Much ado about nothing

In recent days there have been two incidents which reflect the state, civic-mindedness and maturity of our society on this island state (or the lack thereof). They may be seemingly unrelated but if one were to examine them, it would be easy to tease out one of the biggest problems that we have on our hands.

Making its rounds around blogs and various Twitter accounts is a blogger’s snarky demands for confectionery on her birthday. A casual glance at the said blogger’s site offers the impression of a self-styled “you-know-ah-I-can-also-cook-and-bake” lass. The site would have not been on many people’s radar if not the said blogger’s attempt to concoct a “brilliant plan” (a la Baldrick in Black Adder) after watching an advertisement – presumably on the telly.

For the uninitiated, the said advertisement depicts staff from a financial institution collaborating with one of its customers to surprise his wife on her birthday. It was probably a contrived attempt by the advertising company employed to convince the masses that this financial institution cares for their customers. Some might have found it lame. Some considered it cheesy. Probably for many — saturated by the tons of advertising we see everywhere – it would have been dismissed as just one of those “bank advertisements” that we’ve come across down the years.

Well, this said blogger decided her birthday would be a splendid occasion to test the sincerity and authenticity of the financial institution. To cut a long story short, the gal asked for birthday cake, very much like what was shown in the ad, when she approached the teller on a Sunday evening. Just because it was her birthday and as the ad suggested.

Now, it wouldn’t be half as bad in terms of doing one for consumer rights if the said blogger didn’t declare – in her written account of her excursion – that it was her “real purpose for visiting the bank”.

Despite how the teller and later her manager explained that “it was just an advertisement”, the said blogger threw toys out of her pram, declaring again that she was “dead serious about getting a cake” and how she wasn’t “feeling jubilant” because the woman in the ad got her cake and she didn’t.

As if to emphasise her point, she wrote in caps the words “NO CAKE! NO CANDLE! NO GOOD!” and lovingly chose words like “after yet another eternity” and “five eternities” when describing the staff’s attempts at acceding to her request. When she got her cake finally, in all her glory of being a self-styled cake gourmet, she dissed it on her site (which was lovingly juxtaposed with her lovely collection of confectionery she made).

If this was a post highlighting the mistakes made by one faceless multinational entity in its business to a customer, hell yes please highlight it, throw in your sarcasm, satire, “mee siam mai hum”-esque podcasts, sick jokes or whatever you wish to prove your point as an unhappy recipient of shoddy service. Example, if a transaction goes awry, or the train stopped at the wrong station, or the cab driver drove you to Johor Baru instead of Chua Chu Kang. Describe how you had to “lie down on the floor and kick my legs in the air” if need be. No one’s going to begrudge you for that. You won’t have trolls milling about in your comments section. That, I guarantee.

However, if one chooses to take an advertisement quite literally and decide to concoct a test on the seemingly promised service standards of a massive faceless entity, you should be taking to task the people who came up with this ad and the people who approved to have it shown on national telly [by the way, remember to pay your license fees, folks]. You don’t inflict your misguided attempts at “I’m a consumer, therefore I’m right” on underlings, whose bank accounts are not padded with bonuses and faced with the prospect of having to work on a public holiday.

It’s like skinning a cat. There are many ways to do it. But since all of us breathe the same air, then perhaps a bit more of grace, civic-mindedness and, dare I say it, maturity should be used lovingly when attempting to thump your chest.

Given the modus operandi of self-styled “champions” and “chest-thumpers”, it’s no surprise that this was merely an ill-disguised attempt at drawing people to visit the site and improving the said blogger’s popularity. It simply reflects the immaturity of this society when you resort to being snarky just to drive traffic to your site.

So yes, do enjoy your few days of fame, but in the grand scheme of things, you’ve traded your integrity for that. A poor attempt at explaining one’s way out of the situation with a follow-up post (complete with a screen capture of an e-mail to the CEO of the said big faceless entity) won’t hide the fact that you got “self-pwned” by your own “prank”.

Next, a regular visitor to some “citizen journalism” website would have noticed clips and photos about a serial vandaliser of mailboxes. The apathy of passer-bys aside, the alleged “vandal” went on a graffiti spree by spraying and painting stuff on mailboxes at various locations across the island. Adding to the drama was how the “vandal” was dressed, how he allegedly “jumped” into a waiting car and how it sped off.

Very drama.

Reactions ranged from people outraged by the act, people outraged by the apathy of onlookers and giggles all around about how the word “boomz” is doing its rounds again.

Then, unexpectedly the big faceless entity which owned these mailboxes threw out a statement which uncharacteristically seems to suggest that all was well. A day later, the said entity apologised as this was merely a publicity stunt to “engage the youths”.

This made me wonder how a certain American teenager would have gotten his ass off the hook (or rattan) if he claimed his act of vandalism was merely a publicity stunt by the owner of the said wall or building, where he committed his crime.

There are many ways to engage the youths. There are many ways to announce your attempts at getting people to beautify your boring mailboxes for free. A publicity stunt like this shows the lack of thought from (a) the suits at the advertising company and (b) the people who rubber-stamped this.

Which brings to mind, why are businesses not focusing on what they should be doing and how they should do it better? Why the need for glossy advertisements or publicity stunts which – to people who have difficulties in separating fact from fiction or reading between the lines – detract from your primary business? And do you need to throw in the word “viral” somewhere just to give people the impression that “hey, I’m cool”.

If you’re a bank, you focus on “providing financial services to customers while enriching investors” (definition from wikipedia). You’re not a confectionery.

If you’re a post office, you focus on “posting, receipt, sorting, handling, transmission or delivery of mail” (definition also from wikipedia). You don’t need to beautify your mailboxes to prove how well you can deliver people’s stuff.

And if making confectionery and thumping your chest are what you’re good at, then do so in your little quiet corner with your own little circle of fans. Conjuring an infantile attempt at attracting people to your site by concocting your own publicity stunt – “I want my cake!” is not cool.

You’re just being a troll, not just on the internet, but in the real world.

12 – The remaining issues: Abstinence

The word is out. The authorities have spoken. And they waited “till things had cooled down”.

