Scholarship and submitted scholarship

Dr. James White did a Dividing Line podcast on the issue of scholarship, and how true Christian scholarship should be done in submission to the Lordship of Christ. You can watch it as below

Say no to liberal ecumenism

In recent years, we have discovered that the activities of some churches and organisations are harmful to us because these groups violate the laws and regulations of the Chinese government which is neither beneficial to themselves nor to churches in China. These activities range from sending missionaries, conducting training programs in clandestine fashion, setting up denominational churches and tempting Chinese Christians financially to join these churches. These practices destroy the unity of churches in China and generate misunderstandings, as their reports on churches in China can be misleading. [Gao Feng, "Co-operation and Partnership in the Mission of the Church in China," in Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, Church Partnerships in Asia: A Singapore Conversation (CSCA Christianity in Southeast Series; Singapore, Trinity Theological College, 2011), 63]

The emergence of many new denominations, parachurch organizations and Christian sects is challenging because it has created confusion and misunderstanding among churches about a common witness. It wii be imperative for MCC [Myanmar Council of Churches -DHC] to co-operate with Evangelicals, Pentecostals and other small mission bodies to find ways and means to resolve the situation. [Stephen Than Myint Oo, "The Life and Witness of the Church in Myanmar: Past, Present and Future," in Poon, 89]

If there is one thing that irks liberal ecumenists, it is when missionaries that are not approved by them enter into their country and their territory to do church planting. In China, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) churches, the "official" Protestant church, claims to speak for all Protestants in China. That there are millions of Chinese Christians in underground churches who refuse to submit to the TSPM undercuts their claim to ecumeneity of course, but liberal ecumenists, like liberals everywhere, are unconcerned about that inconvenient truth. In their minds, they are the only acceptable church and they represent ALL Christians in their region and/or country, consent of those they "represent" is not important at all!

In the case of Myanmar, evidently such a centralization of sorts (given the huge diversity in Myanmar) had occurred with the formation of the MCC. Just like the TSPM, they claim to speak for all Christians in their country regardless of what the normal people think.

All of such "ecumeneity" exists in most countries around the world. In Singapore, it is the NCCS (National Council of Churches in Singapore), which claims to speak for all Christians in Singapore. But of course, all they speak for are the mainstream denominations where the liberals hare ascendant, or where Evangelicals have capitulated in the matter of church governance and relations. The NCCS for example do not speak for me; I detest their very existence. The liberal ecumenical organizations tolerate at best and promote at worst a false gospel and a false Christ. Their very existence is to function as demonic counterfeits of true Christianity, to snare the unsuspecting and undiscerning away from God into a false religiosity in the name of true religion.

Since the TSPM and evidently the MCC represent the Antichrist in this time, they are not to be regarded as Christian institutions at all. They are irked by missionaries coming in unannounced to create trouble as it were. Well, as long as the missionaries are missionaries who believe in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am all for them coming in and being "unhelpful" or "harmful" to these apostates! Let them "create misunderstanding," because the liberal ecumenical bodies have distorted the true biblical witness, so bringing in a true Christian witness is better than "uniting" around a false witness of heresy. For what has light to do with darkness, God to do with Satan?

Therefore, since the Southeast Asia region (and other regions too) has apostate liberal ecumenical bodies and churches around the region, Christian churches and missionaries should be interested in moving into these area and gain converts even through what those liberals would call "sheep stealing." Whoever attends those liberal churches may be a believer, but they need to be encouraged to attend a true church, while unbelievers within the liberal churches need to be called to repentance. The "churched" are to be targets for evangelism and discipleship as well. Since liberal theology does not save, those who follow it are just as lost as those from other religions. Believers in those churches are Christians despite them being in those churches, not because of it

So say no to liberal ecumenism, and liberalism in general. Have nothing to do with the false religion of liberalism. As John Gresham Machen shows in his book Christianity and Liberalism, Liberalism is another religion altogether, in contrast to biblical Christianity. While I cannot speak definitely of the status of Gao Feng and Stephen Than, both of them have to repent for their wickedness in promoting liberalism and liberal ecumeneity, or face the possibility of an eternity without Christ forever.

On Singapore Church History

I have compiled, edited and re-worked my articles on Singapore Church History. The full article can be read here: On Singapore Church History.

