O Lord, protect us in our struggle against evil. As we begin the Lenten journey, make this season holy by our self-denial. Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

adapted from International Committee on English in the Liturgy (via Verse and Voice)

There are two seasons which has a special place in my own spiritual journey.  The first is Advent, the other is Lent. Both seasons somehow concentrate my attention towards a climatic point, the two pictures that capture this climax is the cradle and the cross of Christ.

This is my first season of Lent away from my home country.  So, the Lenten journey opens up a a different possibility to reflect on the regular themes only in different geographical location, but also in a different spiritual location in this season of my life.

My connection back home to Malaysia, is primarily through the internet either on Facebook or reading the news and views online. A quick glance of the thoughts in So, why is Malaysia on the Human Rights Council again?, especially the following caught my attention:

The dialogue on human rights in this country has been strange and very often contradictory. It’s not for nothing that we have been accused of being “champions of double talk.” Consider the fact that time and again, our policymakers have repeated the line that human rights is solely a Western device not suited for Asian communities. A number of religious figures have even stated that human rights is not compatible with Islam, never mind that the Quran is in fact, when read and interpreted properly, chock-a- block full with the spirit and principles of human rights and justice. The Malaysian government has also argued that international standards of human rights are not applicable to Malaysia because of the over-emphasis on the rights of the individual as opposed to the rights of the community.

So why then are we on the Human Rights Council? Why did we make those pledges during the campaigning and lobbying to be elected for a seat (yes, Malaysia did work hard and made several pledges to be on this august group). Malaysia stated clearly as one of its pledges that it would “engage constructively in the evolving modalities of work of the HRC to make it a strong, fair, effective, efficient and credible vehicle for the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide.” If Malaysia doesn’t believe in human rights as it is understood by the international community, why then continue to be a member of the HRC?

So my mind comes back to the opening utterance from the prayer:

O Lord, protect us in our struggle against evil.

In this season of Lent, our struggle against evil not only includes confronting the rights and wrongs  – good and evil within us so we can be an ‘Upright Human’, but this whole debate on ‘Human Rights’ alerts us to the struggle of right and wrong – good and evil outside of the comforts of computer screens and the solitude of our souls.

We are very well aware that when our ‘souls’ are corrupted by evil, this corruption is destructive to our ‘body’ life and our relations with other people, culture and even nature. I doubt it is that different when the ‘soul’ of a nation is corrupted by evil in and through self-deception, questionable intentions, methods of control, and a range of other expressions would in any way help the ‘body’ life of our society. The lines from the Lord’s Prayer is shouts aloud in the classic translation, “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”.

So, as I enter this Lented journey as an individual, and together with a corporate body as a church both institutionally and organically, I wonder what this Lenten journey might mean for us in Malaysia as we are gearing towards what some have labeled as potentially the ‘filthiest’ general election in Malaysian history.

For me, my prayer is for all who are struggling against evil expressed in varied shapes and sizes – whether is corruption or a ‘dirty’ election.  This does not mean that when we pray this prayer everyone who is not like us are ‘demonized’, it’s a call to ALL to recognize the ‘war against evil’ is truly a struggle because no one is exempt from its temptation.

“You desire truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have crushed rejoice. Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.” - Psalm 51:6-9

(photo BERNAMA)

Mahathir not personally responsible?

Sven Schottmann’s argument is simple and important: First, he offers a defense on Mahathir’s contribution to interreligious relations, and second, our attention is turned to the people – the religious people – with due attention to historical factors that impacts their disposition to people of other religions.  Both ideas are summarised succinctly in the following:

“Mahathir himself, while in power, personally fostered such encounters and frequently spoke to Christian and also to Buddhist and Hindu audiences, both locally and overseas. It thus seems inaccurate to hold Mahathir personally responsible for the failure to bring Malaysians together in a respectful debate about their individual faiths.

The biggest impediments to a more meaningful inter-religious dialogue, in particular a more meaningful Muslim-Christian dialogue has been historically grown animosities and suspicions that will take time to overcome.”

In non-academic terms, one might read it as (1) Don’t put all the blame on Mahathir, because he has personally fostered and encouraged interfaith encounters, and (2) It’s really about the social psychological state of mind of religious people due to historic upbringing that is the main problem. Therefore, (3) it follows that we should turn away from the blame game on Mahathir (or perhaps by implication politicians in power?) and focus on addressing ingrainedanimosities and suspicions in religious communities, and in due time we will live happily ever after.

Who is responsible then?

As a result of reading Sven’s essay, a more general question emerged in my mind, whose responsibility is it – the politicians or the people?  My main concern is not so much on the notion of ‘historically grown animosities and suspicions’ as one of the ‘impediments to a more meaningful inter-religious dialogue’.  The word ‘biggest’ is what in my view warrants a minor intervention.  Even if we answer both the politicians and the people, in the case of Malaysia, where does the greater ‘weight of responsibility’ lean towards?

Admittedly, most of us are aware that assigning singular causes to the complex realities in which religious people seek to negotiate their relation to ultimate mystery and the daily grind of earthly matters is a dead end street. Making Mahathir the sole cause for “the the overall failure of an inter-religious dialogue culture to take root in Malaysia” though might be therapeutic is not only contestable as suggested by Sven but might actually distract us from some needed self-critical reflection, is where I think Sven is leading us. In that sense, I appreciate Sven’s contribution.  But, is it not equally simplistic to unload the ‘weight of responsibility’ from those in positions of power – I am speaking more generally now – to overburden religious communities with unnecessary guilt?

To begin, let me state that I believe both Sven and I are on the same page when it comes to the significance of inter-religious dialogue as part of the solution to prevent, as well as overcome ‘religion’ being used as a source, justification, and even ‘scape-goat’ for conflict and violence.

To add value to Sven’s original contribution, I would like to mention contributions of Christians and Muslims critical reflection on interfaith dialogue that has already been done that addresses some of these animosities and suspicions.  For example, Malaysian theologian Albert Walters’ (2007) work on Christian-Muslim relations, Sociologist Syed-Farid Alattas’ (2008) reassertion on the Islamic commitment to dialogue  and Robert Hunt’s (2009) emphasis on identity and narrative are most illuminating, just to name a few.

A side note to mention, the discussions here in New Mandela on ‘Apostasy’ from at least two perspectives are a breath of fresh air even though it might be uncomfortable to some, and counter-productive for others. The main value is that we are engaged in a form of dialogue that others can build on.

However, as contributors to the challenge of inter-religious dialogue, so often, we recognise that our work is necessary but not sufficient.  Hence, I would like to raise a number of concerns from a civil society perspective, hopefully in order to develop a way to understand the Malaysian situation, and subsequently find ways together in true dialogical fashion towards some solution/s. The perspective I am hoping to bring aims to take into account the struggle of people – especially religious people – on the ground in the current conditions of Malaysia post-Mahathir.

Voices from the ground

As a point of entry, in the case of Malaysia, religious communities have historically recognised the need for a healthy environment for living together. For example, from a non-Muslim perspective, since 1983,  the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) has dedicated, at the institutional level, towards the following:

(a)  To promote understanding, mutual respect and co-operation between people of different religions.

(b)  To study and resolve problems affecting all inter religious relationships.

(c)  To make representations regarding religious matters when necessary.

(d) To advance and promote the religious, cultural, educational and social rights and interests of the religious bodies.

Besides the presence and the work of the MCCBCHST, in recent years, I would like to suggest that in civil society there are indicators that perhaps Malaysians of different faiths and persuasions do not have such strong animosities andsuspicions that might be assumed prior to further empirical investigation. And especially in times of controversy and tension, it is the religious communities together with other civil society groups that have taken the lead in public to confront what potentially can be disastrous outcomes if left unattended. Below are some significant excerpts from non-Muslims, Muslims and other civil society groups during times of tension:

“We, the undersigned civil society organizations are shocked, angered and saddened by the “Cow-Head protest” in Shah Alam last Friday, 28 August 09, against a proposed Hindu temple in Section 23 of the city. The carrying of the head of a freshly slaughtered cow, a sacred animal to the Hindus and the unveiled threat of bloodshed on the eve of Merdeka celebration suggests that all Malaysians need to reflect deeply about our 52 years of nationhood, and the clarion call of 1Malaysia.

