A Note On Comments

I welcome comments on my blog. But since I have started posting on the issue of homosexuality in Singapore, I have received numerous crude, insulting, and inappropriate comments, some even with explicit sexual contents. These comments were even posted on irrelevant blog posts i.e. posts on evolution, the carnal Christian etc.

Unlike some of my friends who are bloggers, I do not have a list of rules for fellow netizens. I believe in basic civility, and if you are able to comment with the civility and rationality becoming of an average netizen, your comments will be left alone. I have, however, taken the liberty to delete a series of comments by some anti-s377a perpetrators. I do not waste my time replying to such comments; a person with a lack of civility cannot demand the required attention from me.

Due to the impressive volume of comments from homosexuals lobbying for the repeal of s377a, I have started to moderate the comments. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Giving Voice to the Religious

A recent article from a legal professor in the Straits Times buttressed my personal views on the S377a debate. I had argued that, even within a secular state, the views of the religious majority ought to be substantially audible, yet moderated and argued with a rationale which is accessible to secularists and of course, the government of Singapore.

Professor Tan’s prescription for the religious voice is as follows, “Laws made in conformity with public reason as expressed by the majority are legitimate. By extension, decisions made in conformity with public reason expressed by the majority are legitimately made. While Rawls' elaboration of his idea of public reason and other aspects of his theory are too problematic to be dealt with here, the basic idea of offering reasons in public debate that one thinks reasonable for others as free and equal citizens to accept is attractive. The religious may formulate arguments for public decision-making by reference to reasons accessible to all, rather than particular religious texts or commands of deities (unless their veracity is further supported and accessible to all).”

She continues, “Anecdotal evidence, online and in conversations, suggests, however, that it is sometimes the agnostic and the atheist who are not ready for the religious to offer such reasons, or even to listen to the religious. For example, as I, a rational human being, cannot, if I am authentic, deny my religious beliefs even while I engage in legal philosophy, a few persons have wondered if a religious agenda belies my philosophical arguments. ...

Understandably, the atheist or agnostic may be suspicious of reasons offered by the religious, and vice-versa. ...

Writing off opposition as 'religious objections' was just an easy way out for some, saving them 'the trouble of examining the rational arguments' and enabling them to 'evade the very pertinent questions raised, questions which have nothing to do with religion but which have a great deal to do with the welfare of our people' ...

With the understanding that the religious, as well as the atheist or agnostic, have a place in Singapore, every argument should be tested on its own merit, even if it is made by a religious person. This is to prevent a Catch-22 situation where if the religious made a religious argument not accessible to all, they would be silenced, and if they made a non-religious argument, they would be accused of a facade of rationality. ...

Surely for the future of our enlightened democracy, we would not want to exclude any of the 85 per cent of Singaporeans from public discourse.”

As the debate gathers momentum in Singapore - knowing that the LGBT activists would be advocating their “rights” with even greater fanaticism since the retention of S377a - I would advise my fellow pilgrims to take note of the following article by Tan Seow Hon, “Giving voice to the religious.”

Note: The excellent parliamentary speech by Prof Thio Li-Ann is available here.

Please sign the petition to retain S377A

Singaporeans and Non-Singaporeans, I hereby urge all who care for this nation to sign this petition.

Please sign the petition here.

From the website:

Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Singapore

Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's Office
Orchard Road
Istana
Singapore 238823


Dear Mr Prime Minister,


RETENTION OF SECTION 377A, PENAL CODE


As concerned citizens of Singapore, we support the government in wanting to retain S377A of the Penal Code for the good of our children, our families and all Singaporeans.

There are many reasons why the retention of S377A is so important:

S377A is a reflection of the sentiments of the majority of society. Most Singaporeans hold conservative family values and do not accept homosexuality as the norm. (see Singaporeans’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men and their Tolerance of Media Portrayals of Homosexuality, by Benjamin H. Detenber, Mark Cenite, et. al., International Journal of Public Opinion Research) Repealing S377A is a vehicle to force homosexuality on a conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality.

Sexual preference is not about civil rights and has nothing to do with equality or tolerance. Repealing S377A would in fact be the first step towards mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle, which has been shown elsewhere to lead to:

1. Calls to specify the minimum age for consensual homosexual sex;
2. A public education system that teaches acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle under the banner of "tolerance";
3. The redefinition of marriage to include (gay) civil unions and same-sex marriages, and to extend marriage and parenthood benefits to them;
4. Adoption by same-sex parents.

In short, repealing S377A could lead to the modification of core family values and the family unit as we know it.

The majority of Singaporeans want our children to grow up in a traditional environment that espouses healthy and wholesome traditional family values. We do not want the homosexual lifestyle to be promoted or celebrated.

We ask the Government to do what is right and retain S377A for the future of our children and our nation.

Yours faithfully,

The Majority

A Digression into Something Secular

I asked a question. Here is the answer. Thank you for your reply, Mr Ong Hui Guan (Secretariat of the National Longevity Insurance Committee).

Here is the unedited letter with references:

As I reflect upon the recent proposal of the compulsory annuity scheme, it becomes apparent that there might be a probable deficiency in its policy. Will a significant portion of octogenarians from the lower socioeconomic groups benefit from such a scheme?

I would like to point out in this letter that there is indeed good statistical evidence to support a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and life expectancy within developed countries. As such, the compulsory annuity scheme should take this fact into consideration.

We can begin by looking at epidemiological data from the United States. From the paper by Gopal K Singh and Mohammad Siahpush in the International Journal of Epidemiology (2006 35(4):969-979), entitled “Widening socioeconomic inequalities in US life expectancy, 1980–2000,” it is clear that the life expectancy of the less-deprived groups is notably higher than that of the more-deprived groups.

An abstract of this paper writes, “Those in less-deprived groups experienced a longer life expectancy at each age than their counterparts in more-deprived groups. In 1980–82, the overall life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years longer for the least-deprived group than for the most-deprived group (75.8 vs 73.0 years). By 1998–2000, the absolute difference in life expectancy at birth had increased to 4.5 years (79.2 vs 74.7 years). The inequality indices also showed a substantial widening of the deprivation gradient in life expectancy during the study period for both males and females.

Singh and Siahpush subsequently concluded that, “Between 1980 and 2000, those in higher socioeconomic groups experienced larger gains in life expectancy than those in more-deprived groups, contributing to the widening gap.” Thus, there is not only a greater life expectancy for those in the higher socioeconomic status, but the gap in life expectancy between the higher and lower socioeconomic groups is progressively widening.

Not surprisingly, we see a similar trend in the United Kingdom. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the UK-based government department responsible for collecting and publishing official statistics about the UK's society and economy. The ONS published a paper providing figures on trends in life expectancy by social class in England and Wales over the period of 1972 to 2001.

According to the data from ONS, life expectancy at birth for those from social class I has improved from 71.9 in year 1972 to 1976 to 79.4 in year 1997 to 2001. Comparatively, life expectancy at birth for those from social class V has also improved from 66.4 in year 1972 to 1976 to 71.0 in year 1997 to 2001. Nevertheless, it is evident that life expectancy at birth for those from a higher social class is significantly better than those from the lower social classes. There is likewise an increasing gap in life expectancy between the higher and lower social classes.

It is well-known amongst sociologists and epidemiologists that social class or socioeconomic status is a prominent life expectancy indicator, and is assessed through occupation, income, housing or educational level. Besides data from the United States and the UK, a 1999 study by Tapani Valkonen also showed strong correlation between socioeconomic status and life expectancy in Finland. (Kunst, Anton E. et al, “Occupational class and ischemic heart disease mortality in the United States and 11 European countries,” American Journal of Public Health 89 (1999): 47-53.)

As Kinsella and Velkoff conclude, “the weight of existing studies clearly supports a strong relationship between social and economic factors on the one hand and health and mortality outcomes on the other.” (Kevin Kinsella and Victoria A. Velkoff, “Life Expectancy and Changing Mortality,” An Aging World (2001): 46.)

Apart from life expectancy, it is interesting to note that socioeconomic status is an important determinant of disability among older Asians. The effect of socioeconomic characteristics is also strongest when predicting perceived health. In fact, sociologists have discovered that the perception of income adequacy proves to be the most important predictor of health. (Information acquired from the Department of Sociology and the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.)

Although socioeconomic differences in adult life expectancy are growing in Western populations, more research is probably needed to confirm a similar trend in Singapore.

Closer to home, “The Old-Old in Singapore,” a paper published by Ang Seow Long and Edmond Lee from the Singapore Department of Statistics, might suggest a similar association between socioeconomic status and life expectancy in Singapore.

The old-old are defined as those aged 85 years and over. If the housing of an old-old Singaporean has any indication of his current socioeconomic status, then it is significant that in 1999, 43.5% of those who are considered old-old live in HDB 4 room or larger flats. In comparison, 29.1% of the old-old Singaporeans live in HDB 3 room flats, and the remaining 11% stay in HDB 1 and 2 room flats. In other words, a large proportion of those who survive till 85 years and beyond are not living in HDB 1 and 2 room flats. Close to half of them, in fact, lives in HDB 4 room or larger flats.

If it is indeed true that a majority of those who are old-old are from the higher socioeconomic groups in Singapore, then there might be a probable weakness in the compulsory annuity scheme. As this scheme works on the principle of risk pooling, CPF members who die early may not live to see the benefits of this scheme. In fact, their premiums may go towards paying the annuity pay-outs of other CPF members. It is also highly probable that CPF members who survive till 85 years and beyond are those from the higher socioeconomic groups.