Pietism and Confessionalism

The sort of religion heralded by the revivals of the First Great Awakening is chiefly responsible for the triumph of a utilitarian view of faith. The itinerant evangelists of these revivals, as well as their successors, transformed Christianity from a churchly and routine affair into one that was intense and personal. The conversion experiences marked the beginning of this new form of Christian faith. But it was only the start. True converts were expected to prove the authenticity of their faith through lives that were visibly different from nonbelievers. Indeed, the demand for a clear distinction between the ways of the faithful and those of the world not only propelled many of the social reforms associated with evangelicalism but also provided the foundation for viewing Christianity in practical categories. If faith was supposed to make a difference in all areas of life, not just on Sunday but on every day of the week, it is no wonder that the emphasis in Protestant circles shifted from churchly forms of devotion to ones that should be seen in personal affairs, community life, and national purpose. In other words, the cycle of revivals throughout American religious history, inaugurated by the First Great Awakening, secured the victory of pietism within American Protestantism. Like it European antecedents, American pietism dismissed church creeds, structures, and ceremonies as merely formal or external manifestations of religion that went only skin deep. In contrast, pietists have insisted that genuine faith was one that transformed individuals, starting with their heart and seeping into all walks of life. (D.G. Hart, The Lost Soul of American Protestantism (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002), pp. xvii-xviii)

Unlike pietist Protestantism, which attaches great religious significance to public life and everyday affairs, confessionalism situates the things of greatest religious meaning in the sacred sphere of the church and its ministry. (p. xviii)

Confessional Protestants resisted revivals in large part because the methods of evangelists and the piety expected of converts were generically Christian—sincerity, zeal, and a moral life. As a result, revivalism did not respect but in fact undermined the importance of creedal subscription, ordination, and liturgical order. In a word, confessionalists opposed revivalism because it spoke a different religious idiom, one that was individualistic, experiential, and perfectionistic, as opposed to the corporate, doctrinal, and liturgical idiom of historic Protestantism. (p. xxiv)

Neglecting the past: Indigenous "theologies" and the Singapore, Asian Context

Broadly speaking, for the past sixty years conservatives have been striving with the ecumenicists for global influence. For instance, the conservative International Council of Christian Churches pre-empted the World Council of Churches with its own gathering in Amsterdam a few months before WCC was inaugurated. Again, they waged a 'battle' against the ecumenicists in Bangkok in December 1949 by holding a conference on their own to counter the 'East Asian Christian Conference' that was taking place in the same time and same city. World Evangelical Fellowship convened a 'Theological Assistance Program' Consultation in Singapore in 1970 at the launch of the ecumenical Theological Education Fund Third Mandate, and evantually set up the Asia Theological Association as an alternative to the ecumenical ATESEA body. Despite well-meaning intents, these ecumenical-conservative conflicts, made possible by huge American financial investment, are destructive for world Christianity. They leave a legacy of rivalry and social polarisation especially among vulnerable churches around the world. [Michael Poon, "Introduction," in Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, ed., Church Partnerships in Asia: A Singapore Conversation (CSCA Christianity in Southeast Asia Series; Singapore, Trinity Theological College & Singapore, Armor Publishing, 2011), xviii]

Are Western theological conflicts alien to non-Westerners? Those into indigenious theologies (third-world theologies) evidently think so. They accuse Westerners of bringing their theological conflicts and inflicting it on non-Westerners, causing needless and sinful division of the Church in the non-Western countries. In this excerpt from a book intended to promote local "grassroots" Asian ecumenism, Michael Poon repeats the same charge of imperialism against essentially the Fundamentalists. According to him, such conflicts, "despite well-meaning intents," "are destructive for world Christianity," and "they leave a legacy of rivalry and social polarisation especially among vulnerable churches around the world." To say that Poon wishes for the Fundamentalist movement to stop being Fundamentalist is an obvious understatement, and in his view they are sinning and dividing the Church.

Christianity is a religion of truth. It claims, and proves itself to be, absolutely true. This is not an Enlightenment concept, but it can be found throughout the history of the Church in pre-modern times also. If Jesus is the only truth, that means that no falsehood should be tolerated by those who claim to follow Him, for to follow falsehood is to not follow the Christ who is the truth.

Thus, with regards to the divisions in Christendom, the question to be asked is not whether these divisions are created by the West, but whether the divisions are due to disputes over what is true. Does the amount of melanin in one's skin has any bearing on whether "1+1=2" is true, or whether "Socrates is a man" is a true proposition? Of course not! Does the truth value of the proposition matter if one were to say in English that "All humans will die" and to say the same thing in Chinese "每个人都会死"? Does the truth value changes if an Englishman say "There is one God" and a Japanese say the same thing "There is one God"? Most certainly not! The truth values of absolute truth propositions are independent of language, culture, ethnicity and nationality.

Similarly, to say that these issues and divisions have their beginnings in the West has absolutely no bearing on whether non-Westerners should or should not adopt the divisions and take sides in the conflicts in Western Christianity. The question remains: Are these issues and divisions disputes over truth? If they are, then non-Westerners should deal with them, and don't be intellectually lazy to discount them altogether. In fact, by doing so, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," as Lord Acton had indicated.

The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy is very important, because liberals or modernists deny cardinal doctrines of the faith like the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, and many others truths. By partnering with the Roman Catholic Church, it also indicates that it denies the importance of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. Before the modernists came into the scene, the church was not split over these issues, but once they came onto the scene sprouting heresy, they split the church with their heresies.

