M Ravi vs AGC

 

M Ravi is in trouble again. It is the battle of apologies. This time, with the AGC. Not his first though. 

He had asked for an apology for his client’s acquittal on a capital charge, and AGC is in turn asking from an apology from him for, amongst other things more substantial, asking for an apology from them. The recriminations came in rather swift, and here is the report by Rei Kurohi in ST this morning. 

On Monday, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision to convict Ravi’s client, Gobi Avedian, on a capital charge. After that Ravi wasted no time to tell TOC that the prosecutors had been “overzealous” in prosecuting Gobi, which had “led to the death sentence” for Gobi. 

He also said that ““it was troubling” that the prosecution ran different cases before the High Court and the Court of Appeal.”” (Well, you have to read the case to decipher that).

Ravi called upon AGC to apologise to Gobi for the trauma he had to go through with the thought that he might lose his life over the serious charge. He even called into question “the fairness of the administration of justice in Gobi’s case by the prosecution.” 

But the response came in fast and furious like a lightning bolt on a carpark drift. AGC would have none of that. The honourable chambers sent a stern letter to Ravi demanding an apology and also demanding that Ravi “unconditionally retract the allegations he had made.” 

To be fair, I do not know what further things Ravi had said, but here’s AGC’s rejoinder: -

“These are serious allegations that the Public Prosecutor has acted in bad faith or maliciously in the prosecution of the applicant (Gobi).”

“They are false and highly inflammatory. It is highly improper and entirely contrary to Mr Ravi’s obligations as an officer of the court for him to make these unfounded, baseless and misleading allegations.”

AGC made it clear that CA “made no adverse findings against the Public Prosecutor or the prosecution of Gobi.” In fact, AGC stressed that CA said the AGC’s initial decision to convict the applicant was “correct at the time (it was) made.”

Ravi thus has until noon tomorrow to respond. But Ravi’s turret of unapologetic sense of justice is not standing down. It has in fact gone ballistic. 

He posted the letter from AGC in his Facebook and mentioned that he had taken his client’s instructions to “start proceedings against the Attorney-General Lucien Wong, Deputy A-G Hri Kumar Nair and Senior Counsel Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir, an AGC deputy chief prosecutor who led the prosecution’s case.” Those are big names in public prosecution. 

Ravi declared: “I will file the writ of Summons in the next few days, both personally against all three of the above government lawyers and also against their offices in which they hold public appointment. They have to be accountable to Gobi and his family in court and be subject to rigorous cross examination and scrutiny of their conduct of Gobi’s case.”

I guess at this moment Ravi was demonstrating with the exchange of correspondence whose gun is bigger. And here comes my commentary.

 

Alas, one request for apology begets another request for apology, and in this battle for apologies, I suspect no one will walk away fully vindicated, because apology is a tricky thing and the silent majority is not tone-deaf to the fifty shades of justice on a larger scheme of things. Let me explain. 

At the risk of being accused of “whataboutism”, let me just say that in the public eye, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too (and I will deal with “whataboutism” later). 

While it may or may not be “highly improper and entirely contrary to Mr Ravi’s obligations as an officer of the court for him to make these unfounded, baseless and misleading allegations”, subjecting that to a proper fact-finding exercise, we must not forget these words by CA on the recent Dr Wee’s controversial case. 

“Prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors. They are “ministers of justice” assisting in the administration of justice (see R v Banks [1916] 2 KB 621 at 623). As a “minister of justice”, the duty of the prosecutor is to assist the court to arrive at the correct decision. It is neither the prosecutor’s duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor to “timorously discontinue proceedings the instant some weakness is found in their case””.

Now, let me be undoubtedly clear lest I myself ends up at the receiving end of a letter. This remark pertains to the nondisclosure of two important reports, which resulted in prejudice to Dr Wee’s charge and the way he would have conducted the trial/appeal - though the prejudice could be corrected. It has therefore nothing to do with Gobi’s case. With that cleared, here is the second part to CA’s admonishment of the prosecutor. 

“Before concluding this judgment, we take this opportunity to reiterate the Prosecution’s overarching duty of fairness. The Prosecution owes a duty to the court and the public to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. Arising from this, the Prosecution is obliged to disclose relevant material that can assist the court in its determination of the truth.”

