Sure, i've seen the notes that Gwee Li Sui has written on the Aware saga. He made it to the Straits Times even with his note entitled "Christians against Aware Takeover." They are all over facebook pages of many people i know. More than 600 people 'like' the note and it has gathered an equal amount of responses to it.
In case you do not know what i'm referring to, click here for his first note and here for his follow up.
I've had a few days to ponder over it. More than a few people have also directed me to the note with enthusiasm. I wonder: was it wise for him to write the note the way he did.
Now i wish to make it clear that i question his notes not for the sake of attacking Gwee's person but because i believe no view should go unchallenged. Gwee's notes are no exception. Just like Gwee, i want to make it clear that i have been a Bible believing Christian for a good many years as well. I share the same faith as Gwee does and i am sure the same hope for a good resolution to this saga. At the same time, I wish to offer a counterperspective here, that perhaps people have been too quick to praise Gwee for the notes he has written.
I think i am at a stage where i have little hesitation in saying that Gwee should have written the notes in a more reconciliatory way. I found the message of the first note very polarising, all the more so when Gwee makes the charges that some Christians feel that "their faith has been hijacked and their views ignored."He further asserts that "an appropriate Christian response is to resist the actions of these Christians."
To his credit, Gwee acknowledges in his second note that "healso received less appreciative messages" some of which "charged [him] with having sown discord and embarrassed Christianity in front of non-believers." He then rhetorically questions if he made "one too many assumptions."
Amongst other points in Gwee's notes that i take issue with, there are two issues in particular that jump out at me and cause me great discomfort. Both issues are in reference to his first note.
1) Christians have already been divided on this issue. Some are in support of Josie Lau's ex-co, and some vehemently against it. Indeed something must be done to address this polarising of views within the Christian community in Singapore, but the message in my opinion should be one of unity rather than division. It is to me unacceptable to argue that "an appropriate Christian response is to resist the actions of these Christians."
Should that really be the appropriate Christian response? I do not want to go into deep theological discourse here, but i think this very assertion itself should be worthy of a healthy dose of scepticism. Let us not forget that the Church is a body of Christ. When one part suffers, the whole body suffers along with it. We are told that when someone strays away from the truth, we are to bring him back. Christ tells a few parables also on how he refuses to forget about even one sheep that is lost. Throughout the Bible, the message is one of reconciliation, unity and love.
It therefore puzzles and saddens me to see Gwee write such a statement. To be fair, he does not qualify what it means to "resist the actions." He could very well mean a mere passive non-supporting of Josie Lau's ex-co (which at the time of writing has been dissolved). But that certainly is not clear in his note. Merriam-Webster defines resist as "to exert force in opposition." It seems to imply something more than a passive standing aside. I do not seek to speculate on what Gwee could have meant nor do i want to read different meanings into his writings. But my point is simple: by calling for resistance without qualification of what that resistance entails could cause confusion and indeed further division.
We could see Christians distancing themselves from Josie Lau et al. Or perhaps Christians will now start to see the Church of Our Saviour as being rather unorthodox in their beliefs. I see no overarching concept of unity being promoted here. I see rather, potential for causing division amongst Christians, especially since Gwee's notes have been read by so many.
2) Secondly, i think Gwee engages in language that is very sweeping and overtly rhetorical. He states in his list of implications that if we support Josie Lau et al, we effectively "condone its quasi-corporate act of infiltration, with related strategies of secrecy, disinformation, moral coercion, and fear-mongering."
Now surely whilst there is a grain of truth in this statement, it is rather over-the-top. Notably, the term "infiltration" according to merriam-webster connotes a gradual entering and not a quick takeover as was what happened. It also has the implication that the organisation being "infiltrated" did not know of the inflitration. However, it was quite clear that in the run up the the AGM, AWARE did have a record of those who joined - they just did not pay attention. Is this really infiltration? Further, i question what "moral coercion" and "fear-mongering" were committed. now these are really strong terms to use. There was persuasion, argument, but was there "coercion" in the sense that people were really compelled to act against their will? Regarding "fear-mongering", i question which act in particular Gwee is referring to.
