The Power of Forgiveness and Letting Go.

Forgiveness. What power does it have on us? 

In yesterday’s article “The healing power of forgiveness” by the always-perceptive Professor Chong Siow Ann, he wrote about this gift of ultimate release from the prison of our own soul. 

He puts it best with these words: “Just as the inability or refusal to forgive has the tragic effect of tethering the victims to the bitter past, and an obsessive and futile wish for an imagined better past without that trespass; for an unforgiving penitent, it can also be a psychic imprisonment that chains him to that original trespass.”

But psychic prison or otherwise, forgiveness for untold grief committed is easier said than done. 

Some hurt goes so deep that the victims are understandably struggling with the anger from the original trespass that they are unable to take the next step of the healing process, that is, forgiveness. 

It is not that they can’t, or do not want to, even after the perpetrator has served his time in prison. 

But this disability arises from that sense of deep grief and pain that paralyses the victim for years, even decades. I believe it is a feeling only the one bearing the hurt can fully understand. 

A few years ago, I read a book “Mission at Nuremberg” by author Tim Townsend. It tells about a Holocaust survivor, Simon Wiesenthal. After the war, he dedicated his life to being a Nazi hunter. Professor Chong also made mention of Simon in his article. 

In the book, Tim narrated an encounter that Wiesenthal had with a member of SS named Karl. The year was 1941 and the place was Janowska work camp. Wiesenthal was only 31 years old when he worked in the camp.

One day, he was assigned to a nearby hospital and a nurse approached him. “Are you a Jew?” the nurse asked. Wiesenthal nodded and followed the nurse to a Red Cross building. 

They walked up a flight of stairs and into a room where a man lying on the bed called out to him softly, “Please come nearer. I can't speak loudly.” 

As Wiesenthal drew nearer to the man, he introduced himself as Karl and told him that he has not much longer to live. He added that he is “resigned to dying soon.” 

But before he die, he wanted to tell Wiesenthal something that has been tormenting him. Karl specifically asked for a Jew so that he could confess to him what he had done to his people.

He started off with a brief background of his life. He told Wiesenthal that he was 21 years old when he joined the Hitler Youth. 

His faith as a Catholic altar boy faded away during the war. Karl insisted that he was not born a murderer but one day he was assigned to join a unit of SA storm-troopers somewhere in the Russian front. 

His unit found a deserted town and everything in it was either destroyed, bombed or burnt. As they searched the place, they found a large group of civilians huddling together and under guard. They were all Jews.

The next part of the story is described in the book with details unsparing: -

“The order was given and Karl, along with the rest of the unit, marched toward the huddled mass of families – 150 people, maybe, 200. The children stared at the approaching men with anxious eyes. Some were crying. Women held their infant children. A truck arrived with cans of gasoline, which were taken to the upper stories of one of the small houses on the square. Karl and his unit drove the Jews into the house with whips and kicks. Another truck arrived, and those Jews, too, were crammed into the small house before the door was locked.”

At this point, Wiesenthal wanted to leave the room as he was all too familiar with the ending. But Karl begged him to stay and allow him to finish. Reluctantly, Wiesenthal returned to his seat and Karl continued.

In the book, the author wrote: “The order was given, and the SS unit pulled the safety pins from their grenades and tossed them into the upper windows of the house. Explosions, then screams, then flames and more screams. The men readied their rifles, prepared to shoot any of the Jews who tried to flee the fire. Karl saw a man on the second floor of the house, holding a child. His clothes were on fire. A woman stood next to him. The man covered the child’s eyes with one hand and jumped. The woman followed. Burning bodies fell from other windows. The shooting began. “My God,” Karl whispered. “My God.”” 

Therein ends Karl's confession.

To Wiesenthal, God had on that day taken a leave of absence from that god-forsaken town. And in His place, Hitler and his ideology stood as a testament to the evil of humanity. What Karl was asking from Wiesenthal, a Jew, was forgiveness. 

In his own words, Karl said, “In the long nights while I have been waiting for death, time and time again I have longed to talk about it to a Jew and beg forgiveness from him…I know what I am asking is almost too much for you, but without your answer I cannot die in peace.” After he had finished, Wiesenthal stood up and left the room without saying a word.

