Once in a while the church should pause to review its direction, mission, plans, and activities, especially when Covid-19 has changed much of the life of the church. This article is specifically interested to rethink the participation of the church in the mission of God. Even for local parishes that look promisingly missional, it is beneficial to take a step back to consider the nature of mission before finding creative ways to do God’s mission within today’s pandemic context of a “new normal”. Here I attempt to offer four pertinent points of reflection from the well-known Old Testament story of the prophet Jonah.

Before jumping into Jonah, let us briefly discuss a few terms. As Christopher Wright puts it, missiology is the solidifying of “intellectual and heady theology” with “practical and dynamic mission” into one field of consideration—there is “no theology without missional impact; no mission without theological foundations”. The mission of God, or missio dei, is to reconcile all of creation into God’s kingdom, where life and all creation are no longer oppressed by forces that seek to subjugate or destroy, where our righteous King is fully in control, and where mercy, justice, and peace reign. And the church, as God’s primary agent, is to point others to the Kingdom of God as just described.

Given that mission is a rather all-encompassing and loaded term to define, it may be helpful to exhibit what mission is not as based on Jonah.

First, mission is not what is done by the missionary or church, but what is initiated, sustained and completed by the Triune God. The first chapter of Jonah (1:5,10,14,16) is evidence that God transformed the lives of the seamen in the midst of Jonah’s rebellion. Throughout Jonah, God is portrayed as controlling the wind, sea, creatures, and events. God “appointed” (the same Hebrew word is repeated each time) the great fish (1:17; 2:1), strange plant (4:6), worm (4:7), and east wind (4:8). We see God working despite Jonah’s questionable motivations and rebellious heart. As David Bosch puts it, “mission is what God is doing to and through the Servant, not what the Servant does.” God does what he does in spite of Jonah.

Next, mission is not exclusivist or patriotic. Jonah is not about a missionary who was sent to proclaim God’s word to a pagan nation. It is about a prophet who wrongly assumed God’s election to be only for his people; he ran away so that the Ninevites would not receive salvation. Bosch argues that the point of the book of Jonah is the “fundamental conviction that Israel’s election was unmerited and an expression of God’s gratuitousness”. The thrust of the story “ridicules the narrow ethnocentrism of Jonah (and Israel) who allowed God to work only within Israel and sulked about God treating those outside the covenant the same way he treats those inside”. The mission of God was never meant to be expressed and owned by only one people group; it is for all.

Thirdly, Jonah was not called to participate only in “missions” (plural) but in “mission” (singular). “Missions” is the activity or method employed by churches or organizations to fulfill God’s mission, while the “mission” of God, or missio dei, refers to the purposes and activities of God to redeem and reconcile our universe, which includes everything God created. The God in Jonah was performing the latter term, “mission”; he was interested in the whole nation of Nineveh, not only the individual salvation of people. Following the Abrahamic promise, the story of Jonah is about blessing a nation, in this case the enemy nation of Nineveh. As Christopher Wright explains, an evil nation of Sodom (or in this case Nineveh) is the kind of world in which we are called to engage in mission. Also, God was interested in all of creation as seen in the decree and the Lord’s compassion that extended to animals, crops, and everything else (3:8; 4:11); it was definitely not only human-centered.

cempakaslot slot gacor

Finally, and on a positive claim, “compassion is a mark of our missionary

God”. Jonah’s angry reaction contains the theological heart of the book that God is “gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing” (4:2). God’s compassion is evident in his treatment of Israel’s enemy state (3:1). Moreover, God does not only show compassion to Nineveh, he shows compassion to Jonah too. Jonah’s last word is a wish for death (4:8-9) but God’s last word is an affirmation of his mercy (4:11).

Having presented the above four points on the nature of mission, here are several questions for deliberation:

First, if mission is primarily the work of God (often done in spite of us), is the church discerning God’s mission or creating its own mission? The mission of God must go ahead of the mission of the church; the role of the church is to discern the work of God and participate in what God is already doing. Moltmann nails the difference with precision: “It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill in the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church.”

Secondly, have we truly understood God’s mission as inclusive of all tribes, colours, backgrounds, statuses, friends, enemies, and strangers?

Thirdly, have we overemphasized missions-related programs and only concentrated on the individual salvation of humans to the neglect of God’s larger mission of reconciling all of creation back to himself?

Fourthly, does the church carry the mark of compassion that drives the mission of God?

LAGUNATOTO

In conclusion, if mission is at the heart of God, then God’s mission should also be at the heart of the church. However, before investing in new missionary strategies or evangelistic programs, the church could look to the story of Jonah for what not to do. Perhaps before deciding on what to do to invite people into the reign of God, we should learn to be the church that discerns God’s mission, reaches all peoples, is aware of God’s larger mission of reconciling all of creation, and lives out God’s compassion. Finally, it also means that missionary work is not the responsibility of the church’s mission committee alone but is the life and heart of the entire church.

Arianism posed a dangerous threat to the Church in the 4^th century when it challenged the orthodox doctrine of the deity of Christ. In his refutation of Arianism, Athanasius the orthodox theologian displayed rare insight by identifying the doctrine of salvation as the heart of the dispute and cogently demonstrating that soteriology is a touchstone to determine the acceptability of any theology for the Church.

Arianism initially gained popularity because it offered an attractive path to salvation, that is, by imitation of Christ who perfected his own virtues through self-discipline and then enables his followers to do likewise. Christ as the first of the perfected creatures and his perfection is the promise of the heights that believers may aspire to achieve. Christ is the pioneer and perfector of our faith since he perfected his virtues while possessing the same human weaknesses as we have. Naturally, Arianism emphasized the human characteristics of Christ at the expense of his divine qualities, to which Athanasius retorted, “For looking at the human characteristics of the Savior, they have considered him to be a creature.”

