Q&A on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues

Some time ago, I gave a number of answers to a friend who had questions from a Christian youth regarding the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues. 

Here are the questions and my responses. Some slight grammatical and typographical changes have been made.

Question 1: Why should Christianity dictate national laws that govern non-Christians? Why should we impose this upon others who do not believe in this?

Singapore has a secular state and a multi-religious society. No one religion or religious group should “dictate” national laws. However, as a democratic society, every single citizen has the right to participate in the democratic process and engage with issues of public policy.

As Christians, we believe that the role of the State is to uphold what is good and punish what is evil (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Thus, we advocate for laws which are consistent with what is good, and we advocate against unjust laws which are not. 

It is the role of the State (not the Church) to enforce the law, and all laws impose morality on someone. For example, tough laws against drug abuse and trafficking impose on drug abusers and traffickers the seriousness of drugs.

Question 2: People often quote 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, or John 8:7 - We ourselves are not sinless. How can we judge others? How do we reconcile these Bible passages? 

The Bible does not create a blanket rule “do not judge”. This is based on a common misreading of Matthew 7:1. Once we read Matthew 7:1-5 holistically, what we see is Jesus emphasising the importance of applying consistent standards across the board, and to begin with self-examination before judging others. The important principle is to “judge rightly” (John 7:24).

This ties in very closely to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, where Paul was exercising church discipline against an immoral man within the church who was sleeping with his father’s wife. Paul is telling the church to judge those within it, and to expel the man because he was openly living in sin while purporting to be Christian. On the flip side, it would not be the place for the church or church leaders to exercise such judgment of people outside the church.

Finally, in John 8, even as Jesus told the people “Let he who has no sin cast the first stone”, Jesus also told the woman, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” This is a beautiful picture of God’s grace. Grace does not deny the existence of sin or refrain from judgment. In fact, grace recognises that a person has sinned, but chooses not to hold that sin against the person. As Paul said, God’s kindness leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4).

It would be hypocritical of any human being to judge another human being by his or her own standards because, as this youth has rightly acknowledged, we are all sinners. It would be quite presumptuous of any human being to say to another, “I’m good, you’re bad.” How many of us even live up to our own (human) standards of behaviour, let alone God’s standards?

The message of the Bible is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). That is why we all need Jesus, who clothes us with a new identity and His righteousness, once we put our faith in Him. Our message is really, “We have all messed up, but we know Someone who makes things right.”

Question 3: He feels being picky and choosy on what we impose is pretty hypocritical. Do we still follow the laws of the Old Testament? He hates that we downplay the importance of the Bible by following whatever is convenient for us. How do we reconcile this?

I would like to affirm this youth on his desire to be consistent in our application of God’s Word, and his strong dislike of the downplaying of the importance of parts of the Bible whenever inconvenient. Indeed, Truth exists and it is not our place to play pick-and-choose with it, or to apply and disapply parts of the Bible according to our preferences.

The answer to this was put very nicely by William Lane Craig. We are Christians because we follow Jesus Christ. We do not follow the Law of Moses per se, but follow the Law of Moses only to the extent that Jesus tells us to follow it.

So, for example, we are not obliged to follow the food laws (kosher) of the Old Testament. (We can if we want to, but we need not.) This is because Jesus said that “nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’” (Mark 7:18).

On Biblical sexual ethics, our basis for understanding marriage and sexuality is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and elaborated upon by the Apostles. Thus, we are not following the laws in Leviticus. Rather, we follow the teaching of Christ that marriage is a union between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6) and that “porneia” (referring to all kinds of sexual behaviour outside of marriage) is immoral (Mark 7:20-23).

4. If the Bible is so clear-cut on its stance in LGBT, why do so many churches still support it?

There are many reasons why churches support LGBT ideas, and it is difficult to cover all the possible reasons why. However, I will speak from my experience engaging with people who profess to be Christians who also support LGBT, same-sex marriage, etc. as a matter of their church doctrine, and what I have read so far. 

At its very core, I believe that people on both sides want to do the right thing. We all want to do what is fair, just, and loving. 

Churches that support LGBT come from that motivation. They want to love their neighbours who identify as LGBT, and they believe that supporting same-sex marriage, ordaining clergy who identify as LGBT, etc. are the best way to do so. They also believe that the Biblical teaching on homosexual practice, whether in the Old or New Testament, are either confined to a certain cultural context or based on a misinterpretation of the Bible.

Most, if not all, of such churches also believe that God made people LGBT. It is a religious version of the “born this way” idea, where people argue that LGBT is biological and immutable.

Where I would point out as the main problem with their beliefs is the belief that God made people LGBT, which defines and identifies people according to their sexual desires or feelings.

