Adoption and the Gospel

Ryan Bomberger writes, "Adoption is at the heart of our soul's redemption".

Adoption is an issue so central to the Christian faith that it is shocking how little mention is made of it in regular Christian life.

Various letters to TODAY have discussed the issue recently. Joseph Wong writes in "To help orphans, change our views on adoption" (27 December 2013):

Adopting a child is as much giving life as giving birth and should be celebrated.

Perhaps if society views adoption and adopted children more positively, many more of the millions of orphans in the world might have a family and a new life.

Shafiq Abdullah reiterates this point in "Adoption: Point is to care for orphans, neglected kids" (30 December 2013):

Although many people I know see adoption as a “solution” for couples who cannot have children, I think they miss the more important point of it: Caring for orphans and neglected children.

Adoption is a way for a child to find a stable home where he is loved and protected by adoptive parents.

A progressive society should put the needs of children first. If our society views adoption and adopted children more positively, we could indeed find homes for many orphans and neglected children.

Likewise, Darius Lee writes in "Streamline adoption process, form support groups for families" (31 December 2013):

I agree with Mr Joseph Wong (“To help orphans, change our views on adoption”, Dec 27) and Mr Shafiq Abdullah (“Adoption: Point is to care for orphans, neglected kids”, Dec 30) that we should change our perspective of adoption in order to help orphans and neglected children find homes where they can be loved and protected.

The needs of children should come first. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Singapore is a party, stipulates that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration under a system of adoption.

According to statistics provided in March by Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing in Parliament, the average number of child adoptions in Singapore over the last five years has been about 400. It takes about five months to process each adoption case.

As a society, we should not only work to streamline our system of adoption, but also encourage adoption by raising awareness of its life-giving potential. The community can form support groups for adoptive families to empower parents in sensitive matters such as disclosure. Likewise, the Government should consider measures to provide information about adoption, while respecting confidentiality.

Thus, we can unleash the life-giving value of adoption, in the best interests of our children. As the minister said, every one child matched with a proper family is one more happy Singaporean.

New family and new life

The Gospel message is about our adoption into God's family through the life-giving sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 

The Book of Genesis begins with the story of how Adam, whom Luke refers to as "the son of God" (Luke 3:37), was cut off from God because of his sin in the Garden of Eden. Death entered the world through Adam's sin. Paul explains that "through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). 

 

All at once, Man had lost his family and life because of sin.

Yet through faith in Jesus Christ, we have all received God's grace and are adopted into God's family. Paul teaches us that we "are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26). God has made us His children and heirs:

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:15-17)

We have been given a new family and a new life.

Caring for orphans

Another reason why adoption is so central to the Christian faith is the importance of caring for orphans.

 

The Bible describes God as a "father to the fatherless" (Psalm 68:5). He "defends the cause of the fatherless" (Deuteronomy 10:18).

 

All throughout the Old Testament are injunctions to protect the rights of the fatherless. For example, the prophet Isaiah exhorted the people of Judah to "defend the cause of the fatherless", and rebuked the rulers for failing to protect their rights (Isaiah 1:17, 23).

 

Likewise, James writes in the New Testament:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)

The Bible is clear about the importance of caring for orphans. God cares for them, and we as His children should do likewise.

 

Should we not do likewise?

Adoption is central to the Gospel message. Through Jesus Christ, we receive God's grace and mercy and become His children when we were once cut off by sin and death. We have been given a new family and a new life. 

 

Moreover, we reflect the love of God Himself when we care for orphans and neglected children and protect their rights. 

 

Having received God's love and having been adopted into His family, should we not also open our homes to the orphans and neglected children in our midst?

Aren't you glad Jesus did not embrace a "prochoice" worldview?

The Radiance Foundation has lately published an article titled "What Would (a Prochoice) Jesus Do?" (17 December 2013):

Sometimes we achieve clarity when we put an ideology into a different context. Our news media superficially celebrates those who fight for “equality” while denying it to millions through the violence of abortion. They go all Lady Gaga over someone who will stand for a whopping 11 hours to demand the death of innocent human life. Christ hung on a cross for a lot longer, and I’m pretty sure it was more physically tasking than standing in place in comfy pink sneakers. The difference? His sacrifice was so others wouldn’t perish.

But what if Jesus were to have embraced a “prochoice” worldview? What would that look like?

We could kiss salvation goodbye. Adoption is at the heart of our soul’s redemption, yet a maligned consideration on the “prochoice” periphery.  (Planned Parenthood aborts over 149 children for every 1 adoption referral). Half of us would immediately be written off as unwanted, therefore disposable, and certainly not worth eternally saving.

A “prochoice” Jesus would be the ultimate hypocrite having his own life spared from a single teenage mother scenario only to condemn to death others in similar circumstances. He, like the Jesse Jacksons of the world (who was conceived in rape), would enjoy the grand possibility of life while others the grim inevitability of undeserved death.

A Savior who espouses the tenets of the “prochoice” faith would not have to reveal the power of miracles, but instead rely upon a pessimistic outlook that misery is the natural outcome of physical affliction. The blind seeing, the lame walking and lepers healed would only take valuable time and resources away from those who weren’t a “burden” on society.  He would relish in His efforts to eliminate the “unfit” from the overpopulated world upon which He apparently miscalculated.

A Christ that embraced abortion dogma would be far less compassionate. That love would be conditional, dependent upon someone’s assigned worth. Those deemed “unwanted” or “undesirable” would automatically be assumed to be unlovable. He would preach to the multitudes that they should treat others how they would like to be treated, unless the others were worthless and their removal improved your bottom line.

Those who sinned and deeply desired redemption would be told that they should, instead, consider how they feel. Did it feel good to lust after someone else’s wife? Did your natural tendency to suppress self-restraint gratify you? Did you feel limited in a monogamous marital relationship that, in turn, forced you to discover your true femininity in sexual exploration? The woman caught and accused of adultery, would not have been spared from stoning because there were no men (including the adulterous ones) without sin, but because there was no sin to speak of. Christ the ProChoicer would’ve given her partially accurate birth control advice, STD-prone prophylactics and an affirming lecture on how her sexual promiscuity was normal and healthy.

This month we celebrate Christmas and the birth of a Savior who would eventually give His own life. But a “prochoice” Jesus would’ve prevented such selflessness. Narcissism is at the heart of abortion doctrine. His death and resurrection never would have happened; self-sacrifice is anathema to sacred abortion beliefs. Jesus would not have been seized from the Mount of Olives, because He would’ve chosen someone else to take his place. He had 12 disciples. Certainly one of them could be sacrificed.