That is one. Here’s another. 

It is the case of Parti Liyana. She laboured for 4 years to pursue justice to the end. And she had recently decided to proceed with her complaint against the conduct of the prosecution in her case. 

In the appeal, the judge remarked that the conduct of the police and prosecutors in dealing with the evidence in its custody and at trial were highly prejudicial to Parti. The possible contamination of the custody of evidence at Liew’s mansion and the nondisclosure of a video player that is essentially spoilt at trial was a “sleight of hand” by the prosecution in what seems like a selective presentation of the evidence. 

So, with the two recent cases in mind, where it was clear to me that there were some compromise on procedure and integrity, where’s the apology? 

Is it because the investigation is still ongoing? Are we waiting for our Law Minister to clear the air? 

But then, with the CA’s admonishment in Dr Wee’s case and the appeal judge’s remarks about some sleight of hand in Parti’s case, isn’t it clear that at least an apology is in order to Ms Parti Liyani? 

Mind you, she was a lone maid who was and is still separated from her loved ones because of some miscarriage of justice whereby the powers-that-be had a part to play. Why is an apology then kept at bay? 

(Doesn’t need to be an apology admitting guilt, but one to show one’s regret for the pain she had to go thru. For great leaders of other countries have done just that). 

And if “prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors...they are “ministers of justice””, then justice is equally about prosecuting a fault as it is about admitting to one 

(now I also have to bear in mind at this juncture that no one is perfect, and the AGC had on its own accord appealed on behalf of convicted accused to lower sentences and fines, and even acquittal. Kudos for that). 

But, going back to the issue, you may ask, mike, what about “whataboutism”? Shouldn’t you just deal with the issue, the relevant issue? Ravi’s remarks have nothing to do with Dr Wee’s and Parti’s case right? Yes, they are different cases with different facts. 

Yet, returning to what I first said earlier about “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, that is what the public perception of justice and reputational integrity is all about when it comes to one party demanding an apology from another. You see, if justice should not only be done, but need to be seen to be done, then protecting or upholding one’s reputation, especially that of a public office, works the same way right?

 

You want an apology from one, do you then give out an apology to another? In other words, in the face of an error, whether it is non-disclosure, a sleight of hand or a procedural laxity, shouldn’t the head takes the bullet, or responsibility? And metaphorically speaking, if the fish rots from the head, shouldn’t the head fights its own rot first before pointing out other people’s rot? 

(This basically goes back to what Jesus said about the log in your eye and the splinter in another’s).

So, that is how I address “whataboutism”. That is, yes, we should always stick to the issue, and deal with the issue, not the person, yet, like what Jesus said about the pharisees, “they tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” 

Mind you, the load that many accused of capital charges and theft have to bear are really heavy. A conviction is all in a day’s work for the prosecutors, and they can go on with other cases, rewarded with promotions and bonuses, and they no doubt deserve it, but an acquittal for an accused, in the case of Parti, is a life destroyed and she may even never recover from it. 

So, asking for an apology (as a form of acknowledgement of that) is not asking too much right? 

Alas, in the battle of apologies, you will find no full vindication because the log in some people’s eye are always behind them, out of sight, out of mind, but the splinter in others’ is just in front, and it just happens to be glaringly obvious.

 

Is homosexuality a sin or a crime?

Is homosexuality a sin or a crime?

If it is a sin and not a crime, should we decriminalise it? Is it that simple? Can we expect an agenda on both sides of the divide? Is our Christian faith defined by, hinged upon and centered at the staying power of Section 377A?

And if it is both a sin as well as a crime, shouldn’t we arrest, charge and put the offender on trial in the same way we arrest, charge and put a thief on trial? 

This is the big question for us to ponder after the Supreme Court of India decriminalised gay sex by abolishing Section 377. Chief Justice Dipak Mishra said the archaic law from the remnants of the colonial days is “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary.” 

Is it? Is it really irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary? 

Well, if you enact it, put it in the Penal Code, and then assure its potential offenders that they can freely commit in the privacy of their own bedroom the very act that the Section seeks to prohibit, can that be considered “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary”?Is it an overreach?

