The Bible Gap Theory

The Bible can be an extremely fascinating treasure of insights if one spends time to study it.

In Ezekiel 28:11-19, God spoke about Satan's state before he fell from grace. We know that this king of Tyre wasn't human because Ezekiel has already spoken about the human king of Tyre in verses 1-10 whom God called the leader (or prince) of Tyre. There, all the descriptions was decidedly human in nature. When we moved to verses 11-19, the king of Tyre was described in decidedly angelic form.

Here, God described Satan's dwelling place before his fall as being in the garden of Eden. However, this garden is totally different from the one that Adam and Eve were given by God. In Satan's case, he was in a garden filled with many different types of precious stones. It was also in this garden that Satan's pride got the better of him (see Isaiah 14:12-14) and he declared war against God . Verse 18 in Ezekiel went on to say that the earth became waste and void.

This was probably the context that Genesis began with.

[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2] The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

In this 2 short verses, we can deduce that there there was possibly a gap of time between verse 1 and 2. The evidence can be found in Isaiah 45:18 which says:

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),

If God did not create the earth as a waste place, then it is strange indeed that Genesis described the earth as formless and void (or in an alternative NASB translation, waste and emptiness). The question to ask is whether God created the earth in a state of chaos (which Isaiah 45:18 disproved) or did it became a state of chaos (which Ezekiel 28:18 provided for such a possibility).

Furthermore, the Hebrew word describing formless/waste (tohu) and void/emptiness (bohu) were used together only in two other Old Testament passages and both pointed to the concept of divine judgment (Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23).

But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, And owl and raven will dwell in it; And He will stretch over it the line of desolation [tohu] And the plumb line of emptiness [bohu]. (Isa 34:11)

I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless [tohu] and void [bohu]; And to the heavens, and they had no light. (Jer 4:23)

Finally, the Hebrew word that was translated as "was" in Genesis 1:2 (The earth was formless and void) is hayah which can be translated as "to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out". Hence the verse can be translated as "The earth became formless and void".

Hence, we can deduce that the fall of Satan occurred between Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1 and 2. This is the Bible Gap Theory to account for the fall of Satan and the description of the earth in a state of waste and emptiness. However, this gap is not to be confused with the one which some used to accommodate supposedly long geological age of the earth. In Romans 5:12, death only came about with Adam's sin so it is biblically not possible for death to occur before Adam's sin to account for the fossil records of the billions of years.

Letter to the ST Forum - 'Happy' kids no reason for parental complacency

4 Dec 07 - The Straits Times Forum

I REFER to the report, 'Most S'pore kids are happy: Study' (ST, Nov 30).


The report gave the impression that both dads and mums can and should continue to work without worries (or feel guilty) because (1) 'hours at the office will not affect the emotional well-being of their children' and (2) children who were interviewed in the research indicated that their mums, working or not, often spend time with them.
This report seems to complement recent government efforts to encourage more mothers to re-join the workforce.
The reported findings, based on a highly subjective questionnaire, should not be seen as a blank cheque for couples to abdicate the bulk of their parenting responsibility to childcare services and maids.
Even if we accept that some families may not be able to afford having a parent as the full-time caregiver because of divorce, death or dire financial situations, there are still plenty of couples today who will not think twice about ditching this sacred responsibility for 'lesser' reasons such as professional/career advancement and/or pursuing higher standards of living.
There is nothing wrong in pursuing such things in and of themselves. However, when a couple decide to bring a life into this world, there is a need to critically examine the motives for wanting to do so and evaluate whether they are prepared to make the sacrifices (e.g., giving up on career or luxuries) over the long haul.
My parents separated when I was eight years old and, like Ynez Tan mentioned in the article, I was 'happy' that my working mum was not around so that I could do as I wished. (That the report chose to highlight this girl's views about her mum at work out of the many interviewed spoke volumes about the research's subjectivity).
It was only by the grace of God that I grew up relatively unscathed. Everything else being equal, I would venture to say that children will blossom in an environment where one of the parents is around to provide constant and consistent nurturing love.
Sure, there is no guarantee that children brought up in such an environment will turn out well 100 per cent of the time. However, when they don't and, as parents, you did not make this noble 'sacrifice' when it was in your capacity to do so, it may be too late for regrets over what it could have been.

What Did Joel Actually Said?

One of the most debated quotation of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers must be the quotation that Peter gave to the crowd at Pentecost from Joel 2:28-32. Many people have sought to explained Joel's prophesy as speaking about the pouring of the Holy Spirit onto the 12 disciples. including Matthias and about 120 Jews (Acts 1:15). They reckoned that since Peter quoted from Joel, it must be so. Right?

Wrong. If one bother to read through the entire book of Joel (which isn't very long since it comprises only 3 chapters), one will realise that the only point of agreement was about the pouring of the Holy Spirit. The rest of the fulfillments were all missing at Pentecost.

The Timing Was Wrong

Joel 2:28 mentioned that the pouring of the Holy Spirit will "come about after this". What is this "after this"? Looking at Joel 2:1-10, the events preceding the pouring of the Holy Spirit will be a massive invasion of Jerusalem. This obviously did not happen in Acts.

The Composition Was Wrong

Joel 2:28-29 mentioned that the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all flesh (NKJV) which in the context of Joel was on all Jews. Furthermore, Joel mentioned that "your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.". The Holy Spirit was only poured out onto the 12 disciples and possibly 120 followers in Acts. Also in Acts, no one did any prophesying, and certainly Luke did not record anyone dream dreams and see visions.

The Conditions Were Wrong

Peter's quote from Joel included the signs which said "I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, blood, fire and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.". Luke also did not record any such signs in Acts itself. Furthermore, Joel did not mentioned about the gift of tongues which were clearly manifested in Acts itself (Acts 2:4).


What we have here is a literal plus application quotation of the Old Testament. The literal meaning of the Joel passage speaks of Israel’s national salvation, when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all Israel, resulting in Israel’s national salvation in preparation for the Messianic Kingdom.

Of course, that did not happen in the Book of Acts, but there was one point of similarity. Because of that one point of similarity, the passage was quoted; not as a point of fulfillment, but as an application. That one point of similarity is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in a unique manifestation. In Joel, the Holy Spirit will some day be poured out upon the whole nation of Israel, resulting in some unique manifestations.

In Acts 2, the Spirit was poured out upon twelve, or one hundred twenty at the most, resulting in a unique manifestation, which in that case was speaking in tongues. The one point of similarity was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Because of that one point of similarity, the New Testament quoted the Old Testament passage as an application.

Acts 2 did not fulfill Joel 2 because, again, nothing that Joel prophesied actually happened in Acts 2. What did happen in Acts 2 was not even spoken of by Joel, because Joel did not mention the gift of tongues. So, because of one point of similarity, the Old Testament has quoted by the New Testament as an application.

