Wholesome Shallowness?

In 2007, my wife Sun released a music video of the hit single, “China Wine,” the result of a creative collaboration with reggae wunderkind, Wyclef Jean. That video garnered a lot of attention on YouTube with more than two million hits over two dozen fan sites. It received rave reviews from industry insiders as well as youths who love dance pop the world over. Not surprisingly, the video also raised quite a few eyebrows within the religious fraternity who felt it was inappropriate for a Christian to be featured in a dance video.

Although Sun is married to me, she herself was never formally ordained as a minister. She never felt gifted with a pulpit ministry. But ever since Sun was a child, she had participated in many singing contests and won quite a few of them. As a preacher’s wife, Sun functioned faithfully from behind-the-scenes as my helpmate, becoming an effective counselor and a singer in the church.

At the turn of the millennium, as I began formulating my doctrine on the Cultural Mandate, challenging my generation to come out of isolation and engage the marketplace, I urged Sun to help me embody that message. In 2002, she launched her new career in Taiwan as a pop singer. Since then, she has done very well with more than four million units sold, five multi-platinum records, and over 30 number one songs in five different countries. Today, she is known in the Far East as a bona fide singer, entertainer and humanitarian.

From her royalties, Sun has built eight schools, two orphanages, two medical centers, one rehabilitation clinic, and two housing projects. Through her connections, she has helped with the establishing and fund-raising of four other orphanages, two hospitals, two community services, and one charity foundation. For all these humanitarian achievements, Sun was awarded the Top Outstanding Young Person of the World in 2003, and became China’s Charity Ambassador of Children since 2004. In 2007, she sang the theme song for the Special Olympics at Shanghai. Last year, she sang the 2008 Olympic Anthem during the pre-game launch at Beijing. The unchurched throughout Asia loves Sun and views her as an exemplary model to the youths of society.

Yet, in spite of all her secular and creative achievements, many conservative pastors find it hard to accept Sun in any role outside of church ministry. But the reality is that she is no longer a church staff or a gospel singer. She doesn’t work for any religious organization.

As a professional artist, Sun has to take on many dramatic stage personas. This is what entertainers do. In the “China Wine” video, she happens to be acting in one such role. Fiction must be separated from fact. I think the struggle many pastors have is the difficulty to separate her association with me (as a pastor’ wife) and her career as a singer. I agree that if she is a “pastor” or “preacher,” perhaps the video would have been inappropriate. But Sun is not a pastor. She is an entertainer. All her music videos were not produced by the church but by her secular music label, the company that she is working for.

“China Wine” is a music video about a girl who has to take up an extra job at a nightclub to make ends meet for her family. Some pastors immediately took offense at the club scene and sexy dancers around her. As for her costumes, she wore gym clothes which was not inappropriate for the set she had to act in. At the end of the music video, she caught her boyfriend cheating on her in the night club and confronted him in Mandarin. If you understand what she said, her words were neither crude nor profane at all. She basically shouted at the guy, “Hey, what are you doing with this mistress?” Unfortunately, the video translator subtitled that as “Hey, what are you doing with this b****?” That final b-word caused a further uproar among pastors, who were quick to condemn her for uttering profanities. A few of them wrote me angry emails calling Sun a “whore,” “hooker,” and other nastier, derogatory terms. Some said she was promoting free sex and immorality. But any intelligent, objective viewer would know that the whole drama is not about sex; if anything, it portrays the reality of a fallen secular world.

All these storms in a tea cup set me thinking of a bigger question: Are Christians living a sanitized life? Why have “Christian” productions been so ineffective in their reach to the unchurched, to the extent that even believers are not interested in their products?

In his book, Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture, author William D. Romanowski talks about a 1993 survey, which reported that over 80 percent of all churchgoing Christians regularly go to the movies. When they were asked what they thought about Christian films, TV productions and Christian Contemporary Music, this was what they said:

1. Christian popular arts are inferior imitations as compared to mainstream culture. To many, Christian music is substandard guitar pop and happy-clappy lyrics about Jesus. This is not surprising as many Christian artists feel that their main job is to preach the gospel and proclaim the faith. As such, artistic quality or creativity is not so important. But what they forget is that when people go to a movie or buy an album, their first desire is to be entertained. If they want to be preached to, they would have gone to church. 2. Christian popular arts are unrealistic, sanitized versions of the real world. Some reviewers even use the phrase “wholesome shallowness” to describe them. Christian entertainment has come to mean movies and music appropriate for “family-only” audiences. That basically means kids-oriented programs or old-time TV reruns for senior citizens. Are Christians that naive and immature, living in a perpetual time warp of a bygone era, that we can’t handle the realities of the 21st century? As early as 1916, Hollywood had already discovered that 60 percent of theater owners wanted pictures that portray the real world—even if they contained themes on violence, sex and greed. This is because moviegoers want films that honestly and artistically address the issues of life. 3. Christian popular arts are limited in content and purpose. If you listen to most CCM, you would think that all Christians do is worship and evangelize 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But people in general, Christians and non-Christians alike, don’t want to be preached to 24/7. They want a pop culture that is fun, entertaining, artistic and innovative. They are also concerned with the issues of life—and they enjoy it when those themes are addressed with artistic flair. Everybody knows the trials and temptations of daily living. We are not immune to problems and tensions. We are all concerned about love and relationship, life and health, career and finances, the global economy and politics, war and peace, and our future. We are all trying to understand why things happen the way they do and how we can live our lives properly. Pop culture helps us to navigate through all that. People get inspired and moved by U2, the biggest band in the world today. Their music captures a sense of religious longing and the struggle of living in a world torn by war, injustice and poverty. They enjoy movies like The Matrix, which speaks of an invisible world behind our natural world. They are moved by Schindler’s List (rated R) which touches on courage, sacrifice, and overcoming racism. CHC member, Jack Neo, is arguably the best movie director in Southeast Asia. His films, I Not Stupid I and I Not Stupid II, were box office hits because they realistically deal with the pressures of the rat-race in Asian societies. Listeners and viewers cry buckets over these powerful songs and films. They may be secular, but people get touched by such productions more so than most Christian ones. If Christian pop culture is artistically inferior, unrealistically sanitized, and limited in content and purpose, is there any surprise that surveys regularly show that even churchgoers are not excited about them? No wonder Christian artists have such a difficult time selling their products beyond small book tables in churches. The beautiful truth is that God is not against pop culture. There is a section of the Old Testament known as “The Writings,” covering books like Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations. Honestly, aren’t they the popular songs, dramas and musicals of biblical times? Psalms are songs of frustration, regret and anger, yet sung with love to a sometimes hidden God. Aren’t they like most tracks on the Billboard Chart? Job deals with the sufferings of life, and the desire to find meaning through them. Isn’t it like the Hollywood hit movie, Forest Gump, or the long-running Korean serial drama, Jewel In The Place? Proverbs deal with the danger of shortcuts, the snares of temptation, and the rewards of honesty. Aren’t they just like the cartoon series, The Simpsons? The Song of Solomon is about the obsession with love and the sensual. Just turn on any pop radio and we have our modern-day Song of Solomon being broadcasted 24/7. Ecclesiastes deal with the weariness of daily living in an imperfect world. Isn’t that portrayed in movies like Signs and The Pianist? Lamentations deal with grief. When one listens to most of Eric Clapton’s songs, aren’t they all about the dealing of grief? Like the Old Testament writings themselves, pop culture is the collective wisdom of our generation. Popular arts explore social injustice, songs of sorrow, and even tributes to women. Like the Book of Esther, they may not even mention the name of God. Like Ecclesiastes, they suggest that in this life, bad things do happen to good people. Or like the Song of Solomon, they may celebrate romance and sex. These songs and movies may not have a salvational purpose, but nonetheless, they offer us the essential comfort and wisdom for living. As such, pop culture represents a powerful means of communicating to us what the real world is like, and how to live in it. We are all products of our personal theological persuasions and convictions. Pop culture affects the lifestyles of the masses. Venturing into the realm of secular culture is certainly not for the weak or the fainthearted. What Sun is seeking to do is to show us how to be a modern-day Daniel or Joseph to our contemporary Babylon and Egypt. Daniel took on Babylon’s language, education, fashion, name and persona, and yet he didn’t compromise his own value system. According to the New Bible Commentary, Joseph was thoroughly “Egyptianized,” and yet he lived a great life of purpose. Esther, the super celebrity, was also similar. Sun simply wants to emulate these heroes of faith. Can you remember John the Baptist questioning the authenticity of Jesus’ ministry when he heard about the latter’s working style? Jesus had become widely known as a friend of sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes and drunkards. He was even seen going to parties and events that the Pharisees themselves wouldn’t set foot in. John the Baptist was concerned that Jesus was becoming worldly, immoral and compromising—a bad example to the disciples. Our Lord’s reply to him was simply this: “Look at My fruits. Look at how the gospel is preached. ‘And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me’” (Matt. 11:6). The Greek word for “offended” is scandalizo, which means “to trip up, stumble, or be enticed to sin.” I would say the same to those religious critics who may be offended by Sun. The “China Wine” music video was never meant for a church event. Neither was it ever intended to be an evangelism tool or a gospel video. It is simply pop entertainment. People watching the video and regarding it as just that will never get offended or stumbled, which explains the millions of hits and thousands of good reviews on YouTube. So to the religious and conservatives who have used nasty, derogatory and expletive terms to describe Sun, my parting shot are the words of Jesus Christ from Matthew 21:31, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”

Racial & Religious Harmony

On August 16, 2009, I was invited to the National Day Rally held at the NUS University Cultural Center. The National Day Rally is akin to the State of the Union Address delivered by the President of the United States. In our case, it is an annual address that the Prime Minister of Singapore makes to the entire nation.

