No, Jim Solouki, the crashing of QZ8501 is not God's punishment

2014 seems to have been a year of airplane disasters. After Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 went missing, AirAsia Indonesia Flight QZ8501 has crashed en route from Surabaya, Indonesia, to Singapore. The AirAsia report as of 30 December 2014, 18:00 hours LT (GMT+7), reads:

AirAsia Indonesia regrets to inform that The National Search and Rescue Agency Republic of Indonesia (BASARNAS) today confirmed that the debris found earlier today is indeed from QZ8501, the flight that had lost contact with air traffic control on the morning of 28th December 2014.  

The debris of the aircraft was found in the Karimata Strait around 110 nautical miles south west from Pangkalan Bun. 

The aircraft was an Airbus A320-200 with the registration number PK-AXC. There were 155 passengers on board, with 137 adults, 17 children and 1 infant. Also on board were 2 pilots, 4 cabin crews and one engineer.

 

Once again, as with MH370, the same misguided soul Jim Solouki has put up a post dated 28 December 2014, "AirAsia flight QZ8501. God’s true warning!":

Greetings True Christians! 

Did you know that God has made an Air Asia plane flying into Singapore disappear with 162 passengers on board as a punishment for their sinful behavior? That’s right boys and girls, much like the Malaysian Air disappearance and crash, God has made a plane filled with mostly Inonesian passengers disappear. Why are planes carrying Indonesians disappearing more than any other types of plane? The answer is simple! The Indonesian people are a heathen people! They failed to keep Christ in Christmas, and now Christ chose to not keep their airplane in the air! 

God is striking down planes from this region of the world because these people are unwilling to embrace the Truth of Christ! If they would just embrace Jesus, then God would stop taking their planes! These people are ungodly heathens who are either Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus. They worship in the jungle and reject Jesus! They are all going to burn in HELL unless they repent!

Unlike True Christian nations like America that never have planes disappear, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia have tons of planes disappear. WHy did this plane go down? The answer is simple. God is punishing the nation and the airline. The disappearance of this plane is a warning from God. If the countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore do not repent, Jesus Christ and God the Father will continue to take airplanes from you.

Repent Malaysia! Repent Indonesia! Repent Singapore! Stop allowing prostitutes to run around on corners in your midst! Get rid of those heathen Hindus and Muslims! Reject Satan and embrace Jesus! Your ungodly sinful tolerance of homosexuality will get you nowhere. God will keep punishing you until you repent! 

The disappearance of this plane is another judgment from God issued against these heathens. How can they stop this from happening in the future? They must be Born Again in Christ! Reject Ramadan, reject Muhammad, reject Buddhism, reject stupid heathen ways and embrace Jesus. That is the only way to heaven and to safety. All of the passengers on that flight were probably non-Christian and are truly in Hell. 

Let us pray. Dear Lord Jesus, please continue to take planes from the heathen parts of Asia until those sinners repent. Punish them for tolerating the gays, the non-Christians, and the ways of the savage. Crush them until they reject prostitution and embrace your holy word. Please lead the heathens to the Father and away from sin. Until then, continue tor reap punishments upon them until their ungodly spirits are broken. Then they may be reborn as children of Christ. In this your name we pray. Amen. 

God hates AirAsia. God hates the heathens. And if you’re a heathen sympathizer, God hates YOU. Repent heathens, or further judgment awaits. 

I’m Jim Solouki, and I’m a True Christian.

It is remarkable how little Scripture he cites in support of his position. With writing and language like this, this post seems more like a parody or tasteless satire than anything else.

 

So, on pain of repeating myself, I shall address his points again.

 

"If they would just embrace Jesus, then God would stop taking their planes!"

As before, Solouki claims that "If they would just embrace Jesus, then God would stop taking their planes!"

A quick look at the New Testament shows that this is obviously wrong. Jesus Christ Himself, as well as the early church, all suffered in one way or another.

Even Jesus Christ, being without sin (Hebrews 4:15), was insulted, mocked, ridiculed and ultimately crucified.

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)

The idea that bad things do not happen to "True Christians" is simply naive and wrong.
 

"Punishment for sinful behavior"?

 Again, Solouki runs on the assumption that the plane crash was "[punishment] for sinful behavior".

 

Jesus was asked a similar question in Luke 13:1-9:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

"'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'"

Jesus' words are clear. These people are not any more sinful than anyone else. Instead, the focus is on an attitude of repentance, "unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Jesus was not talking about "perishing" physically here, like in a plane crash. As we have already seen above, Jesus and early Christians suffered and died some of the most painful deaths imaginable.

Instead, it the kind of eternal death that Jesus was warning about. In Matthew 10:28:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

We do not take any delight in the death of anyone, Christian or otherwise, but instead we constantly hope for the salvation of all.

 

God loves AirAsia, "heathens" and "heathen sympathizers"

The Bible teaches that God is love (1 John 4:8ff), and He demonstrated His love not least through the sacrifice of His Son on the cross so that the way to eternal life might be open:

But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

God is patient, "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9b).

 

 

So God loves AirAsia. God loves the heathens. And if you’re a heathen sympathiser, God loves you too.

 

As Jesus Christ declares, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life" (John 14:6), He also calls us to love God and love our neighbours as ourselves (Mark 12:29-31), and even to love our enemies and do good to those who hate you (Luke 6:27).