In conclusion, we must ensure that those from the lower socioeconomic groups are not unduly burdened with the care of the old-old belonging to higher socioeconomic sectors. Only then can this annuity scheme be of greater aid to the old-old Singaporeans who are truly in need of such pay-outs.

Plantinga’s Argument Against Naturalism 2

The Doubt Develops Part 1

Consistent with evolutionary biology, Churchland’s “principle chore” of the nervous systems “is to get the body parts [of the organism] where they should be in order that the organism may survive.” Survival, rather than the formation of true beliefs, is the chief aim of brain evolution. This includes the survival of the individual, species, gene, or genotype. Intuitively speaking, it is therefore highly unlikely that the production of true beliefs is a function of the nervous system.

If N represents metaphysical naturalism, E the human cognitive faculties that have arisen via evolution, and R the claim that our cognitive faculties are reliable, then the conditional probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is given by:

P(R/N&E)

In this thesis, we shall development the argument that P(R), given N&E, is low or less than 0.5.

Contrary to intuitive derivation, there are some philosophers such as W. V. O. Quine and Karl Popper who claim that P(R/N&E) is fairly high. However, as Plantinga had argued, we have to consider “four mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities.” This way, we can conclusively show the evolutionist that P(R/N&E) is indeed low.

1. Epiphenomenalism: Behavior is not caused by beliefs

The first possible relationship between beliefs (as conceived by the brain) and behavior is this: behavior is simply not caused by beliefs. According to epiphenomenalism, there is no causal relationship between beliefs and behavior. Beliefs, which are arguably some electrochemical phenomenon within the brain, are not biologically causational to the neurological activities which produce behavior.

It is notable that this particular view is popular amongst certain biologists and neurobiologists. For example, Time (December, 1992) reports that J. M. Smith, a renowned biologist, wrote “that he had never understood why organisms have feelings. After all, orthodox biologists believe that behavior, however complex, is governed entirely by biochemistry and that the attendant sensations - fear, pain, wonder, love - are just shadows cast by that biochemistry, not themselves vital to the organism's behavior . . . .”

If epiphenomenalism is correct, then evolution – which is concerned with survival of the organism – is not concerned with beliefs, which allegedly have nothing to do with the organism’s survival or survival-producing behavior. In other words, the production of beliefs is invisible to the forces of naturalistic evolution.

As an example, Harry is a hominid that exhibits the characteristics of epiphenomenal behavior. What he does has nothing to do with what he believes. He might believe that a tiger is a cute kitten that is fun to play with. Nevertheless, brain evolution has somehow selected a surviving species of hominids that reactively run away from tigers. Harry, despite his reflex running away from tigers, in fact believes that tigers are fun to play with. This lack of integration and interrelation between beliefs and behavior makes it highly unlikely that the cognitive faculties are reliable for producing true beliefs.

For this option, P(R/N&E) is inevitably low or less than 0.5.

2. Semantic Epiphenomenalism

The second option for us is that beliefs do have “causal efficacy with respect to behavior, but not by virtue of their content. Put in currently fashionable jargon, this would be the suggestion that beliefs are indeed causally efficacious, but by virtue of their syntax, not by virtue of their semantics. (Plantinga, Naturalism Defeated)” In other words, beliefs may have caused behavior in this option, but only by virtue of their electrochemical properties or syntax, and not via their content or semantics.

This view is popular amongst contemporary philosophers of the mind. If this view is true, then the behavior of Harry the hominid is caused by the neurobiological or electrochemical changes or properties of the brain, and not by the content of the belief itself. It subsequently follows that the semantic properties of the belief, be it truth or falsehood, are invisible to the forces of evolution. The conditional probability P(R/N&E) is once again low or less than 0.5 in this option.

As an example, suppose Harry has the belief that ferocious tigers are furry kittens that deserve to be cuddled. This belief has certain electrochemical properties and a certain pattern of neuronal firings that somehow lead to the flight of Harry from these allegedly furry kittens. Despite the inherently false semantic properties of his belief, the behavior is caused by the syntactic properties, which lead to Harry’s survival. Although Harry’s belief - by virtue of its electrochemical properties - has survival and therefore, selective advantage, the content of his belief has little significance or contribution to his survival instincts.

PS: To be continued. We shall continue with the other two options in the next post.

Announcements

1) The following appeared in the Straits Times today (18th September 2007).

Male homosexual sex to remain a crime

"TOGETHER with marital rape, it was the most hotly debated issue when the proposed changes to the Penal Code were opened for a month of public consultation.

The public has spoken: Homosexual sex will remain a crime in Singapore.

The Government has decided to retain Section 377A of the Penal Code which makes it an offence for any male to 'commit an act of gross indecency' with another male, either in public or private.

Explaining the decision, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that public feedback on the issue had been 'emotional, divided and strongly expressed', with the majority calling for the section to be retained.

'MHA recognises that we are a generally conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve,' the ministry said in a statement.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Law and Home Affairs, said the status quo was arrived at after 'looking at the interests of the community as a whole'.

Ms Indranee Rajah, former chairman of the GPC for Law and Home Affairs, pointed out that MHA had indicated that it would not actively prosecute people under that section.

'But in recognition of the fact that there is still quite a strong majority uncomfortable with homosexuality, the section must stay,' said Ms Indranee.

Whatever the rationale, the status quo has disappointed advocates such as Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong who are in favour of decriminalising homosexual sex.

The move to retain homosexuality as a crime was a 'pity' and 'a lost opportunity', said Mr Siew.
'Keeping Section 377A shows up Singapore as being behind the rest of the world.'

He added that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments that homosexuals are 'mostly born that way' and that 'no public purpose is served in interfering in their private lives' had made him hope for homosexual sex to be struck off the Penal Code.

Pointing out that the last major review of the Penal Code occurred in 1984, Mr Siew said: 'Do we need to wait another 23 years for homosexual sex to be decriminalised?'"

Praise the Lord for this decision. Let us continue to pray that the leaders of our nation will make the right moral and ethical decisions.

2) With my thesis proposal datelines to meet, I will have to cut down on my blogging these couple of months. Nevertheless, I will try to finish my series on Plantinga’s arguments against evolutionism soonest possible. So please stay tune.

An Intermezzo: Reply To Yap Kim Hao

Note: Now that Straits Times Forum is publishing the anti-S377A letters with a vengeance, it is noted that pro-S377A letters are frequently rejected. My kakis in the same “pro-S377A faction” had also failed to publish their letters in the ST Forum. I guess there may be an agenda to influence public opinion prior to the disclosure of the final jurisdiction in parliament. Here is another serving of an unpublished letter to the ST.

Singapore ought to maintain social cohesion in its economic progress

I read with interest Dr Yap Kim Hao’s letter, We cannot afford to wait for conservative views to change before dropping laws against gays (ST Forum, Sep 4th 2007), and the Straits Times article, S'pore must stay connected globally to grow by Aaron Low (Straits Times, Aug 31st 2007).

Firstly, I would like to point out that Dr Yap’s letter begs the question, “How is economic progress hampered by the retention of S377A?”

Singapore has achieved its First World status and economic success using a pragmatist methodology, and not the Western, liberal approach. We as a nation have attracted multitudes of investments, not because of the appeal of Western liberal political philosophy, but rather because of “our clean and green and safe reputation.” (Excerpts of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s Interview with the International Herald Tribune). This reputation would definitely include social cohesiveness, which is paramount for economic predictability and stability.

Secondly, I have to disagree with Dr Yap’s position that the retention of S377A is the product of “a fishing-village mentality.” In fact, the insidious scapegoating of the conservative sector of society by calling them the ones that “impede the progress of the country,” is dangerously schismatic and divisive.

The solution to the homosexuality debate is not via the assignment of blame to the “conservative sector of our population,” but as the government has reiterated in their policies, no Singaporean should be left behind as the nation march forward in economic progress. This would also mean that we must be sensitive and emphatic with those who have yet to accept the social changes associated with globalization.

Therefore, in the homosexual issue, “the Government had to try to maintain a balance between the interests of both groups” through the adoption of “an ambiguous position by keeping a law banning homosexual sex on the books but not enforcing it, and not allowing gay parades.” (S'pore must stay connected globally to grow).

Furthermore, the conservative “heartlander” - using the terminology of our Minister Mentor in his interview - is not a minority group as Dr Yap has implied. Surely Dr Yap is not suggesting that Singapore is to ignore the value system of those who live in three- and four-room HDB flats.

As Minister Mentor has said, “We have a part Muslim population, another part conservative older Chinese and Indians. So, let's go slowly. It's a pragmatic approach to maintain social cohesion.” (Excerpts of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s Interview with the International Herald Tribune).

Dr Yap’s claim of a correlation between economic progress and the repeal of S377A is, therefore, tenuous at best. At worst, it may even create social rifts and divisions, and widen the gap between liberal and conservative Singaporeans.

In conclusion, S377A is not redundant. Its retention only reflects the wisdom and sensitivity of the government in the management of the homosexuality issue, so that Singapore will continue to progress economically as a socially cohesive nation.

Plantinga’s Argument Against Naturalism part 1

The Problem Develops

Alvin Plantinga, in the last chapter of his book Warrant and Proper Function, provided us with a philosophical argument against naturalism - and by implication, evolutionism. His thesis is further developed and defended in his paper here. Although his arguments may appear convoluted at times, it is my objective in this brief article to furnish the reader with the gist of his thesis in the most simplistic way. It is hoped that the reader may find his arguments useful in the discussion of evolutionism with the average churchman and the un-churched alike.

