Time and fatalism

... By the same token, a thorough criticism of the 'moving now' conception must eventually deal with the tree model of reality. Let us therefore examine the reason that, following Aristotle, is most often cited as motivating this ontological asymmetry: the avoidance of fatalism.

The case for fatalism goes something like this: What was true in the past logically determines what will be true in the future; therefore, since the past is over and done with and beyond our control, the future must also be beyond our control; consequently, there is no point worrying, planning, and taking pains to influence what will happen. [Paul Horwich, Asymmetries in Time: Problems in the Philosophy of Science (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987), 28]

In his book on the issue of time, Paul Horwich attempts to show how we can understand time, which is seemingly unidirectional, as being a non-directional dimension that has inherent properties that result in the emergence of the flow of time as we know it. The book is an exercise in how time can be understood to exist in the universe if time is to be understood as a dimension of the universe, but in my reading I have not seen any reason stated why time is to be understood thus.

Horwich in the first main chapter (the second chapter of the book) attempts to deal with the issue of the directionality of time. Time moves forward for all of us, and thus it is taken as common sense by most people that the future is undetermined while the past which is already past cannot be changed. However, Horwich sought to undermine the concept that the past is actually fixed. The argument in this chapter is not that the past MUST be mutable, but that it CAN be changed, which is a weaker argument. To do this, Horwich extends the argument for fatalism from the premise that the past is fixed to the conclusion that either some act R's "future truth is now fixed and beyond our control, or R's future falsity is fixed and beyond our control" (p. 29). In other words, if the past is fixed, then logically, it means that the future is fixed as well. Horwich accomplishes this with a key step stating that the truth value of the statement "It was the case at past time p that S will be true at future time f" is necessarily the same as the truth value of the statement "It is the case that S will be true at future time f." Thus, given a B series, the end result is fatalism. Therefore, there are three choices Horwich gives to us:

1. Abandon the plausible sounding view that the past is already determined and beyond our control ...
2. Follow Aristotle by giving up the idea that all statements about the future have a present truth value ...
3. Invite fatalism by agreeing that even future events are presently beyond our control

(Horwich, 29)

The first problem with Horwich's approach it seems is that there does not seem to be any recognition of the difference between determinism and fatalism. Fatalism is the view that everything happens regardless of what you or anyone does. In other words, in fatalism, if it is predetermined that person X will be walking along the road and be hit by a car at 11 pm and die, that will happen even if person X attempts to stay home at 11 pm and so avoid his fate. Determinism however only state that such and such a thing would happen. But one variation of determinism could state that the actions of individuals are factored into the future. In other words, if it is determined that person X have the same fate, person X will want to walk on that road and then he will be hit by the car on 11 pm and die. If person X learned that he might die and thus stayed home, the actual determined future is that person X stayed home and live. Fatalism allows for no personal agency of any actor to interfere with its determined future, while determinism factors in the personal agencies of all actors in its determined future.

Since such is the case, Horwich's aversion to fatalism and his rejection of it in favor of a mutable past does not seem wise. There is no reason why we must be open to the idea that the past is mutable, and fatalism is just as false as it always has been.

Conference: Remembering the Canons: After 400 Years

2019 is the 400th anniversary of the Synod of Dordt. Westminster Seminary California, my alma mater, had decided to commemorate the Synod of Dort in their annual conference on January 18-19, 2019. The sessions of this conference are as follows:

1. Why Dort Happened, or Why Arminius Is Not the Hero of the Story (Part 1, Part 2), by W. Robert Godfrey
2. A Real Atonement for Real Sinners, by Michael S. Horton
3. Unconditional Election and the Free Offer of the Gospel, by R. Scott Clark
4. Dort and the Holy Exercises of Piety, by Charles Telfer
5. The Relevance of Dordt in Oprah's America, by Joel E. Kim

Conference: Social Justice and the Gospel

The pre-G3 conference, "Social Justice & The Gospel: The God-breathed Hierarchy and the Postmodern Crisis within the Church," was on January16, 2019. The sessions have now been uploaded here. They are as follows:

1. Introduction to the Social Justice and the Gospel Conference, by Michael O'Fallon
2. Defining Social Justice, by Dr. Voddie Baucham
3. Virtue Signaling: The New Evangelistic Strategy, by Phil Johnson
4. An Exegetical and Historical Examination of the Woke Church Movement, by Dr. James R. White
5. Brave New Religion: Intersectionality, by Dr. Josh Buice
6. White Privilege: The New Original Sin, by Dr. Thomas Ascol

The conference then ends with a panel with the framers of the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel.

Time dilation, movement and eternity

Relativistic time dilation formula:

, where t_S is Stationary Time, t' is relativistic time, v = subject's velocity, c = speed of light = 3 x 10⁸ m/s

The theory of special relativity states that time is not fixed but rather relative to the speed of light. As an object moves closer to the speed of light, time slows down from their perspective, alongside other interesting effects. For example, someone traveling at the 0.8 times the speed of light for 180 seconds (from his perspective) will find that 300 seconds has passed in real life (i.e. the stationary observer). Time around him seems to slow down such that 1 of his seconds is longer than the 1 second of the observer. If he moves even faster, time around him will slow more and more. When he accelerates to 2.999 x 10⁸ m/s, more than 0.99 times the speed of light, only about 7.7 seconds has passed while 300 seconds have passed for the observer.

Albert Einstein's theories of relativity (both special and general) show that time is not a fixed quality. Furthermore, if time is not a fixed quality, then perhaps time is a dimension just like our three-dimensional space (thus 4-dimensional space-time). Regardless of whether time is a dimension or not, I would like to look here at the implications of Special Relativity on the issue of eternity.

According to the relativistic formula of time dilation, the faster the speed of the object, the slower time flows around the object. Due to the Lorentz transformation, it is impossible for any object with mass to reach light speed, since any object approaching light speed will approach infinite mass and will require infinite energy to do so. But suppose an object were to reach light speed. What happens then? Well, the object will have infinite mass so it will collapse into a black hole. But as the object reaches light speed, the flow of time around the object stops. The object at the speed of light has reached timelessness, where t' equals 0. Time as perceived by the object has essentially stopped, and he can "travel" whatever distance he desires without time moving at all.

