Here In My Home: The Role Of Church And Civil Society in Nation Building

  The role of Church and Civil Society in Nation Building

Sermon audio may be downloaded here 

In 2008, a group of Malaysian artists - filmmakers, dancers, singers, musicians, producers got together to produce an anti-racism national unity music video. Nobody would be paid. Nobody was threatened with a knife. Only because they love Malaysia. It’s a gift to the nation, from those who love this beautiful country to those who feel the same… I first shared this song in church for a Merdeka Day sermon in 2008. It’s still as inspiring and relevant after these five long years… And I think it sets the tone well for how we can approach the topic today: The Church and Civil Society in Nation Building.

Do you find that meaningful? The song was written by Pete Teo and directed by Yasmin Ahmad and Ho Yuhang. You can’t help but feel a sense of loss thinking how much we need people like Yasmin Ahmad and her vision of an inclusive Malaysia.

Merdeka Day is just a month away. Where are we going, as a nation? Where is Malaysia now after the 13^th general election? Barisan Nasional is still in power with a comfortable majority of seats even though it lost the popular votes. “Ini Kali-lah” turns out to be “Lain kali-lah”. BN is unable to regain its super 2/3 majority, but it took back Perak and Kedah states. There is a continuing crisis of confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. Pakatan Rakyat has filed a lawsuit against the Election Commission in a bid to annul the election results. Many people that I know feel a sense of disappointment, disillusionment, anger with the results. Once upon a time, there was a dream where Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Kadazan, Melanau and various ethnic groups grow up happily together, we smile and hug each other like in those heart warming Petronas Hari Raya advertisements, we eat together in the school canteen and not inside smelly toilets. That is the narrative, the storyline that we have been brought up with.

But looking at the depressing headlines these days, you really wonder if it’s all just a myth: Allegations of non Muslim students having to eat in a changing room during fasting month and non-Malay doctors refusing to treat Malay patients. Alvivi’s idiotic stunt on Facebook received swift action (they were charged for insulting Islam and denied bail) but the Perkasa f’lers walk free as a bird. No action was taken even though Zulkifli Noordin had earlier insulted the Hindu faith and Ibrahim Ali called for the burning of Bibles with the word “Allah”. While we reject insults to any religion, the government needs to show that it works without fear or favor in acting against all those who do so. And we have to be concerned at the level of polarization in our society today. We need to actively pursue this elusive thing called “national reconciliation”. 

Because when the rakyat couldn’t care less or passive or silent or “tidak-apa”, that’s the perfect condition for injustice. Tyranny of the majority can very easily happen in a democracy. 

If you hang around CDPC for long enough, you’d realize that this kind of topic like cultural engagement is something we try to be intentional about… to nurture a kind of spirituality that is grounded in the real world where we live, work and play. Just this year alone, Michael/Tom have preached on Engaging Culture (how God has given us the cultural mandate to rule over creation as responsible stewards, transforming the world instead of isolating from the world or conforming to the world), Meng has also preached on Christian engagement in politics leading up to the general election, and Eugene has encouraged us to be culture makers (how everyone is called to bring the gospel story of creation/fall/redemption/hope to bear on every area of life, wherever we are). They have laid a solid biblical foundation that we can build upon, so I’d try to apply that to our Malaysian context. Nation building is a complex issue that requires much praying, thinking, doing and feeling. I hope our reflections today may point towards some ways in which we as a church can be a blessing to the country.

Let me begin with a hot cili padi question: What kind of nation are we building, anyway? Who are we, really? What is our national identity? More specifically, is Malaysia an Islamic state or a secular state?

During election campaigns, both PAS and UMNO would try to appeal to Malay Muslim voters by out-Islamizing each other. PAS promises to implement shariah laws and hudud laws when in power, and Umno steals their thunder: “Excuse me. But we are already an Islamic state, lar”. Prime Minister Najib Razak once said: “We have never been secular because being secular by Western definition means separation of the Islamic principles in the way we govern a country… But we have never abdicated from those principles. Malaysia have been always been driven by, and adhere to the fundamentals of Islam”.

Ambiga Sreenevasan who was the Bar Council president then represents the other view: "No, Malaysia is a secular state, not an Islamic state. The law is clear about this whereby the supreme court in a 1998 case stated clearly: we are a secular state and the civil court administers secular law. Certainly, Islam receives special treatment in the Federal Constitution but that does not mean Malaysia is an Islamic state…”

Is it possible to find a way beyond this deadlock? Imagine you find two entrenched people arguing past each other and refusing to budge an inch. It’s always risky when you try to be nuanced and say, “I see what you mean but have you thought about this concern that she brought up?” You are likely to be shot at from both sides. But Jesus says blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called sons of God. Our role is to break down barriers, tear down walls and build bridges even if it means bearing the cross, isn’t it? What can Christians contribute to this conversation?

I believe Christians are in a strategic position to bridge this divide. Because we can better understand that for Muslims, Islam is a comprehensive way of life that speaks to every aspect of human life (from how they eat, how they dress, how they worship and pray, and how laws govern a country, its legal and banking system). For Christians, the gospel is about God’s grace reconciling humanity through Christ’s sacrifice for our sins instead of just a set of rules and regulations. A transformed heart is needed first before obedience to the law is possible. But the gospel also has a social dimension in that God’s rule has now begun to renew and transform every area of our lives. So we pray: “Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. It’s for all of life. If you ask Muslims to leave out their faith from public life totally, you will hit a wall. I think Christians can see a valid concern here where secular-minded folks just don’t get it.

We can also appreciate that secularism as an ideology can be extremely oppressive as well because it insists religious ‘values’ be kept at home while public policies are shaped by value-neutral ‘facts’. This can be seen in Marxist countries during the time of MaoTse Tung, Stalin and Pol Pot where people try to create a paradise without God. And the result is not exactly what John Lennon would imagine when he sings of a world of peace and brotherhood without religion. When people push away God, they always find a substitute god in an idol, a dictator hero, an –ism that is as oppressive, if not more oppressive than any cult.