Theists have sometimes resorted to rebutting the fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26:4). In other words, they have attempted to counter empirical evidence with allegedly contradicting empirical evidence. While such a method may be useful in certain scenarios, Science by default is always tentative in nature and thereby unable to furnish an indisputable conclusion or common consensus whereby all scientists would agree upon. Another method of approaching the evolutionist’s leviathan of naturalism is to attack its foundational premises using rational arguments or simple logic, which may prove useful in revealing inherent self-contradictions that the Neo-Darwinist may be reluctant to admit.

Evolution is built upon the presupposition of Naturalism, and this in turn could be fairly accurately defined as the theistic picture of biology minus God. Proponents of Naturalism include Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Bertrand Russell, and the renowned Charles Darwin. Plantinga’s rationale is to turn evolution’s premises of random mutation and natural selection upon itself.

The crux of the argument is an epistemic attempt at making nonsense out of the sense of the evolutionist’s faith in man’s reasoning capacities. Without an omnipotent Creator, the reliability of our cognitive faculties is difficult to ascertain. In fact, we must remain agnostic with regard to the reliability of our cognitive abilities. It is indeed meaningless to say that the brain, which is presumably the product of billions of years of random mutations and rearrangement of molecules, is reliable in giving us true beliefs.

The traditional theist believes that God is the premier knower. He has created human beings in his image, an important aspect of which involves His giving them what is needed to have knowledge – reliable cognitive faculties. The naturalist, on the other hand, has to contend that Chance must provide its biological product – Homo sapiens – with reliable cognitive faculties.

What then is the purpose of evolution? In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote, “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. (emphasis mine)”

In conjunction with Dawkins’ assertion of natural selection having no purpose at all, the implications of evolutionary biology indicate that the ultimate purpose of evolution is survival and reproduction, not production of true beliefs.

Patricia Churchland, concerning the functions of the nervous system, stated, “Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”

In other words, the very existence of the nervous system (and arguably, its accompanying cognitive faculties) indicates the success of resultant behaviors and actions in preserving the brain’s very own existence and continued evolution. But this also implies that the production of true beliefs is not the chief aim of evolution. The brain did not evolve to know truths. It evolved in relation to the organism’s ability to survive and reproduce. That is, brain evolution is concerned with the four F’s of Churchland - feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing.

Plantinga then underlined Darwin’s own doubts concerning evolutionism. “With me,” says Darwin, “the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

To phrase the problem in another way, “Given that Naturalism is true, would evolution produce reliable cognitive faculties in providing true beliefs?” Can the evolutionist rationally trust that his own cognitive function is reliable in providing him with true beliefs?

The retention of S377A helps preserve the nation’s moral framework

Note: The arguments in my previous post had been repackaged and sold as another letter to ST Forum. Nevertheless, ST would not publish it. I wonder why. Here's the letter. I will switch topic and discuss evolutionism in my next installments. For an update on my blogging details see here.

I am disturbed by certain arguments presented in Jason Wee Kheng Hoe's letter to the Straits Times Forum, "Section 377A should be repealed - reputation in legal and multinational community at stake" (ST Forum August 16, 2007).

At the outset, he alleged that "many arguments favoring retention of Section 377A appear to be religious dogma masquerading as universal truism." While there is an embarrassing lack of any validation for his statement, assigning the "religious dogma" label to the opinions of some Singaporeans by virtue of their similarity to certain religious affirmations commits the fallacy of guilt by association.

In addition, he has unfairly excluded “universal truism” from all religions by default. Contrary to his assertion, universal truths are embodied in centuries of religious wisdom.

Mr Wee also seemed to have overlooked the basic fact that all adult Singaporeans, including racial and religious groups, do possess equal rights to freedom of speech. The State does not discriminate against any race or religion, and allows all reasoned arguments to be presented in the homosexuality debate.

Within a multi-religious society, the viewpoints espoused by the various religious groups should be adequately addressed, and not relegated to the fringe of society. When deriving a public consensus for the homosexuality debate, the failure to engage these religious groups effectively discriminates against a large population of Singaporeans, who understandably have their respective religious affiliations.

Surely Mr Wee will not deny anyone the freedom to express their perspectives within this multiracial and multi-religious country.

Concerning Section 377A, how the Singapore’s Law Society arrived at the conclusion that “those arguing for its retention were a minority” remains a mystery. Was there a nation wide poll to decide upon this issue? Was he referring to a “minority” of Singaporeans or to a “minority” of homosexuals?

While I agree with him that the socio-political fabric of Singapore is "grounded on acceptance and tolerance," he failed to specify the relevance of his statement. As Singaporeans are taught the national pledge since childhood, we do know what exactly we should be tolerant of. Regardless of race, language or religion, all Singaporeans are entitled to equal rights in the eyes of the law. This, however, does not mean that the law is obliged to tolerate everything.

Besides, there is no need to “blame God” for the alleged “genetic aberration.” Even amongst scientists, it is highly controversial and debatable whether homosexuality has a viable genetic etiology. Some homosexuals have even turned to a heterosexual lifestyle.

Furthermore, there are scientific papers suggesting that pedophilia and aggression have certain genetic basis. This, however, in no way justify acts of aggression or sexual intercourse with children. No sane Singaporean would lobby for the decriminalization of pedophilia-related crimes based upon genetic evidence. Similarly, the country cannot legally endorse all sorts of sexual paraphilias based upon genetic data alone.

The crux of this debate is actually a moral issue: is homosexuality acceptable according to the moral value system of Singaporeans?

Mr Wee claimed that “keeping section 377A and not enforcing it is an unnecessary burden.” I beg to differ.

Firstly, as Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee has previously stated, “If S377A is repealed, homosexual sex is legitimised, transformed from a crime into an 'alternative lifestyle' (Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error, Straits Times May 4, 2007).” This provides the necessary legal and political momentum for gay lobbyists to push their agenda further. The retention of S377A assures the public that any possible social division secondary to controversial issues, such as the redefinition of marriage, will not become a reality.

Secondly, I question Mr Wee’s reasoning that the “retention of unprosecuted offences on the statute book runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute.”

For example, Rule 28 of the Road Traffic Rules prohibits cycling on footways. The Road Traffic Act and Road Traffic Rules also prohibit pedestrians from crossing the pedestrian crossings when the lights are red. Although offenders of some of these rules are in reality seldom prosecuted, the rules are nevertheless indispensable for road safety reasons. If it is true that the “retention of unprosecuted offences” results in running the “risk of bringing the law into disrepute,” should Mr Wee also consider lobbying for the repeal of a myriad of other rules that are less frequently enforced?

While I agree with Mr Wee that Singapore’s “reputation in the legal and multinational community is important,” I believe he had missed the main point. Singapore’s status and success today are mainly attributable to effective leadership. Building upon strong family ties and a conservative moral framework, Singapore has gained the reputation of being a safe and trustworthy haven for investors and their families. Singaporeans and foreigners alike can trust the government for both their children’s academic and moral education.

I feel blessed to be a Singaporean, not simply because of the various economic and academic excellences that we have achieved as a nation, but also because of a number of intangibles that we possess as an integrated society. One such intangible entity is the country’s conservative, and yet delicate, moral framework.

The renowned philosopher, Sir Karl Raimund Popper, in his “Liberal Principles” advised his readers that the moral framework of a society is its most important safeguard. He wrote, “Among the traditions we must count as the most important is what we may call the ‘moral framework’ (corresponding to the institutional ‘legal framework’) of a society. This incorporates the society’s traditional sense of justice or fairness, or the degree of moral sensitivity it has reached. This moral framework serves as the basis, which makes it possible to reach a fair or equitable compromise between conflicting interests where this is necessary.”

Concluding his statement, he warned, “Nothing is more dangerous than the destruction of this traditional framework. (Its destruction was consciously aimed at by Nazism.) In the end its destruction will lead to cynicism and nihilism, i.e. to the disregard and the dissolution of all human values.”

Contrary to being an “albatross on Singapore’s neck,” S377A currently serves to preserve the delicate moral fabric of Singapore’s society. The repealing of S377A will change the law's moral perception of homosexuality, while its retention reflects the moral value system of Singaporeans at large.

Finally, the retention of S377A will also offer Singaporeans the confidence that the law will continue to protect society from an insidious, albeit gradual, degeneration of its moral framework. And this moral fabric is arguably one of the essential factors for the nation’s continued success.

The Golden Rule of Reciprocity, Genetics, and the Homosexuality Debate

The following is an unpublished letter to the Straits Times, with minor changes for blog publication, of course.

People Like Us (PLU) should not use arguments like these

An ongoing debate in the Straits Times Forum concerns homosexuality and Section 377a of the Penal Code. In my perusal of the letters in the online forum, I have read various interesting arguments presented by those in favor of repealing S377a. Amongst the myriad of rationales put forth, I would like to point out two recurring arguments that gay rights activists should avoid using because of inherent fallacies.

Argumentum ad misericordiam ad nauseam – Gays must bear the burden of proof for genetic evidence

Firstly, by using an appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam), some writers have alleged that S377a is a repressive piece of legislation that discriminates against the private, consensual sexual activities between homosexuals. Their claim is that S377a criminalizes an individual for something that he could not help.

