(This article was written in July 2007. It is posted here because of interest arising from current events.)
Caught in the Middle: Homosexuality
Amendments to the Penal Code will soon to be debated in the Singapore Parliament. This includes Section 377A, which deals with ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’.This section criminalises homosexual acts. Many pro-gay groups are taking this opportunity to lobby for homosexual acts to be decriminalised. This has lead to widely publicised comments from journalists, MPs, Ministers and a former Bishop of the Methodist Church who openly declared their support for homosexuality and homosexual acts.
The Minister Mentor has been quoted as saying, ‘homosexuals are mostly born that way’. A senior journalist wrote, ‘Two factors would favour homosexuals in the long run: One, the growing evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. And two, the growing cosmopolitanism of Singapore….homophobia renders Singapore a less attractive place to the talented and creative, both local and foreign…There is a reason why some of the most creative cities in the world - San Francisco, Boston and London - are also among the most accepting of gays.’1
These assumptions are widely embraced, especially by youths. The Singapore Polytechnic survey involving 800 people between 15-29 years old reported that 44% of male respondents and 57% of female respondents found homosexuality acceptable. Unfortunately these views are not limited to unbelievers. There is a homosexual ‘christian’ group in Singapore contradicting the evangelical Christian view. The former Methodist Bishop is an honorary pastoral advisor to the group. We are caught in the middle!
Is homosexuality a sin?
The biblical basis for rejection of homosexual acts can be found in the following scripture passages: Gen1: 27-28 describes God’s design for humankind – male and female. Gen19 described the homosexual perversion and destruction of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lev18: 22 and 20:13 record God’s injunction against homosexual acts. Rom 1:26-27 described homosexuality as a manifestation of God’s wrath as the result of man’s rejection of God and God’s abandonment of man to their own devices. In 1Cor 6:9 Paul described homosexual offenders (Gk: arsenokoitai - arsen = male, koite = bed, i.e ‘a male bedding a male’) as one of those who are wicked and will not inherit the kingdom of God. In 1 Tim 1:10 arsenokoitai (translated homosexuals in NASB and perverts in NIV) is described as the antithesis of a righteous person.
Homosexual acts are condemned in the scripture (as are adultery, fornication and other sexual immoralities). Hence, Christians cannot support groups that condone or seek to promote this behaviour in the name of tolerance or progress. However, we do not despise the homosexual person. Jesus included into his sphere of friends, prostitutes and tax collectors. The church necessarily must extend her love to the homosexuals so that they may turn away from the sin of homosexual behaviour.
Is homosexuality genetic/biologically determined?
Proponents of this theory imply that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and they have no choice in their sexual orientation and change is not possible and should not be pursued. This impression popularized by the media can’t be further from the truth. Science is politicised for a homosexual agenda.2
The fact is that homosexuality is influenced by genes as much as playing basketball is. If you have a height gene that makes you tall, you may make a good basketball player but the gene does not turn you into a basketball player. You can choose to play volleyball. Genes are but a facilitating factor, interacting with other psychological, social and environmental factors, that ‘opens the door’ for some into homosexuality. A boy born with a sensitive temperament and a less athletic physique, subjected to peer isolation, a dominant maternal figure, an absent or abusive paternal figure may develop homosexual orientation. This effect is different from proclaiming that homosexuality is genetic in the way genes affect our inheritance of black instead of blonde hair and brown instead of blue eyes.
Homosexual orientation can be treated and corrected.3 Homosexual act is a choice, just like adultery and fornication for the heterosexuals. Our genes don’t make us do it.
How should we response?
We need to view the issue of homosexual orientation seriously and with compassion. During a small group prayer meeting in my university days, a brother requested prayer because he was struggling with ‘an affinity for someone of the same sex’. I was thrown off. I don’t think any of us in the group took him seriously. “He was such a devout Christian. He will get over it.” I thought. I chanced upon this brother two weeks ago after about 15 years. I praise God that he is still in church and although our conversation was brief I sense that he still has the struggle. Few of us know how to minister to such a person because we fail to appreciate their struggle.