That night, I was seated on the second row, directly behind Rustom Ghadiali, the vice-president of the Inter-Religious Organization. Among those around me were the Methodist bishop and the Catholic archbishop, Buddhist monks and Muslim leaders. I must say that I was very impressed by the podium design, multimedia incorporation and technological gadgetry that PM Lee Hsien Loong used. The discipline and excellence in which the entire NDR was organized is indeed commendable.

This year is the 50th anniversary of Singapore’s self-government. The PM spoke first in Malay and then in Chinese. The following two hours, he spoke in English, issuing a call for unity across different races and religions. I was amazed by the content of the PM’s speech as it is consistent with the value and philosophy of ministry we practice in City Harvest Church. In a sense, it is comforting to know that our approach is not antagonistic to the society we are planted in and seeking to reach.

PM Lee: Critical to our long-term success is maintaining social cohesion, particularly racial and religious harmony. We have discussed potential fault lines in our society - between rich and poor; between Singaporeans and new arrivals. But the most visceral and dangerous fault line is race and religion.

As far as racial harmony is concerned, this should be second nature to us Christians. The Bible says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Jesus Himself exhorts us to “go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19). That word “nations” (Gr. ethnos) literally means people of diverse races and ethnicity. We can’t reach them with God’s love if we don’t engage, befriend and build meaningful relationships with people of various cultures and customs. God created the world as a collage of various colors, hues, “nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues” (Rev. 7:9-10). For us to live and operate within our own racial enclave is certainly against the spirit of New Testament Christianity. One of the things I am very proud of about City Harvest Church is that our membership is made up of 24 different nationalities (based on a 2007 internal survey), and within them a further multiplied variety of ethnic races. This racial mix enriches us and gives us a more global outlook as a community.

PM: [In a multi-religious society, we] need good sense and tolerance by all sides, and a willingness to give and take. Otherwise whatever the rules, there will be no end of possible causes of friction—noise, parking, joss sticks, stray ashes, dog hair, etc.

We have been saying for years that God expects His people to thrive and prosper even as they mingle with people of different faiths. A good example is Jeremiah 29, when the Jews were in exile in Babylon. The Babylonians had thousands of gods that its citizens worshiped and revered, with religious values that were diametrically opposed to that of the Jews. Yet, God instructed His people,

“Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you will have peace” (Jer. 29:5-7). They were to put down their roots, establish businesses and profit from them. They were to assimilate themselves fully into the culture by raising their families, to increase and not diminish in their presence and contribution to the society. They were not to be antagonistic as a community but to seek the peace and prosperity of the world God had placed them in, knowing that if their city prospered, they too would prosper. It was precisely in that setting of a multi-religious culture that God promised His people, “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope” (29:11). This is a promise to all Christians who are living in this present world. In fact, our greatest value to God is right here in our society, not when we get to heaven. Truth be told, heaven is just a temporary holding place for us before we return to earth to rule and reign with Christ. Like the Bible heroes Joseph, Daniel and Esther, we need to adopt a non-antagonistic stance toward our multi-religious world. Relationship precedes ministry. In our interface with people of different faiths, the central issue is always one of trust. Do non-Christians trust us enough for us to speak truth, wisdom and blessing into their lives? The PM talked about “noise, parking, joss sticks, stray ashes, dog hair, etc.” Let us ensure that our weekly cell group meetings are not a constant source of noise pollution and nuisance to our neighbors. Let us not park indiscriminately (or illegally) when we come for church gatherings. Let us live the words of Jesus Christ to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39). May our neighborliness and consideration be evident to all. PM: In itself, there is nothing wrong with people becoming more religious. Religion is a positive force in human societies. It provides spiritual strength, guidance, solace and a sense of purpose to many, especially in our fast-changing and uncertain world. But stronger religious fervor can have side effects which must be managed carefully, particularly in a multi-religious society. [For example:] Aggressive proselytization: pushing one’s religion on others, causing nuisance and offence ... the distribution of Christian tracts with contents that are offensive to other faiths ... Groups trying to convert very ill patients in hospitals. The PM is certainly not against conversion or the sharing of our faith, but he is exhorting us to do it in a civil manner. In our zeal to win others to Christ, we should not be “pushing” our faith on others, “causing nuisance and offence.” I can’t agree with him more. Never once in the Gospels do we find Jesus scolding, shaming or condemning people into believing in Him. If Jesus ever got agitated, it was always to rebuke the religious scribes and Pharisees in the synagogues—people who shared His belief, who had the form but not the substance of the faith. But when it comes to the general public, Jesus was considered a friend to those whose lifestyle and religious beliefs were very different from His (Matt. 11:19, Luke 7:34). He was a natural in befriending, relating and communicating with them. We see the same with Paul when he was in Athens. Though he was in a city whose citizens worshiped many different gods and idols (Acts 17:16), Paul remained gracious and polite in his interaction with the Athenians, even commending them for their religious longing (17:22). Sure, he was uncompromising in his presentation of the gospel, but he did it with great sensitivity, civility and in a non-pressuring manner, allowing his newfound friends to decide for themselves if they wanted to embrace his faith (17:32-34). “Evangelism” is the sharing of good news. It is a good word. This term is even used in secular arenas today. For example, Google has a “chief internet evangelist,” tasked to promote and market the products and services Google is offering. On the other hand, the word “proselytization” evokes a negative connotation. It is the inordinate, overly zealous pushing of one’s religion at the expense of causing offense. In some societies without religious freedom, proselytization is the enforced conversion of the masses by the dominant local religion. It is insensitive and borders on harassment. Personally, I get very upset if someone aggressively tries to push his religious belief upon me or puts down my own Christian beliefs. Just like the indiscriminate touting of commercial products by insensitive salespeople at shopping malls can be irritating, proselytization is a huge turn off to many. The way we grow CHC is not by “selling” the gospel, but by “serving” people. Jesus gives us the New Testament model of effective evangelism in Luke 10. He says that whenever we interface with nonbelievers, we must learn to be gracious, to bless and be encouraging in our words (10:5). We should build a genuine friendship with the people of different faiths, fellowshiping and sharing meals with them (10:7). We must then seek to serve them and meet their practical needs (10:9). And only when their hearts are open to us can we share the gospel of the kingdom of God to them (10:9). The pattern is clear: be gracious, befriend, meet needs, and then when they are open, share the gospel. Again, the underlying principle is clear—relationship precedes ministry. The impersonal, indiscriminate “handbill saturations” done by Singapore churches in the 1980s have never proven to be effective. Instead, it has made a nuisance out of Christians in the community, giving us the image of being an overzealous bunch of religious fanatics. Yes, as Christians, we do believe that people without Christ will go into a godless eternity; but there is always a right time and a right way of sharing the gospel to nonbelievers. When we serve people lovingly and unconditionally with no ulterior motives, the opportunity to evangelize will naturally present itself. PM: Intolerance—not respecting the beliefs of others, or accommodating others who belong to different religions, sometimes even within same families. Children who have converted from their parents’ religion, and decline to fulfill funeral rites of parents, or even stay away from the funerals [is] the ultimate unfilial act. Again, Bible heroes like Joseph, Daniel, Esther and Paul have proven that being with people of different faiths does not “contaminate” their spiritual purity to God. Joseph had a diviner’s cup given to him by the Pharaoh (Gen. 44:5). Daniel worked among the magicians and sorcerers of Babylon (Dan. 4:7-9; 5:11-12). Esther was a beauty queen who lived in the harem of the Persian king (Esther 2). Being with Athenian idol worshipers didn’t mean that Paul had become one himself (Acts 17:16-17). In fact, one of the greatest ways to demonstrate the reality of Christ is by loving people who are radically different from you (John 13:34-35). Loving people means accepting them just the way they are and treating them with respect even when you don’t agree with them. The PM talked about filial piety. Honoring our parents is not only an Asian culture, it is a sacred biblical value. The Fifth Commandment states, “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you” (Deut. 5:16). To stay away from our parents’ or grandparents’ funerals because the rites are unchristian is truly the “ultimate unfilial act.” At moments of grief, as loving Christians, we need to stand with our family and walk with them “through the valley of the shadow of death” (Ps. 23:4). We should “fear no evil” (grieving the Lord, being demonized, etc.) having the confidence that God is with us (23:5). Remember, we are already covered by the blood of Jesus Christ and have the Holy Spirit in us. The trickier part is the fulfilling of funeral rites. This is where we need to be more spiritually discerning because not all portions of a funeral rite are religious or superstitious in nature. Showing honor and respect to the dead doesn’t mean you are worshiping them. Whenever possible, in the non-religious traditions, we should do them in solidarity with our families. PM: Exclusiveness—segregating into separate exclusive circles, and not integrating with those of other faiths. This could be a direct preference to stay within own group or an indirect result of intolerance. Example, preferring not to share meals with others, or disapproving of yoga and taiji practices, because they allegedly contain religious elements. First of all, Jesus tells us to share meals with nonbelievers (Luke 10:7). This should be a nonissue for us Christians. But what about yoga and taiji? Yoga is often associated with Hinduism, and taiji with Taoism. But it is undeniable that the health elements of these physical disciplines are beneficial to the human body. So again, the question lies in whether is there anything religious in them. It all depends on the context they are practiced in and the instructors who teach them. In Singapore, as with many metropolitan cities around the world, yoga and taiji are taught as forms of physical fitness systems in sports gyms, just like aerobics and Pilates, devoid of any superstitious elements. John Calvin (1509-1564), in his Commentary On First Corinthians, teaches that any good contribution by nonbelievers to society, as long as it is free from religious superstition, should be freely employed by Christians for his or her own enjoyment, for the glory of God. I personally know of Spirit-filled pastors in Taiwan and Indonesia who regularly practice qigong. They certainly don’t pray to idols, recite chants, believe in magical powers, or embrace Taoism. And they certainly don’t get possessed by demons. None of the Christian leaders I know who practice yoga and taiji regularly have lost their spiritual consecration to the Lord Jesus Christ. But aren’t the roots of these ancient exercises unchristian or even anti-Christian? Well, if you go by that reasoning, then we shouldn’t even celebrate Christmas with Christmas trees. There is no dispute that the origin of Christmas trees is pagan. The ancient Egyptians decorated their homes with tree branches during the winter solstice as symbols of the afterlife. Heathen Greeks used them to worship their god, Adonia. Pagan Romans decorated their trees during their midwinter festivals in honor of the sun god. In Northern Europe, the ancient Germanic people tied fruit and attached candles to evergreen tree branches in honor of god Woden. (By the way, this is the deity after which Wednesday was named.) In fact, the English Puritans long condemned the use of the Christmas trees, yule logs, hollies, mistletoes, etc. Oliver Cromwell preached against “the heathen traditions” of Christmas carols, decorated trees and any joyful expression that desecrated “that sacred event.” Yet, over the years, the Christmas tree has been “de-idolized” to become a major Christian symbol celebrating the birth of Christ. To people everywhere, it is a symbol of hope for the New Year and the future return of warmth to the earth. Churches today have “singing Christmas trees” and carols are sung to herald the birth of Christ. What originated as something totally unchristian has become very Christian over time. Titus 1:15 says, “To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.” Don’t do anything you are uncomfortable with in your heart. But at the same time, don’t condemn others who do not share your personal preferences or convictions, or think of them as lesser followers of Christ than you. PM: All groups must exercise tolerance and restraint. Christians cannot expect Singapore to be a Christian society, ditto Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and other groups. Many faiths share this island. Each has different teachings and practices. Rules which apply only to one group cannot be made into laws that apply to everyone. Muslims do not drink alcohol, but alcohol is not banned; ditto gambling, which several religions disapprove of. All must adopt “live and let live” as our guiding principle ... Secondly, religion must stay separate from politics ... Third, Government must remain secular. Government authority derives from the mandate of the people. Laws are not based on divine authority, but enacted by Parliament based on the public interest. The Bible teaches repeatedly about the “royal law” (James 2:8), commonly known as the Golden Rule: treat others in the same manner you wish to be treated yourself. I often ask myself, as a Christian, if I live in a state whose dominant religion is say, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Mormonism, do I want the values of those religions to be legislated as laws and imposed upon me? Definitely not. Even as a lover of the Holy Scripture, do I want the ceremonial, dietary and civil laws of Old Testament Judaism to be imposed on me? Definitely not. Now, putting myself in the shoes of the adherents of other faiths, how would they feel if they hear us spewing rhetoric about a Christian state where biblical commandments are enforced as law to all? I am sure the reaction would not be dissimilar to mine if the table is turned. Look, even among the body of Christ we can’t all agree to the style and philosophy of ministry. If we have a Christian government seeking to establish a Christian state, whose denominational doctrine are we going to follow? Anglican? Baptist? Assemblies of God? Roman Catholic? Church of Christ? I shudder just to think of the amount of religious legalism that would be mandated upon Faith-Charismatic, contemporary churches if that happens. Is it God’s will to have a Christian geopolitical state in this dispensation? I doubt it. Even after the resurrection, the ever zealous disciples asked Jesus, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” To that, Jesus answered, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority” (Acts 1:6-7). Looking at the Holy Scripture, that is not going to happen anytime soon in this dispensation. The beauty of a democracy is that human rights and freedom can be pursued for the common good of all. I believe in the separation of religion and politics. Christianity is a freewill religion. I wouldn’t want our commandments to be enforced on others who don’t follow the teachings of Christ. As much as he was persecuted for his faith, Paul didn’t advocate the overthrow of the oppressive Roman government. Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority. (Rom. 13:1-7) Paul endorsed the secular state of Rome even with Nero Caesar on the throne. Paul teaches that we should submit to secular laws, pay taxes, respect and honor the political leaders in authority, even if they are secular in nature. In fact, Paul wants us to regularly pray for them. Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence (1 Tim. 2:1-2). When a secular state guarantees “The Four Freedoms” enshrined in the United Nation Human Rights Charter: (1) freedom of speech and expression, (2) freedom of worship, (3) freedom from poverty and lack, and (4) freedom from fear, the gospel can thrive in that society. I certainly wouldn’t want any government to legislate what I should believe, and how I should worship or carry out my faith. I greatly doubt that the unchurched public would appreciate us forcing them to embrace our spiritual convictions either. Let us continue to keep religion and politics separate as much as possible. PM: [Concerning the recent AWARE controversy:] On homosexuality policy or sexuality education in schools, there can be strong differences in view; but government’s position on these issues is clear. My position on this hot button issue is this: gay or straight, heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, we want to introduce everyone to the love of Jesus Christ. But how are they going to encounter that if gays and lesbians perceive the Church as hostile toward their community? As the shepherd over my flock, I don’t want my members exposed to any unwelcome, predatory sexual advances made by anyone—be that person straight or gay. But if he or she doesn’t pose a direct, negative influence over the congregation, we should indeed adopt a “live and let live” attitude. We are all sinners saved by grace. I want City Harvest Church to focus on the issue of salvation, not sexual orientation. Once someone is saved, I trust the Word of God and the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth and sanctification. PM: Hence, we also invited religious leaders to be here with us tonight. Help your flocks to understand our limitations and guide them to practise their faith taking our context into account. Please teach them accommodation, as this is what all religions preach. I look forward to religious communities continuing to do good for Singapore. “Tolerance,” “accommodation,” “mutual respect” and “being accepting” are all buzzwords of City Harvest Church. These are not foreign or new concepts to us. These are the values of new covenant Christianity. This is how we have always run CHC. They are an integral part of our DNA. In the last 20 years, we have grown our church by loving and serving people, not by knocking down other races, religions or communities. Let us continue to stay engaged to our culture as the salt and light of the earth (Matt. 5:13-16), promoting the common good for all.

What City Harvest Church Is All About

This is the 20-minute message I shared on August 2, 2009, at the second 20th Anniversary service held at the Singapore Indoor Stadium.

What an awesome thing it is for us to be celebrating our 20th Anniversary as a church. Let’s face it, to have come through all these years, against incredible odds, is nothing short of a miracle.

On May 7, 1989, when we started our church, I was only 24 years old, going on to 25. With a handful of teenagers, we had our first gathering in an office space at Peace Center. We had no money, no assets, no financial supporters. All we had was a simple faith in God, and in the dream that He had given to us—that we will raise up a new generation of believers who will take Asia by storm.

When I was a kid, I used to hear sermons on revival. Elderly missionaries, who had witnessed revivals, would reminisce of how when the move of God comes, there will be signs, wonders and miracles. But more than that, people will receive Jesus Christ by the hundreds and thousands. Those elderly preachers would give prophecy after prophecy that a huge revival was coming to Singapore, making us the Antioch of the East—a great mission base for the gospel in the region.

We were admonished to get ourselves equipped in the Word and spiritual things, because when revival hits, we are going to be so busy winning the lost, healing the sick, casting out demons, and making disciples of the new converts. To only start preparing then would be too late. We had to start now. As a kid, those sermons fascinated and consumed me.

As I dreamed of revival, the Lord told me four simple things I have to build my life around. First of all, I must make prayer a way of life. Coupled with prayer, I must learn to fast to weaken my fleshly nature and become more alive in the spirit. Thirdly, I must give, especially my tithes and offerings, and enter into the rhythm of sowing and reaping. Most of all, my whole life must be laid down as a living sacrifice unto the Lord.

Unbeknown to me, the Lord was also speaking to a young teenage girl by the name of Sun. As she grew in her passion for God, one day Sun prayed, “Lord Jesus, I give You all of me, in exchange for all of You.”