From the outset, these heinous acts of crime perpetrated by the irresponsible few must NEVER be seen as a conflict between the two faiths or the two faith communities. All major spiritual traditions, Islam and Hinduism included, uphold peace and human dignity as their common and core values. Our spirituality and love for humanity mandates us for the perpetual quest for peace and abhorrence of all forms of hatred and civil disorder.” – The Cow-Head Lesson for Merdeka: Delegitimize Violence and Hatred

“This act of arson, committed presumably in the name of Islam desecrates the very religion it purports to protect. The Holy Quran unequivocally prohibits destroying the houses of worship of all religions, as warned in Surah Al-Hajj, Verse 40.

“… Had not Allah checked the excesses and aggression of one set of people by means of another, surely would be destroyed monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated …” – MPF Statement On Church Torchings

“As in the past, Malaysians of other faiths see the attack on Islam as an attack on their own faiths. In an immediate response, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) have condemned any such violence on any house of worship as “a sin of the highest order”.

The inter-faith solidarity of Malaysians is a clear and loud testimony that Malaysian society has passed another test on communal relations and emerged only ever stronger than before. No cow head, pig head or fire can set the fraternity and goodwill amongst Malaysians on fire. The agent provocateurs are only burning themselves in stark desperation devoid of any modicum of civic consciousness or religiosity.

The indomitable spirit of mutual respect and muhibbah of the Malaysian society in the face of challenging inter-faith issues is however tarnished by the continuous failures of the Malaysian state of law and order. The police must stop dismissing such attacks as purely acts of vandalism or juvenile delinquency.” – Police investigation on mosque attacks must pursue the political operators

“In a multi-religious country such as Malaysia, adopting views that disallow non-Muslims to enter mosques, which are established in some school of thoughts, is inappropriate. Nobody from other faiths should be barred from entering mosques or any places of worship for Muslims, as long as their purpose is good, respects the sacredness of the place of worship and is modestly dressed. They should also be allowed to deliver speeches, provided that the speech is in line with the spirit of enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil.

It is in the interest of maslahah or common good of Islam that non-Muslims should feel welcomed and not intimidated from visiting mosques. Calls to ban non-Muslims from entering mosques or any knee-jerk reaction by the Islamic authorities to bow to certain political pressure in preventing the commendable attitude of cooperation and mutual respect are regrettable and uncalled for.” –IRF Stand on the Issue of Non-Muslims Entering Mosques

The above suggests strongly that religious communities can draw not only from within their own spiritual tradition, but also from the shared understanding of living together as part of a mosaic Malaysian society.  This does not however mean that there is harmony, no prejudices and good understanding among the different religious communities. But perhaps at the ground level, hostility is not the point of departure in the interfaith relations between ordinary Malaysians, rather the capacity for solidarity seems to the greater force at work here.

The challenge of approaching ‘Dialogue’

Next, I would like to raise three concerns on the way we approach the question of interfaith relations with the aim to clarify how we may understand the challenge of inter-religious dialogue, and specifically Christian-Muslim dialogue in the case of Malaysia.  These concerns are pertinent because often we may not be talking about the same thing even if we use same terminology.

First, in the discussion on religious dialogue, perhaps we need to clarify what are we describing by the word ‘dialogue’?

Which level of ‘dialogue’ are we discussing?

Is it at the  ground level – a personal neighbourly dialogue between Uncle Ali and Grandfather Surin?

Is it the academic ‘dialogue’ between Professor Bakar and Professor Ng?

Is it the dialogue between the church institution and the Home Ministry of the Malaysian government?

Is it a dialogue between an NGO like Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) with the young wing of the Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM Youth)?

We can add to the list and have different ways to narrow down which ‘level’ we are focusing on. One may assume the ‘rules of engagement’ would be different at different levels depending on who are the participants and the shared goals -implicit or explicit – one has.

Secondly, we may ask what are the different types of ‘Dialogue’?

The contribution from the Federation of Asian Bishop (FABC) is helpful place to start as there has been substantial reflection on this.

Is it a ‘dialogue of life’ where the focus is on the ordinary day to day contact?

Is it a ‘dialogue of action’ where the point of contact is first when different religious communities work together and also reflect together on a shared project?

Is it a ‘Dialogue of discourse’ focused on theology and beliefs? So, besides clarifying the levels of ‘dialogue’ we are addressing, we also consider the types of ‘dialogue’ in operation.

One could even ask whether it is a direct dialogue where we are comparing religious understandings of respective teachings, or more indirect dialogue where we focus on shared concerns and common issues but drawing from the reservoir of the best our faith traditions and the lessons where we have not met up even to our own standards.

Third, and I see this as the ‘biggest’ critical concern because, for each level andtypes of ‘dialogue’, direct or indirect, there are different conditions that might facilitate or hinder the progress for either subjects or structures.

These conditions have an important impact on pre-existing animosities orsuspicions, and also corrective and creative possibilities.

Put in concrete terms, even if we imagine that the Christians and Muslims in ABIM and CCM youth for example, have to at least some extent disciplined their psychological state of minds, the socio-political context that was generated from incidents such as the recent ‘JAIS-DUMC’ controversy, cannot simply be ignored.

In short, the personal or in this case, between two NGOs, while can be distinguished analytically from the political, one might even try hard to ‘bracket’ the political out for a moment, but the complex relation between the two still needs to be attended to, sooner or later. Therefore, the political returns. Or more specifically, the politicians return to the picture again.

The ‘political’ strikes back

Therefore, while one must not get too personal with regards to Mahathir, and after some critical distance, we may entertain a qualified critical agreement that Mahathir probably cannot be held solely responsible for “the failure to bring Malaysians together in a respectful debate about their individual faiths”.

Perhaps we hear the overtone that, “We were all in this together” past, present and future.  The implication of Sven’s argument suggests a challenge to the people  i.e. religious communities is a welcome one but not at the expense of neglecting the political conditions that the people – religious or non-religious – live in and need to contend with.

We still need to look at the policies or structures during Mahathir’s premiership, and more importantly, for today, what are the policies and structures post-Mahathir during the administration of Abdullah Badawi and now Najib Razak, that are pertinent for our current situation.   This is clearly political in both the broad and narrow sense of the term.

What I mean by the political thus far at least is the policies, the existing structures and also one must add the public articulation of the vision of Malaysia especially through the various media networks. Following the Centre of Dialogue, we could consider that at least ‘Dialogue implies a relationship between ‘self’ (in-group) and other (out-group) which is characterised by a degree of empathy, the result of which is to curb the severity of intercultural, inter-religious and international conflicts.” Now applied to the Malaysian politicians across the political divide, how have they fared in fulfilling their responsibility to facilitate the conditions where at least the kind of ‘dialogue’ described in the definition of the centre can be successful?

So, from the perspective balancing the ‘weight of responsibility’ on the people or the politician, the weight should lean more on politicians, especially current and future politicians who desire to be remembered as ‘Statesmen’ defined even in its simplest, “a wise, skillful, and respected political leader”.  I would like to stress the whether one is wise and respected, it will depend on how the politician concerned carries out their ‘responsibilities’ mentioned briefly above as the elected representatives of the people.  The final verdict is rightly up to the jury of the Malaysian public to decide, and perhaps with the hindsight of history a more complete picture in due time. It appears at the mean time that religious communities are engaged in ‘meaningful inter-religious dialogue’ in spite of unfavorable conditions.

Moving forward

After all is said and done, we still need to keep the conditions that enable or disable religious dialogue on the table for critical discussion.  In that way, the people of Malaysia are then included in two ways, first, to have the potential and capacity to change the personal conditions, i.e., addressing possible uncritical inheritance of animosities and suspicions (as recommended in Sven’s argument).  And at the same time, the people – yes, even religious people can then be empowered to address the political conditions in ways that will hold our elected representatives responsible on how they are helping or hindering the shared project of religious people with the wider civil society that is “to build consensus for action on the truly great issues facing humanity, including pervasive greed, the increasingly unjust and inequitable distribution of wealth and power, racism and hatred committed in the name of God, nuclear proliferation, violence and exploitation of earth’s finite resources.”