 The fact is: every moral decision you make in public policies (whether it is on corruption, divorce, environmental conservation, same sex marriage, education) is influenced by your assumptions about what is ultimately real, what is human nature, what is right/wrong, your worldview. So when the secularist asks us to “check out your faith at the door before discussing public issues”, he’s actually taking a very narrow, hostile approach that “You must adopt my worldview before I allow you to talk”. That’s quite dogmatic, is it? Isn’t it more open minded and inclusive to hear and discuss views from various beliefs, bring them to the table and evaluate, critique them in open dialogue instead? It doesn’t matter if they come from secular or religious assumptions… 

So on one hand, we can see why our Muslim friends insist that Malaysia is not a ‘secular’ state in that ideological sense. It may be surprising to some of us how much common ground and bridge building can happen here.

But on the other hand, we can also understand deeply that the state must respect the multiracial, multi religious nature of Malaysian society. We are a pluralistic nation and that’s a rich diversity to be celebrated. If we impose laws to force minority groups to conform to another religion it will only violate their rights to believe and practice their own beliefs. In an Islamic state, Muslims may enjoy full legal status under Shariah law but non-Muslims are seen as ‘dhimmis’ – they are excluded from full participation in the legal system and public policy. Would it not amount to a form of religious segregation? Second class citizens? 

Ambiga is right that the supreme law of Malaysia is the Federal Constitution that says: “Islam is the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” During the formation of Malaysia the original framers of this document assured the Sabahans and Sarawakians that this clause “does not imply that Malaysia is not a secular state.” Put positively, Malaysia is therefore a secular state.

But that doesn’t mean that the state is hostile to religious faiths. It simply means that the state respects the integrity and equality of diverse religions. The government deals with temporal matters (such as education, fighting crime, economic policies) instead of making itself the supreme authority in religious matters. For example, the state is simply not competent to tell others how the Alkitab should be translated in Bahasa Malaysia. Separation of church/state or separation of mosque/state just means that politicians should not be allowed to exploit religion for selfish gains. So institutions like the church/mosque can be independent from state control. They can hold the state accountable to a higher moral authority. Instead of undermining Islam, a secular state in this sense actually lifts up the dignity of the mosque from being manipulated by self serving politicians. So it is not true that a secular state is inherently anti-religion.

The world is eagerly looking for examples of how a Muslim majority country can function with democracy and diversity. Whether you are Muslim, secularist or Christian, the challenge is for each one to bring resources from his or her respective beliefs to address practical issues, how to build an inclusive and just city. But what alternative vision of Malaysia could Christians work for? How can the gospel enter into this story line and bring some sort of resolution to its tensions? 

Dr Ng Kam Weng, a scholar at Kairos Research Center, suggests that we move away from the predictable, emotional reactions in the ‘either Islamic or secular state’ debate and focus instead on strengthening a pluralist democracy as a positive agenda. A pluralist democracy seeks to build a platform to resolve differences among the rakyat so that consensus is built from grass root interaction rather than imposed from the top. A pluralist democracy does not favor a particular religion to the extent that it discriminates against other religions. It does not require you to give up your faith or secular beliefs in order to join in the conversation.

Kam Weng draws on the biblical theme of a covenant as a framework for nation building: Throughout the Bible, God deals with humanity through covenants - he commits himself into relationship with them, binds himself/His people to obligations and responsibilities, blessings and punishments. It is not a uniquely Christian concept because the prophet of Islam made covenants with Jews and Christians during his time too.

A covenant is a moral agreement based on voluntary consent (it's not being forced on you). A covenant is established by mutual loyalty and promise keeping (rather than a concept of ketuanan/master-slave relationship). A covenant is witnessed by some transcendent higher authority between peoples having equal status/mutual respect, with obligation and responsibilities. So it balances freedom with social order, allows diversity in unity. It is realistic about human weakness in dealing with power.

Reinhold Niebuhr said: “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Because we are all made in the image of God, blessed with common grace, we expect to see a lot of goodness, wisdom and integrity in our fellow Malaysians who do not share our faith. I have a lot of admiration and respect for the leadership, wisdom and courage of people like Marina Mahathir, Zainah Anwar, Farish Noor, Ambiga, Rafizi, Nurrul Izzah, Lim Teck Ghee and others that make it possible for democracy to function. If everyone is hopelessly greedy and easily bribed by promises of “you help me, I help you”, then there is no hope for democracy. 

But at the same time, man is inclined to injustice… he is fallen and power corrupts him just like the ring of Sauron can corrupt even the innocence of Frodo or a well-meaning Gandalf. So democracy is necessary because we cannot put absolute power into any person or group’s hands. C.S. Lewis says: “I support democracy because I believe in the Fall of Man… Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellow men”. Because God is Trinitarian, relational and love at the core of His being, we are not interested in creating any “Christian” state that imposes our will upon everyone else. You cannot trust me with absolute power because I am also a fallen sinner and I will turn into an ugly, twisted Gollum if you do.

So we do not want to build a state that is all-powerful and sets itself up as god. Instead, the state must see itself as only one institution among many players in wider society. Its authority is limited in scope. Churchill: Democracy is the worst kind of government except that it’s better than all the other systems.

How could the church then be publicly relevant without being coercive?

Which also brings us to the question: What is Civil Society? Perhaps the simplest way is to see civil society as a "third player" distinct from government and profit making business (the market). Civil society refers to "intermediary institutions" such as professional associations (Bar Council for lawyers), religious groups (the church/mosque/temple), labor unions (MTUC), citizen advocacy organizations (BERSIH, SUHAKAM, SUARAM) and interest groups (WWF, Himpunan Hijau, Dong Zhong, Perkasa) that give voice to various segments in society. These groups enrich public participation in a democracy. Volunteering is often considered a defining characteristic of civil society, which in turn are often called Non Government Organizations, or Non Profit Organizations.

This definition is helpful but there are always grey areas. For example, the news media is called the fourth branch of government (judiciary, legislative (Parliament), executive (The Cabinet – Prime Minister and all the ministers). If not for the online media raising a public uproar over the recent amendment to allow one parent to convert their minor children to Islam, nobody would have known about it. But because people spoke up, the amendment was pulled back for now. So a free and independent press is a crucial element in civil society. But most newspapers and TV stations including Malaysiakini are run as profit-making organizations, so are they part of civil society or part of the commercial world? Anyway, the definition gives us some helpful idea on what civil society is.

Perhaps by your work, education, calling or industry experiences, you can see that you gravitate to one of these areas already. That’s why we have Faith and Work conversations every Sunday, so we can pray for, challenge, equip and send out people to be salt and light in the different corners of our world.

