Parti Liyani Saga Part V.

Assoc Editor Chua Mui Hoong is asking rather tough questions about the Parti Liyani case. 

This morning ST article entitled “The curious case of the maid, the business tycoon and the pink knife” is pushing some sacred cow buttons for our meritocratic system, suspected to be skewed towards the rich, privileged and highly educated. 

Before I rattle on, what about the pink knife? You may be familiar with the maid and the business tycoon, but pink knife? That came quite out of the blue right? 

Well, let me scratch that itch. Chua wrote: -

“The pink knife in question was an item Mr Karl Liew said that was bought when he was a student in Britain, which he had brought back to Singapore in 2002. But on questioning, he admitted that the knife was of modern design that could not have been in production in Britain before 2002.”

And Judge Chan said: “No adverse inferences were drawn against the prosecution from failing to call witnesses who could corroborate or support Karl’s internally contradictory testimony regarding his alleged ownership of the pink knife, when there was no investigation.” 

Now let’s get back to the article by Chua. 

Throughout the trial, Justice Chan reserved the most damning remarks for Karl, the police, and most unfortunately, the judge. Of the three, Justice Chan dealt with Karl with a firm and stern hand. And this has to do with a bedsheet and a quilt cover.

At the trial, Parti was quick to defend herself by giving evidence that they were purchased from Ikea, Alexandra, for $49. But Karl insisted that the bedsheet was bought from Habitat in Britain and valued at $100. 

Justice Chan however said: “On a totality of the evidence, and in particular, the objective evidence which strongly suggests that the bedsheet was from Ikea, I find that Karl fabricated his testimony about having purchased the bedsheet from Habitat in the UK.” (Fabricated is a strong word). 

“Instead I believe Parti’s evidence that she purchased the bedsheet together with the quilt cover as a set from Ikea. Clearly, the conviction for theft of the bedsheet is against the weight of the evidence and is not sustainable.”

Alas, the appeal process vindicated Parti, without which, this would be no more than a most typical case with this led-on narrative - “maid stole from her rich employer because of greed and poverty”. 

And on the role of the police, from Chua’s article, she wrote that the chain of custody of evidence was highly suspicious. Here’s the short chronology in end 2016. 

28 Oct, the Liew sent Parti off, giving her 2 hours to pack. It was reported that Liew Snr had been tolerating Parti for stealing from them. 

30 October, Liew Snr returned from overseas and was told about the three boxes of allegedly stolen items, which was opened against a promise made to send it back. That’s when father and son left for the police station to lodge a report. 

Curiously, on the same day, the investigating officer issued a warrant of arrest (that is, on 30 Oct, 2016). No further investigation was conducted. No witnesses questioned. So, the Liews lodged report, and police issued warrant. 

3 Dec, the police visited the Liew mansion to document the allegedly stolen items. While the warrant issued was instant, the visit to document/record the alleged stolen items took five weeks. 

This was about the same time when Parti returned from Indonesia to find a new job and was arrested upon arrival. 

And what’s worrying is that it took about 18 months later on April 18 2018 before the items were “received into police custody.” Before that, the three boxes were left with the Liew household to be used at their discretion and pleasure. 

That is why Justice Chan commented that there was “a break in the chain of custody of evidence” as a reasonable bystander would not be able to tell whether the evidence had been contaminated when they were left in the open for any tom, dick or karl to use. 

Mind you, the burden is on the prosecution to prove their 4 charges against Parti, and the way the evidence was handled effectively broke the evidential chain, and that only added to their already-high burden of proof for the prosecution. 

As for the trial judge, Justice Chan said that she had “misapplied the legal and evidential burdens of proof.” This has to do with Karl’s unreliable and contradictory evidence on the kitchenware items, in particular, the pink knife. 

Recall that Karl claimed the pink knife was bought in 2002 when he was a student in UK? But it was of a “modern design that could not have been in production in Britain before 2002”?

