Statement from Church of Our Saviour on the Aware saga. It is reproduced here in its entirety.
As the media reported on the AWARE saga, it brought up the fact that several of the new exco are members of Church of Our Saviour. This has created the perception that the church was behind the move.
This is not true. Church of Our Saviour did not initiate or instigate any campaign to take over the leadership of AWARE. The church withheld comment but the allegations have continued. This statement is to clear the air so far as our alleged involvement is concerned.
We have not, nor will we, allow our pulpit to be used to intentionally teach anything that would arouse social tensions, divisions and unrest.
Church of Our Saviour does not have an agenda against homosexuals. We are not antihomosexual. The Christian Bible says we have all committed sin in different ways – heterosexual and homosexual – against Almighty God. But God loves us so much that He sent Jesus Christ to take the judgment in our place. (Reference John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We believe homosexuals should be extended understanding, kindness and love like every other human being. No homosexual should ever be deprived of any right enjoyed by every other Singaporean.
However, Church of Our Saviour does have a stand against the agenda of activists promoting homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle. Just as much as the Bible commands us to love the homosexual person, it also states categorically that homosexual practice is wrong. (Reference Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Accepting homosexual practices and endorsing any education program that teaches our children that such practices are neutral or normal, would lead to the erosion of the sound family values on which Singapore society has been built.
We hope that AWARE members will go to their EGM without the wrong assumption that the exco is a pawn of the church or that it has intentions to turn it into a religious organization as that is totally untrue.
Senior Pastor Derek Hong
—-
The following is a report from the Straits Times:
Churches: Don’t get involved
THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) says it does not condone churches getting involved in recent matters related to the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
In a statement on Thursday, it said it did not condone pulpits being used for this purpose.
‘Our member churches are not involved in the present saga. In fact, our heads of churches have very recently reiterated to their clergy the standing instruction on the proper use of the pulpit,’ said the statement issued by Archbishop John Chew, president of the NCCS, and Mr Lim K Tham, NCSS general secretary.
The NCCS brings together Christian groups like the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and Syrian Orthodox churches, among others. Dr Chew is also the head of the Anglican church in Singapore.
Last week, it emerged that staff and members of the Church of Our Saviour in Margaret Drive, which is under the Anglican communion, were encouraging people to join Aware and support the new team in the society’s leadership dispute.
They said the old team at Aware had been promoting lesbianism and homosexuality, a charge the team has rejected.
In a weekend sermon, Senior Pastor Derek Hong urged the women in his flock to ‘be engaged’ and support new president Josie Lau and ‘her sisters’ at Aware.
The NCCS said it had been following the recent events related to Aware.
‘We are concerned that religion has been dragged into the unfortunate situation. The matters related to Aware should be solved by its own members,’ it said.
Some Christians are however uncomfortable that the saga has thrust their religion in the limelight, for the wrong reasons. In blogs and forums, many Christian netizens said religion has no role in secular organisations.
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
48) sarek_home on May 1st, 2009 3.21 pm
Apologies.
“iliveinuk on May 1st, 2009 12.49 am
i think the churches have deviated from its original purpose of doing good. ”
—————————————————————————————————–
The Church’s original purpose is not “doing good”. Good deeds are supposed to be a side effect of christian life, not the purpose. This stems from the notion that “all religions teach us to do good.” Ultimately, it cannot be denied that the Church’s central purpose is to obey God’s will and live out the plan he has for Christians’ lives and the world in general.
Ensuring that sound family and social are protected from the depredations of deviant choices is part of this, and there is nothing wrong with the Church being concerned with this, but hostile takeovers are definitely not part of the teaching.
