Why world do you weep 
at Steve’s death,
when you appear to think nothing 
of little lives lost in lesser lands ?

Why world would you pay
hundreds for an iPhone,
when you appear to spend almost nothing
on little lives in lesser lands ?

Why world should you wail
at 56 years’ potential prematurely failed -
is it that you think nothing
of the potential of those little lives lost in lesser lands ?

(The above is not intended to diminish what Steve Jobs has accomplished in his lifetime, which is to be appropriately respected and admired).

Over lunch on Monday, a friend - a new Christian - asked why the Old Testament appeared so brutal in contrast to present day society. People were stoned to death for wrongdoing, entire cities were destroyed, and then there is the odd account here and there of really dubious relationships such as the incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters. (If sex titillates you, there are no lack of scandals in the Bible).

There was only enough time for me to give a partial answer which was that, in my opinion, the Bible does not say very much about politics or how societies ought to be organised politically.  Hence the Old Testament partly reflects the harsh realities of life as it was then; it was not and it was not intended to be a precursor to the universal declaration of human rights.  And while the first five books of the Old Testament in particular (ie. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) contain laws and instructions for the Israelite people, it does not — interestingly — go further to prescribe a system of Government.  So there were no instructions on whether to set up a democracy, monarchy or theocracy, and definitely nothing on whether a Republican- or Democrat-style Government is more ideal.

I think this is because the focus of "Government" in the Old Testament was not the person holding political power, whether that was the prophet, priest or king; it was on God.  So when the Israelites demanded a monarchy to replace the ad hoc leadership of priests and prophets in 1 Samuel 8, the offence did not lay in the demand for a change in the political system.  The offence lay in the underlying rejection of God.

"It is not you [ Samuel the prophet ] they have rejected," God tells the leader Samuel in verse 7, "but they have rejected me as king".

The Bible is not a manual on Government, and Jesus was not a politician.  The Bible is about a relationship with God.  Consistently through the Old to New Testament, I believe that the Bible is primarily about the relationship between people and God, and about God’s unconditional love for people, and in particular concern for the marginalised in society.  God’s plan was for society to be transformed from within — Christians gain a capacity to change society for the better when they have a deep and genuine understanding of God’s love for them and for others who may not believe in God — rather than from without through political systems. Such change which comes from within is abiding.

On the other hand, change which is "forced" upon society by Government policy will be more limited in duration in effect. Communism failed, not because it’s ideals were bad, but because it is impossible to force people to become good. So vices such as prostitution which were absent when severe Communist laws were strictly enforced in China, quickly returned when the laws were liberalised to encourage capitalist enterprise.

******

Singapore recently went through two elections — one for Parliament and a second one for it’s President — and the public sentiment has been that the Government needs to do more to help the lower income groups and other underprivileged.  However, the Bible does not give instructions (reduce GST and raise corporate taxes, or the reverse ?) on how to acheive specific social purposes, or the form of Government (a single dominant party Parliament ?  a two-party Parliament ?  a multi-party Parliament ?  a US-style Presidential Government ?) which would best achieve this social purpose.

What is clear to me is that the Bible’s deep concern for the underprivileged is seen in God exhorting not only kings (ie. governments), but also individuals, to act justly and with compassion.

Therefore, the challenge for Christians in Singapore (and elsewhere) goes beyond voting and pressing Government to pursue certain social objectives.  It is an individual call to examine ourselves to see if we truly understand what it means to be unconditionally loved by God, and then to demonstrate the same love to those around us to effect real and lasting change in society. We are able to love, writes John in 1 John 4 : 19, "because He first loved us".  As part of this exercise, we need to ask :

- what is our attitude towards wealth and giving ?

- what is our attitude to those who are less successful or less popular than us ?

- what is our attitude to the poor, the elderly and children ?

- what is our attitude towards other people are marginalised ?

In my self-examination, I confess to have found myself less than compassionate on, or more dismissive of, certain people and social issues than I ought to be.

******

A final and related question which intrigues me, is whether we have been internally disingenuous in expressing unhappiness at how the authorities have failed to look after the needs of poorer people in Singapore, or have acted with bias against opposition politicians, when we have happily failed or refused to exercise our "vote" as consumers against allegedly oppressive practices (or omissions) by companies like Apple, by refusing to buy their products. It was not too long ago that the contractor which manufactures Apple products — Foxconn — was embroiled in a controversy regarding the appalling work conditions in its China factories. Apple has also exercised the full extent of its patent rights — you could argue "oppressively" — to exclude Samsung smartphones from a large part of the Europe market. Despite this, we happily continue worship Apple products without a twinge of remorse, and news of Steve Jobs resignation was greeted was as much grief as Michael Jackson’s death, both of which I found disproportionately extravagant.