The Son’s commonality with the Father is rejected so that he may share commonality with the rest of us. Christ’s sonship becomes adoptive rather than inherent or genetic. It is conferred by the same grace that is available to all believers. Arianism was unafraid to attribute changeability to the Son as the prerequisite for moral advancement. As Adolf Harnack observed, “It has first of all, a Christ who gradually becomes God, who therefore develops more and more in moral unity of feeling with God, progresses and attains his perfection by the divine grace.  This Christ is the Savior insofar as he has conveyed to us the divine doctrine and has given us an example of the goodness perfectly realized in the exercise of freedom.”

The Arian soteriology may be summarized as follows:

osb99

The Arian Soteriology required the Savior, that he might be the imitable, to be related to the Father on the same terms as other finite beings. This entailed a bond and connection postulated not upon the ability to know and perceive the Father’s essence and to enjoy ontic identity, but upon the dynamic (so frequently met in biblical depiction of covenant) of command and obedience, upon the transactions of will which constitute the people – sons and daughters – of God.

It is understandable that the Arian soteriology attracted many sincere Christians, especially those who are inclined to rigorous discipline in the spiritual life. But Athanasius with theological acumen, exposed Arianism as a dangerous heresy. What was it in Arianism that Athanasius saw so clearly and opposed so vehemently? The Arians effectively tailored the doctrine of the person and work of Christ to fit a prevailing system of logic in order to gain acceptance. Arianism begins with an abstract schema and then forces the subject of theology into that schema. Beginning with the fundamental premise of the absolute uniqueness and transcendence of God, Arianism applies an unyielding logic to draw the following conclusions:

1. Since “we acknowledge one God, who is alone ingenerate (άγευνητος), alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone sovereign, etc.”
2. Since the being and essence of Godhead cannot be shared for that would imply that he is divisible and subject to change.
3. Therefore, whatever else that comes into existence must not be by the communication of God’s being but by an act of creation.
4. Therefore the Son must be a creature.
5. Therefore the Son must have a beginning. Hence the Arians repeatedly chanted, “There was when He was not.”
6. Consequently the Son cannot have direct knowledge of the Father. Even the glorious titles that he possesses are given to him because he participates in the eternal Wisdom of God.
7. Therefore, the Son could change or sin even though God gave Christ impeccable glory based on the foreknowledge that Christ would be good on the basis of his human nature.

The final portrait is a Christ who is suspended between man and God, identical with neither but related to both. It should be noted that Arianism was willing to accept a diminished Savior not merely because of logic, but rather, because the scheme offers an attractive soteriology.

In contrast to the Arians, Athanasius showed himself to be the theologian of redemption par excellence who resolutely subordinated everything else, even the formula “homoousios” (of the same substance) to the doctrine of redemption and what this fact means for the person of the redeemer. He did not hesitate to employ Greek categories which may prove useful for his argumentation, but he ensured the terms used are consistent with the scriptural view of man’s relationship to God as a response to God’s grace in Jesus Christ.

For Athanasius, it is an act of grace that God made man in his image and invested man with the capacity to be perfected, if only man would maintain his contemplation of and communion with his Maker. It is this grace that man rejected in the Fall when he turned away from God, resulting in the loss of the image of God and the bondage of corruption. Against this background Athanasius insisted on two fundamental principles:

1. Salvation is not a matter of reversing human disobedience, for then repentance would have sufficed. But something has happened since the fall. Anthropologically, death, mortality and corruption are no longer external to human nature but have become an essential part of man. As such, repentance is no longer sufficient to reverse the human tragedy. What is required is not an ethical but an ontological solution. The problem of corruption necessitates the incarnation.
2. Only Christ the Logos, being the principle of life, can destroy the principle of death in us and give man the gift of incorruptibility. Through the incarnation, the Logos has brought human nature into contact with divine nature. This work of grace done by the Logos is so effective that it resulted in an irreversible work of restoring the inner constituent of man. Human nature is elevated to a blessed state of incorruption (deification) as far as its creatureliness permits.

However, the benefit of divinization is not automatic. It comes to human beings only as they are in a special spiritual relationship with Christ through the Holy Spirit. “The Word became flesh in order both to offer this sacrifice and that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified” (De Incarnatione 9).

It was critical for Athanasius to link the Christ essentially and eternally to God – “The Word could never have divinized as if he were merely divine by participation and were not Himself the essential Godhead, the Father’s veritable image” (De Synodis 51). Athanasius’ soteriology demands a savior who is in need of nothing; he is the plenary Wisdom who is totally sufficient and eternally perfect. For Athanasius it is Christ’s divine nature (ousia) that secures his work as our redeemer. This is in contrast to the Arians’ teaching that Christ did not participate in the Father’s eternal nature, but came into being by a moment of creative will and pleasure, and that Christ became an exalted being by the obedience of the will to the commandments. “[Christ] by his care and self-discipline had triumphed over his mutable nature.” The category of “will” clearly leads to the belief of a saved savior!

Athanasius saw clearly how destructive the Arians’ teachings were to the Christian doctrine of salvation. He rejected the Arians’ voluntarist categories in his teachings. These categories would only create instability and capriciousness in the order of creation and salvation; after all, “will” implies an inclination which can shift. In contrast, only the category of “nature” can secure the constancy of divine purpose and action.