(Passages in BLUE extracted from Fruchtenbaum Messianic Bible Studies MBS134M)

Letter to the ST Forum - The key difference between homosexuality and abortion/capital punishment

6 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum

I REFER to the humorously written letter by Mr Peter Lee Peng Eng (Online forum, Nov 10), who commented that NMP Thio Li-Ann should also speak up equally fervently on other moral issues that the Singapore laws condoned in order not to be branded as a hypocrite.
Specifically, Mr Lee exhorted NMP Thio to speak up against abortion and capital punishment because 'Christianity does not condone killing another human being'.
To correct Mr Lee's confusion, I believe that most major religions do not condone killing of another innocent human being. Hence by logical extension, abortion is frowned upon by most religious orders.
Of course, strong emotive arguments abound between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially with regard to rape victims who become pregnant or when the mother's life is being threatened. On the other hand, most major religions also permit capital punishments though the conditions differ somewhat from religion to religion. As a secular society, we can certainly debate on which crimes are heinous enough to deserve capital punishment.
However, Mr Lee missed the point when he chose to lump the debate on Section 377A with that of abortion and capital punishment.
Perhaps he was too busy to read NMP Thio's parliamentary speech, so allow me to quote one section of her speech - 'It is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.'
Similarly, those who had undergone abortion(s) or administered capital punishment (or committed adultery for that matter) are not thumping their chest with pride over what they had done.
In arguing for Section 377A to be repealed, the supporters in Singapore ultimately want homosexuality to be accepted by society and possibly celebrated (in future) as an alienable right, similar to race, language or religion. This is the key difference in this debate that Mr Lee should be cognisant of.

The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 3)

The next 4 Kingdom parables are only found in Matthew and reading through the entire chapter 13, it is clear that Jesus spoke about all 9 Kingdom parables in a single day after the national rejection by the Jews in Jesus' days. These next 4 parables are also private parables that were spoken to the 12 disciples alone.

(6) The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt 13:44)

Here the object describing the Kingdom is the hidden treasure. If we take reference from the Parable of the Tares, we can assume that the field represents the world (Matt 13:38).

So what is this Treasure? In Exo 19:5, Deut 7:6 (also Deut 14:2), Deut 26:18, and Psa 135:4, Israel is mentioned as God's סגלּה (segûllâh - peculiar/special treasure).

Hence the treasure is the nation of Israel for which Jesus gave His all to purchase the whole world to possess this treasure. This treasure remained hidden because though Israel was chosen by God as a witness to His glory, they failed and rejected His only Son as well.

According to Fruchtenbaum, the parable makes two main points. (1) Jesus purchased the treasure hidden in the field by the cross. (2) The treasure does not come into His possession, but only the place where the treasure is.

Basically, this parable makes the point that in the Mystery Kingdom, there will be Jews will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.


(7) The Parable of the Merchant Seeking Fine Pearls (Matt 13:45-46)

Here the object describing the Kingdom is the merchant seeking fine pearls.

Wiersbe wrote that the pearl represented the Church while Fruchtenbaum saw the pearl as the Gentiles of the Church for 2 reasons: (a) the Church comprises Jews and Gentiles, since the treasure represented the Jews, the pearls would corresponding refer to the Gentiles and (b) since pearls originated from the seas, and when the sea is used symbolically, it represents the Gentile world (Dan 7:2-3; Rev 17:15).

Wiersbe further added that pearls grow gradually and are hidden in the oyster shells, much like the Church, and will one day be revealed in its beauty. Fruchtenbaum noted that the pearl grew gradually "till the fullness of the Gentiles have come in" (Rom 11:25) and will be plucked out from the sea signifying the Rapture.

The parable makes the point that the Church, in particular the Gentiles, will come into Jesus' possession through His suffering, death and resurrection.


(8) The Parable of the Dragnet (Matt 13:47-50)

The Kingdom of God will end with the judgment as represented by the dragnet, where the good fish will be separated from the bad. The environment of the sea also meant that this would be the judgment of the Gentiles which was explicitly detailed in Matt 25:31-46.


(9) The Parable of the Head of the Household (Matt 13:51-53)

This parable is extremely meaningful in that in describing a scribe (understanding the Law) who became a disciple of the Kingdom of heaven (doer of the Law), Jesus is saying that we bring out a treasure (God's Mystery Kingdom program) that is both old (established by the Old Testament) and new (established by the New Testament).

The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 2)

The next two Kingdom parables have generated very differing interpretations from Christians depending on their eschatological viewpoints. I should first confess that I subscribe to the dispensational premillennium viewpoint but I suggest that we let the Bible speak for itself.

(4) The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19)

The first view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience an extremely fruitful growth and pointed that the birds are the faithful believers that took shelter in this kingdom. The translators of NASB probably had this in mind when they alluded the birds with those mentioned in Ezekiel 17:23.

The second view of this parable explained that the Kingdom of God will experience a monstrous and abnormal growth and pointed that the birds are the the evil agents of Satan who will dwell amongst Christendom. This interpretation is in line with the Parable of the Sower where Jesus made reference to the birds that came to pick up the seeds sown beside the road.

I think it will be best to show pictures of mustard seeds and mustard plants before trying to explain why such disparate views exist.

In Matthew and Mark, Jesus stated the obvious fact that the mustard seed is "smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil" and yet pointed out in Matthew and Luke that it grew up to become a tree. Even in Mark, Jesus pointed out the plant grew large branches. In all 3 passages, the birds came and nested in its branches.

Looking at the picture of the mustard plant, it will be a leap of logic to see how the birds can nest comfortably in the "branches" and describing it as a tree seems to be extremely exaggerating to say the least since mustard seed grows to become a shrub, not a tree. While birds in the Bible did not symbolically only to things of evil origin (e.g., Ezekiel 17:23), I suggest that Jesus would not have sought to confuse us with a negative imagery of birds in the Parable of the Sower and then a positive imagery of birds all within a single chapter of Matthew.

If Jesus had wanted to portray the Kingdom of God experiencing an extremely fruitful growth, He could have used imagery of "an acorn growing up to be an oak" or "a cedar seed growing up to be one of the mighty trees of Lebanon" as it was described in the Ezekiel passage.

Faced with such wealth of evidences, why then would people still want to cling on to the fruitful Kingdom view? Most postmillennialists and many amillennalists take this view since it fits their eschatology to have a parable that tells of the kingdom's triumph in the world before Christ's return*. Of course, some Christians have arbitrarily decided that since nothing can or should thwart the work of God, the Kingdom of God is described in this parable needs to have a good ending. This also applies to the Parable of the Leaven which we will discuss later.

I think this view point is unfortunate and does not reflect what the Bible is saying. While we all like happy endings, it is a fact that the Bible characterised apostasy as something that will happen in the latter days (Matt 24:10-12, 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Thess 2:3). Hence the "pessimistic" view of the Parable of the Mustard Seed is in line with the general theme of the Bible.

