I thought it was interesting that one day after I wrote about the limits of the church’s influence on societal morals, as expressed through regulations enacted and systems and institutions created by the state, TODAY should publish today (28 February 2006), in relation to the Tammy sex video incident, an article by the author of the Sarong Party Girl blog in which she said that "responsible teenaged sex doesn’t cause problems … and it is not for us to judge [ teenagers who have sex responsibly ]".

I assume that many angry letters will be sent to TODAY in the next couple of days, denouncing the values espoused by the article writer.

Personally, while I agree with the article writer’s view that self-righteous condemnation of pre-marital sex has limited effect in preventing teenaged pregnancies, I was uncomfortable with the tone of most of her article. And the parts of her article that I thought were particularly poorly reasoned are the following :

And it doesn’t help teenagers when we criticise their sexual needs as something "dirty" - because when they ask, there is no good enough explanation as to why this is so, especially if a couple is in a relationship their young hearts truly believe will last forever.

It doesn’t matter if, in all calculated adult logic, things will not last. Their reality tells them it will, and this is what will drive their behaviour.

…

If we look at the world today, it is the inability to accept that some things may be unchangeable, and the unrelenting criticism so many make based on unfounded prejudices and bigotry, that cause most of its problems. We should accept that some things may be unchangeable, and try to persuade the other side to come to a compromise …

Persuasion and reasoning will always be far more effective than blatant criticism with no answers for these teenagers when they ask : "Why is it wrong to have sex with someone I love ?" If you cannot change their reality, then the only alternative is to help them through it with sensible advice, acceptance and love.

Now, while I agree that there is no need to criticise sexual needs as something "dirty", it does not follow that sexual needs should be met by pre-marital sex.  It is not always wise to satisfy an obese person’s need for more food by feeding him.  Is it possible for this preoccupation with sex to be channeled to other healthy activities ?  (In this connection, my guess - I may be wrong - is that regardless of how liberal one may be in regard to teenaged sex, between teenagers engaging in pre-marital sex or some other innocuous activity like sports, we would prefer them to engage in the latter).

Secondly, on the issue of a teenager’s perception of reality, if a teenager is so deluded as to believe that his girlfriend or her boyfriend of a few weeks (or perhaps months) is his / her soulmate and future life partner, then it would be a gross omission on the part of the adults in that teenager’s life - be it family or friends - to let the teenager live in that deluded "reality" to its extremes, which would include the "reality" of a pseudo-marriage where the couple have sex.

Finally, the writer suggests that because some things are unchangeable, we should just compromise. I think that statement needs to be qualified. Compromise may be necessary in the face of unchangeable realities in life if, on weighing the pros and cons of being dogmatic, greater evil is avoided if there is some compromise.

Hence, in respect of the unavoidable reality of unplanned pregnancies (whether within or outside of marriage), while many people may think of abortion as wrong or immoral, greater evil is avoided by legalising abortion. Otherwise, desperate women will turn to herbal remedies or unlicensed abortion clinics to abort unwanted children, and cause greater harm to their physical and mental health. But in respect of the unavoidable reality that there will always be people who commit murder or steal, should we compromise ?

On the issue of teenaged sex, I am not certain if in compromise, ie. distributing condoms and openly promoting safe sex in schools, which is being done in other countries, lies the answer. What I can say is that the present strategy (as I understand) of promoting abstinence with very limited (or no) education on safe sex, is something that needs to be re-examined, in order to determine if we may avoid greater evil by being less dogmatic.

I’m midway through Fool’s Gold, a collection of essays by John MacArthur and other Christian authors on "discerning truth in an age of error".  While I agree with most of the principles set out in the book, how they are applied come across as rather dogmatic to me.

I read chapter 7 today and was surprised to find myself agreeing almost entirely with what the writer Phil Johnson says about Christianity and politics.  Johnson expounded on Matthew 5 : 16, where Jesus instructed His disciples to "let your light shine before men", and pointed out that - 

… our influence as Christians is most effective at the personal, grassroots level.  There’s no suggestion in our text that the church’s mission is to commandeer the apparatus of secular politics in order to wield our collective influence in society by legislative means.  If you have the idea that’s the best way (or main way) the church is supposed to make her presence felt in secular society, you have missed the point of the text …

To hear some Christians today talk, you might think that rampant sins … can be solved by legislation.  A hundred years ago the pet issue was prohibition, and mainstream evangelicalism embraced the notion that outlawing liquor in America would solve the problem of drunkenness forever.  It was a waste of time and energy, and I believe it was an unhealthy diversion for many in the church.  Listen to Paul : ‘If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly’ (Galatians 2 :21).  ‘If a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the Law’ (Gal 3 : 21). 