Gwee is also keen to use the slippery slope argument. He asks rhetorically " What is to stop any religious or ideological group from doing the same to any social institution at every level? In the long run, who do you think loses?"
I think there is a simple answer to this: a properly drafted constitution of the organisation. Assuming Josie lau et al had not been defeated in the EGM, it would have been a good lesson for all out there to pay attention to how their constitutions are drafted. Where there are inadequacies, they should be fixed; where there are uncertainties, legal advice can and should be sought.
And finally, but certainly not least, his second last paragraph is startling: "Support the new ex-co, and, if they stay and behave as predicted, you will be directly responsible for undoing the trust that many Christians have taken years to build with their non-Christian friends. This is a trust built on mutual respect. You will have made the Gospel of Christ more difficult to hear for years to come because people will think that they know what it is about. You will have created a new generation of Christ-haters."
I think this statement is premised on too many assumptions, assumptions that are not necessarily true. The first assumption is that the "trust (which is built on mutual respect) that many Christians have taken years to build with their non-Christian friends" is a trust that is easily broken. I would like to think that friendships are a little hardier than that. I can support (but i do not) in principle what Josie Lau et al were doing, but certainly there is space for opposing views within friendships.
The second assumption is that Josie Lau et al's views equate to the Gospel of Christ or that people are likely to equate that with the Gospel. that again, whilst plausible, is questionable. I fail to see how people in "years to come" are likely to be so influenced by this one event.
Finally, i object in the strongest possible terms to assert that "You will have created a new generation of Christ-haters." I cannot see how this can be substantiated in any way.
Concluding, I acknowledge one's right to freedom of speech and therefore am not saying that Gwee should not have published his note. He had every right to do so and i will not criticise its publication. But i think he should have preached a message of unity and not one of division that i saw his note to stand for. Whilst we do not agree with what Josie Lau et al did, we should in no way distance ourselves from them - we all belong to the same body.
One qualification: perhaps I have interpreted Gwee's message wrongly in which case i apologise unreservedly. Also, you will notice i engaged in some word interpretation here. I do this not for the mere purpose of engaging in semantics, but because i want to encourage the responsible use of speech. The wrong use of certain terms can indeed convey a wrong message and i would loathe to see Gwee being taken to task for alleged defamation.
In case you do not know what i'm referring to, click here for his first note and here for his follow up.
I've had a few days to ponder over it. More than a few people have also directed me to the note with enthusiasm. I wonder: was it wise for him to write the note the way he did.
Now i wish to make it clear that i question his notes not for the sake of attacking Gwee's person but because i believe no view should go unchallenged. Gwee's notes are no exception. Just like Gwee, i want to make it clear that i have been a Bible believing Christian for a good many years as well. I share the same faith as Gwee does and i am sure the same hope for a good resolution to this saga. At the same time, I wish to offer a counterperspective here, that perhaps people have been too quick to praise Gwee for the notes he has written.
I think i am at a stage where i have little hesitation in saying that Gwee should have written the notes in a more reconciliatory way. I found the message of the first note very polarising, all the more so when Gwee makes the charges that some Christians feel that "their faith has been hijacked and their views ignored."He further asserts that "an appropriate Christian response is to resist the actions of these Christians."
To his credit, Gwee acknowledges in his second note that "healso received less appreciative messages" some of which "charged [him] with having sown discord and embarrassed Christianity in front of non-believers." He then rhetorically questions if he made "one too many assumptions."
Amongst other points in Gwee's notes that i take issue with, there are two issues in particular that jump out at me and cause me great discomfort. Both issues are in reference to his first note.
1) Christians have already been divided on this issue. Some are in support of Josie Lau's ex-co, and some vehemently against it. Indeed something must be done to address this polarising of views within the Christian community in Singapore, but the message in my opinion should be one of unity rather than division. It is to me unacceptable to argue that "an appropriate Christian response is to resist the actions of these Christians."
Should that really be the appropriate Christian response? I do not want to go into deep theological discourse here, but i think this very assertion itself should be worthy of a healthy dose of scepticism. Let us not forget that the Church is a body of Christ. When one part suffers, the whole body suffers along with it. We are told that when someone strays away from the truth, we are to bring him back. Christ tells a few parables also on how he refuses to forget about even one sheep that is lost. Throughout the Bible, the message is one of reconciliation, unity and love.
