Non-biblical preaching from the pulpit
I found a couple of Archbishop John Chew’s preaching very disturbing. (He is also president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore)
Unite against alternative values, Anglicans urged
Archbishop tells them to recognise family as cornerstone of faith
By Yen Feng
(For a full reading of where I’m coming from, do see my next post http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/speaking-up-for-the-marginalised/)
“He spoke on the need for ‘classical compositions’ of family structures – father, mother and children – instead of non-traditional ones consisting of single, divorced or same-sex parents.”
I think this is an incredibly insensitive thing to say, because it implies that people become single, divorced and same-sex parents by choice.
I think this is equivalent to saying to the society of limb amputees “of the need for ‘classical compositions’ of body parts”.
Just like choosing to have an amputation to save your life, many people do not wish to become single or divorced parents or same-sex parents by “choice”. People who have to become single or divorced parents often find that a very difficult and emotionally trying decision to make. People who become same-sex parents do so because their biology makes it psychologically torturous to be in a heterosexual relationship. In doing so they face incredible pressures and discrimination from society, and the lack of support that heterosexual families have.
Rather than calling for more support for such people, he has added on to the discrimination and distress. In Biblical times, widows and single parents faced great pressures and discrimination too, and the Bible calls for support of such people, to the extent that Jesus himself was born to a single mother.
In his sermon, he also spoke on the importance of procreation within the family structure. Referring to the low fertility rate, he said if Singaporeans do not produce enough babies, ‘the danger is that the mainstream population, its socio-cultural norms and ethos, will dwindle and diminish down the generations.’
I think this is NOT at all Biblical, and hence, it is incredibly IRRESPONSIBLE of him to use the pulpit to say this, and pass it off as a Biblical teaching.
For the people who WISH to have kids but can’t, because of financial or biological reasons, the Bible continually teaches that children are a blessing from God. For people who can’t afford children financially/timewise etc, I believe the Church should be a vessel of God’s blessings and either help to support families or else advocate for more support for families, rather than imply these people are sinners. For those who are biologically unable, this statement is so insensitive.
For people who DO NOT WISH to have kids at all, the Bible holds this to be a perfectly valid life choice. Look at the Pauline writings. To imply that socio-cultural norms and ethos takes precedence over Biblical principles, and worse, to tout them as a Biblical principle, is completely irresponsible, IMO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMO, the pulpit should not be a place to parrot societal prejudice
It is sad, when the followers are made to feel that they need to adopt these prejudices in order to be a good Christian or to go to heaven.
This is very sad, when followers are unaware that these teachings are not biblical, because they have not the opportunity to read to Bible themselves & have put their faith in the teachings of their leader. Or when followers do not know that there are other interpretations of the Bible.
I think that people, especially Christian people, who have different interpretations of Biblical teachings, or who believe these are lies, ought to stand up and say what they think out loud.
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? – Acts 10 : 15
Like this:
24 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=208429632058&v=info#/group.php?gid=208429632058&ref=mf
Facebook group : I disagree with ArchBishop John Chew’s views on “Alternative Values”
Mathia –
I agree with your thoughts, but I feel that the pulpit cannot help being a site where social values get transmitted together with religious truths. Christians just need to be aware of that and learn to process each message critically, feeling free always to pull in their own religious understanding. I dare say that this — not a hearer’s presence — is a hearer’s primary duty. When the mental objections get too frequent or too hard to bear, there is always the option of changing church.
Yours,
Gwee Li Sui
“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas” Genesis 1:22
“…and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” Genesis 1:28
“And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.” Genesis 9:7
Tsk! Tsk! Mathia!
Reverend John Chew was addressing HIS CONGREGATION.
You can’t use the mantle of political correctness and sensitivity to censor his freedom of speech, can you?
You are clearly over-reaching here.
Let’s analyse your ‘sermon’ (you are not a priestess).
“I think this is an incredibly insensitive thing to say, because it implies that people become single, divorced and same-sex parents by choice.”
No, he is just saying we need a proper family nucleus of heterosexual parents who are capable of producing the babies that we need.
Are the single, divorced or LGBT individuals able to reproduce without a complementary heterosexual?
Did he condemn, discourage or prohibit support for them? Hey, surprise, we can be procreative and supportive of those who can’t be at the same time.
“I think this is equivalent to saying to the society of limb amputees “of the need for ‘classical compositions’ of body parts”.”
I am sure even amputees would agree that a human beings preferably should have complete body parts and wish they have not lost theirs.
“I think this is NOT at all Biblical, and hence, it is incredibly IRRESPONSIBLE of him to use the pulpit to say this, and pass it off as a Biblical teaching.”
