Dies Irae
Out of curiosity and concern, I made my way to Suntec to observe the happenings at AWARE. I couldn't go in for the first part of the meeting; at 2pm there were still 600 people queuing up to get in. I managed to slip in towards the end, about two hours before the results came in.
While the votes were being counted, concerned members made their way to the front to speak (each person has a right to three minutes on the floor). Some spoke on sex education, sexuality and choices, addressing the exco's agenda concerning AWARE's education programs. Some spoke on equality and representation. But most spoke about their disgust at the way the exco had taken power and about the exco's actions from then up to the EGM. The exco were pretty brave to sit at the table, poker-faced, taking in hours and hours of heckling, jeering and verbal attacks. I will say I witnessed the best and worst of human nature. It was exhilirating to see people--Singaporeans--so concerned about advocacy and representation, about the direction of one of the pillars of Singapore's civil society. Yet that passion often burst out in ungracious displays of anger and ad hominem speeches. The crowd's anger was justified, I suppose, and overall was channeled productively. The anger was part of the damage that the exco had caused, and not just a reaction to the damage, and that is why I was not exactly overjoyed to see people so angry. By taking power through unfair means, the exco had structured the discourse surrounding AWARE leadership into an "us" versus "them", winner and loser mentality. This isn't just damaging for AWARE, it is damaging to any effort for concerted action--whether between nations, between civil society and the government, or between secular and religious groups. By using manipulative means to take power, by failing to see their lack of integrity and resigning honourably even before the vote of no confidence, by failing to resign immediately after the results of the vote came in, the exco triggered a mode of action which involved othering and retribution towards themselves. The victory speeches by the new exco then were bittersweet, because of the necessity of winning at all, of re-establishing good values on a mode of action and retribution. The honourable thing to do would have been to resign and apologise in order to prevent the downward spiral of reprisals.
Specifically, the church's relations with secular society have gone through a shake-up. As an AWARE founding member said, she was very disappointed in their actions and their "Christian" agenda which had eroded the good faith between the church, AWARE and groups of different religions. She gave the best (and most gracious) three-minute speech, in my opinion. She started in good faith, believing that the ladies of the exco were nice women who meant well--not something that anyone else was able to do with their finger-pointing, shouting and accusations. Yet her point was the most powerful and relevant. Like her, I am disappointed. The church throughout history already has a lot to answer for: the political entanglements of medieval times which resulted in the Crusades, the political entanglements now which resulted in the Iraq War taking on a religious slant. We have to be very careful as to how we approach the sacred/secular divide that was the fallout of religious-political pursuits like the crusades and the witch-hunts. We will continue to have matters to apologise for, I suppose. Learning to impact a society obsessed with and oppressed by discourses of power through an ethic of powerlessness is difficult. After all, we are of the same imperfect substance as the hell-bound that we preach so often about.
Beyond AWARE
The challenge for the church in getting involved with politics and secular social movements is to build a common platform for social progress, not to ensure that the church's perspective on issues of gay rights or abortion supercede that of other groups in society. There is a difference. The church should continue to represent what it believes is the best way of social progress, but our duty is to represent, to be witnesses, not to be law enforcers and winners of the global gameshow by trumping others and proving that God is right through loud (sometimes not even clever) arguments and power plays.
In any case, the church's first duty is to God and therefore to high standards of integrity when committing to actions to relieve suffering. Too often, God's agenda for the welfare of mankind is hijacked to justify verbal abuse, alienation or unethical actions. How different is that from suicide bombers who kill in the name of Islam? The Bible's standards are clear, and very high. To call another "fool," to hate another, is the same as committing murder in one's heart. Perhaps the visible consequences are drastically different--people don't die from being hated. But Jesus' point is that the degree of guilt is the same. Whether personal or political, big or small, hidden or known, there is no difference in the degree of badness that goes into words and actions that violate the individual. What a high standard that is. No wonder God won't let anyone into heaven on their own terms. Our standards are a little too low.
All too often we Christians suffer from this world domination mentality, because we are people of one truth, like the Jews and the Muslims. Yet between that one truth and the first good action that arises from believing in it is a chasm filled with misperception, the limits of human judgment, hypocrisy and such-like. We see as through a glass darkly. That phrase has always expressed for me the idea that human perception can never see truth in its entirety. Life on this side of eternity is composed of fragmented perceptions and unstable interpretations (maybe I will write on the Christian view of human access to truth after I read up on theology and philosophy, but for now let's just leave it at this). If we really believe that Christ is God and coming back to judge the world, then who are we to set ourselves up as arbitrators and judges of the world's morality? Or to think that we have all the answers? We think that God has all the answers. That's a different ethic altogether.
There. Now I can look back at what I've written and know the potential that I have to mess things up if I forget that truth and perspective are different things. That was what was bothering me. What if I am living by a "failed paradigm," in the words of an acquaintance? What's also bothering me--but only slightly--is the list of assertions I have just made. Been hanging around too many philo friends, maybe. But then this isn't an argument. Just a series of reflections on conclusions I have already drawn for myself, or which, one might say, were drawn for me by my religion. Being raised a Christian, and having accepted Christ as a child, I only knew that I had been saved. One does not necessarily know what one has been saved from, and if one doesn't know, then what does one really believe in? A set of religious principles to live a good life? Or a God who has saved me from an eternity of recursive reasoning that cannot escape the condition of guilt? Dishonour descends upon one's shoulders, and who will take it away from you?* I will spend my entire life thinking backwards, I suppose, in order to work out my salvation. I guess that's why I like questions from non-Christian friends on Christianity and faith. They're always interesting to consider.
___________
* from Diary of a Bad Year by J.M Coetzee
No comments:
Post a Comment