Christian faith and civil disobedience: compatible?
June 9th, 2008
An article by ST political editor Chua Lee Hoong prodded me into some thinking. Chua Lee Hoong, who used to work in the intelligence service, pondered over the squandered potential of Dr. Chee Soon Juan. I can relate to her description of the disappointment of the electorate over Dr Chee’s methods. I too have felt this disappointment. The drift was that had Dr Chee taken the path that Mr Chiam, and Mr Low and Ms Sylvia Lim had taken, he would have been more acceptable and effective. But looking at the three caged lions, whose speeches were often truncated or given little space in our national news media, what loss of civil liberties have they highlighted in the last decade? Have they managed to get us to think?
But of greater interest to me is Ms Chua’s mention about Dr Chee’s claim that his Christian faith guides him. She writes:
Not that I think Chee will care about this. He marches, at least in his own mind, to a different beat. “My Christian faith guides me, and it is a faith that compels me to fight for justice and to treat my fellow men and women with compassion,” he said in court last week.
Back in 1993, he also cited his Christian faith when talking about his 10-day hunger trike:”I am a Christian. I came into this hunger strike under the Lord’s guidance and am leaving it the same way. My life is not mine to take.”
The question though is whether mainstream Christians will accept his pattern of behaviour as being particularly Chritian.
He claims to fight for justice but the way he fights has been lamentable.
A few questions came to mind, as I reflected on this. One, would mainstream Christians accept his pattern of behaviour? Two, can a Christian’s faith lead a person to acts of civil disobedience?
I am not theologian nor have I hard evidence, but to the first question, I think the majority of mainstream evangelical Christianity would not find his behaviour acceptable. The Roman Catholics however are perhaps more enlightened in this respect and they just may be more sympathetic. My feeling is that as products of decades of socio-engineering, not to talk about our Confucian roots and upbringing, the mainstream Christians feel embarassed by his mention of the Christian faith in his explanation of what motivates him. Even the enslaved Israelites resisted Moses when he sought to lead them because they have been conditioned by Pharonic Egypt for 400 years. I don’t think it would be true of mainstream Christians in USA or Australia or South Africa or Philippines. They would see it in a different light, as they had gone through periods of suffering under oppressive and unjust laws and governance to the extent that their deprivation of civil liberties were painfully and deeply felt.
Is Christianity and civil disobedience compatible? Can a Christian’s faith lead one to acts of civil disobedience? Have you heard of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr of the American Civil Rights Movement ? or of Archbishop Desmond Tutu who acted against the apartheid South African government? or Cardinal Sin of the Philippines who rallied the Catholic population against Marcos? Ask each of them if their Christian faith led them to do what they did and they will unequivocally say Yes. Was Dr Chee led by the Lord? Many won’t even countenance him being mentioned beside the other luminaries, but is there not even a tiny possibility that he may be led by the Lord? Is he a Samson, genuinely called, but messing it up along the way?
PS: Civil Disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. It is one of the primary tactics of nonviolent resistance. In its most nonviolent form (known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.
Civil disobedience is one of the many ways people have rebelled against unfair laws. It has been used in many well-documented nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi’s social welfare campaigns and campaigns for independence from the British Empire), in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, in the American Civil Rights Movement, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stand against the Nazis (1929-1945), and in peace movements worldwide. One of its earliest massive implementations was by Egyptians against the British occupation in the nonviolent 1919 Revolution. (Wikipedia)
Entry Filed under: General
Interesting, controversial and provocative views espoused.
There seems, however, a vast difference between the luminaries mentioned (Dr Martin Luther King, Bishop Tutu, Cardinal Sin) and Dr Chee. Their circumstances necessitated a more radical approach against the unfair laws of the land; their views and speeches certainly gave me much food for thought for the better - without a sense of embarassment.
Dr Chee, however, chose the histrionic route - preferring to heckle others and bring attention to himself, rather than the issue at hand.
I much more respect the other 3 politicians who chose to respect the law of the land - albeit in a disadvantaged position. The only respect I have for Chee is how he still manages to enthrall the few supporters that he still has - i guess it’s either through craft (or craftiness) of rhetoric, or a clinical problem of ‘folie a deux’.
womb2tomb
More of “folie à plusieurs” perhaps.