Professor Chong wrote that “in the story, Wiesenthal did not absolve (Karl) but was haunted afterwards by uncertainty about whether that was the right thing to do. He closed the story by suggesting the reader mentally change places with him, and asks: “What would I have done?”

Honestly, I can never fully answer that question for what hurt have I suffered that qualifies me to even stand with people like Wiesenthal. 

I live in a secure modern state and have most of my Maslow’s hierarchy of needs satisfied to a large extent. 

The only “war-like” experience for me is the struggles with parenting, their academic results, some workplace politics that are resolved within a few days, my egocentric self at times, and the usual misunderstanding and petty grievances over largely trivial issues concerning human relationships. 

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trivialising our pain and personal wounds in a reasonably secure nation-state. For what is a “molehill” to some war survivors living in a different time can be a ”mountain” to people living in our modern era. 

Each person experiences their pain personally, differently and viscerally, and indeed, only the one who wears the shoe knows where it really hurt. 

But “what would I have done?” in Wiesenthal’s shoes is a soul-wrecking struggle, and the depth of the pain brooks no easy answer. 

That is why the powerful story above moved me deeply because the symbolic juxtaposition between Wiesenthal, representing the murdered Jews, and Karl, representing his tormentors, shows without a doubt the insufferable pain of humanity in their bid for personal redemption. 

For Karl, he was seeking to find redemption from the guilt by seeking forgiveness. And for Wiesenthal, he was struggling with the same hope for redemption from hatred by forgiving. Their pain is real and I have learned that we all struggle with this pain to a certain extent.

In our lives, the hurt we experience may be the hurt we have inflicted on others (as in Karl) or the hurt that have been inflicted on us (as in Wiesenthal). 

On either side of the divide, the question is the same: How do we move forward with our life carrying the burden of this hurt? 

And we all seek complete forgiveness and it comes easier when it is mutual, that is, as Professor Chong puts it, “For a victim to truly let go of his or her anger, the perpetrator must first admit responsibility and culpability, acknowledge that what he has done was hurtful and wrong, show remorse for it, apologise and offer emotional and/or material recompense.”

Yet, we know the reality apple falls far from the ideal tree. For some of us, our experience is that the perpetrator doesn’t even know he or she was being unbearable, malicious, unfair or self-serving. And will never admit to being so. 

So, often, the ball is in our court. Apart from withdrawing from such people to avoid being hurt, we have to make up our mind to let it go. At some point in our life, we have to forgive in our heart and move on for our own sake - because unforgiveness is infectious, toxic. 

For by not burying the hatchet, it would mean that we have to use it to dig a grave for those who have hurt us. In so doing, we are unknowingly digging a grave for ourselves. 

It is no less an emotional and mental prison in our soul as we tether our life to the original trespass.

The healing of City Harvest leaders.

I feel that there is a time for healing and a time for moving on. This is one of them. 

Serina Wee is out. So is John Lam and Sharon Tan. She has served her time with 1/3 remission taken into account. So, her 30 months is reduced to 20 months counting from 21 April 2017. She was released on 21 Dec a few days ago. 

I have written much about the case and I feel there is a need to set things straight, that is, to call a spade a spade and to clean and hang up the spade once the past is buried for good.

The marathon trial in 2013 to Nov 2015 followed by the appeal, the landmark decision that led to the reduction of sentences, and Chew’s regrettable escape has undoubtedly marred the public perception of the the Christian faith and the church. 

While I felt that the dragging of the trial was largely man-made, I strongly feel that the acceptance and the serving of the sentences by the accused effectively put an end to the case for good. It is also largely man-initiated. 

Regardless of how small (or big) their parts were in the sham transactions they were charged with, they have eventually submitted to the law of the land. 

Yes, it was a submission not without a fight to the end of the legal road where there is no more legally paved road to cross over. But still, they faced the music, save for Chew, and served their time. As such, there should be closure for them as they return to their loved ones and family (including even Chew). 

God knows this experience will stay with them for the rest of their life for good or for bad. And I trust Serina, who turned 42 on Dec 14, has grown stronger thereon. 

Ultimately, what is the Christian faith if it is not about admission and redemption for those who have fallen from grace, and healing and community for the rest of us who are called to love one another. Because only by abiding in love will His love abide in us, and us in Him. 