 

God loves you too, Jim Solouki.

 

And in Christian love, I am telling you, Jim Solouki, to stop blaspheming and stop spreading untruths about God, and be reconciled to Christ in repentance, "for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name" (Exodus 20:7).

 

On behalf Christians everywhere, I ask for forgiveness if poor misguided souls like Solouki have caused or aggravated your grief, and pray that the Lord will be with all in their time of need.

Living Sacrifices

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship." (Romans 12:1)

As I was reflecting this morning on the news that Singapore will be joining the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) by sending around 50 to 60 personnel to assist in military operations there, the words "living sacrifice" in the letter from Paul to the Romans came to mind. I recalled the graphic images of brutal killings in an article on Catholic Online. In its efforts to establish an Islamic Caliphate, ISIS has committed unbelievable acts of cruelty against men and women, young and old.

I began to wonder if the term "living sacrifice" held a deeper meaning in this time when "anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God" because "they have not known the Father or [Christ]" (John 16:2-3).

It dawned upon me that we are called to offer our bodies as sacrifices to the Lord not only in life, but also in bodily death. Yet in both senses, we are "living sacrifices". We are alive even in death because of the eternal life that Christ has given us. God is God of the living, not the dead (Matthew 22:32). Therefore, we need not be afraid of "those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" (Matthew 10:28).

Indeed, "to live is Christ and to die is gain." (Philippians 1:21)

Made in the Image of God: Why we should avoid labels like "gay", "lesbian", etc.

With the rise of gender theory and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) activism, a growing number of people have begun to define themselves with reference to their "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity". Terms like "gay" or "lesbian" are used to define people, and distinctions are made between "heterosexual" and "homosexual" persons. Even many Christians use these terms.

But is this Biblical?

The concept of "sexual orientation" is completely foreign to the Biblical framework, a point that homosexual activists and liberal theologians are especially quick to emphasise. Yet this is precisely the point.

From the Biblical perspective, human beings are not defined by "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity". Instead, the starting point is and has always been Genesis 1:27:

So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them. 

Men and women are created in the image of God. That is our identity.

For Christians, our identity is rooted in being children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Paul writes in Galatians 3:26-28:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,  for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Therefore, Dr Michael Brown sums this up very simply in "5 Truths About Same-Sex Attraction":

Your attractions do not define you. Despite the fact that much is made today of “being gay” or having a gay identity, the reality is that your romantic attractions and sexual desires do not define who you are as a person. 

More importantly, if you have surrendered your life to the Lord and are living in obedience to Him, your primary identity is found in being a son or daughter of God. 

Many believers struggle when they put gay before Christian in terms of their identity rather than putting Christian (or child of God) first.

Likewise, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict) wrote in his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

16. ... The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life. 

As disciples of Jesus Christ, let us refrain from using simplistic and reductionist labels like "gay", "lesbian", etc. We are not defined by our desires, sexual or otherwise.

Marred as we are by sin, humans still bear the image of God. And through Christ Jesus, each one of us can be set free from desires that enslave us, to live a life free from sin with the guidance and counsel of His Holy Spirit.

The Gift of Life: God's grace as a juridical act

Grace presupposes law and judgment. This makes God's grace a legal act, a fact that churches often do not emphasise, possibly due to a lack of understanding.

As a result, the study of law sometimes helps to reclaim parts of Biblical understanding that may be missed by most pastors.

Singapore has adopted and adapted the Westminster system of government which separates powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. Article 22P(1)(b) of the Singapore Constitution empowers the President of Singapore, as part of the Executive branch, to exercise clemency powers to pardon convicted offenders: 

The President, as occasion shall arise, may, on the advice of the Cabinet... grant to any offender convicted of any offence in any court in Singapore, a pardon, free or subject to lawful conditions, or any reprieve or respite, either indefinite or for such period as the President may think fit, of the execution of any sentence pronounced on such offender.

The case of Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 2 SLR 1189, contains the following explanation of these clemency powers at para. 74 of the judgment by former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong:

I start by stating that the clemency power is a legal power of an extraordinary character. It is unlike all other legal powers in that: 

(a)     It is an executive power which is exercised as an act of executive grace and not as a matter of legal right... 

(b)     A decision to grant clemency is "[a] determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less [punishment] than what the judgment fixed"... Conversely, a decision not to grant clemency represents a determination by the ultimate authority that the public welfare is better served by allowing the law to take its course, ie, by carrying out the punishment prescribed by the law. 

(c)     Ordinarily, the law should be allowed to take its course. However, when the clemency power is exercised in favour of an offender, it will "involve a departure from the law"... in that, in the interests of the public welfare, the law (in terms of the punishment mandated by the law) is prevented from taking its course. 

(d)     The considerations of public welfare that the ultimate authority deems relevant in making a clemency decision are entirely a matter of policy for it to decide... 

(e)     In the specific context of a death sentence case..., the grant of clemency to the offender confers a gift of life on him. This is because the offender has effectively already been deprived of his life by the law due to his conviction for a capital offence. If clemency is granted to the offender, his life will be restored to him, whereas if clemency is not granted, his life will be forfeited as decreed by the law. In other words, in a death sentence case, the clemency decision made, be it in favour of or against the offender, does not deprive the offender of his life; the law (in terms of the conviction and death sentence meted out on the offender by a court of law) has already done so.