What does this have to do with movement and eternity? Well, actions involves movements, which means there is change over time. Timelessness and spontaneity in the physical world occurs for objects at the speed of light. However, if the object is timeless, then the object is stuck at that time (frozen in time). For any action done to take effect, the object has to exit the state of timelessness.

To speak of God as being "timeless" therefore is to create a deistic god, where the world is wound up and all the actions began at the singularity that is the beginning of the world. Something that is eternally timeless can only interact with time at the point of singularity, and anything that becomes timeless at time t₁ can only interact with the world at time t₁. Surely a god who is timeless, if he is to preserve timelessness, cannot cease being timeless even for an instant. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for a god who is timeless is that he does not interact with the world except to wind it up. Providence in this model is merely the unfolding of the decrees inbuilt within creation. There cannot be miracles, except the miracles that have been decreed to be worked out from creation. God cannot hear prayers, for a timeless god cannot be in time.

Needless to say, this is not the God of the Bible. Thus, the biblical God cannot be timeless, or at least he cannot be timeless in his interaction with the world. Timelessness can only be attributed to God's essence since His essence does not deal with us, but it cannot be attributed to God in His three persons, since Father, Son, and Spirit interacts with the world and with us. It is because of this that we must reject the classical theistic view of timelessness. God is eternal yes, and eternal time in his essence can be said to be "timeless." But God in His persons is not timeless neither does that even make sense. We are not supposed to be deists after all! The God of the Bible is portrayed as one who hears our prayers and acts on behalf of His people, whereas in a deistic system one can only say that this god began a process at creation to seemingly answer prayer even before the prayer has been uttered, and thus give an illusion that prayer has been answered.

It is because of this that God's eternity in His persons is everlasting "time," and not "timelessness." The Son in everlasting "time," in eternity past, submits to the Father in the Pactum Salutis to save His people. "Time" did not begin for God with the Incarnation, but it has always been present, as long and as eternal as the persons of the Trinity have their fellowship one with another.

Time, and the idea of the Time Stone

... he denies, like Leibniz does, that time is any sort of substantival entity over and above the phenomena that are located in time. [Paul Horwich, Asymmetries in Time: Problems in the Philosophy of Science (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 47]

In sci-fi/ fantasy movies, certain exotic scientific concepts are explored. Time travel is one such exotic concept, which is based upon a certain view of time (i.e. time is a dimension just like our three dimensions of space). But even more exotic concepts have to do with time manipulation in the here and now, including reversing time with everything going in reverse (e.g. raindrops gathering from the ground and moving up to the clouds). We see those concepts in play in Marvel movies like Doctor Strange and Avengers: Infinity War. In Doctor Strange, Doctor Strange uses the Time Stone to reverse time in an attempt to prevent Dormammu from entering the "Earth dimension," and when he was stopped from completing the time reversal, he used time loops to force Dormammu to retreat from the Earth . In Infinity War, the mad Titan Thanos used the Time Stone to reverse time in a small circle around the place where Vision was destroyed, reversing the Mind Stone's destruction so that he could take it from Vision and complete his Infinity Gauntlet. In both of these movies, we see the use of an artifact that uses energy to manipulate time. Time is depicted as a dimension that can be manipulated by someone, and that person must be situated outside of time when he manipulates time in whatever manner he desires.

The manipulation of time is somewhat problematic when one actually thinks about it. We are creatures of time, in that time moves all around us. We are born in time, grow up in time, age in time, and die in time. The movement of time is essentially movement. Without the movement of time, nothing moves in the world, for movement is after all change of position over time (e.g. meters PER second). Therefore, to say that one can manipulate time would mean that one must be outside of time. For otherwise, if one reverses time, does the process of reversing time reverses the action of the person who is trying to reverse time? Thus, in order to manipulate time, if it were possible, one must be at a position outside time.

But, if one is outside of time, then how can we speak of action at all? For timelessness implies a cessation of any and all actions. Thus, the purported time manipulator would be frozen in eternal timelessness and unable to manipulate time as he had intended (or was it "has" or "will be") [As an aside, this is why I reject timelessness as an understanding of God's eternity]

The only way to allow time manipulation, which comes from a 'B-series' view of time, is to see time as just another dimension of physics. In Einstein's special theory of relativity, space and time are relativized while the speed of light remains constant. In General Relativity, gravity is predicted to distort both space and time, such that time slows down near objects of great gravitational potential like black holes. Now, I do not know if Einstein's theories necessitates a 'B-series' view of time, but they certainly make it easy to see time as just another dimension that could be manipulated. If time is seen to be just another dimension, then the whole concept of time manipulation is at least plausible. But surely that does not solve the problem of time manipulation by an agent like Doctors Strange or Thanos, does it? No, it does not. Reversing time would be possible, but not having a person standing in the midst of a city while everything around him gets reversed except for him and Wong. Reversing time would be possible, but reversing time in a arbitrarily chosen sphere around Vision while time flows forward all around that invisible sphere, without a massive rupture of the space-time continuum around the sphere, is not.

But before we just say that movies are not meant to be taken as serious science, consider as a thought experiment whether such time manipulation can be conceived philosophically. If one holds to a 'B-series' view of time, then perhaps such specific time manipulation is philosophically plausible if one holds to more than one axis of time. What does this mean? Just as space has three dimensions (x, y, z), so likewise if time has more than one time dimensions, then perhaps time manipulation is plausible. Having three space dimensions means that if everyone has to move 3 spaces, someone can appear to be stationary along the x-axis because he moved three spaces in the y-axis, or he moved 2 spaces on the y-axis and 1 on the z-axis. The point here is that having more than one dimension means that one can be actually moving while appearing stationary in one particular axis.