This is not some sermon reminder (or preaching) for just the Christians, but a way of life even for those who do not subscribe to the faith. 

And because oxygen is to survival what love is to the purpose and meaning of life, no religion therefore holds the exclusive “copyright“ to lay claim to love and the demonstration of it. 

Putting it another way, no religion is complete without making love the cornerstone of their faith and action. 

For me, the Christian faith is inseparable from love because God is love and is personified or embodied in Christ. And this embodiment became flesh, lived amongst us, and fulfilled his purpose for us at Calvary. 

It is therefore not so much a religion about the rituals, the remembrances, the size or the methodology, but it is about a life, a sacrifice and a victory. In other words, it is a love that never gave up, kept overcoming and reconciled all men to Himself. 

So, what threatens to divide us in the Christian faith is hate, but what joins us together is love. And between hate and love, darkness and light, it is our uncompromising call in the discipline of His example to always gravitate towards love, towards healing, towards moving forward, towards overcoming, towards light. 

Let me end by saying that technology has given us her best and her worst. It has brought us together, but we are as lonely as ever. It has made things faster, but our busyness is endless. It has given us a voice but most times, they are voice of self, division and hate. And most pertinently, it has kept good memories for us, but it has also caused us to never forget. 

We never forget what technology has sensationalised for us in the social media.

Every transgression in society from a momentary lapse of judgment call, an oversight we regret, and a fall from grace we are trying to recover from, becomes headline news in our head. 

It is all that we can remember and we are made not to forget about them. And because what is sensationalised is often about how wrong the fallen are, even when they plead for a second chance to change for the better, we nevertheless like vultures keep nibbling at the carcasses of their past and readily forget that it is only in their future that true redemption can take place. 

It is trite to say that all men (and women) fall, and most times, their fall makes a splash that we never forget and their resolve to get up is often hidden from sight and encouragement. 

Alas, for that reason, the beauty of humanity is seldom captured because we are held captive by its shortcoming and not its overcoming. 

So, I wish Serina all the best in her road to recovery. I pray for that and look forward to a life that will inspire and encourage once again.

Liberal values go rogue.

One thing that the development of liberal values has forgotten to include in its widely evolved repertoire of human and individual rights is a certain abounding graciousness to the differences of opinions. 

Mind you, I am not just talking about tolerance, but the hidden malice of tolerating intolerance. And I don’t want that. It is not authentic. It is hypocritical. 

For I may disagree with what you say, or stand for, but I don’t say I can tolerate that, and then behind your back, I accuse you of being neanderthal, primitive, luddite, outdated, a prude or a religious freak. Or worse, treat you with extreme prejudice. 

That’s tolerating intolerance in my view. In other words, what I am really saying is that I am intolerant of your traditional, premodern (mostly religious driven) views in contrast to my liberal, open-minded lifestyle, but for the sake of my liberal (enlightened) makeup, I will - with a stiff upper lip - tolerate my intolerance of your views. 

One day, the cognitive dissonance will show, even unknowingly, even unintentionally. And the cause of that is because we - the enlightened ones - have not resolved in our hearts and souls to come to terms with the reality that people can disagree with us and still not be wrong (or religious) about it. 

After fleshing all that out, here comes the article that led me to that thought. It is entitled “Hart steps down as Oscars host over homophobic remarks.”

What’s that “homophobic remarks” he made? Well, in one of his comedy shows in 2010, Kevin Hart said this: “One of my biggest fears is my son growing up and being gay.”

He said: “That’s a fear. Keep in mind, I’m not homophobic. I have nothing against gay people. Be happy. Do what you want to do. But me being a heterosexual male, if I can prevent my son from being gay, I will.”

Honestly, as a heterosexual dad, I catch myself saying that too. 

This is my candid, uncensored shot here: - 

”I want my son and daughters to marry the opposite sex, to have children through the traditional way of intercourse between a man and a woman, and I want them to have children the way my wife and I had them, with our mutual genetic makeup combined; that is, regardless of how they might turn up in this intimate, passionate and enduring union recognised and endorsed by society at large for as long as society could remember.”