A common dream was born in the two of us. We shared a faith in the possibility of a new kind of church. A church with a strong, tangible presence and power of the Holy Spirit, with members of passionate spiritual convictions, but tolerant, accepting and loving of people—even if they were radically different from us. And no one was going to despise our youth (1 Tim. 4:12), even though we were often looked down upon for our youthful zeal and enthusiasm.

But as I stand here today, I know that the story of my wife and I is just part of a larger City Harvest story. I owe a debt to all the pioneers who have made tremendous sacrifices—their tears, sweat and blood—they have given their lives to make this story possible.

Today, we gather to affirm the greatness of our God. Not because of the size of our congregation, or the assets we have accumulated, or the number of ministries and affiliate churches we now have. We thank God for entrusting us with an awesome vision: “To build a church with a strong spiritual atmosphere of faith and purity, where every member is released into ministry, discipled in the Great Commandment, to fulfill the Great Commission.”

This is the DNA of City Harvest—loving God wholeheartedly, and loving people fervently. A love for God’s Word. A love for prayer, praise and worship. A love for the spiritual gifts and ministry of the Holy Spirit. We have faith that God is a good God, that as we seek His kingdom and righteousness first, He will add all things back to us (Matt. 6:33). He will provide for our families. Our careers and businesses will prosper and be successful. Our children will grow up to be happy, godly and excellent. Most of all, the destiny of our lives will come to pass. We shall be the head and not the tail, above and not beneath, blessed in our coming in and blessed in our going out (Deut. 28:6, 13).

As with all things great, we face challenges as we seek to live out our dream. These challenges often come in two fronts: legalism from the ultraconservatives, and antinomianism (which is the rejection of morality) among the ultra-liberals. The ultraconservatives feel that we are too worldly; the ultra-liberals feel that we are too driven by our vision, that we work too hard.

Now, this is nothing new. Jesus Christ Himself had to resist the narrow-mindedness of ultraconservative Pharisees. But at the same time, He also warns against ultra-liberals who seek to destroy and reject the law of God. Jesus says that the abounding of lawlessness will cause the love of many to grow cold (Matt. 24:12).

Paul himself cautions us of both extremes. He writes the book of Galatians to loose the church from all the do’s and don’ts of manmade rules and regulations. Paul says, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). Then turning to those who embrace “cheap grace,” Paul teaches in the book of Romans, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Rom. 6:1-2).

If we shouldn’t veer to the far right of legalism and the far left of antinomianism, how then shall we live? Well, balance is always the key of life. In Ecclesiastes, the Bible tells us that being “overly righteous” and “overly wicked” will lead to self-destruction (Eccl. 7:16-17), that “anyone who fears God will avoid both extremes” (Eccl. 7:18 NLT).

Now, this is easier said than done. As I minister around the world, I see so many good Christians who have come out of the bondage of sin, and they sincerely believe that to protect the next generation, they should now monitor the behavior of their followers with strict, enforced codes of morality. At the same time, I see others who have come out of churches that are rigid and driven. Today, they are tired, burned out and dry. As a reaction to their demanding, legalistic upbringing, they are casting away the moral law of the Ten Commandments and basic discipleship, throwing away the ancient landmarks that have grounded their faith.

Yet, most believers I have met just want to live a good, normal Christian life. They have not enrolled into a theological seminary to debate on doctrines. Instead, they join churches hoping to have their needs met and at the same time, that will help them grow spiritually in God. The Church should be a family where they can trust their pastors and leadership to lead them into God’s purposes for their lives.

It is tough enough facing the challenges of daily living. People don’t want to come to services each week only to hear sermons that are negative and condemning, or to be constantly reminded that they don’t measure up to the standards of God, or that of the Church. Neither do they want to continue living an immoral life. They know they are sinners saved by grace. And having received that divine grace, they want to overcome their sinful habits and character flaws, be better people, and live lives that are pleasing to God.

In City Harvest, we offer that choice. We seek to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind. We want to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:37-39). We believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives ... God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16 NLT). And because we love Jesus, we keep His commandments (John 14:15)—especially the Ten Commandments.

We love the presence and power of the Holy Spirit—that as we walk in the Spirit, we shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). Through the Holy Spirit, we now lean on that grace of God to win the lost, grow the church, and do missions all over the world.

So yes, we are conservative but not ultraconservative. At the same time, we are liberal but not ultra-liberal. Sure, in absolutes, we want to be absolute. But in non-absolutes, we allow for the freedom of personal convictions and give space to the Holy Spirit to lead every Christian individually.

We believe that Jesus has come, not only to give us a new birth in our spirit, or to heal our physical body, He has come to redeem our soul. And this is what separates us from the birds, the fish, and the beasts of the field. The moment God breathed into Adam, man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7 KJV). Our soul is who we really are. Jesus has come to liberate our soul and fill it with love, esteem, knowledge, beauty and freedom. Without those things, we may be religious, but still live a very empty and meaningless life—a soulless existence.

And because God is a very creative God, we glorify Him as we seek to be innovative, colorful, contemporary and progressive in the way we live and do ministry. In that quest for creativity, we seek to provide loving answers to the many questions society is asking.

Take Kenny Low for example. As a teenager, Kenny was touched by the Lord. He was thinking of serving God in a full-time capacity as a pastor, a preacher or a missionary. But Kenny is more gifted in education and street dancing. As a dancer, Kenny has performed with pop-stars like M.C. Hammer. So he set up O School as a means to train and befriend other street dancers. Today, O School has become the premier dance school in Singapore that trains 800 student-dancers per week.

Kenny then enrolled into a postgraduate program and completed his Master of Education. He opened CHEC as a private school that offers early school-leavers a second chance at their GCE O Level Exams. Many of these school-leavers come from lower income families. Kenny uses the profits generated from his dance school to finance the tuition of the poorer students. Over the years, his innovative efforts have bore fruits that gained him national recognition. Two years ago, Kenny Low was given the 2007 Schwab Social Entrepreneur of the Year Award for using his creativity to solve social problems among young people.

Like Kenny, we recognize that our secular vocation in the marketplace is a calling from God. For too long, the Church worldwide has been preaching separation, but practicing isolation. There is such a disconnect between the Church and the world Jesus wants us to reach. We have been looked upon as prudish and alarmist, constantly spreading unnecessary fear and warnings of danger, capable of only reaching out to the simple and naive.

I believe God has raised up City Harvest Church to change that perception. While we live in a broken-down world, I don’t believe in keeping Christians naive and ignorant of the harsh realities of society. I don’t ever want City Harvest to be so isolated and sanitized that we become out of touch with the world. We want to be a tolerant, accepting and gracious people. We want to identify with their pains, brokenness and struggles. We want to give hope to the hopeless, and peace to the restless, believing that value can be added to those whom are considered worthless. We are not antagonistic to society, or its popular culture. On the contrary, we seek to engage pop culture fully as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16).

Every one, two hundred years, God raises up ministries to remind the body of Christ of its responsibility to the Cultural Mandate. In these early days of the 21st century, the lot has fallen upon us. Not only must we focus on our faith and families, we must engage the marketplace of business, education, government, arts and entertainment, and the mass media. And this is our destiny, not just to preach the message but to be that message.

In a sense, we are an enigma to many. To the conservatives who label us as “worldly”, they can’t fault the spiritual disciplines they see in our members. We diligently study the Word, pray and fast, move in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, win the lost, and plant churches all around the world―often more than those conservatives themselves. To the ultra-liberals who label us as “narrow-minded”, our members are colorful, artistic, fashionable, ultra-current and sophisticated―often more than those liberals themselves.

The Bible says, “For a great and effective door has opened to me, and there are many adversaries” (1 Cor. 16:9). Jesus tells us to pray and bless our enemies (Matt. 5:44). That means that there will be enemies as we forge ahead. Opposition may come through principalities and powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual hosts of wickedness—forces that are demonic in nature (Eph. 6:12). Opposition may come through those who are anti-Christians or anti-Church. But most of the time, opposition will come from religious believers who are against our way of life and the freedom we enjoy in Christ. They want to keep us locked up in the little box of religious correctness.

I am never worried of the enemies without. They may inflict some pain but they can’t stop us. In the last 20 years we have gone through many trials, testings and tribulation―for me, for my wife, and for all of us. Yet, in Christ Jesus, we have overcome them all. We have grown bigger and stronger.

What I am more worried of is the enemy within. Can we continue to keep our unity and focus as one people? The place of agreement is the place of power. We never have a church split because we have never allowed internal strife and disagreement to fester. Can we stay totally united in carrying out the Great Commandment, the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate for years and years to come? I believe we can.

To fulfill the purposes of God for our lives and the church, we must become even more loving, more giving, and spiritually bigger on the inside. But for us to grow larger, we must care even more for others.

If there is a child that is abused and neglected, who can’t read or write, whether in Singapore, Indonesia, India or China, that matters to me, even if it is not my child.

If there is a senior citizen somewhere who is abandoned, that makes my life poorer, even if it is not my grandparent.

If there is a person somewhere facing pain and brokenness, because of a natural disaster, a civil war, or simply because that person is marginalized by society, we have to do something.

