Tag Archives: mercy

Faithful Presence

December 2017 Credo

Reader’s Question: How can I be a faithful witness for Christ to my sceptical friends and colleagues?

In 1 Peter 2:9, we have one of the most remarkable descriptions of the Church in the New Testament. Writing to Christians who were dispersed in various parts of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), Peter reminds them of their true identity as God’s people by using some of the most evocative imageries from the Old Testament.

‘You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession’, writes Peter. Christians are chosen and called by God to be his own people and possession. They must therefore reflect the holy God whom they worship and serve.

In this verse, Peter also makes it quite clear that Christians are set apart by God for a purpose. The English Standard Version translates the rest of verse 9 thus: ‘that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light’. The NIV puts it differently: ‘that you may declare the praises …’

I personally prefer the way in which the King James Version renders this verse: ‘that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light’. The reason for my preference will be revealed shortly.

Whichever translation we use or prefer, the main point of this verse is clear. As God’s chosen people, Christians are also witnesses of God’s grace, mercy and love. To be a Christian is to be a witness for God.

But how are Christians to be good witnesses in a society whose outlook and values are often inimical and even antithetical to the Gospel?

In his book entitled To Change the World (2010), James Davison Hunter advances the notion of ‘faithful presence’ to depict how Christians should conduct themselves in the world. Although Hunter’s book addresses a number of important issues related to culture and society in late-modern America, I would like to commandeer this concept to respond to the concerns of the reader.

What does Hunter mean by ‘faithful presence’ and what does this concept suggest?

Faithful presence refers to the particular way of being in the world that Christians should embrace, a kind of presence that makes them the true embodiment of the divine love and mercy they have by grace received, and therefore faithful witnesses of God.

‘Faithful presence’, Hunter explains, ‘means that we are to be fully present to each other within the community of faith and fully present to those who are not. Whether within the community of believers or among those outside the church, we imitate our creator and redeemer: we pursue each other, identify with each other, and direct our lives towards the flourishing of each other through sacrificial love’.

Faithful presence, therefore, presents a very simple idea: that Christians bear witness to God simply by being who they are – God’s holy people. But at the same time, faithful presence also presents a great challenge to Christians because it insists that Christian witness has to do, not just with what Christians say, but by the way in which they conduct themselves in the world.

This is the reason why I prefer the KJV rendering of the second half of 1 Peter 2:9. God’s chosen people are not simply to ‘proclaim’ or ‘declare’. They are to ‘shew forth’ the praises of God, that is, they are to glorify God with their manifestly doxological lives. Christian witness has to do with much more than the words that we speak.

The New Testament repeatedly emphasises the importance of Christian conduct. How Christians behave and the values they uphold play an important part in shaping the unbeliever’s view about Christ and the Christian faith.

Christians are therefore exhorted to let their light shine ‘before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven’ (Matthew 5:16). And here in 1 Peter the apostle writes, ‘Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honourable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation’ (1 Peter 2:12).

Hunter suggests, quite helpfully, that Christians should be witnesses within their own spheres of influence. ‘[F]aithful presence in the world’, he writes, ‘means that Christians are fully present and committed in their spheres of social influence, whatever they may be: their families, neighbourhoods, voluntary activities, and places of work’.

But in bearing witness to the Lord by being faithfully present with their family, friends, colleagues, etc., Christians must always be careful to conduct themselves with humility, gentleness and respect.

Even when the Christian is explaining and clarifying his faith, or, as Peter puts it, making a ‘defense’ to those who enquire about his hope, he should always do so with ‘gentleness and respect’ (1 Peter 3:15). He should always be civil and patient, and he should never be aggressive, boastful or quarrelsome.

This means that in explaining and clarifying his faith to the unbeliever, the Christian is not at all interested in just winning the argument. His supreme concern is to make a clear and faithful presentation of what and why he believes.

Even more profoundly, the Christian wishes to share with the unbeliever his redemptive and transformative relationship with God in Christ. The Christian faith is not just a concept, an idea or a system of thought; it is a relationship.