We all know the consequences of sin. Even in the Garden of Eden, God warned Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for when he ate of it, he would surely die (Genesis 2:17). Paul writes in Romans 6:23a, "[for] the wages of sin is death".

So the ordinary consequence of our sin is death. All of us had (eternal) death sentences hanging over our heads, having effectively already been deprived of our lives by the Law of God due to our conviction for a capital offence - no less than the offence of high treason against the Most High God.

We were all criminals on death row.

However, God - being God - has the power to give life and the power to take life.

Paul continues in Romans 6:23b, "but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". This is an act of grace and not a matter of legal right. (Indeed, if we were to be put on trial, we would all be found guilty.) It is a determination of the ultimate authority that the good of all will be better served by inflicting less punishment than what the judgment fixed. The Law is prevented from taking its course.

Hence, Jesus' sacrifice to save us from our sins confers a gift of life on us when we originally had none. It is a gift of life in its fullest sense.

No doubt this is what Paul meant when he wrote in Galatians 2:19-20:

For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.  I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

Therefore, having been rescued from death and given a second chance at life, let us live unto the Lord to the fullest!

"Where are you?"

Yesterday morning, I was complaining to God and asking Him why I do not hear His voice all the time. At the same time, I was also thinking about some of my friends whom I felt I ought to speak to more.

God had some words for me and them. He said three words, "Where are you?"

"Where are you?" were the words that God spoke to Adam in the Garden of Eden, after Adam sinned by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Bible records in Genesis 3:8-9:

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

The question was more than a mere question about Adam's physical location. It was a question of where Adam was with respect to Him, or where Adam was in Him. As Skip Moen puts it in Guardian Angel, "God is asking why Adam is not where he is supposed to be - with Him." Yet, "Adam now seeks escape from the presence of God."

The passage suggests that Adam used to walk with God, more than just physically. But now Adam said, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." (Genesis 3:10)

Jesus' call of discipleship is as simple as "follow me", literally to leave all else and walk with Him.

But there were hard teachings. Once, Jesus spoke about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Another time, He spoke about taking up the cross and denying oneself to follow Him. People left.

When Jesus asked His disciples whether they were going to leave too, Peter gave a remarkable answer in John 6:67-69:

"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." 

So God's word for me, and for my friends who came to mind, was "Where are you?"

Is the answer, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid"?

Or is the answer, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life"?

Church as Family: How Christians are truly related by flesh and blood

From the Old Testament sacrifices to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, many Biblical covenants are made in blood.

 

At the same time, we often hear people describing the church as a "family", drawing from passages such as Matthew 12:50 where Jesus said, "whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

 

Knowing that the Bible teaches that the natural family unit is established by marriage between a man and a woman and their children, a fellow brother-in-Christ once asked concerning the apparent dilemma between the two definitions of "family" in the Bible.

 

My answer to him back then was that the use of the word "family" in the context of the church is a metaphor, drawing from the understanding of the natural family unit.

 

This is not wrong, and might be an answer I would give to a non-Christian, but I soon came to realise that there is much more.

 

 

When we talk about the natural family, we are referring to flesh-and-blood relations. For example, if someone is my brother, he is related to me by flesh and blood. We would expect a DNA test to show that we are biologically related.

 

But Christians are truly related by flesh and blood too!

 

Christians are related by the shedding of the flesh and blood of Jesus, who died to redeem us all from our sins. In Holy Communion, we partake of Christ's flesh and blood. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

 

There is also another sense in which the church is related by flesh and blood with Jesus.

 

When God created woman, He put the man Adam into a deep sleep and formed the woman out of the man's rib. As a result, the man could say of the woman, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." (Genesis 2:23)

 

Jesus has been described as the Second Adam (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45). In the same way, Jesus was put into a deep sleep in the grave and out of His sacrifice God formed the church. The church is the Body of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33). It is truly bone of His bones and flesh of His flesh.

 

Therefore, in a very real sense, Christians are related by the flesh and blood of Jesus.

 

We are truly brothers- and sisters-in-Christ.

"Judging You": A conversation with a friend

"Do not judge!", people often say, (mis-)quoting passages like Matthew 7:1-5.

The dogma of the 21st century, as well as 21st century Christianity, is that of being "non-judgmental".

But who's judging whom?

Some time back, I was briefly explaining to a non-Christian friend that certain forms of birth control pills, like the "morning-after" pill, had the effect of inducing the abortion of an implanted foetus.

She immediately retorted, in a tone that was half serious and half in jest, "Judging you..."

She went on later to criticise me for being irrational, albeit in a relatively calm and civil manner.

Now, who is the judgmental one here? More importantly, which judgment is right?

That is some food for thought.

Planned Parenthood's claim that "abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures"

People who disagree with Christians on abortion often argue that "religion should be kept separate from politics", or that religious people should not "impose" their beliefs on others.

It is deeply ironic, then, that there are those "pro-choice" advocates who delve into questions of theology attempting to justify abortion through Scriptural exegesis.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States. Sometime back, it published a "Pastoral Letter to Patients" justifying abortion:

Pastoral Letter to Patients

Dear Friend:  

The decision to have an abortion is personal. Though your reasons may be complicated and private, you’re not alone. As religious leaders from a number of religious traditions, we’re here to support you in your decision. 