(For the record, I do not own any Apple products though there are several belonging to my family members at home. It is probable, nonetheless, that some of the other items which I own were manufactured in sweatshop conditions).

With the Singapore General Elections round the corner, it is time to consider once again the role of the state in creating welfare.  In this connection, this statement in the Workers’ Party 2011 Manifesto quite nicely sums up the objective of state welfare policies and programmes -

"Economic growth is meaningful only if the fruits of growth are equitably distributed; otherwise, we risk becoming an ever more divided and polarised society".

As a statement of principle, I fully agree with the above.  Chapter 3 on economic policy in which the above statement was made is, however, short on details as to how equitable distribution is to be achieved.  

I digress.

In "Generous Justice : How God’s Grace Makes Us Just" (entire chapter 1 readable here), Timothy Keller offers several views which I agree with entirely as a Christian.

The first is that "what the Bible says about social justice cannot be tied to one political system or economic system", that

"the Biblical attitute towards wealth and possesions does not fit into any of the normal categories of democratic capitalism, or of traditional monarchial feudalism, or of state socialism.  The rules for use of the land in the Bible challenge all major contemporary economic models …". 

In other words, all human systems of Government and economic policies fall short of perfect.  They can be partly effective in redistributing wealth, but never the solution in itself.

The second, which follows from the first, is that poverty is a complex phenomenon, and

"is seen in the Bible as a complex phenomenon.  Several factors are usually intertwined.  Poverty cannot be simply eliminated simply by personal initiative or by merely changing the tax structure.  Multiple factors are usually interactively present in the life of a poor family. … [ Therefore, any ] large-scale improvement of society’s level of poverty will come through a comprehensive array of public and private, spiritual, personal and corporate measures".

Finally, he reminds Christians why they should seek to eliminate poverty and the equitable distribution of wealth, and deals with a few practical issues which Christians will have to grapple with along the way.  In regard to the former, three passages in the Bible (amongst numerous others) stand out to me -

"And what does the Lord require of you ?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

"The most important [ commandment is ] … Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.  the second is this : Love your neighbour as yourself.  There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12 : 29 - 31)

"… I [ God ] 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 in prison and you visited Me. … whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me." (Matthew 25 : 31 - 46).

* Note : The title of this post is a question because I don’t want to presume that Keller’s views on poverty and the Bible, are the only right or correct views which Christians can adopt on this matter, though I very much if not fully agree with what Keller says : some previous thoughts may be found here and here.

The English High Court recently ruled that the local authority responsible for administering foster care, the Derby City Council, was not unreasonable in rejecting a traditional Christian couple’s application to be foster carers : see Johns v Derby City Council and BBC report.  In interviews with several social workers, the couple had expressed a strong religious conviction that homosexuality was wrong.  In an interview with the Fostering Panel, the couple said

"I will not lie and tell you I will say it is ok to be a homosexual.  I will love and respect, no matter what sexuality.  I cannot lie and I cannot hate, but I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be a homosexual."

The Derby City Council deemed the couple’s religious beliefs to be incompatible with the objective of providing foster care services "which value diversity and promote equality", and which ensure support for sexual health "regardless of [ a child or young person's ] sexual orientation or preference" which "should not be affected by [ an ] individual practitioner’s personal views".  The Court agreed that this was not an unreasonable conclusion to reach.

There has, not unexpectedly, been an outcry amongst conservative Christians, who see this as another case of their beliefs being unreasonably forced out of the public sphere.

To put the High Court decision in perspective (and to perhaps be naively optimistic about this entire matter), this was an administrative review.  In an administrative review, the court is not asked to decide which party is correct.  Rather, it is asked to determine whether the decision of an administrative body (such as the Derby City Council) was tainted by any illegality, irrationality (ie. unreasonableness), or breach of natural justice. 

The question before the Court in the present case was one of unreasonableness.  That is, whether the decision of Derby City Council was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it.

I think that — pardon the repeated double negatives in the text which follows — not unreasonably, the Court decided that the decision of the Derby City Council was one which was not so unreasonable, that a sensible person could not have arrived at the same decision.