We need to prevent homosexuality. No one is born gay. Experts believe there are early signs of a pre-homosexual child and intervention will prevent the inclination.4
We must not allow our society to evolve into one where homosexual behaviour is endorsed, encouraged and promoted as an acceptable lifestyle. We do this by first educating ourselves, our children and our church.
We need to pray for our leaders, our country, our community, our children.
Reference:
1. Janadas Devan. Can mum, mum and kid make a family? 7 July 2007, Straits Times.
2. W Byne, E Stein. Ethical Implications of Scientific Research on Causes of Sexual Orientation. Health Care Anal. 1997; 5:136
3. R Spitzer. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from
Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation. Arch Sex Behav 2003; 32:403
4. J Nicolosi, Linda A Nicolosi. Preventing Homosexuality. IVP
Monday, May 4, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Christians and Socio-Political Engagement
(This article was written on 30 Nov 2004. I have posted it here as a reflection on the current event which calls for how Christians engage a secular society)
Religion and Politics
The result of the recent US presidential election has prompted discussions on “mixing religion with politics.”1,2 The general opinion was that President Bush was reelected because of votes from evangelical Christians who supported his stand against issues of abortion, gay marriages, stem cell research and human cloning. Chua Mui Hoong1, a senior political correspondent with Straits Times, cautioned whether “religious lobby in Singapore (will) one day amass electoral clout (as it had happened in US).” She cited a negative example of how a Singapore Christian group started an online campaign urging Christians to lobby their MPs against gay lifestyle with charged language, “The battle lines are now drawn and it is time for the Church in Singapore to rise up and make a stand.” She concluded by stating, “religious groups can focus on keeping their own house in order (discourage fellow believers from doing something considered immoral), and not throw stones at the houses of others (prevent others from doing something you consider immoral, but which they think is fine).” Guwe2 appositely showed that Chua failed to recognize that some (not all) public issues are religious-moral issues and hence it is inevitable that religious-moral values feature on such public policy decisions.
Christians are to function as the conscience of the society. How can we do this effectively? To what extent should we pursue this role without rousing negative sentiments in a pluralistic society? There are no short or simple answers. Three principles have been helpful in my approach to the subject.
Firstly, the primary role of the Church is to fulfill the Great Commission. Article 6 of the Lausanne Covenant3 states, “We affirm that Christ sends his redeemed people into the world as the Father sent him, and that this calls for a similar deep and costly penetration of the world. We need to break out of our ecclesiastical ghettos and permeate non-Christian society. In the Church's mission of sacrificial service evangelism is primary.”
The Church is not a political party. Politics is the science of government and deal with public policies and legislations. In this sense it is a job for the professionals who have the expertise, training and skills. “Politics is not the church’s first calling. Evangelism,…discipleship, fellowship, teaching the Word…are the heartbeat of the church. When it addresses political issues, the church must not do so at the risk of weakening its primary mission.”4 When the Church gets involved in socio-political issues, she must remember that “evangelism is the major instrument of social change, for the gospel changes people and changed people can change society… evangelism takes primacy…”5
Secondly, we need to affirm our social responsibilities. This is eloquently described in article 5 of the Lausanne Covenant, “We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society… we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ…and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist. When people receive Christ, they are born again into His kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world. The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead.”
On a broader sense, politics denotes life of the city (polis) and the responsibilities of citizens (politēs), the art of living together in a community. In this broader sense, all Christians are involved in politics. 1 Peter 2:13-17 instructs us to “submit to the authority instituted among men” (abide by the law of the land), “commend those who do right” (you chose your leaders), “do good and live as servants of God” (social concern and social justice), “show proper respect to everyone” (civility in a pluralistic society).