From a Biblical perspective, we are made male and female in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4-6). Therefore, we do not derive our identities from our sexual desires or feelings, but from God and His design of human beings as male and female. Furthermore, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, your identity is as a child of God (Galatians 4:6-7), rather than any label you might give yourself or others might give you. 

Another mistake which they have made is what I would call their rather selective interpretation of the Bible. As we have discussed in the context of question 3, we should not be playing pick-and-choose with the Bible. For example, many of these churches want to affirm Jesus’s teachings on loving one’s neighbour (Mark 12:29-31), while at the same time ignoring His teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6). 

In a sinful and broken world, our desires are corrupted by sin, including our sexual desires (which manifest in inappropriate desires for the same or opposite sex), and there may be some people who are born with indeterminate sex (i.e. intersex). 

But the promise of Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He demonstrated His love through His sacrifice for us on the cross. For those who put their trust in Him, He promises to clothe us with a new identity as children of God, and to give us a new life in Him. That is the message we proclaim.

Addressing Biblical Teaching on Sexuality the Master's Way

During a dialogue on race and religion earlier this year, there was a question the Christian stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues. The Straits Times reports in "Tough questions posed at dialogue" (28 January 2018):

Why do Taoists have a practice of burning joss paper? What is the Christian stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues? Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? 

Such questions were posed during a one-hour dialogue at the first National Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle Convention at the Suntec Convention Centre yesterday, titled "Inconvenient Questions on Race and Religion". 

Asked about the Christian stance on LGBT issues, Reverend Malcolm Tan of Covenant Community Methodist Church explained that traditional biblical sexual morality teaches faithfulness in marriage and celibacy outside of marriage, and defines marriage as something that should always be between a man and a woman. 

"However, this does not mean that we become adversarial with people who are different or disagree with us," he said...

I do not know whether Reverend Malcolm Tan said more than had been reported in the article or if the article merely summarised his comments. Thus, I would refrain from addressing his specific comments at the dialogue, but focus on the more general issue of the Christian response on Biblical teaching regarding LGBT issues or any other issue of sexual brokenness.

While it is not wrong to address LGBT or other sexual brokenness issues by talking about the proper context of sex within marriage of a man and a woman (and this certainly reaffirms Biblical teaching), I would like to suggest that there is a better way to address Biblical teaching in sexuality. And who better to learn from than the Master Himself?

In the Gospel of Matthew, we see Jesus's response to the Pharisee's question on divorce:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"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 19:3-6)

To be sure, there were many passages in the Old Testament on divorce, and Jesus could have given a straightforward answer on the question by pointing to passages such as Malachi 2:16 where God declares "I hate divorce." However, He did not do so.

Instead, He began by referring to God ("the Creator"), human nature ("made them male and female"), the beauty of marriage ("a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"), followed by how marriage has gone wrong in the context of divorce ("what God has joined together, let man not separate").

This order seems to reflect Jesus's priorities in how Biblical teaching on sexuality ought to be addressed.

Rather than sexual conduct per se, the core issue is that of God and human nature, of Dei and Imago Dei.

And some of the leading advocates on LGBT issues have likewise pointed out the centrality of one's understanding of human nature in debates over such issues.

Ryan T. Anderson wrote in "Same-sex Marriage and Heresy: The Importance of Anthropology" (16 July 2015), that the most pressing heresies today "center on the nature of man". He explains that "the sexual ideology that has battered the family and redefined marriage" springs from "a faulty humanism", "faulty anthropology [and] a misunderstanding of the nature of man".

Ever since the Fall, all of humanity has been attempting to define human nature apart from God, removing the Dei from Imago Dei.

The very notion of "LGBT" assumes that a person is and can be defined by one's "sexual orientation" or "gender identity", such that a person is defined by one's sexual desires or feelings about oneself. A person can be a "man trapped in a woman's body" or a "woman trapped in a man's body", presenting the idea that one's body is like a prison, rather than part of oneself, and can be altered and changed at will.

Modern society, shaped by the Sexual Revolution, has made sex into an idol. It has defined sex as such an integral part of human identity and fulfilment that - to quote Sam Allberry's paraphrase of the modern idea - "life without sex is no life at all".

Professor Robert P. George identifies in this the resurgence (or persistence) of the old Gnostic heresy, which sees the body as inferior and sees the human person or "self" as a spiritual or mental substance. As a result, according to post-Sexual Revolution sexual ethics, all forms of sexual conduct (with anyone or anything) are permissible as long as they are consensual, since what ultimately matters is connection on the emotional, mental or "spiritual" level.

It goes without saying that all of this is contrary to the vision of human nature (and thus human sexuality) presented in Scripture.

