Is Isaiah Welcome in Singapore?

Truly you are a God who hides himself,
O God and Savior of Israel.
All the makers of idols will be put to shame and disgraced;
they will go off in disgrace together.
But Israel will be saved by the Lord
with an everlasting salvation;
you will never be put to shame or disgraced
to ages everlasting.

(Isaiah 45:15-17)

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), has rejected recent Miscellaneous Work Pass (MWP) applications for two foreign Christian preachers to speak in Singapore. In a statement released by MHA on 8 September 2017, it was said that "both preachers had made denigrating and inflammatory comments of other religions."

 

MHA said in its statement:

3         One of the preachers had described Allah as "a false god", asked for prayers for those "held captive in the darkness of Islam", and referred to Buddhists as "Tohuw people" (a Hebrew word for "lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren" individuals) who can be saved only by converting to Christianity.  The other preacher had variously referred to "the evils of Islam" and "the malevolent nature of Islam and Mohammed", and called Islam "not a religion of peace", "an incredibly confused religion", interested in "world domination" and "a religion based on… adhering to uncompromising and cruel laws often focused on warfare and virtual slavery".   

 

In a letter to member churches dated 11 September 2017, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) took the opportunity to advise member churches "to exercise due diligence and careful discernment when inviting foreign guest preachers to minister in their congregations". It added that this was to "preserve the harmonious religious environment that currently exists in our nation, which allows Christians to fulfil their dual role of seeking the welfare of the city and sharing the good news based on our faith."

 

The letter continued:

In a multi-religious society with a secular government, the norms of engagement that make for peace and a nation's well-being require that all the different faiths be responsible in the freedom each has been given to practice and propagate their respective beliefs. In keeping with this, the language of discourse when relating to other faiths must always be respectful and winsome. Our speech should always be "gracious and seasoned with salt" (Col 4:6). The preaching and teaching over pulpits must exemplify and be consistent with this. We are not to denigrate another religion or act in ways that jeopardize the religious harmony in our society. This harmony is both rare and precious in times marked not only be a heightening of contention between nations but also contention within a nation itself.

It is without a doubt that our call as Christians is to speak the truth in love. In a verse cited also by NCCS in its letter, the Bible teaches us "in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).

However, the question comes at the level of application. In this, let us consider one "foreign preacher", the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah was the son of Amoz, who prophesied during the reigns of the kings of Judah Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Some of these kings were righteous, while some were not.

Many would be familiar with his messianic prophecy, "he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him" (Isaiah 53:5), a verse quoted in Matthew 8:17.

Nevertheless, his prophecies not only spoke of the Messiah and the salvation of Israel, but also condemned the wickedness and idolatry around him.
 

In Isaiah 44, the prophet Isaiah criticised idols and those who make them. "All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless," Isaiah speaks on behalf of the Lord, "Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their shame." (Isaiah 44:9)

 

Isaiah tells of a man who uses half of his wood to make a fire over which to bake bread, and the other half to fashion an idol for worship:

From the rest he makes a god, his idol;

he bows down to it and worships,

He prays to it and says,

"Save me; you are my god."

They know nothing, they understand nothing;

their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,

and their minds closed so they cannot understand.  

(Isaiah 44:17-18)

Later on, Isaiah issues a call to the "fugitives from the nations", calling them to gather and assemble, and to acknowledge the God of Israel as the one true God. Speaking on behalf of the Lord, he declares, "and there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me." (Isaiah 45:21b)

 

One would struggle to distinguish the substance and tone of language in Isaiah's prophecies from the statements of the two Christian preachers that had been complained of by the Singapore Government, which leaves us with some questions.

 

Would Isaiah be accused of "denigrating" the religions of others or jeopardising religious harmony?

 

Going by the standards of the Singapore Government, would this "foreign preacher" Isaiah be welcome in Singapore, if he applied for an MWP?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The distinction between the Church and the political community

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

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

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

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

2. Freedom with respect to the State

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of religion 

15.—...