Christians have a role in social service - relieving human need, works of mercy, etc. However, Christian social concern may oblige us to socio-political action. Some needs or structural evil cannot be relieved without political action and legislations. “If travellers on the Jerusalem-Jericho road were habitually beaten up, and habitually cared for by Good Samaritans, the need for better laws to eliminate armed robbery might well be overlooked. If road accidents keep occurring at a particular crossroads, it is not more ambulances that are needed but the installation of traffic lights to prevent accidents. It is always good to feed the hungry; it is better, if possible, to eradicate the causes of hunger. So if we truly love our neighbours, and want to serve them, our service may oblige us to take (or solicit) political actions on their behalf.” 6
Thirdly, Christians need to use persuasion rather than imposition for moral leadership. Satanizing non-believers, dogmatic pronouncements and using “charged language” are sure ways of losing all credibility in a society where we are a minority. We need to argue our case on its merits and hold our case with more reasons than just “the Bible say so.” John Stott succinctly puts it, “In evangelism, we should never try to force people to believe the gospel, nor remain silent as if we were indifferent to their response, nor rely exclusively on dogmatic proclamation of biblical texts…, but rather like the apostles, reason with people from both nature and Scripture, commending God’s gospel to them by rational arguments. In social action, similarly, we should neither try to impose Christian standards by force on an unwilling public, nor remain silent and inactive before contemporary landslide, nor rely exclusively on dogmatic assertions of biblical values, but rather reason with people about the benefits of Christian morality, commending God’s law to them by rational arguments.”7 Civility should characterize our approach to these issues.8 “Make every effort to live in peace with all men….” (Heb12:14) “When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly.” (I Cor:12-13).
In some circles, this is a taboo subject. However as Christians and citizens of the world, this is a subject we cannot avoid. We discount it to the Church’s peril. Church history and current events attest to this. This is not an exhaustive treatise and I am no expert on the subject. My aim is but to remind ourselves that Christians need to constantly seek to understand our role and how we fulfill this role in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society.
References
1. Chua Mui Hoong, “Beware of mixing religion and politics” in Straits Times Nov 5, 2004
2. Guwe Miauw Khoon, “US political issues were also religious ones” in Straits Times Nov 23, 2004
3. Lausanne Covenant. A declaration agreed upon by Christian leaders from more than 150 countries during the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland that was called by a committee headed by Rev Billy Graham to promote intentional world evangelization.
4. Charles Colson, Kingdoms in conflict, pg 290
5. John Stott, Issues facing Christians today, pg 12
6. John Stott, Involvement: Being a responsible Christian in a Non-Christian Society, pg104-5
7. John Stott, Issues facing Christians today, pg 52
8. Richard J Mouw, Uncommon decency: Christian civility in an uncivil world
Religion and Politics
The result of the recent US presidential election has prompted discussions on “mixing religion with politics.”1,2 The general opinion was that President Bush was reelected because of votes from evangelical Christians who supported his stand against issues of abortion, gay marriages, stem cell research and human cloning. Chua Mui Hoong1, a senior political correspondent with Straits Times, cautioned whether “religious lobby in Singapore (will) one day amass electoral clout (as it had happened in US).” She cited a negative example of how a Singapore Christian group started an online campaign urging Christians to lobby their MPs against gay lifestyle with charged language, “The battle lines are now drawn and it is time for the Church in Singapore to rise up and make a stand.” She concluded by stating, “religious groups can focus on keeping their own house in order (discourage fellow believers from doing something considered immoral), and not throw stones at the houses of others (prevent others from doing something you consider immoral, but which they think is fine).” Guwe2 appositely showed that Chua failed to recognize that some (not all) public issues are religious-moral issues and hence it is inevitable that religious-moral values feature on such public policy decisions.
Christians are to function as the conscience of the society. How can we do this effectively? To what extent should we pursue this role without rousing negative sentiments in a pluralistic society? There are no short or simple answers. Three principles have been helpful in my approach to the subject.
Firstly, the primary role of the Church is to fulfill the Great Commission. Article 6 of the Lausanne Covenant3 states, “We affirm that Christ sends his redeemed people into the world as the Father sent him, and that this calls for a similar deep and costly penetration of the world. We need to break out of our ecclesiastical ghettos and permeate non-Christian society. In the Church's mission of sacrificial service evangelism is primary.”