Human beings are made in the image of God, male and female, and are thus not "accidentally" placed in the wrong bodies. (However, in a sinful world, we must be aware that there are disabilities and abnormalities which may affect the development of one's sexual organs.) Our identities are accordingly defined by God's design, rather than according to our sexual desires or feelings.

As Sam Allberry said in his address to the Church of England General Synod in 2017, "I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me. And that has become Good News."

Since our bodies are important and part of who we are, what we do with our bodies in sexual behaviour affects us on a personal level, and are not merely emotional, intellectual or "spiritual" connections. Marriage is thus a comprehensive union, uniting a man and a woman in heart (emotional), soul (spiritual), mind (intellectual) and strength (physical).

Yet, in a world marred by sin, we should recognise that we are not only sinners, but also victims of sin (whether sins of others or our own sins), whom Jesus Christ came to seek and to save. And even as sexual brokenness affects us all in different ways, Jesus came as a Bridegroom for His beloved Bride, the Church, giving 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" (Ephesians 5:27).

Through His sacrifice on the cross, He frees us from the shackles of our pasts, such that we are no longer defined by our sexual desires, sexual history, or any sin that once held us. Christopher Yuan, who is same-sex attracted and left his former lifestyle, said it well:

My identity should never be defined by my feelings; my feelings should not dictate who I am. My identity is not gay or homosexual or even heterosexual for that matter, but my identity as a child of the Living God must be in Jesus Christ alone. 

You see, God says, “Be holy, for I am holy”. I had always thought that the opposite of homosexuality was heterosexuality. But actually, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. God never told me, “Be heterosexual, for I am heterosexual”. He said, “Be holy, for I am holy”.  

And God told me, “Don't focus upon your sexuality, don't focus upon your feelings but focus upon living a life of holiness and living a life of purity.”

Jesus clothes us with a new identity as children of the Most High, and we look forward to the great wedding between Jesus and His Bride at the end of days (Revelation 21).

So, how do we address Biblical teaching on sexuality the Master's way?

A better way of engaging on Biblical teaching on LGBT issues or any other issue of sexual brokenness should, in order of priority, address the following:

1. Begin with God, the Creator of heaven and earth and all that is in them, including humanity ("the Creator"), 
2. Explore the wonders of human nature, as male and female made in the image of God ("made them male and female"), 
3. Present the beauty of marriage according to God's original design as a "one flesh" union between a man and a woman ("a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"), 
4. Recognise how marriage and sexuality have gone wrong in a sinful world, and that there are forms of sexual conduct which are contrary to God's laws ("what God has joined together, let man not separate"),
5. Finally, present the Gospel of how Jesus Christ redeems and makes us holy and blameless through His sacrifice on the cross, and He will return one day for His beloved Bride.

"Yes for Love": Declared on the Cross 2,000 Years Ago

Australia conducted a postal survey on the issue of same-sex marriage, where voters were asked by post, "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" Out of around 16 million eligible Australians, 79.5% participated in the survey. 

On 15 November 2017, the results were announced. 61.6% voted "Yes", while 38.4% voted "No". The vote was decisively in favour of changing the law to recognise same-sex marriages.

"Yes" campaigners immediately celebrated the vote for same-sex marriage. Various public figures and celebrities lauded the vote, and numerous businesses launched their own celebrations of the results. 

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in his speech on the results, said: "Australians voted for marriage equality. They voted Yes for fairness, they voted Yes for commitment, they voted Yes for love. And now it is up to us, here in the Parliament of Australia to get on with it, to get on with the job the Australian people have tasked us to do and get this done, this year, before Christmas — that must be our commitment."

If one looks into the Gospels, one would see that the contrast could not be more stark.

In the quiet testimony of Scripture, the Bible tells a very different story of love. 

On a cross between two criminals, hangs the Son of Man on a dark and gloomy day crying out in a loud voice and pleading His Father for forgiveness over those who, in their ignorance, hung Him there (Luke 23:34).

It is the story of a man giving Himself up for His beloved to make her holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:25-27). The Bridegroom for His Bride. A man and a woman.

And with His final cry, "It is finished" (John 19:30), that man Jesus Christ declared a resounding "Yes" for fairness, "Yes" for commitment, and "Yes" for love. 

It was done. He did what the Father had tasked Him to do. That was His commitment.

For it is through this that God shows Himself to be not only just, but the one who justifies. He is the one who commits to us His entire being, even to the point of death, and promises an eternity with Him. He is the God who demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

The message of the cross, therefore, tells of a gift that no human being, authority or institution can ever give. It is a perfect gift that can only come from above.

The message of the cross tells of that "Yes" and "Amen" to fairness, commitment and love that had been decisively spoken, not by the voice of any mere human being, but by the voice of God 2,000 years ago. 