Alas, there is no easy solution here. It is said that every complex problem has a solution that is simple, neat and wrong. I guess this happens to be one of them. It is what one may call the "crucible of unsolvedness".

Our society is clearly divided on this. The recent decision in India’s highest Court only deepens the wedge further. 

According to our law minister Mr Shanmugam, “the majority are opposed to any change to Section 377A, they are opposed to removing it.”

But veteran ambassador Tommy Koh is not letting dead dogs lie. Whether there is a majority opposing its repeal or not, he seems to have an injection of renewed faith in our judicial system to do the right thing after our Indian counterparts have done theirs.

He wrote: “I would encourage our gay community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A”. 

Though unintentional, he had even started the hashtag #tryagain movement very much like the #metoo movement but with a much tighter cultural Gordian knot to untie.

Even the chief of government communications, Janadas Devan stood on the ambassador’s side. He wrote: “Speaking personally, I support Tommy’s position. 377A is a bad law. Sooner or later, it will go. Pray sooner rather than later.”

Mm...I really don’t know who is going to pray to repeal 377A soon, but the last time I checked, the religious communities are united in prayer against it. 

Pastor Lawrence Khong is leading the charge here. 

Chairman of LoveSingapore, a network of more than 100 Churches, he said: “I am somewhat concerned, perhaps even disappointed that a public and some would consider a government figure is making a statement like that. It does not come across as being helpful to building cohesion in society.”

Here, I wonder are there other ways to build cohesion in society?

As for our Courts, we already have a precedent on it and it went in the opposite direction of India’s Supreme Court. 

In 2014, the constitutional challenge against Section 377A was dismissed because, based on the way our Courts see or interpret it, there was no infringement of our constitution. 

In their opinion, Section 377A was neither discriminatory nor a violation of a gay’s right to life and liberty. You can say that contrary to the opinion of the CJ of India, our Courts do not find Section 377A “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary.”

But, as I have written above, the only issue about a readily defensible and seemingly rational section 377A is that it is not openly prosecuted in public or private. This is one criminality that will not see its offenders put behind bars anytime soon. 

Shanmugam said: “People openly express themselves as gay. I mean you have got gay parade. Police even approved the licensing for it, no one gets prosecuted for declaring themselves as gay. So, really, when was the last time someone was prosecuted?”

Apparently, our little red dot is highly tolerant of the little pink dot in our own backyard. 

For PM Lee, he is taking the wait-and-see approach. In politics, he’s sure not going to adopt a moralist stand because the government has always plied the middle road when it comes to such culturally sensitive, even inflammatory, issues.

He said: “Singapore is a society which is not that liberal on these matters. Attitudes have changed, but I believe if you have a referendum on the issue today, 377A would stand. My personal view is that if I do not have a problem, this is an uneasy compromise, I am prepared to live with it until social attitudes change.”

Lesson?Mm...it actually goes back to the question I posed at the start of this post: -

Is homosexuality a sin or a crime? 

I trust that atheists in general are the least concerned about the issue. To them, it is mostly a case of live and let live. 

But I am afraid Christians in general (and the adherents of other faiths) are not going to take it lying down. To them, something bigger is at stake. It concerns the fate of humanity as a whole. It concerns what is sacred, what defines us, what cannot be compromised.

Mind you, we are supposed to be the custodians of society’s conscience, the moral gatekeepers, the watchtowers of what is right (the Catholic sexual scandals notwithstanding), and letting this one go free may just be inviting the 377A Trojan horse of licentiousness into our guarded city.

Recall that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers in high places. 

For this reason, for this sacred reason, we are call to take a stand to defend our land, every spiritual square inch of it. 

Yet, notwithstanding the above, Is homosexuality a sin or a crime?

If it is both, then Section 377A should stay and be duly enforced. But if it a sin and not a crime, shouldn’t it be decriminalised?

There is however a third alternative, which is quite unthinkable (if not abominable) for the believer. And that is, it is neither a sin nor a crime, because some are born that way. It is thus a gene thing. 

If so, it is morally wrong for Section 377A to be in the penal code in the first place. 

But I would leave the third alternative out because the science on it is still out there, notwithstanding the clear biblical stand against it. 

Yet, if we go back to the argument that homosexuality is a crime, why is our government not prosecuting the offender? 