//95) blackwhiteorgrey? on May 2nd, 2009 11.56 am
Ensuring that sound family and social are protected from the depredations of deviant choices is part of this, and there is nothing wrong with the Church being concerned with this, but hostile takeovers are definitely not part of the teaching.//
We understand your view but we also hope that you understand that what constitute a sound family or society or is considered deviant is not up to a group of christians to define based on their belief. Exactly, that is what we feel, some group of christians like Thio and COOS has failed to convince the majority of the people that they have to resort to stealthy, sly and dubious operations.
Okay…. I think the meeting is on at hand. Please post the results of the EOGM here so that we know what is the outcome.
Okay?
smallvice585 #66, bismarker #87,
I am considering the full spectrum of how one should define being a Christian, one who believes in the good book, for better or worse, as the inerrant word of god. Hook, line and sinker.
If a Christian doesn’t believe ALL of scripture. Then he/she is simply cherry-picking. Consider Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they like and discard what they don’t. How are they Catholics in any honourable sense of the word? (Catholicism itself is cherry-picked, but that’s a different can of worms.)
I agree with Dawkins in that “moderates” betray both reason and faith. I am not endorsing fundamentalism, but I think there is something to be said about their consistency.
From: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/letter-criticises-toc-for-use-of-divisive-labels-in-article/
Peace #29:
“…all good Christian should be fundamentalists but the word fundamental was never used as prefix. It is assumed that every Christian is a fundamentalist, ie, complete submission. Unfortunately the word today gives this negative connotation. As some posters put it, fundamentalism is also seen as going round, prowling the streets enforcing the injunctions, like the Talibans.
“For your information there is no such thing as liberal or moderate Christian. Maybe, you think the moderate ones are christians who keep to themselves and don’t go round evangelising and the fanatics are the ones who are always sharing their faith. Evangelising is every Christian’s duty and not an option. It is a commandment.
“Jesus calls these moderate ones who are outwardly Christians, who go to church every Sunday; who are involved with Christian activities but no faith in their heart, goats [?], meaning they are not truthful in their heart. They also compromise and condone to unchristian activities. When it comes to the crunch or when the rubber meets the road they compromise, they deny, they play to the gallery….”
P.S. I disagree, I believe, with everything else Peace had to say.
perhaps the govt. should look into charging the ones responsible under the Sedition Act
slllim,
you are the one judging them now and unfortunately or fortunately they couldn’t care less about your judgment. They choose to believe otherwise that they are good believers and continue to believe so, so is there a problem with that?
If there is, well then many things in life people cherrypick, according to your definition. The scriptures that you speak of has undergone so many revisions to itself, how are you going to be fundamental in the true sense of the word? From the so called gnostic texts, the King James and the International version, so who is going to say this is the final version or is it going to be keep going to find the original artifact so that everyone can stick as closely to what is being said?
The irony is that while you seek to argue against believing in religion, you are actually using a definition so commonly used by the Taleban or so many ‘fundamentalist groups’ around the world, that is going back to the basics. It’s really a dead end because at the end of the day, it’s going to be about an exercise in power over definition about what the scripture is which really ignores what religious experience is all about and hides the fact that complete submission is an impossibility.
3/5/09
Religious leaders regardless of faith must never interfer in Politics or Labour Groups and Pastor Derek Hong must take full responsiblities and resign as a Pastor (time has come for all religious leaders to be clearly told of this and should they insist,then they must resign immediately). It is very dangerous to have religious leaders to interfer in Politics and Labour Groups (we have seen what had happend in Burma).
Regards
Andrew Chuah
[#52 HT]
“If we allow religious ideology to cross into civic society, then this sows the seeds of destruction of a peaceful society. Whether or not AWARE is restored to the old guard (which i think is unlikely though I hope I am wrong) we must all be alert to the encroachment of religious beliefs into our secular system.”
[#111 Andrew Chuah]
Religious leaders regardless of faith must never interfer in Politics or Labour Groups and Pastor Derek Hong must take full responsiblities and resign as a Pastor (time has come for all religious leaders to be clearly told of this and should they insist,then they must resign immediately). It is very dangerous to have religious leaders to interfer in Politics and Labour Groups (we have seen what had happend in Burma).