Many people wrongly assume that all religious leaders disapprove of abortion. The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures—Jewish or Christian—and there are clergy and people of faith from all denominations who support women making this complex decision. The beliefs of each person are deserving of respect, and each person deserves care and compassion, No one should be allowed to force their faith teachings on anyone else. 

We believe this decision is yours, made with your doctor and anyone else you choose to bring into the conversation, such as a spouse, partner, parent, or clergy person. 

Our religious traditions have somewhat different opinions about abortion, but we share some basic understandings: 

• No one knows the circumstances of your life as well as you know them; no one knows what’s in your heart better than you. Allow yourself to be at peace with your decision. 

• God loves you and is with you no matter what you decide. You can find strength, understanding, and comfort in that love.

If you'd like to speak with a clergyperson, your local Planned Parenthood health center can refer you to someone who will be supportive of you and your decision. Your privacy will be protected and all conversations will be completely confidential.

Is this true?

The Bible on Abortion

Planned Parenthood is arguably correct on one level, since the word "abortion" cannot be found in the Bible. However, on that count, the Bible does not say anything "specifically" about a lot of things, including smoking, drugs, nuclear weapons, and a whole host of other morally controversial issues. We need to dig deeper.

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?

The Bible makes it clear from the beginning that all human beings possess intrinsic moral value as bearers of the image of God (Imago Dei). All of humankind, both male and female, are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6). This is the reason why God commanded, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13).

There are numerous passages in the Bible which affirm the humanity of the developing foetus. One of the most powerful passages is King David's psalm, Psalm 139:

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
(Psalm 139:14-16)

Other passages include Genesis 25:22, Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:4-5 and Luke 1:44.

Therefore, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (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, NCCS "cannot countenance the destruction of a fetus even in the context of legalised elective abortion".

Response of Alliance Defending Freedom

In light of Planned Parenthood's apparent agreement that the religious beliefs of many women their will be very relevant to their decision about whether to have an abortion, Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, offered to place one free copy of the Bible for every Planned Parenthood facility in the United States.

Part of the open letter to Planned Parenthood reads:

... I would like to offer Planned Parenthood one free copy of the Bible for every Planned Parenthood facility in the country. Planned Parenthood could place these Bibles in their waiting rooms and permit women the opportunity to explore for themselves what the Jewish and Christian Scriptures have to say about abortion. There is no doubt that we are on opposite sides of this theological and moral question. But as we are in apparent agreement that Scripture and its teachings (or lack thereof in your view) on abortion would be relevant to many women’s abortion decisions, making these Bibles available to those women would certainly benefit your potential customers. 

To allay any concerns you might have, the Bibles Alliance Defending Freedom would provide to Planned Parenthood would be new unmarked copies. For instance, we would not highlight Psalm 127:3 (“Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward”), Psalm 139:13 (“You knit me together in my mother’s womb…”), Psalm 22:10-11 (“You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God”) or Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart”). 

We would not dog-ear Exodus 20:13 (“You shall not kill”). Nor would we even place a bookmark at Luke 1:41, 44 (where the “baby [John the Baptist] … leapt for joy” in his mother’s womb when the baby Jesus was nearby in Mary’s womb). 

Rather, we would make these Bibles available, unedited and without emphasis of any kind, allowing those women visiting a Planned Parenthood facility to review them themselves.

Judgment as Vindication

"Do not judge! Don't be judgmental!"

Sometimes, when we speak to people in church about sin, we are often met with the retort, "Do not judge!"

 

But why are so many people who profess to be God-fearing Christians so afraid of judgment?

 

The Gospel message is unabashedly pointed in its presentation of the reality of sin and its consequences, but at the same time is unabashedly clear about the reality of justification in Christ Jesus. This is beautifully summed up in Romans 3:23-24:

[For] all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

 

In his First Epistle to the notorious Corinthian church, Paul did not hesitate to warn them about sin, even as he affirmed their sanctification and justification in Christ:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

 

For those who are in Christ Jesus, there is no condemnation. Paul writes in Romans 8:1-2:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

If we are in Christ Jesus, there is no reason to be afraid of judgment.

 

Rather, God's judgment would be a form of vindication for those in Christ Jesus.

 

To be "justified" is to be declared righteous, like in a court of law. Someone who is truly innocent has has no reason to fear the judgment of a righteous and holy God.

Like in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, when Jesus returns at the Second Coming, the wicked are cast into eternal punishment, while the righteous are brought into eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46).

 

For the righteous, judgment is not to be feared as condemnation or punishment. Instead, it vindicates them. The Book of Revelation records the cries of the saints in heaven to God:

"How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" (Revelation 6:10)

The question, then, is this: Are you in Christ Jesus, or not? If you are, you would welcome judgment because you have nothing to fear. If not, it would be "a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31).

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice": Have we gotten church wrong?

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice," God spoke through the prophet Hosea as He pointed out the grievous sins that Israel and Judah had committed (Hosea 6:6).

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice," said Jesus when the Pharisees questioned Jesus' disciples as to why their Teacher was eating with tax collectors and "sinners" (Matthew 9:9-13).

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice," said Jesus again when the Pharisees rebuked Jesus and His disciples for picking some heads of grain and eating them on the Sabbath. Jesus then headed to the synagogue and healed a man with a shrivelled hand (Matthew 12:1-14).