In conclusion, the Parable of the Mustard Seed tells us that Christendom will grow into a monstrous proportion with agents of Satan residing within it. This is probably manifested in the various cults and corrupt movements within Christendom.

* Montgomery, "The Parables of Jesus".

(5) The Parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33, Luke 13:20-21)

Here, 2 key imageries are used: leaven and flour. Some have tried to speculate on who or what the woman in the parable represents and made the association that when women are used symbolically in the Bible, it often refers to a false religious system. Whether this was meant to be, it will not change the takeaway of this parable and taking the cue from Jesus' interpretation of the Parable of the Tares, I think the Bible will not provide any conclusive evidence for such speculations.

Turning to the leaven, the Bible has ample references to show that it always referred to as a symbol of sin (Matt 16:6-12, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1, 1 Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:9). Similar to the Parable of the Mustard Seed, amillennialists see leaven as not something that is evil but as something that represents hidden power in order to fit their eschatological viewpoint. It seems strange that amillennialists want to make this one parable an exception on what the leaven symbolised in all other passages.

Why did Jesus specifically detailed the 3 measures* (pecks) of flour? Fruchtenbaum has interpreted it as the 3 major entities of Christendom represented by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. He pointed out that each group has allowed a greater or lesser degree of false doctrine within.

Whatever the interpretation, the Parable of the Leaven makes the point that Christendom will experience intractable doctrinal corruption as represented by the leaven.

* Each measure represents about 7.3 litres.

The Parables of the Kingdom (Part 1)

If you make an attempt to harmonise the gospels, you will realise that the parables of the Kingdom were the very first series of parables taught by Jesus. I adapted most of of the following insights from the bible study series from Arnonld Fruchtenbaum.

When the Jews, collectively represented by the Pharisees and Scribes, rejected Jesus' messianic claims and attributed his messianic miracles to the work of Satan, Jesus pronounced judgment on the Israelite generation then for committing the "unpardonable" sin - rejecting God's manifestation of Jesus on earth. Straight away thereafter, He commenced his parabolic teaching, proclaiming the Mystery Kingdom in place of the Davidic Kingdom that the Israelites were waiting for which would have to await a later, future fulfillment (See my other post).

The 9 parables of the Kingdom can be found in Matthew 13:1-52, Mark 4:1-34 and Luke 8:4-18.

(1) The Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:1-9, Mark 4:1-9, Luke 8:4-8)

Jesus explained the meaning of this parable in Matt 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20 and Luke 8:11-15). This parable makes the point that there will be sowing of the gospel seed in this age with different responses - those who do not believe (birds who ate up the seeds), those who are saved but are not stablised because they were not rooted in the Word of God (seeds on rocky ground), those who are saved but are not stablised because they are distracted by the cares of the world (seeds amongst thorns) and those who are saved and are productive because they are rooted in the Word of God and are not distracted by the cares of the world (seeds on good ground).

It is critical to note Jesus' statement in Mark 4:13 that understanding this particular parable sets the context to understand the rest of the Kingdom parables. This will be clearer as we discuss the subsequent parables.

(2) The Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mark 4:26-29)

This parable makes the point that the gospel seed which has been sown will have an inner energy that it will spring into life on its own accord. This is the mystery of the gospel message - How a simple message of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and conquering death through his resurrection have change a person's course of life.

(3) The Parable of The Tares (Matt 13:24-30)

This parable was explained by Jesus in Matt 13:36-43. Tares (or darnel) are false wheats. Tares are indistinguishable from the real wheat until the ear is developed, when the thin fruitless ear of the darnel is detected. Its root would so intertwines with that of the wheat that the farmer cannot separate them, without plucking up both.

The one who sows the good seed - is the Son of Man
The field - is the world
The good seeds - are the sons of the kingdom
The tares - are the sons of the evil one
The enemy who sowed them - is the devil
The harvest - is the end of the age
The reapers - are angels

Jesus' interpretation of this parable should be the model on how we should understand all other parables. There were no exposition to why were the landowner's men sleeping, who were the slaves, why the landowner could not prevent his enemy from sowing the tares and why the landowner could not remove the tares from the onset.

This parable makes 4 essential points: (1) The sowing of the gospel seed will be imitated by false counter-sowing, (2) there is going to be side-by-side development of truth and falsehood which would be indistinguishable, (3) there is going to be judgment and (4) the final distinction will be the "fruit" that comes out of wheat and tare.

This parable also makes 3 sub-points:

(a) The good seeds are planted before the tares are sowed. This suggest that the tares are not generic sinful people in general but more accurately, false christians planted by Satan to hinder God's work and who are indistinguishable from true christians in the beginning.

(b) The landowner told the slaves not to gather the tares at the initial stage "for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them". While the passage did not shed further light into the reasons, one possible interpretation is that because we cannot tell true from false christians at this time, to exercise church discipline in an attempt to weed out the "tares" may damage or discourage true christians who have yet to mature.

(c) Who were the tares? - "all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness" [Matt 13:41]. While the latter are self-explanatory, it is interesting to note that those who prevent others from coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus were also lumped together those who commit lawlessness.

Letter to the ST Forum - Polarisation beginning to show

1 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum

BOTH sides of the recent Section 377A debate have claimed victory and selectively focused on relevant portions of PM Lee's speech in Parliament to back up their stands.
Rather than victory, I suggest that both camps have 'lost' in their recent effort to bring the moderate majority to their stated cause.
For those who supported the retention of Section 377A, and especially the deeply religious, this effort has alienated the moderate majority in their lop-sided emphasis on 'hating the sin' and neglecting the equal call to 'love the sinner'.
While they need not renounce their opposition to homosexual behaviour to welcome the gay and lesbian community, it is a reality that the religious have yet to adopt an openly consistent and compassionate approach with people with homosexual tendencies.
For those who supported the repeal of Section 377A, their insistence on labelling all those who oppose the repeal as bigots and right-wing religious fanatics did little to draw the moderate majority to them either.
The polarisation effects are beginning to surface. Mr Janadas Devan fired the first salvo in his satire piece tearing into Thio Li-Ann's logic and Andy Ho focused his spotlight on PM Lee's assertion that homosexuality is substantially inborn in one single edition of The Straits Times (Oct 27). Alex Au, the well-known gay activist whom the media always turn to for views on homosexual issues, has also taken off the gloves in his Yawning Bread website by portraying the 'religious right' as Ku Klux Klan and writing that there is no need to be civil to those who take an opposing stand from them. While I have my own reservations regarding Thio Li-Ann's fiery speech in Parliament, a local playwright and aspiring teacher's threat to desecrate her grave was not a civil way to debate the issue. More of these vitriol exchanges will cement the current battle line drawn in the sand and PM Lee's warning of a divided and polarised society will become a reality.
Let's maintain the pragmatism, cherish the space, respect the limits, live and let live.