(3)  Every religious group has the right —

(a) to manage its own religious affairs; 

...

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

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

Faith Community Baptist Church Adultery Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Kingdoms: A Lutheran perspective on religion and politics in Singapore

Slogans like "Separation of Church and State!", "Keep your religion out of politics!" or "Don't impose your religion on me!" are the common refrain when discussing controversial moral issues like abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, same-sex unions and issues relating to the proper role of religion in public life. It is almost impossible nowadays to engage in debates over such issues without having to deal with objections like these, from both Christians and non-Christians alike.

As is obvious from the language, "Separation of Church and State" emerged from a distinctly Christian background. This is perhaps why such ideas are quite alien to majority-Muslim countries like Iran. 

The distinction between the secular and sacred arose prominently during the time of the Protestant Reformation, due to various abuses of the Roman Catholic Church at that time. The Reformation was catalysed when the German monk Martin Luther wrote his Ninety-five Theses in 1517 and nailed it to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg.

Martin Luther questioned the secular authority of the Roman Catholic Church on many occasions. One treatise in particular, "Secular Authority: To what extent it should be obeyed", published in 1523, laid down a general theory of secular government, which is widely referred to as the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. 

Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms: Render unto God and Render unto Caesar

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)

On the basis of Jesus' teachings, Martin Luther explained that there are Two Kingdoms which God has ordained: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World. God's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, which He rules through His Gospel, "to produce piety", while the secular world He rules through His Law, "to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds". Both must be sharply distinguished and permitted to remain, and "neither is sufficient in the world without the other".

There are several important implications that flow from this.

First, freedom of religion. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is perhaps one of Martin Luther's greatest legacies. Yet the implications of the emphasis on faith reach further and wider than mere personal salvation. By emphasising that the essence of religion is faith, which is governed by the Gospel, it means that no worldly authority should presume to judge faith. Luther wrote:

Besides, we can understand how any authority shall and may act only where it can see, know, judge, change and convert. For what kind of judge would he be who should blindly judge matters which he neither heard nor saw? Tell me, how can a man see, know, judge, condemn and change hearts? This is reserved for God alone, as Psalm 7[:9] says, “God trieth the heart and reins”; likewise “The Lord shall judge the people” [Psalm 7:8]; and Acts 15[:8], “God knoweth the hearts”; and Jeremiah 17[:9f], “Wicked and unsearchable is the human heart; who can know it? I the Lord, who search the heart and reins.” A court ought and must be quite certain and clear about everything, if it is to pass sentence. But the thoughts and intents of the heart can be known to no one but God; therefore it is useless and impossible to command or compel anyone by force to believe one thing or another. It must be taken hold of in a different way; force cannot accomplish it. And I am surprised at the great fools, since they themselves all say, De occultis non judicat ecclesia – the Church does not judge secret things. If the spiritual rule of Church governs only public matters, how dare the senseless secular power judge and control such a secret, spiritual, hidden matter as faith?

Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see to it for himself that he believes rightly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me, so little can he believe or disbelieve for me; and as little as he can open or shut heaven or hell for me, so little can he drive me to faith or unbelief. Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of every one’s conscience, and since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force. For faith is a free work, to which no one can be forced. Nay, it is divine work, done in the Spirit, certainly not a matter which outward authority should compel or create. Hence arises the well-known saying, found also in Augustine, “No one can or ought be constrained to believe.”

Heresy was not to be prevented by force, because heresy is "a spiritual matter, which no iron can strike, no fire burn, no water drown". The use of force will only strengthen the heresy. Citing 2 Corinthians 10:4, Luther added, "God's Word alone avails here", because God's Word "enlightens the hearts; and so all heresies and errors perish of themselves from the heart."