Having been raised in a Christian home, and having attended church ever since I was born, "being Christian" has essentially meant attending church every Sunday, reading my Bible and praying every day, attending cell groups and Bible studies and living a good personal life. That was what I was taught about how to be a "good Christian".

On the other hand, failing to attend church and missing Bible studies were a big no-no; these were only pardonable if I had some legitimate reason.

But what does the Lord truly desire of us?

In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus illustrated the meaning of "mercy" by telling of the priest and the Levite who walked on without caring for the injured man, while on the other hand, the Samaritan went the extra mile to show concern for him and ensure that he was being cared for.
 

In the parable, Jesus seemed to care very little about the fact that the priest and the Levite were "religious" people, who were probably on their way to or from their religious duties. Instead, the hero of the story was a despised Samaritan who his neighbour and showed mercy.

Have we gotten church wrong? Where do our priorities lie?

Surely, salvation is by grace through faith alone (Romans 3:23-24), but likewise we are called to work out our salvation "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12) and to express our faith in love (Galatians 5:6).

In our weekly Sunday rituals, have we forgotten the poor, sick, homeless, orphans, widows, aliens, unborn, or disabled? Have we forgotten those who are sexually broken and crying out for love and affection yet finding these in all the wrong places?

Will we be the people to whom the Lord will say "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me" (Matthew 25:35-36)? 

Or will the Lord say to us, "depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41)?

The spiritual Jerusalem has never been in ruins

A few days ago, I was reading the first chapter of the Book of Nehemiah. The chapter began with Nehemiah weeping about the condition of Jerusalem:

The words of Nehemiah son of Hacaliah: In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa, Hanani, one of my brothers, came from Judah with some other men, and I questioned them about the Jewish remnant that survived the exile, and also about Jerusalem.  They said to me, "Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire."  When I heard these things, I sat down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven.

As I read through the rest of the chapter, Nehemiah's prayer struck a chord in my heart. I began to think of the condition of Christianity today, of the church, and my own church, which I have attended since as far as I can remember.

I bowed my head in prayer and began to lament:

"Lord, the church – your spiritual Jerusalem – is in ruins..."

I had barely prayed that when God interrupted, saying:

"The spiritual Jerusalem has never been in ruins, because the Lord himself preserves it."

This is a comforting thought.

Even in a time of great rebellion and apostasy, as things stand right now, God reserves for Himself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4).

It is also a reminder that God draws the boundaries of His church quite differently from the way we humans do, for Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)

But there is something which is still in ruins, and it must be fixed.

What would characterise the beliefs and perspectives of a follower of Jesus Christ now?

In the media and in politics, we often find labels being used. Those who oppose abortion are called "pro-life", while those who support the legalisation of abortion call themselves "pro-choice". In Singapore, we hear terms like "pro-family" to refer to the Government's policies supporting marriage, parenthood and so on.

Terms like these may obscure the actual reasons or viewpoints and prevent discussion, but they sometimes serve to create an easy starting point for reference purposes. 

Early disciples of Jesus Christ did not call themselves "Christians", but instead referred to their faith as "the Way" (Acts 9:2). The Book of Acts then records that the disciples were called "Christians" first at Antioch (Acts 11:26), a term that probably held the same connotation as the term "Jesus freak" in our day.

It was a term which characterised their beliefs and perspectives in a way that others could easily understand.

Roman senator and historian Tacitus wrote the following in his Annals about Christians and Christ:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular...

Early Christians were known for their refusal to worship Caesar and paid a heavy price for it.

They were also known for their opposition to gladiatorial fights. One Roman writer has criticised Christians, saying:

You do not go to our shows; you take no part in our processions... you shrink in horror from our sacred [gladiatorial] games.

Other ethical values which marked the early church included their treatment of slaves, opposition to abortion and infanticide, as well as sexual ethics which were radically different from those practiced by the people around them.

But in the 21st century AD, the meaning of the word "Christian" has largely faded in significance, especially in light of moral confusion even among churchgoers. 

What would characterise the beliefs and perspectives of a follower of Jesus Christ now?

The Language of Family in the Gospel

Christians have typically been very concerned about the role and meaning of family in society. For example, in light of the controversy regarding the Health Promotion Board's FAQs on Sexuality and the response by Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, the National Council of Churches wrote in a press statement:

We especially welcome the Minister’s assurance that there has been no shift in the government’s position: that the family is the basic build ing block of society, and that ‘family’ is taken to mean a man and a woman joined in marriage, and encouraged to build a stable nuclear or extended household.

There are many reasons why Christians should be concerned about the family, including Biblical teaching about marriage, children, as well as sexuality.

But there is another reason why the family plays such an important role in Christianity. It is because, as concisely summed up by Julia Shaw, "the language of Christianity is familial". The Gospels speak so much in familial terms that it is almost impossible to understand the Gospel without understanding the family.

Father, mother and child
Promise and identity in the Bible are fulfilled through the simple image of father, mother and child.

Already in the beginning, the Bible foretells of the "Seed" or "offspring" of the woman who will crush the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15), and of the "Seed" of Abraham who will be the fulfilment of God's promise (Genesis 12:7; Galatians 3:16).