The Gloves Are Off

In Alex Au's latest post on the Yawning Bread, he has decided to up the ante by doing an expose on the identity of the sender of the hate email to Thio Li-Ann as the playwright and erstwhile relief teacher Alfian Sa'at.

I will leave readers to make their own conclusion about Alfian's actions. I want to focus on Alex Au's defence of Alfian in 2 of his posts ([1] and [2]) regarding MOE's "unfair" termination of his relief teaching position. First, let me re-post an article in CNA on the issue and Alfian's comments on his blog:

SINGAPORE : The Education Ministry receives some 3,000 applications for first time registration as relief teacher each year - and some 100, or 3 per cent, of these are rejected.

Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew gave these figures in Parliament on Monday when he replied to questions brought up by Nominated MPs Eunice Olsen and Siew Kum Hong on the recruitment criteria for relief teachers.

In particular, Mr Siew asked why playwright Alfian Sa'at' was rejected in his application for relief teaching.

Rear Admiral Lui said it was inappropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in the House.

However, he said applicants could be rejected because they do not have the requisite educational qualities, do not have a passion for teaching, or perhaps they have unsuitable records or disciplinary history.

He explained : "Teachers are in a unique position of authority and have great influence over the children they teach, engaging hearts and minds and shaping their attitudes and perspectives.

"Whether permanent or relief, teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which befits this role and to uphold the integrity of the profession, both in a personal and professional capacity. The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." - CNA/ch

***************

1) "The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." Does this mean PAP ministers cannot become relief teachers also because they espouse rampant materialism via their rigorous defence of their inflated salaries?

2) Freedom of Information Act, here I come.

I had thought that MOE's termination of Alfian's relief teaching position was due to his views and support for gays. Then I thought about Otto Fong and realised that Otto is still a teacher of RI. Now we can appreciate the wisdom of MOE's decision to reject Alfian's services from the email that he had sent to Thio Li-Ann. I shudder to think about the impact that Alfian would have made on the students with his values, beliefs and actions if he had been allowed to continue teaching in our schools.

Alfian made the following concluding statement in his blog*:

I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.

Alfian's actions were warmly supported by Alex Au who concluded:

When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more.


*Alfian's post referred to by Alex Au is no longer at Alfian's blog. You can still read excerpts of it at Yawning Bread for now.

The Irony of It All

Recently, the Repeal377A.com community came face-to-face with their silent majority counterpart in the form of Keep377A.com and Support377A.com. While the silent majority respected the rights of the LGBT community to their online petition efforts, this was not apparent reciprocated by the LGBT netizens as evident in the various smear postings seen on the two sites. Even the well-known, middle-of-the-ground, gay activist, Alex Au could not resist taking a swipe at the Straits Times for publishing "poor quality work" from people who opposed the repeal of section 377A.

The people at Repeal377A.com have decided to extend the deadline for the petition by 3 days from 19 Oct to 21 Oct 07 when the numbers were hovering around 6000+. If as Alex Au has articulated that this is not a number game, why the need to extend the deadline? In the latest few posts by Alex Au, instead of launching into his own diatribe, he has decided to refer readers to several blog sites (see here and here) to let them do it for him. Also, rather than admonishing the militant elements in the LGBT for vandalising the Support377A.com site, he decided to draw readers attention to one such post that signed off as "Jesus" with the comments "You christians are mad and crazy.". Finally, he topped it off with a picture of the Ku-Klux Clan to show what "extremist" Christians will do to deny LGBT their rights.

I decided to send a letter to him and till date he has yet to reply.

Good evening Alex.

I have been following the recent discussions on the repealing of Section 377A of the Penal Code. I have always seen you as one of the more mature and reasonable supporter of the LGBT community and, to be honest, I have enjoyed reading your postings although I do not agree with your world view.

However, your recent 2 postings are not what I expect of a person of your standing in the community. I can sense your frustrations at some of the more aggressive elements amongst those who support the retaining of section 377A but I don't think you should react to them or resort to posting a picture of the Ku-Klux Klan to label these people.

Unlike the Repeal377A.com, the Keep377A.com and Support377A.com sites have been subjected to smear postings from what I suspect are the more aggressive elements in the LGBT community. Instead of admonishing these people, you have decided to focus on the fraud element (by posting the comment from Caleb of Young Republic) and highlight the lack of credibility of the signatories. Perhaps you should pause to look at the "Jesus" signatory that wrote "You christians are mad and crazy". Perhaps it's from someone who wants to vilify the LGBT community but then perhaps the LGBT community should pause and reflect whether indeed it could have come from within.

There are a vast majority in the middle that wants to conduct this debate in an open and rationale way. By doing what you have done and influencing those who look to you for leadership and guidance, I can almost see a future where there will be greater polarisation between the 2 camps in Singapore. I don't think that this is something you, I or any of the moderate majority want to see happen in Singapore.

Let us debate this issue frankly and responsibly without malice and venom, whatever the provocation from extremist from both ends.

Alex Tan

The Desired End-State of Repealing 377A

I sent this letter to the Straits Times Forum just before the parliamentary debate on the Penal Code review but it was not published.

I refer to South Africa’s journey towards removing all forms of discriminations especially for their lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community (ST, 19 Oct), and the recent petition attempts in Singapore to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.

It took the South Africans ten short years from the repeal of their sodomy laws to the official sanction of the LGBT’s rights to civil union and adoption. Should the Singapore government accedes to the present repeal petitions or similar initiatives in the future, there is a need to comprehensively lay out the roadmap for the full integration of LGBT within the societal and legal frameworks. While the LGBT community has tried to assure Singaporeans that they will push for further LGBT rights only when society becomes more receptive, it did not stop the community from aggressively seeking the repeal of section 377A despite the current lack of societal receptiveness. The experience of countries like South Africa has also shown that the championing of additional rights for the LGBT community is not that far out in the time horizon. Hence it is important for these rights issues to be debated openly and critically now as part of the repeal initiative. Some of these issues include the minimum legal age for men having sex with men (MSM), the assimilation of LGBT world view into our education system and the media, the structure of possible future civil unions between members of the same sex and adoption procedures for such couples, to list a few.

While it is true that the non-criminalisation of lesbianism did not open these “flood-gates”, I half suspect it was for a lack of vocalisation by the lesbian community and solidarity considerations with their gay counterparts that these issues have yet to be championed. It will be naïve to think that the repeal of section 377A will be an end in itself purely for equality and acceptance. Let us bring to the table all the necessary implications for such repeal and avoid a “slow-boil” outcome if we are serious about according equal rights to the LGBT community in Singapore.

"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" - An Illogical Truism?