It therefore puzzles and saddens me to see Gwee write such a statement. To be fair, he does not qualify what it means to "resist the actions." He could very well mean a mere passive non-supporting of Josie Lau's ex-co (which at the time of writing has been dissolved). But that certainly is not clear in his note. Merriam-Webster defines resist as "to exert force in opposition." It seems to imply something more than a passive standing aside. I do not seek to speculate on what Gwee could have meant nor do i want to read different meanings into his writings. But my point is simple: by calling for resistance without qualification of what that resistance entails could cause confusion and indeed further division.
We could see Christians distancing themselves from Josie Lau et al. Or perhaps Christians will now start to see the Church of Our Saviour as being rather unorthodox in their beliefs. I see no overarching concept of unity being promoted here. I see rather, potential for causing division amongst Christians, especially since Gwee's notes have been read by so many.
2) Secondly, i think Gwee engages in language that is very sweeping and overtly rhetorical. He states in his list of implications that if we support Josie Lau et al, we effectively "condone its quasi-corporate act of infiltration, with related strategies of secrecy, disinformation, moral coercion, and fear-mongering."
Now surely whilst there is a grain of truth in this statement, it is rather over-the-top. Notably, the term "infiltration" according to merriam-webster connotes a gradual entering and not a quick takeover as was what happened. It also has the implication that the organisation being "infiltrated" did not know of the inflitration. However, it was quite clear that in the run up the the AGM, AWARE did have a record of those who joined - they just did not pay attention. Is this really infiltration? Further, i question what "moral coercion" and "fear-mongering" were committed. now these are really strong terms to use. There was persuasion, argument, but was there "coercion" in the sense that people were really compelled to act against their will? Regarding "fear-mongering", i question which act in particular Gwee is referring to.
Gwee is also keen to use the slippery slope argument. He asks rhetorically " What is to stop any religious or ideological group from doing the same to any social institution at every level? In the long run, who do you think loses?"
I think there is a simple answer to this: a properly drafted constitution of the organisation. Assuming Josie lau et al had not been defeated in the EGM, it would have been a good lesson for all out there to pay attention to how their constitutions are drafted. Where there are inadequacies, they should be fixed; where there are uncertainties, legal advice can and should be sought.
And finally, but certainly not least, his second last paragraph is startling: "Support the new ex-co, and, if they stay and behave as predicted, you will be directly responsible for undoing the trust that many Christians have taken years to build with their non-Christian friends. This is a trust built on mutual respect. You will have made the Gospel of Christ more difficult to hear for years to come because people will think that they know what it is about. You will have created a new generation of Christ-haters."
I think this statement is premised on too many assumptions, assumptions that are not necessarily true. The first assumption is that the "trust (which is built on mutual respect) that many Christians have taken years to build with their non-Christian friends" is a trust that is easily broken. I would like to think that friendships are a little hardier than that. I can support (but i do not) in principle what Josie Lau et al were doing, but certainly there is space for opposing views within friendships.
The second assumption is that Josie Lau et al's views equate to the Gospel of Christ or that people are likely to equate that with the Gospel. that again, whilst plausible, is questionable. I fail to see how people in "years to come" are likely to be so influenced by this one event.
Finally, i object in the strongest possible terms to assert that "You will have created a new generation of Christ-haters." I cannot see how this can be substantiated in any way.
Concluding, I acknowledge one's right to freedom of speech and therefore am not saying that Gwee should not have published his note. He had every right to do so and i will not criticise its publication. But i think he should have preached a message of unity and not one of division that i saw his note to stand for. Whilst we do not agree with what Josie Lau et al did, we should in no way distance ourselves from them - we all belong to the same body.
One qualification: perhaps I have interpreted Gwee's message wrongly in which case i apologise unreservedly. Also, you will notice i engaged in some word interpretation here. I do this not for the mere purpose of engaging in semantics, but because i want to encourage the responsible use of speech. The wrong use of certain terms can indeed convey a wrong message and i would loathe to see Gwee being taken to task for alleged defamation.
Posts