That contradiction urgently required some corroboration from other witnesses, and that is the prosecution’s job. In Justice Chan’s view, “the Prosecution has failed to prove its case on the basis of Karl’s uncorroborated testimony alone”. 

Yet, based on such uncorroborated testimony, the trial judge convicted Parti on the charge. Curiously, she found Karl’s evidence, with some misdirection, reliable as a whole. 

From the judgment of Justice Chan, I get the impression that the trial judge gave more concession to the prosecution on the standard of proof they were required to meet as compared to the standard Parti had to meet. 

But, in a criminal system, that cannot be the case, since the prosecution has to come out with the proof first, and on a high standard. They are the accusers with vast state resources, and the well-endowed accusers have to stand ready to present their charges against a maid supported pro bono, thanks to Anil. 

In any event, this is what Justice Chan said: -

“In my judgment, this constitutes an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof on the accused. It appears that the same standard of proof was not demanded or required of the Prosecution. No adverse inferences were drawn against the Prosecution from failing to call witnesses who could corroborate or support Karl’s internally contradictory testimony regarding his alleged ownership of the pink knife.” 

He added: “It is clear that the Prosecutuon is unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt solely on the basis of Karl’s testimony due to his evident lack of credibility.”

“I emphasise that an accused person is presumed innocent and this presumption is not displaced until the Prosecution has discharged its burden of proof. Simply put, it is not the responsibility of the Defence to disprove the Prosecution’s case.” 

In Chua’s article, she raised some tough questions: “To what extent were law enforcement individuals and judiciary officers acting out of implicit or explicit bias that accorded the Liew family more respect and attention than was given to the accused, a foreign domestic worker?”

Here’s another tough one: “Even more important is to consider what aspects of our justice system creates obstacles for the poor and less-resourced. What can we do to tilt the scales of justice to a more balanced distribution?”

Now, let me end by saying that, at a risk of stoking inordinate sentiments against the establishment, the questions above provoke a narrative that is all too familiar. It is the age-old manichean-like struggle between the rich and the poor, the have and the have-not, and the top 1 per cent and the rest. And the social disgruntlement it engenders forms the lowest hanging fruit in our society, always ripe for the picking, and if I may say it, nitpicking. 

That reminds me of the merciless battle-cry of the ancient Athenians preparing to slaughter and enslave the people on the island of Melos: “the powerful do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”

If truth be told, we can’t go on with such blind rage. Sometimes we spend so much time crying over spilt milk that we forget to clean it up, go to the store and buy a new bottle to drink. As a result, the slow curdle that is formed only aggravates the tight girdle of our dissatisfaction. 

Now, I say “yes” to accountability. I also say “yes” to responsibility and fairness. And just as one judicial process failed us, our appeal process however redeemed us (notwithstanding those who fell off the appellate cracks due to impecuniosity). Yet, both are from the same heart of justice, and both want to do justice in the most human way possible, stumbles notwithstanding. 

And just because you are rich doesn’t mean you are an elitist. And just because you are poor doesn’t mean you are always wronged. In a society, in order to prosper, there has to be a fair balance of emotional partitioning or underpinning, with one reserved for critical suspicion, and the other, for trust, even by faith on evidence yet to be seen. 

Mind you, the rich are not our enemy. Neither are the poor always the ones being oppressed, or bullied. While the Athenians’ battle-chant of the rich and powerful still resonates in an unequal society, we have to distinguish the bathwater and the baby here. 

In reductionist sense, we have two stark choices: to blame everyone for everything, or to trust everyone for everything, especially the top. 

But for a society to flourish, for the people to be united, and for us to move and progress forward, each of us just have to find the middle road between the two, and never allowing ourselves to be enticed by numbers or sophistry to push us to either extreme. 

And for the record, I am not a PAP-supporter - as some have accused me in my posts previously. I however support good government, fair reason, human flaws leading to full redemption, emotional persuasion as accessory to moral courage, and above all, love and hope underscoring everything.

 

Lawyers behaving badly.