Instead we have a Messiah who cares about every life from the moment of conception until natural death and beyond. He chose to be nailed to a cross, despite His innocence, and die so that we can be redeemed, no matter what we’ve done. We have a Savior who saves the most wretched, the most defenseless and the most broken. He emblazoned Purpose on our hearts from the moment we were conceived. In Christ we have compassion, grace, mercy, love, forgiveness, hope and possibility personified.

This Christmas look beyond the flashing colors, the overly-marketed ploys to buy plastic with plastic, and the well-choreographed holiday church services into the simplicity of why His birth is so meaningful and life-changing.

And rejoice! For unto us a Savior is born! And the outcome of that (humanly) unplanned pregnancy was not misery, but our very eternal liberty.

Aren't you glad Jesus did not embrace a "prochoice" worldview?

This Christmas, let us thank God for His wonderful gift of life!

The Hero of the Little India Riots

The Little India riots shocked Singapore and damaged the image of Singapore as a peaceful, stable society. Approximately 400 foreign workers of South Asian origin rioted in Little India, after a bus knocked down a worker who had earlier been asked to step out of the bus because of his unruly behaviour.

In one of the videos, various rioters attacked the bus with makeshift weapons, bins and whatever they could find. One man stood out, bravely warding off the attackers. Other reports also revealed that he had protected the bus assistant by bringing her to safety in the bus.

This man is a hero and we as a society should give him a reward.

As Christians, we can also learn something from this man's example.

Do you join in the crowd and simply follow what everyone else is doing, like the riot in Ephesus described in the Book of Acts, where "[the] assembly was in confusion"; "[some] were shouting one thing, some another" and "[most] of the people did not even know why they were there" (Acts 19:32)? 

Do you stand idly by? 

Or do you stand out from the crowd by doing what is right even if everyone else is doing otherwise?

Christians are meant to be the salt and light of the world:

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:13-16)

Does your light shine before men?

The Liberal Heresy - Love Apart from Morality

Full post at "http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/divorcing-love-from-morality-new.html"

"Situation ethics basically states that other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations if love is best served; as theologian Paul Tillich once put it: ‘Love is the ultimate law’.

The moral principles Fletcher was specifically referring to were the moral codes of Christianity and the type of love he is specifically referring to is ‘agape’ love.

Fletcher believed that in forming an ethical system based on love, he was best expressing the notion of ‘love thy neighbour’, which Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels.

He believed that there are no absolute laws other than the law of ‘agape’ love, meaning that all the other laws are only guidelines on how to achieve this love, and could be broken if an alternative course of action would result in more love."

By my reading Situation Ethics is a distortion of biblical ethical teaching. It is, in short, heresy. But it is a heresy that appears to be very much alive and well amongst British evangelicals in the 21st century. No more clearly is it evidence than in the shifting views and lack of clarity amongst evangelicals about sexual morality and the shedding of innocent blood.

Interestingly, Fletcher later identified himself as an atheist and was active in the Euthanasia Society of America and the American Eugenics Society and was one of the signatories to the Humanist Manifesto. When he started out, his position was barely distinguishable from orthodoxy. But he finished up in a very different place altogether."

Cheap Grace - The Conservative Heresy

Full post at "http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/cheap-grace-false-gospel-and-deadly.html"

Bonhoeffer defines cheap grace as follows:

'Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate’

But what does this cheap grace look like? Bonhoeffer points especially to two things that mark out cheap grace from real grace.

• Cheap  grace is without repentance
• Cheap grace is a grace we bestow on ourselves, in other words, it is a grace we give each other when we see fit, rather than according to the pattern of God

The Power of a Personal Testimony: Lessons from the abortion debate

One of the most controversial topics of our time – abortion – is being debated again in Singapore.

After Dr Amy Khor discussed the topic in Parliament, several letters have been written to the Straits Times forum on the topic. Many of these letters raised highly sophisticated and well-reasoned arguments, using statistics and law to support their reasoning. 

However, one letter stood out from among the rest. 

Dr John Hui shared a simple, straightforward and personal story in "Give women more time, support and choices" (28 November 2013):

WHEN a woman presents with an unplanned pregnancy, her decision on whether or not to abort the baby often hinges on the support she has around her. The greater the support that she is assured of to bring the child to term and beyond, the more likely she will keep her baby.

As a family physician, I remember a woman who once asked for a referral to terminate her pregnancy. She already had a few other children and found it difficult to make ends meet. It was fortunate that her husband came along with her. We spent some time discussing the implications of abortion and the alternatives available.

They returned a few days later. The woman smiled as her husband told me he had decided to fully support her decision to keep the baby.

Some time later, they came back to see me with their young child. I can never forget what the man said to me that day: "Doctor, see this little boy? He is the one you helped us save. We can't imagine what life would be like without him. Thank you so much for your advice!"

Interestingly, in more than 20 years of practice, not one of my patients who made the choice to keep her baby after counselling ever came back to tell me she regretted her decision.

Women need to be provided with ample information about the medical and emotional aspects of abortion, as well as the alternatives available, for their decision to be an informed one.

A "cooling-off" period of 48 hours between the counselling session and the procedure is grossly insufficient. A woman or a couple should be given at least one to two weeks to weigh their options so that the choice they ultimately make is as well considered as possible.

One of the most painfully poignant moments in my life took place when I came across a woman with an infertility problem who tearfully said: "Doc, I had an abortion when I was younger. And I think I might have aborted the only baby my womb would ever bear."

I wish no woman would ever have to go through such pain. Women are special, and they deserve a lot better.

This powerful letter brought to mind the importance of personal testimonies in our faith.

The Power of a Personal Testimony

We have all heard of the Great Commission. Jesus commanded His disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20)

But what did these poor, uneducated fishermen say when they preached the Gospel to others? 

They told others about what they had seen and heard about Jesus Christ. They literally bore witness to the Gospel. At Pentecost, Peter preached that "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact" (Acts 2:32). 

When ordered not to preach in Jesus' name, Peter and the apostles firmly refused, saying:

"We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead - whom you had killed by hanging Him on a tree. God exalted Him to His own right hand as Prince and Saviour that He might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." (Acts 5:29-32)

Likewise, Paul's testimony was personal:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
that He was buried,
that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that He appeared to Peter,
and then to the Twelve.
After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time,
most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles,
and last of all He appeared to me also,
as to one abnormally born.

