanku Sultanah Raja Zarith Sofia binti Sultan Idris Shah issuing an appeal for peace.
Grace & Peace
Yap Kim Hao
Sunday January 10, 2010
May peace be upon us
Mind Matters
By RAJA ZARITH IDRIS
Compared to the people of war-torn countries, we have a lot to be thankful for. But perhaps it is because we are at peace that we bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
AND so a new year begins, carrying with it last year’s “1Malaysia” theme for the country.
It perhaps signifies a realisation that we have many problems to overcome together as a nation. The encouragement for unity suggests that we all, knowingly or otherwise, realise that something is seriously wrong: we have become unhealthily obsessed with petty issues regarding race and religion.
We’ve all heard whispered comments about parents telling their children not to befriend their classmates who are not of the same race or religion. These whispers have become part of conversations, which leave us frustrated.
We are now facing a wall – quite a solid one at that – made up of bigoted remarks which stem from ignorance, intolerance, suspicion, a shunning of our own neighbours, and, yes, even hatred.
Last year, Muslims brought with them the severed head of a cow to a mosque to show their anger over the building of a Hindu temple.
During the second week of this new year, incendiary devices were thrown into churches – the Metro Tabernacle Church in Kuala Lumpur, the Assumption Church, the Life Chapel Church and The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, all in Petaling Jaya.
And yet, it is written in the Holy Quran: “And argue not with the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), unless it be in a way that is better (with good words and in a good manner... except with such of them as do wrong.” — Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 46.
In his own lifetime, the Holy Prophet Muhammad S.A.W (May Peace Be Upon Him) dealt fairly with the Christians.
The Prophet ordered two of his followers – Abu Musa Al-Ash’aree and Mu’aadh ibn Jabal – to go to Najran (part of present-day Yemen) to speak to the Christians.
This is recorded in the Hadiths (Islamic Traditions) according to both Al-Imam Muslim and Al-Imam Al-Bukhari: “... he said to them: ‘Facilitate things for the people (treat the people in the most agreeable way), and do not make things difficult for them, and give them glad tidings, and let them not have aversion (i.e. to make the people hate good deeds) and you should both work in cooperation and mutual understanding, obey each other’...” —Kindness & Gentleness by Doctor Fadl Al-Ilaahi, translated by Tarik Preston.
The treaty made then has become the basis of Islamic relations with other religions: “Najran and their followers have the protection of God and the protection of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God, for themselves, their community, their land and their goods, both those who are absent and those who are present, and for their churches and their services (no bishop will be moved from his episcopate, and no monk from his monastery, and no church warden from his wardenship) and for all, great or little, that is under their hands...” — Demystifying Islam: Your Guide to The Most Misunderstood Religion of the 21st Century by Dr Ali Shehata.
After the Prophet’s death, the second Caliph, Saidina Omar bin Khattab, signed a peace treaty with the Christians in Jerusalem: “In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, This is the protection which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya (Jerusalem). The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their co-religionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion ... Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya (the tax for their defence) imposed on them.” — www.
gawaher.com
It is a sad irony that at an age when there is so much information available to us via telecommunication and the Internet, we have become even more paranoid than ever.
We all call Malaysia home, do we not?
As fellow citizens, we can choose to see what we have in common or we can just look at the differences.
We can choose to remain ignorant or we can ask for guidance from our religious leaders and officials.
A year ago, we saw television footage and news items about the war in Gaza. Every day, our newspapers showed us images of the wounded and the dead. We saw homes and hospitals bombed into broken skeletons of bricks and metal.
Compared to the people of Gaza, we have a lot to be thankful for. We do not have an armed enemy attacking us. Our country is not at war. There are no missiles, no bombs, no air raids.
It is perhaps because we are at peace that we have come to bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
Most families have enough to eat decent meals. We have no shortage of petrol. Our homes remain intact. Because we do not have a common enemy, we have, it seems, the time and energy to destroy places of worship.
Let us remind ourselves that the Muslim greeting or salam is “May Peace Be Upon You”.
> The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, UKM, Chairperson of the Community Services Committee of the Malaysian Red Crescent Society, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Oxford.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Gayle Goh's Vision
My Vision For Singapore, by Gayle Goh
Posted on January 3, 2011 by visa
People have asked me what my vision of Singapore is. But I think I first have to lay out my vision of its people – people who are no longer stranded in the boxes of an impersonal state’s construction, but who are willing to venture out of those confines to lay down the grounds for their own lives and prosperity. People who have ownership of the terms of their citizenship, instead of having those terms dictated to them without so much as a by-your-leave. People who are mature enough to be trusted, who are dignified instead of patronized, who are able to use their ’1st World’ educations not just for material benefit but for the purposes of self-determination, which is fundamental to the nature of human existence.