In addition, as the expression faithful presence stresses, Christian witness has to do with more than words – it is fundamentally about how the Christian lives his life in the world, in the presence of those who have yet to experience the saving grace of God.

Finally, the Christian who witnesses for Christ to friends, colleagues and members of his family should always remember that God is with him. God himself is faithfully present and at work in and through the life of his obedient witness.

By being faithfully present in this way, the Christian allows God’s love and grace to be made manifest and mediated to the people around him.



Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine at Trinity Theological College and Theological and Research Advisor at the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.

 

Unpardonable Sin

What was Jesus referring to when he spoke of the unpardonable sin?

Throughout the history of the Church, Christians of every stripe have wondered about the meaning of Jesus’ statement regarding the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which is recorded in all three synoptic Gospels (Matt 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30; and Luke 12:10). In Mark, Jesus is recorded as saying: ‘I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin’. Some Christians, like the Welsh preacher Peter Williams in George Borrow’s Lavengro, are worried that they might have committed this sin.

In order to understand what Jesus meant by the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit we must explore the context in which this statement is located in the synoptic Gospels. At the outset, it must be pointed out that Matthew and Mark sets this statement in a similar context, while Luke places it in a different context thereby bringing to this statement a slightly different meaning.

In Mark’s account, the scribes or experts of the law went to Galilee from Jerusalem to assess the miracles of Jesus, particularly his ministry of exorcism. They came to the conclusion that Jesus was himself possessed by the prince of demons, Beelzebub, by whose power he was able to dispel demons (Mark 3:22; Cf., Matt 12: 24). In Canaanite culture, Beelzebub was the name of a god, ‘the lord of the high places’, but for the Jews this name refers to the ruler of the abyss, the abode of demons. Jesus pointed out the absurdity of the suggestion that evil would work against itself: ‘How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand’ (Mark 3:23-24; Cf., Matt 12:25-27).

At this point, Jesus made the statement regarding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a sin for which there is no forgiveness. In Matthew and Mark, therefore, the context suggests that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit has to do with not only the refusal to recognise and acknowledge the work of God but with confusing God’s work with that of Satan. Those who are guilty of this sin have ascribed the Holy Spirit’s activity to demonic agency. In rejecting the redemptive work of God, those who commit this sin have, by implication, refused to accept God’s offer of salvation. In this sense, the ‘unpardonable sin’ is also the ‘eternal sin’. In his commentary on this passage in Mark, Robert Guelich writes: ‘One is culpably refusing God’s offer and thus sealing one’s own eternal judgement by committing the sin for which by definition there is no forgiveness’.

Luke places this saying of Jesus in a different context, giving it a slightly different meaning. He does give an account of the charge by the religious leaders that it was through Beelzebub, the prince of demons that Jesus was able to cast out demons (Luke 11:14-26), but this does not provide the context for the statement on the blasphemy of the Spirit. Instead the statement about the sin against the Holy Spirit is sandwiched between Jesus’ warning that whoever disowns him will ‘be disowned before the angels of God’ (12:9) and his assurance that the Spirit will teach his disciples how to reply their inquisitors (12:11). This suggests that the unpardonable sin, for Luke, is the apostasy committed by the persecuted disciple who refuses to receive help from the Spirit.

Put differently, in Matthew and Mark, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has to do with confusing God’s work with demonic activity. In Luke, the unpardonable sin is apostasy – the believer’s repudiation of Jesus as Lord.

Some scholars ask if Peter had committed the unpardonable sin in the Lucan sense when he denied the Lord three times before Jesus’ crucifixion. And what about Paul? Was he also guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in the Matthean-Markan sense when he persecuted Christians and even tried to make them blaspheme (See Acts 26:11)? Evidently not! A distinction must be made between a human failure – as in the case of Peter – and the persistent hardening of oneself against God. Peter repented of his failure, and was forgiven and restored by Jesus. As far as Paul was concerned, scholars believed that he acted out of ignorance and unbelief and therefore received mercy. Paul was receptive to the revelation that he received while travelling to Damascus. But if Paul had rejected that revelation and continued to persecute Christians, he would have been guilty of the ‘eternal sin’.