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. (1 Corinthians 15:3-11)

Even the Gospel of Luke is Luke's personal effort to write an orderly account of things he had investigated. Luke wrote in Luke 1:3-4, "since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Nevertheless, care must be taken not to over-emphasise personal testimonies at the expense of theology and Scripture. In fact, Peter's sermon at Pentecost quoted from the prophet Joel and King David, explaining the fulfilment of God's prophecies in Christ. Likewise, Paul's Epistles are full of didactic teaching, expounding on Scripture. 

The point is that both are important. And the danger is when we exclusively emphasise one at the expense of the other.

Lessons from the abortion debate

Consider once again the impact of Dr John Hui's heartfelt sharing based on his personal experience with his patients, and then concluding on abortion, "I wish no woman would ever have to go through such pain. Women are special, and they deserve a lot better."

It cuts right to the heart.

So when you say, "Jesus loves us and died for our sins", what witness do you bear? What is your testimony? What has Jesus done in your life?

David Wilkerson - A Call to Anguish

The Resilience and Faith of Christians in Oppressive North Korea

North Korea is one of the most oppressive countries towards Christians. Charisma News reports in "North Korea Executes 80 for Owning Bible, Watching TV" (12 November 2013):

North Korea has executed 80 people by firing squad for minor misdemeanors, the South Korean newspaper, JoongAng Ilbo reported.

The misdemeanors include things like watching television programs from South Korea or possessing a Bible.

The story says the coordinated executions were held in seven cities earlier this month. In one place, the local government gathered up 10,000 people, including children, and forced them to watch. 

Relatives and friends of the victims were also reportedly sent to prison camps.

Yet the North Korean Christians show amazing resilience and faith. According to another Charisma News report, "Why Persecuted North Koreans Are Praying for the American Church" (29 October 2013):

Rev. Eric Foley, CEO of Seoul USA, says instead of praying for members of the North Korean underground church, Americans should pray with them.

“They don’t ask God to deliver them from persecution," he explains. "They pray they’ll remain strong and faithful in the midst of their suffering.”

Foley says Americans may be surprised to learn North Korean Christians often pray for people of the U.S. and South Korea.

“They pray for us because they feel we are persecuted by our prosperity and it distances us from God," he says. "They pray that we will remain faithful to the Lord.”

It is in this that they most resemble the early church. Consider how Peter and the apostles responded when they were persecuted for preaching the Gospel:

[The Sanhedrin] called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 5:40-42)

The conduct of the North Korean Christians should put the church in comfortable Singapore to shame.

God and Caesar: Has Caesar crossed a line in the Faith Community Baptist Church adultery case?

The Separation of Church and State is a concept rooted in Christianity. It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;
and unto God the things that are God's.
(Matthew 22:21, KJV)

There are Two Kingdoms which God has ordained: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of "Caesar", or the World. Martin Luther laid down a general theory of secular government in his treatise, "Secular Authority: To what extent it should be obeyed", which was published in 1523.

Among the important implications that flow from this are freedom of religion and the non-interference of secular government with spiritual matters.

Institutional autonomy of the Church
Freedom of religion and the non-interference of secular government with spiritual matters mandate that secular government should respect the autonomy of the Church.

The Catholic Church has since embraced a model which separates Church and State, and in its Note on the Catholic Church’s freedom and institutional autonomy, laid down one of the most articulate expositions on the autonomy of the Church:

1. The distinction between the Church and the political community

The Church recognizes the distinction between the Church and the political community, each of which has distinct ends; the Church is in no way confused with the political community and is not bound to any political system...

This distinction is based on the words of the Lord Jesus (Christ): "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" (Mt 22:21). In their own areas, the political community and the Church are independent of each other and autonomous. When it is a question of areas which have both temporal and spiritual ends, such as marriage or the education of children, the Church is of the view that the civil power should exercise its authority while making sure not to damage the spiritual good of the faithful. The Church and the political community, however, cannot ignore one another; from different points of view they are at the service of the same people. They exercise this service all the more effectively for the good of all the more they strive for healthy mutual cooperation, as the Second Vatican Council expressed it (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 76).

The distinction between the Church and the political community is ensured by respecting their reciprocal autonomy, which conditions their mutual freedom. The limits of this freedom are, for the State, to refrain from adopting measures which could do harm to the eternal salvation of the faithful, and, for the Church, to respect the public order of the State.

Therefore, the Church must be free from state interference in its internal affairs, including the "choice and formation of her co-workers and of the clergy", the "exercise of her Magisterium" and "pastoral care":

2. Freedom with respect to the State

The Church claims no privilege but asks that her freedom to carry out her mission in a pluralist society be fully respected and protected. The Church received this mission and this freedom from Jesus Christ, not from the State. The civil power should thus respect and protect the freedom and autonomy of the Church and in no way prevent her from fully carrying out her mission, which consists in leading the faithful, by her teaching, sacraments, prayers and laws, to their eternal end.

The Church’s freedom should be recognized by the civil power with regard to all that concerns her mission, whether it is a matter of the institutional organization of the Church (choice and formation of her co-workers and of the clergy, choice of bishops, internal communication between the Holy See, the bishops and faithful, the founding and governing of institutes of religious life, the publication and distribution of written texts, the possession and administration of temporal goods …), or the fulfilment of her mission towards the faithful (especially by the exercise of her Magisterium, the celebration of public worship, the administration of the sacraments and pastoral care).

Separation of Church and State under the Singapore Constitution
Is the Separation of Church and State found in the Singapore Constitution?
 
The secular nature of the Singapore Constitution is implied by the fact that the State does not discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion (Article 12(2)). In contrast with the Malaysian Federal Constitution, which declares that "Islam is the religion of the Federation" (Article 3(1)), Singapore does not declare any religion to be the "official religion". In fact, the Constitutional Commission of 1966, led by then-Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, referred to Singapore as a "democratic secular state" in which it would be inappropriate to "[single] out a particular religion for special treatment".

However, the Singapore State is not anti-religious, since religious freedom is protected as a fundamental right under Article 15 of the Constitution. The government also places a very strong emphasis on the importance of religious harmony.