I fully concur with both of you. Absolutely, absolutely.
rgds
Aiyo, you guys are writing abt christians like that because you know they are too mild and don’t fight back. If you were talking like that about other religions, see if they take a gun and shoot you. Gays can join organisations why can’t christians? Hahahah. Plus i thought this country had a Religious Act and ISA then how come people can publicly flame about other people’s religion to this extent. Disgraceful. What is the govt doing about this?
Especially when this pastor you are talking about has never come into your backyard and killed your chickens or something like that. He hasn’t even come into the bedroom and stop you from having sex with another man. I read the papers. All he says is that he doesn’t believe in having sex with a man. That’s his problem right. But gays will still go ahead and do it. Your parents tell you not to have sex with another person of the same sex, you listen to them? No right. Plus, parents have more power to stop you from having pleasure, they stay in the same house as you. Do you tell the police to arrest your parents? How can you people be so mean?
But i better not say so much, later you find out my address and send me death threats, or worse still rape me. The whole country should be afraid of AWARE and gays now.
Hi Andrew Chuah #111,
The Monks’ incident in Burma is one of completely different light compared to the AWARE Saga. Buddhism is the national religion of Myanmar. Buddhist Monks are held in extremely high regard in Myanmar. Since the Junta has practically dismantled political opposition and civil society in Myanmar, the only group left, which has the organisational strength to speak up against the Junta, is the Buddhist Monks.
Opps, i forgot to add, going into other people’s religious institutions and commenting on their messege and actions like this Straits Times and then setting one christian person against another. I don’t even say anything like that when i go to my friend’s temple. Or tell him that someone else said the other temple he go to is bigger or better blah blah….I wonder who are these people who work at Straits Times, they are gay just say so.Why have to poke their noses into religious matters and incite hatred? Just say,’ I am gay and i will love who i want to love’. Its just like saying ‘I like chocolate cake and not strawberry cake.’ Don’t need to like tell the person who like strawberry cake that his mother has a problem because he likes strawberry cake or he was born with a funny mouth.
(113)
christians r mild and dun fight back…hahahahaha… never read about crusades ah?
but of cos.. we can tok abt anything expt SEX. somehow they go a bit off when SEX is written. who cares abt derek hong’s opinions on what men do with each other? why he kept harping on it in sermons?? why cannot tok abt other things? bible doesn’t tok abt other things meh? somemore got a link on his website ‘HOMOSEXUAL’. aiyoh… maybe he a bit repressed. he should keep his thoughts pure, STOP being so obsessed with SEX.
Bismarker #110,
“…unfortunately or fortunately they couldn’t care less about your judgment.”
Besides TOC’s rules of conduct, I doubt anyone here, even you, needs anybody else’s approval to opine.
“…They choose to believe otherwise that they are good believers and continue to believe so, so is there a problem with that?”
If they didn’t, I wouldn’t have come to believe what I do: there’s a problem with consistency.
“…many things in life people cherrypick…”
I fully agree. But not everything is taken to be holy scripture.
Supposed if you adhered to a set of scriptures, find something disagreeable in it. All that’s left is to kick back and marvel at the feats of intellectual acrobatics to avoid dissonance, where there really shouldn’t be any.
The officious need to revise the word of god (through different variations of the bible, denominations of Christianity) takes the “problem” to a global scale. I don’t have the time or resources to go there. But I’ll say if one is hell bent on discerning a celestial message, one can find it in a cookbook, or a grilled cheese sandwich (as somebody did).
“…an exercise in power over definition about what the scripture is which really ignores what religious experience is all about and hides the fact that complete submission is an impossibility.”
I would argue cherrypicking defines exactly what the religious experience for the vast majority is. And if one cherrypicks enough, complete submission is not only a possibility, it is almost a certainty. What can’t be lived up to is simply discarded.