Indeed it has, in the physical space. However, online discussions have thrown up reminiscences of the scenes at Suntec three weeks ago. Despite the steps now taken to tighten the vetting process of sexuality education in schools, issues – still contentious – remain.

While I shall attempt to examine some of them, please note that I am not an authority or an expert in any of these areas. My perspective is that of the layman’s.

Abstinence

In the authority’s statement, “… it was clear that abstinence as the only focus was not an effective strategy in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies and STIs.”

Abstinence comes in many forms. Vegetarians abstain from eating meat (and even some plants which, in the process of being harvested, organisms are destroyed). Some religions abstain from alcohol while there are others which encourage abstinence from eating beef. Monks pursue a life of celibacy and through that (and ideally), they are to abstain from any sexual contact or activity.

So now, what about the concept of “abstinence from sex” being presented to 12-year-olds?

Some religions frown upon it, simply because pre-marital sex or sex outside of marriage is a sin. Moreover, the issue of teenage pregnancies always throws up familial and society problems. Firstly, we have abortions – which are traumatic experiences for young girls psychologically and emotionally. Secondly, it affects families, not least the family of the teenaged girl. Thirdly, if the choice is to keep the baby, a whole host of problems will crop up, including the stigma of having a baby born out of wedlock. I believe these are just tip of the iceberg.

Therefore, there is an argument for abstinence, as a message, to be supported or supplemented by the message of protection. This means that the young person is advised to protect himself or herself when participating in sexual activities. The premise for this is that the kids will experiment anyway before or after they hit puberty. Also, there is no denying that they have sexual desires and will want to find means and ways to satisfy them.

The question is why the message of abstinence alone has not been successful in preventing teenage pregnancies and that a message about protection has to supplement it.

In my opinion, it comes down to the issue of parenting. We don’t like to talk about sex. It is embarrassing to talk about it to our children. Or that we do not know what to say to them. We think of sex as this big ugly monster and that anything to do with it usually leads to the road to sin and hell.

In other words, there are parents who are ill-equipped to teach their children about sex. Therefore, when there is an information vacuum, the kids – on discovering changes to their bodies – will look elsewhere for information and then, viola, they experiment. And as we all know, there are consequences to experimenting. Teenage pregnancies are one of those.

While we drag our feet in confronting the hard issues about sex, we forget the greater need for inculcating in our children the virtues of (a) respecting / loving themselves, (b) respecting / loving their bodies, (c) respecting other people’s bodies, and (d) disciplining their desires. I strongly believe that all four virtues must be fostered in the psyche of children before the real, hard issues about sex are to be discussed at length.

Needless to say, for (d), it applies to other issues. For example, if the child has a desire for a certain item or toy, parents have their own ways of teaching them how certain needs or desires have to be disciplined or managed. The parent may tell the child to wait for his or her birthday or save enough of their pocket money to buy it. The same, I believe, applies to the desires for sugary drinks or foods, and, dare I say it, sexual desires.

Therefore, why has the message on abstinence failed? In my opinion, it is the lack of sound parenting.

When so much debate has been thrown about on aspects of the much-vilified CSE, the crux of it is that some parents are none-the-wiser on the issues of sex and sex education for their children. We assume parents know it all and they have the means to educate their children.

My argument is for parents to be equipped first. My argument is for them to be informed about the issues, the concepts, the moralities, and the approach to sex education for their child. Empowering the parents will go a long way in preventing the consequences of children engaging in sexual experimentation. No doubt it will still happen, but parents should have the confidence to say that they already have done their best during the formative years of their children in inculcating the right attitudes towards sex.

And lest we forget, not many among the generations of parents today have had the privilege of their parents teaching them about sex or through lessons in schools.

11 — The final bits of chatter

By now, we have only the remnants of chatter as the dust settles down. However, the sun hasn’t set.

As people (in the hundreds, I’m sure) are being mobilised for a grand show of defiance love some time this weekend, there is this thing in the air that says you will not see the last of the saga. There is a high chance that it will take on another form and the can of worms erupts from the highly corroded can.

Feels like one of those wrestling shows that one watches on TV. It is all about match-ups: liberals versus conservatives; secularism versus religion; bigots versus the downtrodden minority (note the singular); fundamentalists versus the moderates; inclusiveness versus exclusivity; dualism versus … well you get the idea.

Funny that we throw these big words about. Funny also that we shout them out loud to win arguments, instead of engaging in debate. Funny that we censor one another on blogs / forums while there is a long-running discussion about the much misunderstood “freedom of speech”.

If there was a world-ranking of countries which societies excel in civil debates, I wouldn’t bet against Singapore’s ranking being any different to the annual one given by Reporters sans frontières. For some strange reason, inter-school debates are no longer shown on the television (anyone remembers the performances of a young passionate man who is today one of our top politicians). I thought they were interesting to watch and it showed how young minds attempt to manoevre their points into the debate. Like playing chess.

Yet somehow, in all of our pursuit of the Singaporean Dream, our ability to present our argument in civility and without the need for ambient noise – boos, jeers, screams, shouts and cheers to give us that boost in forcing home our argument – is stuck at secondary school, or at best, junior college level.

We throw out big words – without checking first their definitions and how they fit into the context of our arguments. While it is good to show passion when we argue, we don’t rein in our emotions but allow it to overwhelm us. While it is always good to speak clearly, we think shouting others down would be more convincing. Maybe you can scoff to show your displeasure or disagreement, but jeering takes the maturity out of an otherwise decent debate.

In the end, there is no difference between such debates or discussions and the wrestling matches one sees on TV. Senseless entertainment.

“Liberalism”

As Isabel (muses from other space) writes in “love in diversity”:

“All these self-proclaimed liberals like to think that they are ‘liberal’ than others, but how ‘liberal’ can one truly be when one cannot accept a diversity of opinions?”

“Secularism”

As yaevlejunce (yaevlejunce pilgrimage) writes in “It has reared its ugly head”:

“’Secular’ does not mean atheism or ‘no religion’; it simply means ‘not religion-conscious’, i.e., the individual’s competency should not be judged by his religion.”

“Inclusiveness”

Again, yaevlejunce says:

“A group that insists that homosexuality is ‘normal’ is NOT more inclusive than a group that insists homosexuality is “abnormal” because the former group effectively excludes the beliefs of the latter group.”