Institutional autonomy of religious groups, including churches, is guaranteed under the Singapore Constitution. Article 15(3)(a) guarantees the right to every religious group "to manage its own religious affairs", subject to "any general law relating to public order, public health or morality":

Freedom of religion 

15.—...

(3)  Every religious group has the right —

(a) to manage its own religious affairs; 

...

(4)  This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Further, in order to preserve the autonomy of religious groups, an express exemption from the right to equal protection of the laws is provided for under Article 12(3)(a), by allowing "any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion." Hence, for example, a church may choose to employ only Christians, even though this essentially discriminates against non-Christians on the basis of religion.

Faith Community Baptist Church Adultery Case

The Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) case involved a woman in her late 30s who was a member and also employed as a worker in the church. She handled administrative and coordination work for the church, and was involved in the Marriage Preparation Course. She had an extra-marital relationship with a fellow colleague and became pregnant. 

She refused to confess and repent, to cease her sexual misconduct, and to come under the discipline of the pastors to assist her throughout the term of her pregnancy thereafter. The church fired her from her job on the basis of her adultery.

The woman complained to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), which directed the church to pay her about $7,000, including maternity benefits. The church refused, on the basis that its employees and members were expected to adhere to certain moral standards.

Eventually, the church compensated the woman, but made it clear to the ministry that it will not concede that the dismissal was unjust. According to Pastor Lawrence Khong, "We are a church. If we concede that the dismissal was unjust, it means we are condoning adultery and it will weaken our moral and spiritual authority in the organisation."

Has Caesar crossed a line in the Faith Community Baptist Church adultery case?

Has the Singapore government crossed a line here by ordering FCBC to compensate the woman it fired for adultery?

The answer is yes.

Church discipline is an important part of the church's mission. A church which is dedicated to the consistent preaching of God's Word must exercise church discipline to preserve the purity of the Gospel message.

Since the Bible is clear that adultery is sin (John 8:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9), the church was correct to have called upon her to confess and repent from her sins. It was when she remained unrepentant that the church sacked her from her job. FCBC's actions are entirely justified on the basis of the Bible.

In such matters, the church must be free from state interference in its internal affairs, including the "choice and formation of her co-workers" and "pastoral care", as discussed earlier. MOM had overstepped the limits of its secular authority.

In early October, FCBC petitioned the Singapore Courts for judicial review of MOM's order, arguing on the basis of Article 15(3)(a) of the Singapore Constitution that FCBC has the right "to manage its own religious affairs".

Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong made the following statement on his Facebook page:

Further to my statement of 26 August 2013 (officially announced through Faith Community Baptist Church’s (FCBC) corporate website and various electronic platforms), after much deliberation, FCBC has appealed to the Supreme Court with respect to Minister's decision ordering the Church to pay the requisite compensation as reported in the media.

FCBC has always been respectful of the governmental authorities. We are constantly praying for and interacting with them as they lead the nation. This continues to be so. The fact that we have paid the compensation amount as ordered after consideration bears testament to our stand.

Having said that, whilst we respect the authorities and believe that they have been established by God over us, in light of Minister's decision, we are concerned about any far-reaching repercussions this decision has on FCBC as a church or for that matter all religious organisations, in our continuous attempts to uphold the values of our faith as we lead and watch over our flock.

Specifically, we sincerely hope that the Courts can give guidance on where we stand with reference to the constitutional rights of religious bodies in the management of their religious affairs, which we believe include the hiring and dismissal of staff, the moral standards expected of staff at a level that reflects the ethos and values of the organisation. We also hope to stand guided in terms of understanding the process involved in any dismissal scenario, should a similar incident unfortunately happen again.

We are mindful of the gravity of this application, and we recognise any outcome may have a bearing beyond our own organisation and affect the religious community at large - Christian or otherwise. We therefore trust and pray that the Courts will be able to help us move forward as an organisation that seeks to uphold the values of God - yet coexisting with all in our secular society that thrives on democracy and religious freedom.

Continue to pray for the church, the government and religious freedom in Singapore.

Church Discipline and the Faith Community Baptist Church Adultery Case

Church discipline is a difficult issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed in church. It is often unpleasant and deeply saddening.

But it exists, and the Bible teaches it. A church which is dedicated to the consistent preaching of God's Word must exercise church discipline to preserve the purity of the Gospel message.

Church Discipline

Church discipline was part of Jesus' teaching. Jesus taught His disciples how they should deal with fellow believers who sin against them. In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus said:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Here, Jesus was teaching His disciples to deal patiently with those who sin, first by speaking to the person privately, then by getting a few more fellow believers, and finally handing the matter to the church. If the person did not listen, then they were to treat that person like "a pagan or a tax collector". This is known as excommunication.

However, though Jesus told His disciples to treat the brother who sins like "a pagan or a tax collector", Jesus Himself loved sinners and tax collectors (Matthew 9:9-13). Excommunication is not meant to destroy the person who is in sin.

Wayne Grudem explains the purposes of church discipline in Systematic Theology:

1. Restoration and reconciliation of the believer who is going astray
2. To keep the sin from spreading to others
3. To protect the purity of the church and the honour of Christ

In Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, we read of one instance of church discipline. There was a case of sexual immorality within the Corinthian church, where a man was sleeping with his father's wife. The Corinthian church was in fact "proud" of it. Paul rebuked them harshly in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Paul instructed them, "Expel the wicked man from among you" (1 Corinthians 5:13). Paul himself exercised church discipline on Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20).

Those who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). In fact, "[those] who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning" (1 Timothy 5:20).

Faith Community Baptist Church Adultery Case

 

Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) gripped the Singapore headlines recently. 

A woman in her late 30s was a member who was also employed as a worker in the church. She handled administrative and coordination work for the church, and was involved in the Marriage Preparation Course. 

She was married, and she had a relationship with a fellow colleague even though her divorce proceedings were not final. The church's suspicions about the relationship were confirmed when she became pregnant. According to Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong on his Facebook page, eight sessions of counselling were held. However:

Even after explaining to her why her relationship was wrong and unacceptable - based on the context and culture of the Church, as well as in the eyes of the Lord, she continued the relationship with the ex-colleague who himself was dismissed four months earlier in a separate case of misconduct involving a breach of confidentiality while working as a staff of FCBC.