On 1 Oct 07, an article appeared in the Straits Times YouthInk section speaking about the hypocrisy of the principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin" when applied to a homosexual. I wrote a letter in response to the article which I re-produced here. The ST forum decided not to publish this in the Forum page and choose to re-direct the letter to YouthInk for their possible use. I am not sure whether there is a general LGBT fatigue on the part of the Forum editor but I guessed the fatigue is not wide-spread given that YouthInk had decided to discuss the NTU survey as a preamble to the article as well.

I observed a familiar strain in Miss Tessa Wong's article in YouthInk (ST, 1 Oct) with that of Mr Janadas Devan's attempt to mould societal attitude towards homosexuals (ST, 7 July). While Mr Devan reminded people to "judge not, that ye be not judged" and concluded that “clever people cannot abide intolerance”, Miss Wong advised people not to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and concluded that it would be “pure hypocrisy” if one attempted to live up to this truism.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" was a truly revolutionary ideal in the ancient of days. Unfortunately, precisely because of its idealism, Miss Wong, like many others, has decided that it is not humanly possible to meet this ideal, leading to her conclusion of hypocrisy.

Unlike Miss Wong, I do not have friends who are espoused homosexuals but I do have friends who have had pre-marital sex, underwent abortions and committed adultery. The friendships that I have are no less genuine or sincere just because I do not condone their actions. I am not sure which part of her friend's homosexual lifestyle has so permeated the friendship that she felt the need to renounce the sin before she can love the sinner.

The leaders of the many religious groups in Singapore have put aside their irreconcilable differences to forge understanding to engender religious harmony for the society's greater good. Despite the fruits of their labours, the doctrinal differences amongst them are insurmountable. Are these people similarly hypocritical going by Miss Wong's argument?

If Miss Wong cannot accept all the moral principles of the Christian faith, she can certainly choose to embrace another faith which agrees with her values system. Cherry picking which principles are do-able and which principles are “illogically flawed” will ultimately cause her to assume the very same character she spoke against in her article.

Keep on Listening But Do not Perceive

Whether one is a Christian or otherwise, the parables of the Bibles, especially the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, are well-known and good moral lessons are gleaned from believers and non-believers alike.

However, Jesus' parabolic teaching began on a less than warm-fuzzy origin. The original genesis for the parables was a response to the rejection of the Jewish leadership of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. Confronted with evidence of miracles performed by Jesus that the Pharisees claimed could only be performed by the Messiah, they chose to attributed it to Satan's influence. As a result, Jesus pronounced His judgment over that generation of Jews and the sacking of the 2nd Temple in A.D. 70 by the Romans ensued. (Read it here)

Immediately after that, Jesus began teaching the multitudes in parables but explained these parables to the 12 disciples in private. The disciples' question of the purpose of these parables served to indicate that this was the beginning of a new methodology since prior to this, Jesus spoke in plain language that people could understand (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount). One of the reasons was to hide the truths from the masses of the day, including the Jewish leadership would continued to follow him over the course of Jesus' ministry. Since they have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, no more light will be given. Hence, in a counter-intuitive sort of way, these parables that Christians have grown to love and treasure grew out of a dark origin.

I am embarking on a parable journey over the next couple of weeks and will be posting some of the insights here. Some of the ideas that I will be sharing are inspired by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a Messianic Jew based in the United States. You can find his Ariel ministry website link here.

The Mega Church Debate - Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?

In the past week, there was an interesting debate in the Straits Times forum on a letter sent by a parent (Dr Lee) who wrote to warn about the teaching of mega churches and how it has led (at least in her experience) to fallen grades and disassociation of family customs and traditions.

Immediately following that letter, many on both sides of the fences responded with clarifications, examples, counter-examples or warnings. Many well-meaning supporters were quick to point out that the Bible is clear on the need to honour your father and mother. Some pointed out, rightfully, that it is too simplistic to blame church activities for fallen grades and family neglect. Others wrote of horror stories of how their children were led astray by cultic church group leaders to reject their parents and their traditions.

As a parent, I can empathise with the perennial concerns over what we view as negative influences of the world. There are also no excuse to be made for people who exploit the church and the teachings of the Bible for their own personal gains. Black sheeps do exist within the church and its leaders need to do more to weed such behaviours from the church.

Having said that, I think the conclusion that the mega churches are responsible for the children behaviour is too simplistic. As any parent will tell you, we play a very important and critical role in the way we bring up our children. Like it or not, we lay the foundation from which our children build up their world-view and it takes extraordinary amount of time, effort, discipline and patience to get it roughly right. The final ingredient is open communications and respect for our children's viewpoints, which is very important when the child reaches his teens and experiments with the concept of independence. Questionable church practices aside, parents like Dr Lee needs to first look inwards to examine the root cause before indiscriminately taking the churches in Singapore to task for leading her children astray. Perhaps she should spend the effort in writing the letter towards a heart-to-heart talk with her children and re-establish the bond of open communication and understanding. I think this would have been more fruitful.

Finally, just to kill the issue once and for all, the Bible is clear about children's responsibility to their fathers and mothers. In fact, in the Ten Commandments, the commandment to honour your father and mother is the only commandment that brings with it blessing for the one who obey.


Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart. (Colossians 3:21)

The Eye of the Storm

By the end of monday, Parliament pulled the curtain, albeit temporary, on the issue of the repealing of Section 377A criminalising homosexual sex between males in private or public. The Straits Times quoted Siew Kum Hong who said the move to retain homosexuality as a crime was a “pity” and “a lost opportunity”. He added that “keeping Section 377A shows up Singapore as being behind the rest of the world”.

The LGBT community was naturally excited when the Penal Code was put up for review earlier after more than 23 years in 1984 even though the government had made it clear back in Nov 06 that Section 377A was not up for change. They had lobbied hard in all quarters for the repeal of Section 377A, roping in politicians, lawyers, foreign activists and a retired bishop no less. Their hopes were lifted when even Lee Kuan Yew spoke on several occasions to local and foreign media of his support for the law to be eventually removed.

In these early times, the LGBT community has yet to voice their views but I can foresee that the “right-wing” Christian community will be blamed for putting unequal and unfair pressures on the government against the repeal and have succeeded to “blackmail” members of Parliament who are Christians to speak on their behalf. The previous national debate on casinos in Singapore rubbished this idea that any interest group has the clout and power to influence the government to do anything against their wishes. In the end, the pure economics out-weighed the social evils of gambling. The government doggedly presented their case to the public on the economic merits and assured the people of their resolve to tackle all the unintended social fallout from the casinos.