Thus, it is very telling that Poon accused the Fundamentalists as being divisive. No, the divisive ones are the liberals like those in the WCC who promote and teach lies about the Christian faith. What they teach is destructive for world Christianity. The Asian Liberals who are re-inventing the faith through "indigenous theologies" are promoting division with their heresies. They are the ones who are promoting heresies and schisms against the true universal Christian faith, and it is those whom Poon should be rightly accusing of causing division instead of the Fundamentalists.

True Christianity is defined as the religion that conforms to the truth as Jesus is the Truth. Anything else is in error and promote division of believers away from Christ. Thus, when we come to theological issues, who the parties are and the location where any controversy occurs should be irrelevant for deciding who is correct. The side which does not conform to scriptural truths is the divisive side, which is normally not the side that is most cantekerous but the "peaceful" side of any conflict, as the experience of church history has shown (e.g. Athanasius' Arian opponents, the "peaceful" Amyraldians, the "loving" moderates opposing J.G. Machen).

There is therefore nothing wrong with adopting and taking sides in "Western theological controversies." There is also nothing wrong with conducting theology in the same manner as theologians in "Western Christianity." In fact, there is something wrong in NOT doing so, for it is an attack on the catholicity of the Church. Somehow, the fact that Evangelical "Western theology" is not really Western at all passed them by. Augustine was hardly a white European, neither were most of the delegates at Nicea or Chalcedon either.

By rejecting the catholicity of the church, indigenous theologies are almost certainly wrong from the beginning. And we do not have to worry about the baseless accusations of division from the liberals. Those who are promoting heresy are the ones culpable, not us. Yes, there are many vulnerable churches around the word, as Poon says, so let's protect them from the liberals!

Liberalism in Trinity Theological College

How does one know whether there is still liberalism in Trinity Theological College (TTC)? Here are some questions to be answered:

1. Does TTC teach the Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD) as truth, and does not offer a sound and convincing case against said theory?

2. Does TTC teach that Isaiah did not write "Second Isaiah" and "Third Isaiah"? Is the prophet Isaiah taught not to be the author of "First Isaiah"? Does he not exist as he is described in Scripture?

3. Is the creation account in Genesis 1-3 taught to be a borrowing from pagan myths like the Enuma Elish? Are Genesis 1-11 to be considered as written in a mytho-poetic language and thus not history giving us literal facts of the past?

4. Is the notion of "Q" a valuable concept to find out the "true" teachings of Jesus, minus the accretions added by later church tradition?

5. Is the notion and practice of higher criticism valid in finding out the actual texts of Scripture?

6. Is one taught there is no one "Scripture," but multiple scriptures and the catholic party won and suppressed the other scriptures?

7. Is one taught that Roman Catholicism is a valid form of Christianity?

8. Is one taught that contemplative prayer, either as found in Eastern Orthodoxy or as mediated in Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline, is a great spiritual exercise that Christians should be engaged in?

9. Are Roman Catholic mystics like Theresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton held out as devout Christians? Is Roman Catholic mysticism held out as a great example of piety?

10. Is one encouraged to attend Taize-style "worship"?

11. Is the inerrancy of Scripture denied in class by any lecturers? Or is inerrancy defined to have many shades and colors (e.g. partial inerrancy), and so by obfuscation someone can pretend to believe in *some form* of inerrancy while rejecting its intended meaning?

If a "yes" answer is given to any of them, then we know liberalism is alive and well in TTC. I am here omitting other heresies like the New Perspective on Paul since these are not classical liberal heresies, but I think this list is enough to prove my point.

The Young Adopted Messiah

[last post on the topic here]

My last post on the movie "The Young Messiah" was based on the trailer of the movie. At the time I wrote that post, the movie was not yet out in the theaters. Since it was based on a trailer, I thought it best if I would look at the movie itself so that I would definitely not mislead anyone by mis-interpreting the movie based upon a short trailer.

So one afternoon I decided to watch the movie. The movie was not as gnostic as the trailer would have us believe. Jesus did not kill a boy; the Devil did, while it was resurrecting a dead bird, not creating a bird from mud, although both scenes were at the seashore and the actions of scooping up the mud and scooping up a dead bird are virtually identical. That said, such changes do not really mitigate against the Gnostic error, which is to creates myths about the "missing years of Jesus." And altering some parts of the Infancy Gospel does not in any way exonerate the charge of gnosticism, just that it is now gnosticism-lite instead.

My earlier critique of having an Adoptionist Christology still stands. In fact, the movie is even more explicit in its promotion of Adoptionism. Jesus did not know he was God, that he was the Son of God, or that he was born to die on the Cross, through most of the movie. In fact, Joseph and Mary hid the knowledge of events surrounding his birth from the boy "Jesus" of the movie. Jesus only came to realize his status later in the movie. The boy "Jesus" does not even know why he could perform miracles. All of these are proofs of Adoptinism. Even the kenotic theory will not have the young Jesus not knowing he is God!