Since action requires movement, and manipulation of time is an action, therefore time must move forward while time manipulation is happening. But if there are more than one time dimension, then the time manipulator can seemingly appear stationary while time all around him is reversed. Assume two temporal dimensions: t1 and t2, with t1 being the one we see. Everyone must move forward "in time" 2 minutes. With time manipulation, the entire earth could be moving forward 4 minutes in t2 while moving back 2 minutes in t1, whereas the manipulator moves +2 on the t1 axis and 0 on the other. Likewise, when Thanos reverse Vision's first death, all the molecules and whatever the Mind Stone is made up of shifts -10 on the t1 axis and +14 on the t2 axis.

This does not imply whatsoever that time manipulation is even remotely possible, but rather how one must understand time to operate if time manipulation is a possibility. Remember that we are not talking about merely slowing the passage of time, but about reversing time, and on a small scale without event horizons.

[Yes, I know that t1 and t2 would probably be vectors and are not be added and subtracted like scalars. The numbers are just there for illustration]

Sermon: Do all for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:14-33)

Here is the sermon I had preached a few weeks ago on 1 Corinthians 10:14-33.

The Kuhnian idea of theory, observation and incommensurability

Kuhn’s own emphasis on science as a puzzle-solving enterprise would lead one to interpret him in an instrumentalist manner. [Ernan McMullin, "Rationality and Paradigm Change in Science," in Paul Horwich, ed., World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science (Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press, 1993, 2010), 71]

His [Kuhn’s –DHC] argument that theories on either side of a revolution are incommensurable because the meanings of terms change so radically applies also, and perhaps more plausibly, to the names of disciplines (J.L. Heilbron, “A Mathematicians’ Mutiny, with Morals,” in ibid., 107)

Yet, to admit that observation is theory-laden is a long way from denying that there is a theory/ observation distinction. (Nancy Cartwright, “How We Relate Theory to Observation,” in ibid., 259)

The natural-kind terms current in an old science cannot be translated into natural-kind terms in a new science. (Ian Hacking, “Working in a New World,” in ibid., 278)

The world in and with which we work is a world of kinds. The latter changes; the former does not. After a scientific revolution, the scientist works in a world of new kinds. In one sense, the world is exactly the same. A change in the class of sets of individuals that correspond to scientific kinds of things is not a change in the world at all. But in another sense the world in which the scientist works is entirely different, because what we work in is not a world of individuals but of kinds, a world that we must represent using projectible predicates. (Hacking, "Working," in ibid., 306)

One word of describing this difficulty [concerning translation —DHC] is as a case of polysemy: the two individuals are applying the same name to different concepts. But that description, though correct as far as it goes, fails to catch the depth of the difficulty. Polysemy has a standard remedy, widely deployed in analytic philosophy: two names are introduced where there had been only one before. If the polysemous term is ‘water’, the difficulties are to be lifted by replacing each of the concepts that previously shared the name ‘water.’ Though the two new terms differ in meaning, most referents of ‘water₁’ are referents of ‘water₂’ and vice versa. (Thomas S. Kuhn, “Afterwords,” in ibid., 318)

Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science can best be termed "instrumentalist," an epistemic antirealist position concerning science and scientific theories. The key thing to take note concerning Kuhn is that he is not a relativist or subjectivist, a label that is a better fit on philosophers like Michael Polanyi. Rather, Kuhn's method is a historical method looking at the history of the scientific enterprise, and wrestling with how previous generations of scientists have thought and worked on their theories.

One element of Kuhn's thought that had previously eluded me was his promotion of incommensurability, a term which seems to lead to a form of relativism. However, upon clearer reading, especially in this book edited by Paul Horwich, what Kuhn means by "incommensurability" has to do with theories and not the propositions of those theories. It is a term applicable at the meta-level, whereby different paradigms are so different that there is no way to translate one paradigm to another. Or, to put it perhaps in a way that may be easier to understand, it is impossible to translate a set of natural-kind terms to anther set of natural-kind terms, without losing some meaning or even most of the meaning in the process. In other words, it is possible to translate one paradigm into a set of propositions, and another paradigm into another set of propositions, but as a whole, the two sets are mutually incomprehensible and thus incommensurable.

There is no such thing as a "neutral" observation in science, something which sounds quite self-evident but is mostly lost to many scientists. Theory dictates what one looks for or what one expects to see, and this framing of the question makes observation in some-sense "subjective," or theory-laden. This is why incommensurability is so much more than merely interpretation of data, and why the word "incommensurability" is fit to describe the differences between two paradigms, instead of merely stating that they are differing interpretations of the natural world. Thus, in a sense, the world changes between paradigms.

Once all these are clear, then it is clear also why Kuhn's antirealism is not relativism, much less can he be used to promote the idea of science as a social construction. The natural world is objectively out there, but Kuhn's theory have to do with our knowledge of the world even to the point of observation. Now, if there is no transcendent external observer, then Kuhn's theory might lead to some form of relativism. But if Kuhn's theory is limited to humans, and thus an expression of human finitude in science, then Kuhn's theory is congruent with a belief in an objective world and absolute truth, insights which do not come and could not come from science.

Wang Yi: My Declaration of Faithful Disobedience

Pastor Wang Yi (王怡) of Early Rain Covenant Church (秋雨圣约教会), along with more than 100 of the leaders of the church, has since December 9th 2018 been apprehended by the Chinese authorities and charged with various crimes including the crime of sedition. In knowledge that he could be arrested at any time, Pastor Wang Yi had prepared a letter stating his stance on the truth of Christianity and against the unlawful (against God's law) persecution of the Chinese church by the Chinese authorities. The letter can be read here in English.

Here is the excerpt which I had read to conclude the sermon I had preached today:

... I believe that this Communist regime’s persecution against the church is a greatly wicked, unlawful action. As a pastor of a Christian church, I must denounce this wickedness openly and severely. The calling that I have received requires me to use non-violent methods to disobey those human laws that disobey the Bible and God. My Savior Christ also requires me to joyfully bear all costs for disobeying wicked laws.

But this does not mean that my personal disobedience and the disobedience of the church is in any sense “fighting for rights” or political activism in the form of civil disobedience, because I do not have the intention of changing any institutions or laws of China. As a pastor, the only thing I care about is the disruption of man’s sinful nature by this faithful disobedience and the testimony it bears for the cross of Christ.