Abraham Kuyper is a well known Dutch reformed pastor, artist, journalist, founder of the Free University of Amsterdam and Prime minister. I don’t know how he does it, but his life demonstrates that the lordship of Christ covers every area of human existence. He also argues that there are different spheres in society such as business, schools, family and church that should have its own freedom and sovereignty. They are all related to one another and build up each other. And the state should not encroach upon their independence. Civil society represents different voices and stakeholders in building a healthy democracy. And the church needs to get in there, and be a part of that.    

How can we contribute to nation building? What can the church do to strengthen civil society?

Even though the church is a small minority, we can make a difference by focusing our effort on a few key strategic things like

Caring for the poor regardless of race and build greater respect and trust among different groups. Think of the orang asli ministry and English tuition ministry to children at the Enggang Flats. Malaysian Care is an NGO involved in that.

Support and lobby for transparency, integrity and anti-corruption in society. NGOs: OHMSI, Transparency International. Are complaints of corruption ignored while the whistleblowers penalized?  

Promote greater freedom to be informed. Write to the newspaper editors or online media. Write a Facebook comment to MP or speak up for a cause? Ken Yeong set a good example by writing on environmental issues at the Bakun National Park, which is also a social justice issue for indigenous peoples.

Does our education system produce students with character, creativity and critical thinking skills? Or are they insular, boxed in and unemployable? A member of our church (Grace Boey) decided to go beyond complaining and be part of the solution. She went back to school to teach. 

And she posted this on her Facebook in April:  

     

Today as I was walking to class, I saw a few of my students borrowing sejarah text books from the class next door and my mood immediately lit up. Then I went into the class and they proudly showed me the books, telling me that they borrowed it just for my class (their own books got confiscated). I couldn't help myself but put on a wide grin. I acknowledged and praised them publicly and they brimmed with pride. It’s so ironic because these are the exact students who kept challenging me in class at the beginning of the year. These are the students who refused carry out my class activities or pay attention when I am teaching. These are the students who asked me to stopped trying to change them because there is nothing that I can do to help them and that they are useless so please stop wasting my time. Today, they showed me a different side of them. A side I have patiently waited and hoped to see. And when one of them (the most notorious of the group) started copying my notes, I almost wet my eyes. I am so proud of you guys. You have proven everyone else wrong about you. Please keep up the good job. I am cheering for you. People ask why do you teach? I teach to help people live better lives and that is why I Teach For Malaysia. 

If you would also like to make a difference and stop education inequity, apply now for Teach for Malaysia. (NGO)

What about you? What about me? How can we be a part of this? Be part of what God is doing in Malaysia. Things are changing fast… maybe not fast enough for some of us. But never underestimate the power of little platoons, small groups committed to acts of mercy and justice to effect social change. It can happen organically, one heart at a time, from bottom up. Not necessarily from top down, political change. Jesus says that the kingdom is like yeast that permeates and influences the whole dough silently, unassumingly.

 Do we feel a sense of ownership of the problems and potentials of our country and take action? Many people will engage in protest, but even more will follow if you offer them a better way. To give an alternative is harder, requires more work and creativity than just shouting and chanting "Hancur BN"! Don’t get me wrong – there are times when we gotta be angry with the nonsense happening around us. Some of us have been on the streets for BERSIH 1, 2, and 3. And we will probably go for a 4^th, if there is one. 

But the power of protest is not in its anger but in its promise, in its invitation that something more beautiful is indeed possible. Not in a common hate, but a common love. That’s what excites people to give their lives for something bigger than themselves. That the ugliness we see today will not last. We shall overcome one day.

If you see the photos or experience the gathering of peaceful, passionate, multiracial, united Malaysians at the BERSIH rallies, you begin to imagine and realize that in principle, another Malaysia is possible. Standing together, we are proof that this other Malaysia is now coming into being; tangible evidence that its time is near. The old social order is dying, but the new is yet to come. In the midst of all the ugliness in this transition, the primary responsibility of the church is to be itself, a people who have been formed by the gospel story. Every Sunday, when we worship, we retell and re-enact the biblical story of creation, fall, redemption and hope. The gospel shapes us to be true to who we are - a new humanity, an alternative society in this fading evil age.

That means: If we want to see transparency and accountability in our leaders, we should begin with ourselves. If we want social equity, then we ourselves need to live simple, sustainable lifestyles and care for the poor. Change starts at home. If we want to see racial harmony, then the church has to be a diverse and reconciling community first.

Someone wrote: The Christian community is the only community in Malaysia that has no single dominant ethnic group, and embraces all ethnic groups with the exception of Malays. Even the last caveat is misleading since there are believers like Lina Joy and substantial numbers of pri-bumi peoples (Sengoi, Iban, Kadazan, Melanau) are very closely related to the Malays linguistically, culturally and ethnically. It is the only non-Muslim community in Malaysia with a strong interest in the Malay language since Bahasa Bibles have been in use for over 150 years. (excerpt from Proclaiming The Peacemaker, by Peter Rowan)

Friends, how we relate to each other, how we deal with gender roles, social class and ethnic relationships will be a witness to this fragmented society. It’s a long, long road. It's not going to be easy. 

Let me end with another quote from Niebuhr: Here’s the thing. The other Malaysia we long for may not happen in our lifetime but "Nothing worth doing is completed in one lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope.” Hope: that God will bring it to completion one day even when we don't live to see it. "And nothing true or beautiful or good ever makes complete sense in our immediate context of history; therefore, we must be saved by faith". Faith: that God is able to lead when our sight is dim, and we do not see how we fit in the bigger scheme of things… "And nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love". Love overcomes the walls that divide us and walks alongside us when the shadows fall. The night is always darkest just before dawn.

And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is Love. 

Books For Sale

                                  Classic Reformed doctrine of God by Herman Bavinck RM 40

Love: The Foundation of Hope (collection of essays interacting with/by Jurgen and Elisabeth Moltmann)   RM 15

The church for the future - Carpe Manana RM15 by Leonard Sweet

Bill Lane Craig vs John D Crossan on historical Jesus/resurrection RM 25

                                                 "Prophecy"? Rick Joyner's Final Quest RM 5

Sam Harris (atheist) on Free Will and predestination RM 25

                                    Intro to Old Testament Theology by JN Schofield RM 5

Spiritual formation and church, Emergent RM 15

RM 50, John Frame on epistemology

Themes in OT Theology by William Dryness RM 6

RM 50 Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral 

Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in crisis RM 20

Max Turner on Holy Spirit & spiritual gifts RM 45

A New Humanity in Christ

Sermon Audio may be downloaded here

Romans 5:12-21

¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

¹⁵ But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! ¹⁶ Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. ¹⁷ For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

¹⁸ Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. ¹⁹ For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

²⁰ The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,²¹ so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think of these photographs? (Photos from Ansel Adams) Are they interesting? Arresting? What do they have in common? 