All creatures Big and Small have their sacred place and time in the Universe of God.
Greatness is a human desire and usually comes with popular acclaimation after one passes on.
Humans need Icons and inspiration, unfortunately some of the popular Icons have been elevated to myth levels depending on one’s need and ability to overlook common and mundane human failings. Even the great Mohandas Gandhi had strange practices:-
This bombshell occupies only five pages, but it gives Rajmohan Gandhi enough material for his book’s redeeming feature—namely, the clear depiction of the tensions between Gandhi’s erratic emotional compass and his unswerving moral one. For despite the occasional salacious lapses, the overarching principle that infused Gandhi’s life was his intrinsic belief in the equality of all souls
Who has the right to cast the first stone on Dr Chee - is his “Sin” greater or less than “ours.” Who is greater than the least of us?
Yes, whose “sin” is greater? He, his accusers or us the citizen-spectators?
You mean there is a grey scale for sins - similar to just being a little bit pregnant, therefore one is not really pregnant!
Justification and rationalization are wonderful tools for one’s ego.
Unfair laws of the land???
How about laws which promoted infanticide? Pharoahs midwives refused to murder Israelite male babies and disobeyed a law - welcome to biblical civil disobedience.
In the late 60’s and early 70’s we had a stop at 2 policy. I don’t know how many abortions took place in our fair island in the sun. But it was enough to create a gaping hole in our schools and our job market. Hence the change in the policy in the 90’s and the influx of foreign workers.
No one has bought anyone to account for the moral consequences of the stop at 2 policy have they?? I wonder what we would have said if Christians began to exercise civil disobedience in the 60’s and stopped paying their taxes or take part in a sit down??
Let’s see what the bible has to say…
Romans13:
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow-man has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not covet, and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: Love your neighbour as yourself.
10 Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.
11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.
God Bless,
Simon, if I understand your Biblical quote, we should advise Zimbabweans to submit to the ruling authority because it is God’s will to ensure Mugabe gets re-elected???………nevermind that more than 80 people have been murdered and thousands beaten and intimidated since the first round of elections in March to ensure that (Mugabe) he will be elected president unopposed!
What value is this faith?
May I balance the pertinent passage put up by Simon with:
So they(Sanhedrin) called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:18-20)
But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
BP,
Again, my confession of being a theological ignorant follower (like the early followers), my limited understanding is that the Acts 1-3 was about the explosive and unimpeded progress of the early church whilst Acts 4 was about the fear of established civil authority trying to check this progress. …….is this contax correct?
Presume the ealy Christians were realists and earthy peasents. These threats, coming as they did from the highest civil authority, had the force of law. Obedience to Christ in the midst of such a hostile environment would have been costly especially if acting on one’s conscience and faith.
I guess depending on God’s plan for the chosen person(s), one would become either a saviour or a martyr.
Romans 13:3 - For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
Romans 13:3 (above) assumes that our submission to authorities is based on authorities who are committed to doing good and against terror. Unfortunately you have people like Mugabe and other thugs who use their power to oppress their own people and blatantly muzzle institutions which promote the God given values of freedom and justice.
Hi, Bolivian,
I think you read the verse with a very different understanding.
Romans 13.3 is not about us submitting to the authorities ONLY when they are committed to doing good and are against terror.
But what Romans 13.3 actually meant is - if you are doing the right thing, you have no reasons to fear the rulers. On the other hand, if you are doing the wrong things, naturally you will be afraid of the authorities.
Thanks
Simon
Hi BB - nice pic on your church……great to have a honing partner.
Seems like we need ‘blessed common sense” to be able to make the right judgement and claim the promised life abundant. To be the only guy
I have not been to any bible schools but I think it is important to approach this subject from the following pointers:
1) The context of Acts5.29
2) The context of Romans13
3) In the context of this particular posting relating to Dr.Chee’s situation
4) What did Jesus do?
5) What did some of other prominent characters in the bible do when they are caught in a similar situation?