Well, like a rock and a hard place, it is for PM Lee between a referendum and an uneasy compromise. 

According to him, a referendum taken now would mean that 377A would stand. That’s the voice of the presumed majority. And as long as the society does not have a problem with it, it is still a livable, though uneasy, compromise.  

So, this unveils our fourth unique alternative. 

Homosexuality is a sin but not a crime in a way that its offenders will be prosecuted. Yet, this does not mean we decriminalised Section 377A because, as PM Lee puts it, “Singapore is a society which is not that liberal on these matters.” 

Is it then a security blanket some of us hold tightly on to just to remind its violators that not only God is watching them, our government is also watching them but without the handcuffs?  

Alas, that essentially explains why Section 377A remains in the books, not to curb certain behaviour once deemed unlawful, but to appease a large section of society that is not that liberal on these matters.

Now, are the Christians satisfied with this current state of affair? Would Lawrence Khong consider this a cultural victory? Have we drawn the line deep enough to keep the LGBT on their side of it? Will 377A be considered the hallmark or emblem of our collective moral and religious stand?

But, in case we think the government is on our side, we must be mindful of the fact that once attitude changes, our pragmatic government would do whatever it takes to keep the majority appeased. This may mean doing away with Section 377A altogether when the society as a whole becomes liberal enough - whatever that means.

Maybe pinkdot has to occupy every seat in National Stadium before the government takes notice and goes back to the legislature’s drawing board. 

But before that happens,it is indeed an uneasy compromise and Tommy Koh’s plea to try again will need to seek another avenue instead of trying to change the Court’s mind. 

No changes in one or two foreign jurisdictions would be sufficient to make 377A unconstitutional since our Courts have already ruled on that. 

At this moment, only Parliament can make the change and the impetus for such a change would depend on the voices of the majority because in politics, every vote that tilts the electoral balance in one’s favour counts. 

In the end, 377A has effectively divided our society. It has turned our society into a tug of war with the strongest pull of resistance coming from the side with the hypothetically largest number of people. Morality in this sense has gone to the loudest voice, most times, angry ones. But sadly, the fight is not over yet. 

Pinkdot has been growing in numbers over the years and it is a matter of time before they grow in assertion, affirmation and acceptance. Once they hit critical mass, the society will only be further polarised and the we-versus-uswill only worsen. By then, we risk turning our belief into a crusade, our faith into tribalism, and our hope into a political mission.

When that happens, we Christians may profess with the sincerest of voices and acts that we love the sinner and hate the sin. However, the only thing the sinner in our eyes will see is more of the hate and less of the love.

Let me be clear: I have nothing against 377A. But I have everything against making it the center or focus of our identity in Christ. There has to be a better way to love God and our neighbours because the last time I checked, before we ourselves were saved, Jesus did not go before the Romans senate, the Sanhedrin Council or Pontius Pilate to use the law to change human behaviour and launch a countercultural revolution. 

Instead, He went with untold anguish to the Cross to connect and transform hearts. Jesus touched one life at a time not by an act of Parliament, but by an act of sacrifice – that is, himself in order to draw all men unto him. That is what love does. It does not hold on stubbornly to a thing or a scroll of the past. It holds on stubbornly and patiently to a life until that life finally let go of himself to join hands and hearts with the Savior of his soul.

For in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, the Word dwelt among us, sinners and all, none were excluded, for all have sinned and fallen short, and the Word was full of grace and truth. The Word fulfilled the law through his obedience and unfailing love, and with grace and truth, He sets us free. Grace for grace, we are indeed free. Amen. Cheerz.

Law & Grace equals Liberation.

Someone on FB asked me how I reconcile Law and Grace and how does the two (working hand in hand) lead me to liberation. Here is my answer:- 

"I note your point. I understand Salvation is a free gift. 

Thru His grace and sacrifice at the Cross, it is done. We are thus counted or deemed as righteous by faith and belief, by proclamation and acceptance. 

But, when we are talking about law (not ceremonial ones), we are talking about the ten commandments (TC) too right?

Now, It is NOT thru obedience to TC that we are saved, (which is impossible as it implies human effort and belief), but by faith and only by faith through the finished work of Christ that we are saved, right? 