Athanasius insisted that there are irreducible differences between Christ and us and that the relationship between God and Christ is more than a mere moral union. It is a union beyond imitation. True, we are sons of God by grace but while we are merely recipients of this grace, Christ is the donor or mediator of grace (John 1:17). The fundamental error of the Arians is to obscure this essential difference between Christ and his believers when both are subsumed under the same concept of grace.

slot maxwin

Accepting the Arian doctrine of redemption would bring disastrous consequences to the life and mission of the church.

When [the Arians] drove the wedge between the Father and Son, and reduced Christ to the level of a creature, it both separated the world we live in from the world in which God dwells and reigns, and also taught mankind to look for salvation to sources other than the Lord of heaven and earth. This line of thought drives people to rely on human and earth bound expedients and to minimize the need of grace.

Nevertheless, for Athanasius, the humanity of Christ is no less significant for soteriology than the Arian Christ. Christ assumed human nature in order to destroy death and secure eternal life for humanity, “for he was immortal, took to himself a body which could die in order to offer it as his own on behalf of all, and in order…to destroy him who held the power of death, that is the devil, and to deliver all those who through fear of death had been all their lifetime subject to bondage” (De Incarnatione 20). The vital difference is that for Athanasius the work of salvation remains the work of Christ alone. Man cannot add to or imitate it. Since salvation is solely accomplished by Christ, it can only be accepted as a gift of grace.

When our Lord mentioned the words “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21, ESV), many wished that Jesus would have said more. What exactly are the things that belong to Caesar, and what are the things that belong to God?

Jesus’ brevity is understandable, given that he spoke just enough to defuse the trap that the religious leaders of his day sought to entangle him in. Instead, it is up to the church down her history to figure and flesh out the details of Jesus’ statement and, along with that, the posture the church should take in regard to Church-State relations.

I believe that one valuable resource to guide our thinking in this area comes from the pen of John Calvin (1509–1564), pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation.

To be sure, Calvin wrote in a political and social milieu markedly different from ours. He wrote within the context of the Christian commonwealth of Geneva — the latter broadly defined as a Christian society in which civil and ecclesiastical powers work together in cultivating “true religion” and promoting the welfare of the body politic. This context, as one can obviously tell, is a context vastly different from our religiously and politically pluralistic societies today, which often have secular governments helming the governance of the nation.

However, as some have argued, the true value of what Calvin has to offer lies not in his political actions or specific political opinions but in his political theology.[1] That is to say, it is Calvin’s theological and ethical account of human life and society, and how that account shapes our understanding of the church, civil government, and other social institutions, that contains the gem of what Calvin has to offer.

Getting to the crux of Calvin’s political theology requires one, in turn, to pay attention to his two kingdoms doctrine, for it is this doctrine that grounds and leads to Calvin’s political theology.

Stated simply: the two kingdoms doctrine is Calvin’s distinguishing between Christ’s lordship over his eternal kingdom and the temporal affairs of this life, which fall under the temporal kingdom. Inasmuch as we tend to conceive the two kingdoms as denoting different spheres of influence or different institutions, the character of the doctrine is first and foremost eschatological in nature. All the terms Calvin utilizes to describe the two kingdoms — spiritual/temporal, heavenly/earthly, soul/body, inward/outward, and ecclesiastical/political — are thoroughly eschatological by nature in Calvin’s usage.

The eternal kingdom, for Calvin, is really an eschatological reality concerning the restoration of the entire creation that stems from the regeneration of human beings through Christ’s word and the Spirit. This creation-wide restoration begins in the church, and in this present age, this eternal kingdom is realized only through the spiritual government that the Lord exercises in the church through his ministers.

Through his two kingdoms doctrine, Calvin thus distinguishes the church from the temporal and political affairs of life,  albeit not in a hermetically sealed fashion, but in a manner that accords to each sphere its own form of jurisdiction or government.

It is this fundamental differentiation between the two kingdoms of Christ that leads to Calvin’s programmatic statement in the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

[T]here is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men (Inst. 3.19.15).

Calvin’s extended treatment of the first form of government (the “spiritual”) is found in Inst. Book 4 Chapter 3, while that of the second form of government (the “political”) is found in Book 4 Chapter 20.

The chief utility of Calvin’s distinguishing between spiritual government and political government is that the boundaries of each governmental realm, and consequently their function and role, become clearly defined.

Spiritual government is concerned with the restoration of true spiritual righteousness, virtue and eternal life in humanity, while political government with establishing civil righteousness and — within the context of the Genevan commonwealth — the outward worship and defense of true religion in accordance with love and prudence (Inst. 4.20.2).

The clearly demarcated boundaries with each governmental realm leads to an appropriate circumscription of authority.

cempakaslot

Temporal or magisterial authority through the office of the civil government is not meant and is not able to bring about a true inward righteousness and piety associated with salvation from sin, yet civil government is necessary to preserve outward piety and order while awaiting the consummation.

Similarly, because spiritual or ministerial authority mediates the spiritual kingdom to believers in this time and age, the office of the pastor is to focus on faithfully ministering Christ’s word and the sacraments, and in enforcing church discipline. As to the other area of how the church is to conduct herself as an institution in the political kingdom, that is to be left under the jurisdiction of the civil authorities.

In short, as Calvin himself states: “The church does not assume what is proper to the magistrate; nor can the magistrate execute what is carried out by the church” (Inst. 4.11.3).

SLOT GACOR

Having outlined the broad framework of Calvin’s overall political theology, I would like to share four insights as to how his thoughts can guide our own thinking in this area of Church-State relations.

First, Calvin highly esteemed civil jurisdiction and authority. Although it is unable to bring about true inward righteousness and piety, Calvin nowhere denigrates civil authority. For him, the distinction between the two governments lies not in a matter of inferiority or superiority, but in simply recognizing their difference.