I must confess it is hard to keep the ‘political’ out considering the grand vision for a better humanity implied in an earlier paragraph! It is almost a common mantra to hear that we should not ‘politicize’ religion.  If that means religion must not be abused for political mileage, who is to disagree?  However, with a cautious note, we are reminded that “Everything is political, even though politics is not everything!”  Perhaps,  in our reflections, we are tempted to simply ignore or separate the religious from the political since it might be too ‘sensitive’, or maybe what we really need is actually to critically reclaim ‘the religious’, and at the same time, we might as well reclaim ‘the political’ in the process. Hopefully, through confronting the issues head on respectfully we will then live happily ever after – yes, maybe inMalaysiathat is still possible.

In closing, I offer a counter hypothesis:

“The biggest impediments to a more meaningful inter-religious dialogue” in the case of Malaysia is not “historically grown animosities and suspicions” assumed to be in religious leaders or religious people.

On the contrary, the biggest impediments are the social-political conditions generated by the concrete actions of  politicians directly or indirectly, through the government institutions, agencies and media networks.

Over to you now – the ones who have the ability to respond – the people!

P.S. perhaps the politicians too?

Sivin Kit is a founding member of Friends in Conversation and one of the initiators of the Micah Mandate. He served as the pastor ofBangsar Lutheran Church from 2000 to 2010 and has been actively engaged in civil society in Malaysia since 2007. Currently, he is pursuing his Ph.D in Religion, Ethics and Society at the University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway. Sivin is addicted to potato chips and thinks the new “Battlestar Galactica” is educational.

_____________________________________________________

Originally published in two parts here and here

Posted with Permission from New Mandala: New perspectives on mainland Southeast Asia

Perhaps this unease have to do with the collective memory of the Church where Jesus was crucified by the Romans and the persecution of the early Church. Perhaps it have to do with the fact that Jesus himself holds an ambiguous relationship with the earthly powers of his day.

As a result, there is a variety of positions within the Church with regards the relationship between the Church and state. This in turn is complicated by the historical circumstance which the Church finds itself in. For example, all Western states takes for granted that it will not interfere in the business of the Church. Nonetheless, this position is not taken by all post-colonial states as in the case of China.

Since the Communist takeover of China in 1949, the Communist state have always taken the position religion falls under its jurisdiction. With regards to churches, they are regulated by the state through the Three-Self Patriotic Church. Churches that falls outside the ambit of the state is not tolerated and are constantly harassed and its followers arrested. Yet these churches (Protestants and Catholics) are flourishing despite the constant surveillance and repression by the state.

Why is this so? This is the question which Liao Yiwu, a dissident activist who is not a Christian himself, attempts to answer in his book “God is Red.” The book contains narratives of ordinary Christians from the official and dissident churches on why they hold on to the faith.

Almost all the stories being told here touch on the tumultuous period of the early years of the Communist Party imposing its rule over the land which saw the door being showed to foreign missionaries in the nation as well as the persuasion and coercion of Chinese Christians to either abandon their faith or accept the Party’s primacy over their heavenly master.

Through the narratives in the book, we find different responses to the demands of the Party. Inevitably, some abandoned their faith but others struggled to preserve it either by agreeing to accept the Party’s right to direct the church or struggling to keep the state out of the church. Perhaps, the most moving part of all the narrators here is their personal struggle to stay true to what it means to be a Christian in the historical context which they find themselves in.

Although all the narrators here claimed they have no interest in politics, yet a political subtext runs deeps in each narrative. In their own way, each narrator struggles with the question of how do we reconcile the demands of Caesar with that of Christ? Should one draw a line in the sand and says with Luther “Hier stehe ich” (Here I stand) or should one obey authority as Christ commanded: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is to God’s” (Mark 12:17).

Almost all the narrators here lived through the Mao era and its tumultuous history. Each story is heartbreaking and yet surprisingly give hope that faith can survive the harshest of environment.

It would be interesting to see the kind of political theology that comes out of China in the near future. How will Christians respond to the demands of the state while remaining true to Christ?

More importantly, I believe the significance of this book for Christians who live in Asia, we need to look not to our traditional Northern brethren but Latin American, African and Asian brethren for answer. Perhaps a good place to start is South Korea where the authoritarian conditions there sparked the creation of Minjung theology which was inspired by the Liberation Theology of South America or even South Africa as the church responded to apartheid.

* * *

Sunday September 19, 2010

Christians & politics

By ANDREW SIA

Opinions are divided on Christian involvement in politics, but most people agree on the need to fight for justice.

starmag@thestar.com.my

SINCE the “political tsunami” of March 8, 2008, Christians have become increasingly vocal on national issues. However, according to the Malaysian Census of 2000, only 10% of Malaysia’s population is Christian, with the majority being in Sabah and Sarawak (where they make up 40% of the population).

But what Christians lack in numbers, they may make up for in influence. As one local Christian politician put it, “Christians may not be so numerous but we are usually well-educated, middle-class and well-connected, especially in urban society. The moment something happens, it will be widely discussed in cell group meetings or put up on the Internet.”

Malaysian Christians praying for the Pope John Paul in 2005. Prayer aside, Christians in the country have begun to speak up and take action to contribute towards nation-building. – File photo

A minor awakening

“I have never had so many political discussions with Christians than in the past two years,” says Sivin Kit, pastor of the Bangsar Lutheran Church in Kuala Lumpur. “We are swept up by the currents of the political climate.”

Political analyst Ong Kian Ming, a Christian himself, notes that “since March 8, more Christians are voicing their concerns about political issues. However, other Malaysians are doing so too.”

In 1992, the late Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon, a staunch Methodist, wrote in the book, Challenge of Vision 2020: Christian Involvement in Politics:

“To be involved in politics, the Christians have to increase the level of political consciousness. By this I do not mean that Christians should form political parties as is the practice of Europe.

“We are a multi-racial and multi-religious nation and the injection of politics may well disrupt the religious harmony that now prevails. But there is no harm in Christians taking an interest in the politics of our country.

“By all means they should join political parties and even join the component parties of the Barisan Nasional if they so desire. If Christians so desire they may also join Opposition parties. If Christians do so, let us hope that the level of politics in this country will improve with honesty, neighbourly love and charity amongst the political leadership in our country.”

Eugene Yapp, research executive secretary of the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (or NECF, an umbrella group that includes the Assembly of God, Full Gospel, Brethren, Baptist and Sidang Injil Borneo denominations) notes that after the last general elections, churches are speaking out more.

“This is part and parcel of the process towards a just and righteous society,” Yapp says.

Indeed, those who want to improve and help society face a dilemma: Should they try to apply short-term first aid to the symptoms (the so-called welfare approach)? Or should they address the long-term root causes of those problems (the advocacy approach)? Or do both?

Pastor Sivin Kit … we want to contribute to the common good.

Kit explains that “Christians want to contribute to nation building and the common good of society. We want to be a blessing to our country.”

Traditionally, the church has done this through social (welfare) work. “But, as many NGOs have experienced, one cannot ignore the structural problems in our (socio-political) system, causing problems to arise. So it’s about working towards long-term solutions.”

Dr Ng Kam Weng, research director at Kairos Research Centre, a Christian think tank, says: “There are Christians who think politics is rotten, so let’s not get into trouble and hope to migrate. But now, more Christians are very concerned about the state of the nation.”

For instance, churches have been holding talks or forums on issues of the day, like the Perak political crisis last year, he adds.

Kit observes that while the Catholics have always spoken up more on socio-political issues, the Protestants had been more quiet – until recently.

“Just before March 8, there were very well attended one-day events (around KL) with titles like ‘The Christian and the General Election’ and ‘Was Jesus Political?’”

After the elections, several “concerned Christians”, himself included, set up a Christian socio-political discussion website called The Micah Mandate.