However, I also think that the manner in which the City Council had gone about assessing prospective foster carers, was so insensible that if the prospective foster carers are a conservative couple, it would have elicited only responses of the type provided by the couple in this case.  This would in turn have justified rejection of such couples as foster couples.

I find it amazing that the City Council devoted so much time and resources to the issue of the couple’s views on homosexuality.  The first social worker appears to have dwelt on this issue a length over several interviews, and even asked for responses to the following hypothetical situations in relation to a young person :

- Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay
- A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation
- A young person who bullies others regarding the above
- Someone in their care whose parents are gay

The City Council thought that the couple’s response to the above hypothetical situations was not very meaningful and therefore unsatisfactory.  I think it is not very meaningful for the City Council to have spent so much time and resources on the above issues to begin with.  If the City Council had decided that they would only assign children under 8 (or at most 10) years of age to the couple, and children at that age presumably are more interested in playing with toys than "playing" with members of the same or opposite sex, then all these hypotheticals, would be hypothetical.

I wish to make a final point on political correctness, which I believe can be taken to extremes, and which was in some way taken to nonsensical extremes in this case.

In this case, the Court was also told of the severe emotional harm that a child could potentially suffer, if he or she does not receive sufficient support for his / her sexuality or doubts about his / her sexuality (and in particular, homosexuality).  Internet comments in support of the High Court decision also agreed that lack of appropriate support for a child’s sexual orientation or preference could be detrimental to his well-being.

I do not disagree with the above.  However, as the freedom of conscience and religion is protected under the European Convention, the same principle must apply in regard to children and their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).  Therefore, just as it is relevant (according to the City Council) to ask prospective foster carers about their attitudes to sexuality, it is relevant to ask prospective foster carers about their attitudes to religion. 

While the local authorities do in fact take religion into consideration, I propose going one step further.  I suggest asking prospective foster carers questions which are as broad and as insensible as the questions asked about their attitudes to sexuality.  How about -

"Do you believe in God(s) ?"

If the answer is "no", then the prospective foster carer is immediately disqualified because a child with strong religious convictions might be emotionally traumatised when placed in a household that does not profess to believe in God, or which disavows the existence of God.

If the answer is "yes", then the prospective foster carer is also immediately disqualified because a child with strong atheist convictions might be emotionally traumatised when placed in a household which professes to believe in God(s) and engages in religious practices.

If the prospective foster carer declares that his personal beliefs will not interfere with the support he would render to the child in the child’s pursuit of religion (or disinterest in God), he would still be disqualified because the child might be emotionally traumatised to witness the indifference or areligiousness of the foster carer when the child is converting from one religion to another, or when converting from religious belief to atheism (or vice versa).

In practice what the local authority would do is try and match a child from a certain religious background to a foster carer with a similar faith (or lack thereof, though this may not adequately address a situation where a child converts from one religion to another, while under the foster care)*.  However, while this is considered a reasonable approach to the issue of religion, no similar nuanced approach is seen in regard to the issue of sexuality.  If a prospective foster carer though not homophobic is unable, for religious or other reasons, to fully accept homosexuality, then no attempt is made to match him or her with young children (who have yet to struggle with questions of sexuality), or with children who are known to be heterosexual and who do not need significant support in regard to issues of homosexuality.  In view of this, may it be said that political correctness in regard to issues of sexuality, has been taken to extremes ?

* See an interesting news report on religious conversion while under foster care here.

In the thread where I wrote about about pineapple tarts, someone commended the use of "self as a point of reference instead of what other people tell you should be the point of reference".  I thought it was an issue which merited further examination.

"Using yourself as the point of reference".

That is an immensely attractive idea. Why listen to God or gods, when you can be your own ?

Now, let us take this idea - that a man should determine the rules by which he lives in his personal and absolute discretion - to its logical conclusion.

You don’t listen to any kind of authority if you don’t want to. And when you appear to be listening to a particular authority or subscribing to a particular belief system (religious or not), it is not because you believe that that authority or belief system is right. You are not aligning yourself with the authority or the belief system. Rather, what that authority or belief system says aligns with how you feel.

The only thing which restrains you are the laws enforced by society, which consequences (ie. punishment) you cannot avoid if you disobey.

Now, if a man determines the rules by which he lives in his personal and absolute discretion, in the absence of laws prohibiting certain conduct, why should he abide by what he is told about -

- incest, bestiality and necrophilia
- monogamy and adultery
- racism and genocide ?

