Speaking up for the marginalised
Perhaps I was a little harsh & did not explain myself clearly in my previous post on the 2 points I disagreed with Dr Chew about (nothing against him, I’m sure he’s a nice man, but he’s human too, with 2 views I disagree with) . So now i’ve taken sometime to elaborate, in reply to a couple of comments. Thought I’ll post it up here too.
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 Dr Gwee’s writing during the AWARE saga, when he pointed out to everyone, what he perceived was right and wrong, and how so many of us benefited from his 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, through it’s oft-qouted Genesis teachings.
I would applaud any preacher who quotes those verses, and affirms the listener’s desire for having a family. However, “the danger is that the mainstream population, its socio-cultural norms and ethos, will dwindle and diminish down the generations.” is not a Biblical principle. It’s all fine only if a preacher makes clear when he is presenting his own views, and when he is speaking from the Bible. It’s easy for listeners to be confused, if it is all said while he stands in the pulpit.
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.”
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
47 comments