Thus far, I supposed, we are on the same page?

Yet, TC is not the cause of sin, right? 

Paul mentioned that the coming of the law makes us sin more. But surely, the law of sin (and death) differs from sin of the law right? 

The law of sin is about the First Adam for whom we are bound until the Last Adam came to set us free for good, for all time. 

But that (that is, the law of sin) does not mean the sin of the law right? The law is not sin, TC is not sin, OT/OC (Old Covenant) is not sin. For there is no human agency involved. 

They are all imperfect instruments trying in earnest to bridge the "graceless" gap.

Paul said: "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Sin is sin, and the power of sin is the law (by breaking it and not its mere existence mandated by God Himself) does not mean that the law gives one the power to sin. It is still our choices from our fallen nature that we break the law (or are disobedient to it). 

Take out the human agency factor and the law is nothing more than a divine normative template.

For it is illogical (even unfair) to say that our secular law, for example, (like "Do Not Litter Fine 500" or "Please Flush Fine 1000") is the cause of me littering or not flushing. 

Law makes us aware of sin, but it does not make us sin. Our sinful nature from First Adam entices is to sin by the awareness of the law and then breaking it.

So, the liberation I talk about is not just to know the law, that is, TC, but to know Christ and His unfailing Grace. 

The knowledge of the law without Grace is helplessness and the proclivity to sin by dint of our fallen unredeemed nature. 

But the knowledge of the law and its obedience through the power of Grace is liberation. 

The perfection of His Grace is in the Grace of His Perfection that we proclaim through faith in vicarious wholeness. 

The law is thus not redundant. Just as OT is not redundant. They are a purposeful interlude (or backdrop) to herald the perfect sacrifice made perfect in the Amazing Grace of the Last Adam. 

For to rely solely on Grace without the historical and soteriological background of the law is like putting a child near the warm fire against the cold outside, but leaving no boundaries for the child and thus risking him to touch the fire. 

With Grace, the law makes sense to me to remind me of what is good and what is not, and to allow me to claim freedom from it not through disowning it (or by disassociation), but fulfilling it through the unmerited favour demonstrated in the finished work of Christ. Not by might or power, but by His Spirit in positional righteousness. 

So, therein lies my freedom from the awareness of the law and the empowerment of Grace, working hand in hand, heart to heart and soul to soul."

Alas, in this endless debate about Law and Grace, it is supposedly "endless" for a reason, that is, we each have our own opinion and it is better to live and let live, to believe in a way that we are still able to grow in our own way because there are other more pressing issues in life that calls out to us, and trust me, this Law and/or Grace "schism" will not break the unity of faith if we learn from and respect the differences of views and then, march forward to transform ourselves and others, one lighted step at a time.

What breaks the seemingly fragile unity of late however is when we polarise faith with such hostility and antagonism arising from such distracting differences that we lose sight of how each of us can impact lives by coming to Christ with the simplicity and innocence of a child, that is, no preconceived bias, no presuppositions that elevate oneself above others, no contention of who is more right than the other, and no boasting of doctrinal superiority. Because in our infinite ignorance, we are all equal. 

Christ has called us to join our faith in one spirit, one soul, and one body to make a difference in one life, one hope and one passion, not to create differences over one stubbornly held belief that will not count much (if at all) for unity, eternity and charity. 

That's my view this morning (and for all mornings until I heave my last breath - for that I know I am sure). Amen. Cheerz.

Law & Grace.

When Jesus asked Peter, “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” Over the centuries since then, this declaration of our Savior (or the assurance of our salvation) has been swinging from one extreme to the other. In the book “Law and Grace” by Daniel Tong, he wrote, “Throughout Christian history, heresy has resulted not from someone wanting to be evil or heretical, but from someone taking a piece of truth to an extreme and not doing justice to other truths as well.” He took a broad sweep of church history and noted our tendency to take theology on a self-smug pendulum ride. We should be quite familiar with what I am going to write here.

Before the time of Jesus, the religious leaders held up the law as if their faith depended on it. They in fact went to the extreme with it. The Sabbatical Laws itself would have made religious neurotics out of its sincerest adherents. The whole of the law became the raison d'etre for their existence, faith and hope.