Second, the Church should focus on preaching the Gospel. Among the criticisms that Martin Luther lodged against the Pope, bishops and priests was the criticism of their excessive interference with temporal affairs like life and property and their failure to preach the Gospel:

For my ungracious lords, the pope and the bishops, should be bishops and preach God’s word; this they leave undone and are become temporal princes, and govern with laws which concern only life and property. How thoroughly they have turned things upside down! Inwardly they ought to be ruling souls by God’s Word; hence outwardly they rule castles, cities, lands, and people and torture souls with unspeakable outrages.

He explains that their role is to focus on God's Word:

What, then, are the priests and bishops? I answer, their government is not one of authority or power, but a service and an office; they are neither higher nor better than other Christians. Therefore they should not impose any law or decree on others without their will and consent; their rule consists in nothing else than in dealing with God’s Word, leading Christians by it and overcoming heresy by its means. For, as was said, Christians can be ruled by nothing but by God’s Word. For Christians must be ruled in faith, not by outward works. Faith, however, can come through no word of man, but only through the Word of God, as Paul says in Romans 10[:17], “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”

Third, the State should focus on governing temporal matters like life and property. Martin Luther taught:

Worldly government has laws which extend no farther than to life and property and what is external on earth. For God can and will let no one rule but Himself. Therefore, where temporal power presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads and destroys souls.

Just as Luther criticised the religious authorities for their interference with temporal laws, he likewise criticised the princes for their attempt to exert spiritual authority, and then blaming the Gospel when they fail:

Similarly, the temporal lords should rule land and people outwardly; this they do not do. All they can do is to flay and scrape, put tax on tax, tribute on tribute, let loose now a bear, now a wolf. Besides this, there is no justice, fidelity, or truth to be found among them; what they would be beneath robbers and knaves, and their temporal rule has sunk quite as low as that of the spiritual tyrants. Hence God also perverts their minds, that they rush on into their senselessness and would establish a spiritual rule over souls, as the others would establish a temporal rule, in order that they may contentedly burden themselves with alien sins, and with God’s and all men’s hate, until they go under with bishops, priests and monks, one knave with the other. Then they lay all the blame on the Gospel, and instead of doing penance, blaspheme God and say that our preaching has brought about what their perverse wickedness has merited and still unceasingly merits, as the Romans did when they were destroyed.

Fourth, peaceful conscientious objection. At the time of writing, the princes had issued an order demanding that copies of the New Testament be delivered to the courts everywhere in order that they may be destroyed. Luther counselled peaceful civil disobedience:

... St. Peter says, Acts 5[:29], “We must obey God rather than men”. Thereby he clearly sets a limit to worldly government, for if we had to do all that worldly government demands it would be to no purpose to say, “We must obey God rather than men.”

If then your prince or temporal lord commands you to hold with the pope, to believe this or that, or commands you to give up certain books, you should say, “It does not befit Lucifer to sit by the side of God. Dear lord, I owe you obedience with life and goods; command me within the limits of your power on earth, and I will obey. But if you command me to believe, and to put away books, I will not obey; for in this case you are a tyrant and overreach yourself, and command where you have neither right nor power, etc.” Should he take your property for this, and punish such disobedience, blessed are you. Thank God that you are worthy to suffer for the sake of the divine Word, and let him rave, fool that he is [1 Pet. 4:14, 16; Acts 5:41]. He will meet his judge. For I tell you, if you do not resist him but give him his way, and let him take your faith or your books, you have really denied God.

... [If] their houses are ordered searched and books or goods taken by force, they should suffer it to be done. Outrage is not to be resisted, but endured, yet they should not sanction it, nor serve or obey or follow by moving foot or finger...