She refused to confess and repent, to cease her sexual misconduct, and to come under the discipline of the pastors to assist her throughout the term of her pregnancy thereafter. The church fired her from her job on the basis of her adultery. She was about seven months pregnant when she was sacked. Nevertheless, Khong explained that while the church "could not offer her severance pay as she was being terminated on just grounds, [they church] encouraged her to apply for the LoveSingapore fund, knowing she would need financial assistance and emotional support".

The woman complained to the Ministry of Manpower, which directed the church to pay her about $7,000, including maternity benefits. The church refused, on the basis that its employees and members were expected to adhere to certain moral standards.

Eventually, the church compensated the woman, but made it clear to the ministry that it will not concede that the dismissal was unjust. According to Pastor Lawrence Khong, "We are a church. If we concede that the dismissal was unjust, it means we are condoning adultery and it will weaken our moral and spiritual authority in the organisation."

Was Faith Community Baptist Church right? 

The FCBC case was a case of church discipline. The Bible is clear that adultery is sin (John 8:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9). The church was correct to have called upon her to confess and repent from her sins. It was when she remained unrepentant that the church sacked her from her job. 

On the basis of these facts, FCBC's actions are entirely justified.

What should parents do for their children in a digital age?

Parents have both physical and spiritual roles to fulfil in the lives of their children. Parents should be actively involved in providing for the physical and spiritual needs of children. This is why the Bible places such great emphasis on the role of parents in children's education.

The Book of Proverbs writes:

Train a child in the way he should go,
and when he is old he will not turn from it.
(Proverbs 22:6)

The principle is clear. However, the way we apply this principle must be adapted to the circumstances.

In a digital like ours, there are many perils on the internet which endanger our children. James Poh Ching Ping wrote in a letter to TODAY, "Internet, sex addiction deserves attention, too" (7 November 2013):

... I hope more attention can be paid to Internet Addiction Disorder.

Singapore has one of the highest computer and Internet penetration rates in Asia. Many are introduced to the Internet at home and in school at a very young age and they are exposed to gadgets and popular computer games almost every day.

This is no longer a trivial matter as we see children becoming addicted to computer games. It affects not just one person, but also the family and others around the addict.

In China, where nearly 20 per cent of adolescents are said to be suffering from Internet Addiction Disorder, they have started camps for such teens. Those suffering from severe computer addiction may display symptoms such as mood swings when they do not have access to a computer or the Internet, the tendency to sleep little, skip meals or have a poor diet, little motivation to interact with others, and so on.

I hope more can be done to help this group in Singapore.

In response, Parenting Specialist Agnes Goh from Focus on the Family Singapore advised in "Parents must guide children to be discerning users of digital media" (8 November 2013):

With reference to the letter (“Internet, sex addiction deserves attention, too”, Nov 7), the truth of the matter is that, with an increasing “high-tech, low-touch” society, it is possible that our children can become experts in navigating social networking sites and text messaging but are ill-equipped in face-to-face interactions.

We must recognise that we are unable to completely protect our tech-savvy children from unsuitable images that are widely available in the digital era. More importantly, we must equip them to separate the treasure from the trash.

First, let’s make time to explore the natural world with our children. The issue is not just what children are watching and listening to. It is also what they are missing out on while watching or listening to media.

Expose them to different outdoor activities and hobbies and get involved with them. In fact, having a loving relationship with our children is one of the best ways to teach them about having healthy relationships with others.

Second, let’s take up the mantle to give our children a healthy view of sex, love and relationships. This is a hard topic for some parents to broach with their children. However, if they do not hear it from you, they will hear it from a multitude of sources that may not have their best interests at heart.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development’s FamilyMatters@Community and the Health Promotion Board offer a variety of programmes and resources aimed at helping parents talk to their children about sex. As parents, we can be equipped with the skills to engage our children, and be empowered to coach them.

Finally, we need to draw age-appropriate boundaries and limits on media usage for our children and, at the same time, teach them values and principles. These will undergird knowledge and behaviour so that when they are older, they can make wise decisions.

By being involved parents who actively engage in our children’s lives, including how they use the media, we can teach them to be discerning individuals.

This is good advice.

Godly values and good skills are some of the greatest gifts that parents can impart to their children in any age.

This is Discipleship

The National Council of Churches of Singapore on Abortion

Abortion, for reasons other than to save the life of the mother, has been legal in Singapore for more than 40 years. Under the Termination of Pregnancy Act, abortion is allowed for any reason whatsoever up to 24 weeks of the pregnancy. Thereafter, abortion is only allowed if it is "immediately necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". There are approximately 12,000 abortions per year. This means that one in four babies is killed before birth.

In Singapore, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is an association of churches and Christian organisations. One of its objects is "to form Christian public opinion and to bring it to bear on the moral, social, national and international issues of the day, particularly those which may affect the life and welfare of the people of Singapore."

To date, the NCCS has not made a statement directly and specifically condemning the practice of abortion in Singapore. However, the NCCS has condemned abortion in other statements, and also made statements which have an impact on perspectives toward abortion.

The National Council of Churches of Singapore on Abortion

There are two important questions we need to ask when approaching the topic of abortion. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig, who is one of the leading apologists of our time, phrased the two important questions as follows:

1. Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value?  
2. Is the developing foetus a human being?

Firstly, the NCCS has affirmed that human beings possess intrinsic value, or "inherent value". In its statement on Euthanasia, the NCCS declared the sanctity of human life and condemned the intentional killing of innocent human beings as follows:

1. Sanctity of Human Life. The NCCS maintains that human life is a gift from God the Creator. God alone, from whom all life derives, has the authority in matters of life and death. The human being, created in the image of God, must be accorded with dignity and value. Human life is precious, and therefore should always be protected. This principle also maintains that human life has an inherent value, not just a conditional one. The life of a patient suffering from a chronic or terminal illness is as valuable as that of a healthy individual.

2. Respect for Human Life. The sixth commandment of the Decalogue, which prohibits murder, maintains that human life is sacred and must therefore be respected... This principle is enshrined in law in the form of the absolute prohibition on the intentional killing of innocent human beings... it prohibits the termination of the life of a human being either by an act of commission or omission...

Secondly, the NCCS has also affirmed on the basis of Scripture, science and philosophy that the developing foetus is a human being. In another statement on Human Stem Cell Research, the NCCS explained:

1. Although the Bible does not answer this question directly, the overall thrust of its testimony is that God is the Author and Creator of life and that the beginning of human life cannot be reduced to merely a biological process.  God is involved.  Every human being is part of the divine plan and the result of divine agency.  We affirm with the Bible that from its earliest beginning, the human person is valued by God and stands in relation to him.