Before we begin, we must agree that the bible is God’s word and there are no contraditions in the bible. It is relevant yesterday, today and tomorrow. However, if you think otherwise..the discussion would then be very different.
1) In Acts 5:29 - Peter said we ought to obey God rather than men. These words were spoken because he was told not to preach the gospel of Jesus. Therefore, it is not about going against the law of the land. As we know, Peter was eventually crucified (upside down) eventhough he has the chance to escape.
2) In Romans 13 - It was spoken by Paul even though at that time, he was being persecuted by the Jews and Romans. Did he tell the brothers to gang up, take up their swords and rebel against the authorities that were persecuting them? On the contrary, he urge the saints to be law abiding citizens.
3) In the context of Dr.C- I feel that his passion to be elected has very little to do with our christian faith. To be elected, the best way is to go by the rules of Singapore and let Singaporean decide whether is he the best candidate to represent us.
4) When Jesus was in Jerusalem, the people actually thought that He is here to rescue them from the Roman empire and they wanted Him to become their King. But as we know, he subjected Himself to the authorities. Not only did He pay taxes, He told peter to lay down his sword. As a lamb, He subjected Himself to the most sever and cruel punishment imposed by the Romans.
5) What did the other characters in the bible do? Think about David…he could have killed Saul but he did not. Eventhough he has many opportunities to do so but he recognized that Saul is a King appointed by God. How about Daniel during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar? Did he rebel? What did they do when the authorities throw them into the fire furnace and the lion’s den? How about Zechariah, Esther and Nehemiah?
Even Moses did not invoke his people to take up arms against the Egyptians. On the other hand, it was God who lead him all the way and God who defended His own people.
About Mugabe..It is always easy for us to tell the Zimbabweans to do this and and to do that…because afterall, we are just sitting behind the computer. But have we ever thought about praying for them? Have we ever wonder what our prayers can do for the saints there? Have we underestimated what our Father God can do if we were to all pray for the Zimbabwee? Just because they are far away..it does not mean that we cannot pray for them.
Cheers - Simon
Dear Smon,
Thanks for your long reply. Debate is good for the soul and helps us to learn a thing or two.
Firstly, our differences in interpreting Rom 13:3 do not do away with the basic assumption that rulers work for good and are against terror. Our submission to magistrates and to the state’s authority to wield the sword is also based on the goodness of the ruler and his quest for justice. These are the assumptions of Romans 13. We live however in world of imperfect rulers whose record is a mix of bad and good. Some rulers use the courts In their countries to persecute their opponents. The question is what to do?
Secondly your view of submission is to remain stoic, trust in God and to pray in the midst of oppression and injustice to bring about change. This is one approach. There are other means. Paul appealed to the courts in Rome when he was the victim of political cowardice/expedience on the part of secular leaders (Felix & Festus) and religious fanaticism (Judaizers). He therefore appealed to Caesar and fought his case in the courts at Rome. It was his Roman citizenship which gave him the right to claim protection. If he was only a Palestinian Jew, he like our Lord, would have been killed in the name of keeping the public peace. Paul did not choose the martyr’s route. He fought for his rights in a pagan court against Jewish religious leaders who were trying to fix him legally in Jerusalem. He did not meekly submit to them.
Thirdly, you give the impression that Christians should ALWAYS adhere to secular law. There are instances however in the OT where the law of the land was not obeyed because God’s people claimed a higher loyalty. Daniel “broke” the law when he refused to worship an idol. Esther broke legal protocol (an offense punishable by death) when she brought her case directly to the King. The midwives in the time of pharoah refused to carry out the decree of killing Israelite male babies. In our present day, Christians “break” the laws of some countries claiming a higher loyalty. Bibles are brought into countries where the free movement of bibles is prohibited. If Martin Luther King had only remained passive and prayerful, laws which discriminate against blacks would still be in the books. They are some laws which promote injustice!
Fourthly Martin Luther King’s testimony brings to the question if Christians can ever justify the use of force in confronting laws which promoted racism. MLK did not advocate violence, even in the face of terrible provocation. But he did advocate dissent, agitation and civil disobedience. There are some laws of the land which challenge our christian beliefs (abortion on demand, automatic capital punishment, to my mind are some examples). There are laws which do not promote justice. What are we to do? I dont know if there is one pre determined answer. How each of us responds is dependant on one’s sense of God’s leading.