In essence, I believe we are light years away from being a mature society. When one uses a very influential form of medium (which should have been objective in the first place) to present his argument, you know that his premise and facts are not strong or firm.

Unfortunately, for those who lack the sharpness of critical thought, they will take every flawed argument hook, line and sinker.

Other interesting links:

Singapore on the lookout for new NMP candidates
(Interesting discussion in the comments section)

Should Botak Siew have been “neutral” instead of taking sides in AWARE?

Homosexuality And AWARE
(Note the comments from LaserStraight)

10 – Positions

Shalom,

Perhaps prayers have been answered.

Project Lucy has posted:

(a) A pastoral letter from the Bishop of Singapore Reverend Dr John Chew, about how Christians should conduct themselves when engaging in the processes and causes in the civil society space; and

(b) Guidelines on how parents should educate their children on sexuality, an excerpt from “Teach Your Children to Understand Sexual matters” by Reverend Dr Wayde Goodall

Also,

(c) The Assemblies of God (US) position paper on homosexuality (Note: pdf file)

Other links of interest:
(i) A Critique: AWARE CSE – Comprehensive Sexuality Education (Thanks Han)
(ii) True Intentions of Gay Activists Now Revealed

With these clearly spelling out a clear Christian position on the issues, Project Lucy will lapse into a period of sporadic activity.

Thank you for reading.

Teach your children to understand sexual matters

Excerpt from “Teach Your Children to Understand Sexual matters” by Reverend Dr Wayde Goodall

1. The need for sexual education in the home

Children will learn about sex. It is just a question of how and when they will learn. If we do not take the lead, then the world will teach them things that are contrary to the Bible. Are we going to be silent and see our children led astray? Is our comfort more important than our children?

On some sexual matters, a father can teach his son, and a mother can teach her daughter. Here are ten reasons for sex education in the home:

i. Sex education helps a child to accept his body and each year of growth. It enables him to discuss sex without fear or shame.

ii. Sex education helps a child to understand and be satisfied with this role in life. Children are content to know that boys grow up to be men and fathers, while girls grow up to be ladies and mothers.

iii. Sex education answers questions. It takes away the mystery. When children know that their parents will teach them the truth about sexual things, children have no cause for worry or concern. They do not need to turn to dirty stories or pornography to satisfy curiosity.

iv. Sex education encourages a child to develop biblical attitudes for life. Good teaching guards against sexual problems later in life. Otherwise, sexual confusion and fears in childhood can carry over into adult life. Bad sexual experiences as a child may produce twisted sexual patterns in life.

v. Christian sex education helps a person spiritually. It clears his mid of distracting sex questions. It brings a deep respect for God and His plan of human growth. Good teaching enables the person to thank God for sex and the way God created us.

vi. Sex education builds a child’s confidence in his parents. If the parents are honest and helpful about matters of sex, children learn to trust parents about many other things.

vii. Sex education given at home is like hoeing the weeds out of a garden. Good teaching at home uproots sinful ideas that reach children through films, friends, magazines, and newspapers.

viii. Sex education in the home makes giving birth to children clear and holy. A child should feel that having children is right. He needs to know – as shown in Genesis 1:24 – that God planned for each living creature to produce after its own kind.

ix. Sex education helps a child to be proud of his own sexuality and value those of the opposite sex.

x. Sex education helps protect children from sexual abuse. People who sexually use children often take advantage of the child’s ignorance. If a child has basic knowledge, he is more likely to go to another adult for help.

2. The method for sex education in the home?

Talking about sex is sometimes difficult because it is meant to be private. Evan a husband and wife may find it difficult to talk with each other about sex. So, it is natural to sometimes feel awkward when talking to our children about such things. Still – for the ten reasons we have studied – parents must teach their children about sex. So, what is the best way to teach them? Here are seven keys for teaching our children about sexual matters.

i. Use a long, step-by-step approach. Do not wait for one day to tell a child everything about sex. Teach children the things that match their ages. Make sure they understand you and then build on that information little by little as they grow. Discern how much the child is ready to learn. Teachings will satisfy a child who is three years old will not satisfy a child who is five or six years old.

ii. Answer questions honestly. Small children will ask sexual questions as they ask questions about all other things. Answer them briefly and honestly. But only give them the information that fits their age. If a parent lies – like saying a big bird brings a baby – the child who discovers the truth will wonder why the parent lied.

iii. Use teaching moments. When you and your children see mating between chickens, cows, or goats, explain what is happening. Likewise, a mother has a good opportunity to teach when she or another woman is pregnant. Some pregnant mothers teach their children by letting them feel the baby move in the womb while explaining a little about how it got there. Do not always wait for questions, especially from older children. A child’s silence does not mean a lack of interest. A child may find it difficult to ask questions about sex. The parent may need to speak first. Be aware of what your children should know – and talk with them.

iv. Use proper words. When children ask questions, they may use vulgar words. Do not be shocked or angry. Children talk with the only words they have heard. Teach children the proper words, and use them yourself. Explain to them why some words are wrong. Explain why we cover our private, sexual parts.

v. Create a relaxed attitude. Encourage your child to always ask questions to you. Never act like any question is a sinful question to ask. A relaxed, open attitude keeps children coming back to their parents for facts and guidance. This attitude helps children understand that sex and sexuality are normal. Use the same tone of voice as always. Relax your face and smile a little, to show that the child has asked a normal question. If a parent becomes embarrassed – and refuses to answer – the child will keep looking for the answer. If you will encourage them, your children will honour you with their questions. If you refuse, they will seek answers from anyone – whether godly or ungodly.

vi. Teach with a good purpose. Good sexual teaching does not answer questions about what. It also teaches why. Teac h your children that sex is a marriage gift from God to a husband and wife.

vii. Be a good example. Show respect, faithfulness, kindness and love to your spouse. It is good for children to see a father and mother kiss and hug a little. Talk to your children about how much you love your spouse. Plan with the children to do special things for your spouse. Never commit adultery. If you are a single parent, remain sexually pure. Stay away from all pornography. Your example will either underline or erase all your words.

