What the 'Aware Saga' really is

What the 'Aware Saga' really is

Thirty-five days on and the 'Aware Saga' appears to have reached a logical conclusion: the head of the official council of Protestant churches in Singapore has issued a statement to the effect that it does not condone churches getting 'involved' in the ‘saga’.

“In fact, our heads of churches have very recently reiterated to their clergy the standing instruction on the proper use of the pulpit,” read the National Council of Churches of Singapore statement signed by the president, Anglican Archbishop John Chew, and general secretary, Lim K Tham.

A brilliant ‘saga’ of an ‘anti-homosexual’ church ‘motivating’ a group of women to use ‘storm-trooper tactics’ to take over a secular non-governmental organisation so as to promote ‘parochial’ and ‘exclusivist’ interests of Christians and their faith has come to a head. But instead of accepting the media reports hook, line and sinker, it is necessary to reflect on what the ‘Aware Saga’ really is – and what it is not but has been made out to be.

It is a group of concerned women that have come together to restore an influential women’s rights organisation to its original, noble mandate of advancing female rights in society

Get it from the horse’s mouth. Rather than believing rumours and speculations that while sounding good to our itching ears are anything but the truth, the Christian public should take the four women leaders at their words.

“It has now become a single-objective organisation. So that’s what the new team is here to do: we want to bring Aware back to its original, very noble objective, which is to represent all women, to advance their cause, all women whatever race and religion in areas such as professional development, their private life, their health… We need to look at ageism, all the problems… So we should be pushing those cause,” stated Aware president Josie Lau last Thursday.

Why were they not upfront and direct about the evils that were taking place with Aware as a platform?

If previous leaders of Aware had indeed been up to no good and in a clandestine way as report after report has revealed, what gives them the right to remain as leaders? Aware may be a non-discriminatory and inclusive organisation, but there is a world of difference between discrimination and moral discernment. The former case has to do with amoral issues while the latter has to do with moral issues. Besides, the leaders were democratically elected into the exco.

It is not a conflict between homosexuals and Christian fundamentalists

Rather, it is a conflict between a liberal and conservative worldview and those who hold the mutually opposing views. One group believes that there are no absolute morals and that every view is and has been socially-constructed and socially-determined. The other side maintains that moral absolutes exist; that there is such a thing as right and wrong, virtue and vice, decency and decadence.

Unfortunately, instead of recognising the difference in viewpoint the liberal proponents accuse the conservatives, targeting evangelical Christians, of ostracising and persecuting them. They use terms like ‘homophobic’ to describe well-meaning and sincere people who may have no hatred for homosexuals per se but simply consider homosexuality a sin.

And yet it is impossible to resolve such a conflict without mutual understanding. It is likely that homosexual activists will not appreciate the distinction between discrimination and discernment until there is admission that an absolute morality exists. The timeless clash between the liberal or anti-moral and conservative camps cannot be resolved unless one viewpoint is utterly conquered. Until that day comes, every sincere action of Christians to engage society in regard to homosexuality and any other controversial moral issue will always be regarded with scorn and contempt and understood as an attempt to oppress and dictate.

What we can do

After recognising that the Aware conflict is not one that is easily resolved because it involves two mutually-opposing worldviews, certain parties such as the official press need to avoid getting into the ‘fray’ as it were in an unhelpful way.

The newspapers, especially the Straits Times, should not take sides in the debate. It is possible for a press to be completely informational and objective, to report fact without interpretation. In this regard it is not constructive of the papers to favour one side by using its terms like ‘saga’ to describe the unfolding of events and getting figures in authority to speak on it as if that point of view was a universally accepted one.

The real issue at hand is not whether or not churches should be involved in the NGO – the crisis is that society cannot understand Christians and what it doesn’t understand it is apt to misunderstand and fear. To the multitudes of non-Christians of an anti-moral persuasion, churches should not get involved simply because Christians are ‘aggressive’ people with a ‘dangerous’ agenda to ‘impose’ their values and beliefs on the rest of the world. If it had been a non-Christian leader representing a different religion, such fears would perhaps not have surfaced.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.405