2. The doctrine of the Incarnation tells us that the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnated in human flesh at conception.  At conception, the zygote is already the incarnation of the Eternal Son of God, thereby giving credence to the view that human life begins at conception.

3. The Bible and Christian tradition also make it very clear that the embryo or fetus is a human being - and because it is a human being, it is also a bearer of God's image.  The Bible does not make a distinction between a 'human being' and a 'person' in the sense that it is possible for a being to be human but not a person.  The human being is a person.

4. Both science and philosophy may be said to support his view of the human being. From the standpoint of science, the zygote is already endowed with its own genetic code, and its human nature.  We affirm that the embryo from conception is already a human person and are not persuaded that it undergoes any metaphysical change from the fourteenth day that renders a non-human pre-embryo into a human embryo.  From a philosophical standpoint, it must be argued that the zygote of human percentage cannot articulate itself into another animal.  This is because the zygote of human percentage is already a human being sharing in the nature of its parents.

The NCCS has also said that "because human life begins at conception, and the human embryo, regardless of its age, is worthy of the respect and dignity accorded to all human beings", reiterating the point elsewhere.

Therefore, the NCCS has condemned the practice of abortion, declaring that "[because] the embryo or fetus is a human being, made in the image of God, its destruction is tantamount to the killing of innocent lives." Hence, "[we] cannot countenance the destruction of a fetus even in the context of legalised elective abortion".

Time to bring this injustice to an end

Although the NCCS has not made a statement directly and specifically condemning the practice of abortion in Singapore, the NCCS has done so in its other statements on other issues. The NCCS declared the sanctity of human life and condemned the destruction of human foetuses as tantamount to the killing of innocent lives.

Christians and churches in Singapore should bemoan the the killing of 12,000 innocent lives every year by abortion, and pray and work to bring this injustice to an end.

Do you understand why?

Commenting on a recent interview given by Pope Francis, Steve Jalsevac, editor of LifeSiteNews, writes in "Pope Francis certainly has a way of stirring things up" (19 September 2013):

The pro-life and pro-family movements have been formed mostly in response to the giant vacuum of leadership from religious and other leaders. It has been a near impossible job for the relatively very few dedicated to the task.

Think of the numbers: hundreds of millions of unborn babies murdered worldwide since the 1960s. 300 million in China alone. And many millions more to come. A large percentage of these abortions have left millions of women damaged emotionally, physically and spiritually. The deliberate destruction of the natural family is now being attempted on a worldwide and intensified scale by de-populationists and secular extremists.

Children are being abused by the millions by explicit, vile sex-education programs beginning now even in kindergarten. A giant tidal wave of euthanasia seems imminent because of the demographic imbalance caused by abortion and decades of contraceptive use. The list goes on and is becoming a great, worldwide nightmare.

Francis says that what the Church believes on these issues is "clear" and therefore there is no need for him to go on about them. But my experience, and that of probably most pro-life, pro-family leaders that I know is just the opposite.

Yes, most people know that the Church opposes contraception, abortion and homosexuality, as well as pornography, prostitution and much more. BUT, very, very few, including the vast majority of Catholics, do not understand WHY Christianity opposes these things. They have not been taught this. Usually very little or nothing is said about them in Catholic institutions.

They do not know that these are all teachings of a loving Father to protect us all rather than restrictions to prevent enjoyment and freedom. They do not know that Catholic moral teachings are about charity and deep concern for the good of every person and are based on millennia of human experience and reason, as well as on the the teachings of Christ.

They believe many lies fed to them about how harmless and wonderful it is to engage in immoral actions. No one tells them about the many, very real dangers and consequences and the alternatives that are available to them.

Although Jalsevac is writing in a Catholic context, the matters raised here are relevant to all Christians everywhere.

Many Singaporeans, Christian or non-Christian, probably know that Christians have certain views on issues such as marriage, homosexuality, abortion, casinos, and so on.

But do you understand why?

Do you think these are meant to protect us, or meant to restrict enjoyment and freedom?

Have we forgotten our brothers- and sisters-in-Christ who suffer persecution?

There is a global war on Christians. 

John L. Allen Jr. writes in an article on The Spectator, "The war on Christians" (5 October 2013):

Imagine if correspondents in late 1944 had reported the Battle of the Bulge, but without explaining that it was a turning point in the second world war. Or what if finance reporters had told the story of the AIG meltdown in 2008 without adding that it raised questions about derivatives and sub-prime mortgages that could augur a vast financial implosion?

Most people would say that journalists had failed to provide the proper context to understand the news. Yet that’s routinely what media outlets do when it comes to outbreaks of anti-Christian persecution around the world, which is why the global war on Christians remains the greatest story never told of the early 21st century.

In recent days, people around the world have been appalled by images of attacks on churches in Pakistan, where 85 people died when two suicide bombers rushed the Anglican All Saints Church in Peshawar, and in Kenya, where an assault on a Catholic church in Wajir left one dead and two injured.

Those atrocities are indeed appalling, but they cannot truly be understood without being seen as small pieces of a much larger narrative. Consider three points about the landscape of anti-Christian persecution today, as shocking as they are generally unknown. According to the International Society for Human Rights, a secular observatory based in Frankfurt, Germany, 80 per cent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. Statistically speaking, that makes Christians by far the most persecuted religious body on the planet.

According to the Pew Forum, between 2006 and 2010 Christians faced some form of discrimination, either de jure or de facto, in a staggering total of 139 nations, which is almost three-quarters of all the countries on earth. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, an average of 100,000 Christians have been killed in what the centre calls a ‘situation of witness’ each year for the past decade. That works out to 11 Christians killed somewhere in the world every hour, seven days a week and 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith.

In effect, the world is witnessing the rise of an entire new generation of Christian martyrs. The carnage is occurring on such a vast scale that it represents not only the most dramatic Christian story of our time, but arguably the premier human rights challenge of this era as well.

To put flesh and blood on those statistics, all one has to do is look around. In Baghdad, Islamic militants stormed the Syriac Catholic cathedral of Our Lady of Salvation on 31 October 2010, killing the two priests celebrating Mass and leaving a total of 58 people dead. Though shocking, the assault was far from unprecedented; of the 65 Christian churches in Baghdad, 40 have been bombed at least once since the beginning of the 2003 US-led invasion.