3. The sexual knowledge each child needs at home.

Parents are not always in control of what their children see and hear about sex. Children may get ideas through friends, television, music, and other things outside the home. Protect children from false or ungodly ideas about sex as much as possible. Be aware of what they see and hear. Protect their innocent, young minds, while teaching them the truth as they grow. Children develop at their own rate within their culture. So, the parent should discern when each child is ready for certain knowledge.

Here are some guidelines for teaching children as they grow:

Children 0 – 3 years old
- They need to feel loved and accepted by their father and mother. Fathers and mothers should hug their small children, and tell them they love them. And parents should show their love through giving the small children attention and time. This will protect them from becoming sexually active later in life as an attempt to find love that was missing as a child.
- Teach them the names for their sexual parts as you teach them the names for other parts of their bodies.
- They will be curious about the differences between male and female bodies. Give very simple answers.
- They begin wondering where babies come from. They will notice pregnant women and animals. Explain that babies first grow in special sacks in the mothers’ bodies.
- They need to develop positive feelings about being a boy or a girl. This usually happens when they look up to their fathers and mothers. If you are a single parent, make sure your children spend time with someone like the missing parent. The best choices are godly people who will be in their lives for a long time – like an aunt, uncle, or grandparents.
- Do not give details about intercourse. If questions arise, just say, “We will talk about that when you are older.”
- Leave them in the care of people you trust completely. Sexual abuse can happen to children less than three years old! The sad truth is that if a very young child is sexually abused, it was usually a friend or a family member who committed this sin.

Children 4 – 6 years old
- Continue many of the things we mentioned for the smallest children. For example continue to show that you love and accept each child. As children grow, you will answer their questions more fully. For example, they will want to know how the baby gets out of the mother. But a child still does not need to know how the child got in – the details of intercourse.
- Teach them about good and bad choices. Encourage them to grow in self-control. This helps them build a foundation for godly, moral living.
- Teach them that God desires babies to be born in marriages with a mother and father. If a child does not have a mother or father living with them, they will begin asking questions about why. Give the simple truth without details. Never make a child feel guilty or at fault over what a parent did. Do not encourage the child to think badly of the missing parent.
- Help them feel that they can come to their parents for answers about sexual things.
- Teach them the difference between private and public body parts. The private parts are not to be shown or touched by others. If this has happened with small children who are all the same age, do not become angry. They are just curious. But if someone older is involved, use all your power to protect your child from abuse. Your child’s sexual future is at risk. Always let them know that being safe is more important than being polite. Teach them to shout “NO”, run away, and tell on anyone who touches them in a sexual way.

Children 7 – 10 years old
- They will have more questions about the father’s part in making babies. They will need to know the role of intercourse in creating a child. At this age, they may not be curious about the other purposes of sex, unless they have seen sexual acts in movies, pictures, or elsewhere. Do your best to protect them from understanding sex too early. Children need all their attention and energy to be applied to other areas of growth at this time in their lives.
- They will have more questions about how the baby grows inside the mother and how it is born. Some parents use the process of mating, pregnancy, and birth in animals to teach their children.
- Teach them about the sexual systems of the male and female body. Teach that sex and sexuality are normal and good in marriage. God made all things to reproduce.
- Make sure they understand the ways their bodies are going to change into adult men and women.

Children 10 – 13 years old
- Prepare them for the physical and emotional changes of puberty. Every child should know about menstruation and nocturnal emissions (wet dreams) before they experience these things. Assure that that people develop at different rates and that variety in human bodies is normal.
- Teach them that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman. Teach them to remain a virgin – someone who has not had sex until marriage.
- Help them to expect the sex drive to be powerful. But desire does not demand action. Teach them that the Holy Spirit helps us to have self-control over our desires (Gal 5:13, 16)
- Talk to them about pornography and other entertainment that will harm and twist their thinking about sex.
- Teach them that incest – sex with a family member – is always a sin.
- Teach them the value of modesty in dress and interaction with people.
- Educate them about pregnancy and birth control, when others their age are talking about these things. (Parents, do not assume that your children should be as old as you were when you learned these things. Find out the ages that children today are discussing about these sexual matters.)

Children 14 years and older
- Teach them the purpose of marriage and the other purposes of sex besides reproduction.
- Teach them how to talk about sex with others – and when it is not acceptable to talk about sex.
- Talk about the results of using and misusing sex as God has commanded. Include information about sexual diseases such as HIV / AIDS.
- Explain why our church teaches that abortion is wrong, except in rare cases when it threatens the life of the mother. Children belong to God, even when they are still in the womb. Remember, abortion stops a beating heart! (Assemblies of God’s position on abortion (pdf file)
- Help them to understand the opposite sex and respect them.
- Help to develop a personal plan for sexual purity
- Begin praying with them about wisdom in choosing marriage and a spouse.
- Teach them the steps by which sexual desire gets stronger and stronger so they will be aware.
- Talk to them about masturbation.
- Details about how to become a good lover should not be shared until engagement. When they become engaged, help them to get the information they need to prepare for sex within marriage.

Our children need good knowledge about sex in order to live wise lives. Sexual knowledge helps them understand themselves, protect themselves, and choose wisely.

Conclusion

We want our children to grow in wisdom just as Jesus grew. One of the ways parents can help is to make sure their children are gaining knowledge about themselves and the world. Parents should encourage a love of learning. They should strive to educate all their children. They should teach them practical life skills through everyday work. And parents should not neglect sex education. As our children acquire knowledge, let us pray that their hearts will be turned to God and to wisdom.

Pastoral Letter From Our Diocesan Bishop

The Most Rev Dr John Chew

5th Sunday of Easter: 10 May 2009

Dear Members of our beloved Diocese,

Grace, peace and strength in our Saviour’s Name.

Over the past week, the Christian church in Singapore, more particularly the Anglican Church, has been much in the media spotlight over the AWARE saga. I am aware that questions and even doubts have been raised amongst our people. I write prayerfully to try to help address some of the issues concerned, and do my best to provide background and context for certain actions or perceived lack of action to assist you in interpreting them. The last thing which I pray will not happen as a result of recent events is confusion and a breakdown of trust amongst ourselves.