I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. And that is what makes City Harvest Church special and unique. Yes, we want to pursue our individual dreams, but yet we come together as one spiritual family to meet the dreams of others. Ultimately, we want to proclaim the gospel of truth that people need the Lord. Whether you are rich or poor, educated or illiterate, able or disabled, gay or straight, young or old, we proclaim that Jesus Christ loves you and He is still the answer for our world today.

In the end, that is what City Harvest is all about―a place where dreams are realized and success is celebrated. This is our place and moment in history: to demonstrate a growing church that is passionate for Jesus, yet relevant to society, caring for the broken and marginalized. A church with a “holy worldliness.” That means holy disciplines that make us the people of God, but a worldly sophistication that makes us relatable to the world.

Today, we have a chance not just to represent Christ but to re-present Him in the 21st century. This is our calling. This is our destiny. This is our dream. A new brighter day has dawned for the body of Christ, and we are all part of it.

Finally, today we gather to affirm the goodness of God. For Sun and I, it is a great privilege to serve the Lord Jesus. But beyond all that we have done and can ever do, my prayer as your pastor, is that we will love God more each day. 20 years ago when we had nothing, He has already loved us and called us His own―long before we have church growth, or big buildings, or fame or influence. And He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8). His love for us never changes.

As I stand here in this awesome crowd, I am fully convinced of one thing: even if all these didn’t happen, God still loves me for who I am. Even if all these didn’t happen, God still loves you for who you are.

In 20 years, we have all grown a little older, and hopefully a little wiser. I’m sure we have made mistakes and tasted failures, yet God is still faithful. And He is still as excited about us as the first time we met Him. Whether it is at 41A Amber Road, or at Duke Hotel, Bible House, Hephzibah, Wold Trade Center, Westin Hotel, Hollywood Theater, Jesus is still very much in love with you—passionately, deeply in love with you.

On this 20th Anniversary, why don’t we make a decision to love Him back even more every single day? Shall we do that? Shall we, once again, live to love Him more each day?

Postmodernism: A Balanced Approach

Postmodernism is a period of thought and ideology that comes after the Modern Era. Modernity is considered to be a period of thought in Europe that was developed out of the Renaissance (14th-17th century) and thrived in the Enlightenment (17th-19th century). It was a time of significant development in the fields of science, politics, warfare and technology. Postmodernism is a reaction to that period. By definition, postmodernism literally means “after modernity.” Today, society at large is facing a surge toward greater postmodernist thinking, whether it realizes it or not.

Modernism, as an ideology, represents a rationalization and categorization of the social world. In the modern worldview, everything in life can, and should, be interpreted rationally. Science and logic have attained such preeminence in all public discourses that everything must be explained through their lenses. All that is unscientific must be rejected. According to the modern worldview, science and faith can never mix since the latter deals with the realm of the unexplainable. Because knowledge and intelligence are inordinately exalted, modernists invariably become elitist in their categorization of society. An example is Adolf Hitler who believed in the absolute supremacy of the Aryan race over all other races. Six million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust because in Hitler’s “scientific analysis,” they didn’t deserve a place in the civilized world. Postmodernism, on the other hand, challenges those presuppositions and beliefs of the Modern Age. It seeks to radically reinterpret what is currently classified as generally accepted knowledge.

To a postmodernist, concepts such as right and wrong, good and bad, or what is true and false are not absolutes but changeable from culture to culture, and situation to situation. As such, postmodernism represents cultural and ethical relativism regarding truth, reality, reason, value, linguistic meaning, art, architecture, and every other form of social life. The dogmatist, or anyone who believes in an ultimate truth, is considered abhorrent and dangerous.As a worldview, postmodernism detests the stereotyping of social classes according to sex, race, age, etc. In reaction to what it perceives as the snooty prejudice of the modernists, it appreciates and especially empathizes with the marginalized. It rejects the chauvinism and oppression exerted by any gender, group or cause over others (white vs. black, men vs. women, rich vs. poor, educated vs. illiterate, able vs. disabled, religious vs. nonreligious, etc.). It seeks to champion the plight of the growing population of those socially marginalized or ostracized.Postmodernism is most widely accepted and respected within the architectural framework. Take the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao in Spain, designed by the renowned architect, Frank Gehry. Instead of designing the building in a straightforward and logical scheme, Gehry wanted to challenge the prevalent accepted principles of architecture. There is no straight line in the building because every wall is curved. Every angle you look from gives you a new perspective of the building. No two photographs of the Guggenheim ever look the same. And because it is sited by a river, the titanium façade reflects various shades of color throughout the day. The result of all these is that no one can lay claim to an absolute image of the museum. It is relative to the viewing position and the time of the day. With its absence of visual absolutes, the Guggenheim is considered an embodiment of the concept of postmodernism.
The concept of postmodernism is also expressed in the realm of art. This is especially true in the case of an early 20th-century art movement known as Dada, which promoted the concepts of questioning previously established norms in art. Although it affected literature, theater and graphic design, the movement is most highly recognized for its impact in drastically challenging the fundamental precepts of fine art. A piece of art that exemplifies its concept is Fountain by a prominent Dadaist artist of that time, Marcel Duchamp.
Fountain is simply a common human waste receptacle. To a modernist, the receptacle is merely a functional, scientific instrument to dispose waste. Taking an object that is generally considered filthy and worthless, Duchamp converted it into an expensive art piece. He instilled value to an object most would consider valueless. Duchamp wanted to prove a point: by fabricating art and getting society to regard it as meaningful, we can increase its worth and value. This encapsulates the significant difference between a postmodernist and modernist society. While modernists place a greater value on the intrinsic, postmodernists place a greater value on the extrinsic. With his art piece, Duchamp showed that in a postmodern world, truth is no longer dependent on its intrinsic value (a common, filthy receptacle); it depends extrinsically on how society defines it (an expensive piece of fine art).As with any ideological system or ism, there are positive and negative aspects we can glean from postmodernism:Positive Aspects of Postmodernism

1.	Because postmodernism has a disdain for what it sees as the arrogant absoluteness of science and logic, it makes room for the possibility of faith and the supernatural. Science and faith can coexist.
2.	Postmodernism is empathetic toward the marginalized and the oppressed, believing that value can be added to those whom may be considered worthless. It is in this context that more pastors and church leaders today are beginning to consider themselves as “postmodern Christians.” (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/november13/7.74.html)
3.	It allows a greater tolerance between beliefs, and potentially opens avenues for the Great Commission through a greater love and acceptance for non-Christians.
4.	It allows for freedom of opinion in one’s perspectives regarding “truths” that are relative or non-absolute. It makes one less judgmental and condemning toward behaviors, styles and personal preferences that may be less conventional. It is the antidote to self-righteous Pharisaism.
5.	It allows for greater empathy toward a society that is increasingly pluralistic, challenging us not to be out of touch with how people think and function today.
6.	The concepts of control, power and certainty are replaced with love, stewardship and faith.
7.	Postmodernism allows for more openness to spiritual and emotional truths, and epistemology (theory of knowledge) that goes beyond the constraints of science, logic and reason.
Negative Aspects of Postmodernism
1.	Postmodernism is skeptical regarding all claims of truth. Taken to an extreme, it is hostile toward those who claim to know absolute truths. Postmodernists can become strongly opposed to those who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) argues that those who accept the Judeo-Christian ethical system, which he calls a “slave morality,” suffer from weak and fearful personalities. A different and stronger sort of person, he says, would reject this ethic and create his own values.
2.	Postmodernism views all claims to knowledge as equally valid, regardless of the obvious preposterousness in certain claims (for example, “I do not exist”).
3.	Postmodernism views the individual solely as a construct of society. As such, the responsibility of the individual to live a life according the Word of God is diminished.
4.	A person who questions other beliefs with regards to factuality is considered intolerant.
5.	Propositional truth, or truth that is discovered, is considered inexistent. Instead, only a society’s position, not an individual’s, is considered valid. But what if slavery, genocide, or the physical abuse of women are condoned and considered “right” by the standards of a society? Does it make them right? Without an objective standard to morality, cultural and ethical relativism can lead to horrendous consequences in a society.
6.	Postmodernists often view progress, be it scientific, educational, political, etc., as detrimental. Progress equates to the domination of the marginal.
7.	Tolerance toward every belief, except toward those who feel that their beliefs are more significant than others. The paradox here is that in their zeal to promote tolerance, postmodernists themselves can become very intolerant of those who don’t share their own postmodern views.
The Christian Reaction/Response to Postmodernism
As with most cases, Christians must take a moderate stance toward postmodernism, absorbing the positive aspects while rejecting the negative. We don’t subscribe to the ideology that individuals are merely a product of society alone, or that truths should be determined by a collective group of individuals. And while opinions are important, we do hold on to the absolutes found in the Holy Scripture, and do not waver in conviction when it comes to the moral law and the basic tenets of our faith.
However, having said that, Christians have the tendency to veer toward Pharisaism and legalism. Self-righteous conservatism seeks to keep the Church isolated, sanitized and out of touch with contemporary society. My own position on this is: on matters that are absolute (Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, etc.), let us be absolute. But on matters that are non-absolute (wine-drinking, tattooing, pop culture, etc.), let us allow for freedom that is in Jesus Christ (Gal. 5:1).
A major contribution of postmodernism is the newfound appreciation toward the marginalized, and those previously considered insignificant. This is totally in line with the love God has toward the poor, needy, broken and abused (Is. 58:10, Luke 4:18-19, James 2:14-17).
Postmodernism should provoke those who are afraid of embracing a “social gospel” to have a greater relationship, respect and ministry with the hurting and wounded in the world. Tolerance is not an evil word. As Christians, we must hold on to the moral conviction of God’s Word in our hearts. But at the same time, we should be more gracious and accepting of those whose beliefs are different from ours. Balance is the key.
Navigating Within a Pluralistic Society
Inherent in a postmodernist society is the concept of pluralism: there are vast arrays of faiths and beliefs that people adhere to. There are three conceptual approaches a Christian may assume toward people who believe in other faiths.
1. Exclusivism. This is based on the idea that “I’m right, you’re wrong”, a stance of denunciation toward other people’s beliefs. The Apostle Paul understood that he did not have to disassemble others’ beliefs through criticism and condemnation in order for him to speak of his own faith. Instead, Paul sought to be as respectful and relatable to his audience in his effort to win them to Christ (Acts 17:22-34). 2. Universalism. This can be summarized by the statement, “As long as you are sincere, then anything you believe in is true.” This is the polar opposite of exclusivism, and a popular stance of extreme postmodernists. The underlying problem that makes this position nonsensical is the fact that every religion or belief presents its own claims to absolute truths. Universalism takes tolerance to the extreme, and although it may initially seem respectable, it leads to a dead end in any ministry effort. 3. Inclusivism. “We believe we are right, but we are open to discuss and include other ways of thinking in our discussions.” (Inclusivism is not to be confused with the heretical “gospel of inclusion.”) The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “inclusivism” as “an intention or policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as the handicapped, learning-disabled, or racial and sexual minorities.” This is the approach we must take to bring the love of God to an increasingly critical and sophisticated audience of the 21st century. So, back to the question: is City Harvest a postmodern church? My answer is both No and Yes. No, in the sense that we do believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God. We do live by the Ten Commandments and the basic tenets of our Christian faith as outlined in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc. But, yes, in the sense that we do seek to be a tolerant, accepting and gracious people. We love the marginalized and the oppressed, believing that value can be added to those whom are considered worthless. We are not antagonistic to society or its popular culture, but seek to engage it in its entirety as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16). While we live in a broken-down, perverted world, I do not believe in keeping Christians naïve and ignorant of the harsh realities of society. Again, in absolutes, we must be absolute. But in non-absolutes, we should allow the freedom of personal preferences and give space to the Holy Spirit to lead every Christian individually. I don’t ever want City Harvest Church to be so isolated and sanitized that we become out of touch with the world. Rather, I want to educate and empower my generation to be as creative and colorful as possible, living a dynamic, sophisticated, anointed life in obedience to Christ and the cause of His kingdom.