Then, Jesus came and exemplified grace at Calvary. He declared that he has fulfilled the law. Love completed the law. Love’s sacrifice transformed our obedience towards the law from a self-glorifying human effort to a Calvary-inspired, God-glorifying one. The former is all about us and the latter is about what God can do through us.  

It bears repeating that Jesus did not come to do away with the law. He came to empower us to obey it. For lack of a better word, Jesus was “anti-extremist”. In today’s lingo, he is neither into antinomianism nor pro-legalism.

At Calvary, Jesus died to keep a mastery balance of all things, Law and Grace, and these words of Dallas Willard in his book “Renovation of The Heart” ought to resonate with thinking Christians with a heart for both Law and Grace: “The availability of the Spirit and Grace is not meant to set the Law aside, but to enable us to conform to it from an inward transformed personality. You cannot separate spirit from Law, though you must separate spirit and Law from legalism. The Law by itself kills off any hope of righteousness through human effort, but it kindles hope in God as we walk in the Law through Christ. Grace does not set Law aside. On the contrary, Law is itself a primary manifestation of Grace. It is a primary instrument of spiritual formation: Law comes with Grace into the renewed soul. There is no such thing as Grace without Law.”

From here, the disciples of Jesus experienced their first transforming works empowered by grace when Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Miracles followed them not because they rested on the laurels of grace. It bloomed because the early disciples worked out their salvation through faith, grace and hope.

Their efforts were genuine because the law finally made sense to them. It no longer mocks, limits, taunts, abuses, disempowers, discourages and entraps them. On the contrary, grace had set them free to obey the law, to walk in faith in the footsteps of their Savior, to overcome as their Savior did, and to be exemplary disciples even unto death.

The revolution here is not just in the act, or an external manifestation of a soul striving to fulfill the law, but in the heart, that is, an internal transformation of a renewed heart for God. By the saving grace of their Savior, they had the laws written in their heart. This is demonstrated in how the disciples had lived a selfless life wholly dedicated to standing for and spreading the gospel. Most of them died for their faith.

Things could have developed in the right direction from hereon, but as usual, something happened along the way of grief (Via Dolorosa). It was a derailment of faith. After the innocent blood of martyrs were spilled, and after the Milan edict in AD 313 where Christianity became the choice religion of the land, the Catholic Church returned to the pre-Calvary era. Legalism reared its ugly head again.

The Church created and elevated canonical and ecclesiastical Laws to Babelian heights and Grace quite haplessly lost her voice, her power and her amazement. In the same way that many roads lead to Rome, many ways also led one to salvation. Indulgences, purgatory and the remission of sins for fighters who die in the Crusades became the many man-made ways to personal redemption. In other words, they once again put the “Law” wagon before the “Grace” horses. This legalistic obsession became a high wall for the expressed purpose of fortifying papal supremacy and infallibility to the exclusion of all sincerest partakers of the common faith.

For centuries until the Protestant Reformation in October 1517, the Law reigned supreme with Grace being pushed to the soteriological fringes. Salvation by works once again took precedence over salvation by grace through faith. It took a man named Martin Luther and his Wittenberg protest in 95 parts to break the stronghold of legalism.

Now, a little background about this monastic priest Martin Luther. Although he was a brilliant scholar, charismatic and even funny, he was also plagued by an unforgiving sense of inadequacy that bordered on pure lunacy. This is one devout priest who was possessed by visions of Jesus as a wrathful enforcer, God as an angry judge, and the Spirit as a demanding perfectionist. He was not only crippled by hallowing self-doubts, but he also suffered anxiety, torture and pain caused by behavioral extremism.

On one occasion, while in confessional, he annoyed a priest so much with his petty and insubstantial confessions that he was told to go kill his parents and then return to the confessional. By then, he would really have something of substance to repent from.

However, under the mentorship of an elderly theologian named Staupitz, Luther found deep insight into the meaning of the finished work at Calvary. He went back to study the scriptures and Romans 1:17 spoke to his spirit: “In the Gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness by faith from first to last, as it is written, “the righteous will live by faith.”” Indeed, the just shall live by faith.

That was Martin Luther's turning point and this turning point split and broke the authoritative hold of the Catholic Church and resulted in the Protestant Reformation, the Thirty Years War, the Peace of Westphalia, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions, and many other great epochal periods of history.