According to these writers, some men are purportedly born homosexuals. But by rephrasing their argument in the form of a deductive syllogism, it becomes apparent where the logical fallacy is.

Major Premise: All genetically determined conditions are amoral
Minor Premise: Homosexuality is a genetically determined condition
Conclusion: Therefore homosexuality is amoral

By implication, if homosexuality is genetically determined, one cannot choose whether he is born a homosexual or not. It then follows that homosexual activities are not matters of moral consideration, but matters of sexual orientation.

Such a conclusion cannot be valid because the minor premise of their syllogism cannot be established factually. Concerning the genetic basis of homosexuality, it is a well-known fact within the scientific community that empirical evidence is equivocal and inconclusive at best. It is therefore reasonable that gay rights activists should cease using medical genetics as a basis for their agenda.

Furthermore, as the pro-homosexual movement is pressing the government to change the status quo by repealing S377a, the onus is therefore on the gay rights lobbyists to provide conclusive, scientific evidence that homosexuality is indeed a genetic condition beyond reasonable doubt.

The Golden Rule of Reciprocity cannot apply

Another commonly encountered rationale from those who oppose the status quo is the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. Simply stated, this moral rule proclaims, “Do not do to others what you would not have others do to you (Confucius’ Analects 15:23).” Christianity’s version of this rule is found in Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

These pro-homosexual writers are essentially saying, “Be legally fair. Leave the homosexuals alone. They are having consensual intercourse in private, and are causing no harm to others. Likewise, heterosexuals are having consensual intercourse in private, and are causing no harm to others. Please do not criminalize private, consensual homosexual activities just as we do not want private, consensual heterosexual activities to be criminalized.”

Primarily, this line of reasoning begs the question of whether homosexual and heterosexual intercourse should both be classified under the same moral category. In other words, are both types of sexual intercourse morally acceptable according to Singapore’s moral framework?

I also submit to you that the Golden Rule is hereby misapplied. Rules, by their very nature, are meant to be applied to several cases. However, any rule is also bound to have a range of applications, and cases falling outside that range are not covered by the rule.

To avoid committing the logical fallacy of making a sweeping generalization (a Dicto simpliciter), the Golden Rule of Reciprocity must be cautiously applied to the homosexuality debate with certain qualifications and contextual considerations.

The first qualification is this: that which we desire that men would do to us must be morally acceptable. For instance, we cannot apply the Golden Rule to a suicidal teenage girl in the scenario where she is actively seeking death or suicide. Suicide is not morally acceptable. Since she desires to be killed, she may consider the killing of someone else as being morally correct according to the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” By reductio ad absurdum, it is clear that the Golden Rule cannot be applied indiscriminately.

What about the statement by Confucius, “Do not do to others what you would not have others do to you?” In order for the application of the Golden Rule to be viable, we must also examine the presupposition of that application. As an example, the taking of a life by the state executioner and a murderer may theoretically be performed under similar conditions and in the same manner, that is, by hanging. However, the murderer cannot point to the Golden Rule of Reciprocity and demand, “It is only fair for the law to leave me alone. Just as the taking of a life by the state executioner is not criminal, my taking of a life should not be criminalized as well. Why do you criminalize my act of taking a life? Do not do to others what you would not have others do to you.” The fallacy of the murderer’s argument is this: he has assumed a priori that the taking of another’s life is amoral, be it performed by the state executioner or by other citizens of Singapore. But the truth is, the executioner’s action is ordered by the state, while the murderer’s action is that of murder which is inherently immoral.

Likewise, gay rights activists have assumed a priori that homosexuality is morally correct.

The introduction of the rule of reciprocity into the homosexuality debate is ultimately a red herring. The rule detracts from the main question at hand, which has not been resolved, “Is homosexuality morally correct, or is it morally unacceptable?” To ignore the moral value system of Singaporeans is to ignore the country’s mores.

Philosopher Sir Karl Raimund Popper, in his “Liberal Principles,” warned that the moral framework of a society is its most important safeguard. He wrote, “Among the traditions we must count as the most important is what we may call the ‘moral framework’ (corresponding to the institutional ‘legal framework’) of a society. This incorporates the society’s traditional sense of justice or fairness, or the degree of moral sensitivity it has reached. This moral framework serves as the basis, which makes it possible to reach a fair or equitable compromise between conflicting interests where this is necessary. It is, of course, itself not unchangeable, but it changes comparatively slowly. Nothing is more dangerous than the destruction of this traditional framework. (Its destruction was consciously aimed at by Nazism.) In the end its destruction will lead to cynicism and nihilism, i.e. to the disregard and the dissolution of all human values.”

I conclude that the retention of S377a will rightly reflect the moral value system of Singapore’s essentially conservative society. It will also offer Singaporeans the confidence that the law will continue to protect their society from a gradual, albeit insidious, degeneration of its moral framework.

Note: There are Christians who may be uncomfortable with my previous proposal that the government should give due respect to the moral value system of Singaporeans. I have perceived that Singapore is generally conservative compared to many European nations. To my critics (now I understand why we have to fight the battle from both sides), do allow me to ask you a question, “In view of the secular government, what would you propose that we do? Tell the government to follow the Ten Commandments?” More importantly, “What have you or your church done to promote a godly agenda within Singapore’s society?” Silence is no longer golden.

I have also addressed the problem here.

The Homosexuality Debate, Majoritarianism, and the Moral Argument

It seems that the Straits Times Forum is progressively discouraging any contributions that relate to the homosexuality debate in Singapore. I have not seen any such letters for the past one week. But in the last 6 months, there were at least a dozen of such letters weekly; of course, most were from the homosexual minority.

Since renowned Singaporean gay activist Au Wai Pang of www.yawningbread.org (and friends) had made some bizarre, and sometimes amusing, arguments in favor of sodomy and homosexuality in response to my brief letter, I felt it appropriate to write a concise response to at least two arguments being perpetrated in cyberspace in my next two posts.

Christians can always furnish them with a sound rebuttal using Scriptures. But in a secular debate, we Christians have to contend with one hand tied behind our backs. Why so? A secular debate, especially with the gay rights activists in Singapore, demands that we "do not use religion." But this de facto exclusion of religions does not include the exclusion of atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism, all of which are religions in their own right.

So, pro-gay lobbyists have in effect established their humanistic presuppositions even before we can argue what those presuppositions should be. For example, can they prove that there is no God (i.e. epistemology)? Surely not! They, however, demand that we must leave God out of the equation in this allegedly secular, amoral debate.

To be sure, they are seeking political momentum in their quest to repeal S377a. Apart from the perennial chant, "Bring them out unto us, that we may know them (Gen. 19:5)," the gay rights activists want the law and the church to accept same-sex marriages and same-sex family units as legally, politically, socially, and perhaps, morally viable practices.

The Moral Argument and Majoritarianism

And here is a question to those who criticized my proposal that the majority consensus should determine what constitutes morality within a secular milieu, "How else would you determine morality?"

Those acquainted with the philosophy of religion would realize that to concede to a moral argument, you are basically acquiescing to the ‘moral proof’ for the existence of God. And the homosexuality debate cannot escape a moral argument. The allegation that S377a is legally unfair and discriminating is in fact a moral argument from pro-homosexual lobbyists. How would you contend that something is unfair unless you have a moral standard or rule by which you can measure your statement with? Without an objective moral standard, nothing is either fair or unfair. Everything is relative, and what is unfair for you may be absolutely fair for us. So please do not impose your sense of unfairness upon us just as you demand that we do not impose our "moral standards" upon you. The truth is, gay activists in Singapore are aggressively attempting to impose their sense of unfairness upon the general population’s sense of unfairness.

Is this not fair then?

Pro-homosexual activists, if you were to contend for subjectivity in the realm of morality, you are again shooting yourself in the foot. Advocates of Social Darwinism and secular humanism are strong supporters of relativistic moral values. But even these advocates are absolutely certain that their moral code is absolutely correct. Is not that absolutism? Besides, these advocates would never argue for morality based upon a minority consensus.

Now here is the main point: gays in Singapore cannot claim that S377a is "not fair." Nevertheless, I have heard a multitude of moans and groans, "But it is unfair for us! You must practice the Golden Rule of Reciprocity."

Let us be clear about a few points. Gays claim that what is morally wrong for the majority may not be morally wrong for the minority of homosexuals. And this is called moral relativism. Moral standards are relative, so they say. All right. For the sake of argument, let us accept this point and call it point A.

Gays also claim that S377a is "unfair." Again, let us be charitable and accept that point as well. We call this point B.

But my point to you is this: you cannot accept both points A and B. You can either accept point A or B. Not both. Again, I hear a multitude of disagreement, "Why not, you bigoted Christian homophobic extremist?"

Have patience, my fiends. Allow me to explain the simple logic behind my point that your points cannot be viable points in any sensible arguments. Point B claims that S377a is not fair. My question for gays out there, "Is this absolutely or relatively unfair?" For your point to even make any sense you have to say, "It is absolutely unfair." So, to rephrase your statement, "S377a is unfair for homosexuals, and it is unquestionably, absolutely, and intolerably unfair."

Now, let me come to point A. Since you had claimed, and even emphasized, that moral standards are relative, how could you turn around, betray your faith in moral relativism, and claim that anything is unfair?

To make a statement stating that anything is unfair is to make a moral argument and a moral statement stating that something is indeed unfair according to a moral standard, which has to be absolute in nature. If the moral standard that you abide by is indeed relative and fluid in nature, then there is nothing that you can put a finger on and say, "This is unfair!"

