In Perfect Harmony?

I came across an interesting article "Ministry Lessons from Muslim" on an approach to pluralism that seeks to "love our neighbour" without compromising on loving God will all our hearts. I think it is worth some further reflection and consideration. This question of how we are to live with those of other faiths is a reality for us who live in multi-ethnic and multi-religious Singapore.

Of late, the spotlight has been turned on us as Christians, and how we live in a "secular" society. I myself have problems with the concept of a "secular" society because most often the underlying assumption is that for us to live with others, we have to "dumb down" who we are and what we believe. This so-called society is one in which everyone joins hands, singing "I'd like teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony". Where there is no conflict, because there are no strongly held views that impinge on another. In fact, many who espouse this view of "secularism" in reality put forward their own value system that minimalises any sort of religious belief, and they do it "religiously".

As an aside, that popular song of the 70's began as a jingle for that giant of globalisation, Coca-Cola. It included the line "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" and the refrain "It's the real thing". These of course play right into their goal of selling more so that they can gain more, another "religious" view which actually has many more adherents than any other religion in the world!

This type of approach to living in a plural (the word I prefer over "secular") world really denies and denigrates people and their beliefs. It assumes neutrality should be the goal for all. The problem is who defines what is "neutral"? We are complex creatures, and we are the sum of all our experiences and upbringing. To deny any of it is to be less than who we are, or to lapse into some kind of surreal, superficial "common ground" which really is a place where no one feels comfortable.

Don't misunderstand me, I do not support any person (or organization or corporation) that seeks to force their beliefs on another. Not only is it obnoxious, it is also incapable of changing anyone. Such a push, always results in a push-back, or in Newtonian terms, "an equal and opposite reaction" (Just look at what is happening in Urumqi, China). Yet what many people seem to think is that the solution is to take the opposite approach. They believe that lowering ourselves to the "lowest common denominator" will allow for greater harmony. I think that this actually leads to less understanding, because we only know the other person superficially. They cannot be themselves. It is a pale shadow of who they really are. So what is the solution?

The article points out that there is another way:

In our increasingly secular society, many people have come to view religion as a problem and the source of conflict between groups. This sentiment was popularized in John Lennon's 1971 song "Imagine," in which religion is presented as an obstacle to world peace and harmony. But Eboo Patel is helping these seminary students turn conventional wisdom upside down. He sees the potential for greater cooperation and coexistence by embracing our different religious identities, not abandoning them.

"If you enter a ministerial gathering as a Christian minister and downplay your Christian identity in an attempt to make everyone comfortable," says Patel, "as a Muslim leader, I'm immediately suspicious. I don't trust you. Embracing your identity as a Christian creates safety for me to be a Muslim."

I think that this is where we need to head. I know that it is not easy, but it is necessary.

ANA Merlion Commercial

To be honest, I don't know why tourists are so fascinated with the Merlion.

Loving Sinners

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” is a phrase that has been tossed about so often, that many people think it is a biblical quotation. Using the search feature on my bible software on 16 different versions of the Bible turned up: “There were no results for this search”. A search of the internet pointed to a possibility that it may have been a paraphrase of St Augustine of Hippo who said in Latin, Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, or “With love for mankind and hatred of sins.” So why do we as Christians use this phrase so often?
It may be because the sentiment it expresses is one found in Scripture. After all Paul reminds Timothy that, “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst” (1 Tim 1:15). Jesus certainly went out of his way to reach the lost, and became known as a “friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 7:34). Then we have that famous story of the woman caught in adultery. As we all know, the story ends with him saying to this poor dis-graced person, “Neither do I condemn you... Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11).

However, in my experience, as good and biblical as this phrase sounds, it is for all intents and purposes a human impossibility. As depraved creatures, we do neither well. Our “love” is incomplete at best, or hypocritical at its worst. And our “hate” is qualified. We “hate” the sin that is not our own. More importantly, we cannot for all our efforts keep that fine line between the “sin” and the “sinner”.

I have never heard a person once utter with great conviction, “That pastor really hates my sin, but I am convinced that he absolutely loves me!” Instead, what I have come across many times are people who has been so battered and bruised by other Christians, because of the callous judgement, and angry rhetoric, that they despaired of ever finding healing in the church. I am reminded of the story that Philip Yancey tells in his book, What’s So Amazing About Grace? He speaks to a prostitute who is desperate, advising her to go to the neighbourhood church to find help. She replies, “Church! Why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They'd just make me feel worse."