(My comment : It is important to note that in the context of Galatians, Paul was referring to the Old Testament laws, but the same principle applies today - human law, just like the Old Testament laws, or perhaps even less than Old Testament laws, do not make people righteous).

We have the true and only answer to sins ….  It’s the glorious liberty of salvation in Christ.  It’s a message about the grace of God, which has accomplished what no law could ever do.  And we need to proclaim that message, befriending our neighbours, not taking a hostile stance against them, but letting the light of the glorious gospel of Christ shine unto them.

While Johnson was writing about Christianity and politics in America, what he says has lessons for the Singapore church as well. 

We live at a time when globalisation and, in particular, the un-policeable Internet, has allowed many negative influences to enter our once-sanitised state of Singapore.  As an example (if yesterday’s Sunday Times report is to be believed), you only need to look at the number of teens who are (oh the horror !) not only engaging in pre-marital sex, but video-camming themselves in the act.  ("Tammy", "Tammy NYP" and its other variations, by the way, are still the top search items on www.technorati.com after, what, more than a week ?  That goes to show that Singaporeans are anything but as moral as Christians would like to believe).

Christians hope to stem this tide of what it considers immorality by lobbying for the continued ban on "pornographic" or semi-pornographic magazines, films and performances, and against the decriminalisation of unnatural sex, the teaching of "safe" sex in schools, etc.  And when Christians fail in these efforts, which we do from time to time, we wring our hands in despair.

In so doing, we fail to realise that the church can only exert a limited influence on societal morals through the state and its laws.  And this limited influence diminishes even more as time passes, because of the pressures of globalisation on Singapore.  I think it is only a matter of time before Singapore "opens up".

However, what the world cannot take away from Christians is our freedom to exhibit God’s love and grace to others in our daily lives.  I believe that this is a greater counter-influence to negative influences that are permeating society, because while laws compel obedience through fear, God’s message of love and grace brings about obedience through changed hearts.  And so it will do the church well, if it is able to excel in grace and love, in even greater measure.

I engaged in the flag collection efforts of the En Community Services Society this morning.  Or should I say legalised begging ?  "Begging", because ever since the NKF fiasco, people are a lot more cynical about charities - there were times when it felt like I was begging for money. 

Some people actually questioned if I was a fraud and the existence of the Society (the Society is admittedly not well known, I told them, otherwise it wouldn’t have to resort to a flag day to raise funds - it would just appear on TV with famous celebrities, or maybe even famous celebrities would fall over themselves to be associated with the Society). 

Overall, I thought it was tougher begging for funds this year compared to the last.  Thankfully, unlike last year, I started much earlier, at 8 am (the other "flaggers" competiting for donations only turned up after 9.30 am).  In addition, I stationed myself outside NTUC Marine Parade - a relatively more prosperous area compared to Chinatown where I stood last year and which, unless you live in Marine Parade itself, is only accessible by car.  (And people who drive tend to be richer).

Now, on to the specifics of today’s experience.

There was a man who took out two dollars, only to put it back into his wallet because he had not heard of the Society before.

There was an instance when I had to pretend that I didn’t understand Chinese, because a highly enthusiastic ex-Hong Kong-er (well, his accent made him sound like one) mistook me for a non-Chinese, and tried to teach me how to say "charity" in Chinese, all the while emphasising the importance of understanding the different languages spoken by Singaporeans.  (Hurrah for National Education !)

There were parents with children who avoided me like I had bird flu.  (And Singaporeans complain that the Government doesn’t look out enough for the welfare of the poor - can you expect our children - future leaders of the state - to do that, if their parents don’t teach their kids the importance of being charitable to begin with ?)

But what took the cake was this rather grumpy woman who had plastic bags in both hands.  Now, most other people in her situation would simply put down their bags, and take out their wallets / purses to make their donation.  But this woman said "look, no hands", and hurried away.

Yeah, right.  If she really had no hands, she would be a beneficiary of charity, and a lot more sympathetic.

It is crazy enough that people are going beserk over the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published by the Danish press.  But outrage over another cartoon that looks critically at the cartoon incident ?

Well, the opposition Islamic party and several non-governmental organisations in Malaysia are upset over the publication, by their New Straits Times, of one such Non Sequitur cartoon (image below).

Copyright © United Press Syndicate

Salahuddin Ayub, head of the youth wing of the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party (PAS), said that the cartoon "directly insults our Prophet" and that a police report had been lodged.

Which, ironically, goes to show that it is neither the god nor the man, but the image of the man as depicted by the artist, that extremists honour the greatest.  Funnily enough, as depicted in the Non Sequitur cartoon, it also means that it is neither the god nor the man, but the cartoonist who draws the man, who is the "most feared man in the world".

Read the news report from Yahoo! News here.  Non Sequitur is the copyright of the Universal Press Syndicate.