Is not that a fair statement?

For those who have concerns regarding majoritarianism within a democratic society, I would recommend David Beetham’s Democracy and Human Rights (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999), 18-26. As this is a complex political question regarding the validity of democracy, equality, and the power of voting, I will leave it to Beetham to answer your questions.

As Beetham had aptly concluded, "we do not have to accept a stark contrast between majoritarian and consensual procedures, neither do we have to accept direct and representative democracy as mutually exclusive antitheses. Not only does a representative assembly, to be accountable and responsive, depends upon an active and alert citizen body, and on a variety of forms of direct participation in the associations of civil society; it is also possible, as the Swiss and other experience shows, to give political authority to a representative assembly while leaving an ultimate power of decision on legislation in the hands of the citizens themselves. (p. 25)"

I will publish an unpublished letter to Straits Times Forum in my next post, which will answer the question of, "What about the Golden Rule of Reciprocity?"

The Homosexuality Debate Cannot Escape A Moral Argument: A Letter to Straits Times

Note: I have submitted this letter to The Straits Times concerning the homosexuality debate, which was published on 26th July 2007 (see ST Forum online version). I shall put the letter on my blog for the benefit of those who have no access to the ST archive; the forum is only available for one week, after which all letters are archived.

One of the issues being hotly debated today in Singapore is whether S377a of the Penal Code should be repealed, and whether consensual gay sex should be decriminalized. My objective in this letter is to contend that the homosexuality debate cannot escape a moral argument if our legislature is to respect the moral values of the majority of Singaporeans.

It is a known fact that multiracialism and multi-religiosity form the social fabric of Singapore. Indeed, as a multi-religious community, Singapore cannot ignore the religious component of its society. In its deliberation of the homosexuality issue, the government is obliged to give due consideration to the majority voice. According to Statistics Singapore (1), the majority of Singaporeans are not atheists, agnostics, or secular humanists without religious affiliations. In this country, the majority of Chinese are Buddhists (53.6%), the majority of Malays are Muslims (99.6%), and the majority of Indians are Hindus (55.4%). Within our multi-religious society, a common consensus on this issue can only be achieved by being mindful of the morality of the religious majority. As Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee had pointed out, "the attention given to fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens by retaining S377A in its entirety strikes the right balance." (2) Therefore, the disregard of moral values of a large population of Singaporeans who subscribe to religious faith is not the solution to the homosexuality debate.

I recognize that the Singaporean government has been gracious by giving credence to viable opinions of various minority groups. As homosexuals in Singapore are a minority, they should all the more avoid the disparagement of other minority, albeit opposing, views. These include those from the conservative sectors of various religions in Singapore. In his recent letter to the Straits Times forum, Dominic Chua Kuan Hwee hinted that "the prejudice of a small number of church leaders" should not dictate the position of other Christians. (3) How Mr Chua arrived at the conclusion, that a minority group of church leaders had indeed imposed their views upon the Christian majority, is baffling. Neither do we have any reproducible evidence to support his hypothesis. By applying the rhetoric of Mr Chua, I sense that the small minority group of homosexuals in Singapore is essentially promoting an agenda that would eventually dictate the conscience of the majority. Is it then reasonable to pressurize the religious majority to go against their moral convictions, and to accept homosexuality as being morally correct? Therefore, just as homosexuals cry out for tolerance and desire their voices to be heard, they should likewise encourage other minority groups within the nation to express their opinions, be they conservative or not.

The singling out of a minority group of conservative Christians or extremists Muslims, and to put them in a negative light would do little in our journey towards a common consensus concerning the homosexuality debate. The social fabric of Singapore depends upon mutual understanding and tolerance between various religious groups, and the intolerance of any religious minority would inevitably lead to disharmony, social fragmentation and religious apartheid. Furthermore, Muslims in Singapore are generally moderate in their theological perspectives. We are likewise not living in the time of the medieval Crusades. Christians do not form a majority group in this nation, with only 16.5 % of Chinese and 12.1% of Indians professing to be Christians. Pro-homosexuality writers like Dominic Chua would have done better if he had addressed the statistically more significant religious groups, for example the Islamic community, in his assessment of the influence of religions within Singapore’s society.

We must admit that the homosexuality issue ultimately cannot escape a moral argument within an inherently conservative and multi-religious society. Various writers had attempted to argue for the decriminalization of homosexual acts from a pragmatic perspective. For example, Consultant Therapist Anthony Yeo, had challenged the traditional definitions and values of the concept of family based upon pragmatic and experiential observations. (4) Some of his questions were, "Is there an ideal form of family life," and, "Are parents from heterosexual marriages any safer for children?" Anthony Yeo’s thought-provoking questions should perhaps result in more fundamental questions being asked concerning the definition of a family. For instance, "Who should possess the authority to decide what constitutes an ideal family?" "Should pragmatic considerations be used to redefine the family structure, apart from moral considerations?" And, "Should we follow the majority consensus of what makes up a family, or should we allow the cognoscenti to decide for us?"

Certain gay rights activists had attempted to assert their unalienable right to homosexual intercourse based upon two arguments. Firstly, homosexual acts are private, consensual activities between mature adults; and secondly, such activities do not cause harm to other people within a society. Taking morality out of the equation, are we therefore to allow the private, consensual sexual activities between family members (incest), adult and children (pedophilia), humans and animals (bestiality), or human and cadavers (necrophilia)? After all, such sexual activities may be private, consensual, and confer no harm to other people. Furthermore, should we allow polygamous marriages as viable family units in Singapore? Taking the assertion of such unalienable right to the logical extreme, are we consequently obliged to legalize incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and polygamy?

Finally, I conclude that the religiosity and morality of Singaporeans cannot be ignored in the homosexuality debate. Pragmatism alone cannot provide a satisfactory resolution to the discussion. Truth cannot be determined by merely the practical consequences of belief. Besides, a proposition that works does not necessarily mean that it is morally right. If pragmatism is allowed to be the sole consideration in the legislation of laws, then several criminal activities might even be justified based upon various pragmatic bases. For instance, the poor might be justified to steal, or to embezzle his company for financial gains. I therefore urge the government to seriously consider the moral value system of the majority in its derivation of a common consensus concerning the homosexuality debate.

Footnotes:

1. See <http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/religiousaff.html>
2. Yvonne C. L. Lee, Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error, ST May 4 2007.
3. Dominic Chua Kuan Hwee, Singaporeans need to be more historically conscious and reflective in debate on homosexuality, ST July 21, 2007.
4. Anthony Yeo, Let's debate without prejudice, judgment or condemnation, ST July 13, 2007.

Confrontation and Confession of Sins within the Local Church

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Matt. 18:15-17 (ESV)

I shall now plunge into a brief discussion concerning the responsibility of the believer with regard to church discipline. Specifically, I shall look at the passage from Matthew 18:15-17. While deliberately avoiding a detailed discussion on corporate church discipline, I would like to focus upon the individual responsibility each believer has towards his brother-in-Christ. The subject of excommunication will be left for another day.

I have stated in my previous post that, contrary to common secular perception, love is not a lovey-dovey sentimentalism, or the uncritical acceptance of sinful behaviors and erroneous doctrines. Our Lord in this passage of Scripture has given us a mandate to lovingly confront (Gal. 6:1) a brother who wrongs us. Verse 15 does not give us the detail concerning the kind of sin, but rather a general and broad description - "sins against you." Although there are some textual considerations with regard to the words "against you," which are missing in a few early manuscripts, we shall accept the translations of the KJV and the ESV as being accurate here. As the ingressive aorist subjunctive of hamartanō is used in verse 15, it would literally mean “if a brother commit a sin against you.” Such a sin is obviously a personal offense, but the verse does not specify what kind of offense. It could be in word or speech, or in some form of action. Also, such an offense can include grievous sins, or doctrinal errors. The reader is advised not to restrict such an offence to petty grievances.

Stage one of such a corrective confrontation is fairly straightforward. Blomberg laments that, "How often personal confrontation is the last stage rather than the first in Christian complaints! It frequently seems as if the whole world knows of someone’s grievances against us before we are personally approached." (Craig Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 278). The essence of such a confrontation is that it is personal and private. It is in fact sinful if we choose to gossip about our brother who has offended us, rather than approach such a brother to tell him his fault - provided that he is indeed at fault. Of course, there are cases whereby the brother has not committed any viable offence, but has only committed certain acts that are wrongly perceived as being offensive. These include, but are not limited to, matters of Christian liberty, or miscommunications and misunderstandings. In such cases, a private confrontation provides the offended person an opportunity to resolve the misunderstanding quickly and confidentially.

For example, in my previous church, certain young brothers were offended by another group within the church simply because those men were active in sports. The youths felt that Christians should not appear too athletic or physically fit (believe me; some Christians can be offended by many things!). The offended youths alleged that those men should have spent their exercising time on other "more" fruitful activities. But I reasoned with them that there is no biblical mandate for one not to be physically active or fit. Of course, a Christian’s priority should not be exercise or sports, but exercise per se is not sin. However, an obsession with physical appearance can become sinful, both for the man and woman. The youths were apparently put off by the men’s muscular and well-built physique. Ironically, the offended youths spent much of their time on computer games, shopping, and television, and had acquired a sedentary lifestyle. Such matters of Christian liberty should not be the cause of offense, but with that being said, we should be careful - out of compassion and Christian responsibility - not to offend our weaker brethren, or those with a weak conscience (Ro. 14:15-16). Likewise, with regard to matters of Christian liberty, those with a weak conscience (and in fact, all Christians) must avoid judging the motives of a person based upon mere superficial details or hearsay.