Ong says since then, “more young Christians want to get involved, be it through Pakatan or Barisan. It doesn’t really matter which side they choose as long as their hearts are sincere.”

However, he observes, many of the older Christian leaders are still wary of anything political, to the extent of declining to promote voter registrations.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Penang Antony Selvanayagam raising an issue at a dialogue session between Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and representatives from the various Christian churches and groups in the state.

Is it right?

I asked a few times on my Facebook account if Christians should speak up on political issues and got numerous strong comments for and against. One person cited the verse in which Jesus told his followers to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s” as “proof” that Christians should steer clear of politics.

Yapp says if one defines politics in the “broader philosophical sense” of how best to manage a nation’s collective life for the common good, then, “naturally, God calls us to be righteous citizens of the country. And so we do have a role to play by speaking out against all forms of evil.”

Kit admits that there is a genuine fear among some church leaders. “Since there are already so many restrictions, why should we speak out and incur the wrath of the authorities? But do we fear God more than men?”

He advocates a good balance.

“There is respect for authority. We don’t advocate a disrespectful, violent approach. As Martin Luther King Jr said, the church is the conscience of the state. In Malaysia, all religious communities should be that conscience.”

Dr Ng emphasises the “need to recover the teachings of the Old Testament where the prophets always denounced injustice whenever they saw it.”

In Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, author Ronald Sider recalls that his survey of over 1,500 church leaders showed that the conservative ones spoke out only against “personal sins” such as sexual misconduct, but not “social sins” such as unjust economic stuctures and militarism.

Indeed, many commentators have noted that President George W.Bush won his second term because of the votes from the so-called “Christian Right” which condemned abortion and homosexuality, but not the American invasion of Iraq.

Bishop Hwa Yung of the Methodist Church in Malaysia says some Christians have what he calls “life boat ethics”.

In his book Bribery and Corruption, released in April, he explains that some 20th century evangelical Christians withdrew from engaging the world as it is sinful, like a sinking ship.

“Hence, there is no point in trying to save it. Instead we are to jump into the life boat, namely the church, and leave the world to sink!” he writes.

Hwa also explains that the so-called separation between “church and state” or between “spiritual and secular” is actually a bias of Western European Christianity and Augustine (one of the church fathers), who in turn was influenced by Greek philosophers like Plato and Descartes.

Cheryl Lee, president (2008-2010) of the Independent Christian Renewal Society (ICRS), a local Catholic discussion and advocacy group, says: “The cross does not only have a vertical dimension, between you and God. It also has a horizontal element, which is about how you care for your brothers and sisters, including non-Christians.”

She thinks that is why the Catholic church has always been vocal, even in the past.

“We are called upon to embody the joys and hopes of the majority of people. The Catholic church has a ‘preferential option’ for the poor. In Matthew 25, God often comes in disguise as the poor, the powerless and the marginalised. When you help them, you are helping God Himself.

“For instance, Michael Chong (head of the MCA Public Complaints Bureau) is a Catholic who witnesses his faith by doing a lot of good work.”

The ICRS has organised talks at Assumption Church in Petaling Jaya on topics such as human trafficking and corruption. “Far from staying away, politics is a moral responsibility for Christians,” Lee adds.

Bishop Paul Tan, who oversees the Malacca-Johor Catholic Diocese, says all parishes have set up an Office of Human Development to spread the social teachings and organise programmes like giving free tuition to poor students.

Not anti-government

Tricia Yeoh says there are many challenges to overcome.

However, before imagining any great “awakening” on socio-political issues, it’s worth remembering that all this is not the mainstream practice among Malaysian Christians. Dr Ng notes that this limited activism is usually found in the Klang Valley.

What about Sarawak, where there are many more Christians?

“The state has traditionally been almost 100% Barisan and with the usual carrot and stick policies, the churches there don’t publicly criticise the government,” he says.

Tricia Yeoh, a policy analyst and Christian, says her personal view is that “churches are beginning to wake up. They are aware of all the issues and pray for those involved in politics. But real action, the wave of reformation across Malaysian churches, has not taken place yet.”

Lee adds that “it’s not like in the past when you had NGOs versus the police. We have also invited the police for talks on topics such as migrant workers. And ministers like (Tan Sri) Bernard Dompok (Plantation Industries and Commodities) have spoken at our group events and will do so again.”

One result is that after these talks, all the Catholic churches in PJ have conducted voter registration excercises.

“It’s not just about criticising. There are good things that the government does and we support that. It’s about going against wrong-doing.”

While direct political participation may not be for all, there are many other forms of indirect involvement. After all, what is politics anyway?

“Let’s be honest, the church also has politics, so we are not immune,” says Kit, who elaborates on the verse about “rendering unto Caesar”.

“Everything is political, but politics is not everything. For instance, when we pay taxes, that is political. When we invite a politician to officiate at a church event, that is political. So what is the appropriate level of involvement?”

He points out that some scholars believe Jesus was crucified for political reasons.

“People tried to make Him a king, but He refused. The politics of Jesus was not the gutter politics of domination. It was one of non-violence, peace and justice … a broader definition of politics.”

Christians must go beyond the narrow definition of politics as Barisan versus Pakatan, or Democrat versus Republican, Kit stresses.

“There are many types of involvement. When a residents’ association discusses community concerns with the local wakil rakyat, that is political involvement too. Some may want to write to newspapers or websites, or join a group. Others may want to support quietly behind the scenes.”

Dr Ng hopes that churches can be more “big-hearted” about their talented members who want to do “God’s work”.

“Apart from working in church, they should also give them the option to join NGOs (that advocate socio-political issues). Similarly businessmen are not just there to contribute to the church building fund. They can also help bring social changes.”

What about supporting political parties?

Kit says some individual Christians may choose to contribute as a politician of any party. As for the church itself, the “textbook answer” is that no, as an institution, they should be politically non-partisan.

“I prefer that word to saying the church should be neutral. There may be specific issues on which the church many need to make a political stand. No one will say that the church should have been neutral about Hitler or apartheid. Or about corruption.”

Kit adds that, historically, the Bible has also been “abused” by certain parties to justify slavery and even apartheid.

“And part of the German church (tacitly) supported Hitler as well. But there were others like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who resisted by insisting that Christ was the true Führer (leader), not Adolph Hitler. The moment politicians demand our total allegiance and obedience, we need to pause and reconsider our priorities.”

Why did Malaysian Christians not engage in socio-political issues in the past?

One reason is historical. As a former Methodist pastor once explained to this writer, “the church came with the conquering colonial powers. Naturally, it was reluctant to speak out against colonialism and exploitation.”

In contrast, in 19th century Britain, Chris-tian politicians such as William Wilberforce and his friends were at the forefront in the struggle to abolish slavery throughout the empire. They also spoke out against the exploitation of the Industrial Revolution, when child and women workers were literally chained to their machines for up to 15 hours a day by greedy factory owners.

Some Christian evangelicals (charismatics) also subscribe to the concept of what they call “The Last Days” before Armageddon.

“Since the world is getting worse, leave it to the Devil and let’s focus on saving souls (for Heaven),” quips Ng.

Reports in The Star in November 2009 and March 2010 had it that a renowned charismatic church in KL had allegedly mismanaged church funds. Plans for a lavish “spaceship-like” RM150mil Christian “convention centre” had also split the congregation.

After some 400 church members, who called themselves the Truth, Transparency and Good Governance Group (TTG), demanded accountability for church funds, their names were mysteriously removed from the membership rolls. They then staged a demonstration against the church’s leadership and lodged police reports.

Conservative middle class

Ng thinks the other reason for Christian passiveness is cultural. “Sociologically, since Christians are a minority, they prefer to keep to themselves and not ‘get into trouble’.

There is also the inherently conservative nature of middle class people.

“Urban English- and Chinese-speaking churches can be a comfortable and conservative middle class institution,” says Kit. “They shy away from rocking the boat.”

So why are they speaking up more now?

Traditionally, the church has played a big part in social work. Malaysian Christian Association for Relief (Malaysian Care), for example, has programmes for those with special needs.