Carpe Diem is a latin phrase that was resurrected from obscurity by the movie, "Dead Poets Society".  Translated, it means "seize the day" or, perhaps, "enjoy the moment".  There is much to commend about such an approach to life - instead of making the most of the present, many people live in the past, pining after past glories, or languishing in the shadow of past disappointments and failures.

But I think that, at the other extreme, too many people live too much in the present.  They indulge themselves in and enjoy the present so much that they hardly think about the future.  Many Christians are probably guilty of this as well.  We live, working to accumulate wealth, possessions, and influence, comfortable with what we have and in our lives as if today (and perhaps tomorrow) is all there is to our lives.  There is hardly a thought about the day after tomorrow.

But this was not the case with Jacob, and Joseph his son.  Interestingly, both men said roughly the same things before they died -

Jacob : "I am about to die, but God will be with you and take you back to the land of your fathers". (Genesis 48 : 22)

Joseph (who died many years after his father) : "I am about to die.  But God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land He promised on oath to Abraham, Issac and Jacob … God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up from this place [ie. Egypt]". (Genesis 50 : 24 - 25)

Jacob’s words are especially meaningful in view of the fact that he had settled comfortably in the territory of Goshen in Egypt with his extended family, and innumerable sheep and other possessions - he had no reason to want his descendents to leave the prosperous land.

Similarly, Joseph was the Prime Minister of Egypt, second-in-command of the Egyptian empire and "only with respect to the throne [was Pharoah] greater" than him (Genesis 41 : 40).  There was no reason why he should want his descendents (or his remains) to leave Egypt as well.

Both Jacob and Joseph had every reason to live and indulge themselves in the moment, without a care for the day after tomorrow.  Yet, they wisely chose not to be trapped in the comforts of the present.  Instead, they looked forward to the greater blessing that God promised to them in the day after tomorrow.  Hebrews 11 : 13 says that their attitude was to consider themselves "aliens and strangers on earth".

Unfortunately, this may not be the attitude that of every Christian today.  Instead, comfortable where we are, we live as if this earth is our permanent home.  Ironically, the Bible says that the things that many treat as permanent, are the very things that lack eternal value.

"The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." (1 John 1 : 17)

I’ve been busy lately, both at work and at home, and haven’t had the time to think deep thoughts.  So I thought that maybe I should write about something more frivolous, which is what this post is about -  frivolous ramblings.

Is Valentine’s frivolous ?  Well, I suppose that after being attached for almost ten years, celebrating your love for one another on the same day as almost everyone else isn’t so important anymore.

Anyway, Joyce and I celebrated Valentine’s Day last Friday instead of yesterday.  Well, it was a kind of celebration.  Last Thursday, I had suggested going out for lunch after Jed’s Friday checkup and the beloved’s reply was "for what ?".

"Because it’s close to Valentine’s Day and maybe we should celebrate it ?"

"Oh, is it ?  Didn’t realise Valentine’s Day was approaching".

Ten years ago, she would have killed me for not celebrating Valentine’s Day.

We had lunch at the Straits Kitchen (Grand Hyatt) last Friday, which dished out a pretty mean buffet (had better, given the prices charged).  Rather disappointingly, I discovered (yet again, not that I didn’t already know) that I had not recovered the appetite that I had as a teenager.

And then there were the flowers.  I had arranged for a bouquet of tulips to be delivered to our home last Friday.  Very pretty, and very expensive too.  Unfortunately, when you are physically present at a florist and you are quoted an obscene price for a bouquet of flowers, it feels very much like you’ve driven up to the entrance of a car park and found that the parking rates are too expensive - it’s impossible to back out without losing face.  (Financial tip for guys : once you have a credit card, order online or over the phone, then can back out !)

I have to add that although this is one of the prettier bouquets I’ve seen, it certainly wasn’t the one that lasted the longest.  I’ve never seen $100 turn so quickly into organic waste before.

From the article for the 12 February church bulletin :

With Valentine’s Day around the corner, I thought it would be appropriate to write something about love.

Some of you might have heard the following said before: “If you love me, you will [insert demand here ]” or “I won’t love you, unless you [ insert demand here ]”.

This is a self-centred love in which the lover – it can be a child demanding an ice cream or a girlfriend demanding flowers – requires you to do something before you become worthy of his or her love.

This brings me to the passage I’m going to share from. I read 1 John for my devotionals this week, and 1 John 2 : 5 reads :

“But if anyone obeys His word, God’s love is truly made complete in him.” (NIV)

I have to confess that when I read the above verse in the past, it seemed to say that unless we obey God, God’s love will not be made complete in our lives. I wonder if many of us think this way about our relationship with God.

In religion as well as in society, people obey the law or what their “gods” demand because of a fear of punishment (e.g. being struck dead, or going to hell), or because they expect some reward (e.g. going to heaven, or winning the lottery). Therefore, obedience is compelled through fear and promise of rewards; people are taught that they have to do something before they become worthy of their “gods’” love.