Besides the major error of Adoptionism, one can add the ahistorical nonsense of James being Jesus' cousin rather than his brother (pandering to Roman Catholic superstition), and of course the ridiculous scenes of Roman soldiers on the temple grounds (that would have caused a riot immediately). Overall, this movie is as bad as I thought it would be, and certainly should not be promoted to Christians

Black reverse racism: Guilty regardless of innocence

Some time back, Dr. James White took a lot of flak by certain Social Justice Warrios (SJWs), especially some blacks who evidently see everything according to their racial lenses and falsely accused Dr. White of racism when he made a legitimate observation. The supposedly "Reformed" Reformed African American Network (RAAN) posted an attack piece by Ms. Ekemini Uwan, a black student at Westminster Theology Seminary Philadelphia, an attack piece that made wild and false accusations against Dr. White, an ordained minister of the Gospel. It didn't take a long time, but evidently Dr. White saw that article and decided to respond to it, posting a much better and more thorough critique of it than me.

The problem with black racialists is that whoever stands condemned before the SJW lynch mob is guilty until proven innocent. Or maybe we should say guilty regardless of innocence. As Dr. White succinctly puts it:

But for these folks, all of that is irrelevant: racism has been redefined so that everyone who does not embrace your “lens priority” is liable to be accused, and convicted, without benefit of trial. It is presuppositional.

While nobody is suggesting that Uwan and RAAN are liberals, the ridiculous tactics of playing the victimization card and of taking someone to be guilty regardless of actual innocence is are taken right from the playbook of liberal SJWs. The same kind of faux shaming, the same kind of strident calls for denunciation regardless of the facts, all these have no place in true Christian conduct. So why are supposed Christians engaging in them?

The first act of any proposed accusation is to adequately represent what the other person is saying. It is ludicrous to create a strawman and charge a person with all manner of evil based upon the strawman one creates. That is just basic courtesy and respect and honoring the truth. But such a basic step is totally ignored in SJW sham trials, and in this attack against Dr. White. Even if one thinks Dr. White is guilty, and even if Dr. White were actually guilty, shouldn't you be correctly representing his position? Instead, what we have in Uwan is bearing false witness against a minister of the Gospel. Where is the basic respect one should give to another person? Uwan is studying at Westminster. Presumably, that should have obligated her even more to basic Christian conduct. So why the lies, Uwan? Why the willful distortion of the actual facts, just to prop up your narrative? Yes, I actually know why: because the narrative is treated as axiomatic and everything must conform to that narrative. But is that what a Christian is to do? To lie in service of a narrative because one identifies with said narrative?

To an outsider, someone who is neither white nor black, it is so abundantly clear what is actually happening here. This form of racialism and racism is ugly, very very ugly. I have been put off by people who do it on Facebook, and I will be put off anytime I see anyone does it, even if the person who does it were to be a minister in a Reformed denomination. There is no "race" where slander and lies should be acceptable "as long as they serve the narrative." Away with such false paradigms! Christians ought to have their minds transformed by Christ, not held captive to false paradigms!

Uwan, RAAN and others like the Southern Baptist Russell Moore owe Dr. White an apology for spreading lies about him. I of course hope that they repent, but my experience has been that SJWs are irrational, think they are always right, and will not accept correction of any sort. In the words of Scripture, they love darkness rather than light (Jn. 3:19).

The proper view of the doctrine of creation

Some time back, I saw something to the effort that the Reformed see eschatology when they read Genesis, while Fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals think of the Creation Museum when they read Genesis. Of course, as with such pithy statements, there are elements of truth in what is said. That said, it is only with the 20th century advent especially of Meredith Kline that Genesis become primarily associated with eschatology. I would content that that is not how the Reformed tradition have historically seen Genesis as being. Am I saying that they do not link Genesis with eschatology? No, I do not make such a claim. Rather, I am claiming that eschatology was not their primary focus when they read Genesis, but rather *mere* protology.

The Reformers were early modern, pre-Enlightenment people. They are not Rationalists seeking to understand all things as God knows them. None of them can ever be accused of being empiricists and thus they would not fit into the empiricist mentality that is characteristic of a significant proportion of the Creation Science movement. Having said that, the Reformers were not irrationalist mystics either, and they sought to be rational. As such, the Reformed would be more aligned with Charles Hodge of Old Princeton than today's postmodernists, or even those influenced by aspects of postmodernism like Kevin Vanhoozer.

To see how the Reformers and their immediate heirs read Genesis, one can read their commentaries. The idea of setting a date for creation is not a modern, fundamentalist thing, but rather it is already present among the Puritans, which culminated in Archbishop James Ussher's Annals of the World. Chronology, and dating the Genesis chronology, was not a modern endeavor but rather was associated with Puritan scholarship. Taking the Genesis accounts, inclusive of the dates in chronologies, plainly is therefore traditionally Reformed.