Is Plastic Surgery a Matter of Vanity?

Plastic surgery is a branch of surgery that deals with the remodeling of any portion of the human body that has been damaged or deformed. The word “plastic” is derived from the Greek word plastikos, which means “to mold.” Hence, it is the remolding and reshaping of body tissues—bone, fat, muscle, cartilage, and skin. It is largely concerned with the reconstructive work of the face and exposed parts of the body.
According to the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, plastic surgery is one of the oldest forms of surgery practiced. Nose-reconstruction operations were performed in ancient India as early as 2,000 BC, when amputation of the nose was a form of punishment.
Around 600 BC, ancient Sanskrit records an Indian surgeon named Sushruta, performing surgical reconstruction of the noses and ears of men who had lost them in war. Skin from one’s cheek or forehead would be removed and sewed onto damaged areas. To this day, this procedure is still referred to as the “Indian Method of Rhinoplasty.”
In ancient Rome, around 100 BC, plastic surgery became an important manner wherein people could better fit into the Roman society. During that time, the aesthetics of the human body was explored heavily in art and literature. Amalgamated with the fact that people bathed in public Roman baths, any abnormality was considered very shameful. A popular operation was the removal of scars from one’s back. These scars were considered dishonorable because they indirectly suggested that a person had turned his back from the field of battle or, worse still, had been “whipped like a slave.”
During the Renaissance, Italian physician, Gasparo Tagliacozzi (1546-1599), became the “father of modern plastic surgery.” In his plastic surgery textbook entitled De Curtorum Chirugiau (1597), he recorded the importance of plastic surgery due to the frequency of fights between men and the emergence of disfiguring diseases.
In modern times, war has become the sole most significant factor in shaping the practice of plastic surgery today. World War I saw hundreds of thousands of young men who suffered severe facial injuries in combat. This resulted in the necessity for doctors to quickly research innovative ways to reshape the faces of soldiers who had experienced severe deformity. From the 1960s, plastic surgery became fully integrated into the medical establishment and has resulted in greater acceptance, both socially and culturally.
There are three branches of plastic surgery:
1.	Plastic Surgery: Correction of disfigurement. This is plastic surgery in its purest form—to fix the malformation that may have occurred congenitally (at birth), such as children born with cleft palates or cleft lips.
2.	Reconstructive Surgery: Restoration of impaired function. This is the restoration of function to a damaged body part and the rebuilding of normal physical contours, like the nose, jaw, ears, or fingers, that are missing or disfigured. The large number of car accidents in modern times has resulted in many patients requiring reconstructive surgery of the face. Cancer patients who have undergone treatment with regards to the face and neck areas may also need reconstructive surgery. Such procedure requires complex technical skills for the grafting of tendons and the transfer of muscles to restore usefulness to the disabled part.
3.	Cosmetic Surgery: Improvement of physical appearance. This is aesthetic surgery performed solely to improve appearances in otherwise healthy persons, to remove blemishes or to change contours. It is also often needed after disfigurement caused by burns, removal of tumors, and reconstructive work.
	According to a 2007 survey conducted by the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 46 percent of all cosmetic procedures were done by people aged 35 to 50. Ninety-one percent of them were women. The top five procedures of men and women are as follow:
Ranking Men Women 1 Liposuction Breast augmentation 2 Eyelid surgery Liposuction 3 Rhinoplasty Eyelid surgery 4 “Breast” reduction Abdominoplasty 5 Hair transplantation Breast reduction
There are many positive psychological benefits of plastic surgery. The increased functionality of physical organs improves one’s quality of life. If one is born with congenital defects such as a cleft palate, facial birthmarks, or cross eyes (strabismus), cosmetic surgery can correct the defect and restore appearance to what it should have been. If a person has been victimized by an accident resulting in unsightly scars and deformities, plastic surgery can remove the stigma associated with such defects and allow the person to feel “normal” again.
One must not underestimate the psychological benefits in the correction of a perceived physical imperfection, for its own sake, on an individual. The enhanced physical appearance coupled with greater social acceptance could greatly increase the sense of self-worth for the person. For those who are very conscientious about their appearance, to the point of having damaging psychological disorders, cosmetic surgery, with the addition of proper counseling, can help them obtain the confidence they need to live life happily
However, as with any surgical or non-surgical procedure, there are inherent risks in plastic surgery: Risk of procedure going wrong. You may become physically and aesthetically worse off than prior to the surgery. Risk of infections and complications such as puffiness, vomiting, nausea, allergic reaction to anesthesia, contagion, blood loss, blood and fat clotting, accumulation of fluid, permanent damage to nervous and immune systems, scarring, numbness, dangerous body temperature fluctuations, post-operation pain, bruising and swelling, long-term sagging and deformity. Risk of the pain involved and the recovery time being greater and longer than expected. Risk to mental health. Patients who are dissatisfied with surgery may request repeat procedures. “Plastic surgery addicts” may experience severe depression, adjustment issues, family issues, social isolation, and severe anger toward surgeons and nurses. South Korean Hang Mioku became so addicted to plastic surgery that when surgeons refused to conduct additional procedures, she decided to inject cooking oil into her own face. As a result, her face became severely distorted and virtually unrecognizable. Her case is regarded as one of the worst cases related to plastic surgery in modern history.
Are Christians allowed to have plastic surgery, especially those that are cosmetic or aesthetic in nature? Does doing so mean that you are ungrateful to God for the physical attributes He has sovereignly endowed you with? Is such “unnatural” alteration of physical features an expression of fleshly vanity—the excessive pride of one’s personal appearance? I know a pastor in my city with an overactive sweat gland (hyperhidrosis), causing him to have sweaty palms and sweaty feet along with a bad body odor. He felt embarrassed by it and had a thoracic surgery procedure done. Was he being vain? I know an Indonesian church leader with severe drooping of the upper eyelid, a condition known as ptosis. Her pupil was partially covered, blocking the upper part of the visual field. She had corrective surgery done by a plastic surgeon who gave her a beautiful eyelid lift (blepharoplasty). Was she being vain? I know of several Caucasian pastors who have had hair transplantations done to cure their hair loss. Their plastic surgeons moved skin containing hair follicles from one part of the body to balding parts. Grafts containing healthy follicles that are genetically resistant to balding are transplanted to bald scalp. Are those pastors being vain? I know of another church leader who had a series of chemical peels to get rid of dark patches of facial birthmarks. Is he being vain? What about the hundreds of people I know who have done LASIK, a laser eye surgery, so that they don’t have to wear eyeglasses? Are they all vain? The Bible makes no specific mention of whether or not plastic surgery is allowable, although its practice was already around from antiquity. If it is an outright sin, there would have been ample opportunities to address it in the Holy Scripture. In such cases where there is no clear restriction, they are not issues of right or wrong, sin or righteousness; they are simply matters of personal preferences. As such, you must go according to how you believe the Holy Spirit is personally leading you. Nonetheless, a common sense approach is needed if you are considering plastic surgery:
1. Risk: Because there are risks in any surgery, you must weigh the risks involved adequately. Is this procedure absolutely necessary? Have you exhausted all options to improve your appearance or contour? Can you achieve the same results by regularly working out in a gym and wise dieting? 2. Cost: Because plastic surgery is expensive, you must ask the question, “Can I afford it? Will this procedure get me into a debt I will struggle to repay?” 3. Physician: It takes at least 11 years of studying and training to be a plastic surgeon. Ask yourself, “Is the doctor I am consulting with board-certified and experienced?” You may need to examine some of his works, and check his track records with other patients. 4. Perception: Society often views reconstructive procedures, such as a cleft lip operation, more favorably than cosmetic surgeries, like say breast augmentation or a nose job. Although often unwarranted, there are some prejudices upon certain procedures. You must ask yourself, “Am I ready to do this even if people may unfairly judge me?” 5. Self-esteem: Our self-esteem is the foundation of life. Will going through this procedure help you feel better about yourself and to function better in your life, marriage, career or ministry? If the answer is yes, then the possibility of plastic surgery should not necessarily be shunned. We must be careful not to judge someone who opts for cosmetic surgery as vain, or loving God less than the one who doesn’t. 6. Emotional void: Many people seek cosmetic surgery to fill up emotional voids within. They already feel ugly about themselves inside, and presume that surgery is the only way for them to receive social approval or attention from others. If that is your motivation, you will be greatly disappointed. No outward alteration of physical features or contours can satisfy the needs of an empty soul. 7. Aging: Even the best plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills cannot stop aging and the tide of time. You must establish specific limits to surgery, as all body parts that are firmed, lifted, and improved upon, will in due course, wrinkle and sag again. The Bible says that ultimately it is your spirit and soul that is most important. When all else fails, remember what 1 Peter 3:4 says: “Rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.”