Calvin sees magistrates as equally ordained by God, going so far as to describe civil authority as a most sacred and honorable calling among men (Inst. 4.20.4); he cautions against paying respect to the civil authorities only because we see them as a form of necessary evil (Inst. 4.20.22), and he calls for an obedience among the people characterized by restraint and almost passivity when it comes to political action (Inst. 4.20.23). Calvin extends the injunction to obey even to the unjust magistrate, as long as such obedience does not result in disobedience to God (Inst. 4.20.24 and 4.20.32). What seems like Calvin’s totalizing call for submission to civil authorities flows from his doctrine of providence — Calvin firmly believes that it is God who has ordained his magistrates.

Second, Calvin’s two kingdoms political theology provides a realistic picture of both church and state, grounding our understanding of Church-State relations in a form of Christian realism deeply rooted in an orthodox and scriptural foundation.

Civil government is not the kingdom of Christ, and it should not be rendered so. The civil law from which magistrates operate is not only unable to establish spiritual righteousness, but often has to tolerate sin and sometimes even regulate sinful practices so as to mitigate their most destructive consequences. Civil government is not delegitimized when it fails to comply with the moral standards of God’s law, nor should it be required to do so.

Likewise, even as spiritual government leads to true inward righteousness, the church must refrain from dictating the way in which the laws of the land are to reflect that righteousness; spiritual or ecclesiastical government must not overextend its authority into that of the temporal or political government.

Third, Calvin’s preference in turning to natural law rather than the Law of Moses in framing moral discourse (Inst. 4.20.14–16) — even within a Christian commonwealth! — provides a valuable insight as to how we can conduct moral discourse within pluralistic societies today. This is important because moral discourse inevitably grounds much of the political deliberation and policies that are enforced by governments.

In this area, it is interesting to note that Calvin did not insist on conformity to the Old Testament’s civil law, advocating instead the rigorous use of reason, experience, pagan political philosophy and the laws of nations in tandem with scripture as his mode of moral and political reasoning.

In so doing Calvin not only rules out theonomy as a vision for societies, but he upholds natural law, which he identifies as the law of love and the rule of equity, as a basis by which Christians can engage in public engagement in the varying contexts they find themselves in, be it religiously diverse or secular societies.

Furthermore, using natural law also does not indicate that Christians have surrendered biblical norms and values. As Calvin saw it, the final authority concerning the content of natural law is still scripture. But because natural law can be known through reason, the sciences, experience and conscience, it offers Christians a means of participating meaningfully in moral and political discourse without either preaching at nonbelievers or putting Christian confession as a prerequisite for discussion. It provides us with a common ground, a “public reason” to further dialogue.[2]

Fourth, when lifted from its context of a Christian commonwealth and transported to many of our religiously pluralistic societies today, I wonder if Calvin’s description of the role of civil government in establishing civil righteousness, protecting the outward worship of God and defending sound doctrines of piety could be extended to argue that it is incumbent upon governments today to likewise provide a conducive environment for the flourishing of religions.

I add immediately that in offering this suggestion I am venturing and perhaps even stretching the very limits of Calvin’s thoughts, but I envisage no other way for Calvin’s conception of the role of civil government to find an application and place in today’s political contexts which are vastly different from that of Calvin’s day and age. If, as Calvin understood it, the purpose of civil government is to rule for the common good through the flourishing of true religion, then, in our unique political landscape consisting of religiously pluralistic societies often backed by secular governments, achieving that ideal might come through the common flourishing of religions.

---

[1] This idea is cogently argued by Matthew J. Tuininga, Calvin’s Political Theology and the Public Engagement of the Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). Having said the above, Calvin did offer his political opinions at certain points, for example, how he saw a political system compounded of aristocracy and democracy excelling others (Inst. 4.20.8).

[2] I am using the term “public reason” here in the sense of how it is commonly understood in political philosophy to refer to the moral ideal of a common or shared framework used in political deliberation within liberal democratic societies that is reasonably justifiable or acceptable from each political interlocutor’s viewpoint.

The coronavirus pandemic, which has ravaged the world for twenty months, has brought a number of profound theological and ethical issues to the surface. These issues range from the question of the sovereignty of God to ethical questions regarding the production and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines.

An important issue that has arisen in the wake of the pandemic has to do with the relationship between the Church and the State. More specifically, it relates to the authority of the State, the scope of its jurisdiction and legislative power, and the extent to which Christians must submit to its mandates.

In June this year, a group of pastors in the U.S. produced the ‘Warrenton Declaration on Medical Mandates, Biblical Ethics, and Authority’ in an attempt to address some of these issues (https://warrentondeclaration.com/).

The Declaration seeks to ‘provide clarity and coherence on issues of biblical authority and ethics related to medical mandates.’ But the document also aims to address what the authors perceive to be the over-attribution of ‘power and jurisdiction to the State’ by the churches in America. According to the Declaration, this has resulted in pastors becoming ‘mouthpieces for government agencies’, and agents that ‘help carry out their bidding.’

The Warrenton Declaration is divided into two sections. The first section presents 15 affirmations and denials which set out the biblical teaching on the authority of the State. In language that is reminiscent of the Barmen Declaration of 1934, this document seeks to remind the church that ‘all authority, in Heaven and on earth has been bestowed upon God the Son, Christ Jesus.’

In the second section, the Declaration applies the biblical principles it has set out to government mandates such as vaccinations, mask-wearing and lockdowns. The authors are of the view that in imposing these mandates, the government has acted beyond its God-given jurisdiction. Therefore, Christians are not required to obey them.