When one looks at Reformed commentaries of that era, one see for example in John Calvin the following statements:

The intention of Moses in beginning his Book with the creation of the world, is, to render God, as it were, visible to us in his works. ...

I now return to the design of Moses, or rather of the Holy Spirit, who has spoken by his mouth. We know God, who is himself invisible, only through his works. Therefore, the Apostle elegantly styles the worlds, τὰ μἡ εχ φαινομένων βλεπόμενα, as if one should say, “the manifestation of things not apparent,”30 (Hebrews 11:3.) This is the reason why the Lord, that he may invite us to the knowledge of himself, places the fabric of heaven and earth before our eyes, rendering himself, in a certain manner, manifest in them. For his eternal power and Godhead (as Paul says) are there exhibited, (Romans 1:20.) And that declaration of David is most true, that the heavens, though without a tongue, are yet eloquent heralds of the glory of God, and that this most beautiful order of nature silently proclaims his admirable wisdom, (Psalm 19:1.) This is the more diligently to be observed, because so few pursue the right method of knowing God, while the greater part adhere to the creatures without any consideration of the Creator himself. (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Volume 1. Accessed on CCEL here)

We see here that Calvin focuses on the revelation of God in creation when he deals with the fact of creation. Calvin did not immediately talk about the eschatological life, as Klineans would do. No, he speaks of Creation as an actual event and what it actually does in revealing God to Man. God has created all things, and this is something that we should marvel. Creation in and of itself has its own glory; the act of creation is in and of itself glorious. Creation does not need redemption to be complete, neither does it need to contemplate the Eschaton to manifest God's glory.

And now we see Matthew Henry:

The foundation of all religion being laid in our relation to God as our Creator, it was fit that the book of divine revelations which was intended to be the guide, support, and rule, of religion in the world, should begin, as it does, with a plain and full account of the creation of the world—in answer to that first enquiry of a good conscience, "Where is God my Maker?" (Job xxxv. 10). ... The holy scripture therefore, designing by revealed religion to maintain and improve natural religion, to repair the decays of it and supply the defects of it, since the fall, for the reviving of the precepts of the law of nature, lays down, at first, this principle of the unclouded light of nature, That this world was, in the beginning of time, created by a Being of infinite wisdom and power, who was himself before all time and all worlds. The entrance into God's word gives this light, Ps. cxix. 130.. The first verse of the Bible gives us a surer and better, a more satisfying and useful, knowledge of the origin of the universe, than all the volumes of the philosophers. The lively faith of humble Christians understands this matter better than the elevated fancy of the greatest wits, Heb. xi. 3. (Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible Volume I (Genesis to Deuteronomy). Accessed on CCEL here)

Again, we do not see eschatology being the main focus in Henry's thinking when he reads Genesis. Rather, his focus is on God revealing Himself to Man, the beginning of God's revelation.

We have therefore seen in both John Calvin and Matthew Henry that neither of them have eschatology as their main focus when they read Genesis. Rather, their focus, as is the traditional Reformed and Christian focus, is on Creation as Creation and Creation as the first act of God's revelation. Thus, to read Genesis as eschatology is Klinean, to read Genesis as Creation Science is to read it as empiricist Fundamentalist, but to be historic Reformed is to read Genesis as God's first revelatory act, and the foundation upon which all knowledge and reality depends.

Posts on Education and Christian education

Quite some time back, I wrote a couple of posts against current seminary student at the Protestant Reformed Seminary Aaron Lim's view concerning education in Singapore (Parts 1, 2, 3). And recently, I wrote a review of a terrible publication by the mainstream Ethos Institute on the topic of public education in Singapore.

As it should be evident, the former in response to Aaron Lim deals with the denial of a common sphere in society, such that anything must be pigeonholed into either for God or against God. It stems from a sharp Neo-Kuyperian antithesis that conflates creation with redemption, with redemption being normative for creation. The latter by the Ethos Institute however conflates creation with redemption in the opposite manner, with creation as fallen being normative over redemption. Both sides fail to take into account the proper relation between creation and redemption, the former being too "spiritual," and the latter too worldly.

Education and Christian education (ADD)

The Singapore National Council of Churches (NCCS) is a liberal group supposedly representing the Christians of Singapore. As they are liberals and thus I have doubts about whether they can even be called Christians, I do not regard them as representative of anyone but themselves and whichever church and denomination that is foolish enough to submit to their "leadership." As there was a lack of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in Singapore, liberals work side by side with Evangelicals. In such unequally yoked partnerships, in order to preserve "the peace," the Evangelicals largely cede the intellectual life of the church in exchange for space for "evangelical" views and for taking charge of "lay ministry." Such a course of action is of course manifestly unbiblical, but then Singapore Evangelicalism does not really care about following the Scriptures fully anyway!