A 22-year-old lady was allegedly molested in the train at Toa Payoh MRT station by a 24-year-old student from China who was accused of brushing his forearm against her breast.

It is not the case that is unusual. It is what she was asked at cross-examination by defence lawyer Mr Wong before Judge Shawn Ho that raised eyebrows.

Here is a full extract in today’s papers:-

“Mr Wong: Witness, I'm sorry to trouble you again. Can you stand up a bit? Stand up. Okay, thank you. Sit down.

Judge Ho: What was that for?

Mr Wong: Sorry.

Judge Ho: What was that for?

Mr Wong: Your Honour, I want to see... how attractive when (she) stands up, you know...

Victim: Is this necessary? I feel very offended.

Mr Wong: Well, I mean, I think it's important because I'm going to ask you even more insulting questions later on.”

Intermission 1#. If you didn’t catch that, let me rewind it here: “I'm going to ask you even more insulting questions later on.” Here is where the DPP Kong jumped in.

“(DPP) Kong Kuek Foo: Your Honour we'll take objection to any insulting questions at the outset.

Mr Wong: Provided it's insulting and scandalous (and not relevant), then you can object under the law...

DPP Kong: Your Honour, the courtroom is not a place for insulting questions. I don't need to learn the law to know that, my learned friend.

Mr Wong: Provided, Your Honour, the question is really insulting and does not go into the relevance of the case itself, then of course Your Honour can object. I'm going to ask a question that is why I want the (victim) to stand up and to show... how attractive and how, I mean, because she said that she wore a full top T-shirt, blue T-shirt... I want to see what's the size of...

DPP Kong: Your Honour, if I may just interject at this juncture? Is it the defence's case that only attractive women will get molested in the train?

Mr Wong: Well, it's always that there must be a temptation, there must be something attractive for a person to do such a thing. So if you get an old lady, you think people want to molest her?”

Intermission 2#: Gobsmacked! between the eyes there! Here’s the obtuse logic again: “Well, it's always that there must be a temptation, there must be something attractive for a person to do such a thing. So if you get an old lady, you think people want to molest her?”

If you are still with me, or still want to be with me, let’s bring the cross examination to its deserving end.

“Mr Wong: So that is important and I want to show that if she is wearing a very low cut (top) with a very voluptuous breast protruding out, (of a) half cut (top), then of course... the higher the tendency that people might commit such an offence. So I'm trying to put my case that, you know, looking at the day (how) she was dressed and... her breast size and all these things... whether there is temptation for anybody or the accused to do such a thing.”

Intermission 3#. “…a very voluptuous breast protruding out, then of course…the higher the tendency that people might commit such an offence.” Did this really happen in a cross-examination? Here's where the judge stepped in.

“Judge Ho: Stop there, Mr Wong.

Mr Wong: Yes.

Judge Ho: Stop there.

Mr Wong: So...

Judge Ho: Stop there.

Mr Wong: Okay, I'll ask other things.

Judge Ho (to the victim): Ms (...) I'm sorry I have to ask you to wait outside (the court). In fact, I would ask you to go for your lunch.

Victim: Okay.”

End of extract. Sorry for the three intermissions…here comes the commentary.

Judge Ho had to stop the proceedings because the victim was visibly shaken. She even said that she felt very offended. Further, Judge Ho cited four reasons on why he is of the view that "Mr Wong's conduct was lamentable.”

First, he made her re-live the “odious experience” by asking her to stand up and be gawked at once more. The Judge said, “Distress was evoked, with the victim trying to hold back her tears in court…But the damage had been done. Her heart was wrung. During the afternoon session, the victim was visibly affected."

Second, the Defence counsel intended his cross-examination to be insulting by issuing, with misguided bravado, an incredulous forewarning of it and thereby “ignored the victim's distress with the impolitic nature of his remarks.”

Thirdly, his actions may deter others from stepping forward to testify in a case of such sensitivity and endured trauma by the victim.

And…

I'll leave the last reason as my conclusion below.