A good summary here of the swing to the extremism of Law can be found in the words of Daniel Tong: “…the religious leaders of Israel were to teach the good news of and to prepare to receive the coming messiah. In this, they probably started off well, but over time settled into the upholding of an extreme expression of the Law. Jesus came, and the pendulum swung back towards Grace. Over time, the Church settled down and the Roman Catholic Church was established, whose role was “to teach the good news of and prepare the people to receive the returning messiah.” However, it too over time “settled into the upholding of an extreme expression of the Law.” The Protestant Reformation took place, “and the pendulum swung back towards Grace.””

If you fast forward to our modern times, the swing is now towards the extreme of Grace known by most believers as “hyper-grace” teachings. You can pick the simplified definition of it on the internet: “It is a new wave of teaching that emphasises the Grace of God to the exclusion of other vital teachings such as repentance and confession of sin.” I have myself written a few blog posts about it and you can search them under the name “Joseph Prince”. His name is in fact synonymous with this controversial brand of the gospel.

Now, I would like to set the record straight that I have nothing against Joseph Prince. This is not personal but doctrinal. I am merely addressing his teachings, and not the person. We in fact share many things in common. He is a father with kids just like me. We are both believers. He runs a church and I attend one. He is well known and I can’t say that I am even a fraction of his popularity. Well, the similarity thins out as I go along, but I guess you get the point. We are both blessed to be believers in our own ways and our faith has been our source of inspiration. I guess I have been a Christian for as long as he has been one (since 1985).

Yet, we are called to be discerning in what we hear over the pulpit. Even on this, we share the same sentiment. Joseph Prince once wrote in Grace Revolution at page 112 that: “…if someone comes to you and tells you that they are preaching the gospel, don’t just swallow everything, hook, line and sinker. Discern for yourself if what you are hearing about righteousness is accomplished from start to finish by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”

So, I have examined the “hook, line and sinker” of the hyper-grace teachings in general, and among the many thoughts that don’t feel right with me, I have listed just three of them here for reflection.

1)            Hyper-grace makes the law irrelevant. In most cases, it retires the law for good. According to Joseph Prince, the “law demands, and it results in fear, guilt, and sorrow. Grace supplies, and it produces generosity, holiness, and inward heart transformation.” He also wrote that “the law stirs up our sinful nature, whereas grace produces true holiness.” After what I have written above, I can’t reconcile my heart with this teaching about the law. It is to me a distortion of the godly function of the law in the larger scheme of my salvation and sanctification. Daniel Tong highlighted this quote about the law that clarifies for me its essential role: “The real issue with the Law is the company it keeps. If it is joined to sin, humanity apart from God, and death, it really is negative and becomes another tyrant enslaving us. If, however, as it was intended, the Law is placed within the context of the covenant with God, and the work of God’s spirit in us, then it is not a tyrant but a gift from God.” This reminds me of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14. Notwithstanding that this is before Calvary, the parable speaks about the condition of our heart. Both the Pharisee and the tax collector knew the law. I am sure they meditated on it day and night. However, it is the heart that Jesus saw most clearly. The Pharisee used the law to declare himself righteous while the tax collector was convicted by it. The former was filled with arrogance and pride while the latter was expressing true contrition and faith. Here, you can see how different the two individuals responded to the law. One remained corrupt (and unrepentant) and the other came to true repentance. The law is therefore not irrelevant or Old Testament. It plays a vital role in the conviction of our heart according to the parable. And after Calvary, it partners or joins with grace to empower us to overcome sin and all. We may fall along the way, but it is not the law that “stirs up our sinful nature” (seen in the light of Calvary and not in the realm of the flesh), it is our distracted and deceitful heart. Don’t blame the Law so as to exculpate our sinful nature. The issue has always been us.