This so-called umbrella group for Christians the NCCS, together with the liberal Trinity Theological College and the Bible Society of Singapore, have formed an "Ethos Institute"^TM, which was formed to "serve church and society by engaging contemporary issues and trends from the Christian perspective" [Phillip A. Towndrow, Education and Society: A Christian View of Public Education in Singapore (Singapore: Ethos Institute for Public Christianity, 2015), vii]. Well, I had ran out of books to read so I went shopping for books, and one of the books that I have bought was the book(let) on Christian Education from the Ethos Institute. I didn't have very high expectations for this book when I bought it, but I bought it to discover how mainline Singapore Christianity thinks and applies their thinking to the issue of education. I must say I was not disappointed. This book that claims to put forward a "Christian view" on education does nothing of the sort. The book's primary source for education philosophy is secular pedagogy especially in its citation of UNESCO and the writings of the American pragmatist John Dewey, and Christianity is only applied to the moral aspect of learning, and even then only a few aspects are highlighted.

This booklet by Phillip Towndrow starts off by examining the educational scene in Singapore in the past few decades and the various educational methods and pedagogies employed. Towndrow differentiates between education "to live a life" (p. 8-9) and education "to earn a living" (p. 10), then focuses on the issue of human capital. In the next chapter, Towndrow critiques various educational philosophies concerning performance and achievement from a secular social science perspective. In the third chapter, Towndrow brings in the idea of "kingdom purposes" where certain "Christian" moral truths are brought in as to how one should educate in a way that is "moral," but unsurprisingly the moral values emphasized here sound like a thinly veiled baptized version of secular humanist rights (respect of individual, strong individual identity, acceptance of change, development of wisdom, character and leadership) (pp. 26-34). The fourth and last chapter seeks to apply all that has been mentioned so far to teachers, parents and students, to conclude the book.

If we want to come up with a Christian view of education, then we should start with Scripture, not culture or secular philosophy. Specifically, what does Scripture speaks concerning education. What we find in the Old Testament is that education is meant to be geared towards the worship of God (Deut. 6:20-25; 11:18-20). Skills for daily living of course are passed down through the generations, so there is no denying a practical aspect to education. Nevertheless, the goal of education in the Old Testament is piety towards God.

In the New Testament times, the focus is on the proclamation of the Gospel, as the Church is not a civic entity like Israel. Yet, while education is not directly addressed, the Scriptures made it plain that Christians are called to have a transformed mind (Rom. 12:2) and to be discerning like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). All of these would be congruent with an education that teaches people to think, for God the Creator and the Logos forms language and logic for humanity to think, the apparatus for right thinking so that one can think God's thoughts after Him.

The focus of education that is actually Christian therefore is that of nurturing the life of the mind with a goal of piety towards God. The classical education model of the trivium (logic, dialectic, rhetoric) is one great way of teaching people how to think (not just what to think), and together with instructions in the things of God, the intended product of such an education would be a thinking and pious population.

Having set up in brief what the Scriptures say concerning education, let's contrast that with what Towndrow has said. We noticed immediately that Towndrow, for all the bluster about a "Christian view," does not even bother to go to the Scriptures to find out what education is supposed to be. The secular and very modern 20th century educational philosophy of John Dewey is taken as axiomatic. But since when is pragmatism and utilitarianism Christian? Chapter 2 which is supposed to be a critique of educational philosophies reads like a paper that could be turned in for a secular pedagogy class at NIE (National Institute of Education). So why should anyone call Towndrow's position a Christian view at all? The only "Christian" part that might qualify is the later section (Chapter 3), and it is to this that we will look now.

In chapter 3, Towndrow puts forward the "Christian" part of education as being about the virtues that should be nurtured in education, part of which claimed to be from the Scriptures. The first virtue is that of respecting others, which Towndrow derives from the creation account and the image of God motif (p. 26). Now, while respecting others and having self-worth is a virtue, Scriptures also speak about Man's depravity and the need for a new creation reality, i.e. redemption. The Imago Dei speaks about the created glory of Man, but also because it is marred by the Fall, how much humanity has fallen short of what we were intended to be. The second virtue is that of self-denial and humility (pp. 26-7), all great virtues, but aside from Christ an impossibility.

As applied specifically to education, Towndrow speaks of the ability to embrace change (pp. 28-9). The ability to embrace change when change is necessary is of course a good thing, but it has nothing to do with what Scripture teaches, which is to stand fast on God's truth (1 Cor. 15:2, 2 Tim. 1:13). We have mentioned identity and self-worth, which are Christian virtues that are for all Christians however and not just for education. Also, what exactly is "public education from a Kingdom outlook" (p. 29) since Towndrow did not even deal with the Christian theology and philosophy of education? The development of wisdom and knowledge (pp. 29-31) is a good pursuit, but since when did biblical wisdom serves secular causes like "human welfare" and "caring attention towards the oppressed and the suffering"(p. 30)? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7a). Biblical wisdom is not just a biblical outlook for anyone to partake, but it is only for those who fear God and worship Him. To state wisdom from God as an educational goal means that one must commit to educate and persuade students of the Christian faith, which I am sure isn't what Towndrow had in mind for education in a pluralistic society. Character development (p. 31, 33) is good, but hardly uniquely Christian. The only uniquely Christian part about character development is that the regeneration of the heart, even more fundamental than a good character, is required so that Man will actually want to obey God joyfully. Nurturing a good character by willpower, good influence and discipline will make one at best a Pharisee, for the unregenerate heart will still rebel against God even in doing good. Lastly, leadership development (p. 32) might be a good thing to have, but that has nothing to do with the Scriptures, which calls us to holiness and love to our neighbor.