Don’t you know, Mathia, that God himself told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply? He is the spiritual leader and is responsible for teaching biblical truth at the pulpit, not what you fancy as sensitive or otherwise.
“For the people who WISH to have kids but can’t, because of financial or biological reasons, the Bible continually teaches that children are a blessing from God.”
Of course children are a blessing. If not, a curse? It is up to the people whether or not to claim the blessings.
“…rather than imply these people are sinners.”
You are lying through your teeth Mathia. Where did he say these people are sinners? Your understanding of the bible is so warped that if someone does not encourage what you do, he is condemning people as sinners and is not biblical.
“To imply that socio-cultural norms and ethos takes precedence over Biblical principles, and worse, to tout them as a Biblical principle, is completely irresponsible, IMO.”
You are putting words into his mouth Mathia. Now, this is evil.
“It is sad, when the followers are made to feel that they need to adopt these prejudices in order to be a good Christian or to go to heaven.”
I am not made to feel the need to adopt so-called ‘prejudices’. I agree with the Archbishop and am entitled to my views. If my views are prejudices, so are yours.
“Or when followers do not know that there are other interpretations of the Bible.”
I know very well what the ‘other interpretations’ are – your opinions of what it should be, and that yours is more authoritative than those of biblical scholars.
“I think that people, especially Christian people, who have different interpretations of Biblical teachings, or who believe these are lies, ought to stand up and say what they think out loud.”
Trying to play the ‘fundamentalists vs moderates’ card again. What’s new Mathia?
Remember, the Archbishop is addressing his flock, in the church. Not you in your playground.
You also conveniently left out the following paragraphs (ref. CM’s link) in your tirade against Archbishop John Chew:
“The Anglican community has built 26 churches, 10 schools and several welfare groups, including hospitals and nursing homes, in Singapore.”
“Next year, the Church will open the St Andrew’s Autism Centre and a primary school in Batam, Indonesia.”
“Reverend George Tay, who heads the deanery in Indonesia, said the new $7million school in Batam, to be built by 2012, continues the legacy of education of the Singapore Anglican Church.”
But the Archbishop tells his congregation not to support and care about those in need, so claims Mathia.
This is character assassination through lies and distortion.
Remember, lying by omission is still lying.
There exist legal recourses to libel in Singapore, Mathia.
I would be more careful / truthful / ethical if I were you.
Thank you
Thanks Gwee Li Sui , it’s a real honor to have you here, I really thought your piece during the Aware saga was exactly what needed to be said.
Thanks Mirabel, for those verses.
On speaking up on disturbing teachings
Indeed, I think the listeners need to listen & discern & think critically. I think in reality, the church is made up of a great diversity of people. People who enjoy thinking and researching and questioning. People who have great amounts of respect and trust in their church leaders who have spent years at theological school. People who are incredibly psychologically and emotionally vulnerable and searching for salvation. People who are deeply insecure and looking for someone to love and accept them, and finding that in God. Because of this diversity, there will always be people who will be receptive to any message at all. Thus the responsibility of the person who teaches (James 3:1)
That said, every teacher, no matter how good, will not be perfect. Sometimes we don’t realise it until someone points it out to us. And so I think it is equally important for us to voice out teachings we are disturbed by, while of course, being aware we could ourselves be wrong too.
This was also why I was deeply impressed with your writing during the AWARE saga, when you pointed out to everyone, what you perceived was right and wrong, and how so many of us benefited from your writing as a result.
Martin Luther started the Reformation , not by staying silent or simply moving to another church. He wrote and spoke. He had no blog, but he nailed his 95 Theses to the door.
Jesus did not stay silent; He spoke up when he felt the leaders were teaching things outside of what the Scripture talked about.
I think all of us need to do the same, because a lot of times, many others have the same doubts but fear to voice out. When one person starts the conversation going, we may find that we are carrying burdens we don’t have to.
On non-traditional families, and on procreation
Indeed I believe the Bible affirms our desire to have children & considers it a blessing to have children.
I would applaud any preacher who quotes those verses, and affirms the listener’s desire for having a family. It would be even more wonderful, if the preacher also called on Christians to support each other through encouragement, through helping one another with family needs, through helping poor families provide better for their families. Because families are a blessing from God.
But to ignore Paul’s affirmation of singlehood, and to use those verses to make people feel less worthy or contributive because they are single/divorced parents, or choose to be childless, is unacceptable, IMO.
Why?
Think about how a woman who has an accidental pregnancy, decided to heed the Church’s teachings & keep the baby instead of aborting it, and doing her best to then raise this child, despite the prejudice and lack of govt support. How would she feel, after heeding the teachings of the church, to have the country’s Church leader then tell her that people like her are causing the decline of morals in the West?