The truth of the matter is that the government of the day must take into account the views of the majority or risk losing their mandate. However detestable this may be to people, it is the reality of life, the law of the jungle if you would. The internet commentaries and voices may give the impression of a general support for LGBT but this is an illusion. It is akin to going to a bar to prove that people generally like booze. The astute amongst the community did suggest that in order for Section 377A to be repealed, they must argue the economics of the case. This suggestion has touched a raw nerve of some in the community who felt insulted to be treated in terms of dollars and cents. They trumped the need to give equal civil rights to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

The non-repeal of Section 377A should not lull Christians into complacency. In fact, Christians should critically reflect why they have been singled out for criticism by the LGBT community. Rising above the ranting, there is one useful lesson for Christians to take home.

And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on, sin no more." (John 8:12)

Remember Jesus’ response to the women caught in the act of adultery? Have Christians been so zealous in telling LGBT to “sin no more” that we forgot to say “I do not condemn you”? In our quest to respond to the more vocal sections of the LGBT community, we could have unwittingly alienate those within that are still desperately trying to find answers. Individually and collectively as a Church, we need to do better to reach out to these confused souls and counter the massive propaganda of the world. This means having the moral courage to speak out for the truth and reflect the reality of homosexuality.

We are in the proverbial eye in the storm and the LGBT community will quickly find another vehicle to drive their cause and sought to find means to bring social pressures on the government and community at large towards their cause. While we continue to be the “salt and light” of the world, we also need to relate better to the individual LGBT around us and seek to do what Paul has exhorted Christians to do:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-22)

Homosexuality - A Gift from God?

Recently, the LGBT community organised a panel discussion that roped in Member of Parliament (MP) Baey Yam Keng, nominated MP Siew Kum Hong and a retired pastor Yap Kim Hao to add credibility to their cause in their effort to seek support to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which bans homosexual sex. The Straits Times reporter wrote that Yap Kim Hao is a "Methodist Church leader".

When I first read the news report, my curiosity was naturally raised on how a Singaporean pastor would make a statement saying that "this is God's purpose - the existence of the homosexual community". It was revealed several days later that Yap had retired and he was speaking in his personal capacity. Whatever his status, it must have been a coup for the LGBT community to find a retired bishop to support their cause.

Researching the internet to find out more, I found a transcript of an address he made in May 07 on this issue. The address is re-produced here and my responses in [BLUE]:

Let me at the outset indicate the rationale for my perspective on homosexuality.

I can do no better than to quote from an official statement of The United Methodist Church in the United States that considers homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teachings and I am a Methodist. Yet it is this same Church that recognizes its "limited understanding of this complex gift and encourages the medical, theological, and social science disciplines to combine in a determined effort to understand human sexuality more completely. We call the Church to take the leadership role in bringing together these disciplines to address this most complex issue."

[Yap seemed to suggest that the "incompatible" statement came before the "limited understanding statement and the paragraph suggested that even though the Methodist leaders took this stand, there were uncertainty in the position adopted. In the United Methodist Church (UMC) Book of Discipline which he quoted from, it actually spoke about human sexuality. This complex gift is not about homosexual orientation but human sexuality. Rather than uncertainty, having bringing together these disciplines to address homosexuality as one of this complex issue, the affirmation was that the church "does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching". However the same article also stressed that "homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth... affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community... implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.".]

My approach is therefore a multi-disciplinary one.

Firstly, I will raise some general observations about the teaching of the Bible itself.

I quote a former colleague of mine when I was teaching at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Victor Paul Furnish, a distinguished Professor of New Testament who wrote: "Homosexuality is not a prominent Biblical concern. The earliest ethical codes of the Hebrews makes no mention of homosexual behavior. There is nothing about it in the Ten Commandments. The four Gospels record no saying of Jesus on the subject. The texts that are discussed are few and far between and not even all of these are pertinent."

[This is a weak argument. Bestality, peodopilia and necrophilia are similarly not mentioned in the Ten Commandments nor did Jesus talk about these subject in the Four Gospels records. Are we to make a similar conclusion that sex with animals, children or corpses are not condemned? The reason why these and many other issues were not mentioned was simply that they weren't of practical concerns to the people in Jesus' time. Remember that the Gospels were written to tell the good news and not to be a comprehensive list of dos and don'ts. John, Jesus' disciple, ended his book by saying that "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."]

But what do we see in many Churches in different parts of the world today?

Homosexuality has become a major issue, much more serious than doctrine or church order. It is projected to split the Episcopal Church in the United States as well as the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury who is personally gay-affirming, has to recognize the current teaching of the Anglican Communion which is against homosexuality.

[It is sad that homosexual advocates who want the best of both worlds have invaded the churches to create chaos in the Christian world. Are these splits necessarily bad? The Protestant movement led by Martin Luther against the excesses and false doctrines of the Catholic church in 1517 and sparked the most momentous split in Christendom. On hindsight, this split helped the Catholics to re-examine their own actions and led to their own revival.]

As Christians refer to this common source of the Bible, those who are anti-gay are quick to say that the Bible says so and then close the Book. And the controversial issue of homosexuality is no longer discussed. The teaching of the Bible leads to the teaching of the Church which then becomes official, and obedience is demanded. The different perspectives arise from the differing interpretation of the words of the Bible and the teachings of the Church and its pronouncements change as we gain more knowledge and insights.

[Why must Christians who says that the Bible is against homosexual practices be labelled as "anti-gay"? Christians may be against abortion but no one label one who is against the act of abortion as one who is against the women who committed such acts. It just shows the propaganda that advocates for homosexuals go through that they cannot or will not accept Christians' opposition against the homosexual practices but not the personalities. Also, from a pastor who probably has a greater depth of theological knowledge than myself, the word "controversial" is a little strong. The issue of homosexual practices is no longer discussed in the church because the Bible is clear. Again it is not the Church that is demanding obedience but the Bible. The Bible says to love the Lord your God with all your mind (Matthew 22:37). It means that Christians need to be convinced in their mind when they choose to be obedient to God's word. Yap should give more credit to bona-fide Christians and not to assume that we are all blindly led by the Church.]

My view is that the different books of the Bible are time bound, historically related, culturally conditioned and contextually based. They are related to the time and place of the recorded events. They reflect the society and the culture at the time the books of the Bible were written. The revelation of God is mediated and translated by inspired human beings who are not infallible. We have to account for the relevancy of the teaching to our contemporary context.

[I will agree that the Bible needs to be understood and interpreted with the context it was written in mind. However, there are eternal values and temporal issues. Where it is temporal, the Bible explains it. As an example, the ritual cleanliness Mosaic laws and its sacrificial systems are no longer applicable to Christian because Jesus paid the ultimate and complete price as a substitution for our sins. Hence we need not sacrifice any more animals and sprinkle any more blood because Jesus death on the cross has made the final and complete sacrifice. Because of this, we can boldly approach God without needing to go through the ritual cleanliness routine. On the issue of infallibility of the scripture writers, it is instructive to note that Jesus equated whatever that was written in the Old Testament as the literal word of God. Not once did he cast doubts on the Old Testament the way Yap has decided to allude to here.]

