"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.