 Similarly, some Christians, in order to motivate themselves to be more obedient, remind themselves of the warnings of punishment, or the promises of eternal reward in the Bible. This is not necessarily bad, but it is a struggle of the human will against our human flesh. In the past and even today, some people practise extreme self-mortification – cutting, whipping and starving themselves (as did one of the characters in the Da Vinci Code) – hoping that by doing so they will gain greater discipline to obey God!

But while the Bible does warn of punishment for sin, and rewards for obedience, the Christian faith is unique in that obedience springs from our understanding of how much God loves us, despite our unworthiness, and without us having to first meet some impossible standard to win God’s favour.

As I read 1 John carefully again, I realised that this is what God was actually saying. The New American Standard Bible provides a clearer translation of 1 John 2 : 5, as follows : “But whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected”.

In other words, we obey God’s word better as we realise how much He loves us. And when we are able to obey God perfectly – that is when we know that we have truly understood the height and depth of God’s love for us. That is why the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5 : 14 that “Christ’s love compels us” to carry on with his ministry.

Therefore, as the world around us celebrates Valentine’s Day, I thank God for His unconditional love. And apart from the love of your Valentine, it is also this that I encourage you to seek in this season of love – to ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to you the fullness of the height and depth of God’s love, because in that lies the motivation for you to obey God.

Jed turned three months old yesterday.

"What do you mean, no more milk ?"

"OK, your life is pardoned !"

… because the world’s not done with blogging about it.  And because the threat of violence should not be allowed to cow good sense into non-sense.

Comment : Please tell Kofi Annan, George Bush etc that they should not condemn the Iranian president for reinterpreting the holocaust. Do you really believe that the UN Security Council should condemn the Iranian President for criticizing Jews but everyone else can criticize Muslims ?

My reply : If the people upset with the publication of the cartoons want to protest by sending letters demanding an apology, or write to the press demanding a right to explain why the cartoons were wrong or offensive, I think that is a mature response. Anyone, including the Danish press, who wants to make his writings or drawings public should be prepared to be criticised. But does criticism extend to death threats and senseless, indiscriminate violence against an entire country that had nothing to do with what its press said ?

Note that neither Kofi Annan nor George Bush threatened to behead Mahmoud, or nuke Iran, or incited their countrymen to burn Iranian flags or effigies of Iranian leaders. They simply criticised him, and warned that if he should try to attack another country without reason, they would rise to its defence.

In any case, you have wrongly identified the issue as being one about the right to criticise Jews or Muslims. It was not for criticism per se that the Iranian President was chastised. If he had simply criticised the Israelis for violating the human rights of the Palestinians I doubt much of the world would have taken issue with that.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was rightly criticised because he was attempting to rewrite history by denying that the Holocust even took place. It is tantamount to saying that no Muslims were killed in the Crusades. Would you agree with that ? The Holocust is as much a historical fact as the Crusades.

Even worse, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tried to incite the world to destroy an entire race. That is genocide - an international crime. For this, he was also rightly condemned.

(From The Legal Janitor.)

As I understand, the publication of the caricatures of the prophet Muhammad by the Danish press (and later by other European newspapers) are offensive on two levels.  First, in Islam, there is an absolute prohibition on depicting their prophet(s) in drawings.  Secondly, the caricatures disrespectfully drew a connection between the prophet and terrorism.

In multi-religious Singapore, Muslim reponse to the caricatures of the prophet Muhammad has been mature.  No death threats.  No boycotts.  No emotional outbursts.  Just a mature expression of disappointment at what is considered an insensitive, disrespectful and distasteful act.

Elsewhere in the world, the responses are disturbing.  I find it pathetically ironic that the very people who are offended by the association of terrorism with their beliefs, and who claim that their beliefs have nothing to do with terrorism :

(1) threaten acts of terror - beheadings, bombings, and all manner of violence.  And terror directed at not just the newpapers that offended them, but on the countries which the newpapers originated from.

(2) did not threaten acts of terror - beheadings, bombings, burning of effigies and images, and all manner of violence - against the terrorists that killed in the name of their beliefs.  Sadly, some of them even cheered as the twin towers collapsed on 9 September 2001, and as news of the Madrid and London bombings broke to the global community.

Interestingly, Sarah Joseph of The Guardian suggested that the violent response may be explained by the fact that the caricatures "feed into profound feelings of disempowerment, fear and insecurity".  She then says shame on those who published the caricatures, because this deliberate provocation of the fundamentalists reveals "the prejudices of Europe".  Perhaps.  But if she is right and the violent response is about feelings of disempowerment, then shame too on those who tap into this disempowerment and exploit religion to advance their political agendas.

In my humble opinion, serious soul searching is needed.