“It’s the Internet that has led the change in Christian thinking, not the church, unfortunately,” he adds. “There was some discussion on socio-political issues back in the 1990s. The Church as an institution has been conservative, but it has been pushed to respond. Now, different leaders are more vocal.”

Dr Ng observes that “Dr Mahathir’s regime was very authoritarian. Then came Pak Lah. People felt there was more room to speak up and everybody, not just Christians, did so.”

Kit, who was trained at the Malaysian Theological Seminary in the 1990s, says local theologians have been discussing socio-political concerns for at least 20 years, “but it did not go down to the grassroots”. In recent years, however, the Lina Joy case and the Allah issue have raised Christian awareness.

“More Christians are asking questions. The climate of the country is such that the church has no choice but to discuss social and political issues.”

“For me, the turning point was the M. Moorthy incident (in which his Hindu family members and the Muslim authorities tussled over the ‘right’ to bury him),” says Kit. “I was struck by the whole idea of arguing over a dead body.”

He thinks the younger Christians “who are not caught up in the old way of thinking” are more willing to participate in socio-political change.

Spreading the message

While many Christians on the ground are still apprehensive about speaking up, the organisations which represent them (at least in theory) have issued a few press statements on current socio-political concerns.

These groups are the NECF, the Council of Churches Malaysia (or CCM, whose members include the “mainline Protestant” churches such as the Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians) and the Christian Federation of Malaysia (or CFM, which includes all Christians both Protestant and Catholic).

In January, the CCM criticised those trying to provoke religious conflict by throwing pigs’ heads into mosques, using a cow’s head in a protest, or burning churches.

In September 2008, when blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin, MP Teresa Kok, and journalist Tan Hoon Cheng were detained under the ISA, NECF said: “As a national body that represents some one million evangelical Christians in Malaysia, NECF Malaysia is deeply concerned over the use of the ISA and printing laws against newspapers and individuals who are performing the vital duty of bringing critical issues to the attention of the Malaysian public for constructive debate.”

And in July 2009, after the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock, CFM head Bishop Ng Moon Hing said Christians were “appalled” by the “strange circumstances” of his death.

So if organisations representing Christians are speaking up, why does it seem strange for ordinary Christians to do so?

Bishop Tan notes that Christians have made “statement after statement” through groups like CFM and also the MCCBCHST (Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism).

“The press picked up a few but most of the statements were not published,” he observes.

If the mainstream media has certain “limitations”, should the church then employ its own means to spread the word on such issues?

Kit says: “Sometimes Christians see that it’s the role of such organisations to speak out while they continue the normal religions activities at church level. On the ground, there is not much conscious talk about it.

“This makes some young people feel that the church is not relevant to the changes happening around them. My view is that these issues should be included in sermons, prayer items, church newsletters and group discussions.”

Muslim-Christian relations

Recent religious controversies have also stoked Christian socio-political awareness. Christians have long felt uneasy about the authorities’ decisions on the approval of church buildings and the limitations imposed on (and recent confiscation of) Bahasa Malaysia Bibles.

In more recent years, there have been contentious cases (eg Lina Joy), as well as raucous protests against the Article 11 inter-faith dialogue and the Bar Council forum on religious conversion. Then came the Allah issue and various incidents of churches being set on fire.

As the authorities are perceived to be Muslim-controlled, there are questions about sensitivities.

“When you say sensitivities, that actually depends on which Muslim I am talking to,” says Kit, pointing out that the Muslims themselves have different opinions on the Allah issue.

Dr Ng believes Christians should not become more politically active only because of issues.

“I always tell church people, don’t seek justice only for Christians. Seek justice for everybody, including Muslims,” he says.

Edward Lee, the DAP State Assemblyman for Bukit Gasing, PJ, who is well known as a Christian politician, adds, “One municipal councillor from PAS told me, ‘The way you do things is like us Muslims.’ We should be magnamimous and give people a chance, not just criticise them. Malay culture has a softer way of speaking.”

Of course, it is naturally easier for Malaysian Christians to speak out for their “own” interests. But a higher and nobler move would be to speak out for everybody’s common interests, on issues like corruption, the environment, economics and education.

Kit agrees that this is a better demonstration of Christian love – which is why he is one of the few local pastors to speak out in support of Palestinians.

In January, Archbishop Murphy Packiam, the leader of Malaysian Catholics, issued a call for prayer vigils for Gaza so that “God will soften the hearts of the leaders to avoid the sledgehammer tactics of Israel or the acts of Hamas, which only further the sufferings of innocent people in Palestine.”

Bishop Hwa writes that Christians who live in an Islamic context need to be more “socially engaged”. This is because the Muslims affirm that their religion is relevant to all of life and does not separate the spiritual and secular realms.

“As long as Christians hold on to a dualistic worldview which leads us to forget about our socio-political responsibilities … our Muslim friends will always see Christianity as an other-worldly faith that has no relevance in the real world,” he says.

In short, if Christians spoke out more, they would be on the same page with Muslims since Islam advocates fairness and justice, not just in religious matters, but as an addeen (total way of life) that encompasses the moral, devotional, social, economic and political aspects of a community.

Perhaps Christians can follow the example of, and indeed join hands with, their fellow Muslims to speak up for a better society?

Kit notes that in Western countries like Germany, there is a “rich tradition” of Christians espousing positive political values and even forming political parties such as the Christian Democrats.

“This is similar to PAS. For instance, Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (Pas Central Working Committee member) has described his party as Islamic Democrats. My stereotyped view of PAS has changed.”

However, in practice, bridging the divide is not always so easy.

“We can disagree, but with respect,” says Kit. “Sometimes in inter-faith dialogues, I sense that no one is really listening and we’re all talking past each other.”

The future

Yeoh says there are many challenges to overcome.

The Klang House of Victory, a drug rehabilitation centre, was set up by a Christian organisation.

“I suppose people are inherently self-involved, preferring to prioritise their own spiritual health and needs instead of others’. Living in a materialistic and urban (consumer culture) setting does not help either.”

Bishop Paul Tan admits that the Catholic Social Teachings have reached very few people. “As someone said, it’s the most well kept secret of the church!”

Lee believes many people are still conservative; she recalls how one Catholic priest inPJ was asked to “lay off” political issues by his parishioners.

“Things don’t usually improve with a big bang. We are planting seeds of change. And we leave it to the conscience of members to decide how to respond.”

And how should Christians respond?

In the heat of online political discussions, things can sometimes get confrontational and aggressive, with name-calling and rough language involved. “This reflects real sentiments, and we cannot ignore the frustrations displayed there,” says Kit.

“But as Christians we are called to model ‘speaking the truth in love’. To me, this means we focus on the issues at hand and refrain from getting sucked into mud-slinging and personal attacks.

“While we may get into hot debates, we must not demonise the other person. We must recognise his humanity, warts and all.

“It’s a delicate balance. The challenge is that Christians may come across as sounding too nice and therefore unclear because we are not critical enough.”

He adds that a good example of this balance between forgiveness and frankness was seen during the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, held after the fall of apartheid.

Lee says that getting politically involved is an expression of Christian love.

“The essence of people is to love, otherwise they will die unhappy. I have visited sick people in hospital and I find those who have lived a full life, given and served well, tend to die peacefully. Those who are self-centred are often more scared to die.”

Yapp adds: “We believe our actions are transformational in nature rather than revolutionary. We seek to be the ‘salt and light’ to the world by being a voice and a conscience of the nation to bring about real improvements. May God bless Malaysia!”

* * *

Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 1,700 times in 2011. If it were a cable car, it would take about 28 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

* * *

1000 apologies for the delay of the final installment. Domestic responsibilities, church ministry, and some extra clutter has slowed me down. But before the Chinese New year, and the next elections. I thought it’s best to wrap this conversation up for now. Thanks for persevering through the ride If you want to catch up a little … you can go back to Part I, Part II and Part III. All those in blue are added to the original interview…

Christian concerns and needs of churches

Chun Wai: The number of Christians has risen to around nine to 10% of the population, even larger than the Indians at about 6.3%. Why is the voice of Christianity more subdued than other religions?