The Declaration maintains that Christians who argue that in complying with these mandates they are obeying God’s command to love one’s neighbour are in fact ‘twisting the Scripture’. They are ‘effectively subjecting the law of God to the ever-changing and conflicting whims of “public health” agencies, the latest medical study or majority opinion.’ The Declaration claims further that compliant Christians have simply misunderstood and misapplied Romans 13.

Although the Declaration was put together by Protestant pastors, it has received the endorsement of some Catholic scholars. For example, Michael Pakaluk, professor of ethics and social philosophy at the Catholic University of America, said in an interview that:

The declaration is highly important for pointing out that a secular authority has no claim to obedience, not simply when it commands us to do something sinful, but also when it issues a command outside of its proper competence and scope.

It is very welcome indeed that, as the declaration shows, Christians widely are re-evaluating in the sight of God the scope of legitimate secular authority. Faced with an obvious overreach by that authority, they are sensing that an appeal to Scripture and – like our Founders, an intuitive sense, too, of the natural rights we derive from God’s creation – can provide a timely remedy.

GOBERTOTO

Although the Declaration has the appearance of a statement on broad and general biblical principles concerning civil authority, it was obviously created in response to the contemporary situation in the U.S. To fail to read the Declaration contextually is, in my view, to fail to fully understand its outlook and outlook of its architects.

COVID MANDATES

To be sure, much of what the Declaration has to say about the role of the State is uncontroversial. For example, the statement that ‘earthly authorities have been instituted by God as His servants to function as a blessing to those in their jurisdiction’ is firmly grounded in Scripture (Romans 13:1-5; 1 Peter 2:13-14).

In a similar vein, the statement that underscores the fact that civil authorities do not have ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ (Article IV) is also uncontroversial (Colossians 1:15-20; Matthew 28:18). For example, the State does not have the right to prescribe how the Church ought to conduct its worship services or who to appoint as its ministers.

Also unproblematic is the postulation that when Scripture commands Christians to obey civil authorities ‘in everything’, it cannot mean that ‘that obedience is obligatory for all commands regardless of their morality’ (Article V). Christians, therefore, should only obey ‘biblically lawful instructions and commands of earthly authorities to the extent of their proper, God-ordained, role and jurisdiction’ (Article XI).

Christians of every ecclesiastical stripe would have no difficulties whatsoever in agreeing with and endorsing these basic theological propositions made in the Declaration. However, many Christians – including Christians in Singapore – would find what the authors of the Declaration understand to be the logical and indisputable implications of these fundamental truths to be highly problematic.

We will examine these issues by looking at how the authors of the Declaration have answered the following questions, and how most Christian leaders here might respond to those answers.

Question 1: Can the powers of the State be justifiably extended in the wake of a global pandemic, where a deadly virus which has claimed millions of lives continues to spread unabated?

The Declaration answers this question with a categorical ‘No’. ‘WE DENY that civil governments have lawful authority to enact “lockdowns” predicated on protecting “public health” as this is not their jurisdiction’ (Article XX). The Declaration uses this same argument for masking and vaccination mandates as well.

The position taken by church leaders in Singapore is radically different from that of the Declaration.

They agree that mandating lockdowns which make it impossible for Christians to congregate physically for Sunday services clearly goes beyond the jurisdiction of the State. In ordinary times, such a mandate should be contested by the church.

But these are not ordinary times! We are in the midst of a public health crisis and these temporary restrictions are introduced by the government in the interest of public health and safety. In addition, these measures are not specifically targeted at the church, but also apply to many sectors of society, including other faith communities.

Thus, even though in imposing these restrictions which curtail the religious freedom of its citizens the State may have exceeded the scope of their jurisdiction, Christians here have no difficulties with this. They know that these measures, which are temporary, are aimed at the welfare of the population in the wake of a raging global pandemic.

Question 2: Do Christians have an obligation, in the interest of public health and the common good, to comply with government mandates aimed at containing the spread of Covid-19 even though this may require a curtailment of their religious liberties?

The Declaration affirms that ‘individuals are free to restrict their own movement about society … should they deem it wise to do so’ (Article XXI). However, it makes it very clear that no one is obligated to do this. ‘WE DENY that conformity to a given recommended course of medical action is made to be civilly or morally obligatory by appeals to an alleged “majority’ of expert opinion or available medical data’ (Article XXIX).

Most Christian leaders in Singapore would disagree with this.

They would argue that if current medical knowledge about the coronavirus suggests that mask-wearing is an effective way to contain community transmission, then it is socially responsible for Christians to comply. In such a situation, the simple practice of wearing a mask in public becomes an expression of Christian love towards the neighbour because it curbs the spread of the virus. Put differently, most Christians here would regard it as their civil and moral obligation to wear masks in the interest of public health.

Christians here would comply with the government’s lockdown mandates and restrictions imposed on Sunday services for the same reason. Although these measures may be said to limit their religious freedom, they are willing to temporarily forgo their freedom for the wellbeing and safety of society.

Question 3: Have the authors of the Declaration been fair in maintaining that Christians who comply with government’s medical mandates have in fact over-attributed power and jurisdiction to the State?  Is it justified in concluding that Christians who have obeyed these mandates have ‘defaulted to almost reflexive acquiescing to whatever the government health agency statements are made and the policy they put in place’ (Preamble)?

I think most Christians in Singapore would not see it that way, and therefore would not agree with these assertions.

As I have explained above, most Christians would be of the view that under the current circumstances, it is proper for the leaders of the nations to take the lead in tackling the pandemic. And in doing so, the government has the right to put in place the measures it deems necessary in order to save lives.