While those who support same-sex marriage and who celebrate the "Yes" vote in Australia may rise in momentary triumphalism, on Calvary's hill 2,000 years ago stood the quiet testimony of Jesus Christ and His cross. It is the story of a man who gave of Himself to redeem His beloved Bride. It is the story of a King who rose from the grave, will return to wed His faithful Bride, will reign forever in victory, and whose kingdom shall have no end.

The festivities will fade, but the world needs to hear, as it had always needed, this same story of the Bridegroom and His Bride. And it is our sacred duty to proclaim it till He returns. That must be our commitment.

"The Message" Author Eugene Peterson's Retraction of Same-sex Marriage Support: Where do we go from here?

Eugene Peterson is the author of "The Message" paraphrase of the Bible, who recently stirred controversy due to his support of same-sex marriage, which he retracted one day later.

 

 

Interview and retraction

In an interview with Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Service published on 12 July 2017, "Best-selling author Eugene Peterson changes his mind on gay marriage", Peterson stated that he would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony.

 

After recounting experiences with "several women who were lesbians" in churches where he was associate pastor, and the employment of man who applied and was employed as a music director that identified as being gay, he added:

I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.

 

Meritt asked Peterson as a follow-up, "If you were pastoring today and a gay couple in your church who were Christians of good faith asked you to perform their same-sex wedding ceremony, is that something you would do?" Peterson replied with a one-word answer, "Yes."

 

A day after the publication of the interview with Merritt, Peterson retracted his views, stating, "To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything."

 

Peterson said, "I’ve never performed a same-sex wedding. I’ve never been asked and, frankly, I hope I never am asked."

 

He apparently blamed Merritt for asking the question in a hypothetical, and then claimed that he was "put on the spot" by Merritt: "When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d be welcome at my table, along with everybody else."

 

"I regret the confusion and bombast that this interview has fostered," he said. "It has never been my intention to participate in the kind of lightless heat that such abstract, hypothetical comments and conversations generate."

 

Merritt responded to Peterson's allegations, that his questions were pointed, "as any serious journalist’s should be. They were respectful and in no way pushy." He added, "It is possible Peterson felt he had been placed on the spot and offered an answer that doesn’t reflect his true conviction. But it is also important to note that in the week prior to the publication, there was no attempt to clarify or change his answer to these questions." ("Eugene Peterson backtracks on same-sex marriage", 13 July 2017)

 

Was Peterson's retraction genuine?

In thinking about Peterson's position on same-sex relationships, I have found Russell Moore's reflection on World Vision's 2014 change of course on same-sex marriage quite instructive.

 

For one, I find that Peterson's claim that he was "put on the spot" by Merritt to be an irresponsible act of blaming another person for his own error (if he does truly believe it to be an error), in an act of self-justification, quite similar to many of the public (partial) apologies that we see these days. It is part of the sinful human condition.

 

We have seen such examples in the Bible. Adam infamously pointed the finger at "the woman [God] put here with [him]" when God confronted him about his sin (Genesis 3:12). When Moses confronted Aaron about the golden calf, Aaron blamed the people instead, "You know how prone these people are to evil." (Exodus 32:22)

 

Secondly, in his response, Merritt suggested that Peterson retracted his views due to pressure from "conservatives":

The condemnations from conservatives were swift. LifeWay, America’s largest Christian book chain, threatened to ban his books if he didn’t affirm a traditional view of marriage. The heat rose quickly, and then Peterson retracted his remarks, claiming he was put on the spot. While he said a same-sex couple would be welcome in his church today, he would not perform a same-sex wedding “out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching.”

I find there to be quite some merit to this view (no pun intended). 

 

Despite Peterson claiming to affirm a "biblical view of marriage" and a "biblical view of everything", this seems to be based less on the authority of the Bible per se, but out of mere deference to "the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching".

 

Entire congregations can fall into error, the larger church body can be mistaken, and Christian view and teaching however historic or historical are no substitutes for the actual Word of God. As Christians, we are taught to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). Quite regardless of whatever people may say, our conscience and duty are owed to God, and God alone.

 

It would follow that, if God approved of or is neutral towards same-sex relationships or marriage, Christians ought to stand for these regardless of what people think. The same is true otherwise. And on this point, the Bible is amply clear in its affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman, and disapproval of all other forms of sexual behaviours outside that union, including homosexual behaviour.

 

Unfortunately, therefore, Peterson's retraction does not appear to be a genuine, Biblically-based retraction, but one made out of mere deference to the wider Christian body at large.

 

Where do we go from here?