Well, they are all black and white. In black and white photo composition, light contrast is an effective way of directing our attention to the center of interest. When light and shadows are captured at a certain angle, you find greater depth and finer texture that emerge from the picture – be it the wrinkles on a face, a weather-beaten rock, or the tones of a cloud.

In the passage we read just now, the apostle Paul paints a broad portrait of humanity by contrasting two men: Adam and Christ. Sin entered the world through Adam. Death and condemnation reigned as a result of his action. But justification and life came through the grace of Christ. Adam is the head of a fallen, corrupted humanity. Christ is the head of a new, redeemed community. By doing so, we gain a deeper appreciation and perspective into the shadows of human guilt and the light of divine grace. We can see a contrasting, textured portrait of our human nature.

Just a few chapters earlier, Paul has already shown that all have sinned and come short of God’s glory. The extent of our guilt and depravity is universal. Everyone stands silent and condemned before the throne of God. He has also shown us the heights of God’s mercy and grace in and through Christ. We are declared righteous, justified through faith in Him apart from our moral achievements. As a result of that, as we have learnt from Elder Tom’s sermon last week in Romans 5, as a result of the gospel: We have peace and reconciliation with God, we rejoice in the hope of glory, we rejoice in our sufferings, we shall be saved from God’s holy wrath. Paul exclaimed: “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

That’s good news! But how can one man’s sacrifice bring such great blessings to so many? How can it be that billions of people are affected, for good or for evil, by one person’s actions?

Therefore… and now we come to the passage today in Romans 5:12 onwards… Paul is not shooting randomly in the dark, he’s expanding his arguments here…

Therefore, as a logical development of what goes on earlier, we come to the analogy of Adam and Christ to show the answer to that question. And it is a very complex answer as Paul struggles with human concepts, with the limitations of language and words to convey a reality of cosmic-scale proportions. This is one of the most difficult and controversial passages in the entire letter of Romans to interpret. So let us try to follow his thoughts closely and carefully:

What is Original Sin?

Paul wrote: Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned… but he didn’t finish the sentence. You would expect him to say: Just as sin entered the world through one man, so also through one man, righteousness enter the world and life came to all because all shared in his righteousness. But no, he left it hanging there in order to explain and justify what he has just said. If my Bahasa teacher were to mark Paul’s letter here, she would circle this sentence and write: Ayat tergantung. A suspended sentence… It’s as if Paul was writing or dictating his letter to his secretary, and then he stopped “Uh oh. Wait a minute. I better explain this part or else you may get it wrong”. And he didn’t complete his “just as… so also” thought until we come to verse 18-19 where he says:  “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people”. One for all…

What is it that Paul wanted to explain and clarify? Sin entered the world through one man, Adam. Death then entered the world through his sin. In this way, death came to all people because all sinned.

Now what does he mean by that? In what sense have all sinned so that all die?

There are two possible answers here: Either all sinned by following Adam’s bad example, imitating his sin, and repeating Adam’s rebellion in our own actions. Or all sinned when Adam sinned in the sense that all were included in his sin. Either we all have sinned just like Adam or we all have sinned in Adam’s sin and we sin with Adam’s sinning.

Well, it is true that we all have sinned and when we sin, we are re-living, re-enacting the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Like our first ancestors, we also think that we can know what is good or evil on our own, apart from God. We, too, reach out for the forbidden fruit because it is appealing to our eyes. Because we listen to the serpent’s lie that God does not really love us and wants to withhold what is good from us. Behind every sin is the sin of loving something, anything more than what is most lovely and beautiful – that is, God. Behind every sin, first and foremost, is the sin of rejecting God’s love and wisdom. You cannot commit any sin without first committing the sin of idolatry. It is trying to find happiness and security apart from God. But there is no happiness apart from God. Only death and sorrow and despair… Every time we sin, we are repeating the story of Adam in Eden.

That’s all true. But that is not what Paul is saying here. So he has to break off his argument… leaves his sentence suspended and clarifies his point like this.

In verse 13, he says: Yes, sin was in the world even before God gave Moses the Law and the Ten Commandments. After Adam, people in Sodom and Gomorrah and in the days of Noah continued to sin against the conscience written in their hearts. They continued to live for themselves instead of God. But sin was not charged against them; sin was not imputed against them or not counted against them where there is no law. The purpose of the law is to define the boundaries of sin. Without the law, people do sin but they do not violate any explicit divine commands.

Imagine if we were to walk besides a beautiful lake in Paya Indah Wetlands with giant crocodiles and hippos inside. But there is no signboard that says: “Beware of crocodiles! Do not swim here”. If we jump into the lake and swim there, it is still deadly and dangerous but we did not violate any laws or explicit instructions. We have no knowledge of the prohibition. But if there is a signboard and we still ignore the warning and jump in, not only is it dangerous and foolish and deadly… we have transgressed an explicit prohibition, we have crossed a line. We have trespassed into forbidden places.   

Nevertheless, even when there was no law, death reigned from Adam until Moses. That is, everybody died. Death has a controlling power over everyone.

Now what's the point that Paul wants us to see? He wants us to see that death was not solely the result of individual sins against the Law. People died even though their own sins against the law were not the reason for dying. Instead, the reason all died is because all sinned in Adam. Adam's sin was imputed, accounted to them. "Death reigned even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam." There are those who died without knowing a law and choosing to sin against it. For example, infants who died without understanding any moral law in their hearts or have the mental capacity to make a moral choice. Yet they died. Why? Because of Adam’s sin and the imputation of that sin to the human race… Verse 18 sums it up: "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men." We were all included in his sin. We all have sinned in Adam’s rebellion. Not only did we inherit a tendency, a bent, a corrupt inclination to sin like he did, we all stand guilty and condemned in union with Adam’s fall. Here is the bad news.