I therefore write specifically to encourage you in positively and constructively continuing the prophetic and priestly responsibility of our Christian vocation to witness and serve in our society, thereby fulfilling Church’s and the Christian’s social responsibility to the nation. This responsibility is a vital part of our calling as the people of God. Through our Christ-like character, exemplary conduct in life, and our faithful, and at times, costly witness to God and His word we are to be the “salt of the earth and the light of the world” so that others seeing our good works would give glory to God our Father (Mt 5:13f, 16).

Our Witness Matters

We are grateful to God for MOE’s swift suspension of external sexual education programmes, pending careful review and the recent MOE statement following the AWARE saga:

“MOE and the schools do not promote alternative lifestyle. MOE’s framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit.” (ST, 7 May 2009)

Encouragingly, this reaffirms the position of our government expressed in the Prime Minister’s policy statement on the debate of Homosexuality in Parliament on 23 Oct 2007 explaining why the Government decided that Section 377A of the Penal Code was not to be repealed. What is noteworthy is that in it PM Lee underlines that “a heterosexual stable family is a social norm”. This certainly is to be lauded but also no effort must be spared to uphold and strengthen this norm. It is the position we in the Anglican Church in Singapore, together with the National Council of Churches, have all along maintained and contributed in the debates and stood for in public space.

Our Diocese has recently reiterated its position on homosexuality: “The Diocese of Singapore, in its teaching on biblical faith and order, is firmly committed to (the) orthodox position on sexual ethics… We believe and hold that the Bible is clear and authoritative in bearing witness to God’s will regarding human sexuality; namely that sexual relations are to be expressed only within life-long union of a man and woman in holy matrimony. All forms of sexual promiscuity, including homosexual relationships between men or women, as well as heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are incompatible with the divine vision and design of human life. At the same time, we hold that there is divine grace of forgiveness, healing and transformation for all who repent of homosexual or other illicit forms of sexual practice. We do not condone inhuman and unsocial acts against homosexuals nor do we discriminate against them. Rather we extend to them God’s love, compassionate ministry and true freedom through Jesus Christ.” (ST, 8 Aug 2008)

Before I comment on the recent event and some measures taken, allow me to share with you on a broader, holistic and equally important canvass, how the Anglican Church has been very much faithfully involved in the forefront of community services and social responsibility over the years and also hopefully you too can be involved and contributing in this regard well into the future.

Our Holistic Social Responsibility

Our Christian social responsibility is to “seek the welfare of the city” (Jer 29 :7). This includes the social and ethical considerations we bring to civil life and public discussion of fundamental issues based on beliefs and values of our faith. It goes beyond to embrace other concrete ways in which we as Christians participate in nation building and care for those in need in society.

Hence, our contribution as a Diocese, and individual Parishes, in founding Anglican Schools and providing a wide range of critical Community Services which are primarily family-centred such as Family Crisis Shelters and Mental Psychiatric Rehabilitation, the latest being the St Andrew’s Autism Centre. These services meet the various felt needs of our society irrespective of race or religion. In addition, several of our members are involved in their individual capacities in non-religious based voluntary groups and civic organisations that contribute overall to the welfare of our society. This is proper and reflects our awareness that we are part of a uniquely multi-faith, multi-cultural and multiracial society.

In the light of seeking to make a holistic contribution, our voluntary involvement in community development and welfare arms of the nation should not obscure the fundamental contribution we are to bring as Christians to the well-being and progress of the nation by our vocational (“work as God’s calling”) commitment to our jobs and positions of responsibility in both the public and private spaces.

Our Manner of Discharging our Wider Social Responsibility

Our Anglican ethos, just as in many other parts of the Church, sees a prudent differentiated role of the Church as an institution on the one hand, and individual Christians on the other. The God-given priorities for the Church are to teach her members the full counsel of God’s word, nurture them to follow Christ, equip them for service and ministry, and lead and help them to be “ambassadors” on behalf of Christ and His church to the world, holding out to others the truth and love of Christ. Part and parcel of being “ambassadors” to the world is our social engagement with the civil life and public issues of the nation. In this respect, the church is not a political institution but a religious-social institution with Scripturally-formed responsibilities, values and views on matters of national interest. Recently, we have as a Church actively and critically made our views known on various social issues: stem cell research, euthanasia, biomedical matters, homosexuality and gambling among others. We recognise that in the area of social discourse and engagement at the institutional level in a secular, multi-faith society, there needs to be appropriate “rules of engagement” and “language of discourse” to preserve the harmony and cohesiveness of a society such as ours which has inherent fault-lines.

I know there has been some questions and even disquiet amongst ourselves by the recent NCCS Statement on the AWARE saga. The Statement was made primarily, as it was critically necessary at that particular point in time in the development of events and heightened tensions, to allay public perception and quell social disquiet with potential undesirable consequences that the Church as an organised body was planning and driving the process of change in AWARE, which was not true. That is why the Statement categorically states that the church as a public and responsible institution is not involved and that the pulpit is not to be used for such goals. But the Statement also immediately went on to stress that this “does not preclude individual Christians… from contributing to matters of social concern… nor does it preclude churches from being involved in public square discussions within the rules of engagement in a multi-religious that Singapore is.” (ST, 1 May 2009). Thus, the Statement does at the same time affirm and safeguard the Church’s and the Christian’s legitimate and constructive role contextually in engaging social issues in the public square. We want to do so in a way that glorifies god and displays a godly blend of openness, fairness, reasonableness, winsomeness and wisdom in sharing and engaging the public square with our fellow-citizens, where all are accorded opportunities for engagement and discourse. So continue in it! As the Bible exhorts us: “Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech (and actions) always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer every one.” (Col 4:5f. See also 1 Pet 2:11f, 3:14-16).