I envision a people who govern themselves through the constructs of their shaping; independent yet responsible media, judiciary, legislative and executive arms of the state, ballot box, labour unions. Where they are the foremost judge and jury, where the government must be held accountable to them, and prove themselves capable to be their representatives, instead of the other way around. People who are proud to call themselves Singaporeans, engaged and aware of their nation and their countrymen.
Singapore, then, is a nation I have always envisaged as a child who went to sleep and, without knowing it, grew to be a man. In his slumber he aged, matured, became strong-limbed and nimble, powerful and beautiful, and yet remained imprisoned in his lethargy. Sedated by peace and numbed by comfort, he was content to lie mute, deaf, non-assertive. But of late his sleep is restless, disturbed by ugly images. His once-blissful dreams have been tinged with unease. Something has gone wrong. Something is not right. And he stirs – a little finger trembles here, a heartbeat quickens there – and soon he will awaken. His eyes will open and he will discover that he has autonomy over his self, his person, that he has power invested in those hands.
And he must do this before a child’s cradle turns into a man’s grave.
Only Singaporeans can awaken their nation. Only they can unpack the boxes, sort out the mess, throw away the rotten and tidy the dishevelled. Only they have the ability and the sheer will to effect change. Our country is a child no longer. It is a fledgling nation no longer. It has an identity, a consciousness, a name, a face. It must no longer be treated as an infant, unable to discern nor fend for itself. Else, if we turn away, if we stir but do not wake, then we run the risk of losing our chance to see the world – to see ourselves – as who wecan be, not who they tell us we must be.
Labels, labels, boxes and labels. Stayers, quitters, 3rd world, 1st world, old, young, skilled, unskilled, English-educated radicals, Chinese chauvinists, neighbourhood, elite, moderates, dissidents, Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others. I see Singaporeans. And until we see ourselves, how do we staunch the rotting, how do we cease the diaspora, the dispersion of people emigrating from our homeland, disillusioned, discontent, now apathetic?
Until we awaken, how do we learn how to live?
This entry was posted in Singapore, Social Issues. Bookmark the permalink.
← The Challenge.
is there anything at all about yourself that pisses you off? {:
Posted on January 3, 2011 by visa
People have asked me what my vision of Singapore is. But I think I first have to lay out my vision of its people – people who are no longer stranded in the boxes of an impersonal state’s construction, but who are willing to venture out of those confines to lay down the grounds for their own lives and prosperity. People who have ownership of the terms of their citizenship, instead of having those terms dictated to them without so much as a by-your-leave. People who are mature enough to be trusted, who are dignified instead of patronized, who are able to use their ’1st World’ educations not just for material benefit but for the purposes of self-determination, which is fundamental to the nature of human existence.
I envision a people who govern themselves through the constructs of their shaping; independent yet responsible media, judiciary, legislative and executive arms of the state, ballot box, labour unions. Where they are the foremost judge and jury, where the government must be held accountable to them, and prove themselves capable to be their representatives, instead of the other way around. People who are proud to call themselves Singaporeans, engaged and aware of their nation and their countrymen.
Singapore, then, is a nation I have always envisaged as a child who went to sleep and, without knowing it, grew to be a man. In his slumber he aged, matured, became strong-limbed and nimble, powerful and beautiful, and yet remained imprisoned in his lethargy. Sedated by peace and numbed by comfort, he was content to lie mute, deaf, non-assertive. But of late his sleep is restless, disturbed by ugly images. His once-blissful dreams have been tinged with unease. Something has gone wrong. Something is not right. And he stirs – a little finger trembles here, a heartbeat quickens there – and soon he will awaken. His eyes will open and he will discover that he has autonomy over his self, his person, that he has power invested in those hands.
And he must do this before a child’s cradle turns into a man’s grave.
Only Singaporeans can awaken their nation. Only they can unpack the boxes, sort out the mess, throw away the rotten and tidy the dishevelled. Only they have the ability and the sheer will to effect change. Our country is a child no longer. It is a fledgling nation no longer. It has an identity, a consciousness, a name, a face. It must no longer be treated as an infant, unable to discern nor fend for itself. Else, if we turn away, if we stir but do not wake, then we run the risk of losing our chance to see the world – to see ourselves – as who wecan be, not who they tell us we must be.
Labels, labels, boxes and labels. Stayers, quitters, 3rd world, 1st world, old, young, skilled, unskilled, English-educated radicals, Chinese chauvinists, neighbourhood, elite, moderates, dissidents, Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others. I see Singaporeans. And until we see ourselves, how do we staunch the rotting, how do we cease the diaspora, the dispersion of people emigrating from our homeland, disillusioned, discontent, now apathetic?
Until we awaken, how do we learn how to live?
This entry was posted in Singapore, Social Issues. Bookmark the permalink.
← The Challenge.
is there anything at all about yourself that pisses you off? {:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