2)            Hyper-grace makes repentance unnecessary. This is the part that confuses me most. With respect, I find that Joseph Prince’s version of “repentance” misleading. He obscures it further by saying that we confess our sins not to ask for forgiveness but because we are already forgiven. At this time, I really wonder how would fallen pastoral leaders respond to this version of the gospel? There are leaders of late who were caught in adultery, financial fraud and homosexuality. When they do repent, what do they then say to God? Do they just tell God about their sins, proclaim that they are righteous, walk away with their head held high, and return to their respective ministry? Is that how hyper-grace believers would repent by stopping short at asking for forgiveness? Is this full and complete restoration under hyper-grace teachings? Isn’t repentance and asking for forgiveness an essential part of our spiritual maturity and growth? Shouldn’t we distinguish between godly grief and other worldly grief as it is written, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death” (2 Corinthians 7:10)? Of course, we are not going to be neurotic about repenting and do what Martin Luther did by camping in the confessional to confess every single little infraction, or be condemned by each one of them. I trust that the legacy of Calvary is not to dispense with repentance after the altar call, but instead to make every repentance counts towards the believer's maturity and growth. In other word, such a believer is not obsessed with seeking repentance at every waking moment of his life. For the believer, it does not become a crippling obsession out of fear or anxiety. It is therefore not about this, "have I repented enough to secure my salvation?" but it is about this, "I seek repentance as I draw near to Him."

And

3)            Hyper-grace makes God one-dimensional. There is two parts to this. First, I take issue with Joseph Prince’s streamlining of the Holy Spirit’s works in our life. According to him, the Holy Spirit “never convicts you of your sins. He NEVER comes to point out your faults.” He even challenged believers to “find a scripture in the Bible that the Holy Spirit comes to convict you of your sins.” I am not a biblical scholar and therefore, I will reserve that challenge for theologians and Professors of the New Testament. In fact, I feel that Daniel Tong, Roland Chia and Michael Brown have all met the challenge brilliantly, completely and satisfactorily. I however appeal to human nature and common sense. I trust the Holy Spirit still disciplines us (reproves, reprimands and exhorts us). If we can grieve the Holy Spirit by our words and deeds, and in return, we respond to such grief caused with remorse and repentance, isn’t this God’s way of correcting us, molding us, guiding us, mentoring us, even convicting us of our wrongdoing after the altar call experience? The other part is about Joseph Prince’s unilateral makeover of God. After Calvary, we no longer serve an angry God. He is no longer the God of law and judgment. We can forget about punishment or discipline. Once saved and we are always saved. All of a sudden, God is this loving, happy and generous sovereign with a temperament no different from that of Saint Nicholas aka Santa Claus. Joseph Prince even knows the mind of God at all times, that is, it is a safe bet to him that He is perpetually in a state of heightened charity, vivaciousness, and joviality. And although His thoughts may be higher than ours (so the scriptures tell us), it doesn’t appear that God’s thoughts can escape Prince’s body-and-mind reading of him? According to Prince, God heals regardless, He blesses guaranteed (or your money back – so to speak), He cheerleads us into unwavering righteousness every time we sin, He is dying to promote us, enrich us, and prosper us. This actually reminds me of Matthew 16:22 where you will find Peter taking Jesus to one side and rebuking him. Yes, you heard it right, a man told God off (so to speak). Peter said, “Never Lord. This shall never happen to you.” (referring to Calvary). Jesus’ response? Here it is in full extract: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” This exchange is instructive. It tells me about how presumptuous we can be about God. Every Sunday, we confidently tell thousands about what we believe God ought to be because this is what we want Him to be. We only want to hear the good stuff. We only want to pander or appeal to human concerns. For Peter, he foresaw a triumphalist path to bypass Calvary. For Joseph Prince, I guess he foresaw a prosperity path to bypass genuine suffering and godly sorrow that are more reflective of the reality that millions are currently struggling in. To the Prince of radical grace, redemptive suffering is simply oxymoronic. Redemption to him only comes with prosperity, promotion and perpetual bliss.

Let me end with the same question I started with - “Who do you say I am?” As a believer, my reply is that Jesus is the Messiah. There is another question Jesus posed to Peter in John 21:15-17. He asked him three times, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” And He followed the affirmative reply with this threefold commission, “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my sheep”, and “Feed my sheep.” For me, acknowledging His messiah-ship is to know the rights of my inheritance in Him and to stand justified by His righteousness bestowed upon me. And the threefold commission is about working out my salvation as I strive with His strength to comply with His laws, will and commands. Both Grace and Law are therefore indispensable to me. Cheerz.