However, Matthew 18:15-17 has also been misused by others in order to avoid the correction of the sinning brother. Wrong doctrines being perpetrated by false teachers in Christian organizations, books, seminars, or the Web often go uncorrected by certain church leaders. Some have the erroneous notion that, in order to correct such a false teacher, we must follow the injunctions provided by Matthew 18:15-17, that is, they allege that we ought to confront the false teacher in a private capacity prior to correcting his false teachings publicly. This approach represents a gross misunderstanding of the meaning of the Matthean text.

Firstly, the false teacher is not a member of the local church of the offended brother. In this regard, we cannot fulfill the third stage of discipline i.e. "tell it to the church (Matt. 18:17)." Also, we are not the members of the false teacher’s local church. There is no possibility that the final stage of discipline can be performed if we are to understand the passage in this manner. Secondly, the Matthean passage elaborates how we should approach a personal, private offense. It does not specify that heresies or public sins ought to be dealt with as such. For example, if an adulterous couple’s sin is known to the church, the leaders of the church should exercise corporate discipline. The pastor should not come down to the member and say, "It is you who are offended. You should approach him privately, and only if he does not repent should you proceed to stage two and three of the Matthean text (Matt. 18:15-17)." The couple is committing adultery publicly; the man is showing inappropriate physical affection to the wife of another man. The elders of the congregation ought to confront this couple immediately, and not wait for some members to confront them privately. Furthermore, elders that are grievously or incessantly sinning should be publicly disciplined (1 Timothy 5:20).

The second stage of the confrontation would involve at least another brother in the discussion, thereby creating a group consisting of two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15). It is wise to acquire the assistance and advice of a mature Christian in good standing, or perhaps even an elder. The witness would provide a balanced assessment of the allegations brought against the offender, and at the same time, prevent unnecessary propagation of the confrontation to uninvolved members of the church. If private and loving confrontation at this level does not bring about the repentance of the offender, the issue is eventually brought before the church. The church now acts corporately in urging the offender to repent. Wiersbe rightly commented that, "The motive for church discipline is love: we are seeking to help a sinning brother. Since Christ is in the midst of the church (v. 20), it is also important that the church be obedient and pure. Our attitude should not be that of a policeman out to arrest a criminal, but rather that of a physician seeking to heal a wound in the body of Christ, a wound that will spread sickness and death if left alone." (Warren Wiersbe, Wiersbe's expository outlines on the New Testament (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books), 68).

While such discipline is not infallible due to the fallibility of man, and even cults such as the Jehovah Witnesses use similar methods of confrontation, the Christian must remember that he is indeed his brother’s keeper. True Christian love is exhibited by genuine concern for a brother’s spiritual well-being. Churches often emphasize the physical aspects of providing for one’s brethren, but many have failed to highlight the greater urgency and priority of spiritual welfare and mutual accountability. A Christian simply cannot claim to love his brother-in-Christ if he chooses to keep silent upon learning about the brother’s unrepentant sins. True Christian love is manifested by one who has a heart after God; he loves what God loves and hates what He hates. The true Christian cannot love both the brother and his sins. He must hate those sins enough to reprove his brother. He must love God enough to obey the mandate of Matthew 18:15-17. Otherwise, he is just a liar and a hypocrite; he is a deceiver and a deceiver of self. He claims to be loving and understanding, but all the while he is but a murderer of souls. He fails to understand what God demands of him, and follows the way of Cain who hates his brother, saying, "Am I my brother’s keeper?"

Do you take the time and courage to speak to your brother about his sins? Or do you choose to remain silent? If you do not lovingly confront your brother about his trespasses, you are doing him a disfavor. You are allowing him to slip deeper into a downward spiral of spiritual misery and disease. You have failed to care for his soul as a fellow Christian. Most of all, you will be accountable before God Almighty for his failure, because you are indeed your brother’s keeper.

From the perspective of the offending or sinning brother, it is paramount that he must continue to take Christian fellowship and accountability seriously. A backsliding or sinning Christian may withdraw himself gradually from fellowship and church activities. Conversely, a church leadership that fails to fulfill its roles as overseer, teacher, counselor, and encourager may inadvertently contribute to an exodus of its flock. But the sinning brother must remember to avoid any form of isolationism or social withdrawal. One danger of spiritual isolationism is the propensity it has upon the sinning Christian to isolate himself further from other believers.

Sin is shameful, and it inevitably propagates a self-perpetuating cycle of sin, avoidance and isolation for the Christian man who is already withdrawn from the community of believers. Sin is ultimately prideful, and sin causes the Christian man to establish himself as the final authority such that no other man can judge him. Sin and pride reject the discipline and reproof of fellow brethren-in-Christ. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his little book Life Together, speaks of the need for Christians to dwell within the spiritual community of believers, and to confess their sins to one another. Within the context of Matthew 18:15-17, every offending brother who is genuinely sinning must consider confession as his spiritual responsibility whenever he is confronted by the church or individual believers (James 5:16a).

Let me end with the following words from Bonhoeffer:

"Sin demands to have a man by himself. It withdraws him from the community. The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation. Sin wants to remain unknown. It shuns the light. In the darkness of the unexpressed it poisons the whole being of a person. This can happen even in the midst of a pious community. In confession the light of the Gospel breaks into the darkness and seclusion of the heart. The sin must be brought into the light. The unexpressed must be openly spoken and acknowledged. All that is secret and hidden is made manifest. It is a hard struggle until the sin is openly admitted. But God breaks gates of brass and bars of iron (Ps. 107:16)…"

"The root of all sin is pride… I want to be my own law, I have a right to my self, my hatred and my desires, my life and my death. The mind and flesh of man are set on fire by pride; for it is precisely in his wickedness that man wants to be as God … In the confession of concrete sins the old man dies a painful, shameful death before the eyes of a brother. Because this humiliation is so hard we continually scheme to evade confessing to a brother. Our eyes are so blinded that they no longer see the promise and the glory in such abasement. …"

"Since the confession of sin is made in the presence of a Christian brother, the last stronghold of self-justification is abandoned. The sinner surrenders; he gives up all his evil. He gives his heart to God, and he finds the forgiveness of all his sin in the fellowship of Jesus Christ and his brother… Now he stands in the fellowship of sinners who live by the grace of God in the Cross of Jesus Christ." (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together.)

Note: In church discipline, I would like to understand the exegetical basis for extrapolating the meaning of the word "church" in Matthew 18:15-17 to include the Presbytery and the General Assembly. Any takers?

The Homosexuality Issue in Singapore: A Deeper Legal Problem

Singaporeans are well aware that our Minister Mentor Lee had questioned the homosexuality ban under S377A of the penal code. Is it true that some people are genetically destined to become homosexuals? According to Reuters, MM Lee said, "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. So why should we criminalize it?"

Therefore, according to the Minister Mentor’s analysis, if there is a genetic predisposition for sexual preferences i.e. homosexuality, the question which remains for us is this: "Why should we criminalize sodomy and homosexual activities?"

In line with this rationale for the decriminalization of homosexual acts based upon a tenuous genetic basis, should we then likewise decriminalize the following?

1. Violent acts, grievous hurts, manslaughters, and murders secondary to allegedly "genetically predisposed" violent or aggressive behavior. (1)

2. Pedophilia and related sex offences. Likewise, if pedophilia is a psychiatric illness due to predisposed genetic factors, should it then be decriminalized? (2)

Bringing such reasoning to its logical conclusions, should we therefore decriminalize all legal offences with any probable underlying genetic pathogenesis i.e. manslaughter, murder, causing hurt, pedophilic sexual activities and materials, as well as statutory rape?

There is another issue that might be pertinent in our current discussion. Should alcoholism and alcohol dependence be used as a mitigating factor in drink-driving offences? (3) In other words, if Tommy drinks and drive, and kills Harry on the road, should psychiatrists and clinical geneticists be called in to serve as expert witnesses i.e. to assess Tommy’s genetic make-up and mental condition? This is definitely not done in Singapore. If a genetic predisposition indeed serves as a viable factor in determining the legality of consensual homosexual acts, why should not this reasoning extend into the area of drink-driving legislation?

My points are simple. Firstly, the legislation of law cannot escape a moral argument, and therefore, the argument of a first cause. Assistant Law Professor Yvonne Lee, in an article defending S377A of the penal code, wrote, "Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Allowing an aggressive homosexual rights agenda to dictate law reform ignores the nature of Singapore's multi-religious, multiracial community. Such an agenda would be divisive. Therefore, the attention given to fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens by retaining S377A [of the Penal Code] in its entirety strikes the right balance." (4)

If the law of the country must consider the moral and ethical values of its citizens (in this case Singaporeans), what then determines such moral values? Is it not the religious affiliation of its adherents i.e. God? To relegate the intrinsic morality of the conscience of man to chance - such as random mutations and natural selection - is similar to saying that, "Rape and murder is wrong simply because we had evolved that way." It is turning the value of morality against itself by stating that there is really no right or wrong. Right and wrong are determined by chance itself. And chance had determined that right is probably right, and wrong is probably wrong. But there is really no right or wrong, except that our genes and genetic history had somehow arrived at a conclusion - that criminal acts such as rape and murder are deleterious to our survival. However, these moral concepts may continue to evolve and change. If conditions are such that rape and murder are beneficial to the survival of Homo sapiens, such acts may then become morally right.

