Pulse
20 November 2023
On 29 November 2022, the Singapore Parliament voted to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law which criminalises sex between men. In addition, the government also passed a Bill to strengthen the traditional definition of marriage – that it is between a man and a woman – by amending the Constitution.
In the months leading up to this historic move, the government conducted extensive consultations across many different sectors of society. It initiated a number of closed-door discussions with the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS), and also held meetings with pastors and church leaders.
In a statement issued on 5 December 2022 in response to the repeal, NCCS underscored its concern ‘about the possible repercussions of the repeal …’ In particular, the Council is worried that the repeal might result in the restriction of ‘the right of religious groups and individuals to “profess, practice and propagate” our religion.’
Indeed, the repeal of s377A may bring about new challenges for the churches in Singapore. The churches must anticipate these challenges and discuss the best ways to deal with them long before they surface. There must be agreement and consistency in the churches’ policies and pastoral practices, which in turn must be informed and shaped by sound theological and moral reasoning based on Scripture.
In this article, I present possible scenarios and challenges that might emerge in the near future. The examples I present here are not exhaustive. They are meant to give readers a sense of the complexities of these possible challenges, and to encourage the church (especially its leaders) to think seriously about them.
THE QUESTION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
The first possible challenge is alluded to in the NCCS statement mentioned above. It has to do with the imposition of limits to the religious liberties of Christians when it comes to matters concerning the LGBTQ community.
As mentioned in the NCCS statement, according to the Singapore Constitution, ‘every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it’ (Article 15). What happens when Christians, in exercising their rights, are accused of causing grievous hurt to members of the LGBTQ community?
For example, a pastor preaches a sermon based on what the Bible teaches concerning homosexual acts at a regular Sunday service. Expounding Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, the pastor states that such acts are not only against nature, they are also an abomination in the eyes of God.
The sermon is then uploaded on the church’s website thereby placing it in the public domain. Some members of the LGBTQ community listened to the sermon online and found it to be extremely offensive and hurtful. They argue that since s377A has been repealed, no one should have the right to condemn homosexual behaviour.
Here we clearly have a clash of rights: the pastor’s right to profess his faith, and the right of the members of the LGBTQ community not to be condemned for their behaviour. Will this clash of rights result in the imposition of certain limits (not necessarily by the government, but through societal pressure) on the rights and liberties of Christians (and other religious people) to profess their faith?
In addition, Singapore has introduced strict laws against hate speech. Although there are differing definitions, hate speech is generally defined as that speech which has the effect of discriminating against or oppressing a particular individual or group. It is speech which demonises an individual or a group.
It is not too difficult to see how Christian teaching on homosexual behaviour can be said to be discriminating against, oppressing or demonising not just LGBTQ individuals but the community as a whole.
Negotiating the clash of rights is always tricky business. In this case, it might require Christians (as well as members of other faith communities, such as Muslims) to begin the conversation about these matters with the government as well as the representatives of the LGBTQ community before any public conflicts arise.
TRANSGENDER ISSUES
The second possible repercussion of the repeal of s377A and the normalising of homosexual behaviour is the acceleration of transgender activism. For the past twenty years, the churches in Singapore have focused almost exclusively on homosexuality and bisexuality. The ‘T’ in LGBTQ has not received much attention.
In the West, transgender ideology has permeated both academia and general culture. It has also influenced politicians, business people and celebrities – the movers and shakers of society and culture.
Transgender ideology eschews the binary classification of gender. It insists that gender is a matter of personal subjective identification, not biological determination. Thus, an individual who is biologically and anatomically male can identify as a woman. Or an individual can be ‘gender fluid’ and identify as different genders at different times as mood dictates.
Transgender ideology must be distinguished from gender dysphoria, which is a real psychological or psychiatric condition. However, transgender activists have taken advantage of gender dysphoria to advance their cause, which in its most extreme case is to eliminate gender altogether.
In Singapore, sex reassignment surgery has a long history which dates back to 1971, when the first procedure was successfully performed on a 24-year-old man.
The reassigned gender has legal status in Singapore. This means that a man who has undergone sex reassignment surgery will be legally recognised as a woman by the state. The legal gender will be reflected on his identity card, while his birth sex is recorded in his birth certificate.
Suppose a Christian family where the husband and father is a trans man (a biological woman who has surgically transitioned) becomes members of a local church. How should the church regard the husband / father? How should the church regard the marriage and the family?
Should the church reject the legal gender of the trans man and treat ‘him’ as a woman? Should the church insist that the marriage is not valid in the eyes of God because it is not a union between a man and a woman? And should the church also refuse to recognise this family as ordained by God?
Or should the church simply accept them as they are?
How the church responds to this and a myriad of similar scenarios is extremely important. Here is where the church’s theology of human sexuality, marriage and family exerts tremendous stress on its pastoral practice – and vice versa.
FURTHER CONCESSIONS?
The third consideration has to do with whether the Singapore government would be making further concessions to the LGBTQ community now that s377A has been expunged from the Penal Code. It should not surprise us if the LGBTQ activists try to push the envelope as far as they can, and their arguments can on the surface sound quite compelling.
For example, the activists may try to convince the Singapore government to legalise same-sex civil unions.
They may argue that since s377A is repealed, the government must in all fairness provide a legal means for members of the LGBTQ community to express their love and commitment to each other.
They may concede that this legal bond should not be called marriage, since that term is reserved only for heterosexual unions. They may propose that ‘civil unions’ is perhaps the most appropriate alternative since it is already found in other jurisdictions.
To members of the public, this proposal may sound perfectly reasonable. They may regard it as one way in which the rights of the LGBTQ couples can be further honoured.
For the Singapore government, the legalisation of civil unions may be an attractive and practical via media. With this arrangement, the more conservative segments of society are assuaged since the traditional definition of marriage is retained, while the government is also seen to be treating the LGBTQ community fairly and equitably.
If we cast our eyes even further down the road, we can envision the day when same sex civil unions are commonplace in Singapore. We can also envision LGBTQ Christians who have entered such unions putting pressure on churches here to bless them.
This is not a slippery slope argument that is purely speculative and without basis. It is a scenario that is repeated again and again in many countries in the west which in the past have frowned upon same-sex relationships but have now legalised same sex marriage.
The churches in those countries have come under tremendous pressure to bless same-sex unions or even to modify their doctrine of marriage to include non-heterosexual couples. The pressure, it should be added, does not just come from the larger society but also from some members of the Christian community.
The most recent example is the decision by the Church of England to bless same-sex civil unions while retaining its view that the Bible prohibits homosexual acts and reiterating its traditional doctrine of marriage.
This development in the Church of England should serve as a cautionary tale for the churches in Singapore. Would the churches here take the same path of compromise when push comes to shove?
Some readers might think that all this is still some distance down the road. That may well be the case. But if the Church does not think about these possible scenarios now, it will be ill-equipped to respond to them when the time comes.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.