As for CSJ…I think he may be more interested in confronting what he perceives as injustices than winning elections. Although barred from taking part in elections, he has not gone quietly in the sunset. Somewhere in CSJ’s mind he has hooked up his Christian faith and his political beliefs and practices. Is he right or wrong, sincere or insincere? Is he using his Christian faith legitimately in the political arena? In the West he would be considered as just another wide eyed activist. But we are in S’pore. Here he is either a knave or a hero, depending on your politics. Frankly I am not in a position to judge the man. Ultimately it is for the Lord to judge. And believe me, He will judge us…ALL!
Dear Honing partners……perhaps a foreign perspective on Singapore’s current political situation will enable holy wisdom to permeate this interesting discussion.
http://www.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121443744095705301.html
Often we quote the scriptures to justify a human viewpoint, not to glorify his Holiness.
God bless Singapore.
Hi, Bolivian,
I found an article relating to the same topic and you may find it interesting.
http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/romans13.html
In the above article, you will find verses showing:
The Egyptian Pharaoh was Appointed by God
The Monarch of Assyria was Appointed by God
King Nebuchadnezzar was Appointed by God
Many of the law breaking instances sited by you would fall under the Act5:29 category. For example, if you were told to abandon your belief in Christ as our savior or you were told to commit a murder..
Even Paul abides by the law of appeal because he was a roman citizen and it was his entitlement to appeal.
In the context of Singapore & Dr.C - I am sure you would agree with me that Roman 13 applies.
Cheers
Hi Simon,
Using a dilectical approach and extension of your logical thoughts, one could logically presume Judas was necessary for the whole redemptive proccess to come to past.
Indeed without the Judas betrayal Christianity itself may not have existed as we currently know.
Often wondered if there was ever a choice for Judas or was it his “fate” ?
This logic rationale brings a dilemma to the thinking Christian!
Dear Simon,
Thanks for the links. I understand your position after having read the articles. The Anabaptist background shines through the articles. I don’t necessarily agree with what was written but I certainly see the rationale and its place within Christian tradition.
Yes, Paul abided by the law of appeal because he saw the limits and injustice of Jewish law which branded him as a criminal. Paul is not passively accepting the judgment of the Jewish law courts. He is pro actively seeking God’s justice and a sense of fair play in a supposed pagan judicial system. His speeches to local politicians show him to be strident and assertive. He is not quiet, deferential or passive when it comes to unjust laws of the land. Submission is not blind obedience but a humble posture which allows us to receive God’s blessing through His anointed servants. Paul is not unlike the locals who appealed to the British Privy Council, during the colonial period, after having exhausted all appeals in their own local courts.
Here is something for us to think about. I wonder who occupies the higher or lower moral ground: A scrappy Christian human rights activist with zero capacity to influence OR a well dressed Christian legislator who votes for casinos and abortion on demand without batting an eyelid?? Who is more or less of a Christian?
what happened to all my replies to Simon?
Sorry BB, Your comment ended up in my spam folder. You used the danger word “casin_” and it went straight into the moderation bin. The same happens with other words like “por_” and link-laced comments.
I love your original observation:”A scrappy Christian human rights activist with zero capacity to influence OR a well dressed Christian legislator who votes for casinos and abortion on demand without batting an eyelid?? Who is more or less of a Christian?”.
Never saw it this way before.