As a pastor, my disobedience is one part of the gospel commission. Christ’s great commission requires of us great disobedience. The goal of disobedience is not to change the world but to testify about another world.

For the mission of the church is only to be the church and not to become a part of any secular institution. From a negative perspective, the church must separate itself from the world and keep itself from being institutionalized by the world. From a positive perspective, all acts of the church are attempts to prove to the world the real existence of another world. The Bible teaches us that, in all matters relating to the gospel and human conscience, we must obey God and not men. For this reason, spiritual disobedience and bodily suffering are both ways we testify to another eternal world and to another glorious King.

This is why I am not interested in changing any political or legal institutions in China. I’m not even interested in the question of when the Communist regime’s policies persecuting the church will change. Regardless of which regime I live under now or in the future, as long as the secular government continues to persecute the church, violating human consciences that belong to God alone, I will continue my faithful disobedience. For the entire commission God has given me is to let more Chinese people know through my actions that the hope of humanity and society is only in the redemption of Christ, in the supernatural, gracious sovereignty of God.

Here is the original in Chinese

Here it is in Japanese, and here in Italian

Is Critical Race Theory anti-Christian?

Yes, it is, according to this article.

On religious nationalism

[Previous: The Idolatry of Nationalism]

The centennial event that had just passed was that of Armistice Day. On November 11, 1918, the European powers signed an armistice which effectively ended World War I. World War I was the bloodiest war in history, until World War II happened. It was also a rather religious war, as the European powers invoked God on their side, and the devastation of the war devastated religious faith in Europe as well.

In the aftermath of World War I, and even more so after World War II, the elites of society rejected nationalism as a failed project, in favor of internationalism, with the birth of the United Nations. The problem, so they thought, was that local concerns divided peoples and resulted in hatred and bigotry and needless wars and suffering. The focus ought to be on international law, as all the countries of the world come together as a community of nations and work together for the good of all countries. This at least was the theory. There is a problem: Wars and strife between nations. There is a diagnosis: Nationalism. And then there is a solution: Internationalism.

Now, in this equation, the solution is only as good as the diagnosis. But is the diagnosis correct? No doubt there is some version of nationalism that results in wars and strife between nations, but is any version of nationalism the cause? Have we actually learned the right lesson of World War I? For even the rather obvious cause of countries entering into alliances of mutual defense was not rejected after World War I (NATO being one obvious example of a mutual defense pact). So what is the problem(s) that had resulted in World War I?

One major problem is nationalism, but not any kind of nationalism, but religious nationalism. The State is deified as like a god, and all citizens must obey her. Furthermore, under this religious nationalism, the focus of the citizens is to further the goals and glory of the Nation. All of these we can see in World War I. Instead of the country serving her people, the people serve the country, slavishly giving their lives for her good. Thus, the new gods are cruel slave owners, utilizing their human resources for their own pursuit of glory, for the people are truly treated as human resources, to be used and discarded at will.

This religious nationalism is one product of humanism in society. The older humanism was not anti-religious, but rather it redirects the emphasis from God to man. One can be religious, and even should be religious, but the focus of human life is no more about God at the center but about man and the idea of progress. All of these stem from the Enlightenment, which was not necessarily anti-religious, but it was certainly humanistic. The shift from God to man elevates Man to the center, and thus in pursuit of their own glory the nation states asserted their rights. With each nation more interested in themselves than in obeying God, it was only a time before war came, as each nation asserted its right over against the other.

The shift from nationalism to internationalism however does not address this problem. Instead of seeing human autonomy as the problem, they believe that nations prioritizing their own concerns is the problem. Thus, the shift from nationalism to internationalism just shifts the problem of human autonomy from nations to trans-national entities. For why should trans-national entities like the United Nations be any less sinful than nation states? Why should trans-national entities be more likely to care about what is right and just than individual nations? The fact that the UN General Assembly is consistently voting against Israel on issues that have nothing to do with actual wrongs show that trans- and supra-national entities are no better when it comes to nations in seeking their own rights and privileges. The only difference is that it has a veneer of being representative of "the world," as if a bunch of unelected bureaucrats actually represent anyone but themselves on any issue.

On the centennial of Armistice Day, the world has failed to learn the main lesson of World War I. Changing from nationalism to internationalism is a mere rearrangement of the furniture in the ship named "human autonomy." When nations continue living without God, the problems of history will repeat themselves over and over again, causing death, destruction and hardship to the people of the earth.

Sermon: Common Trials, Uncommon Heritage (1 Cor. 10:1-13)

Here is the audio for my sermon preached on Sunday at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, on 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, entitled "Common Trials, Uncommon Heritage."

The main question to professing Christians who claim to be for the repeal of S377A

[Note: S377A, or Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, criminalizes homosexual sex acts between men. The exact wording is as follows:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

The law is a legacy of British Common Law, and passed to Singapore as Singapore was a former British colony.]

---

As the churches in Singapore continue to have to deal with the issue of S377A, a considerable number of liberal-minded professing Christians and at least one "Gospel-centered" church have decided to either side with the repeal camp, or to not take a stand on the issue. Given that, as I have shown, upholding S377A is a biblical justice issue, such response are extremely disappointing to say the least. But to cut through the pro-repeal rhetoric from these professing Christians, here is one question that would immediately clarify the issues involved:

Question: Does society owe God and His law anything? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, then it means that society owes God righteousness, which is biblically defined as obedience to God's moral law as expressed in natural law. But if this is disputed, then please show from Scripture how "righteousness" can be defined without reference to God's moral law.

If the answer is no, then the person has denied the universality of God's law, which means we can question whether the person has a biblical understanding of the doctrine of Creation and the Lordship of God over ALL of creation. Such a person seem to have a view of Christianity as a faith dealing with the spiritual only, or even worse, such a person does not think creation owes the Creator God anything!