Peterson's departure from the truth of marriage probably began way before the interview, and this interview was merely a symptom or a culmination of that earlier departure. (See Jonathan Merritt's article on "Eugene Peterson had this to say about same-sex issues in 2014", 13 July 2017)

 

It is important to recognise that Church (not just any denomination or congregation, but the wider body of Christ) is meant to be a place of accountability. Leaders and ministers are not exempt. Indeed, those who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).

 

Russell Moore's reflections on World Vision’s change of course in 2014 are equally applicable here:

We need to watch and to hold every Christian organization and ministry accountable. That’s what the Bereans did when they judged everything that the apostles were saying according to the word of God. They searched the scriptures to see if these things were so. We need to do that all of the time because every human authority is fallible, and every human authority can make mistakes. And so we need to be constantly watching that.

 

Especially on issues as controversial as sexuality in our modern age, we may find not just many churchgoers, but also pastors, leaders and ministers being swayed by the spirit of this age to fall into error. On this, James' exhorts us:

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

 

Since Peterson's retraction was apparently made merely out of deference to the wider Christian body at large, it would be an error to merely take his retraction at face value and assume that he has turned from error. To do so, would merely enforce conformity with doctrine without genuine conversion to a Biblically-centred faith or, worse, the fear of man rather than God. 

 

It would also be wrong to accept his self-justification and blaming of his interviewer for putting him in a spot, since such denial of personal responsibility stands in the way of true faith and repentance.

 

Instead, the wider Body of Christ should actively reach out to Peterson to bring him back not only to a sound Biblical understanding of marriage, sexuality and human nature, but also and ultimately, a renewed relationship with the Creator Himself.

Gospel Witness in an Age of Outrage

In the lead up to, during and after the recent Pink Dot event that has been taking place annually at Hong Lim Park around this time of the year, I found a good number of Christians around me reacting with sheer outrage.

 

There were many reasons for their outrage, much of which was quite understandable. They were outraged at the fact that some people who professed to be Christians supported Pink Dot and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) movement. They were outraged that people, groups and companies had been enlisted or characterised (sometimes falsely) as supporting Pink Dot. They were outraged at the fact that other people who professed to be Christians were utterly indifferent or nonchalant about Pink Dot as well as its supporters. They were outraged at Pink Dot itself.

 

This reminded me of a 2015 message by Russell Moore, titled "Marriage On The Line - Preparing Your Church For A Same-Sex Marriage Culture", where he recounted an incident which he witnessed during the US Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage:

I was walking around the corner the day of the Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage. On my way there to be at the Supreme Court, as I was coming around the corner from my office, I heard somebody on a bullhorn yelling angrily. And I immediately turned to some friends who were with me and said, "Please don't let that be one of us."

And as I came around the corner, I saw someone standing there with Bible verses on placards and with the bullhorn screaming at the protesters on the other side and the people who were gathered on the other side. This person was yelling, "You're condemned. You're self-condemned. You're going to hell."

And as he was yelling this through the bullhorn a group of men dressed as Catholic nuns with all sorts of garish makeup calling themselves the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" were dancing along in front laughing about the message that's coming over the bullhorn.

And I winced when I heard this man on the bullhorn acting as though he were speaking for Jesus Christ, saying, "You're going to go to hell and don't expect me to cry for you when you do."

That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But we live in a world right now in all of the fractures that are going on, especially around issues of sexuality, where it seems so often in many of our communities and neighborhoods that we have the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" versus the "Brothers of Perpetual Outrage".  

And yet we have been called to be a people of the Gospel. And we have been called to be a people of both truth and grace, of both conviction and kindness, in a world that is often fearful and angry.

 

In an issue as controversial and politicised as sexuality in our modern times, it is easy to lose sight of what we are ultimately warring against. It is tempting to see only the political agenda and thereby perceive the activists or their supporters as enemies, or to see only the behaviours of the people involved and see them as villains. 

 

But Paul reminds us in his letter to the Ephesians that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12).

 

The real battle, then, is spiritual in nature. It is a war against sin. And our weapons are not carnal.

 

The victory, as a result, is neither necessarily political nor necessarily moral; these are only consequences or outflows of the real victory. The real victory is when sin and death are conquered, and the sinner is restored to life. It is a victory already won at the cross of Jesus Christ.

 

The call is a call to the Gospel, a call to faith and repentance, a call to leave a life of sin and follow Jesus Christ. And the Bible teaches that it is God's kindness that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). It is not a "kindness" that turns a blind eye to sin or distorts the truth. Indeed, even as Paul wrote that "love is kind" and "is not easily angered", he also wrote that love "does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth" (1 Corinthians 13:6).