He can just pick what he likes and discard what he does not like, or even invent his own rules !

I imagine that society would fall apart because all the rules by which we live would become personal, and no one rule would prevail over the other. When every individual is his own point of reference, everyone can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to.

You may argue that such anarchy will not result, because those who hold the majority view in society in respect of certain rules, will establish laws to uphold those rules (eg. to criminalise incest). Consequently, there will always be a minimum acceptable level of order so that society can function normally.

While that may be true, what is there to prevent the majority from adopting as law (or permitting under law), that which we now consider morally wrong or inappropriate ? For example, permitting consensual incestual relationships, or encouraging racial discrimination. Remember, there are no moral absolutes if individuals form their own points of reference. So long as a majority in society in their personal and absolute discretion feel a certain way about a rule, that rule can become law.

Now let us ask ourselves some hard questions :

Do I live with complete disregard to societal norms and beliefs, and (except where prohibited by law) pick and choose to live by only those rules which I agree with ?

If your answer to the above is "no", then my question is why religion should (again) occupy a special "status" such that, in matters of religion, the individual is the point of reference, but in matters other than religion, societal norms or other rules are the point of reference ?

If your answer to the above is "yes" - and I imagine that there would be people who would answer "yes" to such a question - then my question is whether you are prepared to live with the extremes which would result if everyone adopted the same perspective towards rules.

I was recently asked to justify my assumption that God exists : see link.  I gave a analogy using pineapple tarts in reply (reproduced below with minor edits).  I think I made some sense, though you would find better answers to this question elsewhere.

Finally, you have asked me to justify my belief that God exists. As mentioned before, I do not think that God can be "empirically shown or tested to exist". However, this does not mean that there is no reasonable evidence to show that He very likely exists, as a result of which it would be reasonable to believe that He exists.

Suppose this Chinese New Year you visit a friend’s place and taste the most heavenly pineapple tarts. You ask him where he gets it from, and he tells you that his mother baked it. "Lovely", you say, and on leaving the house you compliment your friend’s mother on her excellent tarts.

Now, by asking your friend where he got the tarts from, you have assumed that they did not appear out of nowhere. There was no equivalent of the cosmic big bang on a much smaller scale plus millions of years of evolution which brought about the fortuitous existence of the pineapple tarts. You assumed that someone had made it.

If pineapple tarts are evidence of a maker, why are the intricacies of nature disregarded as possible evidence of a creator / designer, ie. God ?

I don’t have irrefutable proof that God made the world, but neither do you have inrefutable proof that your friend’s mother made the tarts. (The truth is that she bought them from a shop and passed them off as her own baking. An embarassing secret that your friend’s mother is determined to bring with her to her grave!).

Nonetheless, you do not doubt what your friend claims about the origin of the tarts, hence you had innocently complimented his mother on her baking skills. Now if you can accept what a person tells you about the origin of tarts, why is what a person tells you about God as the originator of the universe so unacceptable ?

(Please note that I have grossly simplified the factual matrix for the sake of illustration. I am not suggesting that believing that God exists, is as simple as believing that someone had baked pineapple tarts.)

A pastor in South Africa has provoked controversy by preaching that Jesus had HIV : see BBC link "’Jesus had HIV’ sermon sparks South African Fury".  His intention in preaching this highly unusual message (to say the least) was to paint "a picture of Jesus who takes upon himself the infirmities and brokeness of humanity".

The sermon has attracted severe criticism from some Christians.  One scathing comment was that "no annointed leader with a sound mind about the scriptures … would deliberately drag the name of [ the transcendent ] Christ to the ground".

AIDS activists, on the other hand, are happy that the "sermon takes away the stigma that HIV is a sin and God’s punishment … to associate Jesus with HIV is powerful … now people are starting to think: ‘If Jesus could be HIV positive who am I not to have it even if I go to church ?’".

I am personally in agreement with the tone of the message, that the Biblical Jesus is one who identifies with the poor, sick and marginalised and who, at the time immediately before and on the cross, "took up our pain, and bore our suffering" (Isaiah 53 : 4), which would include the stigma and suffering of HIV victims.

I also agree that HIV is not necessarily a indication of "sin and God’s punishment" on a person.  HIV may be acquired through contaminated blood or by children from HIV+ mothers, or by a spouse because of the unfaithfulness of the other.  What have these to do with personal wrongdoing ?  And to the extent that the sermon advances the humanitarian agenda that HIV victims need to be helped not marginalised, I think that is also positive.