Our Reflection over the AWARE Saga

In terms of the process adopted by some members of our Anglican Church who sought to re-direct AWARE to its formative objectives, we can learn from our mistakes. Important considerations and insights can be gained as we openly reflect on the views of the more reasonable critics from various communities who are not known to be supportive of the crux of the matter. Their “takeover” actions, though not contravening AWARE’s Constitution, nevertheless raised ethical and proprietary difficulties and challenges even in the minds of many Christians. While one may not agree, perhaps on socio-moral grounds, with the way they went about fulfilling their social responsibility in correcting the perceived dangerous direction the civic organisation was taking, we must all remain committed as members of the same Diocesan flock to provide a loving environment to care for and pray with them, and in God’s grace reflect together on this episode in the light of Scripture and under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. As Christ’s disciples, let us together learn how to express our vigour for God in our social responsibility while at the same time expressing our regard for and sensitivity to the good standing of the larger Christian body before God and the watching world. Our social engagement must be attentive to not jeopardising the organic unity of the Church (Eph 4:4-6) as well as heeding the Scriptural junction which says: “if possible, in so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Rom 12:18)

In terms of cause for which this group took action, that cause must not be mitigated or forgotten. As unfolding revelations have shown, the group’s concern for a direction that AWARE was taking in terms of its agenda for redefining mainstream sexual ethics and social norms was not misplaced. There is now growing concern in many quarters of Singapore society, not least parents, over AWARe’s perceived advocacy of homosexuality and the content of the Leaders’ Guide of their “Comprehensive Sexuality Education”. Following last Saturday’s EGM, there is a new ExCo in-charge of AWARE. An alarm has been sounded on the promotion of revisionist sexuality norms under the watch of the “old guard”. The Ministry of Education has taken commendable corrective action as a first response.

However one views the perceived involvement and the manner of their engagement of some courageous Christians in the recent AWARE saga, their costly effort has undoubtedly done our society a crucial service by directing the society’s attention to the issue of grave concern of what and how sexual education is being taught by some vendors and trainers in some schools. I believe that mainstream society at large would be grateful for the continued contribution and vigilance of the Christian community to the moral fabric and social well being of our society. But we should also be prepared that, regrettably, there will always be those who would not, and the ways and means they will employ themselves.

As responsible members of our society, we must continue to be courageously and consistently concerned about the direction and trends of our nation, especially those which are ideologically driven by non-Asian values and ‘values-free’ import, not out of moral arrogance but out of genuine care for our nation, our fellow-man and the generations that follow. We rely on God for the strength and grace to do so in those situations where our responsible witness for God and His life-giving values incurs risk and a heavy cost. Our Scriptures remind us that we are called to display the power and wisdom of the Cross in ways that the world would see as “weakness and foolishness” (1 Cor 2). At the same time, our steadfastness in holding our Christian worldview and values must be authenticated and accompanied by a winsome lifestyle characterised by good deeds and a demonstrated commitment to contribute to the wellbeing of our nation.

Conclusion

As the people of God, we must fulfill our social responsibility holistically and in keeping with Christ’s character and example of loving servanthood. In terms of social engagement on public issues,

- our cause must be biblically right;
- our process (or manner in pursuing that cause) must be exemplary, ethical, fair and wise; and
- our actions under God as individual Christians and as an institutional church be in harmony with each other, and appropriate to the rules of engagement that govern the wider society.

Tough and searching times give us the opportunity to grow and mature. As the people of God, let us trust in His Sovereignty over all matters and His wonderful ability, as we pray, to work all things “for the good of those who love him” (Rom 8:28) and we might add in our Centenary year, “for His Glory, His Name and His Honour.”

May the peace, strength and favour on the Lord rest on His covenantal people as we journey on as a Diocese and steadfastly fulfill His calling until His return!

In Christ,
The Most Rev Dr John Chew

05.1 – Conversations

Here are some of the quotes from the conversations in the online media:

05 – Let’s have an omelette for gaiety

Today, I woke up to news confirming that the powers-that-be had made a decision.

I thought to myself, “Okay. Cool. They responded.”

As I was brushing my teeth, another thought came to my head.

“Did they just do it out of pressure?”

I went back to the national rag, peered at the headline and the article with a smirk on my unwashed face.

On page two, they incorporated the new-old-new-old-until-I-no-longer-know-who-is-old AWARE comments.

“Wah… so fast,” I thought. Then I was reminded of that night when speed was the essence in an office stuck in the middle of… er… vice-land. When it was handed to the hacks on a platter, they decided they didn’t want to incorporate it. (If you are curious, it’s Dr. Thio’s reply to the MOE statement.)

I must have rolled my eyes again.

There is a reason for my disdain of the hacks here. It’s well and good if the issue is of huge interest. It deserves to be made in the “Prime” pages of the rag.

The headlines dominate for one week? Fine, it is unusual after all. It’s a wee speck of an island.

Second week? Okay. New revelations, but I thought they should plonk such things in The New Paper.

Third week? Stretching it. People elsewhere on this ball of soil are panicking over swine flu. Yet, you are still talking about it.

We all know that the social media is riddled with conversations. No prizes for guessing which camp’s voice is louder. However, it now appears that the mainstream media – aka our hacks – are playing catch up.

Then, there is the coverage. If someone who has emerged after living under a stone for the past weeks were to be presented with all photos published in the press, can we confidently say that he / she will have a complete picture of what went on? Can that person tell us what really the fight is about?

Yes, it’s only the pictures. I’m not even talking about the thousands of words written by the hacks in the “Prime” section, let alone “Review”.

The truth is I don’t have that high a regard for local hacks.

There, I’ve said it.

I spent two years reading broadcast media (albeit it’s only radio) in Australia. (Digression – At 17, I stupidly decided that I wanted to be a radio deejay when I grew up.) I had a culture shock when I realised that radio producers there are not part-timing as deejays spinning tunes. In fact, even their community radio stations ran current affairs programmes – on familial, community (duh!), societal and political issues. We were prodded by our lecturers and tutors that when we put a programme together, the issue must be balanced – meaning one voice must be balanced with a voice countering it.

For example, if the community in a suburb is up in arms and upset over an unusual smell emanating from a factory, you manage it by interviewing a spokesperson from the community and then make sure you feature comments / response from a spokesperson from the factory. The bonus will be to speak to an expert on environmental health and ask him / her if the smell is potentially harmful to health.

As a journalist, the challenge is to tackle the issue on many fronts and present views that give readers / listeners / viewers a better idea. In no way, the journalist should put his or her two cents’ worth into the content of the programme or article.

For close to $100,000, this is one of the biggest lessons I took from my sojourn to Australia. Only to realise that the mediascape here on returning to Singapore is vastly different.