Or, such a person merely asserts the view that there is a separation between one's personal faith and how one lives in society. In other words, an anti-religious view of secularity trumps the public outworking of the Christian faith, man-centeredness trumps God-centeredness in thought. And probably the worst of the whole lot, is that one does not want to "offend" unbelievers. But the Gospel message begins with a realization of sin, and how does one bring them to faith if they are still unrepentant of their sins? Such a sentiment is what led to the "Revoice" conference in the US, where a PCA church out of misplaced "compassion" lied to those struggling with SSA that their sin is trivial and do not need to be repented of in order to enter the Kingdom of God. That is not the true Gospel, and such "Gospel-centeredness" is contrary to the Gospel message of Jesus Christ! And this is so obviously false as well, and one can easily see that if one substitutes any other sin. Does a desire to want to win child traffickers for Christ means that one should strike down laws against child trafficking? Does a desire to want to win murderers for Christ means that one should strike down laws against murder?

Unfortunately, from my experience, these professing believers who are promoting these false teachings are not willing to consider that they might be wrong. Thus, they dishonor Christ with their unbiblical stance on S377A, and promote injustice while trying to appear "compassionate" and "loving."

Response to an article by a professing Christian on S377A

[Note: S377A, or Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, criminalizes homosexual sex acts between men. The exact wording is as follows:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

The law is a legacy of British Common Law, and passed to Singapore as Singapore was a former British colony.]

---

On the LGBT-friendly Rice media, a person called "Joshua Tan" claims to be a Christian yet argues for the repeal of S377A. We of course are not told which church he is a member of, and it is not uncommon for people to call themselves "Christians" only because their parents are Christians. Be that as it may, without pre-judging the man, I would like to respond to this article and show how it falls short of an actual biblical response to the issue of S377A.

The first thing to take note from the beginning is how Tan has imbibed into the liberal rhetoric and somehow has gained the ability to discern the inner hearts of other Christians. According to Tan, Christians who support S377A are doing it "out of fear," and are "reactionary, fearful" and use "militant language." That they might be some who support S377A out of fear is a possibility. Just as possible are some who support the repeal of S377A out of fear of being seen as "unloving" to LGBT people. So what does this supposed observation do besides poisoning the well? This kind of rhetoric is baseless and does not serve to advance any conversation. Its only goal is to paint one's ideological opponent as an irrational person, prior to any actual discussion, so that one's opponent is "guilty until proven innocent."

Tan's first error is in misinterpreting S377A as stating that "I would like my fellow Singapore citizens to be subject to caning and jail for engaging in private sexual acts." First of all, S377A even if enforced only imposes a jail term without caning. Second, would Tan agree that some measure of legal punishment should be meted out for the extremely private sexual acts of consensual incest or beastiality? If not, why not? According to his supposed principle that ANY consensual and private sexual act should not be criminalized, then one should get the State out of the business of punishing consensual incest, consensual pedophilia, and consensual beastiality! If Tan however disagrees with any of these, then he actually thinks the State should be involved in some kinds of "private sexual acts." Will the LGBTQ+ media and supporters make up their minds? Should the State be involved in private sexual acts at all? If not, then please state clearly that the State should have no business criminalizing any form of private sexual acts as long as it is "consensual," however one gets to define the term! Please state openly and clearly that you want incest, pedophilia and beastiality decriminalized as long as they are "consensual."

But back to Tan's points. Tan's first point is that pluralism in a modern society means that we must empathize with people different from us and be generous to those "whose practices are different from ours." We note here that Tan has confused practical pluralism with philosophical pluralism on the one hand, and confused empathy with affirmation. On the one hand, pluralism is a practical reality in many societies like Singapore. But just because there is pluralism does not imply that all values and all practices are equally valid and equally to be affirmed, in some version of philosophical multiculturalism. Philosophical multiculturalism here is basically relativism of cultures and relativism of ethics. Tan confuses the presence of differences with relativity of differences, as if a culture that harms women should be celebrated as much as a culture that protects women! Or a culture that practices female genital mutilation is to be treated as no worse than a culture that does not have that barbaric practice! Once one see what the issue is here, then one realizes that Tan is here not in line with Scripture, and even more he is not in line with basic common sense either. For if Tan were true to his relativism, then surely he should practice what he preaches and he should empathize with the Christians he is castigating, and celebrate the fact that we are standing in support of S377A despite him not agreeing with it!

Tan also confuses empathy with affirmation. One can empathize with another person without affirming that other person, and even more so when it comes to sins. If to empathize with LGBT is to affirm their lifestyles and support repeal of S377A, does this mean that in order to empathize with murderers one must affirm the rightness of murder and advocate for repealing laws against murder? Thus we see the utter confusion in Tan's mind as he imbibes the liberal propaganda that claims that true love and empathy must begin with affirmation, a practice that would make nonsense when applied to any other sin and/or crime other people commit.

Tan's second point is in confusion over the issue of the slippery slope. The issue is not whether Christians should suddenly think the sky is falling, but rather we know what is going to come next. It is not wrong in a democracy to advocate for positions that will not result in anti-Christian discrimination and Christians being jailed for not baking a pro-LGBT cake! Being a Christian does not mean that we roll over and play dead, even though we know that God remains on the throne regardless. The exhortation to look to the eternal and not the temporal is precisely what standing for S377A is. For it is very possible, due to the lies of the LGBTQ+ lobby, that S377A will eventually be taken down in my lifetime. But we stand not just for some idyllic moral utopia but rather we stand regardless of whether S377A is held or repealed, because we stand by God's moral law in his natural law. It does not ultimately matter whether S377A is repealed or not, but Christians ought to be a witness for natural law nonetheless. If countries like Singapore want to follow the West and commit civilizational suicide, by all means do so, but we will not be silent.

Tan's third point is at best a red herring. He basically claims that Singaporean Christians' focus on "family values" is too narrow and should focus on other (leftist) causes. While there might be something to add to social advocacy on these other causes, those causes are independent of the LGBT issue. It is theoretically possible for someone to advocate for these other social causes and also for keeping S377A. I find it ironic here that someone essentially decrying Christians for focusing on the temporal is now asking Christians to focus on the temporal. Which is it, actually? But this is a typical sleight-of-hand of the Left, whereby they claim that those advocating for family values are too worldly for focusing on the LGBT threat, yet not worldly enough as they do not embrace Leftist causes. What exactly is the charge then: too worldly, or not worldly enough?