This means that there is always forgiveness for the repentant sinner, even if he has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. We have this assurance in 1 John 1:9, which states, quite categorically, that God will always forgive the repentant sinner. But if this is the case, why did Jesus say that ‘anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven’ (Luke 12:10)? It is possible that Jesus was referring to the person who has so hardened himself against God that he is beyond the reach of God’s forgiveness. In other words, the blasphemy against the Spirit is such that one does not repent of it. And because there is no repentance, there can be no forgiveness. This how the sin of blasphemy becomes ‘unpardonable’.


Dr Roland Chia


Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine at Trinity Theological College and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.
This article was first published in The Bible Speaks Today, February 2015.

Religion, Public Policy and Human Flourishing

In recent years, academics here have been arguing that Singapore has to revise its social compact due to rapidly changing circumstances, both at home and globally.

Founded on strong fundamentals – individual responsibility and self-reliance, economic growth and jobs for all, and a social security system that is based on savings and home ownership – the current social compact has served the country well over the past forty years. It has enabled the Government to deliver high standards of healthcare, education, and housing without imposing an enormous burden of public spending.

But a number of developments such as globalisation, a more volatile economy and an aging population, have necessitated a revision of the current social compact.

However, not all the troubles of society are due to circumstances beyond our control. In fact, scholars have shown that some of the policies of the Government have in fact worsened the inequalities that already prevail in our society.

One example is the excessively liberal foreign worker and immigration policies that have resulted in inequality and wage stagnation. Another is the Government’s quest to transform Singapore into a ‘global city’ that has caused the income of those at the higher end of the labour market to be raised artificially, thereby widening the income gap.

The Government is well aware that its policies have not always been helpful in addressing the pressing concerns of society. In his keynote address at the Singapore Perspectives 2012 conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said, quite candidly, that ‘Our policies are not sacrosanct. But let’s keep a sense of perspective as we discuss how we should evolve and improve them’.

To construct a new social compact in the wake of these new challenges requires nothing less than an imaginative leap. The British philosopher Roger Scruton has quite brilliantly defined imagination as ‘a going beyond the given’.

Imagination plays an important role in almost every aspect of human life. It is needed whenever we make judgements about values. Imagination is indispensable in planning and decision-making, as alternatives are entertained and as possible ‘worlds’ that are better than the status quo are explored.

Imagination is therefore requisite for ordering society for human flourishing. In order to improve the lives of Singaporeans, the Government must ‘go beyond the given’.

How is this new compact being re-imagined by our leaders? How must social policies be recalibrated in order to promote the wellbeing of all Singaporeans?

High on the agenda is the problem of inequality, which must receive urgent attention. The Government is well aware of the fact that inequality negatively affects the wellbeing of society.

In their 2009 study, R. Wilkinson and K. Pickett noted that high inequality in society is detrimental to all its members, not just the poor. Their study also showed that inequality in society could not only cause stress, anxiety, and depression, but might even encourage behaviours such as drug use and criminality.

In his address DPM Shanmugaratnam states unequivocally that ‘we cannot resign ourselves to widening inequality … We have to try to contain inequality, and ameliorate its effects on our society’. The Government is thus determined to address this issue, not just superficially by minor tweaks in certain policies, but through a comprehensive and holistic reassessment of Singapore’s economic and social policies.

But the Government also acknowledges that for society to flourish, the poor, the sick, the disabled and elderly must never be forgotten. In his address at the opening of the new session of Parliament on 16 May, President Tony Tan Keng Yam placed special emphasis on the vulnerable and the elderly in our society.

‘We will strengthen safety nets to help the vulnerable and elderly cope with the vicissitudes of life’, he pledges. Further in the speech, he reiterates this commitment: ‘We will pay particular attention to vulnerable Singaporeans, including low-wage workers and our elderly’. The President then delineated a series of initiatives aimed at improving the lives of Singaporeans.

Christians here of every stripe can and must wholeheartedly endorse these goals because they resonate so profoundly with the teachings of Scripture and the Christian tradition. In fact, with its rich theological heritage and profound moral vision, the Christian community has much to contribute to public discourse on the wellbeing of society.