And it’s exceedingly difficult to understand and accept, isn’t it? Why should we be condemned for someone else’s sin? Isn’t that so unfair? Especially, if we become more individualistic in our thinking. But many Asians still retain a strong sense of collective solidarity with our extended family, our tribe, nation or race. When you do something wrong, it’s not only you who sinned.

Imagine the Asian mother who scolds his son: “What? You bring home a C+ in your Science paper. How can you bring such shame on the “Chong” family?”

“Or you cannot be a singer. You must study law because you belong to the “Selvaraj” family. Your parents, grandparents and great grand parents are all lawyers. How will I answer to all your ancestors if you choose to be a jazz singer?”

In many Asian cultures, it’s not only about you. Somehow in your exam results and your actions, even your grandfather, grandmother and all your ancestors (nenek moyang) became involved. They are somehow bound up in our own identity. There’s solidarity with the extended family. The idea that we are part of a bigger whole, still connected to the earlier generations still makes a lot of sense in our culture. Perhaps that helps somewhat to understand how the action of Adam, our first ancestor, the great father of the human family, can have a profound impact on all of his descendants.

And throughout the centuries, Christians have wrestled with this question and came up with some possible answers. Some believe we are all actually present in Adam. Even though we were not yet born, each of us acted in Adam so we are rightly implicated for his sin. For example, Abraham paid tithes and offering to a priest called Melchizedek. But the writer of Hebrews (chapter 7) says that Levi, the father of the priestly tribe, paid the tithes to Melchizedek since he was still in his father Abraham’s body at that time. It shows that the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than the Levite priesthood since even Abraham, Levi’s father paid tithes to Melchizedek and is blessed by him.

There is another view: In the Reformed tradition, Adam is seen as the “federal” head of humanity. He is like a Prime Minister representing our country in signing trade agreements. He is like a CEO making strategic decisions that impact the whole company. Like a king who acts on our behalf. All of these actions can have huge impact even on future generations. In a similar way, Adam represents us in a covenant with God: “If Adam obeys God’s command not to eat from the forbidden tree, he would live in fellowship with God. But if he disobeys, death and separation from God will result.” And so Adam acted on our behalf.

From the perspective of law, I understand that the law can hold me accountable for acts done by someone else. If I hire an assassin to murder someone, I can be charged with first degree murder even though my hands never touched a gun and I’m not at the scene of the crime. I am guilty for what my representative did on my behalf. But who hired Adam?

One may say: “Well, at least, in the case of our government, we can still elect our representatives. We cast our votes. (Aside: whether our Election is fair or unfair is another matter, haha!) But I didn’t choose Adam to act on my behalf.” The crucial issue here is not whether we chose Adam or not. We can choose someone to represent us but as we can see even in Malaysian politics, the people we choose may not necessarily carry out our wishes. Some elected officials jump ship (like frogs). Others betray our trust even though they seemed to be nice at first. But our knowledge is limited.  Later, they may say things or make decisions that we do not support. Just having a choice doesn’t really guarantee that our representative would do what we would have done.

So the real question is: Did Adam truly, accurately, represent us? Would we have done the same if we were in the Garden of Eden? Would we have believed Satan’s lie that God does not want to give what’s best for you? From personal experience, I’m sure I would have fallen too. I could do no better than Adam. And the choice of Adam as our representative (as our federal head) is made by God himself. He knows everything about Adam and He knows everything about us. He is just and fair in all of his dealings with us. So there is good reason to think that Adam accurately represented us when he acted on our behalf, so we are justly condemned in his sin. Yes, we are sinners because we do sins. But the deeper problem is: We sin because we are by nature sinners.

We are like that tiger called Richard Parker in the movie Life of Pi (about a young boy stranded in the middle of the ocean with a tiger); it was raised in a zoo as a little cub but it would be a mistake to treat it like a pet. By nature, it is a carnivore and given the chance, it will kill for food. When it kills, it's doing what it is by nature. Richard Parker is a symbol of the ferocious, violent aspect of human personality.

How is Adam a fore shadow of Christ?

And the reason Paul wants us to get this doctrine of original sin is because: Adam is a type of the one to come. Adam is a fore shadow of Christ, a signpost pointing to the second Adam, a pattern or typology that is fulfilled in Jesus. Christ is the head of a new humanity. He is not just a tribal deity of only a certain nation. He’s not just the God of Israel or God of the Europeans. The scope of His salvation is universal – it covers every single person on the planet. He is the king of a new global community. A new people shaped by grace and life, not sin and death. “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Unless you see the light contrast between Christ and Adam, you will not appreciate the depths of human sin or the heights of divine mercy. And the whole Christian life is a lifelong discovery of these two truths.

But how does Adam function as a typology of Christ? Firstly, Paul points out how Christ’s gift is not like Adam’s trespass. It is much more effective than his sin. He wants to bring out the contrast. Adam’s trespass is a fall away from the path of God to go his own willful way. But Christ’s gift (charisma) is an act of self sacrifice and obedience which overflows in undeserved blessing to many. In that sense, we are all charismatic because we are all saved by Christ’s charisma or gift on the cross.  

The immediate effect of their actions is also radically different (verse16). Judgment and condemnation followed Adam’s one sin, but Christ’s gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. That means, we are declared not guilty and declared as righteous instead. You would think that one sin brought condemnation so many sins would bring even more condemnation. But grace doesn’t operate like that: The accumulated sins and guilt of all the centuries have been answered by God’s free gift. That is mind blowing, insanely great, miracle of all miracles.

The ultimate result of Adam’s sin and Christ’s gift is also radically different. Death oppressed and reigned over us through Adam but how much more will those who receive God’s abundant grace and gift of righteousness reign in life through Christ (verse 17). Previously, death was our king and we were its slaves. You would expect that life would now be our king and we would be its subjects. But no, Paul says, how much more is God’s grace… it’s not the same… Christ delivers us from the rule of death so that we will reign in life. We will not be slaves but delegated with kingly authority from Christ. Heaven is not a boring place where people play harps all the time. It’s going to be We will implement the rule of God over all of creation in the new heaven and new earth.