To bring it back to “there is no such a thing as fundamentalism”: there are only cherry-pickers or Christians (sometimes refer to as fundies)
This Pastor Hong is blur or what? I have very negative feelings about this church.
slllim,
well the only thing i would agree with you is regarding the first line, but of course you were more interested in polemics than addressing the issue.
Here’s a thought, suppose you now do have some views on Truth which is your version that is somewhat more superior to the Christian version what happens when 80 years from now someone points out there’s some social basis to that and it’s not as founded and grounded as you thought of? What happens then?
As for the cherrypicking issue, yes, even if they did try to (which is really hard to prove) cherrypick and paint a picture of idealism, well what about the rest of us then?
The only thing is really your view on religion, is it just about following the manual according to you then? we didn’t see a manual on bomb making nor did we see a manual for taking over Aware did we? nor one which ask you to brush your teeth twice a day or buy food from Sheng Siong instead of Cheers.
so who’s really cherry picking here? I suggest that the issue might be complex that you think it is. If you think that by saying that someone is not christian because he or she didn’t do that or what, well the opposite could be argued of you that you are not a true atheist because u didn’t do this or that. Your task in arguing just because religion does not represent totality therefore hence false is not really going to get you any converts to your camp the same way that neuroscience and newtonian physics didn’t . Perhaps there’s much more to the religious experience in which you are inclined to believe, unless of course you choose to stick dogmatically to some certain notion arrived out of philosophical arguments without actually speaking to any Christians.
# 118 dave,
he is not blur, he acts blur.
you got go NS not? army never teach you that term meh?
bismarker #119,
“…you were more interested in polemics than addressing the issue.”
Ok…. So let’s go back to the argument.
“Here’s a thought…. What happens then?”
I have no idea what you are on about. An example would be nice.
“As for the cherrypicking issue, yes, even if they did try to (which is really hard to prove) cherrypick and paint a picture of idealism, well what about the rest of us then?”
Who are “they” here? What is this addressing?
“The only thing is really your view on religion, is it just about following the manual according to you then? we didn’t see a manual on bomb making nor did we see a manual for taking over Aware did we? nor one which ask you to brush your teeth twice a day or buy food from Sheng Siong instead of Cheers.”
Yes, it is just about following scripture for me, as it should be (as I quoted Peace the Christian). Bomb making, taking over secular organizations are logical extensions. Sheng Siong Cheers etc is mere polemics, as you would say.
“So who’s really cherry picking here? I suggest that the issue might be complex that you think it is. If you think that by saying that someone is not christian because he or she didn’t do that or what, well the opposite could be argued of you that you are not a true atheist because u didn’t do this or that. Your task in arguing just because religion does not represent totality therefore hence false is not really going to get you any converts to your camp the same way that neuroscience and newtonian physics didn’t . Perhaps there’s much more to the religious experience in which you are inclined to believe, unless of course you choose to stick dogmatically to some certain notion arrived out of philosophical arguments without actually speaking to any Christians.”
1) The issue is complex no doubt.
2) Of course an argument can be made that I am not an atheist if I don’t do this or that. But I don’t see the relevance.
3) Speak to Christians? Any religion would apply; extinct, past, present and future; they have religious experiences too: Mormons, Scientologists, Cargo Cults, Moonies…. I (you, for that matter) wouldn’t know where to start.
“Your task in arguing just because religion does not represent totality therefore hence false is not really going to get you any converts to your camp the same way that neuroscience and newtonian physics didn’t.”
I think what you are trying to say is: I argued that scripture should dictate EVERY aspect of a devotee’s life. I didn’t and I wouldn’t.
My argument is: scripture (any religion) should dictate EVERY aspect of a devotee’s life WHENEVER it applies.