Therefore, unless a country’s legislation is grounded upon immutable values of right and wrong, the law may indeed change in the future in view of the evolving moral climate and values. Such a time may come whereby the criminal acts of rape, murder, and terrorism may be decriminalized simply because the majority deems such acts as being morally right. If moral values are evolving, should the law of a country also evolve to accommodate the moral climate of the times?

Secondly, attributing the etiology of sinful acts to the arena of medical genetics is like leaving the legislation of law to the whims of cultural preferences and the majority vote. Genetics alone cannot justify a criminal activity. In fact, science can never be valid for the justification of what God had called a sin and abomination. If medical genetics can indeed be used to justify various criminal acts, and if this rationale is extrapolated to a variety of criminal offences, is the court of law in Singapore ready to accept its logical conclusions? Should psychiatrists, clinical behaviorists, medical geneticists, and psychologists be trained to identify those with genetically predisposed criminal urges (e.g. aggression, sexual violence, pedophilia etc)? Should we start determining the karyotypes of all our criminal offenders in order to search out predisposing genes? Should the court of law therefore accept these "genetic predispositions" as viable mitigating factors in criminal trials?

If the law of Singapore must respect the moral values of its citizens, I believe the legislature should begin exploring more objective ways of determining what constitutes morally acceptable behavior. If Neo-Darwinism is accepted as unadulterated truth, then should criminal law change in accordance with the moral evolution of the country? God forbid, but if such criminal genetic aberrations become dominant within the population, should the law be changed to accommodate the majority opinion i.e. what the majority thinks is right or wrong?

Therefore, law professors such as Yvonne Lee ought to begin pondering upon the following question: Should the legislature pander to the "fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens?" Or should there be a more objective method of evaluating the morality of such widely accepted moral values of the majority?

For the Christian reader, I submit to you that the Bible will be, and must be, the objective truth whereby all laws of the country are to be evaluated. If the stand is taken such that the morality of the majority must be served in the legislation of law, it is not far remote that there might come a time whereby the history of ancient Israel might repeat itself, "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; cf. 21:25)." The law of the land would be determined by the capriciousness and mutability of genetic, cultural and moral evolution, and not by the righteousness of God’s Holy Word and His law. Surely, we would rather submit ourselves to a theocracy, than to an ochlocratic society.

Footnotes

1. See Caspi A, McClay J, Moffitt T, Mill J, Martin J, Craig I, Taylor A, Poulton R (2002), "Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children," Science 297 (5582): 851-4; Brunner HG, Nelen M, Breakefield XO, Ropers HH, van Oost BA (1993), "Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A," Science 262 (5133): 578-80.

2. See Langevin, Ron, "A comparison of neuroendocrine and genetic factors in homosexuality and in pedophilia," Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment Volume 6, Number 1 / March (1993), pp 67-76; Fagan PJ, Wise TN, Schmidt Jr CW, Berlin FS, "Pedophilia," JAMA 2002, 288(19):2458-65; Renshaw DC, "Medical research in pedophilia," JAMA 2002, 289(10):1243; Dressing H, Obergriesser T, Tost H, Kaumeier S, Ruf M, Braus DF, "Homosexual pedophilia and functional networks - an fMRI case report and literature review," Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2001, 69(11):539-44; Mendez MF, Chow T, Ringman J, Twitchell G, Hinkin CH, "Pedophilia and temporal lobe disturbances," J Neuropsych Clin Neurosci 2000,12(1):71-6.

3. See Nurnberger, Jr., John I., and Bierut, Laura Jean, "Seeking the Connections: Alcoholism and our Genes," Scientific American, Apr 2007, Vol. 296, Issue 4; William Sherman, "Test targets addiction gene," New York Daily News, 11 February 2006; Ulf Berggren, Claudia Fahlke, Erik Aronsson, Aikaterini Karanti, Matts Eriksson, Kaj Blennow, Dag Thelle, Henrik Zetterberg and Jan Balldin, "The TaqIA DRD2 A1 Allele Is Associated with Alcohol-Dependence although its Effect Size Is Small," Alcohol and Alcoholism 2006 41(5):479-485.

4. Yvonne C. L. Lee, "Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error," The Straits Times May 4, 2007. Emphasis mine. Does the political philosophy of Singapore advocate majoritarianism?

The Importance of Christian Fellowship (Local Church Part 4)

Our first responsibility towards fellow Christians is fellowship. But this fellowship is not the mere getting together for fun, laughter, and Starbucks coffee. Some say that "fellowship" is simply the gathering of a few fellows in the same ship. But contrary to this frivolous saying, true Christian fellowship cannot be achieved by putting a few fellows on the same ship. In fact, we can have different ships or stations in life, but we must have "like-minded fellows" - that is, Christian fellows with a similar passion (e.g. love for God), similar directives (i.e. the Bible), and most of all, the same Savior and Lord.

Let us first define the secular understanding of the word "fellowship." Fellowship (Greek: koinonia) means sharing, communion, association, or partnership. For unbelievers, the gathering of a group of friends in the bar or nightclub, or the coming together of ex-classmates for a movie marathon is considered excellent "fellowship." Some others believe that studying for exams together, or just gossiping about life and people in some secluded corner of Orchard Road is considered close "fellowship." Christian fellowship, however, means much more. The Old Testament alone speaks much about such fellowship. For example, Christian fellowship is exemplified when:

1. True believers take counsel from the Lord’s Word together (Psalms 55:14);

2. True believers keep intimate friendship with those who fear the Lord, and with those who keep His precepts (Psalms 119:63);

3. True believers dwell together in unity (Psalms 133:1-3) of doctrine and practice;

4. True believers speak to one another in the fear of the Lord, and pray for one another (Malachi 3:16);

5. True believers strengthen the faith of one another in the Lord (1 Samuel 23:16), just as how Jonathan encouraged David by reminding him of the trustworthy promise the Lord had made to him earlier i.e. "you will be king over Israel" (1 Samuel 23:17).

Fellowship takes place in a variety of ways in the New Testament churches. The early church met together for the fellowship of breaking of the bread and prayer (Acts 2:42). The breaking of bread consisted of eating a fellowship meal - called the love feast - which was followed by the Lord’s Supper. There was also a great emphasis on the fellowship of prayer (cf. Acts 4:24-31; 12:5, 12; Phil. 1:3-4); believers often prayed together as an assembly. In the New Testament, fellowship also involved material means, e.g. monetary contributions in helping to spread the gospel (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 9:13; Phil. 1:5). It may even mean the sharing of rejection and persecution through identification with Christ (Phil. 3:10) and with one another.

Believing on Christ restores fellowship not only with God but also among fellow believers. The Last Supper that Jesus had with his disciples illustrated the relationship between the vertical and horizontal dimensions of fellowship (Mk. 14:22-25). In that upper room, the Lord shared with his disciples a sacred love feast. The hearts of the Lord and his followers were knitted together by a deep sense of love and commitment. We find that later on, the disciples’ hearts were strongly united due to their common faith in the risen Lord. After the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the New Testament church was born. It is a society of people in fellowship with God and with one another. Therefore, in direct contrast to the secular fellowship amongst non-believers whereby fellowship with the Creator is broken, genuine Christian fellowship is primarily with God (Psa. 16:7; John 14:16-18, 23; 1 Cor. 10:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 4:6; Phil. 2:1, 2; 1 John 1:3; Rev. 3:20), and secondarily with those whom God had chosen in His Son Christ Jesus.

Dear brethren, one of your responsibilities as a Christian is to fellowship with and build up other believers in a local church. We must understand the fact that all genuine believers belong to the Body of Christ, and that each local church is in fact a microcosm of the universal, visible church militant. Believers belong together, not apart. Paul emphasized this through his use of "one another" (for example Rom. 12:10; 13:8; 15:7; 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; Gal. 5:13; 6:2; Eph. 4:2, 25, 32; Co. 3:13, 16; 1 Thess 4:18; 5:11). Because of their fellowship in Christ, Paul exhorted and commanded that believers are to accept one another (Rom. 15:7), love one another (Eph. 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2), build up one another (Rom. 14:19), be unified (Rom. 15:5), and admonish one another (Rom. 15:14). This Christian relationship with one another is important in the keeping of the unity of faith (John 17:11b; Phil. 2:1-4).

Furthermore, each true believer within the local church have different gifts according to God’s sovereign will (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:1ff.; Eph. 4:7-12). And due to the fact that each of us has differing gifts, we must all the more serve the Body of Christ within the context of the local church. "And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you (1 Cor. 12:21)." Each of us believers as true members of the Body of Christ is needed for the edification of the saints, and ultimately, for the glory of God through the work of the local church. All of our gifts are needed within the local church.

Within the Bible, we do not read of individual Christian mavericks attempting to change the world for Christ, or challenging contemporary Christendom to adhere to one’s brand of theology. What we read of are communities of believers - assemblies of Christians united in heart and spirit, and worshipping and praying together for one another in various cities and locales.

Christian fellowship can sometimes be discouraging and even stumbling. In fact, I was recently very discouraged by certain allegations that fellow brethren had raised against me. We must nevertheless endeavor to be members of a local church for Christ sake. We ought not forsake the privilege of serving Christ in a local church just because some of our brethren had hurt us or discourage us. More importantly, we must also be careful not to "put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [our] brother’s way (Ro. 14:13)."

