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.
Monday, July 11, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