In complying with government mandates, Christians in Singapore have not misread or misapplied Romans 13, as the Declaration appears to suggest. Neither are they guilty of ‘subjecting the law of God to the ever-changing and conflicting whims of “public health” agencies, the latest medical study, or majority opinion’ (Article XXXI).

Christians here would find the suggestion that to comply with government mandates is to deny the absolute and unlimited authority of Jesus Christ (implied in Article III) quite ludicrous and absurd!

CHRONIC TRUST DEFICIT

Why do two groups of Christians who read the same Bible and embrace the same scriptural principles governing Church-State relations have such radically different views on government mandates?

At the beginning of this article, I pointed out that the Declaration must be read with an eye on the American context from which it emerged. I observed that to fail to do this is to fail to understand the intent of the document and the motivation behind it.

What is it, then, in contemporary American culture and society that led to the composition of the Declaration? What are some of the cultural and societal sensibilities that have inspired, provoked and shaped such a document – its outlook, sentiment and tone?

I suggest that one important factor is the deficiency of trust in the government and its institutions that pervades American society today.

cempakaslot wd cepat

For a good number of years, various studies have shown that there is a discernible decline in public trust in the government in the U.S. For example, in 2019, just before the start of the coronavirus pandemic, a Pew Research Centre report reveals that 75 percent of Americans believe that public trust in the government has been shrinking. 64 percent opined that this erosion of trust has made it harder for the government to solve national problems.

About two-thirds of Americans (69%) believe that the federal government and the news media are withholding important and useful information from the public. Four-in-ten adults (41%) believe that low public confidence in the government is ‘a very big problem.’ ‘Confidence in the government’, the report states, ‘is roughly on par with problems caused by racism and illegal immigration – and a bit above terrorism and sexism.’

This was 2019, before the pandemic struck. Covid-19 has further eroded public trust in the government.

The Advanced Studies in Cultural Foundation and public opinion consultancy Heart+Mind Strategies has recently conducted a survey involving 1,105 adult Americans. It found that fewer than 1 in 3 Americans express real trust in either the government or the mainstream media.

In an article published at the website of the Ford School, University of Michigan, on June 10, 2021, Rebecca Cohen writes:

Preliminary data from CLOSUP’s latest Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) shows a significant increase in those who believe there’s a ‘total breakdown of democracy’ at state and federal levels between 2020 and 2021. Local leaders who believe that democracy in the U.S. is in a state of ‘total breakdown’ tripled during this time, and now more than half say it is at or near ‘total breakdown’.

‘This lack of trust’, she adds, ‘whether in government institutions or the system itself, makes finding and implementing solutions to our communities’ greatest challenges – like policing, Covid-19 responses, and vaccine distribution – even harder.’

I believe this serious erosion of public trust in the government and its institutions in the States has subtly influenced the authors of the Declaration and muddled their views on government mandates. This chronic trust deficit is perhaps also the reason why the authors do not appear to have much confidence in ‘expert opinion’ or ‘medical data’ coming from government institutions (See Article XXXI).

Perhaps the authors of the Declaration may not even be consciously aware of just how deep-seated this distrust really is. And this has led them to think that those who affirm the biblical principles they set out must also agree with how they have applied them to government Covid mandates.

Christians in countries where no such deficit of trust in the government exists – such as Singapore – would apply the same biblical principles on the authority of the State very differently. They would have little problem acceding to temporarily enlarging the jurisdiction of the State in the interest of public health and safety.

A survey conducted by Vanessa Lim et al in 2020, when Singapore was in the heat of its battle against Covid-19, yielded the following findings. ‘Most agreed or strongly agreed that information from official government sources (99.1%; 528/533) and Singapore-based news agencies (97.9%; 522/533) was trustworthy.’ The researchers concluded their report thus: ‘Our findings show that trust is the vital commodity when managing an evolving outbreak.’

One need only to compare these figures with the U.S. figures cited above to see the sharp difference in the level of trust in the two countries.

The trust that churches in Singapore have in the government is built over the years. But during this pandemic, that trust is further strengthened by efforts on the part of the government to keep pastors and church leaders abreast of every new development in the Covid situation in Singapore.

Thus, even though there have been many twists and turns and starts and stops in the nation’s fight against Covid, Christians recognise that the government is doing its level best to keep everyone safe.

There is no hermeneutics-of-suspicion at work in the Christian community with reference to the government. There are no misgivings about the intent behind the government’s Covid mandates. And there is no suspicion that the government has some sinister hidden agenda to cripple the church by these mandates or to deprive Christians of their religious freedom.

If Christians in Singapore were to produce a similar document (say, ‘The Temasek Declaration on Medical Mandates’), they would expound the same basic biblical principles found in the Warrenton Declaration. But I would wager that their interpretation and application of those principles would be radically and substantially different from the U.S. document.

A refrain often heard in our world plagued with unceasing conflict is “let’s agree to disagree”. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to agree to disagree is to decide “not to argue anymore about the difference in opinion”. It is a declaration of a truce of sorts—a resolution by the parties concerned to leave the unsettled dispute aside for the sake of peace.

To agree to disagree is therefore a strategy for conflict resolution, which requires the parties to tolerate their opposing positions. It is an acknowledgement that dissent does not have to lead to hostility. It is a pledge to be civil in spite of fundamental disagreements. And civility is seen by many today as the key to an un-murderous co-existence of the disputing parties.

But what do we mean by civility?

Civility is much more than superficial niceness and politeness. As James Calvin Davis explains, it is “the exercise of patience, integrity, humility and mutual respect in civil conversation, even (and especially) with those whom we disagree”.[1] To this already impressive list of qualities we may add gentleness and kindness.