If the entire list seems to be all about conduct, about morals without Christ, that's because it is. Even if we were to grant all these things to be good things for education, what has that to do with the Christian faith at all? Christianity is not about being good people, for we are not (Rom. 3:10-18). The type of system that Towndrow is promoting is Moral Therapeutic Deism, and it is not Christianity. Christianity is not about being moral, but about Christ dying for sinners so that he atoned for their sins, propitiating the wrath of God against them and justifying them by faith alone. So, if Towndrow's education is all about rules and conducts, and not the news that all are wicked before God and the Gospel is the only way to salvation, then it is not Christian no matter how many virtues he wants to promote.

Towndrow closed this chapter with an assertion that there is "absolutely no conflict between Christian and public views of society, in general, and education, in particular" (p. 34). It is unclear what exactly he is referring to. If one actually starts with Scripture, then there is conflict between a Christian view of society and a humanistic view of society. But if one were to refer to whether there is common spaces where different views of society and education can coexist, and thus there is no clash between peoples, then yes, there is no conflict in this sense, for Christians do believe in the common sphere of society.

In conclusion, we have seen that there is a Christian view of education, but unfortunately Towndrow's booklet fall far short of actually providing a true Christian view on education. Again, I cannot say I am surprised, but it surely is sad that such drivel represents the supposed intellectual prowess of Singapore Christianity.

ADD: This has been formatted into a review that can be read here.

Heidelcast: Recovering the Covenant of Works

The 100th Heidelcast interestingly deals with the issue of the Covenant of Works. As someone who believes that the Covenant of Works is an important doctrine, this podcast (and its sequel) should be helpful..

Interaction among the "races"

How does one interact with those of other ethnicities? When I had gone over to America to study at Westminster Seminary California, I was virtually surrounded by Caucasians. There was only one other Singaporean, and he was rather preoccupied with the demands on his time including having a family with children. Needless to say, I was forced to interact with Caucasians regardless of my personal preferences for or otherwise. In my interactions with Caucasians, I do not find they are racists. Sure, normally they keep to people that are more similar to themselves, but don't we all do the same? The Korean-Americans tend to keep to themselves also, and forming social cliches based upon ethnic and other similarities is natural in human interactions; everyone does it and it does not indicate racism at all.

Over time, I get to know a couple of people closer as friends. I have interacted with and befriended those of other ethnicities including blacks. Of course everyone is different, and quite a few of us have different cultural backgrounds. But in the friends that I made, what I treasure is that we generally do not talk race. I don't know about them, but I would like to think that my ethnicity is immaterial to our friendship.

Naturally, as sinners, we sometimes might rub each other the wrong way. Especially at close proximity, our sins and failings, intentional or unintentonal, are made manifest. I have been rebuked by whites before, and sometimes I do deserve it. When rebuked, in my best time, I try to see whether what they say is valid, and if so what can I do to repent and change. After all, if I do wrong, I ought to repent and change. Of course, this is easier said than done, but that is how we are to be as Christians. We ought to strive for godliness, and try to honor God and love our neighbor despite our weaknesses and many failings.

You will notice that I made no mention of race. I did not play the race card when somebody rebuked me. I do not scream "racism" when the guy who rebuked me was a white man. But for those who practice reverse racism, that is what they do. So what if a white guy rebukes me? Does skin color or ethnicity somehow alters the demands of God's moral law? Are we to see everything according to race and "privilege" and who the victim is? So what if you are the victim? God's moral laws are absolute and unalterable. Even if a racist rebukes you, if what he says is correct, the rebukes stands INDEPENDENT of the identity of the one making the accusation!

I am not putting myself forward as if I am more righteous than others; God knows my sins. But what I am trying to say is that one should interact with others of different races in a "color blind" manner. All peoples are descended from Adam, whatever the "race." All are sinners, and under the same unalterable moral law of God. There is no difference between Jew and Greek, and also between "White" and "Black." The only corporate identity that has ultimate significance in Scripture is "in Adam" and "in Christ," not "white," "black" and anything in between. When one has solidarity with one's race such that one takes on any matter concerning an individual of one's race as a personal thing, then one has seen one's ethnicity as being more properly basic than one's identity in Christ, and that is sin, which this article by RAAN engages in.