The effect of this campaign of violence and intimidation has been devastating for Christianity in the country. At the time of the first Gulf War in 1991, Iraq boasted a flourishing Christian population of at least 1.5 million. Today the high-end estimate for the number of Christians left is around 500,000, and realistically many believe it could be as low as 150,000. Most of these Iraqi Christians have gone into exile, but a staggering number have been killed.

India’s northeastern state of Orissa was the scene of the most violent anti-Christian pogrom of the early 21st century. In 2008, a series of riots ended with as many as 500 Christians killed, many hacked to death by machete-wielding Hindu radicals; thousands more were injured and at least 50,000 left homeless. Many Christians fled to hastily prepared displacement camps, where some languished for two years or more.

An estimated 5,000 Christian homes, along with 350 churches and schools, were destroyed. A Catholic nun, Sister Meena Barwa, was raped during the mayhem, then marched naked and beaten. Police sympathetic to the radicals discouraged the nun from filing a report, and declined to arrest her attackers.

In Burma, members of the Chin and Karen ethnic groups, who are strongly Christian, are considered dissidents by the regime and routinely subjected to imprisonment, torture, forced labour, and murder. In October 2010, the Burmese military launched helicopter strikes in territories where the country’s Christians are concentrated.

A Burmese Air Force source told reporters that the junta had declared these areas ‘black zones’, where military personnel were authorised to attack and kill Christian targets on sight. Though there are no precise counts, thousands of Burmese Christians are believed to have been killed in the offensive.

In Nigeria, the militant Islamic movement ‘Boko Haram’ is held responsible for almost 3,000 deaths since 2009, including 800 fatalities last year alone. The movement has made a speciality out of targeting Christians and their churches, and in some cases they seem determined to drive Christians out altogether from parts of the country.

In December 2011, local Boko Haram spokesmen announced that all Christians in the northern Yobe and Borno states had three days to get out, and followed up with a spate of church bombings on 5 and 6 January 2012, which left at least 26 Christians dead, as well as two separate shooting sprees in which eight more Christians died. In the aftermath, hundreds of Christians fled the area, and many are still displaced. Over Christmas last year, at least 15 Christians are believed to have had their throats cut by Boko Haram assailants.

North Korea is widely considered the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian, where roughly a quarter of the country’s 200,000 to 400,000 Christians are believed to be living in forced labour camps for their refusal to join the national cult around founder Kim Il Sung. The anti-Christian animus is so strong that people with Christian grandparents are frozen out of the most important jobs — even though Kim Il Sung’s mother was a Presbyterian deaconess. Since the armistice in 1953 that stabilised the division of the peninsula, some 300,000 Christians in North Korea have disappeared and are presumed dead.

As these examples illustrate, anti-Christian violence is hardly limited to a ‘clash of civilisations’ between Christianity and Islam. In truth, Christians face a bewildering variety of threats, with no single enemy and no single strategy best adapted to curb the violence.

Though fellow believers in the West may have special reason for feeling concern, the reality is that no confessional convictions at all are required to justify alarm over this rising tide of anti-Christian animus.

Because the bulk of the globe’s 2.3 billion Christians today are impoverished and live in the developing world, and because they are often members of ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities, experts regard their treatment as a reliable indicator of a society’s broader record on human rights and dignity. Just as one didn’t have to be Jewish in the 1970s to care about dissident Jews in the Soviet Union, nor black in the 1980s to be outraged by the Apartheid regime in South Africa, one doesn’t have to be Christian today to see the defence of persecuted Christians as a towering priority.

Why are the dimensions of this global war so often overlooked? Aside from the root fact that the victims are largely non-white and poor, and thus not considered ‘newsmakers’ in the classic sense, and that they tend to live and die well off the radar screen of western attention, the global war also runs up against the outdated stereotype of Christianity as the oppressor rather than the oppressed.

Say ‘religious persecution’ to most makers of cultured secular opinion, and they will think of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Bruno and Galileo, the Wars of Religion and the Salem witch trials. Today, however, we do not live on the pages of a Dan Brown potboiler, in which Christians are dispatching mad assassins to settle historical scores. Instead, they’re the ones fleeing assassins others have dispatched.

Moreover, public discussion of religious freedom issues often suffers from two sets of blinders. First, it’s generally phrased in terms of western church/state tensions, such as the recent tug-of-war between religious leaders in the United States and the Obama White House over contraception mandates as part of health care reform, or tensions in the United Kingdom over the 2010 Equality Act and its implications for church-affiliated adoption agencies vis-à-vis same-sex couples. The truth is that in the West, a threat to religious freedom means someone might get sued; in many other parts of the world, it means someone might get shot, and surely the latter is the more dramatic scenario.

Secondly, discussion is sometimes limited by an overly narrow conception of what constitutes ‘religious violence’. If a female catechist is killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, because she’s persuading young people to stay out of militias and criminal gangs, one might say that’s a tragedy but not martyrdom, because her assailants weren’t driven by hatred of the Christian faith. Yet the crucial point isn’t just what was in the mind of her killers, but what was in the heart of that catechist, who knowingly put her life on the line to serve the gospel. To make her attackers’ motives the only test, rather than her own, is to distort reality.

Whatever the motives for the silence, it’s well past time for it to end. Pope Francis recognised this in remarks during a General Audience last month.

‘When I hear that so many Christians in the world are suffering, am I indifferent, or is it as if a member of my own family is suffering?’ the Pope asked his following. ‘Am I open to that brother or that sister in my family who’s giving his or her life for Jesus Christ?’

In 2011, the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, who leads a church with more than its fair share of new martyrs, phrased the same questions more plaintively during a conference in London. He bluntly asked: ‘Does anybody hear our cry? How many atrocities must we endure before somebody, somewhere, comes to our aid?’

There may be no question about the destiny of Christianity in the early 21st century more deserving of a compelling answer.

 

In 1 Corinthians 12:25-26, Paul reminds us that in Christ Jesus we are all part of one body and should have "equal concern for each other". If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honoured, every part rejoices with it.

Have we forgotten our brothers- and sisters-in-Christ who suffer persecution?

Assimilated or Alienated?

In science, my faith is judged obscurantist; in ethics, mere animus; in practicality, irrelevant; in love, archaic. In the square, I am silenced; at school, mocked; in business, fined; at entertainment, derided; in the home, patronized; at work, muffled. My leaders are disrespected; my founder blasphemed by the new culture, new religion, and new philosophy which, to paraphrase Benedict XVI’s “Regensburg Address,” suffers from an aversion to the fullness of questions, insisting that questions are meaningful only when limited to a scope much narrower than my catholic range of wonder.