Now, should Christians deal with those issues? I believe that Christians should think about them inasmuch as they have the time to do so. However, thinking about them from a biblical perspective might not provide the type of answer Tan is looking for. But more importantly, what has that to do with whether Christians should support S377A? Tan's third point essentially boils down to "Don't fight for this cause, fight for my cause," and it is just as specious and without any real argumentation as it sounds.

We note in conclusion that Tan has yet to provide any real interaction with the argument, either from health statistics, or from natural law, for the keeping of S377A. Tan did not even deal with the issue of what secularity means in the Singapore context, and assumes that means religious relativism. Since that is the case, it must be said that Tan's article in Rice Media contributes nothing to the discussion on S377A besides poisoning the well, and should be ignored by all believing Christians.

[See also: Miscellaneous Questions concerning S377A and Christian witness]

Miscellaneous questions concerning S377A and Christian witness

In light of the furor over S377A, here are some miscellaneous questions that I would like to address about the issue, from a factual and then a Christian perspective.

Factual Overview

Q1: What is S377A?

A: S377A, or Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, criminalizes homosexual sex acts between men in Singapore.

Q2: What does it say?

A: "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."

Q3: Does it criminalizes homosexuality, or LGBT persons?

A: No, it extends only to homosexual sex acts, not to homosexuals. And it also pertains only to men, not women.

Q4: Does it give license for the government to discriminate against homosexuals?

A: No, it does not, because it pertains only to the sex acts, and in order for anyone to be prosecuted under it, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the "commission" of "any act of gross indecency" has happened (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). And since the Singapore government has said it would not enforce it, the charge of discrimination is baseless. No police is going to break down someone's door in the middle of the night, check to see if two LGBT people are in bed with each other, then arrest them under S377A. Do the proponents of repeal actually think the police have nothing better to do with their time?

Q5: Whence did the law originate?

A: The law originated from British common law. As Singapore was a former British colony, we inherited her legal system when Singapore became independent in 1965.

Q6: Isn't the law a relic from the Victorian era?

A: The law did not originate from the Victorian era. But even if it were, to criticize the law based upon its time of origin is chronological snobbery and a commitment of the genetic fallacy.

Q7: Isn't the law archaic and regressive?

A: Just because any law had an ancient pedigree does not make it "archaic." Laws against murder go back all the way to the Code of Hammurabi and probably even earlier, so does this make laws against murder "archaic"? Most certainly not.

The charge of "archaic" and "regressive" are biased terms reflecting the conclusions of progressivism, without even the semblance of any argument that seeks to prove why any one law is either "archaic," "regressive," or "progressive." They are vacuous clichés that aim for maximum emotional impact without the necessary hard work of arguing that their position is right.

Q8: OK, but given what we know about human rights, isn't it a violation of human rights to deny sexual expression of LGBT individuals?

A: No, there is no human right to sexual expression or even sexual orientation, as law professor Thio Li-An has shown.

Q9: But despite what the global bodies might or might not say, objectively isn't it a human rights violation to deny LGBT people sexual expression?

A: It depends on how one defines "human rights." We can all definitely agree that human rights are not unlimited. For example, there is no human right to murder. Since human rights are not unlimited, therefore we must discuss the topic of human rights in conjunction with other topics like ethics and societal values. After all, how are "human rights" to be defined? Countries like the Netherlands think that there is a human right to suicide, as seen in their endorsement of euthanasia, but is suicide really a "human right"?

The issue of "human rights" boils down to the worldview of a society. It is not some "objective" thing out there, springing forth from the tabula rasa of pure human reason, for that is a mirage. The historic UN definition of "human rights" stems from old liberal secular humanism. If we use that as a basis for discussing "human rights," then we are back at question 8. Otherwise, then we need to discuss questions of ethics. To ignore the UN historic definition of "human rights," while sidestepping the issue of ethics altogether, then throwing accusations of "human right" violations at S377A, is logically fallacious and an act of pure ad-hominem argumentation.

Q10: Isn't S377A, and especially the supporters of S377A, "homophobic" and "bigoted"?

Such is mere character assassination, and cheap rhetoric from people who likely have little of substance in argumentation. The dictionary definition of "bigotry," according to Merriam-Webster, is "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices." So, if those who support S377A are willing to consider other opinions, while proponents of repealing S377A are unwilling to consider other opinions but rely on shouting down their opponents with slurs like "homophobia" and "bigotry," guess who are the real bigots? Yes, it is those arguing for repeal that are the real intolerant bigots.

Q11: Doesn't the removal of homosexuality from the APA diagnostic manual give us an objective measure of progress, and the fact that LGBTQ+ are normal and shouldn't be criminalized?

A: The reasons for removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was not done objectively but due to intimidation by homosexuals. Any action done under duress is questionable, just as any "confession" achieved under torture is questionable as to its veracity. Therefore, the removal of homosexuality from the APA diagnostic manual holds absolutely no weight at all as to whether homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder or not.

Q12: If S377A is not going to be enforced, then shouldn't it be removed?

A: First of all, S377A is in the Constitution, which is slightly different from just any law. While I am unsure about the Singapore legal system, generally speaking, the constitution dictates the framework of a country. Thus, anything in the constitution does not necessarily have to be specific laws but about general principles of what is right or wrong.

One such utility of law is in its value of signposting, to indicate what should be the norm in society.

Q13: In discussions concerning S377A, many supporters of S377A argue that repealing it would lead to gay marriage and boys being allowed to go into girls' bathroom if they identify as a girl. Aren't such arguments slippery slope arguments and should be rejected?

A: They would be slippery slope arguments, EXCEPT such has already happened all around the Western world. Since we can actually see such a progression of events all around the world happening now, it is no more a slippery slope.

Q14: Isn't the campaign to support S377A driven by Christians and Muslims, and hence religious? But Singapore is a secular state, and thus we must respect the separation between religion and state.

A: First of all, even if only religious people (Christians and Muslims) support S377A, that does not necessarily mean that support for S377A is merely a religious issue. One actually has to look at and evaluate the arguments in support of S377A. If arguments based upon natural law and other issues of fact are presented, then to attack S377A merely because its supporters are (mostly perhaps) people of particular religions is to commit the genetic fallacy, not to mention to betray an anti-religious bigotry.