Sllim,
That’s the problem when you mentioned WHENEVER. Any argument that you proceed thus far is likely to be your definition of how things should be, any application requires interpretation, the problem comes in with who’s doing the defining. My use of totality experience is simple, selective picking means religious scripture is logically inconsistent which basically means saying religious experience is false, hence it shouldnt be there in the first place. That leaves us with nowhere to proceed, since by logic if it is false but the problem becomes in explaining why they act the way they did. That means you can still have a blank text and people would still act the way they did if they choose to interpret the way they want it.
The other thing is not every religion is scripture based, if your arguing on that, well then religion didn’t exist before the invention of writing. But there are otherwise archaeological evidence against your point.
If you want to draw me into an argument about whether being religious is about scripture adherence, my point is plain and simple- to adopt such a view is highly misleading of what religious experience is, much less the understanding of religion. Unless of course your agenda is to prove that religious experience or religion is thus false hence there is no need for it, well I have stated clearly many times earlier that even if thus proven on commonsensical logical ground, it does not go anywhere because firstly, religious experience is more than a matter of falscity, and religious experience in many ways transcend logic if we adopt the supreme being to be ‘true’. What you have done earlier and in many posts is to use scientific logic to argue against religion, which is in many ways a tautological dead end because firstly religious people wouldn’t care; secondly science as much as religion is based on consensus.
If it satisfy your ego, I’m not a religious believer, but that does not mean I’m set on disparaging their actions and beliefs just because I do not see how religion is based scientifically nor would common logic be able to explain. That does not mean it is less true however, it is real in their eyes and it is rightly so for them. To do otherwise means to take yourself as their pastor in telling them what should be done.
The thing perhaps, that i’m guessing would be of interest to you, would be if christians or religious believers are fundamentalists, is there a problem with that? I would say no so, because there’s no explicit causality in proving that ‘fundamentalists’ become religious militants, that only happens in the abstract construction of our mind that has no real basis in reality. Therefore, it becomes more important to look at these people, see where do they come from, what sort of group characteristics that made them up; instead of trying to find the ‘origin’ of their behaviour as ‘christian fundamentalist’ and the core origin being the scripture, which is really seeking the easy way out.
Your use of “totality experience”, awkward as it is, is simple; a strawman.
I didn’t argue that. I used an example from Peace, unambiguous actionable scripture, to highlight my point. I am not going to hang Christians on ambiguous text; dead end.
“…firstly religious people wouldn’t care; secondly science as much as religion is based on consensus.”
Don’t care? So? 1+1 doesn’t need anyone’s concern to be true. Science is based on consensus? Bold claim but zero evidence or arguement.
“The other thing is not every religion is scripture based, if your arguing on that, well then religion didn’t exist before the invention of writing…”
That’s just trite. Of course religion existed before writing. Scripture was just my shorthand for holy instruction.
“…That does not mean it is less true however, it is real in their eyes and it is rightly so for them.”
Plain silly and demeaning to theists and atheists alike. Believing my garden has fairies doesn’t make it true.
“…religious experience in many ways transcend logic if we adopt the supreme being to be ‘true’.”
I encountered this insidious non-argument before. Basically, you are violating the rules of your discourse; using reason to prop up something then shutting the door behind you and say reason cannot refute it. It’s equivalent to saying: 1+1 = banana and insisting arithmetic cannot refute you because fruits are beyond the purview of arithmetic.
“…if christians or religious believers are fundamentalists, is there a problem with that?”
I got to say your grammer in many parts of your post is a problem and lends convenient ambiguity (like some parts of scripture). In any case, the scale of any possible “problem” depends on which religion it is.
[#123]
Good pointers, sllim.
Was COOS steeplejacked 5 years ago? Someone claimed that COOS was a different church 5 years ago, and that Derek Hong and his groupies had ousted the pastors that preach mainstream Anglican teachings.
rwkc #124,
Thanks for that. I thought it was just me and bismarker hanging around for a chat.
smallvice585 #125,
If backed up, that was be a sensational story.