Hi, I am new to this blog. Like what the pastor blogger quoted from the bible, “rather obey God than men”. I see blatant injustice, propagandas, oppressions and high handedness in the leaders of the land. Fellow singaporeans since the 60s were victimised and sacrificed in a way or other. Much has been debated. To know more, we should not just read from the local media or the local literature but to read widely not confining to just writings and recordings of history by the local leaders who self exalt. As such, I do see a need for us to expose leaders who are not showing integrity nor grace nor compassion. We as Christians should have a holy hatred towards sins and unrighteousness and to me unrighteousness among the leaders have been brewing for too long. Though I am not to judge but I can no longer not turn away my eyes from such evil acts. When I think about how fellow Singaporeans who express their disagreeing views, have been clamped hard down on, been penalised, it really makes my heart very sad and hurting. We should not be doing such towards our fellow kinsmen. I shall not elaborate more, as mentioned by some, this is not a political website. It is not difficult for one to google on the web to find out more and read our more and also read books published by authors from other countries in relation to history, politics, social development, public policy and public administration. We have been brought up in a culture where we are not permitted to want to be a politician nor to express our amibition as to becoming a politician. As such, as we enter into adulthood, the moment we express even a tinge about politics or having intentions to be a social activist or political activist, we are so scare to get penalised. Even social workers who are supposed to advocate and participate in social activist activities are so muted as social policies are muchly related to political issues and discussions. As a society, we may have progressed economically, but I must say, we have regressed socially, emotionally and spiritually.
Hi BB and BP
After reflecting on the use of Romans13 - it seems to me one always has the choice to disobey but one must accept the consequence of facing the “ire and wrath of the ruler.”
The outcome of this act of disobedience will be in God’s will and timing - the “disobeyer,” could become the trigger and then either a maryter or hero.
If the disobeyer has a purity of purpose, then he will be strengthened on a supernatural level - ablity to show grace however dire the insults or the resultant situation.
A fundmentalist mentality with a literal reading of Biblical text results in being yolked to intolerance and chaos. We need to develop an enlighthen wisdom with historical syntactic and contaxial discretion when quoting the Bible lest we mislead others.
submission to civil authorities is not blind obedience nor is it unconditional. This is why we have elections every 4 years. During elections citizens have an opportunity to express dissent, disatisfaction and change the party in power. Our submission is conditioned to government performance and behavior.
I dont think we are called to “disobey” civil authorities (although that will be the way christians are percieved by a secular press) but to rather claim obedience to a higher creed. The apostles appealed to a higher obedience (obey God rather than man). They were not parading “disobedience” nor were they, to use a colloquial phrase - “trying to be garang”. They were simply appealing to a higher obedience and were willing to pay the price not for being disobedient but for being obedient. And maybe in this sense the phrase civil disobedience appears to be inadequate. I dont think this is a play on semantics but a profound way of expressing our christian witness.
This verse came to mind….
hebrews 12:15See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.
I cannot find “holy anger” in the bible but one thing for sure - do not let bitterness eat us up.
Even though I do not read widely but I travel extensively and I must say - eventhough our govt is not perfect…but they are definitely one of the best and I thank God for them. i could worship without fear. I could go out late at night without fear. School and medical is affordable….what else do I want? Will more protest bring prosperity to the country? Will more pess freedom bring peace and a cleaner govt? I doubt so. Some of the nearby countries have one of the most free press and media but look at their govt..look at their people…I do not envy them at all.
Cheers
I too am grateful for peace, prosperity, safety and generally able governance. Its just that I wonder if more can be done to retain the 26,050 waiting for their applications to emigrate to Canada to be processed. And I dare not think of the numbers who applied to the USA, Australia, New Zealand. I am sure the government is deeply concerned, frustrated and indignant too. And what of those who cannot emigrate: those who earn less than $1,000 a month.
Canadian applications for PR in selected cities as of April 10, 2008.
Backlog Quota
Mexico City 3,351 1,105
Sao Paulo 3,303 1,355
Beijing 17,595 3,815
Hong Kong 45,348 10,035
Islamabad 42,988 3,600
Manila 66,206 11,920
New Delhi 145,556 9,245
Singapore 26,050 3,240
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Statistics
Hi, Kenny,
I respect your views. However, I am sure not all of them are leaving because of political reasons. I believe, for every one singaporean who chooses to leave, there will at least be ten other nationalities waiting to take over his / her citizenship.
As a Singaporean, we have 4 choices -
1) Vote for the party that we like
2) Join a political party or form a political party
3) Migrate
4) or Respect the choice of the majority
Lastly, I am afraid many of us are being too idealistic. How can the govt possibily please everyone? I cannot think of any govt in this world that is capable of doing that. Not even the local churches, right?