The discerning reader will immediately notice that the virtues that make up civility are the very same ones that the Christian faith upholds. They are the traits that every disciple of Jesus Christ should aspire to possess.

There are a number of New Testament passages that encourage Christians to conduct themselves with civility.

For example, Paul exhorts the Christians in Rome to “Live in harmony with one another. […] If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:16, 18). In a similar vein, the apostle instructs his protégé, Titus, “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy towards all men” (Titus 3:2).

Although civility is a widely accepted and prized virtue, it nonetheless has its detractors.

These sceptics believe—and for good reason—that in contemporary society, civility can all too easily fall prey to the tyranny of the culture of political correctness. In the face of pervasive falsehoods and gross injustice, to agree to disagree—they point out—is no different from turning a blind eye. It is tantamount to complicity.

And when this happens, civility is very quickly transformed from virtue to vice. Civility becomes the means by which lies are tolerated and injustices condoned.

osb99

It is therefore extremely important to clarify the relationship between truth and civility. Christian civility should never be practised at the expense of truth. Neither should civility be used as an excuse to water down the truth, to remove its sting and make it less offensive.

In the 16th century, the great humanist Desiderius Erasmus accused Martin Luther of violating the standard of civilitas by his politically incorrect language (Luther had labelled the pope a heretic). This is how Luther replied: “If you understand the gospel rightly, don’t think that the matter can be done without revolt, offence and unrest. You can’t turn the sword into a feather. […] The Word of God is a sword.”[2]

Luther has a point. If we read carefully the New Testament passages that deal with civility, we will notice important nuances balancing civility and truth.

Writing to the Christians dispersed throughout Asia Minor, Peter exhorts his readers to “honour all men” (1 Pet 2:17). But, as Richard Mouw has perceptively pointed out: “‘Honouring’ here means having a regard for someone’s well-being. Not that we are simply to give people what they ask for or tell them only what they want to hear. The apostle is not prescribing convictionless civility.”[3]

In his letter to Timothy, Paul urges his protégé to teach the Word of God with unfailing patience. Yet, in the same breath the apostle warns the young pastor about church members who have “itching ears”, “who will not endure sound doctrine”, but are constantly searching for “teachers to suit their own likings”.

Paul admonishes Timothy never to pander to his congregation’s whims and fancies by compromising the gospel. He instructs Timothy to continue preaching the unadulterated truth of God’s Word, and, if necessary, even to rebuke them (2 Tim 4:1–4).

Christian civility can never be practised apart from the truth. It must never accede to the dictates of political correctness. This is because genuine Christian civility is always a convicted civility.

slot gacor maxwin hari ini

[1] James Calvin Davis, In Defense of Civility: How Religion Can Unite American on Seven Moral Issues that Divide Us (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 159.
[2] Quoted in Teresa M. Bejan, Mere Civility: Disagreements and the Limits of Toleration (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019), 23.
[3] Richard Mouw, Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1992), 44.

In his perceptive book entitled The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum describes the times in which we live thus:

Of the many diverse and fascinating challenges we face today, the most intense and important is how to understand and shape the new technology revolution, which entails nothing less than a transformation of humankind. We are at the beginning of a revolution that is fundamentally changing the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope and complexity, what I consider to be the fourth industrial revolution is unlike anything humankind has experienced before.

We live in an era of great technological innovations, whose proliferation is at a pace that is truly unprecedented and whose scope covers many different fields.

Schwab supplies a list of these new technologies whose full potential has yet to be realised: artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, internet of things (IoT), autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage and quantum computing. This list, which is by no means exhaustive, is really quite astounding especially when we consider the fact these technologies emerged within a relatively short period of time.

Although these new embodiments of technology do bring new concerns to the surface, many of them, it may be said, amplify the issues that theologians and philosophers have already been grappling with.

In his book The Question Concerning Technology published in German in 1954, the philosopher Martin Heidegger offers some profound insights on technology that are still relevant today. In this article, I wish to highlight some of the salient points that this existentialist thinker of the previous century makes in his important book.

Heidegger maintains that the traditional ways of understanding and conceiving technology have failed to grasp its true essence. Both the anthropological view of technology, which sees it merely as one form of human activity among many others, and the instrumentalist view, which sees it merely as a neutral tool are, in Heidegger’s opinion, inadequate.

The essence of technology, Heidegger argues, is not found in the tools we create but in the mode of being. Thus Heidegger could write: ‘technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology.’ ‘Likewise’, he asserts, ‘the essence of technology is by no means anything technological.’

To merely focus on the different types of technologies that are already in use is to fail to grasp the true essence of technology. ‘Thus we shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive and push forward the technological, put up with it, or evade it,’ he writes.

The essence of technology, for Heidegger, is a way of relating to reality, and as such it has to do with more than just the tools that we fashion and use. It must be properly understood as a culture or an ethos of which we are a part and (for this reason) over which we do not always have conscious control.

Due to the pervasive influence of the technological culture that we inhabit and from which we are unable to extricate ourselves, we see everything through the lens that it provides. Heidegger uses the metaphor of ‘enframing’ (German: Gestall) to describe this.

According to William Lovitt, by enframing Heidegger is referring not just to a framework within which reality is forced to fit, a procrustean bed. Enframing is more pro-active that this. It is a calling-forth, a selection, an assemblage and a re-ordering. ‘It puts into a framework or configuration, everything that it summons forth, through an ordering for use that it is forever restructuring anew.’

ASOKASLOT

Such selections and rearrangements, however, seriously distort and obscure the way in which we understand our selves and our world, and leave us with a truncated and anaemic vision of reality. ‘Enframing’, Heidegger insists, ‘blocks the shining-forth and holding sway of truth.’

slot gacor 2026 terbaru

In addition, modern technology, according to Heidegger, has transformed all of reality into what he calls a ‘standing reserve’ (Bestand). What does he mean by this?