I think that HIV is, however, a potent reminder of sin and brokeness in this world.  The fact of the devastating effects of HIV if not treated, and how "innocent" victims can acquire it, like children from mothers, spouses from unfaithful partners, patients treated with infected blood, tell us that if the world — people around us and ourselves — were perfect and not morally corrupt, there would be no issue of HIV transmission and disease and death.

It is a reminder of a world in need of hope, which I believe (as a Christian) is found in Jesus.  Isaiah 53 : 5 tells us that Jesus

"was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment which brought us peace, was upon Him".

In other words, our sins are so severe, that Jesus had to suffer a lingering death on the cross on our behalf ("punishment"), and by that punishment, He has redeemed for the world and for us, the forgiveness for our sins ("peace").

One of the items to make the headline news today / yesterday / recently was an Associated Press report (and variations thereof) on the findings of the Americian Sociological Association in Atlanta, that teen sex does not necessarily affect school grades : see truncated article at TIME here.  In what the report claims is a challenge "to some extent assumptions that sexually active teens do poorer in schools", it was said that

It’s not so much whether a teen has sex that determines academic success, the researchers say, but the type of sexual relationship they’re engaged in. Teens in serious relationships may find social and emotional support in their sex partners, reducing their anxiety and stress levels in life and in school.

Also

Researchers found that those who have casual flings get lower grades and have more school-related problems compared with those who abstain.

From this it appears that several experts in the US have asked for sex education to be reviewed in schools, to emphasise "importance of relationships and spell out the consequences of casual sex" (Albright). 

I’m not sure what that means exactly since I don’t have the benefit of reading the quote in context, though it sounds suspiciously like a an attempt to justify a more permissive attitude towards sex so long as teenagers are taught that sexual activity is confined to stable or committed relationships.

My thoughts are :

(1)  Society’s concern about teenage sex, whether casual or within in a more stable or committed relationship, transcends more than just grades.  There are issues such as teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and emotional hurt that a teenager may not be prepared to cope with (when a relationship finally breaks down), which society needs to grapple with.

(2)  If teenage sex within the confines of a stable or committed relationship is not as bad an idea as the report claims it to be, perhaps it is now time for society to pour resources into getting teenagers into the ultimate form of a stable, committed relationship — marriage !  If teenage sex is almost unavoidable, which is what liberals believe nowadays, we might as well get them married first !  That way, they’ll still make it to university.

Mr Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudical Executions, recently presented his 2009/10 report to the UN Human Rights Council.  One of the addendums to the report was a Study on Targeted Killings, which criticised the US’ use of drone attacks.

The US Central Intelligence Agency reportedly controls a fleet of drone aircraft from its headquarters in Langley, Virginia.  Drone attacks on hostile targets in Afghanistan and Iraq are also remotely carried out from Virginia.

The arguments for and against (mainly against) the legality of drone attacks under international law make an interesting read, though I’m sure that not a few American soldiers who would otherwise have to place themselves in the line of fire will have positive things to say about drones, whatever the academics may exhort.

What I found particularly ironic, was this comment at paragraph 84 of the Study :

"Furthermore, because operators are based thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audiofeed, there is a risk of developing a “Playstation” mentality to killing …"

By his use of the word "Playstation", Mr Alston was suggesting that drone operators based in Virginia, far removed from the realities of the battlefield in Afghanistan, would have fewer inhibitions in authorising an attack.

I think the same criticism may be levelled against academics.  Far removed from the realities of the battlefield, would academics also not have fewer inhibitions in advancing narrow interpretations of international humanitarian law, which would place soldiers’ lives at greater risk ?

I just love this quote which Constance Singam, former President of AWARE, borrowed from British Philosopher Stephen Law, for her article "State’s Decisions a Threat to Secular Society" (20 May 2010).  Attempting to define what a secular society is about, Stephan Law (ironically writing in a Journal called Think) proposes -

"It protects freedoms: the freedom to believe or not believe, worship or not worship. It is founded on basic principles framed independently of any particular religious, or indeed, atheist, point of view: principles to which we ought to be able to sign up whether we are religious or not."

It sounds clever but I would like to know what those principles "framed independently of any particular religious or … atheist point of view" are.  If principles are not derived from any religious view or atheist (non-religious) view, where do we get principles from ?

As the "secular society" which Constance Singam is advocating is based on the above flawed if not totally meaningless definition, I’m afraid I can’t take what she says very seriously.