No matter how good we think our church is…there will always be some who will not be happy. There will always be some who chooses to leave. What should we do than? I would rather focus on those who are staying behind.
Cheers
Good on you Simon that you are happy and contented…..
For some, the journey is God’s perfection - grace and love, can we ever have heavan on Earth?i
Interesting and balanced perspective……..explains some of our acceptance and ambivalence towards dynamic politcal situations….
Singapore
The new authoritarianism
More and more of us are willing to trade freedom for wealth or security. John Kampfner
The Guardian
Jul 3, 2008
Why is it that a growing number of highly educated and well-travelled people are willing to hand over several of their freedoms in return for prosperity or security?
This question has been exercising me for months as I work on a book about what I call the “pact”.
The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective.
It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities.
If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and – perhaps most important – to make money. Under Lee Kuan Yew, this city-state built on a swamp has flourished economically.
I was born in Singapore and have over the years been fascinated by my Chinese Singaporean friends. Doctors, financiers and lawyers, they have studied in London, Oxford, Harvard and Sydney.
They have travelled across all continents; they are well versed in international politics, but are perfectly content with the situation back home.
I used to reassure myself with the old certainty that this model was not applicable to larger, more diverse states. I now believe this to be incorrect.
Provincial governments in China send their brightest officials to Singapore to learn the secrets of its “success”. For Russian politicians it too provides a useful model.
These countries, and others in Asia and the Middle East are proving that the free markets does not require a free society in which to thrive, and that in any battle between politics and economics, it is the latter that will win out.
It is too easy to believe that this debate does not apply to us. Across western Europe, the US and in other so-called democracies, liberty is similarly losing out to both the post-9/11 security agenda and the power of global finance.
Different countries hand over different freedoms; in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi (who makes no secret of his admiration for Vladimir Putin), brazenly attacks the judiciary, having effectively censored the broadcast media.
In Britain, we draw comfort from what we believe to be a robust public realm, with strong freedom of speech (although our journalists are far better at shouting than at digging out information).
And yet, as David Davis so theatrically has reminded us, we are sleepwalking into a level of state surveillance that will not be reversed.
Many countries, including our own, are entering into new pacts with their rulers.
Resurgent autocrats draw strength from the many weaknesses of western leaderships, not just their mistakes in foreign policy, but their failure to rejuvenate their own political systems, or to deal with a business culture that had lost touch with the needs of society.
It was Oswald Spengler who at the turn of the last century predicted that “the masses will accept with resignation the victory of the Caesars, the strong men, and will obey them”.
A modern form of authoritarianism, quite distinct from Soviet Communism, Maoism or Fascism, is being born. It is providing a modicum of a good life, and a quiet life, the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/01/civilliberties
Dear JMan,
What you have written, reminded me of this story. There was once a man who went into a city with his son and a donkey. At first, the boy rides on the donkey and the man walks next to it. Along the way, they met a women and she told the boy that he is not being filial for making his dad walks while he rides on the donkey.
They listened to the women’s advice and switched places - the man now rides on the donkey and the boy walks next to it. Along the way, they met a man and he said: “It is so cruel of you to make your young boy walks while you sat on the donkey”
Soon after, father and son decided to sit on the donkey. This time, they met a old lady and she said: “It is so cruel that the two of you are riding on the donkey..you are torturing the poor creature..tsk..tsk”.
Finally, father and son decided to walk and they even bought a cart for the donkey to push it into the city.
As a Singaporean, I ask myself..am I really missing out on some freedom?
Is there any freedom that I needed so badly that warrants a “civil disobendience” in God’s name?
My friends can tell me to change my wall colors and the position of my furnitures and I believe, they did it with good intentions. But ultimately, I have to decide what is best for myself.
Cheers
Simon an Interesting story.
Do we always have to percieve that Donkeys are always to be exploited as beast of burden, can we ever accept them as partners or better still as companions ?
Yes, ultimately it will be a personal conviction and choice. We should always respect the choice of others unless it impacts on our own choice, then we have to weigh the risk of removing the irritant or accepting and moving on.