Secondly, it is false that the secular nature of Singapore implies a total separation of religion and state. A total separation of religion and state is found in the French republic, which in its doctrine of laïcité removes all religions from the public square. However, Singapore in article 15(1) of the Constitution grants freedom of religion and religious expressions, only qualified by one thing: public order (Article 15(4) of the Singapore Constitution). Therefore, the nature of Singapore's secularity is the separation of religious institutions from the state, but one's personal religion and religiously-informed opinions are free to participate in the public square.

Q15: So we should take note of non-religious arguments while rejecting religious arguments?

A: Not exactly. The non-religious arguments are the ones that could be discussed and debated in the public square with everyone. But religious arguments are there for followers of those religions to have their own internal discussions. And religious arguments have a utility in that religious people ARE part of society, and as part of society, they should not be ignored. If for example 80% of citizens are not for repeal of S377A, regardless of the merits of their arguments religious or otherwise, then one should not just deride and insult their religiosity and over-ride their objections just because one thinks one is on the "right side of history" (a Hegelian/ Marxist phrase at that). It must be reminded that one lives IN a society, and part of life in society is that one has to pay heed to other fellow citizens even if you believe they are absolute morons.

Q16: Are all arguments for or against S377A equally helpful for discussion?

A: No, not all arguments either for or against S377A are equally helpful. Some are dumb arguments. But everyone has a freedom to speak no matter how smart or stupid their arguments are. Do not assume anyone necessarily agrees with certain bad arguments you might have previously encountered.

Q17: You have mentioned many times about the "public square." What is it?

A: The "public square" is the space, online or offline, where people are supposed to be free to float ideas and arguments for the general public to read, dissect and discuss. It functions much like how the ancient public square, the Greek agora, was supposed to function.

---

Christian perspective

Q18: What is the Christian perspective on homosexuality and LGBT issues?

A: All of those are sin (c.f. Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:24-27).

Q19: Is sexual orientation not sin if there is no sexual act?

A: The language of "sexual orientation" is that of the world, not of Scripture. Furthermore, in Scripture sin is not limited to actions but also to thoughts and inclinations (Gen. 6:5, Ps. 51:5). So "sexual orientation" is still sin to be confessed and repented of, even though it is not on the same level as actually acting out in homosexual sex acts, in the same way as anger is a sin even though it is not on the same level as murder (c.f. Mt. 5:21-26).

Q20: What is the nature of the sin of homosexuality?

A: The sin of homosexuality and all other LGBT issues, is a sin in violation of the seventh commandment (c.f. Westminster Larger Catechism Q.139), a violation of God's moral law.

Q21: What is natural law?

A: Natural law (lex naturalis), or the law of nature, is the moral law of God inscribed onto the consciences of all humanity (Rom. 2:14-15). It is part of General Revelation, and upon it God will hold sinners who do not believe in God accountable for all their sins.

Q22: Is Natural law just the Old Testament Law, and thus just a short form for religious law?

A: No. Natural law is the general equity of revealed law, of which the Mosaic Law was an inspired application peculiar to the geopolitical entity known as Israel. As we can see in societies around the world, there is a general sense of law, for example against murder, that all societies hold to. That is because, as Scripture has stated, the natural law is written on the hearts of all Man, and impossible to erase, though it can be temporarily suppressed.

Therefore, to call for adherence to natural law is not the same as Theonomy, and definitely is not particular to any religion(s).

Q23: So what is the Christian's responsibility to natural law?

A: The Christian's responsibility is to obey the law of God, and thus to call people to obedience to God's laws. Since the moral law is given for the good of Man and thus of society, the Christian's responsibility in the civil sphere is to put forward the natural law as the basis for the laws of a nation.

Q24: Upon what biblical basis is a Christian to "impose" the natural law upon society?

A: Micah 6:8 states: "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." The call for believers to do biblical justice, as a good work unto the Lord, is not optional. God's justice is not divorced from God Himself, and thus the justice of God stems from His Law. Therefore, as natural law is essentially God's moral law inscribed onto the consciences of Man, one aspect of doing justice is to call society to build her laws upon natural law.

Q25: Are you claiming that S377A is a justice issue?

A: Yes, I am claiming that supporting S377A is a justice issue, biblical justice in the social sphere.

Q26: Is there no room for legitimate Christian disagreement over S377A?

A: There might be, since obviously supporting S377A is an application of Scripture, not Scripture itself. But the onus is on those who reject my application of Scripture to refute it, not to ignore it or to engage in straw-men rebuttals.

Q27: Could any Christian possibly reject any of the answers to the Factual Overview (Questions 1-17), and therefore this whole exercise is highly partisan and not actually factual from the start?

A: It is of course possible. But is it probable? I doubt it. Anyone is welcome to attempt to dispute the facts in questions 1-17.

Q28: What about the topic of "human rights" for a Christian?

A: As mentioned in Question 9, if we want to discuss "human rights" in an objective manner, then we must discuss the topic of ethics. For a Christian, the primary source of ethics should be the Bible. More specifically for society, it is God's moral law as seen in natural law. For a Christian, "human rights" are dependent on God who gives these rights. God-given human rights are rights of human dignity based upon the Image of God in Man (Imago Dei) and what that entails, and it is a right to do good, not a right to do evil. One can look in vain, but there are no God-given rights to sin. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, there are no human rights for LGBTQ+, in the same way as there are no human rights for murder.

Q29: What is the role of the Church on issues of public morality?

The main role of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel, which means good news. Therefore, the Church as an institution should be totally apolitical. However, since S377A is a moral issue as well, the Church ought to speak to this issue in obedience to Scripture (c.f. Micah. 6:8). Given the potential for misunderstanding, the Church ought to be circumspect over how she speaks to the issue to make clear she is speaking to the morality of the issue, and attempt inasmuch as it is possible to steer clear of the political. Also, as part of the Church's corporate witness to the world, this issue should not enter into the preaching of the Gospel on any Lord's Day, but it can be in the teaching and CG sessions. The Church, in striving to honor her spirituality, is to be diligent in not letting even issues of moral concern to crowd into the Lord's Day preaching, but likewise, she should be diligent in maintaining a witness to society on issues of great moral concern.