 

Certainly, there is room for righteous anger, as Jesus displayed most vividly when He cleared the Temple (John 2:12-22). But James the earthly brother of our Lord also warned that "man's anger des not bring about the righteous life that God desires" (James 1:20). The difference lies in being outraged at the right things. Just as the peddlers were corrupting the Temple by making it a marketplace, it is sin that corrupts every human heart, for Jesus said:

"For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly." (Mark 7:21-22)

 

The Gospel witness is a gentle witness, a ministry of reconciliation seeking ultimately the reconciliation of all things to God in Jesus Christ. It is not a witness that blares out with bullhorns, much less one that seeks in anger to condemn others to hell, but one which is "quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" (James 1:19). In an age of outrage, it is our kindness that will ultimately point people to the place where love won: the cross of Jesus Christ.

 



Sex is a gift, but no substitute for the Giver

At the 2014 Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) National Conference on "The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage", Sam Allberry spoke on the topic "Is God Anti-Gay? Answering Tough Questions About Same-Sex Marriage".

In his message, he addressed four "biggest ground-level questions" that are commonly raised:

1. Did Jesus even mention homosexuality?
2. Can't we just agree to differ over this issue as Evangelicals?
3. Isn't a same-sex partnership okay if it's faithful?
4. Isn't the kind of traditional Christian position on sex and marriage deeply harmful to people?

The responses given by Allberry on these questions are deeply insightful. Given that he is himself same-sex attracted and has been for "pretty much [his] entire adult life", his sharing is not purely theoretical, but practical as well, sharing his personal experiences in the issues and questions.

The final question that Sam Allberry addressed was: "Isn't the traditional Christian position on sex and marriage harmful?" This is the objection that says that the traditional Christian position is the cause of acute mental health problems even suicide among gay people.

As part of his response to this objection, Allberry hit the nail in the head on the allegation that the Christian position was driving same-sex attracted people to commit suicide:

Next thing to say on this issue; on my understanding and in my experience, we Evangelicals are not the ones who say sex is everything. We are not the ones who say that a life without sex is no life at all.  

And the idea that, the assumption behind that, the kind of challenge that celibacy is in itself harmful means that sex has become an idol. If life without sex is not conceivable for you, it is very clear what is really 'god' in your life.

A friend of mine Andrew Wilson back in the UK once a recently spoke on the issue of "Why does God care who I sleep with?" And a part of his answer was to turn the question around and say, "Why do you care so much who you sleep with? Why is that where you draw the line and object to following God? Why is that your one non-negotiable?"

It strikes me that it is our culture that is making sex into an idol, and therefore is saying to people when your sex life doesn't work out your life hasn't worked out. It is not the Evangelical Church but our society around us that is putting the stakes up that high.

And my question is, which perspective is most likely to make someone feel that their life is not worth living: the perspective that says sex is everything and if it's not fulfilling then there's no point - life without sex is no life at all? Or the Christian perspective that should be saying sex is a wonderful gift from God, but it is but a gift and is no substitute for the Giver?

We are not the ones who say that a lack of sexual fulfilment is a lack of human fulfilment. So friends, I don't deny that the church has been the cause of ungodly and unwarranted pain and abuse for people over the years and we should not be slow to confess that and to repent of it. But I want to challenge the culture around us to say, I think it has blood on its hands as well, in making sex the centre.

This is certainly the unfortunate result of the Sexual Revolution and the culture wars of our modern times. It is not exclusively limited to homosexuality, but certainly does include it.

 

With the message on the one hand from the sex-driven culture that sexual relations are a core part of one's identity or an integral part of human fulfilment, and the Christian message that the only acceptable form of sexual expression is in the context of marriage between a man and a woman on the other, it is no stretch of imagination how this may lead those struggling with their sexual desires (same-sex or otherwise) to feel sandwiched between two impossible alternatives, thus leading to despair.

Taken together, these two messages present a same-sex attracted person with the (false) dilemma of either embracing one's "identity" and being "true to oneself" by giving in to one's sexual desires or of following God's commands and therefore denying one's "identity" and thereby giving up perceived human fulfilment in this lifetime.

How should the Church respond then?

Despite how political or theological debates are often about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, acceptable or otherwise, the real issue at its core is a concept of identity.

Modern culture attempts to define human identity based on one's sexuality, thereby defining people as either "gay" or "straight", "homosexual" or "heterosexual", or some other form of "gender identity" or "sexual orientation". Perhaps even some Christians may be tempted to adopt these definitions and labels.

However, this is not how God defines or sees us as human beings. The Bible teaches us that our identity comes from being made in the image of God, male and female (Genesis 1:27). If one is a Christian, one's identity comes from being a child of God and, through the Spirit, we are able to call out as children to God, "Abba Father" (Galatians 4:6).