Do We Need The Ten Commandments?

In Exodus 19, God called Moses up to Mount Sinai and told him that if the children of Israel would obey Him and keep His covenant, they would be His special people. He then gave them “The Law,” which is also commonly known as the “Mosaic Law” or the “law of Moses.” Although the name was attributed to a man, we must be mindful that the One who gave it was God Himself. Moses was merely the “messenger boy.” James 4:12 makes it very clear that there is really only “one Lawgiver”—God.

The law consists of various parts. The most important portion is the Ten Commandments, also known as the “moral law,” as they express the morality, values and character of God. The commandments were engraved on stone tablets and are recorded in Exodus 20: 2-17 and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21. Because there are ten of them, they are also commonly called the “Decalogue” (Gr. dekalogos), which means the “ten words” or “ten pronouncements.”

Traditions differ in the numbering of the Ten Commandments. The standard listing according to Protestant Reformed tradition is as follows:
	I.	You shall have no other gods before Me.
	II.	You shall not make for yourself a carved image.
	III.	You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
	IV.	Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
	V.	Honor your father and your mother.
	VI.	You shall not murder.
	VII.	You shall not commit adultery.
	VIII.	You shall not steal.
	IX.	You shall not bear false witness.
	X.	You shall not covet.

Apart from these commandments, God gave Moses further instructions that governed the ethics and rituals of the Israelites. Augustine (354-430) divided the law of Moses into two parts: the moral and symbolical. For example, “you shall not covet” is a moral law; “you shall circumcise every male on the eighth day” is a symbolical law. To Augustine and the early Church fathers, the moral law of the Ten Commandments is still binding while the symbolical law is no longer binding. Besides circumcision and the sacrifices, Augustine categorizes as symbolical law the tabernacle regulations, the dietary laws, the feasts, etc. Because they are non-binding, he interprets the rules against blended clothing (wool and linen) and the mixed yoke (ox and ass) allegorically.

As always, Scripture must be compared with Scripture to avoid misinterpretation. It is clear that Jesus brought to an end the observance of the symbolical laws by His redemptive accomplishment. The entire sacrificial system and ceremonial washings were “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Heb. 9:10). These symbolical or topological law was “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Heb. 10:1), its regulations were set aside once the realities had arrived in Christ (Heb. 7:18-19, 22). Jesus ushered in the new order that made the ceremonial rituals redundant: “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13).

This moral/symbolical distinction eventually gave way to the more precise three-part analysis first worked out in detail by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas says that the law of Moses is made up of moral, ceremonial and civil precepts. From the days of Aquinas to the Reformation, to our time, the Church has been consistent in teaching that only the moral law is still binding, all ceremonial and civil laws are no longer applicable to believers.

Yet, there is always the vocal minority who feel that since we are in the age of the Gospel, when we are justified by faith alone, the law is now “abolished,” or in theological jargon, “abrogated.”

• In the June 21, 2009 issue of The Age, Cleric Francis McNab, the executive minister at St. Michael’s Uniting Church in Melbourne, Australia, says, “The Ten Commandments is one of the most negative documents ever written.”

• In a recent May 11, 2009 blog entry, a prominent megachurch pastor says, “When you come under the law by trying to keep God’s commandments in order to be blessed, it will lead to death. There will be deadness in your marriage, ministry, health, career.”

The message is clear: the Ten Commandments are unnecessary, oppressive, and maybe even downright evil.

Then there are those who wrongly speculate that the Old Testament teaches “salvation by law” while the New Testament teaches “salvation by grace through faith.” Nothing can be further from the truth. Justifying faith originates in the Old Testament. The phrase, “the just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17), which became the rallying cry of the Reformers in the 16th century, is really a concept that first appears in Habakkuk 2:4, an Old Testament Scripture. In Romans 4, Paul went through extraordinary length to explain that both the greatest Old Testament patriarch, Abraham, and the greatest Old Testament king, David, were themselves saved by faith, not by the works of the law.

This may come as a shock to you, but the whole purpose of the New Testament is to establish the law—the moral law of the Ten Commandments. Jesus says so Himself: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). This statement does not mean that Christ has come to merely fulfill the messianic predictions contained in the old covenant. The Greek for “fulfill” is pleroo which means to expand, establish, strengthen, make firmer and fuller. Jesus wants us to have the true meaning of the law so that our understanding of it is not shallow or erroneous. And He demonstrates that masterfully in the Sermon on the Mount when He broadens and deepens what the commandments really mean when they say “you shall not murder,” or “you shall not commit adultery” (Matt. 5:21, 27).

Like Jesus, Paul says faith and law are not mutually exclusive. One doesn’t invalidate the other. Paul affirms the words of Christ by saying, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31). And how is the law established? It is established “not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:3). Herein lies the difference between the two covenants. In the old covenant, the Ten Commandments was a set of external code written on stone tablets. But in the new covenant, the Holy Spirit writes those commandments in our hearts, and gives us the grace to live them out in our daily lives. This is not an afterthought of God but His original plan for the law from its very inception.

	But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Jer. 31:33).

The New Testament repeatedly confirms this. One such example is:

	For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Heb. 8:10).

This is really what the new covenant is—to have the law written in our hearts. And the way God does that is through the Holy Spirit, who Himself gives us the power to obey them.

	I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them (Ezek. 36:26-27).
	You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart (2 Cor. 3:2-3).

Think about it, if the moral law is unimportant to us in the new covenant, why then would the Holy Spirit even bother to write it into our hearts?

This is the whole argument of Paul when he says, “So now we can obey God’s laws if we follow after the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 8:4 TLB). So in the new covenant, we are still serving the law, but we are serving “in the newness of the Spirit” because we want to, not because we have to! We serve not out of fear because the law is our burdensome master, but out of love because Christ is now our Lord. It is no longer a hope of obedience leading to salvation but rather, salvation leading to obedience.

To confirm their validity, all the Ten Commandments are expounded time and again throughout the epistles:
	Commandment I	1 Corinthians 8:6
	Commandment II	1 John 5:21
	Commandment III	1 Timothy 6:1
	Commandment IV	Hebrew 4:3-11
	Commandment V	Ephesians 6:2
	Commandment VI	1 John 3:15
	Commandment VII	Galatians 5:19
	Commandment VIII	Ephesians 4:28
	Commandment IX	Romans 13:9
	Commandment X	Colossians 3:5

The Reformers made it a point to emphasize the need for the Ten Commandments in Christian growth and discipleship. John Calvin (1509-1564) says that “even the believers have need of the law.” Calvin teaches that the moral law helps the believers in two ways: (a) to make daily progress in doing the will of God, and (b) to encourage the believer how to live a life of obedience. Calvin quotes Psalm 1:2 that a Christian’s “delight is in the law of the Lord” and Psalm 19:7 that “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546), the original pioneer of the Reformation, fought with those who despised the Ten Commandments. He coined the term, “antinomianism,” which the Oxford Dictionary defines as “a belief that Christians are released by grace from obeying moral laws.” This was the first major theological controversy in Protestant history. In 1577, to counter the antinomians who were rubbishing the Ten Commandments, the Lutherans wrote in the Formula of Concord the following statements:

	“Thereafter the Holy Ghost employs the law so as to teach the regenerate from it, and to point out and show them in the Ten Commandments what is ‘the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God’ (Rom. 12:2) and ‘what good works God hath before ordained that they should walk in’ (Eph. 2:10).”