Think about how a man who desperately tried to save his marriage but who’s unfaithful wife walked out anyway, abandoning his children, and how he tries his best to raise them not to hate their mother, only to have the Church leader turn around and tell him that divorce people like him are causing the moral decline?
Think about the woman who decides to remain single and childless because she has 2 aged parents and 4 grandparents still alive, to take care of, so that her brother can have more for his own children. How would she feel to have people tell her that she is disobeying Biblical commands to have children and that she was sinning because the decline in birth rate is going to erode social norms?
Think of the homosexual person, who decided that his pastor’s Biblical interpretation was right and homosexuality wrong, and so decided to remain single his whole life, rather than being in a gay relationship — which would piss off God supposedly, or being in a straight relationship — which would piss off his wife. How would he feel, after making this decision for the love of God, to have the church leader imply that people like him were contributing to “the danger that the mainstream population, its socio-cultural norms and ethos, will dwindle and diminish down the generations.”
These people may be in the minority, they may be in the fringe, they may often be overlooked
But I hope people remember also that the Bible talks about how God values even a singular person.
Proverbs 31:
8 “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
http://www.according2ed.com/2009/11/when-catholic-quite-meant-singaporean.html
http://www.according2ed.com/
http://www.singazine.com/
“For the people who WISH to have kids but can’t, because of financial or biological reasons, the Bible continually teaches that children are a blessing from God.”
Of course children are a blessing. If not, a curse? It is up to the people whether or not to claim the blessings.
I’m sorry, i was unclear here.
What I meant was that the Biblical position is that children are a blessing from God, and thus the responsibility of God. People who wish to have them, but cannot afford to, shouldn’t be blamed. If Christians are to be vessels of God’s blessings in this respect, then the appropriate action would be to help these people afford to have children and in so doing, bless them
“Remember, the Archbishop is addressing his flock, in the church. Not you in your playground.”
As one who has writen “Christian” in all the forms i’ve filled for 30 years, I have a right and responsibility to take issue with the person who represents me to the govt and to the people —- in this case, the tepresentative being the head of the National Council of Churches.
I think everyone should exercise this right and responsibility too.
Mathia –
Thanks for your kind words; I have benefited much from regular visits to your site too! My comment was not an objection; I agree with almost all your points although the negative responses that follow are to be expected. Their focus on “Be fruitful and multiply” is at best a red herring; Jesus’s own commandments operate on a wholly different level.
Yours,
Gwee
“Many people do not wish to become single or divorced parents or same-sex parents by “choice”.
“Think about how a woman who has an accidental pregnancy, decided to heed the Church’s teachings & keep the baby instead of aborting it, and doing her best to then raise this child, despite the prejudice and lack of govt support.”
About the single (presumably unmarried?) woman who got pregnant – she did make a choice to sin by having pre-marital sex, so it is partly “by choice”. If she had obeyed the Bible’s teachings not to have pre-marital sex, then she couldn’t have gotten “accidentally pregnant”. While it is admirable that she chose to repent and keep the baby, repentance does not mean that we do not have to suffer any consequences for our sin.
For example, if I stole a car in a moment of folly, I would have to go to jail to pay for my crime. Even if I confessed my sin to God and repented, receiving His forgiveness, it doesn’t mean that I should therefore be spared the earthly punishment (jail). So in the same way, the woman who had pre-marital sex has to suffer the consequences that come with having a child out of wedlock.
It is no less than the truth to say that this woman did contribue to the “decline of morals” in the past, but all of us have sinned and none of us are perfect. And if she has truly repented and does not repeat her sin, then she no longer belongs to that particular group of people, hence she is not one of those being referred to in the Archbishop’s speech.
Hi Janelle
Thanks for your comments.
Personally I don’t feel qualified at all to either agree or disagree with you assessment about her contribution to the “decline of morals” and whether she was being referred to in the Archbishop’s speech. Because I feel that judgement of sin is reserved for God , tho’ I do agree we all sin, none of us are perfect.
What I was concerned about, wasn’t whether she sinned etc…… am just not qualified….. I was just concerned about how she would feel……. Which i’m sure most of us can try to sympathise with…..
It’s great that you’re thinking the issue through tho’, thanks! = )
Thank you so much for your kind words too Gwee, it’s a real honor! = )
I truly have no objection to the Bishop’s speech since he is preaching to his congregation.
I do wonder though that with the multitude of problems facing the world today, he has chosen again to highlight the gays as major problem to untie against – the standard red herring in the christian firght against the decline or morality.
I am also uncomfortable with his fear mongering against people that do not fall within his/ his church defination of good christian subjects ie. the classical family unit. Why preach one against the other when you have the valuable opportunity to show compassion, empathy and love to those who are unlike you. Why not bear witness through your own goodness of action and words instead of preaching about moral ‘dangers’ and ‘uniting’ against others? How is this not religious extremism?