As Sam Allberry said earlier in the same message, "my same-sex attraction is not who I am. It's part of what I feel, but it's not who I am."

Indeed, in Christ, our identity comes from being the children of God. Like Jesus at His baptism, God looks down upon all who are in Christ, and what He said to Jesus He says also to us, "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22)

And as children, we are able to look to God for every good gift that the Father intends to give us, be it the gift of marriage or singleness, just like any other good gift that the Father deems fit to give His children.

At all times, it is worth remembering that sex remains a gift, but is no substitute for the Giver, from whom all good things come.

"So the Gospel will be preached"

The annual Pink Dot event, advocating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender  (LGBT) rights in the name of the "freedom to love", took place at Hong Lim Park a few days ago on Saturday, 13 June 2015.
 

On that night, I asked God why Pink Dot and all this activism was happening. This was not the first time I asked Him such a question, and will probably not be the last.
 

He replied, "So the Gospel will be preached."
 

On Sunday, I read the report on Pink Dot in the papers, where it was published that they had a record turn out of 28,000.
 

It weighed heavily upon my heart. In the evening, I was gripped with such a strong burden that I broke down and wept, praying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
 

These were Jesus' words on the cross. It was His prayer of forgiveness for them even though they had turned on Him and His Word.
 

I knew that God was letting me have a sense of His love for all of us, including those who identify as LGBT and those who have voiced their disagreement by wearing white over the weekend.
 

Even in the midst of all these, God has opened doors for many amazing testimonies to be heard about those who have been set free from the bondage of sin. Many have delivered powerful messages about God's freedom and love. And the beauty of God's design for marriage and family have been declared in various places.
 

So, far from being alarmed or afraid, or shying away from addressing the issue, we ought to preach the Gospel faithfully in this time as in every other time, even if it is not politically-correct in this season.
 

God has allowed all this to happen, and will allow more in the days to come, "so the Gospel will be preached."

Robert P. George's address at Russell D. Moore's Inauguration as Eighth President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

On 10 September 2013, Russell D. Moore was inaugurated as the eighth president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of America's largest Protestant denomination.

Among those who spoke at his inauguration was Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, who outlined the challenges for Christians in society today.

Here is a transcript of his speech:

The Southern Baptist Convention is blessed. The larger Christian community is blessed. The nation, Russell, is blessed. Indeed, the world is blessed by the decision to appoint Dr Russell Moore to this position of leadership in the Christian community. I will tell you truthfully that my heart leapt for joy when I got the news that my beloved brother whom I admire so much would be appointed to fill the big shoes of Richard Land for the next period of leadership, and may it be long and blessed of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Those are big shoes to fill, Russell, but I haven't the slightest doubt that you will distinguish yourself beyond all measure.  

The right man, in the right place, at the right time.  

And let me express my gratitude on behalf of the larger Christian community to the Southern Baptist Convention and especially to the Board that made this blessed selection for the wisdom to have appointed such a man to a position of such importance and leadership at this time.  

And what a time.  

A time when the foundational principles, the foundational moral principles of our faith, the foundational ethical and moral principles of our polity, as a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the foundational principles of our very civilisation, a civilisation shaped at every turn, and in its greatness by the Judaeo-Christian ethic. A time when every foundational principle is in peril and is under assault. Assault sometimes - I will speak to you plainly - from positions of power in our own nation and in nations across the country.  

What are those principles? We know them well. They're the principles articulated in what Richard Land named the Manhattan Declaration, that great call of Christian conscience.  

First and most foundationally, the principle of the profound and equal and inherent dignity of each and every member of the human family; the idea expressed in our Scripture as the human being made in the very image and likeness of the divine Ruler and Creator of the universe. The idea that every member of the human family - no matter how small, no matter how weak, no matter how unimportant in the eyes of the world - is of immeasurable worth and dignity. It doesn't matter the size, it doesn't matter our age, it doesn't matter our stage of development, it doesn't matter are condition of dependency. All of us my friends, even those we regard as the most powerful, are dependent in one way or another. None of us can truly declare an individual independence. There is no Declaration of Independence of Robert George or Russell Moore from the community of which we are a part.  

The second principle - and it is absolutely indispensable - is the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. That principle we know so well today - Pastor Luter, President Luter, mentioned it - is under the most severe assault. What is proposed is not an expansion of marriage or eligibility to participate in the institution of marriage, as it's sometimes peddled to us. What is at issue is whether marriage as understood in our tradition, and every tradition known to us, as articulated in Genesis 2 in the concept that the man leaves his mother and home and cleaves onto his wife and the two are one flesh.  