Is there a lot of hidden prejudices in that statement or desire? Can one construe that as me (or Kevin Hart) being homophobic, primitive, religious hypocrite or a gay-basher? If so, I think we are tolerating intolerance. 

I guess at this point, some people may say that we the so-called traditional, religious folks had it coming. 

For centuries, the ones at the bottom of the holier-than-thou cycle were the, well, gays, and now, it may just be a-taste-of-your-own-bitter-medicine time. Payback is a b#¥%€, right?

Before I reply to that, here is what Kevin Hart has to say on that statement he made five years ago: -

“I wouldn’t tell that joke today because when I said it, the times weren’t as sensitive as they are now. I think we love to make big deals out of things that aren’t necessary big deals, because we can. These things become public spectacles. So why set yourself up for failure?”

And what is the payback (or backlash) for him? Well, recently he was asked to host next year’s Oscars. But yesterday, “he announced that he was not going to host the event”. 

And yes, the trigger of that decision was the remark he made five years ago concerning his biggest fear - that is, his son turning out to be a gay.

This is what Kevin said: “If you want to hold people in a position where they always have to justify or explain the past, then do you. I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists. I sincerely apologise for my insensitive words from my past. I’m sorry that I hurt people. I am evolving and want to continue to do so.”

Lesson? Just one. Let me reply to that payback part as I bring this post to a close. 

I think religiosity has never left us. If religiosity is about intolerance, hidden prejudices, hypocrisy, double-mindedness, self-righteousness, most of us have not risen above it. 

You can be a believer and be guilty of religiosity or irreglious and still be guilty of the same. And in this context, you can be liberal minded, and still be religious about it. Both sides are equally guilty, equally dogmatic. 

But we can’t stop there. We can’t say that vengeance is mine and then ask for an eye for an eye. Sooner or later, wouldn’t we all go blind? 

For if we kept going on payback rampage, keeping scores, sooner or later, we will be bankrupt with nothing left for payback. The desolation is on both sides. 

And let me add to what Kevin said: “I am evolving and want to continue to do so.” I prefer to replace that word “evolving” to maturing or learning. I think we all are maturing, learning. 

I choose to believe that maturing or learning in this journey of a lifetime is not about growing an outer scale of what I call tolerating intolerance. We have to go beyond that. The heart of the issue is always the issue of the heart - however trite or cliche that sounds. 

Regardless of religion, culture or liberal values, enlightened or otherwise, we have to evolve (or mature) with increasing and abounding graciousness to diversity and differences of opinions. 

Am I being liberal by saying that?

Well, at the risk of being caught up with labels or semantics , I think not. Instead, I choose to believe that I am being mature about it. And being mature about it is also about being open to learning more, understanding more and accepting that we can be wrong in our attitude about our beliefs, religious or otherwise. 

And for that reason, the greatest obstacle to maturing and learning is the ossification of our beliefs, turning it into a list of tyrannical rules and regulations, and institutionalising (or enthroning) them as unimpeachable virtues. 

Because, if you think about it long and hard, the issue to be addressed is not so much the tolerant part of our intolerance, but asking ourselves, why are we intolerant of it in the first place? 

Most times, it is not the beliefs that are wrong but it is the attitude that comes from (or with) it that poisons the well of maturity and learning.

So, let me just say that I regret that Kevin will not be hosting next year’s Oscars, for he is quite a funny chappy. But having said that, I nevertheless agree with him that we tend to make a big deal out of things, especially things that rub us on the wrong side of what we insist cannot be wrong. Cheerz.

What if Kong Hee were truly sorry?

Recently, I thought about Kong Hee, his conviction and sentence. I wonder whether things would be different for him, the Church and Christianity at large if he had faced the music, admitted to the charges, and served the time meted out. How would it all pan out then? This led me to imagine what would happen if Kong Hee were repentant and apologized this time for real. Below is how it would all unfold for me (with some added drama of course)...

Kong Hee’s apology began early in the proceedings. It came at the heels of the 2-year investigation and just after Kong Hee was being charged for criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating funds belonging to CHC that had been entrusted to him. His apology is independent of his lawyer’s advice. He basically arrived at this crossroad on his own volition. He just needed to do this.