I wish religious leaders would preach more messages of love and acceptance rather than that of intolerance and divisive agendas.
The Anglican community has built 26 churches, 10 schools and several welfare groups, including hospitals and nursing homes, in Singapore.”
Next year, the Church will open the St Andrew’s Autism Centre and a primary school in Batam, Indonesia.
Archbishop John Chew needs to put his money where his mouth is. How many recipients of Anglican welfare efforts are unconventional, non-traditional? Should it matter? Does it matter now?
Having identified the enemies of mainstream values and mainstream society, does Anglican welfare now discriminate against singles, divorcees, and the like?
What would the recipients of Anglican welfare say if they could be on John Chew’s list of societal enemies?
Does he want his church to be known as a charitable force that looks after the welfare of the needy, the disadvantaged? Or does he want his church to be known as the church that turns away the needy, the disadvantaged, the not so perfectly structured?
My open plea to John Chew:
Either apologise for your narrowminded, discriminatory, un-Christian remarks, or be true to your beliefs and close down your Anglican welfare bodies and devote your church’s resources to your campaign against the mainstream’s enemies.
I was just concerned about how she would feel……. Which i’m sure most of us can try to sympathise with…..
In other words, you are a “feely.” Feelings trump thinking, rationale, and logic. What’s the point of discussion then? You feel your way and your feelings override all sides presented by the other side. You “feel” like you have the spiritual authority to override an archbishop (in what way does your “Christian” life trump the Reverend John Chew’s?); you “feel” like you have the parental authority to override parents and teach their children morally questionable activities; you “feel” like all those who voice opinions you do not support are low-lives, overriding your professed desire to aid the marginalized and oppressed, becoming oppressor, snubber, and persecutor, yourself.
Since your feelings are all that matter, what is the point of pretending to discuss, Mathia? Clearly the “feelings” of others do not matter in your agenda, only those you choose to identify and empathize with.
Hi Sloo, Akikonomu, thanks for your comments.
I think the underlying thread here is that it is very difficult to convince people you genuinely care when you take how they feel so carelessly.
Anonymous, your issue is clearly with me and not with any issue being discussed. That’s fine then.
Anonymous, your issue is clearly with me and not with any issue being discussed. That’s fine then.
Nice dodge, but that’s not going to fly. The issue is not with you, but the manner in which you fake the pretense of discussion. You seek to override facts and the rights of others under the vague banners of “feelings” and “sensitivity.” You “feel” like you have the right to override Reverend John Chew’s message to his congregation, but do you really? Please furnish your biblical and ecclesiastical credentials and qualifications.
“1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore, he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same
4 for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.
5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”
1 Corinthians 13:1-5
This is not about you. This is about honesty and transparency.
Why does it appear that you are hell-bent on usurping the natural chain of authority? First, it was AWARE CSE trainers attempting to covertly usurp the moral authority of parents in educating their off-spring with regards to human sexuality; now, it is a lay person attempting to usurp the spiritual authority of an archbishop. Are you planning to overthrow Minister Mentor Lee Kwan Yew anytime soon?
The “Christian” church in Singapore have recently lose some favour with the government and it is now trying to ingratiate itself into the government’s good books, by advocating the things that matter to the PAP. It is nothing new. It is as old as ever since there were politics and religion. And also although the so-called church says it worship God, the here and now power in the flesh is as real, if not more, than an unseen spiritual God. So you had better know who you call father.
What business is it to him if non-believers chose the “unchristian, untraditional ”
lifestyles . They never tell him or his flock not to eat pork, beef or pray
5 times a day.
Hmmm the likes of anonymous is to blast out loudly that there’s only one voice of Christianity in SG. (his and his ilks)
There’s no room for ‘herectical’ christians or their view.
But is this still so currently?
I seemed to remember the article abt Free Community Church and Rev Yap.
At least there are still christians out there who believe in ‘love first’, instead ‘condemn first’.
Thanks Mathia for this article.
Thanks and most welcomed Kentz. =)
I looked but all I could find in the Bible was for people to do the loving & leave the judging up to God.
Lots of people eager to play God, do the judging, condemning, and sentencing……….
Yupp Mathia,
I too look to the bible in my younger days.
Nothing about alternative lifestyles in the 10 commandments, nor the 7 deadly sins or most important of all the 2 commandments that matters above all else from Jesus Christ.
“Love thy god . . . and love thy neigbours . . . ”
But too many have forgotten this, i fear.
[...] expensive mediocre government – My sketchbook: No bonus for civil servants..right – Mathia Lee: Non-biblical preaching from the pulpit – SilentAssassin’s Archive: More equal than others – Mathia Lee: World AIDS Day – work class [...]