Q30: What should be the Church's witness to the LGBT+ "community"?

A: The Church's witness to the LGBT+ "community" should be the same as to all other sinners: Repent and believe the Gospel. We are not to sugar-coat their sins or allow them to smother their consciences. We are not to soften the Law so that they *might* believe the Gospel, for that is the way to false conversions. It is not loving to say "peace, peace" when there is no peace (Jer. 8:11).

On the one hand, we are not to blunt the Law just so that we can appear more attractive, for that is not the way to true biblical conviction of sin. On the other hand, we are not to withhold the Gospel out of perhaps self-righteousness. The offer of the Gospel must be made known clearly, and who knows if God will one day convict them and grant them repentance unto faith. The problem with much of our Christian witness is that we swing to the extremes: some dull the Law out of a misplaced idea of "love," while others withhold the Gospel and make the Christian religion into a joyless soul-destroying legalism. Both extremes are wrong, and it no good for one side to point out how much better they are than the other side.

The Christian witness to the LGBT+ "community" should be loving yet firm. She is to witness to God's righteousness and the righteousness of God in Christ, missing neither.

Q31: Ought the church to teach her congregants of the rationale behind support for S377A?

A: Yes. Along with the corporate witness, the church ought to teach her congregants concerning why it is Christian to support S377A. If the church does not teach her members how to think biblically, the thought patterns of the world will rush in and undermine their faith. After all, we are told to renew our minds (Rom. 12:2), and God has given teachers to his church (1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11).

Q32: Why fixate on homosexuality and S377A?

A: We don't fixate on the issue except only in response to current events. The Church ought to teach her congregants how to think biblically on all matters, not just on homosexuality.

Q33: How is the Christian to view activism for and against S377A?

A: The Christian as an individual is free to partake (or not partake) in activism for S377A, and is not free to partake in activism against S377A (as homosexuality is against natural law). However, if a Christian can come up with some remotely plausible reason(s) for rejecting S377A, he is welcome to put forward his view without censure from the Church, as long as he can justify it while stating his clear and unambiguous adherence to the sinfulness of homosexuality. This is the Christian doctrine of the freedom of the Christian conscience (c.f. Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2-3), where believers are free where Scripture is silent and bound where Scripture is explicit.

From a corporate standpoint, since the Church ought to witness on the basis of morality, the Church must stand firm on the keeping of S377A as an expression of natural law. While individual members can disagree due to competing social values, the Church ought to prioritize the Law of God and therefore that should be her focus.

Rebekah and the consequences of doing God's things our way

[This is based upon my Bible reading for today]

The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger.”

(Gen. 25:23)

Isaac loved Esau because she ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob. (Gen. 25:28)

But Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, “Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man. Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him and bring a curse upon myself and not a blessing.” His mother said to him, “Let your curse be on me, my son; only obey my voice, and go, bring them to me.” (Gen. 27:11-13)

The story of Isaac's favoritism and Rebekah's deception is a sad story about division within the covenant family of God. Isaac was given a prophecy from God at the birth of the twins Isaac and Esau, and if he had heeded God's Word he would have given God's blessings to Jacob when the time was right. However, Isaac favored Esau over his brother Jacob and in his favoritism he was willing to defy God and give Esau God's blessings instead. We note also in Genesis 26:34-35 that Esau had taken unbelieving women to be his wives, which were a source of sorrow to both Isaac and Rebekah. That action by Esau should in and of itself invalidated his claim to the blessings of God, if Isaac had actually paid attention. But in his spiritual blindness, Isaac overlooked all the many circumstances that disqualified Esau, and moved to pass God's blessings to Esau nonetheless.

In God's providence, Isaac's spiritual blindness was reflected in his near physical blindness. Rebekah stepped in to prevent the looming catastrophe of Isaac's folly and so preserve the covenant promises of God to His people. To do that, she schemed a devious plan to deceive Isaac such that Isaac would bless Jacob while thinking he was blessing Esau. We stop to note that what Rebekah desired was good— that Isaac blessed Jacob in accordance with the prophecy from God. But instead of asking God for intervention and/or remonstrating with Isaac, Rebekah came up with a pack of lies to execute the plan of God. Knowing the sins involved in the deception, Jacob feared for God's curses only to have Rebekah claimed the curses to fall upon her instead. Rebekah's deception succeeded! Jacob took the blessing and the covenant lineage was preserved. But it came about through a pack of lies! Does the means justify the ends? Well, God's redemptive plan is not thwarted, but should it have come about through sin, for indeed Rebekah's scheming is sin?!

We note that Rebekah called for the curse of God to fall upon her for her scheming, if any. The question we should ask then is: what subsequently happened to Rebekah? Here we note that the last scene where Rebekah was present is Genesis 27:46, and then we do not see her anymore. In Genesis 27:43-45, we see Rebekah stating that she will send for Jacob when Esau's temper has cooled, and we know that that obviously did not happen. Given that the next time Jacob met Esau was twenty years later (c.f. Gen. 31:38, 32:6), we can deduce that Rebekah must have passed away sometime within that twenty years. Rebekah passed away early in life, and from the time of her deception to her death she could not see her favorite son Jacob. Thus, we note that the curse of God did indeed fall upon Rebekah. For although she desired what was right, yet she went about it through sin. Taking on the curse of God on behalf of Jacob, her life was cut short earlier and she suffered maternal anguish in being separated from her favorite son. So God had indeed punished her for her sin, despite the fact that what she did put God's redemptive plan on the right track.

Thus, we see that the means does not justify the ends. Pragmatism as a ministry philosophy is spiritually bankrupt. To appeal to pragmatic reasons apart from Scripture and biblical exegesis is sin. While God might not cut short our lives or separate us from our loved ones until our deaths now, there are still consequences for sin, even if our sin practically advances the kingdom of God. God's things must be done in God's way, or not at all.