The promise of that "Seed", Jesus Christ, was not fulfilled in pompous fashion but through the humble circumstance of an unexpecting mother and loving adoptive father. The Gospels speak of the shock and submission of the virgin Mary when she found out that she was with child by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the dilemma faced by her betrothed Joseph. The scene of the Nativity is none other than that of a father, mother and child in a stable in Bethlehem. This is a family whose genealogy Matthew and Luke trace back through the the generations to David, the patriarchs, Adam, and finally to God.

The message of Jesus Christ is one of fatherhood. Early in Jesus' ministry, Jesus was already speaking going about "His Father's business" (Luke 2:49). He taught His disciples to address God as "Father", and taught that God is a loving Father who wishes to give good gifts to His children (Luke 11:13). In His parables, He likened God to a father with two wayward sons (Luke 15:11-32).

And Jesus, the son who learned obedience through suffering (Hebrews 5:8), ultimately paid the price so that we might be reconciled to God and called as His children. 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)

Marriage
Another aspect of family in the Gospels is the marital covenant.

Marriage, as defined by Scripture, is an exclusive and permanent union between a man and a woman. In the New Testament, Jesus taught:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

The sacrament of marriage parallels the spiritual relationship between Christ and His church. The relationship between Jesus Christ and His church is likened to that of a bridegroom and his bride, of a husband and wife. Paul makes this clear in Ephesians 5:22-33:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The Second Coming of Jesus Christ is depicted as a wedding, where people are waiting in anticipation for the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13). The Book of Revelation ends with a wedding between Jesus Christ and His church. John writes about how he saw "the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband" (Revelation 21:2).

Brothers- and sisters-in-Christ

With God as Father, and with Jesus and the church as husband and wife, what would that make individual believers?

It is no surprise then, that Christians regarded one another as part of a larger spiritual family. In the Epistles, the apostles address their fellow believers as "brothers" and "sisters", and regarded some older women as "mothers". Paul instructed Timothy:

Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. (1 Timothy 5:1-2)

Indeed, Jesus taught that "whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50).

The habit of the early church of addressing one another as brothers and sisters caused quite some misunderstanding to Roman observers! In about 200 AD, a pagan lawyer named Marcus Minucius Felix even wrote: 

They love one another before being acquainted, so to speak. Everywhere they practice a kind of religious cult of lust, calling one another “brother” and “sister” indiscriminately. Thus, under the cover of these hallowed names, ordinary fornication becomes incest.

The Language of Family in the Gospel
Family is at the centre of the Gospel.

So integral is the family to the Gospel that it becomes almost impossible to understand the Gospel without understanding the family. Mary Eberstadt writes in her book, How the West Really Lost God, which examined the decline of Christianity in the West:

The Christian story itself is a story told through the prism of the family. Take away the prism, and the story makes less sense.

It is a premise of this book that we Western men and women, whether inside the churches or not, are only at the beginning of understanding how the fracturing of the natural family has in turn helped to fracture Christianity. Evidence from all over suggests that understanding Christianity requires understanding the natural family - and a world where natural families are often weak is one in which the very language of Christian belief, literal and figurative, is destined to be less well understood than it was before.

She warns: family illiteracy breeds religious illiteracy.


Preaching the Gospel requires sound understanding of the family, and vice versa. A church which fails to teach about the family does a great disservice to the Gospel.

Blown and tossed by the wind: Why it will take a while before I support World Vision again – yes, even World Vision Singapore

James 1:6 writes, "he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does."

The words "blown and tossed by the wind" best describe World Vision US of late.

 

The Apostasy

A few days ago, World Vision US changed its long-standing policies on employment and Employee Standards of Conduct to "allow a Christian in a legal same-sex marriage to be employed at World Vision".

In light of the fact that several mainline denominations of the United States have endorsed same-sex marriage, World Vision US's move was purportedly meant to keep its practice of "deferring to church authority" in the lives of its staff, "to treat all of [its] employees equally", and to prevent the "divisive issue" of same-sex marriage from "tearing World Vision apart and potentially crippling [its] ability to accomplish [its] vital kingdom mission of loving and serving the poorest of the poor in the name of Christ."

In spite of its claim that it "[has] not endorsed same sex marriage" and that it continues "to expect abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage for all staff", Jennifer LeClaire rightly points out that "World Vision appears to be acknowledging that practicing homosexuals can call themselves Christians". This is obviously incompatible with Scripture.

World Vision US's sin is not merely apostasy, but deceit.

An organisation like World Vision US which claims to be Christian but is "blown and tossed by the wind" should not think it will receive anything from the Lord or His followers.

The Reversal

World Vision US's move was met with a massive backlash from Christians. Franklin Graham, son of famous evangelist Billy Graham, wrote in a statement, "World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church." Others who criticised World Vision include Michael Brown, Albert Mohler, and the Family Research Council. On behalf of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, general superintendent George O. Wood exhorted Christians to stop funding World Vision.

Two days later, World Vision US made a quick about-turn, releasing the following statement:

Dear Friends,

Today, the World Vision U.S. board publicly reversed its recent decision to change our national employment conduct policy. The board acknowledged they made a mistake and chose to revert to our longstanding conduct policy requiring sexual abstinence for all single employees and faithfulness within the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.

We are writing to you our trusted partners and Christian leaders who have come to us in the spirit of Matthew 18 to express your concern in love and conviction. You share our desire to come together in the Body of Christ around our mission to serve the poorest of the poor. We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.