That principle is proposed for abolition, not expansion, abolition; to be replaced by a completely different way of organising human relations, replaced by a conception of "marriage" which is truly nothing other than sexual romantic companionship or domestic partnership. A conception that can make no sense - believe me brothers and sisters, I have had the challenge out there to our friends on the other side of this issue now for ten years - they can make no sense of the norms up exclusivity and fidelity; the idea that marriage is the union of two persons not three or four or five or more in polyamorous sexual partnerships.  

They can make no sense in the idea of marriage as a permanent union, as opposed to a temporary alliance for a two-year term or five-year term as now is being proposed in Mexico City. Renewable. Well that's nice. Or "for as long as love lasts" as the hippie weddings used to have it in them in the sixties.  

None of these structuring principles and norms of marriage can make any sense once the idea of marriage is a conjugal union - a one-flesh union - is jettisoned in favour of the alternative conception marriage as domestic partnership or mere sexual romantic companionship. 

And then of course, the great foundational principle of religious liberty for which the entire Christian community and the world owes a great debt to you Baptists, and to the Baptist tradition. You were there first, way before many of our other traditions. We got there, but with your good leadership and example. And to say that that principle is under assault is only to report soberly what a previous speaker said to you explicitly.  

My friends, the persecution is coming. Indeed it is here.  

We see it - I speak plainly I hope I offend none, but I take the risk - of the Health and Human Services Mandates imposing obligations on employers with the narrowest of exceptions on employers - even religious employers, Catholic hospitals, Evangelical colleges and universities - to provide insurance coverage for services or products which they cannot in good conscience, in Christian conscience, accept. Giving them the choice of following God or Caesar, demanding that they render unto Caesar that which is God's.  

We see it now increasingly with respect to the marriage issue. Wedding photographers, Christian wedding photographers, Mennonite owners of catering services, people who supply flowers for wedding events brought under prosecution, subjected to civil liability because they cannot in good conscience participate in the blessing of unions that, on a Christian view, cannot be judged other than to be immoral.  

And yet again, we see increasingly the tide turning against conscience and in favour of the imposition by political power on the conscience of the believer. We look abroad. It was kindly mentioned Philip that I was sworn in yesterday by Chief Justice Roberts on Harriet Tubman's Bible, let me add, as the new Chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; an office I'm very proud to hold, but I hold it in fear and trembling because I look around the world and I see the viciousness of persecution from North Korea to China to Iran, throughout the Middle East, Africa, Cuba, Venezuela. Increasingly, we see things that worry us deeply even in the democratic countries in Western Europe. Anti-Semitism again on the rise. Secularism aggressively pushing religion out of the public and into the private domain, as if religion were a purely private activity legitimately pressed by government into the narrow confines of the home or the church or the mosque or the synagogue.  

So we have a big challenge, both internationally and domestically, to religious freedom; a challenge that, it's the duty of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission to exercise leadership in. We need that leadership. We had it in Dr Land, we will have it in Dr Moore.  

These are not fights that we Christians can afford to fight alone. This cannot be simply an Evangelical battle, or even more narrowly, a Baptist battle. We need to unite across the lines of historic theological division both within the Christian world and beyond. We need Baptists and we need Catholics. We need Eastern Orthodox Christians. We need Latter-Day Saints. We need Orthodox and observant Jews. We need those members in the Muslim community - and they exist - who will stand with us for religious liberty, for the sanctity of human life, for marriage as the union of husband and wife. 

We need to be prepared in giving our Christian witness to stand arm-in-arm with them. It's our duty to engage the culture.  

As a Lutheran pastor recently said in a wonderful homily that I had the occasion to listen to, Jesus doesn't need any more secret agents. He's got enough of them. He needs bold witnesses. And Christians should be in the forefront - not alone - but in the forefront, of giving that bold witness to these foundational principles. And of course that's going to mean sacrifice. That means that we will place at risk all that we have - the status, the prestige, the standing in the eyes of the world, the opportunities for career advancement, sometimes for career advancement in politics. Some will put their businesses at risk. Recently a photographer couple went out of business - their own little small business - because they were forced out. They couldn't stay in business and remain faithful to their Christian conscience.  

So we need leaders. We need leaders who will set the example of courage. As the previous speaker said, we need giant killers. 

And thank God that God has raised up a man like Russell Moore at this time and placed him in the position of leadership that he now holds. But we cannot be mere followers of Russell or of anyone else. Each of us in this room needs to be a leader in defending the foundational principles our faith, of our polity and of our civilisation. No, not all of us are called on to be full time as Russell will be. But all of us are called not merely to follow but to lead.  

Let's exemplify that in the community. Let's live that life that we're called to live by Jesus. Let's cling to Jesus, as I know Russell will cling to Jesus, as we go forward. Not as mere followers, but as leaders, each and every one.

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.

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.