The reason our standard of living will keep going up is because we have love, hope and grace. This allows us to take risk and recover if things do not pan out - this is called resilience. If we accept there is just only one way or the highway, then we have to accpet that eventually we will have a “hotel” situation.
If we want to enjoy beauty of butterflies, then we need to nuture the catapillars. Maybe we should should just import sterile (incapable of reproduction) adult butterflies fresh everyday - but can we achieve the same result and satisfaction?
Yes Simon, few emigrate for more politcal freedom. Most people leave for what they believe to be a higher quality of life: in education, better lifestyle and retirement.
I believe the government needs to be more gracious and compassionate towards the poor, and more just in biblical terms. Israel received some very strong words even during their prosperous and peaceful periods in history.
Righteousness, which in biblical terms include justice and mercy, and helping the poor and powerless, will exalt a nation.
Well, I agree with you. But I wonder whether do we have an universal yardstick to say that the govt is doing enough and not enough? And again, whose yard stick should we be using?
Instead of waiting for the govt or others to do more, it can always start with us. Just like what you are doing in your cell group. From one person, you influences many more…
Hi all,
Just like to inform you that this friday, 11 July, there is a public lecture titled “The Christian as Salt and Light in Politics” by Dr Toh See Kiat who is the chairman of Biblical Graduate School of Theology (BGST). It is held at Singapore Thomson Rd Baptist Church, Level 2, 7.30-9.30pm. Dr Toh was also a former Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC and he presently worships at Mt Carmel BP Church where he is an elder. It might be an interesting lecture for those who can make it.
In the Lord’s prayer we are asked to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. This plea from the Lord’s prayer speaks about the kingdom coming to earth and not within a particular denomination. The Biblical idea of the kingdom embraces the whole earth and the universe. And thats why the great commission is directed not to individuals but to the nations. And the final vision in Rev 7 of man’s redemption include ethnic groups and multi ethnic socio-political entities. Kingdom values and principles were meant to be practically applied in the social sphere. If the politics of a christian parliamentarian is devoid of any christian influence then something has gone awry. If this is idealism, then we plead guilty! We are living off the gains of some very brave idealists who build their social responsibilities on the Biblical revelation. The whole idea of common justice and human dignity, the basis of so many of our laws, is rooted in the biblical judeo-christian world view.
The sort of individual salvation many christians are used to is a very limited view of salvation. This is one reason why our social values as christians in the marketplace is always influenced by our Christian beliefs.
This is why we dont simply get spiritual in church and sort of agnostic when it comes to politics.
Is there any freedom that I needed so badly that warrants a “civil disobendience” in God’s name?
Do doctors have the freedom to not perform abortions on demand? Will they lose their jobs if they dont? Will they lose their prospects for promotion and advancement? If doctors dont have a right to choose then they don’t have the freedom to choose. if the answers to all these questions is, YES. then I guess they’ll just have to emigrate.
Do foreign workers have the freedom to question the conditions of their services? If they dont…then thats ok they can go to another country and work.
Ha..ha…it looks like we are fighting to have the last say on this matter but I will rest my case after this reply.
If I am a salesman and I find entertaining a client is offensive or against my belief, I could always choose to become an administrator. Or, I can choose to work for another company. Actally, even before deciding to become a salesman, I should already take all these factors into consideration and there should not be any suprises to me at all.
Is a doctor any different from the salesman listed above? There are actually many other medical fields that a doctor can choose from….it is really up to the person to decide what he wanted to do with his life. Isn’t this what freedom is all about? With freedom comes responsibility and consequences.
Simon when is enough is enough? Answer is never unless you are contentedto have a standard of living equal to or less than your parents!
We live in Moore’s expectation - doubling performance and halfing cost every 18 months.
What was great yesterday, is barely adequate today and certainly not enough for tomorrow.
Can Governments ever moderate this expectation - almost impossible when we instutionalize meritocracy and marking to global market prices for “talent.”
Hence we are what we envisoned except we were not wise enough to forsee theunitended consequences of limited human mind without the inspiration of the Divine.
Altruism is a irrational factor in the contemproary risk analysis of evolving situations, hence the limited appeal of all our decisions - some fraction will always be pissed - question if it is a permanent group or a dynamic cluster of the populace.