Fifth, the doctrine of vocation. Are Christians then supposed to exclude themselves from the world and be aloof of all kinds of temporal affairs, such as politics? Not at all! The entire treatise, "Secular Authority: To what extent it should be obeyed", is intensely concerned with issues of governance, namely, the proper role of secular authority. God appoints secular government to rule the worldly kingdom through His Law, even though they may err, as they obviously did during Luther's time. Martin Luther devoted one-third of his treatise, Part Three, to counselling his recipient, John, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, "what the attitude of his heart and mind ought to be with respect to all laws, counsels, decisions and actions, so that if he govern himself thereby God will surely grant him the power to carry out all laws, counsels and actions in a proper and godly way." Furthermore, Martin Luther exhorted Christians to be involved in serving the State, because it is established by God (Romans 13:1):

Therefore you should cherish the sword or the government, even as the state of matrimony, or husbandry, or any other handiwork which God has instituted. As a man can serve God in the state of matrimony, in husbandry, or at a trade, for the benefit of his fellow man, and must serve Him if necessity demand; just so he can also serve God in the State and should serve Him there, if the necessities of his neighbour demand it; for the State is God’s servant and workman to punish the evil and protect the good. Still it may also be omitted if there is no need for it, just as men are free not to marry and not to farm if there should be no need of marrying and farming.

The overriding purpose is love for one's neighbour:

If the State and its sword are a divine service, as was proved above, that which the State needs in order to wield the sword must also be a divine service. There must be those who arrest, accuse, slay and destroy the wicked, and protect, acquit, defend and save the good. Therefore, when such duties are performed, not with the intention of seeking one’s own ends, but only of helping to maintain the laws and the State, so that the wicked may be restrained, there is no peril in them and they may be followed like any other pursuit and be used as one’s means of support. For, as was said, love of neighbour seeks not its own, considers not how great or how small, but how profitable and how needful for neighbour or community the works are [1 Cor. 13:5].

Bishops and priests are not to be involved in temporal matters because it is not their vocation. Secular government is not to be involved in preaching the Gospel because that is not its vocation. But each individual Christian should uphold both Law and Gospel in his or her vocation, as an act of love.

Though Luther's life and other subsequent practices were not entirely ideal, this does not undermine his discussion of secular authority. Indeed, it is difficult to understate the impact of Luther's thought, as well as similar lines of thought of other Reformers like John Calvin. Much has been written about the influence of Protestant thought on the American model of Church and State. Likewise, the Catholic Church has since changed its position on Church and State after the Second Vatican Council, adopting a model which separates Church and State quite similar to Luther's vision (see Dignitatis Humanae and the Note on the Catholic Church’s freedom and institutional autonomy).

Religion and Politics in Singapore

What about the constitutional framework in Singapore? To what extent is it compatible with Biblical teachings?

The Singapore framework is largely compatible with Biblical teachings on Church and State, although there may be dissonance where the finer details are concerned.

Freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right in Singapore. Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees this right not only to individuals, but also religious groups:

Freedom of religion

15.—(1)  Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.

(2)  No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

(3)  Every religious group has the right —

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

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

As may be seen from Article 15(4), freedom of religion cannot be used as an excuse to violate "public order, public health or morality". Hence, for example, human sacrifice is punishable as homicide.

Non-interference of religious groups with politics. The Singapore government enjoins religious groups in Singapore to refrain from promoting any political cause. As the government stated in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony White Paper (Cmd. 21 of 1989):

19.     The social fabric of Singapore will also be threatened if religious groups venture into politics, or if political parties use religious sentiments to garner popular support... [If] one religious group does this, others must inevitably follow. Political parties will then also become involved, advocating or implementing policies favouring one religion or another. They may be cultivated by religious groups, who can deliver votes in exchange for political influence. Whichever way it occurs, the end result will again be conflict between religions, this time added to political instability and factional strife.

20.    This is why religious leaders and members of religious groups should refrain from promoting any political party or cause under the cloak of religion. The leaders should not incite their faithful to defy, challenge or actively oppose secular Government policies, much less mobilise their followers or their organisations for subversive purposes.

Under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A, 2001 Rev. Ed. Sing.), religious leaders may be restrained from making statements on various matters if they are seen to be mixing a toxic brand of religion and politics.