If you profess that you know Christ, and has been "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Ro. 8:21)," I urge you to serve in a local church in whatever capacity or country that the Lord has placed you. It does not matter whether you are in Singapore, or New York, or New Delhi, or even Iraq. If the Lord has delivered you from the bondage of Satan, and has opened your eyes to spiritual truths in Christ Jesus, you have the responsibility to serve your brethren-in-Christ as a local church member. And the first thing you should do is to fellowship with fellow believers. "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching (Heb. 10:24-25)."

Note: In later posts, we shall explore the responsibilities of the local church member in view of the specific functions of the local church.

The Importance of a Personal Library for the Christian Student

Ever since I placed the "partial catalog of my library" (powered by Library Thing) on this blog, I had my fair share of ridicule and discouragements. The truth is, I had received numerous criticisms concerning my character, integrity, and motives based upon the simple fact that I own over a thousand Christian books in my personal library. Some of the readers might find it perplexing, "Why would someone have something to say against Vincent just because he owns a personal Christian library?"

This post is an interruption to the series of posts I am working on concerning the local church. It may also come as a surprise, but before anyone dies of a heart attack, let me elucidate further. I was absolutely taken aback that Christians could make such sweeping allegations.

Some of the accusations were:

1. Vincent is self-centered, selfish, worldly, and extravagant. How can he own so many good books at home? Maybe he should put them in the church library for the benefit of others.

2. Vincent is probably a rich man’s son who spends all his time buying, collecting, and reading books at home. This is his idea of a Christian ministry.

3. Vincent, why do you need so many commentaries on the Bible? I study the Bible too, and I don’t own any commentaries. Commentaries can be dangerous; it may warp and mould your thoughts against the direction of biblical teachings!

I never knew that reading Christian books could serve as a source of discouragement for others, much less providing fodder for criticisms such as these. For the record, I am not a rich man’s son. Although my father had little trouble raising my sister and me up, toys for my childhood were always a luxury. My medical education was partly made possible due to a bursary from an Irish university. My parents are now financially dependent upon me, as I have to pay for their housing loan, their daily expenses, utility bills, and various miscellaneous expenses. They do not have any savings of their own. Do you call that "a rich man’s son?"

I had started buying Christian books since I was in junior college (17 years old). While my classmates indulged themselves in CDs, VCDs, and fashionable clothes, I saved up all my money to buy Christian books. I was hungry to know God, and I had many questions to answer. Reading good Christian books answered my many questions, and quenched my thirst for bible knowledge. I still remember that I bought Francis Schaeffer’s complete works, after saving up for more than a year, from the Bethesda Book Center in Marine Parade. In fact, I know Mr. Robert from that bookstore since I was a junior college student. He will always send me an email or call me up to tell me when the next great book sales will be held.

When I was a medical student, the Lord placed in my heart an even greater thirst to know Him more. I carried the Bible in my white coat wherever I go. And in my internship year alone (1999), I had read the Bible cover-to-cover for more than 10 times and had memorized more than 100 verses from the Bible. At the end of my internship, I fasted and prayed for many months seeking the Lord’s will for my life. I had a great desire to serve Him, but I do not know how and where. I knew I wanted to preach the Word, and I am willing to do it even if I live in hunger.

By the grace of God, I am currently a medical doctor, and had been a part-time seminary student studying at my own expense. I have plans to study formally in a seminary next year. When I was still a member of a local Bible Presbyterian church, I was ministering to a group of youths (12 to 29 years old) through preaching and teaching appointments. I was also giving lectures and seminars on "Creation and Evolution," as well as other topics in the realm of Apologetics. As such, I needed much resource on preparing sermons and lectures on many topics. During those years of service, I bought books on a regular basis. The books I purchased were mainly commentaries, theological tomes, and Christian textbooks. Even now, I’d rather spend my savings on books, rather than on beautiful furniture, entertainment, sports, or other less important priorities.

For the serious Christian who wants to know God’s Word, and especially the seminary student, Christian minister, or theologian, I believe that a good collection of Christian resource in a personal library is of utmost importance. It is a well-known fact that many godly pastors and preachers such as Charles Spurgeon, Albert Mohler, and John MacArthur have huge personal libraries. Albert Mohler’s personal library alone contains more than 30,000 books (see this video). But why do these preachers need such a large number of books? The Bible is a very rich and complex collection of 66 books. A complete understanding of these books of the Bible requires a thorough knowledge of systematic theology, biblical theology, experiential theology, the biblical languages, Ancient Near Eastern history, and so on. Furthermore, the minister would be required to furnish himself with a sufficient knowledge of homiletics, apologetics, and Church History. Proper exegesis of the original texts requires reference books such as lexicons, grammar texts, and the critical apparatus.

When a minister is preparing for a sermon, a bible study, or a counseling session, he needs direct access to good Christian resources. Unless the pastor stays within a large Christian public library (there is none in Singapore), he needs to purchase such books for himself. Furthermore, a good student of the Bible should never be satisfied with his current biblical knowledge. He will be constantly studying and learning from the Bible and from other godly men through books, articles, and journals. Albert Mohler once lamented, "Is this person a Christian intellectual, feeding the mind and soul by reading? For too many pastors, the personal library announces, "I stopped reading when I graduated from seminary.’" This should never be the case. A minister of God can never complete his study of the Scriptures. Our knowledge will never be perfected in our pilgrimage upon this earth.

Perhaps some might feel that, surely it is better to sell all those volumes of books, and give the money to the poor. Or perhaps we can give all our Christian books to the church, and allow public access to those books. In like manner, we can sell our cars, our beautiful houses, or even our insurance policies, and share the money from the sales of our possessions with the church (Note: I do not own a single personal insurance policy at this point in time). Firstly, Christians should never be avid supporters of Communism. It is unquestionably not a sin to own a car, a house, or a personal library. In fact, all my previous pastors own personal libraries much larger than what I have. Some of the pastors I know even have their own cars, private houses, and insurance policies. Should they then sell what they have, and give the money from the sales of their possessions to the church? Some would say that the New Testament Christians did exactly that: "for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need (Acts 4:34b-35)."

We must understand this passage against the background of the infant New Testament church. Firstly, there was a "need (Acts 4:35)." We recall that under the preaching of the apostles, many pilgrims to Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost were converted. They had obviously chosen to remain in Jerusalem as members of the local church rather than return home. Some converts lost their livelihood due to persecution. There were, therefore, needy brethren within the local church of Jerusalem.

Secondly, we must understand this passage of Scripture in the light of the rest of Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does God mandate the communistic manipulation of the possessions of church members. James stressed that, "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit (James 2:15-16)?" Likewise, John says, "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1 John 3:17)?" The emphasis is on a believer’s compassion for a fellow believer in need. If a brother refuses to work and is lazy, or he simply refuses to buy his own food when he can afford it, there is no biblical mandate for a fellow Christian to sell his possessions and give to this brother. In like manner, if a Christian man refuses to invest in good books, but rather spends his money on entertainment, movies, sports, and dating, there is no obligation for a fellow brother to buy Christian books for this man.

John MacArthur elucidates further, "Some have seen in this passage [Acts 4:32-35] a primitive form of communism or communal living. As noted in the discussion of Acts 2:44-46 in chapter 7, however, that is not true. As in 2:45, the imperfect tense of the verbs indicates continuous action. They did not at any point pool all their possessions. Also, it is clear from Acts 12:12 that individual believers still owned houses. Further, Peter’s words to Ananias in 5:4 show that such selling of property was strictly voluntary. The singling out of Barnabas also implies that the selling was voluntary. If it were compulsory there would have been nothing commendatory about his actions. Finally, Acts does not record that any other church followed this pattern of selling property."

Finally, I am absolutely amazed at how someone can come to my blog, see the library catalog that I displayed on this blog, and arrive at the conclusion that I am a selfish, self-conceited, worldly, extravagant, and spoilt rich man’s son! Can you fault me for being so discouraged by such criticisms?

For your edification, Albert Mohler discussed the significance of personal libraries in this post of his. He wrote:

"When truly read, a book becomes a part of us. That is why we are afraid to part with even the physicality of it. The book becomes an aid to memory and a deposit of thought and reflection. Its very materiality testifies that we once held it in our hands as we passed the pages before our eyes.

Parini observes that libraries are mirrors into our minds and souls. The books we collect, display, and read tell the story about us.

This may be especially true of Christian ministers. Books are a staple of our lives and ministries. When the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to bring the books and the parchments, he was writing with the kind of urgency any preacher understands.

To a great extent, our personal libraries betray our true identities and interests. A minister's library, taken as a whole, will likely reveal a portrait of theological conviction and vision. Whose works have front place on the shelves, Martyn Lloyd-Jones or John Shelby Spong? Charles Spurgeon or Harry Emerson Fosdick? Karl Barth or Carl Henry? John MacArthur or Joel Osteen?

How serious a Bible scholar is this preacher? The books will likely tell. Are the books all old or all new? If so, the reader is probably too contemporary or too antiquarian in focus. Are the books read? If so, the marginalia of an eager and intelligent mind adds value to the book. It becomes more a part of us.

Is this person a Christian intellectual, feeding the mind and soul by reading? For too many pastors, the personal library announces, "I stopped reading when I graduated from seminary."

When I think of my closest friends, I realize that I am most at home with them in their libraries, and they are most at home with me in mine. Why? Because the books invite and represent the kind of conversation and sharing of heart, soul, and mind that drew us together in the first place.

By their books we shall know them. And by our books we shall be known."