The various books of the Bible are the products of writers who claim to have received the revelation from God, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, put it in writing. Their different interpretations resulted in the changing official teaching of the Church and the varying perspectives of Biblical scholars and theologians. This process continues and we have today come together to share our different perspectives and though we differ, we are expected to respect our differences.

[Yap did not give an example of different interpretation of the biblical writers and I suspect there isn't a single example that he could have quoted.]

The teaching of the Church must necessarily be continuously changing. Take for instance human relationships, we have moved from the predominantly patriarchal to more equality between men and women. In reference to health we are attributing disease not to spirit possession but to bacteria and viruses. In terms of geography even the flat earth has been rounded into a spherical one. Our world-view is ever changing.

[The patriarchal argument has always been thrown at the Christians but let me just quote 2 examples that contradict this idea:

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church. (Ephesians 5:28-29)

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Corinthians 7:4)

These 2 biblical quotations don't sound very patriarchal to me about men and women. What sinful humans decide to do should not be attributed as the fault of the Bible (ditto for the crusades, witch-hunts, inquisitions, apartheid, slavery etc).

The Bible is also not a medical or science text books but where it speaks of issues alluded to medical or science issues, there are no contradictions to the established facts and observations of the real world.]

With this as background, the Biblical view of sexual relationships is that heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts are sinful. The Biblical writers regard all men as heterosexual and in condemning same-sex acts, they see it as men exchanging their male role to that of an inferior role of women. At that time, they were not able to distinguish between those whom we now identify as homosexual, from the heterosexual. Their view was that of heterosexuals engaging in same-sex sexual acts.

[Again, Yap decided to make a statement (italic) without substantiating it. As my previous comment, the Bible's and Jesus' treatment of women were far more enlightened during their time and even perhaps today. I know detractors will start quoting bible verses to the contrary but I will leave that to another post. Yap should also give more credit to the ancient world. Within the Jewish community, homosexuality was not an issue because God specifically spoke against it but in the Greco-Roman era, the people were far more aware and accepting of such practices. The apostle Paul himself was a Roman citizen and yet with the ability to "distinguish between those who we now identify as homosexual", he was the foremost speaker against the practice of homosexuality.]

The Biblical texts that explicitly talk about same-sex acts are few in number. The brief references are related to laws of purity, holiness, temple rituals and to the Greco-Roman culture and pagan worship. There were temple prostitutes, male prostitution and pederasty (mentoring and sex with young callboys). Jesus did not deal with same-sex relations in His teaching although he had much to say about sex, love, marriage and divorce. Homosexuality in terms of sexual orientation and long-term committed relationships as we understand them today was not discussed and not even a term used at that time.

[See my previous comments about Jesus' non-treatment of homosexuality and awareness during Jesus' time about homosexuality.]

It was much later that the term "homosexual" was used. Homosexuality as a term was introduced in 1869. It first appeared in newer translations of the Bible – Revised Standard Version in 1946 and in New International Version in 1978. Homosexuality is not originally a Biblical word.

[The Greek word used by the New Testament writers, translated by the English Bible as homosexuals, is arsenokoites (literally male-bed). A related Greek word malakos (literally soft of persons) is translated by the Bible as effeminate. LGBT argued that if the apostle Paul had wanted to refer to homosexuals, he would have used a more "common" Greek term paiderasste (lovers of boys, literally paid-lovers). The English language updates itself over time. Prior to 1869, the King James Version translated arsenokoites as "abusers of themselves with mankind". Given that arsenokoites is a masculine voice, the subsequent rendering to homosexuality is natural.

But I don't think the nuances of the Greek language is the issue and besides, I am not expert or a user of Greek. LGBT who wants to be Christians want to split hair over the specific type of homosexual practices that the Bible actually condemned and insist that it did not include loving monogamous ones by scrutinising the Greek used. If we go back to one of the verses in question, it reads "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.". Why insists on performing word gymnastics on the Greek word used for homosexuals and not for the rest? I am sure we can find specific circumstances of the other 8 traits that the Bible condemns.]

Other terms like 'heterosexual,' 'bisexual,' and ‘transgendered’ presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the faintest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'.

[See above on malakos for effeminate or transgendered.]

Let us look more closely at some of the Biblical records related to sexuality and how they show varying perspectives.

The law of Moses allowed for man to divorce his wife on account of some "indecency" in her. (Deuteronomy 24:1); Jesus categorically forbids it and will not man "put asunder" those united in marriage. (Mark 10:1-12); Jesus was also said to have sanctioned divorce on the condition of "unchastity." (Matthew 9:9). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus are divorced and for other reasons.

Divorced people are allowed baptism, church membership, communion, ordination and re-marriage but this has not always been the case for homosexuals. What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?

[I don't really follow Yap's line of argument vis-a-vis divorce. The sins of divorce and homosexuality are the same in the eyes of God. I hope Yap is not suggesting that divorced people who have been allowed baptism, communion etc are holding up their heads high and proclaiming that they are proud of being a divorcee and will choose to divorce again should they get married. Homosexuals want to be allowed baptism, communion etc still hang on to their homosexual lifestyles. Isn't there a big difference here?]

Take the issue of sex itself. It began with sex only for procreation which the early Christian theologians agree. When it serves to satisfy lust it is regarded as venial sin. Augustine in the fifth century said that we should mature as early as possible to the point when we can dispense with sexual intercourse.

However, the Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and we are to be fruitful and multiply. And 1 Timothy 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made celibacy mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian anti-gay demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. Some anti-gay people condone sexual orientation but condemn homosexual acts. Some gay and lesbians like heterosexuals have chosen to live a life of single blessedness.

[Actually the Bible is neutral on celibacy. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:7 wished that all men were single like him in the time of distress during his time but in the same breath, he recognised the both marriage and celibacy are God's gifts. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 just states that in the last days, amongst many things, some people will forbid marriages (Was Paul referring to the Catholics?). Interestingly, the Bible only explicitly condemned homosexual acts and not feelings unlike lust where Jesus specifically made the point that one has committed adultery if he looked at a woman in lust. This has led to one view that a person may have homosexual orientation but can still avoid sinning by not acting on them as Yap has alluded to.]

Leviticus 21 discussed how priests need to be morally, and even physically unblemished and must meet the requirements of the purity laws at that time. Today most of these purity laws are being ignored.

[See earlier comments on Mosaic ritual cleanliness laws.]

Far from being a Book full of bad news for gays and lesbians, I believe the Bible is indeed full of good news of God's love for all of creation - gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and straight alike. The Bible has no clear and consistent sex ethic and only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores, moral codes or church teachings are dominant in any given country, culture, or period. There is also the emphasis on grace rather than on law.