Kim Kong: The church’s main concern is spiritual rather than political. Also, the church, as a whole, does not have a common political agenda to bind them together. I think the separation between the state and religion is a very clear doctrine of Christians.

Steven: It is a false dichotomy to differentiate between spiritual and political. Christian spirituality encompasses the material world and this includes politics. As I have mentioned, we have a very strong precedence in the ancient biblical prophets. And it was shown that Jesus himself saw that his ministry was not merely �spiritual� in our popular understanding but had a tangible social agenda. Thus to say that being spiritual is one thing and being political is another is a huge fallacy, albeit one which has plagued certain sections of the church for centuries.

Raj: True Christian spirituality must involve how we live our whole lives. We cannot differentiate between being more concerned with spiritual matters verses political. Our political involvement can be an outcome of, and an expression of our spirituality.

Sivin: I prefer to say that the church’s main concern is for the good of the world, and especially for people – whom may be seen as the least, the last and the lost. Least in the eyes of society, last to be given needed attention, and lost in terms of life direction and overall purpose of existence. And since the church connects this with God’s agenda for the world, thus the spiritual dimension transcends our limited human vision, an integrated and holistic perspective is still in touch with human life and suffering which has both personal and public implications. So, here again we run full cycle in this conversation and cannot run away from dealing with politics. The church cannot be driven by political agendas outside of herself, but the church cannot ignore decisions made by politicians affecting the environment all people live in. So, there is a kind of critical and yet creative engagement with the public sphere – perhaps more directly in partnership with civil society, and indirectly and cautiously with the government and even political parties when necessary. This may take a more institutional form like the Christian Federation Malaysia as an important voice to public discourse, or the encouragement of individuals who are already engaged in various spheres of influence.

Hermen: I think we have to complement that with the reality of the Catholic church which has a strong presence and has always made its position known. If you read their Herald (the Catholic newsletter), it is different from the other Christian newsletters as they raise issues like pro-life, migrant workers and a host of other things, which are part of their agenda.

Bob: Notwithstanding what Rev. Wong said, I disagree that the church’s main concern is merely spiritual. This is as much a fallacy as saying the church’s main concern is merely social. The gospel as I understand it has a unified message that is multi-dimensional � one that proclaims Jesus as the Saviour who died for sinners and was raised to rule as Lord at God’s right hand. It also proclaims Shalom (peace) and the reconciliation of mankind both to God and to one another.

Jesus’ ministry targeted a generation of people who had various Messianic hopes and expectations of salvation and his preaching concentrated all these into one central theme � the entrance of the “kingdom of God” into human history. The source and hope for this message is in the restoration of all things; both spiritual and physical; under the Lordship of Christ. This work of reconciliation and restoration starts with the church and is a foreshadow of the fullness of things to come.

We see this also in how the disciple were taught to pray � rather than being called to despise this world and look longingly for redemption in the thereafter, they are to pray for the arrival of the kingdom of God and the establishment of God’s will both on earth as it is in heaven. Spiritual things are sought, not as other-worldly contemplations, but as necessities for earthly existence.

The gospel of Luke quotes Jesus as saying, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord”.

I don’t see how this can be consistent with the contention that the church’s main concern is spiritual.

Sivin: Many people see the word “spiritual” as an other worldly posture, which critics scorn as of no earthly use. Like the word “politics:”, we need to take a richer meaning of spiritual encompassing all of life rather than becoming a compartmentalized faith which is often seen as avoiding the hard questions raised in our socio-cultural-political climate.

Chun Wai: Let’s talk about the needs of the Christians, what they would like to see done, and what is being done.

Lee: Freedom of religious practice is always paramount. Number two, places of worship have always been an issue. Under our existing guidelines, when we approve any project, we have to allocate places for mosques and suraus. Two years ago, the Cabinet came up with a decision that any project more than 50 acres must provide places of worship for non-Muslims as well. It is a good step but some go round this directive by proposing less than 50 acres, so the ruling is not effective in this aspect.

Hoh: Youths today are facing a lot of problems. If we Christians can step up and solve this problem and help society, this is good. As for education, we can see the Chinese are very concerned about education. Christians can also be involved in raising funds, providing scholarships. These are some of the things we can do.

Kok: The concern is the missionary schools. When crosses are taken down, for instance, this has become an issue; also, the Bahasa Malaysia documents and bibles. When I attend campus student gatherings, their prayers and songs are all in Bahasa Malaysia. When the Government interferes so much over the language issue, it creates some kind of unhappiness in the Christian community.

Why are not many Christians involved in politics? I think we have many good quality, educated Christians but they are involved in evangelical activities. They think it’s godlier. Also because of their background, they are more educated, upper middle-class people, they don’t want to dirty their hands because getting involved in politics also means getting your name tarnished, and your hands dirtied. There are also Christians who ask me to leave politics and get involved in more spiritual work.

Sivin: I think what you do Teresa as a Christian in politics to be equally spiritual with what I do as a pastor. Christians need to move away from the superior-inferior view of vocation and one’s calling. Of course, there are those who see church work as inferior even though they pay lip service and say it’s spiritual. Each occupation has its hazards and I suppose not everyone is cut out to be a politician or pastor. But someone has got to get the job done!

I think the role of the church is to provide pastoral and spiritual support and guidance for those involved in politics (rather than spending energy asking them to get out!). This would apply to those in the corporate sector, civil society, charity work, as well as church work.

Bob: This is a question that you can ask a dozen Christians and get a dozen different answers. Each of us have our own unique expectations and wants. Personally I’d like to see us transform our wants into what we see our neighbour needs. This, in my opinion, would be consistent to the Golden Rule of doing unto others what I would have them do to me and the commandment to love our neighbours as ouselves.

There is a community element in Christianity that needs to be re-emphasised. There is a call to seek the common good; sometimes through our impact on the lives of individuals. In my opinion, one of the tools that can bring about this common good is in the respect and upholding of the rights of people; whether its civil and political rights; or economic, cultural and social rights. These rights were not formulated by a few people sitting in cloistered halls over a few days but represent the collective noble values of humanity throughout history and it would encompass all the concerns mentioned above; and many more which are left unmentioned in this interview; all of which would be legitimate concerns of Christians.

Chun Wai: Dr Hermen, in all these issues that have cropped up, when you speak to the leadership and dialogue with the Prime Minister, they are very fair. The problem starts at the lower level, when one or two officers start to implement rules that make the cases complicated

Hermen: I think the only way to get through to this, when the down line becomes problematic, is to deal with the issue as an issue, not as a religious one. They would want to make every issue religious, that’s their problem.

For example, the case of the confiscation of books at MPH. These are Christian books in English with pictures of Moses, Noah and all that. This one unit within Internal Security says you cannot show a picture of Moses because it is sensitive to Islam. This is not an Islamic book. I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister to look into this matter.

Chun Wai: Do you agree that when these bureaucrats start imposing these rules according to their religious interpretation, it shows the politicians in power are actually affected?

Steven: The failure to coordinate their subordinate shows the failure of good governance on the part of the senior officials and up to the Ministers and Prime Ministers. We cannot keep hitching on bureaucratic problems, it all boils down to effective leadership from top-down.

Hermen: Yes, correct.

Kok: I think the Prime Minister should interfere. He has the Islamic credentials and he is a moderate Muslim. He needs to speak up.

Bob: As mentioned by Dr Hermen Shastri, these aren’t a religious issue. However, many problems in Malaysia end up being ethnic or religious issues, primarily because we fail to acknowledge and take a rights based approach to matters. A rights based approach would help pare down a lot of these issues into matters of common concern and help remove the more thorny partisan and communal elements from the issue.

Unfortunately, generally speaking, incumbents in power tend to view such an approach with less enthusiasm because it curtails their liberty to take advantage of their positions and manipulate circumstances and issues. And in our context, it would seem that the continued segmentation of issues along narrow communal and religious lines acts to the incumbents’ advantage. I don’t see any change in attitudes forthcoming in the near future.

Chun Wai: In conclusion, the Christians make up a substantial chunk of votes in the elections and these are issues of concern to them. In the battle for hearts and minds, their voices and their votes certainly matter.