If we are to function such that our ultimate identity in "in Christ," and God's moral law applies equally to every person from every race and language and nation, then we should not be troubled by criticism of real sin from anyone and everyone. So in my case, I have no problems with whites criticizing Watchman Nee for example. Just because he is Chinese does not mean I ought to defend him even if he is in the wrong. If anyone wants to attack the weak ecclesiology of the majority of Chinese churches, or the fact that women are found in ministerial positions in Chinese churches, I have absolutely no desire to defend them. Wrong is wrong regardless of the skin color of the ones in the wrong.

Scripture does not condone racism, but neither does it condone reverse racism. Both sides have to repent. Yes, ethnicity is part of the identity of every individual, but it should play no part in how we treat him, or how we treat others of the same race as him.

The sin of reverse racism among segments of black people

[First, note the title. It's not ALL black people, but SOME.]

Dr. White has recently responded in his Dividing Line podcast to the false accusations of racism that were charged at him. As a non-white and an outsider to the American situation, I would think I have a third party perspective to this whole controversy over race, which I find ridiculous. In Singapore where I grew up, we have 4 main "races": Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian, and we get along rather fine. What I find ludicious about the whole "conversation" about race in the US is the binary it produces: that there are only "Whites" and "Blacks." "Whites" have the white man burden of proving they are not racist (which is again, why?), while "blacks" seem to get a free pass as being the default victim class. Just by stating this, we can see a whole host of problems. First, why the racial binary? How about other races like Korean-American, Chinese-American, and so on? And just in case one is tempted to lump them into one "colored" category, well, that is just plain ridiculous! The different "colored" people do not necessarily get along, and they do not necessarily see themselves as one monolithic bloc called "colored." I'm sorry if I actually believed in racial diversity! Chinese-Americans and Korean-Americans are not the same, and I refuse to treat them as one and the same thing!

Second, whence come the idea that "whites" have a burden to prove a negative, i.e. that they are not racists? Modern whites are not guilty of slavery or anything, and whoever wants to bring up the past only proves they are disregarding Scripture altogether, which states that "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son" (Ezek. 18:20). I don't care if it was even just a generation away. Scriptures does not give anyone the right to make the sons pay for the sins of the fathers. And likewise, Scripture nowhere claims a special privilege to those whose ancestors were oppressed. To claim such nonsense is essentially to buy into the heresy of black liberation theology. [And just by the way, the author Doron is a brother who happens to be black, and he sees the issue clearer than evidently some who call themselves Reformed]

So in response to Dr. White, here comes an article by the supposed Reformed African American Network (RAAN), which is just plain sad. The article perpetuates the false binary of white/black again, and falsely accused Dr. White of what he did not do. Contrary to Ekemini Uwan, Dr. White did NOT "castigate and dehumanize black people." This breaking of the 9th commandment is astonishing coming from an organization that claims to be Reformed. When Voddie Baucham addresses the problems in the black community, did he "castigate and dehumanize black people"? I'm sorry, do blacks have a free pass on breaking God's commandment concerning marriage and family? Is RAAN somehow suggesting that black people do not have to obey God's moral law?!

Uwan whined about the "labels" that have been ascribed to people like her. I'm sorry, but perhaps she might want to consider if they actually are true. Labels are only wrong if they are false labels, but what if the label does in fact stick? This article by hers has not proven to me anything but that she has no qualms in violating the 9th commandment against an ordained minister of God, and perpetuating the victimization mentality among the black community.

Racism is the sin that one's ethnicity and/or skin color makes ones superior or inferior to another person from a different ethnicity and/or skin color. Reverse racism is the sin that one's ethnicity and/or skin color makes one the perpetual victim of anyone from a particular ethnicity and/or skin color whose words and actions are racist by default, unless proven otherwise. It is a twisted form of racism, for one claims special status (superiority) because of one's race (i.e. black), a special status of the victim of racism. In this twisted way of thinking, the true racist (the reverse racist) paints himself as the victim of others' racism, and thus proves his racial superiority. And who cares about facts? For the reverse racist, whites are racist unless proven otherwise, and the way for whites to not be racist is to agree that they are all racists and need to constantly take the black man's (or woman's) side in any dispute where race is brought into the picture.

It is sad that RAAN, a supposed Reformed oranization, would promote such drivel. Brother Doron was from Masters, which only proves a further rebuke to the supposed Reformed organization. RAAN needs to repent of its attack on Dr. White, and stop promoting violations of the 9th commandment against ordained ministers of the Gospel.

James White on Ethnic Gnosticism

Dr. James White has recently been in a firestorm over a short post he made concerning the actions of a young black male. Charges of racism were leveled at him because, *evidently*, only blacks can comment on black issues. Dr. White in response in his most recent Dividing Line addresses this issue of Ethnic Gnosticism, the idea that only a person of the same ethnicity can comment on issues of his or her ethnicity.

Racism is an ugly phenomenon. Reverse racism is just as ugly, except it is cloaked in a facade of self-righteousness, and both are sins to be repented. I honestly do not see any substantial difference between racism, and reverse racism.