The Church is not a political party. Politics is the science of government and deal with public policies and legislations. In this sense it is a job for the professionals who have the expertise, training and skills. “Politics is not the church’s first calling. Evangelism,…discipleship, fellowship, teaching the Word…are the heartbeat of the church. When it addresses political issues, the church must not do so at the risk of weakening its primary mission.”4 When the Church gets involved in socio-political issues, she must remember that “evangelism is the major instrument of social change, for the gospel changes people and changed people can change society… evangelism takes primacy…”5
Secondly, we need to affirm our social responsibilities. This is eloquently described in article 5 of the Lausanne Covenant, “We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society… we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ…and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist. When people receive Christ, they are born again into His kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world. The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead.”
On a broader sense, politics denotes life of the city (polis) and the responsibilities of citizens (politēs), the art of living together in a community. In this broader sense, all Christians are involved in politics. 1 Peter 2:13-17 instructs us to “submit to the authority instituted among men” (abide by the law of the land), “commend those who do right” (you chose your leaders), “do good and live as servants of God” (social concern and social justice), “show proper respect to everyone” (civility in a pluralistic society).
Christians have a role in social service - relieving human need, works of mercy, etc. However, Christian social concern may oblige us to socio-political action. Some needs or structural evil cannot be relieved without political action and legislations. “If travellers on the Jerusalem-Jericho road were habitually beaten up, and habitually cared for by Good Samaritans, the need for better laws to eliminate armed robbery might well be overlooked. If road accidents keep occurring at a particular crossroads, it is not more ambulances that are needed but the installation of traffic lights to prevent accidents. It is always good to feed the hungry; it is better, if possible, to eradicate the causes of hunger. So if we truly love our neighbours, and want to serve them, our service may oblige us to take (or solicit) political actions on their behalf.” 6
Thirdly, Christians need to use persuasion rather than imposition for moral leadership. Satanizing non-believers, dogmatic pronouncements and using “charged language” are sure ways of losing all credibility in a society where we are a minority. We need to argue our case on its merits and hold our case with more reasons than just “the Bible say so.” John Stott succinctly puts it, “In evangelism, we should never try to force people to believe the gospel, nor remain silent as if we were indifferent to their response, nor rely exclusively on dogmatic proclamation of biblical texts…, but rather like the apostles, reason with people from both nature and Scripture, commending God’s gospel to them by rational arguments. In social action, similarly, we should neither try to impose Christian standards by force on an unwilling public, nor remain silent and inactive before contemporary landslide, nor rely exclusively on dogmatic assertions of biblical values, but rather reason with people about the benefits of Christian morality, commending God’s law to them by rational arguments.”7 Civility should characterize our approach to these issues.8 “Make every effort to live in peace with all men….” (Heb12:14) “When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly.” (I Cor:12-13).
In some circles, this is a taboo subject. However as Christians and citizens of the world, this is a subject we cannot avoid. We discount it to the Church’s peril. Church history and current events attest to this. This is not an exhaustive treatise and I am no expert on the subject. My aim is but to remind ourselves that Christians need to constantly seek to understand our role and how we fulfill this role in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society.
References
1. Chua Mui Hoong, “Beware of mixing religion and politics” in Straits Times Nov 5, 2004
2. Guwe Miauw Khoon, “US political issues were also religious ones” in Straits Times Nov 23, 2004
3. Lausanne Covenant. A declaration agreed upon by Christian leaders from more than 150 countries during the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland that was called by a committee headed by Rev Billy Graham to promote intentional world evangelization.
4. Charles Colson, Kingdoms in conflict, pg 290
5. John Stott, Issues facing Christians today, pg 12
6. John Stott, Involvement: Being a responsible Christian in a Non-Christian Society, pg104-5
7. John Stott, Issues facing Christians today, pg 52
8. Richard J Mouw, Uncommon decency: Christian civility in an uncivil world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)