Sivin: Here’s a little after word following Chun Wai’s conclusion, many thanks to the invisible blue gang – Bob Kee, Steven Sim and Pastor Raj for joining me in this creative non-fiction exercise. There’s is an obvious lack of women’s voices in our conversation. Let’s not forget the East Malaysian input as well. I see the obvious lack of representation of other communities even in this creative non-fiction effort. This is partially descriptive of my immediate contacts, as well as the speed in which we wanted to get some views out. Conversations like this should be never signify an end to the discussion, it needs to be a starting point to hear more voices (the comments has been open for others to chip in).

Taking it one step further, our hope is that this does not just become a stimulating and energizing conversation, but all who eavesdrop on the conversations and insights would be lead to some form of proactive positive action – from the most grass root level of voting with discernment, to learning how to voice not only our concerns as Christians, but the concerns of every person residing in Malaysia. Finally, it’s more than about making noise … it’s about making a difference. And making a difference involves personal commitment and the synergy of working together. We have had some wonderful and diverse models in the Christian heritage mentioned earlier like Mother Theresa, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King Jr., etc, to guide our way forward. Perhaps now we can write history for the future of our children and become the change we would like to see happen for a better tomorrow.

* * *

* * *

1. millemeow says:

   1 FEBRUARY, 2008 AT 4:39 AM

   edwin paul,

   juz outta curiosity, whr did u hear abt tis flag burning incident?

   i was one among the many of the 10/11 bersih participants who was present at the “flashzone” of masjid jamek from the beginning until the end when we dispersed to march towards the istana. even when subjected to physical attacks by the gorilla enforcers of pdrm, i did not witness even one single ugly (or as u hv defined it, “outrageous”) incident such as tat of flag burning. on the contrary, one of the many epiphanies i had on tat eventful day was from observing the victims who stood resilient despite multiple blows at the receiving end of the teargas and water cannon. they had displayed tremendous restraint instead of giving in to retaliation by way of violence. and to these brothers from PAS, i salute them, for even under the most arduous of maltreatment, they did not buckle. it has certainly made a whole world of difference in how i view them and their religious faith now.

2. Collin Nunis says:

   1 FEBRUARY, 2008 AT 10:53 AM

   Oh come on Edwin, you can’t be that passive about this, can you?

   While I personally feel that public walkout and protests are something we need to work on, it being something in its infant stages here in Malaysia, something needs to be done and we can all contribute to it in our own way. The point here is, affirmative action must be taken to make sure that we get heard. But in our own way.

   So some of us are frustrated with the political situation… Lets do something about it. Depending on what gifts the Spirit has blessed us with, we can do something to contribute to a cause that will benefit the country. The people in Bersih came together for a common cause by walking throughout the city to send a message. If you don’t want to protest, fine. But don’t sideline these people and imply that they’re not doing the right thing. Being patriots in their own little way, it would stupid of them to burn the flag. They defeat their purpose in doing so and suppose, no one who’s suffering for the country’s sake will do such a thing. Amen.

3. Bob K says:

   1 FEBRUARY, 2008 AT 10:07 PM

   I think it was in reference to the roadshow by BERSIH in Batu Burok, Terengganu where a ceramah was supposed to be held. The crackdown was pretty bad too and the press focussed on an unknown individual who was caught on camera burning the flag. However, it was not mentioned who that individual was and how that person was affiliated with BERSIH plus the photograph was allegedly taken a few hours after things have settled down.

   What the press didn’t mention though, at least until much later, was that 2 local residents were shot by plainclothes police officers; one in the chest and the other in the neck. And instead of investigating the officers for a possible unlawful discharge of a firearm in a public place, the 2 victims were charged for rioting instead. Go figure.

4. Bob K says:

   1 FEBRUARY, 2008 AT 10:23 PM

   In fact, it kinda reminds me of what the Chinese government did after the 1989 Tiananmen protests. After sending in tanks and armed troops to break up the protest, and in the process causing quite a few deaths (the actual figure is still disputed, from a few hundred to a few thousand), the propaganda machine swung into action and the victims quickly labelled 土匪 (bandits) or 流氓 (rogues).

   With their absolute control of the media, it wasn’t too difficult and the fact remains that in China today, most young people below the age of 25 cannot identify some of the more iconic symbols of that period like the photograph of the solitary man who stopped a column of tanks or the statue of the goddess of democracy. And for those that do know a bit about what happened, most of them are not aware that it originated in university campuses nationwide and are under the impression that it was a mob riot.

   Apparently we learnt quite a bit from that. Of course this is a different age and the “culprits” would most probably be labelled 恐怖份子 (terrorist) today .. kinda like how, depending on which audience is being addressed, a Malayalee can be accused of being a Tamil Tiger and groups like BERSIH villified as being a Malay movement (hence implying that its none of our business).

* * *

I’m happy the two earlier blog posts Christian Perspectives on Politics in Malaysia I andChristian Perspectives on Politics in Malaysia II is generating some conversation even though there isn’t an avalanche of comments. Maybe the Invisible Blue Gang isn’t that provocative or controversial. Then again, we always meant to join the panel to talk about the issues not to focused on rhetoric. Tonight we carry on the third installment. Let’s see where this will lead us. perhaps to a better tomorrow?

Chun Wai: In Malaysia, politics have always been quite partisan and even emotional at times. While the church may agree on certain issues, there’s always the question of approaches that can divide the congregation. For example, the pastor can be very anti- or pro-government, and the congregation is made up of people with various political affiliations and they may not be too happy with the stand taken by the pastor. Will that create division in church?

Steven: There are many issues that can divide an institution not just politics, but I guess this is where maturity and the Christian�s concept of brotherly love comes in. Everyone ought to be welcomed and given the space to express themselves and with such space respect ought to be given for the persons even if we differ in ideologies. We cannot treat our congregation as childish and immature to handle differences.

Hermen: You just take one issue, let’s say our response to a certain concern. And then, you will find in the church some will say get involved, others say don’t. They are no different from the rest of society.

Sivin: The church has always dealt with divisions since day one. And we still do, whether we like it or not. We have been learning and still learning how to cope with diversity of legitimate view points without being divided, and yet sometimes division maybe inevitable on this side of heaven. This may range from the what may seem the most trivial like musical taste to the more critical doctrinal differences. I’m confident we can learn to deal with the issue of politics. My reading of the Gospels give me an impression that even Jesus early disciples came from differing political persuasions. Historically and even today we can locate a diversity of responses to politics and our relation to the government. So handling strong diverse views is a constant challenge.

The question for me, is why do people take these positions? What are the factors influencing them to decide their conclusions? Even if a pastor’s stand may at first glance appear to create division. Perhaps, we need to ask deeper questions beyond whether one is happy or not with the pastor’s opinion. We’re talking a little too abstract here. Which frustrates me a little. Let’s take a concrete example, if I take a stand to choose to dialogue not only with UMNO or MCA politicians but also am willing to engage PKR, DAP or PAS politicians (which usually is seen as anti-government), it is potentially divisive because we are seen as being used by either party, but then it may also reflect the maturity of the church in engaging strongly opposing views. What if the dialogue is in order for me as a religious leader not only to clarify their views, but also hopefully they would be open to our input?

Chun Wai: Teresa, you are a Catholic and Catholic churches are known to be more vocal, please share your experience.

Kok: We are duty-bound to speak up for justice. If you can’t speak up, can’t act, at least pray for the situation. I used to attend mass in Petaling Jaya and during the community prayer time, the priest always has no choice but to bring certain issues into prayer, and certain religious words banned, you have to pray for that. And ISA being used, you pray for the detainees and the families. And we pray for press freedom, religious freedom, for independence of the judiciary, pray for the Prime Minister so that he has the wisdom to rule the country � that is all for the good of the society.

What I also find interesting is that the priest also prays for Chua Soi Lek, so that he can have reconciliation with his family. All these, you can say they are political messages of prayers, but it is our duty to pray over what is happening in our country. People might think this is political. But, in fact, for me, it is not. It is our duty as Christians to bring out all these messages to act, and to pray, and participate in the restoration of the wrong things that are happening in the country.