How would that look like, I wonder? Two weeks ago, our brother Ken Yeong invited us to imagine how the lake next to us can be restored, renewed for wild life as well as for the flourishing of human community. Instead of dirty, polluted water there will be thriving wetlands. Instead of dead fish, there will be hobby fishing. Instead of overgrown bushes there will be paths for families to take strolls. Not that abandoned mining pond, but our restored lake. We will need people of different gifts, perhaps even different churches and NGOs to come alongside in this project. Perhaps that is a model of what Christian stewardship of creation can look like, of what it looks like when a small piece of God’s reign come on earth as it is in heaven. We will reign in life one day, Paul says. How would that look like today? In Puchong…

And now, having shown the contrast so you don’t think that Christ is exactly the same as Adam, Paul is ready to show how the similarity between Adam and Christ with the “Just as… so also…” structure of the last few verses. This is the good news:

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Dr. Lloyd Jones said: “Look at yourself in Adam; though you had done nothing you were declared a sinner. Look at yourself in Christ; and see that, though you have done nothing, you are declared to be righteous.” That is the beautiful symmetry. Remember our condemnation in Adam even when we had done nothing? In the same way, we are counted righteous, reckoned righteous, imputed with the active obedience of Christ himself through no credit of our own.  

His grace does not just wipe our records clean and leave us with a blank sheet of paper. Back to square one. It does not bring us back to the original position of Adam. But now we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ so that when God sees us, He doesn’t see our sins anymore… Instead He sees us as having the same righteousness as Mother Theresa? Something is not right here… No, He sees that we are as righteous as Billy Graham or Gandhi or Pope John Paul II? No, again. He sees us as righteous as Christ. How amazing is that? We take the credit for the righteousness of Christ himself. Is that fair? No it’s not. But it’s grace.  

I didn’t obey God’s will fully. I didn’t live a sinless life. I didn’t go to the cross. I haven’t done anything to deserve it one bit. But His righteousness is counted, reckoned and imputed as mine. It’s not fair, it’s grace. Even infants who died without the ability to make moral choices can be directly given spiritual life by the Holy Spirit, rescued from Adam’s condemnation and justified freely by God’s sovereign grace.

But for the rest of us, how do you get this righteousness of Christ? Is it automatically given to everyone so that everyone is saved? Some people point to verse 18: just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. So all people will be saved, right?   

That’s not a correct understanding because Paul clearly teaches that there are people who choose to reject God and will remain condemned. The verse 17 says “those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness” will reign in life. You need to give up your pride in moral achievements, and humbly receive this gift. We are justified through the empty hands of faith. It’s the only response that honors God as the only Giver. In another passage in Corinthians, Paul talks about this same Adam-Christ contrast like this: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (1 Cor 15:21-22)”. That means: there are two humanities. One is in Adam, and all who are in covenant with him dies. The new humanity is in Christ, and all who are in covenant with Him will be made alive. So all people means all people (both Jews and Gentiles, no difference)… all people who are in Christ will be justified by grace alone through faith alone to the glory of God alone.

Friends, are you in Adam or are you in Christ today?

Do you ever doubt whether God still loves you…? You blew it big time… You think you have messed up really bad this time and you wonder if God will ever forgive you… or if you will ever forgive yourself. Do you ever despair that you’d be never good enough? Do you feel powerless in prayer? In such times, remember the gospel. Preach this gospel to yourself: That when God looks at you, He sees only the righteousness of Christ in you. He sees the perfection of Christ in you. He sees the moral beauty of Christ in you. He’s not saying, “Who let you in here? Or what’s your name again?”  He says: “Welcome! My child in whom I am well pleased”…  You are accepted, reconciled, justified and imputed by the active obedience of Christ... by the perfect obedience of Christ to God’s law. That’s good news.

Well, then, some people may ask: What is the purpose of the law? Since death reigned from the time of Adam, why do we still need the law of Moses? It cannot save us. Paul says: “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.” You would think that the law is supposed to reduce sin but it actually increased it. The law serves to reveal sin, define sin and display it like the warning sign. The problem is not with the law. But due to our fallen nature, what is forbidden is always sweeter. I came across a study that suggests that instead of encouraging safer driving and reduce accidents, speed traps actually cause more accidents. People know there's a speed trap coming and step on the brakes, causing more accidents.

 The law ends up provoking sin instead of preventing it. So the purpose of the law is not to save us, but to show us how deep, how desperate is our need for a Savior. You will never get the good news until you see the bad news.

“But where sin increased, grace increased all the more so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

So the reason why Paul wants you to see that your condemnation is in Adam and not just by your own sins is so that he can put it side by side with the glorious justification you have in Christ (not by your own works but by a righteousness that is not your own). It does not depend on your performance, it is all of grace. His perfection is credited into your accounts. God meets the ugliness of sin with the all surpassing beauty of His grace.   

Appendix:

Sometime back, I came across an article in Christianity Today and a copy of it is available at the back of the church talking about “The quest for the historical Adam”. What do archeology (the study of prehistoric human activity), paleontology (the study of fossils and prehistoric life) and genetic science tell us about Adam and Eve? If you google about blogs and books nowadays, you will find lots of discussions about whether Adam and Eve were literal/historical figures or a symbolic, mythic way of talking about human nature. Not all of us here ask these kinds of questions, but some would be interested. And this passage we are reading today is helpful to guide how we address this topic.

Recent discoveries about the features of human DNA seem to imply that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago. This is still being hotly debated. Maybe we need someone with Phd in molecular biology who will be much more qualified than I to evaluate the pros and cons of these findings. (Google for Vern Poythress response online)

If this is true, then it gives us a few possible options: One option is to view Adam and Eve as historical people living among many about 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God. Another option is to view Genesis as an allegory in which Adam and Eve symbolize a large group of ancestors or a parable of each person’s rejection of God. Respected Christians like John Stott took the first view (you still have a historical Adam) while C.S. Lewis took the second view (no historical Adam). In my personal opinion, even if there is compelling evidence for these claims, it would not be knock out punch to the Christian faith because it’s possible to take positions like that.

However, as we have seen in Romans 5, we should be still careful to maintain a historical Adam and Eve because there are theological dangers in accepting an allegorical Adam.

Tim Keller provides a pastoral perspective into this discussion:

Some may say, “Even though we don’t think there was a literal Adam, we can accept that all human beings have sinned and that through Christ we can be saved. So the basic bible teaching is still there, even if we do not accept the historicity of the story of Adam and Eve.”

But the gospel is not good advice. It is good news of what has been done to save us in history, on the cross, so that when we believe in Jesus, we are "in Christ". We are in covenant with him through faith. So what he has done in history is imputed to us.