Against the many agent-oriented versions of the pursuit of wellbeing (eudaimonisms) – ancient and modern – the Bible presents a radically different vision of social flourishing, based on the second love command of Jesus (Mark 12:31). Moral responsibility towards one another, implied in Jesus’ command, is an integral aspect of the Christian concept of justice. In addition, for the Christian tradition, justice must be wedded to mercy and compassion.

It was the great fifth-century theologian, Augustine, who insisted that vulnerability and compassion must be included in our conception of human flourishing. In City of God Augustine writes: ‘But … what is compassion but a kind of fellow feeling in our hearts of the misery of another which compels us to help him if we can? This impulse is the servant of right reason when compassion is displayed in such a way as to preserve righteousness, as when alms are distributed to the needy or forgiveness extended to the penitent’.

The wellbeing of society is dependent on how its members regard and treat each other. This means that society’s flourishing requires its members to be concerned for one another’s wellbeing, not merely their own.

In his magisterial work, Secular Age, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor observes perceptively that the history of Christianity reveals a profound tension between flourishing and renunciation. According to the Christian understanding, writes Taylor, ‘the believer … is called on to make a profound inner break with the goals of flourishing … they are called on, that is, to detach themselves from their own flourishing … to that renunciation of human fulfilment to serve God in the other’.

In concluding his May address, President Tan looks to the future with optimism as he prepares the nation to celebrate its Golden Jubilee: ‘Our best years lie ahead. We have not overcome all our challenges, but we are determined to do so, and we will. Singapore remains a home that brings out the best in us … As we approach our 50th anniversary of independence, let us pledge ourselves anew to build a better, brighter Singapore’.

The wellbeing of society is the responsibility of all its members, not just that of the Government. The Christian community must work with the Government and other faith communities to build a just and compassionate society so that all may flourish. Only in this way can Singapore truly become a home that endears.


Dr Roland Chia


Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine at Trinity Theological College and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity. 
This article was published in the Trumpet (TTC).

A Life Deemed ‘Useless’ – The Terri Schiavo Case

As I write this essay, a woman’s body is shutting down from starvation and dehydration because of the decision made by her husband and a court order issued by Florida judge, George Greer. Terri Schiavo collapsed on 25 February, 1990, when her heart stopped momentarily, resulting in severe brain damage. Fifteen years later, her husband, Michael Schiavo, who now has two children with another woman, is insistent that his wife would not want to be kept alive. He succeeded in obtaining a court order from the Florida Supreme Court to have the small feeding tube removed. Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, fought the court order but were unsuccessful at overturning the decision, and on 18 March, the feeding tube        that supplied nourishment and hydration to the 41- year old patient was removed. Despite appeals by Governor Jeb Bush, the Florida judge refused to allow Terri Schiavo to be taken into protective custody. President George Bush and the Republican leaders of the U.S. Governor said that all legal options have been exhausted and that they would not go any further. Barring a miracle, Terri Schiavo will be starved to death.

The Schiavo case has polarised ethicists and the general public alike. Clarity can only be achieved when ideological agendas are set aside and the facts of the case are carefully and thoroughly examined. The first step is to understand Terri Schiavo’s medical condition. She is not brain-dead, but is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). This means that her brain is severely damaged, and as far as doctors can tell, she is unaware of her surroundings, although she has emerged from a comatose state. It must be added that medical science has yet to fully understand this condition, and doctors are often reduced to resorting to educated guesses – there are no blood tests, scans or other investigations that could confirm the diagnosis. The degree of awareness exhibited by such patients, cannot be ascertained with any exactitude by doctors, and the view which categorically states that such patients have     no awareness of their surroundings is at least debatable. Those who are close to Terri, including her mother, have noticed some responses when they speak to her (see video at www.Terrisfight.org).

Although patients seldom recover after being in a permanent vegetative state for 12 months, there are isolated cases of such recovery. An article by N. L. Childs and W. N. Mercer in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry (1985, 48: 1300-1303) reports the case of a girl who recovered sufficiently after being in a PVS for six years to communicate with simple sentences.