You can say that he had an attack of conscience. He could not sleep at night without facing the truth. Kong Hee knew that he could not keep up with the charades anymore. He wanted to come clean with his motive and deeds. He also prayed long and hard about it and God had convicted his heart. So, he told his lawyers that he wants to admit to the charges.

In fact, at the Pre-trial Conference, he told the DPP that he is not contesting or defending the charges. I imagine the Judge squinting at his lawyer and the latter nodded, saying, “Your Honor, my client wants to plead guilty to the charges, all of them. That is his instructions to me. He is very sure about it.” The DDP then kept quiet, if not a little startled. “Very well then,” said the Judge and a date was fixed for the next hearing to take the plea. When that day came, I imagine Kong Hee making this statement in mitigation for the Judge's consideration:-

“Your Honor, I admit to all the charges. I am guilty as charged. As the shepherd of the Church, I have disappointed my flock. I stand before you accepting full responsibility for what I as their leader have done. In fact, if it is possible, I beseech the prosecution to let the rest of the accused persons go and charge me instead. I am the one who is wholly accountable. I should be bearing all the blame, not them. They are innocent. They are just obeying me, their leader. (Turning to the other 5 accused) I am really sorry guys.

Your Honor, I admit that I was blinded by my ambition to make the Crossover project an uncompromising success. I should have seen the signs but I didn’t. I didn’t see it because I was conflicted in my heart. At the center of the Crossover project is Sun Ho and Sun Ho is my wife whom I love dearly. I admit that this marital devotion somehow overshadowed my evangelistic passion for the Church. At some point, I wanted more for Sun Ho to succeed as an international singer than I wanted more souls saved. I lost my bearings because I am guilty of making the person in the Crossover project a success at all costs. 

In my zealousness, I came up with the elaborate schemes for which I am now charged with to bankroll Sun Ho’s singing career. I needed to get part of the Building Funds out of the Church without attracting too much attention and suspicion. You see, I can’t allow discerning members like Roland Poon to blow the whistle again and complicate matters for Sun Ho and I. That would compromise the whole plan. At that time, the Crossover project was all Sun Ho and I can think about. This is where the sham bonds came in. This is the only way money could get out of the Church via an unsuspecting loan arrangement. But that was just the first part.

The second part is that I needed to control how the money disguised as a loan or bond was to be used. This is to ensure that every cent of it was invested in Sun Ho’s music career.  This is where Xtron came in.  It is a company set up to sell the bonds to the Church and it is also a company I would have full control behind the scene. Everything from the appointment of the director to how each cent is to be spent is controlled by me. This is the only way I can ensure that all the Building Funds used to purchase the bonds will be spent on Sun Ho’s music career.  This is where I exceeded the authority entrusted to me to use the Building Funds. It was neither for the building nor for investment. I just have to come clean on that.

As such, there was never any intention in the first place to buy the bonds to make a financial return for CHC. Even the maturity date for the bonds was made flexible and extended to keep the heart of the Crossover project beating - even though it was already in an ICU-state. The deception was to give the impression that the loan was legitimate and Xtron was wholly independent. Obviously they were not. I still held the puppet strings to both of them. It was therefore never a genuine investment for the benefit of the Church. Instead, it was a contrived cover-up for the benefit of the Crossover project. In other words, it was for Sun Ho's music career. That much can't be covered up by my haunting conscience.

I admit that I was not being candid with the Church. I could have just dispensed with the sham bonds and sham company altogether and tell it straight up to the Church that Sun Ho and I needed more money to be invested in the Crossover project, that is, in China wine and kill bill. But we were afraid that it would risk the whole project through time-consuming scrutiny, questioning and possible withdrawal of support. That was the risk we were not prepared to take. So, during that time, we thought that honesty was just not the most expedient policy.

The point is that I ought to have come to my senses when Sun Ho’s music career was making a substantial accumulated net loss along the way and when the Building Funds were put into further financial risk. I should have put a stop to it all and come clean then. But I didn’t. Oh how I wish I could turn back time…

Instead, I went the opposite direction and deepened the deceit. I went on stage with a straight face and told my beloved congregation that all is well, that Sun Ho’s stardom was shining ever so brightly. Alas, I pushed hard to give the impression that the Crossover project was and will be a resounding success when it was clearly not and I even shamelessly used God’s name to perpetuate that deception. To compound matters, I even engaged in hard selling by forcing the Church members to buy her albums to prop up sales. I did all this while keeping them in the dark. I kept the truth from them. I only disclosed to them the good stuff and sidelined the bad. Was I really driven by godly faith? Or was I just hoping that I could get away with all of that? How foolish...  