I remember during one of my journalism class when the lecturer (a kindly, soft-spoken bespectacled man who was formerly a Reuters journalist) pulled up the Australian Journalism Association’s Code of Ethics on the overhead projector (it was the pre-Microsoft Powerpoint era). In my head, I went “Oh goodness, I didn’t know these things existed”.

I shan’t bore you with the entire code. However, I will reproduce here the very first point:

“1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.”

Okay. Maybe some of you may not like Australia (for whatever reasons). I’ll hop over to the American Society of Professional Journalists. This is what they have to say on their Code of Ethics section:

“Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.“

The Australian Journalists Association has a service that deals with complaints about journalists flouting the code of practice. The Society of Professional Journalists acts as a watchdog that speaks out against practices that deviate from its code of ethics. Both organisations have thousands of journalists as their members. In short, they respect their profession immensely and compared to our hacks here, it is almost to a fault.

To conclude (sorry if I have rambled on too much), I visited a livejournal site last night. There was a bit of a discussion on the leaked Su Lin letter and a hack (I assume she is local) wrote this:

“And finally, a quick primer on how the media works: It reflects opinion. So say if there are 99 scientists who believe that human-generated climate change is real, and one scientist who refuses to believe – it reflects that proportion, no matter how loud the one scientist is.”

I would have no issue with her comment if she had said “… a quick primer on how the local media works…”.

So there, I hope you have a better idea of the difference between the hacks here and their more professional counterparts elsewhere. My issue with the local media goes beyond this, of course.

It’s only the tip of the iceberg and it basically contributes to the lack of civility when Singaporeans of two differing camps descend down to discuss their differences (this is another story for another day).

Finally, to those who fought the good fight, thank you once again. Truth be told, I didn’t really agree with how the entire thing was managed. But since the Big Guy is an economical Being, I’m glad things turned out the way it did. At the very least, the virtual high-fivers have eggs on their faces now.

03

I didn’t roll my eyes today when the copy of the national rag was delivered to my home. However, I did roll my eyes when The New Paper mused in its front page if Josie would be the new-old-new-old AWARE’s adviser. My disgust didn’t prevent me from reading the story, which came with flattering poses of the new-old-new-old exco celebrating in the Dover Road office.

“The air is fresh,” one of them commented. I was disappointed that not much has been reported about the new-old-new-old AWARE’s plans during their term but precious newspaper space was given to the air quality in the office. So what’s new? And for some of you who got a “love letter” from the new President, it shows that they’ve been fast and organised. Diplomatic, yes. But again, there wasn’t even a hint of what they plan to do or even a “laughing it off” phrase stating that there’s much work to be done (it wouldn’t be stretching it to believe that they have a lot of work on their hands, no?).

Now, semantics (of the said “love letter”):

“An immediate task for us is to reach out and connect with all new members, to bridge differences and, to invite their participation in the work of AWARE.”

After all that happened before Saturday and the fracas during the EGM, I wonder how the new-old-new-old AWARE aims to bridge differences. Truth be told, there’s a huge chasm, deeper than the ones at the Grand Canyon. There were a thousand new members who stayed away for whatever reasons. The new-old-new-old AWARE were voted in mainly from the support of the liberals but they do not form an overwhelming majority of the membership. The challenge will be to find a middle-ground, where both sides can participate in the work of AWARE. Looking at the fracas that was the EGM, the new-old-new-old AWARE exco has its work cut out in finding even a semblance of a middle ground.

“Our membership has surged and women and men, young and old, now feel empowered by your exemplary voices.”

Since “my england is not powderful”, I went on dictionary.com and checked on the word “exemplary”. This is what it really means – “worthy of imitation; commendable”. So to those who were there at the EGM, here is some food for thought: Was the conduct – or voices – of a majority of the members “worthy of imitation and commendable”?

Before you give this question a further thought, consider this:

“So yes, call me and my like-minded friends a hooligan if you must. Better hooliganism couched in those terms than narrow-minded, uninformed and cowardly.”

These are words from a young woman who attended the EGM. No prizes for guessing on which side of the fence she sat. She went on to say:

“Most of all, I think yesterday was a lesson in civil society… What it is, simply put and as I understand it, is a society where people care enough about issues to come together and form groups to work towards their common goals. Does that mean that one tramples on the rights and views of those with contrary opinions? Absolutely not. Does a common end allow means that deal in half-truths and false allegations? Resoundingly no. But does any group in a civil society sit back and allow others to hijack its resources and change the foundations of its cause without putting up a reasoned, non-violent and constitutional fight?”

Spot the irony (or ironies).

Her post was entitled “I’m a hooligan and proud of it” (http://triciaseow.livejournal.com/339835.html). Civil society? Enough said.

 On a very different note, this is what I found from a blog (Singapore Life and Times – http://singaporelifetimes.blogspot.com/2009/05/rip.html):

“I applaud the new old AWARE committee members, who were brave enough to take up a cause they believed in. Nobody can take that away from them. One may disagree vehemently with their way of going about the whole thing, but through it all, I think they succeeded in drawing much attention to the issue of homosexuality education in Singapore schools.”

Nail on head. Perhaps, a blessing in disguise.

Elsewhere, the infamous akikonomu (aka Operator Leper) gave thanks:

“Thank you, old media, for showing there are some principles that we can all agree to care about.” (http://akikonomu.blogspot.com/2009/05/issue-of-statements-i.html)

Ah, the old adage of “believing what you choose to believe”. Funny that under akikonomu’s profile, it says “Think critically”.

(Other interesting blogs:

To hope till Hope creates – http://xenoboysg.blogspot.com/2009/05/to-hope-till-hope-creates.html

How to win an EOGM and lotsa friends – http://groundnotes.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/how-to-win-an-eogm-and-lotsa-friends/)

Now, for the real beef. I went over to the Christian Post and read its article about “What the ‘Aware Saga’ really is (and what it is not)” (http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/453/11|19/1.htm).

The opening paragraph of the section “What we can do” says:

“After recognising that the Aware conflict is not one that is easily resolved because it involves two mutually-opposing worldviews, certain parties including the official press and Christian bodies need to avoid getting into the ‘fray’ as it were in an unhelpful way.”

Fine. We already know about the official press (by the way, what’s “unofficial press”?). But I’m a little perturbed when reading about its stance that Christian bodies need to avoid getting into the “fray”.