Chun Wai: But when certain approaches are taken, do you feel that sometimes this particular church can be seen to be anti-government? Will it help at all?

Steven: I must reiterate that the church is called to be biased towards justice, peace and truth. While we are non-partisan, we must not be seen as afraid to play the prophetic role of speaking against anyone who sought to compromise these values. I must say though, there are many ways we can go about doing this but whatever we do, our undergirding principle must be that of charity, love.

Sivin: I’m trying to understand where we are heading if we are locked into this “anti-government” or “pro-government” talk … if the government has failed in any of it’s promises, and there’s concern or even criticism coming from the church, even helping the church members articulate their frustrations in prayer and intercession, is that not a legitimate response. We also have times where we express affirmation to good government policies or give thanks for good changes, does that make us “pro-government”? The fact is churches or pastors taking a more critical reflective stance towards how the faith of the community is connected to sociopolitical concerns is a minority (especially in the protestant circles), and I think these voices are needed. I’ve always been challenged by the Catholic church which like Chun Wai said is more vocal.

Kok: I have heard that some parishioners had left that parish and they go to other Catholic parishes because they don’t like the priest to talk about or pray like this. But it has also encouraged parishioners to be more socially and politically concerned.

Lee: I think you have to differentiate between current issues and also party issues. There is nothing wrong for a church to talk about or pray about issues of the day. But I don’t think there is any church that will say, oh, I support the MCA or DAP .

Church leaders have to be neutral on the pulpit but on the ground, if he or she supports a political party, or take part in a rally, or attend a pro-government activity, I think he or she has that right.

Bob: The polemic of being “anti-government” is something that those who are in power will have to deal with. We didn’t invent it and don’t appreciate it being imposed on our discourse. I don’t think the church is going to abdicate theological interpretation to the state.

I have yet to see partisan politics being advocated from the pulpit. This may have been true in the past when the pulpit was used to bash “ungodly” ideologies like communism, et al, but I think those times are over.

However, to have social concerns being voiced and advocated over the pulpit ought to be expected. If the powers that be are consistent in their practice with principles and values that Christians hold dear, then there ought to be no concern for any form of “anti-government” feelings by the former.

Chun Wai: But Datuk, if pastors, whether they wear their collar on Sunday, and after that, never wear their collar, should they be involved in politics?

Hoh: Definitely not, because it can be very sensitive for both sides. But let’s say it is a social programme like a charity and they help as individuals, that is a different story.

Sivin: In one sense, Datuk Hoh is right. If I were to join a political party as a pastor, this is problematic because it’s harder to play the role of a guide when one has to campaign for a party position. That’s why at least in the denomination I serve in we are not allowed to do so. And what he mentions in terms of social programs is one level of engagement. But I think for some of us even as pastors especially in the Malaysian context, who in the process of seeking to be in solidarity with the poor, the powerless, the disempowered and marginalized, and also helping churches to be in touch with the suffering of others, suddenly find ourselves unable to ignore the political dimension and systemic problems beyond what is seen on the surface.

Like it or not, in all honestly and being true the calling of following Jesus, one is moved to another level where the we’ll have to ask the hard questions, and in good conscience apart from being more politically informed and aware, step into some form of engagement with those more directly involved. This may range from participating in a candle light vigil to giving a voice to issues in specific forums, and this does not mean� involvement in such activities is officially alignment� to a political party or endorsement to political personalities. It’s a road not many will travel, but some will. And of course, some will go further. While I personally won’t do get involved in party politics, I respect those who feel this is a move they want to make.

Bob: It really isn’t that uncommon elsewhere. A person’s decision to participate in partisan politics ought to be the person’s prerogative; even if that person is a pastor. There are, of course, concerns that due to a pastor’s position, he or she might have undue influence over their respective congregations.

This can, in part, be mitigated by better public education about the role of politics and civics in general. Unfortunately, due to the lack thereof in Malaysia, this is a legitimate concern. This is where individual denominations and churches will need to prayerfully and wisely consider and decide on their policies as to whether or not to allow serving clergy to take up non-clerical roles outside their official functions.

Having said that, I believe that there are circumstances, especially in cases where mitigating factors exist, that pastors, as community leaders in their own right, need to take up a more overt political role and challenge existing systems. This isn’t unique. In the 20th century alone, these pastors from the various Christian traditions have all taken similiar paths – Dr Martin Luther King, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dietrich Boenhoeffer, Oscar Romero et al

Steven: I cannot do better than Bob to raise the example of Christians ministers who wear their collars and brought real transformations to their society because of a direct involvement in politics.

Raj: And lets not forget people like William Wilberforce who helped end slavery in England.

Sivin: In Wilberforce’s example, while he was in the frontline, the pastoral support and encouragement was more hidden and invisible played an important and I believe an influential role. This is a more indirect way of being involved in politics through specific members who are called to confront specific issues and play key roles in society. This can be one good model for us to consider.

Chun Wai: Rev Wong, in Sabah and Sarawak, it is very common for pastors to be involved in politics. I think there are quite a number of pastors in PBS. Why do you think it’s different in Sabah and Sarawak?

Kim Kong: They are slightly different in terms of political engagement because of the social fabric of the community. They are more conscious of the political process because their social economic status compels them to be more politically orientated.

As a result of that, pastors being much more exposed and educated, the chances for them to alleviate the social condition are much higher compared to Peninsular Malaysia. As a result, some of them engage in politics but there is a very clear demarcation, in a sense that if you have to be involved in politics, you have to resign as a pastor.

Then, the second issue is, Christians or people in general need to distinguish between political parties and the Government. I may meet the Prime Minister or minister, but it does not reflect that I am meeting the Umno president or the MCA president. I think there’s a need to distinguish between the role of the Government, of the Prime Minister and their role as the presidents of the political parties.

Chun Wai: Teresa, can you tell us about the DAP fielding a pastor in the election?

Kok: This is a pastor from Sabah, Pastor Jeffrey Kumin. I was introduced to this pastor and every time we pray together and he’s the only pastor who is willing to pray for me and the DAP … (panel laughs). My party approached him and he agreed to stand as a party candidate.

Sivin: I think the many of us would love to sit down and hear Pastor Jeffrey Kumin’s story. (The Invisible Blue Gang members Bob, Steven and Raj, all nod their heads virtually in smiling agreement)

* * *

1. Paul Long says:

   31 JANUARY, 2008 AT 4:25 AM

   Interesting interview

   I think that many who claim to be “apolitical” are actually by default “pro-government”. Can’t run away from this. That’s my 2 cents … now anotother 2 more cents!

   If it is true that the Christian population is 9.1% (baserd on the 2000 census) and the Indian population 7.7%, the Christian population have a much bigger voice than the MIC and other smaller Indian based parties!!!

   Of cousrse this is only if we are willing to unite for the many issues that we should have no problem agreeing on. Issues related to justice and human dignity are broad areas we should have no problem agreeing upon.

   If we can’t, then it is a BIG shame. if we want to be non partisan, then I am sure we can be mature enough not to care who came up with a good idea / policy and whose name is more prominent if the cause is right and God is glorified since we will have to agree (happily or reluctantly) that the Kingdom of God comes before denomination or personal name

   If the govt sees it important to allow MIC a voice (albeit a small one) because the percentage of Indian citizens are still significant (when they kind of unite …), how much more if the Christians unite for causes that are not just beneifical to Christians / Church but for the nation?

“…churches will never act as if they’re the “Christian department” of DAP or—God forbid—Umno. The churches and pastors… would never declare that Anwar Ibrahim (or Lim Guan Eng or Karpal Singh, for that matter) is “anointed by God” or is the one divinely chosen. The key here is about recommending and encouraging a vote, NOT commanding that the congregation vote a certain way lest they act contrary to the eternally-ordained ways of God.”
(Alwyn Lau, ‘Naming Names’, in The Bible and the Ballot: Reflections on Christian Political Engagement in Malaysia Today, edited by Joshua Woo and Soo-Inn Tan, p.5)