In our board’s effort to unite around the church’s shared mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ, we failed to be consistent with World Vision U.S.’s commitment to the traditional understanding of Biblical marriage and our own Statement of Faith, which says, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” And we also failed to seek enough counsel from our own Christian partners. As a result, we made a change to our conduct policy that was not consistent with our Statement of Faith and our commitment to the sanctity of marriage.

We are brokenhearted over the pain and confusion we have caused many of our friends, who saw this decision as a reversal of our strong commitment to Biblical authority. We ask that you understand that this was never the board’s intent. We are asking for your continued support. We commit to you that we will continue to listen to the wise counsel of Christian brothers and sisters, and we will reach out to key partners in the weeks ahead.

While World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage, we strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.  

Please know that World Vision continues to serve all people in our ministry around the world. We pray that you will continue to join with us in our mission to be “an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.”

Sincerely in Christ,
Richard Stearns, President                                          
Jim Beré, Chairman of the World Vision U.S. Board

While this is a welcome development, there is good reason to remain hugely sceptical. What led to the change? Was it the backlash? Was it money?

Clearly Scripture and its own Statement of Faith alone did not deter it from its initial apostasy and compromise. Indeed, its original reasons reflected a deeper apostasy – a double-mindedness which followed the winds of the world rather than the Word of God.

Distancing instead of Rebuking: World Vision Singapore's response

World Vision Singapore has taken note of the reversal by World Vision US, adding that "World Vision Singapore would also like to reassure you that our core values and ministry to serve the poor have not and will not change." However, the following lines in its statement remain deeply problematic:

World Vision Singapore and its staff are committed to upholding our Christian values of the heterosexual family as a pillar of society. As a World Vision office, we are independent of World Vision US and any other country offices, and we make decisions that are relevant to our societal context and uphold our values.

The reference to "societal context" bears the same relativistic tenor as World Vision US's misguided idea of "deferring to church authority". 

The lack of public rebuke is also glaring. World Vision Singapore is apparently distancing itself from World Vision US by asserting "independence" and "context". 

Jesus taught in Matthew 18:15, "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." 

Likewise, Paul taught:

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 5:1-2)

Is this the attitude one holds towards a brother who sins?

Why it will take a while before I support World Vision again – yes, even World Vision Singapore

The apostasy of World Vision US is an example of how quickly and easily Christians can be "blown and tossed by the wind", conforming to the ways of the world rather than effecting transformation. Fortunately, World Vision US has reversed its decision, but the reasons for its reversal remain highly doubtful and there are good reasons to be sceptical.

On the other hand, World Vision Singapore risks yet another problem. It is an attitude of indifference towards the sins of one's own brothers.

It will take a while before I support World Vision again – yes, even World Vision Singapore.

The Law of Retaliation in the Bible: Is "eye for eye" taken literally?

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", or so the saying goes.

Many readers of the Old Testament are often shocked by prescriptions such as found in Deuteronomy 19:21, calling for punishment by taking "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot". At first glance, these bring to mind harsh punishments like those meted out in ancient China, mutilations in some war-torn countries, or even images like the cutting off of hands for crimes like theft in some countries. Surely a good and loving God cannot be calling for such harsh punishments?

Is this Law of Retaliation (lex talionis) as barbaric and vicious as it sounds? Is "eye for eye" taken literally?

Proportionality: Qualitative and quantitative restraint

Context is important. Read contextually, it will be seen that the lex talionis prescriptions aim to lay down a principle of proportionality. Punishments are to be restrained both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Earlier in the Book of Genesis, we read about the violent man Lamech, who married two wives, Adah and Zillah. Genesis 4:23-24 records Lamech's vengeful boast:

Lamech said to his wives,

"Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times."

Lamech's responses are vastly disproportionate on two counts. Qualitatively, he killed a man for merely injuring or wounding him. Quantitatively, he avenges himself seventy-sevenfold.

The lex talionis therefore prescribes a qualitative and quantitative restraint upon such disproportionate conduct. Qualitatively, it is "eye for eye" instead of "life for eye". Quantitatively, it is "eye for eye" instead of "two eyes for an eye".

Paul Copan comments in his book, Is God a Moral Monster? Making sense of the Old Testament God:

The point of lex talionis is this: the punishment should fit the crime. Furthermore, these were the maximum penalties; punishments were to be proportional and couldn't exceed that standard. And a punishment could be less severe if the judge deemed that the crime required a lesser penalty.

Lex talionis not taken literally, except the death penalty

Furthermore, passages in the Bible show that the lex talionis was not taken literally, except in cases involving the death penalty (see, e.g., Exodus 21:12 and 14).

Exodus 21:22-25 is one such passage containing the lex talionis:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Even as the prescription "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" is laid down, it is immediately followed by Exodus 21:26-27:

If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

Taken together, these passages suggest that the laws of ancient Israel required compensation for non-fatal physical injury. Jonathan Burnside writes in God, Justice and Society: Aspects of Law and Legality in the Bible: 

Ultimately, the phrase "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" operates on two levels: it creates an initial presumption of physical mutilation but, at the same time, it functions as a symbol of some more general equivalence, which could be substitution or some other form of compensation. It is probable that in cases of nonfatal injuries resulting from a fight, the victim was entitled to threaten the offender with talionic punishment. But that punishment was always negotiable, and the further the circumstances were from the typical case, the less likely that talio would even be demanded, let alone enforced.