Gregory Bruce Smith provides this example to illustrate what is meant by this Heideggerian expression. Through technology, he writes, ‘matter is transformed into energy, which is stored and kept “standing by” for future use, manipulation and ordering.’ ‘Modern technology’, he adds, ‘takes what is, transforms it and keeps it in “standing reserve” until it is wanted.’

Thus, for Heidegger, modern technology is not simply an apprehending or reconfiguring of the gifts of nature in novel and creative ways. It is rather a ‘challenging forth’ of Nature itself, that is, an unravelling, manipulation and reordering and use of matter and bits of the material world.

Consequently, technology transforms reality into an abstract idea that is itself without self-sufficiency and grounding. As Smith explains:

This projecting or ‘enframing’ (Gestell) of Nature transforms itself into standing reserve. Reality comes to be understood as primarily determined by abstract categories as “capital” and “energy”. Reality, in being transformed into something abstract, becomes simultaneously something absent. Absence takes precedence in our lives.

Put differently, we may say that modern technology has led to the loss of the world.

Most significantly, modern technological culture has warped our understanding of what it means to be human and therefore the way in which we view our selves and others. Even human beings are ‘enframed’ and regarded as ‘standing reserve’.

Thus, we see human capabilities only in terms of technological procedures, and the worker as very little more than an instrument for production. The same applies to workers of every stripe, who are seen merely as human resource that can be arranged, rearranged and disposed of, regardless of their qualifications and contributions. As standing reserves, human beings are, as Jones puts it, ‘calculated as an abstract interger qua productivity, unemployment, demographic shifts, population statistics, etc.’

Overcoming the reductionism that technology introduces to our vision of reality requires nothing less than a new conception of the reality that is itself not shaped or trapped by the assumptions and dictates of technology. It must come from outside the noetic and ontic parameters that the technological culture has imposed.

This can only be accomplished by poetry and art. Heidegger believes that even philosophy cannot overcome the hegemonic vision of reality that the technological culture has established. Both poetry and art, Heidegger argues, are ways of ‘bringing-forth’, that is, ways of revealing and of uncovering what is hidden or concealed.

To poetry and art, I add religion, especially Christianity.

The Christian faith does not only require technology to be assessed on the basis of God’s creational intentions and the requirements of stewardship on the part of human beings. It also helps us to understand that in the fallen world, even God’s gifts can be turned into idols, and the good things that are meant to serve human beings can also enslave them. Christianity can save us from the tyranny of technology.

In other words, Christianity enables us to see technology for what it is – its potentials, its limits and its dangers – and, as a result, helps us to relate properly to it. In the words of Heidegger, this proper relationship frees us from ‘the stultified compulsion to push blindly with technology or, what comes to the same, to rebel helplessly against it and curse it as the work of the devil.’

As God’s children, what is the primary thing that God calls us all to do? We’re all called to go into the world and spread the Gospel to all creation- to make God’s Word known to all peoples (Mark 16:15). This has been our core mission, especially as we commemorate the 185 anniversary of the Bible Society of Singapore since its official registration in 1837- to make God’s Word come alive (John 1:14). Through various Bible-centric ministries and humanitarian missions, we aim to transform people’s lives through the Word of God, be it locally and globally, to bring glory to God’s Kingdom.

However, all these would not have been possible without the collective support from everyone of you. And we want to thank all of you who have been in this journey with us, as we stay faithful to God’s calling in doing the Bible Mission.

slot gacor maxwin terbaru

As we remain steadfast to empower people with God’s Word, we invite you to come alongside us, so many more lives will be uplifted by the Word of God! Your partnership and support in the Bible Mission is vital for us to continue bringing the Word of Hope to all nations.

Let us come together to commemorate 200 years of the Bible Mission in Singapore in 2023, as we go forth to sow the Word and impact lives!

CEMPAKASLOT

Take a look at the video above to hear the wonderful and heartwarming testimony of people who have been blessed by God through our continuous efforts & initiatives!

We are more than happy to welcome you to support us in various ways:
• Click here to volunteer: https://www.bible.org.sg/volunteer
• Click here to donate: https://www.bible.org.sg/donate

Religion is sometimes seen as a private matter, having to do only with an individual’s relationship with God. This is, however, a reductionistic view. What one believes has a profound impact not only on the person, but also on his or her community. What is the contribution of religion to public policy and nation-building in the Singapore context? We are privileged to have two eminent speakers address this issue: Mr Edwin Tong, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law and Rt Revd Dr Titus Chung, the Bishop of Singapore (Anglican).

GOBERTOTO

link cempakaslot

Date: 23 March 2022
Speaker: Rt Revd Dr Titus Chung
ETHOS Institute™ for Public Christianity was formed by the National Council of Churches of Singapore, Trinity Theological College and The Bible Society of Singapore in 2014.

Religion is sometimes seen as a private matter, having to do only with an individual’s relationship with God. This is, however, a reductionistic view. What one believes has a profound impact not only on the person, but also on his or her community. What is the contribution of religion to public policy and nation-building in the Singapore context? We are privileged to have two eminent speakers address this issue: Mr Edwin Tong, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law and Rt Revd Dr Titus Chung, the Bishop of Singapore (Anglican).

ASOKASLOT

cempakaslot terpercaya

Date: 23 March 2022
Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong
ETHOS Institute™ for Public Christianity was formed by the National Council of Churches of Singapore, Trinity Theological College and The Bible Society of Singapore in 2014.