[For that matter, the Bible is full of good news for divorcees, women who underwent abortions, sinners all if they repent and accept the saving grace that Jesus freely gives. At the same time, the Bible also clearly state in no uncertain terms that "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God".]

The medical sciences today acknowledge homosexuality as a sexual orientation, not a medical, psychological or psychiatric condition that can be changed therapeutically.

It is on record that the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA categorically said, "... homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality".

The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and other major groups of medical, educational, and counseling professionals have concluded that there exists, as yet, no scientific basis for the contention that so-called reparative, reorientation, or conversion therapies can successfully change a person’s orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The prevailing view among therapists is that gay and lesbian patients should be helped to improve their self-esteem and to overcome the continuing stigmatization of homosexuality in many societies. However reparative therapies are being endorsed by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which represents a minority of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other practitioners, and by some religions.

[In a lawsuit trigger-happy society where individual rights triumphs over all and where churches are brow-beaten to accept homosexuals, it is not surprising that APA has acquiesced to the militant pressures of the LGBT community.]

Recently MM Lee Kuan Yew was widely quoted on this issue: "If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual -- because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes -- you can't help it," he said in remarks published by The Straits Times.

"So why should we criminalize it?" Lee asked.

"But there is such a strong inhibition, in all societies -- Christianity, Islam, even the Hindu (and) Chinese societies. And we are now confronted with a persisting aberration. But is it an aberration? It's a genetic variation."

Homosexuality is not an aberration, tendency, or inclination. It is a genetic or biological variation. It is an orientation.

We must admit that we do not know for certain the causes of homosexuality. This concluding statement in an article of causes best summarizes the situation:

"Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age."

[MM Lee has made several statements in support for the de-criminalisation of homosexual acts, the latest in a recent interview with IHT without even being prompted. How do I read this? Being the 110% pragmatic man that he is, the man always have a hard-nosed reason for his words and actions. The latest interview where he commented that Singapore will need to go the same way as China and Hong Kong did to recognise gays and lesbians showed that, in all probability, hard-nosed economics played a part. Siew Kum Hong also suggested that the LGBT community in Singapore may need to pitch the economic arguments which drew mixed reactions from the community.
Pure genetics arguments are flawed because you will always almost able to find twins who will end up with different sexual orientations. If it is nurture and not nature, then people have a choice and make his/her own decision.]

Given this medical perspective on homosexuality how do I minister to GLBT people? Within the larger framework of my understanding of the love of God for all of God’s people and my reading of Christian ethics relating to justice and concern for the marginalized and minorities, I can only affirm and accept the GLBT community and render my service to them in whatever way that is helpful.

From my perspective, homosexuality is within the purpose of God in creation. There is a continuum of sexual relationships from heterosexualilty to homosexuality. God has made it possible for each individual to be unique and different and I affirm the diversity in God’s creation. Homosexuality is a given and not a choice.

[Yap makes this baffling logical leap from the previous discussion on the genetic basis of homosexuality and admitting that he did not know the causes of homosexuality to starting the next segment that assumed that there was a medical basis to the behaviour and ended with the statement that homosexuality is a given and not a choice.]

In my experience of pastoral care to the gay community, I feel their pain and agony when they first became aware of their attraction to people of the same sex. Their experience is that it is not a phase that will go away. In the solitariness of their closets they struggle and pray. Most gay people know from painful personal experience that their homosexual inclination is definitely not a deliberate choice. Who would in their right mind choose to be gay when they know they will be relegated to a despised minority. On the contrary, they choose to wear masks and pretend to be straight. Yet opponents of gay rights choose to disregard these personal experiences and continue to portray homosexuality as a sinful choice that should be criminalised.

We are aware that the gay community has the responsibility to change the perception that the gay lifestyle is hedonistic and promiscuous. The straights have the problem of pursuing a hedonistic and promiscuous lifestyle as well. The distinctive difference rests on having sexual intercourse with the same or opposite sex.

As I come alongside them, I sense their silent pain, I see their falling tears, I hear their aching hearts. Today I feel their rising hope for they are receiving affirmation, recovering dignity and restoring pride to be gay.

[Though I may not knowingly know any LGBT people, I can definitely relate to the pain and agony Yap is talking about. Everyone of us must our individual and sometime unique struggles and pains. Some of us knows that some of the things we do are not right and yet for some inexplicable reasons, we continue to do them. Understanding the pain and the struggle does not logically mean that we should legitimise the act.
Why would anyone choose to be gay if they knew they will be despised? I honestly don't know. Just as I don't know why people decide to do drugs knowing that it will cause harm to their bodies or why people still want to continue to commit adultery knowing that it will destroy the family. Actually, on second thought, I know the answer to the latter questions. The Bible says we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Without turning to God, we will all seek to satisfy our sinful nature.]

They are hearing and believing what Victor Paul Furnish said: "It accords with the most fundamental witness of Scripture that one's sexuality is to be received as a good gift of God. Moreover, this gift is to be expressed in ways that manifest the grace of God -for there is not variance in the reality of God's love, which graces and claims us, whatever the particularities of our own time and place. As for sexual relationships, God's love can find clear expression only where the partners are fully committed and faithful to one another."

Homosexuality is therefore a gift from God to be accepted. It is not a result of human sin or the fallen nature because of Adam. We all have, by the grace of God, to live out the purposes of God, straight or gay, for we are all created by God.

[Finally from Yap's lack of certainty about the cause of homosexuality to stating that it is a clear-cut medical/genetic condition, we have come to Yap's final unsubstantiated conclusion that homosexuality is a gift from God. It sounds almost as dogmatic as Christians saying that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible said so.

What's my position on the call for repeal? Actually, after saying so much, I think that it will be an eventuality because Singapore is a secular nation and in the same way that the nation do not criminalise divorce or abortion-on-demand, there is no rationale for Christians to demand that homosexuality remained a crime in Singapore.

My concerns are based more on the aftermath of the repeal. As distant as it may sound and as much as the LGBT community assured that these are not in the current agenda, the experiences of US, UK and Sweden have shown the eventuality of them happening.

I will only suggest that since the Singapore government always takes a systematic and comprehensive approach to issues, we should take the repeal with all the other implications as a complete package for deliberation. This will allow Singaporeans to deliberate the full implications of what LBGT community sees as a "necessary actions to promote greater civil rights of a growing minority" on the rest of the silent majority.]

Rev. Yap Kim Hao is former bishop of the Methodist Church of Singapore and currently serves as pastoral advisor to the free Community Church of Singapore.
Transcript of Dr. Yap Kim Hao's address at the Public Dialogue on Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church, Singapore on 10 May 07. Dr Yap Kim Hao is former bishop of the Methodist Church of Singapore and currently serves as pastoral advisor to the free Community Church of Singapore.

Read his earlier longer but similar essay here.