-   R. J. Snell, "I Am Lonely"
First Things (14 October 2013)

Pope Emeritus Benedict once said that "Christians are the religious group which suffers most from persecution on account of its faith".

Christianity remains one of the world's largest religions. However, Christianity is increasingly moving to the global South, or what was once referred to as the "Third World" or developing countries. A growing number of Christians live in places such as Asia, Africa and the Middle East even as Christianity continues to decline in America and Europe, widely referred to as the "West".

In the post-Christian developed world, Christians are widely perceived as intolerant, bigoted and judgmental because of opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion. In the developing world, Christians live as religious minorities, persecuted by intolerant militant extremist groups.

Aliens and strangers in this world
Yet the Bible teaches that Christians are aliens and strangers in this world. Peter wrote:

Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us. (1 Peter 2:11-12)

The Christian must always be conscious of the fact that he or she is in, but not of, this world. Jesus said:

I have given them Your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that You take them out of the world but that You protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth. As You sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. (John 17:14-19)

No one can be a better example of this than Jesus Christ Himself. Despite being in very nature God, Jesus came down to as an ordinary man. He was insulted, mocked, ridiculed and ultimately crucified for standing for Truth.

Jesus warned His disciples that "[if] they persecuted me, they will persecute you also" (John 15:20). And they did. James was put to death by the sword (Acts 12:2). According to tradition, Peter was crucified upside down. Early Christians suffered intensely for their faith. We read in the Book of Hebrews:

Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated — the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and in holes in the ground. (Hebrews 11:35b-38)

Assimilated or Alienated?
In Singapore, the government jealously guards religious harmony in order to ensure that all religious groups may live in peace with one another. Christians, and all other religious groups, are protected from persecution, ridicule and discrimination.

But have we treasured our peace and freedom? Do we exercise our God-given talents faithfully?

Are you like that city built on a hill that cannot be hidden (Matthew 5:14)?

When others look at you, do they see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16)? Or are you following the ways of the world instead of following Christ?

Are you assimilated or alienated?

Who Bears Primary Responsibility in Children's Education?

In a busy and well-connected country like Singapore, there is a constant temptation for parents to be caught up with work and other activities, while leaving children in the care of schools, tuition centres or even domestic helpers. Some parents choose to occupy their children with television or video games.

Is this correct? Who bears primary responsibility in children's education?

Biblical principles on parental responsibility

Most Christians should be familiar with the principles of spiritual multiplication found in the Great Commission, where Jesus commanded:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

However, physical multiplication is God-ordained too. It is both a blessing and a command, given at the very beginning when God blessed the man and woman in the Garden of Eden, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28).

Parents therefore have both physical and spiritual roles to fulfil in the lives of their children. Parents should be actively involved in providing for the physical and spiritual needs of children. This is why the Bible places such great emphasis on the role of parents in children's education.

When Moses addressed the Israelites as they were about to enter the Promised Land, he instructed them:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)

Likewise, various passages in Proverbs highlight that the duty to instruct children rests on both fathers and mothers:

Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction
and do not forsake your mother’s teaching.
(Proverbs 1:8)

My son, keep your father’s commands
and do not forsake your mother’s teaching.
(Proverbs 6:20)

The same can be found in the New Testament, where Paul instructed:

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

While there may be some debate about whether Paul's exhortation meant both fathers and mothers, or fathers only, it is clear from the passages above that parents bear primary responsibility in their children's education. That responsibility does not rest on the government or society. Nevertheless, parents can delegate that responsibility if they choose to do so, just as they can withdraw that responsibility where necessary.

Application of principles to sexuality education

How do these Biblical principles apply in practice?

Here, we shall see how it applies in the context of sexuality education.

Parents bear primary responsibility in their children's education. This includes sensitive topics such as sexuality. Therefore, the Ministry of Education was in line with Biblical principles when it declared in a statement in 2009 that it sought to complement parents, who have the ultimate responsibility:

Parents are ultimately responsible for inculcating values in their children. MOE’s sexuality education programme aims to complement parents’ role in helping students make informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality.

Since parents, as primary care-givers, are responsible for the health and moral values of their children, parents have have the right to opt their children out of a school's sexuality education programme, talks and workshops if they disagree with the values being taught.

Likewise, Focus on the Family wrote in a letter to the TODAY paper, "Abstinence education can work" (21 August 2013):

Parents should always be the primary communicators with their children about sexuality, imparting values and the family’s religious positions. No effective programme can operate without the support of parents.

Schools should want parental involvement and do everything in their power to cooperate with parents in sexuality education.

Contrast the views of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) in a letter to TODAY titled, "Young minds and bodies: Is ignorance bliss?" (13 August 2013), which criticises the alleged "delegation" of sex education to parents:

The Education Ministry places an onus on parents to educate their children about sex, but it was reported last year that a Health Promotion Board poll, covering 1,169 Singapore households, found that less than half of parents had broached such topics with their teenage children. 

To delegate sex education to parents would thus be inadequate.

This is a view which deprives parents of their primary responsibility in educating their children about sex. As rightly pointed out by the writer of I on Singapore in "AWARE's Sexual Indoctrination Agenda: Misrepresentations, inversions and logical non-sequitur":

AWARE's philosophy represents an inversion of the original loci of rights and responsibilities. AWARE presupposes a state-centric idea which places primary responsibility for education of children on the State rather than on parents, by assuming that the government is the one which bears the original "onus" to teach children about sex, and which "delegates" that responsibility to parents...

The State exists for the individual, family, community and society; not the other way around. The role of the State is to support mediating institutions like the family, community and society, rather than to usurp them... The State has no right to impose ideas on children which fundamentally contradict those held by their family, community or society as a whole.

Conclusion
The Bible teaches that parents bear primary responsibility in their children's education, not the government, and not society. God has ordained us to multiply both physically and spiritually, and therefore parents have both physical and spiritual roles to fulfil in the lives of their children.

Parents should always strive to be actively involved in their children's lives. Initiatives in Singapore like Dads for Life and events like Date with Dad, organised by Focus on the Family, are good initiatives to encourage parents to connect with their children. We should give such initiatives our fullest support.