To the Reformers, the Ten Commandments was an absolute necessity for sanctification and discipleship. As such, its validity and importance was repeatedly emphasized in documents like:

• Helvetic Confession of the Reformed Church of Zurich (1566).


• 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1571).


• Irish Articles of Religion of the Church of Ireland (1615).


• Methodist Articles of Religion (1784).


• Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).


• Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Churches (1658).


• Baptist Confession of Philadelphia (1688).


• French Confession of Faith (1559).


• Belgic Confession (1561).


• Scottish Confession of Faith (1559).


• The Wittenberg Confession (16th Century).

As you can see, the Ten Commandments are viewed as vitally important to practically all mainstream, orthodox, Bible-believing churches—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal churches.

The truth be told, supporters of the Ten Commandments are in the abundance. In his June 21, 2009 interview with Seattle Post, Dr. Billy Graham gives his view on why we need the Ten Commandments. Dr. Graham says, “We don’t keep the Ten Commandments in order to be saved; we keep them because we want to please God and bring honor to Him by the way we live. Jesus said, ‘If you love me, you will obey what I command’ (John 14:15).”

Well said. I rest my case.

What’s Up With Masturbation?

The word “masturbation” is thought to have been derived from the Greek word mezea, which means “penises.” It could have also been derived from the Latin words, manus (“hand”) and turbare (“to disturb”). According to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, masturbation is to “give yourself or somebody else sexual pleasure by stroking the genitals, usually to orgasm.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary states that “the stimulation can be performed manually, by other types of bodily contact (short of sexual intercourse), by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods.”

There are archeological records of humans masturbating that go back as far as 6,000 B.C. In the land of Sumer, often known as the “Cradle of Civilization,” the ancient Sumerians believed that masturbation was a technique used to increase a man’s sexual prowess. It was viewed as part of normal activities for daily life, neither to be shunned away from nor considered taboo. The ancient Egyptians viewed masturbation superstitiously while the ancient Greeks were rather casual about it.

At the other end of the spectrum, masturbation was considered illegal in some societies. The 17th century law code of the Puritan colony of New Haven, Connecticut, considered masturbation as a crime punishable by the death penalty. The 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, viewed masturbation as a violation of universal moral law. Until today, the Roman Catholic Church still officially condemns masturbation as a mortal sin.

The American researcher Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956) and others estimated that during the mid-20th century, at least 92% of all males and 70-80% of all females have indulged in masturbation at some point in their lives. European studies show comparable figures to support Kinsey’s research. Kinsey also found that 40% of men and 30% of women in relationships (marriage or dating) masturbate regularly. In his 2005 book, The Sexual Man, Dr. Archibald Hart reveals that 61% of married Christian men masturbate.

The December 10, 2008 issue of The Sun reports that the “Gossard Big M Survey” done a year earlier found that 92% of UK women aged 18-30 masturbate. Two-thirds of women admit to pleasuring themselves three times a week, with women in London finding time for four sessions every seven days. A 2004 study done in Toronto, Canada, found that males begin masturbating as early as 10 years old while some females (6%) may begin before the age of six.

Some of the generally accepted benefits of masturbation include the following: (1) It is a good way of relieving sexual tension that can build up over time, especially for people without partners, or whose partners are not willing or available to have sex. (2) It is a safe sexual alternative for people who wish to avoid pregnancy and the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases. (3) It is necessary when a man must give a semen sample for infertility testing or for sperm donation. (4) It is a standard prescription given by sex therapists to treat sexual dysfunction in an adult, helping a person to experience orgasm (often in women) or to delay orgasm (often in men).

The big question here is: can a Christian masturbate? Is it morally right or wrong? Those who argue against it claim that masturbation is unnatural, and may result in God’s judgment on the body later on in life (in the form of physical ailments). Others claim that it is an irresponsible means to attain sexual satisfaction without the “burden” of commitment. Spiritual giants like C.S. Lewis and John Calvin were both strongly against it.



What about those who are not averse to it? Mark Driscoll, the preaching pastor at the 7,500-member Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, was quoted as having said this in one of his video lectures: “In marriage is it okay for one to masturbate the other? Yes, as long as it promotes oneness between a couple … But if you are someone who masturbates in a nonaddictive, non-lustful, non-pornographic way and you are single, it is not a sin.”

Surprisingly, the conservative evangelical and founder of Focus On The Family, Dr. James Dobson, was reported to have said, “99% of boys do it and the other 1% are lying. If we tell boys it is wrong and that God disapproves, what happens to those who aren’t able to stop? They grow up thinking God hates them or that they are some miserable, shameful, dirty creatures that belong under a rock. Therefore, let them do it.” In his book, Preparing for Adolescence, Dr. Dobson says, “It is my opinion that masturbation is not much of an issue with God.”

What does the Bible say?
The solitary Scripture most opponents of masturbation often quote is Genesis 38:9. It is an account of God judging Onan for spilling his semen onto the ground. Many of the early church saints, like Jerome and Clement of Alexandra, had used this story as an example of why masturbation should be banned. However, a closer, objective study of this passage would show that the context here has nothing to do with masturbation. In the days of the patriarchs, if a man died childless, the custom then was for his brother to take his wife, and the children produced by this second marriage were considered as the children of the first husband, and consequently inherit his possessions and extend his lineage. As such, Onan was supposed to raise up a seed for his deceased brother. Instead of doing that, he took advantage of his sister-in-law, Tamar, for his own sexual gratification, but didn’t want the responsibility to father her a child. God immediately judged Onan for his refusal to raise up an offspring for his brother.

The Bible also talks about “nocturnal emission,” an ejaculation during sleep by a male (Lev. 15:16-17; 22:4; Deut. 23:9-11). Today, we commonly call this a “wet dream,” or a spontaneous orgasm. Whenever they are mentioned in Scripture, it has more to do with Old Testament health and hygiene than what constitutes a sin.

What is my personal opinion regarding masturbation? Theologically, the Scripture is relatively silent about it although its practice stretches back to biblical times. None of the verses above outrightly name masturbation as a sin. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. To me, the act of self-stimulation is worrying only if it leads to the following three problems:
Pornography. Pornography has long been condemned and prohibited in the belief that it depraves and corrupts both minors and adults, and that it leads to the commission of sex crimes. Pornography is often used hand-in-hand with masturbation to stimulate the imagination as well as the genitals. In a Kinsey Institute survey, 72% of the respondents said they used porn to masturbate for physical release.In their award-winning bestseller, Porn Trap, sex therapists, Wendy and Larry Maltz, relate the harmful effects pornography has on an individual:

“A relationship with porn can act like an affair. It can take time and energy away from an existing intimate relationship. People who use porn often operate with the same kind of secrecy and deception as someone having a sexual affair. When a porn user is confronted by a partner, there is often denial, lying and attempts to cover up the wrongdoing. Without realizing it, maintaining a “love affair” with porn can become more important than staying connected to someone in real life. Also, if you use porn regularly, the mental images and scenarios of porn can keep playing in your mind during sex, making it hard to feel connected and intimate with the real person in your life.”

Compulsive Masturbation. A compulsive masturbator may self-pleasure an inordinate number of times a day. The world record is reported to be 36 times over a 24-hour period! However, excessive masturbation can lead to neurochemical imbalances in the body and bring about continual fatigue, concentration and memory losses. Masturbation addiction can also lead to other forms of sex addictions such as:
● Multiple sexual partners
● Consistent use of pornography
● Phone or computer sex (cybersex)
● Prostitution, or use of prostitutes
● Exhibitionism
● Voyeurism (watching others) and/or stalking
● Sexual harassment
● Molestation
● Rape

To test if you have a problem with compulsive masturbation or other sex addictions, try the following Self-Assessment Test from Sex Addicts Anonymous: www.sexaa.org/IsSAAForYou/SelfAssessment.

Resentment in Spouse. When a married partner individually indulges in masturbation, especially when it is done in secrecy, the spouse is no longer the only source of sexual gratification. When one partner feeds his or her sexual appetite with masturbation, leaving the other partner sexually unfulfilled, it could cause feelings of resentment and loss of respect over time. Sexual pleasure involves considering the feelings of your spouse. If one partner is uncomfortable with the fact that the other is masturbating, especially when it is done outside of the couple’s lovemaking, both of you should have a radically honest discussion together. Come to a mutual agreement that both partners are comfortable with and genuinely happy about.

Finally, as with most things that are not explicitly encouraged or prohibited in the Bible, one should only do it if it doesn’t go against the inner peace of God in his or her heart (Col. 3:15).