Terri is not dependent on any machine that artificially enables certain of her organs to function, only a small gastric tube that supplied nutrients and water. In other words, Terri is not hooked on a life-supporting machine. She is a healthy woman with a disability and merely requires to be artificially fed. She is disabled, not terminal. The gastric tube cannot be seen as an ‘extraordinary’ measure or a therapeutic measure; it is an essential means through which Terri receives the required nutrients and hydration. Although Terri is deprived of full consciousness, she must be seen as a living human being, whose judicial rights and dignity must be recognised, respected and defended. As Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore has rightly insisted, ‘Deliberately to remove them in order to hasten the patient’s death … would be a form of euthanasia, which is gravely wrong’.

The American Medical Association defines euthanasia as the ‘act of bringing about the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way for reasons of mercy’. This is done through ‘the medical administration of a lethal agent to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient’s intolerable and incurable suffering’. Terri Schiavo is being euthanized by starvation and dehydration.

Her death, however, will not be ‘quick and painless’. In his article published in The Straits Times (28 March, 2005, p.20) Andy Ho describes the harrowing process that a person dying from starvation and dehydration goes through. The mouth dries out while the tongue becomes swollen and cracked. The eyes sink and the cheeks are hollowed out, while the nose bleeds and the skin becomes loose and scaly. The urine gets very concentrated, burning the bladder even as the lining of the stomach dries out resulting in vomiting. The brain cells begin to dry out as the body temperature rises uncontrollably, causing fits to occur. Before the vital organs start to fail resulting in death, the lungs also dry out and they are clogged by their own secretions causing the patient to choke on their own sputum.  This is the process that Terri Schiavo is going through as her body slowly shuts down because it is deliberately deprived of food and water.

The removal of the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo is a direct violation of the commandment ‘not to kill’. No one has the right to take a human life, not even his or her own. Life is never our own possession but is always to be received from moment to moment as a gift from the Creator, and cannot be disposed of as we wish. Supporters of euthanasia have often presented the right to autonomy and self-determination as its justification. This is especially true of voluntary euthanasia, which the AMA Council defines as ‘euthanasia that is provided for a competent person on his or her informed request’. This principle is behind the ‘right-

to-die’ argument, although almost always with the qualification that it applies only to those who are terminally ill and in great pain. The question, however, is that if the right-to-life is so fundamental, why should it be confined only to this category of people? Why should this principle not apply also to those who are not terminally ill, but who feel that their lives are meaningless?

Those who supported Michael Schiavo’s decision have appealed to the quality-of-life argument. Without doubt, the quality-of-life argument in favour of euthanasia is the most harmful for life in society because it works on the basic presumption that there are certain people who have the right to judge whether the lives of other persons are worthwhile or valuable. However, as moral theologian Bernard Häring has rightly observed, their judgement ‘can not only be contemptuous, but it represents a death sentence’.

Michael Schiavo and the Florida judge have decided to execute Terri on the basis of their evaluation that she does not enjoy the quality-of-life that she should. Because of their evaluation, they are willing to subject Terri to the most inhumane execution. The people who speak so passionately and nobly about the quality of life are willing to force upon an innocent human being such an undignified death. As Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, puts it, ‘If it is true that the process has been fair, and that all legal avenues have been exhausted, how is it that this woman, who has done no wrong, will suffer a fate which society would never tolerate in the case of a convicted murderer, or anyone else convicted of the most horrendous crimes?’ Because of their verdict they were willing to submit Terri to such acts of cruelty from which even animals are protected by law. For in the State of Florida it is unlawful to keep an animal in a place while failing to supply ‘a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water ’.

The case of Terri Schiavo brings much darkness to our modern society. Are we so blinded that we fail to see that we cannot inflict this sort of death on a human being without each individual and society as a whole suffering its terrible consequences?

*** Terri Schiavo died on 31 March, 13 days after her gastric tube was removed. This essay was written three days before her death.


Dr Roland Chia


Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine at Trinity Theological College and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.
This article was originally published in the Trumpet (TTC).