Ultimate emphasis on restraint

Ultimately, the emphasis is on restraint. Passages laying down the lex talionis emphasise a principle of qualitative and quantitative proportionality. Furthermore, "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" are not taken literally, except in cases involving the death penalty.

Hence, it can be seen that Jesus was not abolishing the Old Testament Law in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5:17), but instead correcting several abuses and misunderstandings of the Law when He said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

God's Definition of Marriage and Family: For all humanity or for Christians only?

Debates over issues like marriage, family and homosexuality have many dimensions. These include the morality of homosexual behaviour, questions about law and morality, and the role of religion in politics. As a result, we often find some Christians who try to find some kind of compromise or take a safe "middle ground" so as to avoid controversy. 

One example of this is a recent Supper Club interview with Anita Fam, long-time member of Families for Life – formerly the National Family Council, who is also a Methodist: 

Q: The Health Promotion Board advisory sparked quarrels about the notion of family. Given this context, how should we define family?

I don’t think we should draw a box and say families are defined as X,Y,Z. You can’t pigeonhole family, because if you did, then you’re sure to leave someone out.

There is a conventional idea of father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, but if you think about it, who is family?

Family comprises the people around you, the people you were raised with, the people who brought you up, who are there for you. They are your loved ones. You don’t define them by sexual orientation, race or religion.

Q: There is one camp that says you cannot be LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)-friendly and still be pro-family.

I recognise that everyone has different views. Both camps are very passionate in how they feel and the views expressed at the moment are extreme views. You will probably never get these two groups of people to reach middle ground.

But I don’t think that is any reflection of what the majority of Singaporeans think. Some voices are more strident than others, and these are the voices that we hear.

Q: So does this affect the family as a building block of society?

That’s thinking too much into what family is. To me, simplistically, family are the people who surround you and, in most cases, love you.

So, not at all. Everyone is born into a family, no matter what. Whether or not there are differences in views, it doesn’t affect what the core of family is. You will always have a mother and father.

Q: As a parent (with publisher husband Goh Eck Kheng, 58) of two teenagers, how have you approached this issue with them?

We teach them that mutual respect is important. To remember that: I may not agree with them but that does not mean I condemn their views. They are fully entitled to their own views.

We’ve raised our kids to be colour-blind and sexual-orientation-blind. I don’t think they’ve ever thought of themselves as being Chinese, or seen their friends as being Malay, Indian, English or Chinese, and they’ve never seen someone as being straight or gay.

But the thing that we’ve always taught them – and this is within the confines of our personal faith (as Methodists) – is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

What is God's definition of marriage and family?

God's definition of marriage and the family is found in Genesis 1:27-28a, where it is written:

So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number..."

Genesis 2 details the account of how God created Eve from Adam's rib and brought her to him, and they were united to become one flesh:

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)

In the New Testament, Jesus reiterated the "one flesh" union between a man and a woman:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) has affirmed this in its 2003 statement on Homosexuality:

Recognizing the Bible as the authoritative standard for its faith and practice the Church has historically and consistently held the view that the practice of homosexuality is clearly incompatible with the teachings of the Christian faith. The only sexual relationship, sanctioned by God and given as a gift from God, is between a male and a female within the bounds of a monogamous marriage.

Marriage, as defined by Scripture, is an exclusive "one flesh" union between a man and a woman, and "what God has joined together, let man not separate". It is the foundation of a family, as seen from God's blessing, "be fruitful and increase in number".

For all humanity or for Christians only?

But are marriage and the family merely "within the confines of our personal faith" as Christians?

The answer is no.

The passages in Genesis and the Gospels cited above show that this is not merely some Christian idiosyncrasy, but God's foundation for all humanity. As the apostle Paul said, "[from] one man [God] made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" (Acts 17:26).

The application of God's laws to all humanity, whether or not they are believers, is made manifestly clear from passages in Scripture such as the flood in the time of Noah (Genesis 6-9), God's punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), or God's injunctions against the sexual practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians (Leviticus 18, 20). Paul in Romans 1 and 2 also wrote about the application of God's standards to non-believers and believers alike. The Bible speaks of a universal natural law which applies to everyone, not just Christians.

This is also seen from the NCCS statement, which takes a public stand on the issue of homosexuality and reiterates its commitment "to serving our nation by helping to preserve and promote wholesome values and lifestyles that will contribute to the well-being of our society".

Indeed, as insightfully pointed out by the writer of I on Singapore, Anita Fam herself recognises this, when she contradicted what she said earlier in the following terms:

Everyone is born into a family, no matter what. Whether or not there are differences in views, it doesn’t affect what the core of family is. You will always have a mother and father. 

Faith is personal, but it is not "confined" that way

When questioned about whether to pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus replied with one of the most profound statements in the Bible:

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

This is not a call to compromise to Caesar. Instead, as bearers of God's image, we are called to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). It is a call to whole-hearted dedication to God, in every aspect of our lives. This is a path which Jesus Himself and the early church have trod, and we are called to do the same.

Faith is personal, but it is not "confined" that way. We are not to lead a life of compromise in a desperate search for a "middle ground", but to "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). 

Marriage and family, as defined by God, is a standard not confined to Christians only, but applies to all humanity.