So what are we to do? In my opinion, the greater problem we have in the church (or our tradition) right now is that we are far too Pharisaical in tone, and not sufficiently loving to sinners. How can we change that? Do we even want to? Don’t get me wrong. We must never deny the reality of sin in the life of the person. But most who come to us are “sick” people, in need of healing. What we cannot do is turn them away, just because they are unwell. After all, what kind of hospital would we be if we only allow healthy people to enter?

Even more important though is how we see ourselves. At times we think of ourselves as health care workers, when in reality we are the patients who are in various stages of recovery, but in desperate need of healing too! It is so easy for us to see “them” as sinners, forgetting our own condition. That is why Jesus was insistent that we deal with the log in our eyes, and not obsess over the splinters in the eye of another. So we are called to be loving sinners who love fellow sinners. And together we look to Dr. Jesus who alone can cure sin!

St Francis de la Sissies

This put a smile on my face. Enjoy!

Asian Cuisine

Asians will eat anything... and I know this from first-hand experience!
Read it all here: Fishermen catch, then eat, ultra-rare megamouth shark

The Scandal of the Gospel

I found it interesting how Mark Galli, the managing editor of Christianity Today, drew a gospel lesson from the current furore surrounding the $165 million being paid out to high-leveled executives of the troubled insurance giant AIG (read all about it in The Scandal of the AIG Bonuses).

As a side note, I circumspectly offer the observation that they are the jersey sponsors of a team otherwise known as the "Red Devils" which leads me to think of "birds of a feather" and all that...

In any case, he wryly notes that this scandal is nothing compared to the scandal of the gospel; "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). The "free bonus" of grace given to totally undeserving miscreants cannot help but incense the masses; unless we happen to be one of the villainous miscreants.

If the gospel we preach doesn't turn a few heads, and cause the man in the street to cry out at the scandal, the question begs as to whether what we proclaim is truly "good news"?

As Galli says in his conclusion...

I wonder if we are preaching the gospel if we don't scandalize a few listeners, maybe even ourselves, with the incomprehensible unfairness of it all. When Paul talked about the gospel, many were shocked and appalled. It sounded as if God wanted to reward sinners, to give a bonus to scoundrels! They scoffed, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1). And when they figured out what exactly he was preaching, they got so angry that they told him to fall on his sword, and then formed a mob to run him out of town.

May we be as "scandalous" as Paul as we declare the gospel of the cross on which our Lord bled and died...for us!

Pew Warmers?

Pew Warmer,
originally uploaded by Jon W.

The Rev Dr Leander Harding was one of my professors in seminary. His keen sense of pastoral need and ability to sift through the flotsam of parish ministry is quite a gift, in my opinion. I recently came across a post on his blog about Ash Wednesday, and I reproduce a section from that post, " Thoughts on Ash Wednesday" here:

I have become more and more suspicious of the concept of the nominal Christian. Our parish churches are supposed to be full of nominal Christians who are just going through the motions, of half-believers who are relying on their good works and who have not really surrendered to Christ and accepted the Gospel. In any parish church there are a few real apostates, and a few real scoffers and perhaps a few who genuinely hate God. Their numbers are routinely exaggerated. Most of the people who come to the church Sunday by Sunday know they are dying and are placing their hope in Christ. It may be an inarticulate hope, it may be a confused hope. Often there are huge brambles of misunderstanding that must be cleared away before the whole power of the good news can come in upon them. Often there is real darkness into which the light of Christ has not yet come and which cries out for a light-bearer. Yet, they come. When Jesus saw such as these gathered in their multitudes on the hill side, the sight provoked in him not contempt for the nominal but compassion, “for they were like sheep without a shepherd.”

Closer to Being Human

I just read a review in the NY Times on an off-broadway play entitled "This Beautiful City," which traces the transformation of the city of Colorado Springs into a "miniature capital of (Evangelical) Christianity." As expected, one of the storylines is, surprise, surprise, Ted Haggard and his fall from grace (covered elsewhere on this great blog) . What caught my eye in the review were the lines spoken by the character (holding his hat in the picture on the left) who plays Marcus Haggard, one of Ted's sons.

“Sure, tragedy happened there,” he reflects. “Flip side is, in my view, my dad’s understanding God for the first time. Because, you know, we believe God is unconditional love. He is the only one who can love us completely for who we are, no matter what we’ve done, and heal us. So I think my dad’s being healed. I think he’s closer to being human now than ever before.”

I would never wish what happened to Haggard on anyone. Having said that, if that is what it takes for us to become "closer to being human," it can only be a good thing. As Luther points out, "A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it is." May we all be similarly healed!