Your Honor, I had piled up one cover-up after another and another with the Firna's bond, the round-trippings to redeem the bond with more of the Church's money, and the falsification of accounts to derail all suspicion. I maneuvered under the shadows of surreptitiousness by inflating Sun Ho’s success, exceeding the authority entrusted to me with regards to the use of the Building Funds, persisting in hiding behind misleading labels like “mixed motive”, “dual purpose”, "theological legitimacy", and “hybrid intent” to twist the meaning of what the Building Fund was meant to be used for, setting up sham bonds and companies so as to avoid detection and to retain full control behind the scene, and playing a game of hide-and-seek with my auditors and lawyers by fudging the identity of the true mastermind behind the control of Xtron. 

For all these and more, I sincerely apologize. I regret them all. I want to come clean because my conscience and my ambition are fighting a colossal battle within me and I thank God that my conscience finally won. I thank God that I have finally come to my senses to take full responsibility as the leader of my beloved Church. It is the right thing to do and this is what I want my son to know. Daddy is only human and as a human being, I make mistakes. But what distinguishes us is that we confront our mistakes, admit to them, and make amends. I am completely ready to do just that, and I know nothing less will do.

Today, I stand before this Court, your Honor, the prosecution, my fellow accused persons, the public, my dear Church, and most of all, my God who loves me unconditionally, to say that I am truly, truly sorry.

In closing, I just want to say that there was a time when I did everything for the Church because I love her with all my heart. I was even willing to sacrifice all I have to the Church, to God. But along the way, I admit that I had fallen by the wayside. I took the easy road. I was misled by my own intemperate desires and appetites. I am like the prodigal son who wanted it all and regretted bitterly when all was taken from him by his own greed. I admit that many have left the Church and the Faith because of this. And the least I can do now is to stanch the bleeding, to take responsibility, to say I am sorry.

So I say "No more", “Enough is enough”. I want to start all over. I want to stand out to be counted. I want to set the record straight that I am fallible but not irredeemable, broken but not lost, fallen but not condemned. I ask for another chance. It's not over. I will return repentant. I will return stronger. I will return wholly grateful to be able to stand for what is right. Of course, I am no Apostle Paul. I am just a broken sinner who is on his way home.

Your Honor, please show me mercy and leniency. All I ever wanted is to further the kingdom of God. My love for the Church has not changed. I never intended to cause any harm or loss to the Church. I have made full restitution. I have come clean and admitted to my guilt at the first earliest opportunity, thus saving the Court’s resources and time. God knows how long a trial like this will take. I am truly remorseful. 

Please give me another chance. I shall bear all responsibility. And I reiterate that the other accused persons standing before you, my beloved deputy pastor and my devoted staff, they all have nothing to do with it. I am to be blamed, fully. I shall bear my own cross. That’s all I have to say. Thank you for your time sir. Thank you so much.”

With that, I imagine the Judge hearing the prosecution and passing the sentence. It was not a long one considering Kong Hee’s admission of guilt. In fact, the Judge commended Kong Hee for owning up to his mistakes and taking the road less travelled, the narrow road as a leader and a pastor.

The next scene in my imagination was in CHC. I saw myself standing at the back of the huge auditorium. Everybody was standing up, waiting eagerly. I too stood up. Then, Kong Hee appeared from behind the stage to thunderous applause. The congregation was literally rejoicing. No doubt Kong Hee looked a little haggard, jaded. The years must have taken its physical toll on him. But he was all smiles. He was beaming. he was happy. He placed his hands on his chest and was in tears. He went up to the pulpit, bowed for a long time, and finally said, “Thank you for standing behind the Church all these years. Dear Church, I’m back.” I noticed that everyone that day was in tears, including myself. Cheerz.


Postscript: The above narration is wholly fictitious. It didn't come to pass. It is not based on reality. It's in fact based on my wild, unhinged imagination.