It goes on to say:

“The real issue at hand is not whether or not churches should be involved in the NGO – the crisis is that society cannot understand Christians and what it doesn’t understand it is apt to misunderstand and fear. To the multitudes of non-Christians of an anti-moral persuasion, churches should not get involved simply because Christians are ‘aggressive’ people with a ‘dangerous’ agenda to ‘impose’ their values and beliefs on the rest of the world.”

My eyebrows were raised. Then curious, I clicked on the “About us” link of the Christian Post:

“The Christian Post upholds the dictum found in John 8:32, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” In the midst of immensely secularized teachings of the gospel, The Christian Post partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ.”

Again, spot the irony (or ironies).

All of these set my mind thinking.

(a) How should Christians conduct themselves when serving as leaders in organisations in a secular nation?

(b) What is the definition of “secular” in our society?

(c) How should Christians react to this definition?

(d) How should Christians respond when a tenet of their beliefs is being disputed / threatened in a secular society?

I remember during my secondary school days, my biology teacher gave a disclaimer before we started on the lesson on evolution. I didn’t know much, then, about what this evolution fuss was and why she had to state in her disclaimer “I know that Christians and Catholics may think this is contrary to what will be taught, but this is part of the syllabus”.

Fact is I still remember what she said and how she said it. Suffice to say, she was a Catholic. Now, were such disclaimers made before the Comprehensive Sex Education session began?

Hello indeed…

The dust is still settling. Somewhere, some part of Singapore continues to celebrate. Whether this “some part” is a minority is still moot but one may come to a logical conclusion after he or she attended the EGM.

Maybe I’m still sticking my head in the sand. I’ve avoided reading the papers on Sunday morning. This morning, I was rolling my eyes when I saw the letters “AWARE” on the front page of the national rag.

Suffice to say, I have never been impressed with the local media and it becomes a very big problem because of the career path that I have stumbled my way into. There are very few, if at all, journalists in the local papers whom I respect for their professionalism and their craft.

Has the local media been fair in its coverage? If anyone were to put on their thinking caps, they should come to a logical conclusion after examining the headlines, the choice of photos being used in each story and even the position where the stories appear on the page.

For obvious reasons, the fracas was not extensively covered in the Chinese, Malay and Tamil press. Granted, Berita Harian and Tamil Murasu do not have the luxury of space. Moreover, one can easily infer that the battle involves a religious group which makes up less than 20% of the Singaporean population.

On the social media front, I have also avoided following the conversations on twitter and blogs. However, one of them who posted nothing on her blog before the EGM went on a Twitter frenzy on Saturday. Another was a bloke – a Christian father of two young kids and is very well-connected in the social media scene – who remained largely neutral during the past few weeks. What raised my eyebrows were his comments over Twitter: “There is a time for everything. Not sure about you, but I’ve never seen anyone accept Christ thru intellectual debate.”

Then, we have the 99% of the social media still celebrating and giving each other high-fives (virtual ones though). On some blogs, they wrote about how touched they were when they saw old women with walking sticks in the hall during the EGM and how every person who came to the microphone to speak was eloquent and had their arguments well-thought out. They beat on the drum of civil society, speaking out for the minority.

I reckon for those who were in the hall themselves would have a differing view from theirs.

However, among the cacophony of (celebratory) voices, we do have some neutrals who wrote about their accounts of the EGM. Suffice to say, some not-so-savoury comments were posted on their blogs. (you can read one of them here).

It was cool that some pastors openly talk about post-modernism in their sermons. Some of them even highlighted to the congregation how Christian parents should deal with the issue of the Comprehensive Sex Education in schools. I absolutely agree with his views that parents should never, ever leave the parenting to someone else. More so, during these times (last days), when information can be readily accessed via the Internet. We all know that the PC (or Macbook ) does not come with a “moral filter” to help kids determine which is the truth and which isn’t.

If you create an information vacuum, you are inviting other people to fill it up with rubbish or say the things you didn’t say. I guess this applies to parenting as well.

I feel sore and frustrated – for things that happened before, during and after the EGM. In truth, there are quite a number of things I wasn’t in agreement of – including how this thing came about. It’s now all water under the bridge. No point doing another debrief unless it’s for the purpose of a case study.

However, the number one grouse of mine is how the Church has not really done its part in helping and equipping Christians to live during the last days. It’s well and good to preach about evangelism, discipling, the four Gospels, etc. The thing is if it has been repeatedly mentioned from the pulpit that “we are living in the last days” and we know that there would be many “false prophets”, why hasn’t the Church held the bull by its horns and really deal with the thorny (but very real) issues of this post-modern era?

How many times have we heard a message about the Bible and homosexuality from the pulpit? How many times have we heard about an upcoming class about Teaching Your Children on Sexuality? How many times have we heard the Church’s position on transgendered children? How about divorce? How about abortion? What should Christians know about the pro-choice movement and what the Bible explicitly said about it? (The issue of homosexuality is just one of many. We also have the issue of Evolution versus Creation.)

Why must the Christians be left largely on their own to interpret and form their own conclusions on how they should deal with these issues? (For your information, there is a long Wikipedia entry about the Bible and Homosexuality. And this is on top of the many websites which refute – using Scripture – the conservative Christian claims that homosexuality is an abomination to God.)

Do we even have an explanation on how and why there is a pro-gay church in Singapore (led by a former bishop of the Methodist Church)? While they have openly disputed the Christian argument on homosexuality, how should Christians respond to that when asked by their pre-believing friends?

This issue has opened a Pandora’s Box. Evangelism is no longer a straight-forward process of telling a pre-believer about God’s love. Christians will have to not only defend their beliefs but explain why they hold such a belief.

My question is: How equipped are we to deal with that? Or will the charismatic among us say, “We’ll leave this to the Holy Spirit?”

I’m saddened by how the Church has remained largely silent throughout this trying time. Even if there is a “higher” agenda which they have to follow, I believe they should, at the very least, state their positions to their congregations and equip them within their four walls of the church.

My number two grouse is how shrewdness (as a Christian virtue) is rarely preached from the pulpit. But that’s a story for another day.

I’ve rambled enough.

Shalom.