Non-interference of government with religious affairs. The right of every religious group to manage its own religious affairs is a protected right under Article 15(3)(a). The government only restricts religious freedom on the basis of "public order, public health or morality" under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Therefore, in 1996, then-Minister for Home Affairs, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, explained that three religious groups had been banned in Singapore, because their activities were "prejudicial to public welfare and good order". He explained:

[In] the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the group, for example, claims a neutral position in war time. Therefore, this led to a number of its believers in National Service refusing to perform any military duties; some, in fact, refused to wear uniform.

In the case of the Christian Conference of Asia, the group professed to be a religious organisation but was in actual fact an organisation involved in politics. It encouraged inter-faith dialogues for political ends and involvement of religious organisations in politics.

In the case of the Moonies, the group brainwashed families and broke them up, and members gave up their possessions to the Church.

Conscientious objection. Conscientious objection exists under certain laws in Singapore, especially when there are serious moral and ethical issues involved. For example, under the Termination of Pregnancy Act (Cap. 324, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.), a doctor, nurse or midwife would not be under any obligation to participate in an abortion if he or she has a conscientious objection to abortion. On the other hand, no conscientious objection is allowed for National Service (Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor [1994] 3 SLR(R) 209). Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses can be sentenced to detention for objecting to military service in Singapore. 

Our vocation as citizens. According to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony White Paper (Cmd. 21 of 1989), "[members] of religious groups may, of course, participate in the democratic process as individual citizens", as long as they do not do so as leaders of their religious constituency. In a democratic society, every citizen, regardless of religion, has the right to free speech and freedom of religion under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution respectively. Therefore, all are generally free to express their political views. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said during the 2009 National Day Rally:

You might ask: Does this mean that religious groups have no views and cannot have views on national issues? Or that religious individuals cannot participate in politics? Obviously not. Because religious groups are free to propagate their teachings on social and moral issues and they have done so on the IRs, on organ transplants, on 377A, homosexuality. And obviously many Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhist participate in politics.

In Parliament, we have people of all faiths and in Cabinet too. And when people who have a religion approach a national issue, they will often have views which are informed by their religious beliefs.  It is natural because it is part of you, it is part of your individual, your personality. But you must accept that other groups may have different views, informed by different beliefs and you have to accept that and respect that. And the public debate cannot be on whose religion is right and whose religion is wrong. It has to be on secular rational considerations, public interests - what makes sense for Singapore.

As usual, the Christian should constantly be guarded against any kind of confusion between secular government and God's Kingdom. The Singapore government is not perfect, nor should we think it will ever be. No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18). In the event secular government exceeds the proper limits of its authority, "[we] must obey God rather than men" (Act 5:29).

Conclusion

Secular government, as well as the prevailing culture of the time, is not to be confused with God's Kingdom, and neither is God's Kingdom to be confused with secular government. The Christian must always be conscious of the fact that he or she is in, but not of, this world. Jesus said:

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

Thus, the Christian is to be keenly realistic, recognising the fact of a fallen world, and keeping oneself pure instead of blindly following the latest popular fashions or trends. Nevertheless, the Christian is also fully engaged in the world, speaking the Truth in Love (Ephesians 4:15). Gene Veith writes in The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals:

The notion that God has both a spiritual rule and an earthly rule, each of which He rules in different though related ways, frees Christians to be engaged in the secular realm without being swept away be secularism. The doctrine of the two kingdoms gives a blueprint for Christian activism while safeguarding against the illusions of political - or theological - utopianism. It transfigures the Christian's life in the world while safeguarding against worldliness. At one and the same time, the Christian lives in the world through vocation and lives in heaven through faith.

Churches should refrain from engaging in politics, and focus on preaching the Gospel, continually shaping the consciences of individual believers. Individual believers themselves, in turn, should uphold Law and Gospel in the context of their vocation. This applies especially in a democratic society (democracy means "rule of the people"), where the right and duty to govern society is vested in every single individual, as part of his or her vocation in the world.