And just as Adam’s sin resulted in the condemnation of all people, so also the righteous act of Christ results in justification and life for all people. In Adam, all die. In Christ, all will be made alive. The argument works like this: What happened to Adam affects you just as what happened to Christ affects you. It is impossible to be ‘in’ covenant with someone who doesn’t exist. Tim Keller wrote: “If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that both sin and grace work "covenantally"—falls apart. You can’t say that Paul was a man of his time but accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.”

That’s pretty serious implication. No literal Adam, no imputed sin. No imputed righteousness either – no hope without it. 

Allah:The Noun and the Name – The Root of Confusion

Excerpt from KrisisPraxis: In the Arabic language the definite article is quite clearly denoted as “ta’rîf”, the one which makes known or which defines, and a word standing in an undefined position (in English either “a” or nothing at all) is “nakira”, the “unknown”.

Allâh, coming from al-ilâh, clearly is defined by the article, the “ta’rîf” “al-” (English: the) which has to go whenever the word is determined by another word. The presence of the determiner also confirms that Allah is not a name as every name is determined by itself, e.g., we have “Muhammad” and not al-Muhammad.

Note – Similarly, Quirk and Greenbaum authoritative Grammar points out that in English, “We may therefore draw a distinction between a proper noun, which is a single word, and a name, which may or may not consist of more than one word. A name normally functions as a single unit with respect to grammar. This means that, even if a composite name has an internal structure that is grammatically analysable (eg as King’s College is analysable as genitive noun + head noun), that structure cannot normally be varied by the insertion of words, by change of inflection, etc.” (p. 288).

The word that can be determined (and consequently morphologically inflected in the case of Semitic languages) is not a name. For example, the al- disappears when Allah is determined by another word, e.g., The God of Abraham (Ibrahim) becomes ‘ilah Ibrahim’ and not ‘Allah Ibrahim.’ Conversely, names are not inflected or modified as a result of their syntactical relations in the sentence. In short, the modification of the words ilah and Allah confirms that Allah is not a personal name.

Summary: Proper nouns are pointers to individuals without themselves defining the semantic content (qualities etc). The word Allah has no rigid designation. It is not a personal name. The semantics of the word Allah as a proper noun (properly nuanced) shows that there is no justification that the word be used exclusively for the supreme deity of Islam.

To repeat:

Confusion continues to reign over some (otherwise intelligent) Malay Muslim scholars evident from their fumbled handling of the semantics of Allah because there is no definite article in the Malay language. It would be helpful for them to reconsider the significance of definite article in the Arabic and other Semitic languages.

WHEN, WHY AND HOW CHRISTIANS USE THE WORD ‘ALLAH’

  CFM - Allah Fact Sheet - 16 May 2013 - FINAL - English by Yuen Woh Voon

Citizens Of God's Two Kingdoms

Citizens of Two Kingdoms: Applying the Reformation Two Kingdoms Theology to the Malaysian context

Election fever is boiling over. You can see it in campaign banners fluttering in the wind. You can hear it in passionate ceramah from aspiring candidates and resounding cheers from their supporters. You can feel it in the SMS’es, Facebook updates and tweets that assail your digital devices. On May 5, Malaysian citizens from all walks of life thronged to polling stations around the country to exercise their much-anticipated duty to vote for their representatives in Parliament and state governments.

In the midst of such unprecedented excitement over the 13^th general election, some Christians have expressed concern when pastors or priests seem to make fun of the government or endorse a particular political party. “Don’t politicize the pulpit”, they say. “Whatever happened to separation of church and state? The body of Christ must always remain united. If leaders take sides in a highly polarized election, how could they bring healing and reconciliation after the dust has settled?”

Other believers take seriously the preacher’s task to speak up and take sides against blatant injustice. “Did Jesus pull punches against the corrupt leaders of His day?” they ask. “Confronting the powers require us to name people or parties for their unjust practices. Sure, the pulpit can be a place to tell people whom to vote for without selling out to partisanship! The church cannot remain neutral.”

Therefore it is timely for us to consider afresh the complex relationship between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world, and indeed the church and the world.

When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus whether he was the king of the Jews, he replied by saying, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:33, 36). The “kingdom of God” is central to the preaching of Jesus and the storyline of the Scriptures (Matthew 4:17). It has political as well as religious connotations. Religiously, it is the kingdom of God; politically, it is the kingdom of God. The rule of God over the entire world and all who live in it was established when He created all things according to His good purposes. But our sinful rebellion to dethrone God and exert our own autonomy resulted in deep alienation from Him, from each other and from the natural order. When Jesus heralded the coming of the Kingdom, it was good news indeed because, in and through Him, the rule of God became a present reality on earth. His reign was realized through our redemption from sin into a covenant relationship with God, gathering us into a Spirit-gifted community (also known as the church) and would culminate in the renewal of the entire cosmos.

In a real sense, the kingdom has arrived and present in the midst of gathered believers (Matthew 13:16-17, Luke 17:20-21). But the kingdom is also yet to come in its fullness (Matthew 25:34). One day, the King will return to usher in His healing justice so that the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord (Revelation 11:15). Meanwhile, the reign of God is like a seed – its hidden life grows into maturity and produces good fruit even in the midst of hostile opposition (Matt. 4:26-29; 13:36-42). As followers of Jesus, we live in the already/not yet tension of God’s kingdom within earthly nations of the world. We are citizens of two kingdoms.

But how do we navigate the complexities inherent in our dual citizenships?

Living in God’s Two Kingdoms

During the Reformation, Luther steered a path between two conflicting tendencies: to confuse the two kingdoms and to divorce the two kingdoms. On one hand, Pope Boniface VIII taught that both spiritual and temporal swords are under the control of the Roman Church. The spiritual sword is wielded by the priests while the temporal sword by the hands of kings and soldiers as their subordinates (Unam Sanctum). On the other hand, some radical Anabaptist groups rejected any Christian involvement in society and sought to escape from it by forming separatist communes. For them, Christians should never bear the secular sword. In contrast, the Magisterial Reformers insisted that Christians should be involved in the world. Since every believer is a “priest”, each person has been called to serve God fully in their secular work. But the secular sword should be distinguished from the spiritual means by which the gospel should reach the world.

In the Reformation “two kingdoms” theology, all of creation belongs to God but He rules the world with two different forms of government – the earthly realm in which all people live is governed through law/reason and the spiritual realm in which Christians are ruled by the gospel/special revelation. There are different hands for different work. God uses social and political institutions (“left hand”) to maintain order and peace, to punish wrongdoing and promote the common good in society. He expands the spiritual kingdom through preaching of the Word by the power of the Holy Spirit (“right hand”) to forgive sins and nurture the church for good works. The two reigns of God have mutually dependent but different tasks – the state needs the prayers and intercessions of the church while the church needs the state to maintain social order so that the gospel may preached without hindrance (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

Recent theologians who favor the “two kingdoms” model look upon Christian attempts to ‘redeem society’ or ‘transform the nation’ with deep suspicion. For example, David VanDrunen argues that the normative standards for our cultural activities are, in general, “not distinctively Christian”. We expect the same requirements of honesty, integrity and excellence from both Christian and non-Christian parliamentarians. Car repair and dentistry are general human activities rather than uniquely Christian ones. There is no ‘Christian politics’ any more than there is ‘Christian plumbing’.

VanDrunen recognizes that Scripture tells us crucial things about the big picture of all human disciplines (including public governance) and our motivation for doing them (out of love, faith and obedience to God). But when it comes to the technical details of education, engineering and business, there is plenty of room for liberty so we should not impose unnecessary pressure on others to develop a ‘Christian’ way of carrying out these activities. For example, our faith does not change how algebra is taught. When it comes to public governance, the state should not intervene by trying to change the doctrines and practices of the church for political mileage. Neither should believers in government seek to legislate according to specific Christian beliefs which others do not consider as authoritative, but according to natural law, reason and shared ethics.

Applications in the Malaysian Context  

How then shall we apply these insights from the “two kingdoms” framework to our contemporary context in Malaysia?

Firstly, our recognition of two distinct kingdoms cautions us against triumphalism and unrealistic expectations from our efforts in social transformation. In the heat of a campaign, some believers may be tempted to claim ‘divine inspiration’ that a predicted electoral victory for their favored candidate to be a ‘miracle of God’. Sometimes, warfare language may be employed to claim divine promise of deliverance in the midst of a ‘vast army’ of political opponents. The “two kingdoms” model reminds us that politics is a matter of the temporal, provisional and common kingdom shared by all. It should not be exalted as a means for bringing the redemptive kingdom of God on earth. Everything is politics, but politics is not everything.

Secondly, the “two kingdoms” framework encourages persuasion using natural law, common ethics or reason in our public discourse. This is possible since God’s moral law is universally written in the hearts and conscience of humanity. We should not be surprised to find non-believers displaying courage, integrity and compassion greater than ours. In the temporal kingdom, we do not make our case by merely quoting Bible verses for support. In a pluralistic society, we need to commend biblical values in an informed and winsome manner for the common good of all citizens. Luther made an important distinction between a person and her office in keeping with the law/gospel distinction. For example, a Christian individual generally follows the Sermon on the Mount by forgiving those who wrong her. But if she holds a public office as a judge, then she will have to sentence a convicted criminal out of love for the wider community. In her ‘official’ capacity, she carries out the mandate given to the state as part of her vocation (the law) even though personally, she does not seek revenge but forgives her enemies (the gospel).

Thirdly, the ‘two kingdoms’ model clarifies that the main mandate of the church is to proclaim the gospel in word and deed. The redemptive kingdom is uniquely established through faithful ministry of the Word and the sacraments. It should not be reduced to a passing ideological fad. While the church has an active and prophetic role in society, her primary mission is not in the realm of law and politics. Preachers should not be expected to pontificate on party affiliations, voting strategies and details of public policy from the pulpit. Believers may legitimately disagree about how to prioritize issues such as cost of living, road congestion, taxes, tolls and economic stability when casting their votes.

The real challenge comes when we consider public policies which involve moral issues that are addressed by Scripture such as corruption. In VanDrunen’s judgment, the church must teach “all that the Scripture says about such topics as moral issues but should be silent about such topics as concrete political or public policy issues.” For example, the Bible is clear that stealing and oppressing the poor are grievous sins before God. When the preacher speaks out against such practices, it would have concrete political implications. But believers must make discretionary judgments in order to decide how to apply the clear teaching of Scripture to our particular situation. Some Christians may refuse to vote for Barisan Nasional because of public scandals involving government officials. Other believers may decide to vote for the ruling coalition. Perhaps, there is no viable alternative on the ballot. Perhaps, they discern a more effective approach to reform from within instead of a change in administration. Their different judgments on how to combat corruption stem from the same commitment to biblical teaching. One approach may be definitely wiser than the other, but Scripture itself does not promote one side over the other as the Christian position. Neither should we.

Concluding Remarks

Although there are precious insights to be gleaned from the ‘two kingdoms’ model, critics have also pointed out that it underestimates the impact of sin on society and put too much trust in common grace to uphold the ‘secular’ function of the state. Our socio-political structures are often not innocently neutral, but institutional embodiments of our corporate idols – be it economic prosperity, ethnic supremacy or military strength. These worldviews need to be challenged by the gospel of Christ’s kingdom. For example, the ‘two kingdoms’ model was sometimes blamed for a form of social quietism amongst German Lutherans that allowed the Nazi movement to rise unchallenged in the 1930s.

Yes, the Bible is not a comprehensive handbook for everything, but it does speak powerfully on a wide range of economic, cultural and socio-political issues. Racial reconciliation is a profoundly difficult and urgent task that confronts our nation after the 13^th general election. It presents the diverse Christian community in Malaysia with an opportunity to demonstrate how the gospel transcends ethnic barriers the way it did for the early church (Acts 13). Theologian Peter Rowans wrote, “In Malaysia, the church has the task of not only proclaiming the message of reconciliation to all Malaysians, but of embodying the concrete implications of that message in its community life, so that Malaysians of all races and sections of the community can look at a local church and see the gospel fleshed out in a racially reconciled group of people who can work, worship and witness together.” Perhaps the most politically significant action we can take is to be true to who are – as God’s reconciled and reconciling community bearing witness to the Lordship of Christ in all of life by overcoming sectarian hatred and ethnic distrust.

1. For more details, see Vaughan Roberts’ “God’s Big Picture” and Graeme Goldsworthy’s “Gospel and Kingdom”

2. Reconciliation is a central theme in theology of mission. Check out Peter Rowans’ “Proclaiming the Peacemaker: The Malaysian church as agent of reconciliation in a multicultural society”.