Lesson? One, and Mr Wong intended it fully when he said at the trial that “I'm going to ask you even more insulting questions later on.” He did not mince those words.

This is no doubt a minefield subject and I would expect one to tread with extreme caution and light feet of deference and respect. But Mr Wong went in blaringly loud with two guns blazing and he managed, quite singlehandedly, to set off all the landmines with his “insulting” flat-footedness.

This reminded me of the limbo-rock song, “How low can you go?” And Mr Wong grinded the floor with his offensive, crass cross examination of the young victim. He made her out to be a victim who had asked for it by the flaunting combination of her dressing, breast size and good looks. It was as if the hunted is now the hunter – so to speak.

Incredulously, he attempted to justify the sexist defence of “I can’t help it, she’s just too attractive” by giving it a veneer of relevance, understanding and plausibility, even acceptability.

(Or worse, to insinuate with complete disregard that with that kind of appearance, "who would be tempted?") Both ways cut incredibly deep.

Now, as a fellow lawyer, the last thing I want is to be self-righteous or preachy or sanctimonious about it. But as flawed as I am, I want to be, at the very least, self-checking, self-filtering and self-conscious or self-conscience'd.

And in all my conduct, I strive with draining strength to keep three things in mind - common decency, common sense and common humanity.

It is said that "regardfulness is the minimum expression of decency." "Sending my regards" applies to everyone I meet. Mutual respect, regardless of the circumstances, is therefore always my default position - tough I know.

And common sense speaks for itself. I guess the world is what it is today (with Trump, Panama-leak, ISIS and the likes) because what is common is no longer common and it is supplanted by a pervading uncommon sense of insensibility.

Lastly, common humanity. Whatever labels we wear on ourselves, be it wealth, royal titles, coveted status, intelligence, fame and power, we are first and foremost, flawed human beings struggling to reconcile our budding conscience within with the moral conflicts without.

Everyone of us faces different circumstances and temptations of varying persuasions, but what we share is a common response, a common responsibility from within.

Bottom-line is that we can choose, and as long as we can choose, we can choose to do right, to live up, to show up, to face the music, to stand for something, and to show that we care. These are not romantic notions we find in fairy tales, but they are at the core of our common humanity, a genetic hardwiring of our freedom to choose.

And as promised, here is how I shall conclude with the Judge's own words, the fourth reason that is:-

"Finally, members of the Bar need to observe high standards of professional conduct and a proper sense of responsibility in the conduct of cases; if this is not done, the whole profession will suffer in the public's estimation.

Put simply, the defence counsel's conduct is completely unacceptable and deserves disapprobation. His conduct is plainly not in keeping with - and fell far short of - the best traditions of the Singapore Bar."

I guess basic decency and "a proper sense of responsibility" transcend all professions, all labels, and all circumstances. Cheerz.

Understanding the Prince.

I have done my math. Altogether, I have written 13 blog-posts with Joseph Prince’s name on it. They are directed at his teachings and why I disagree with them. Mind you, it’s about the teachings and not the person. In fact, to be honest, there is a certain charisma about him when he preaches and I can understand the pull he has on believers.

So, I thought to myself, maybe it’s time to try to understand the man, the preacher, the leader, the mega-church pastor. Maybe, I should start with his calling in the Swiss Alps when he was vacationing with his wife. And from there, I will try my level best to understand where he’s coming from and where he’s going to with his radical grace teachings.

Now, the innocuous start was in 1997 when he was driving while his wife was asleep. Joseph Prince said that he distinctly heard the voice of God saying to him, “Son, you are not preaching grace.” While still driving, he wrote that God dropped this revelation in his heart: “No. Every time you preach grace, you preach it with a mixture of law. You attempt to balance grace with the law like many other preachers, and the moment you balance grace, you neutralize it. You cannot put new wine into old wineskins. You cannot put grace and law together.”

That was the launch-pad of his ministry and the pastoral leverage he needed to go worldwide with his radical grace teaching. Mind you, he received the revelation direct from the mouth of God Himself. It was a game-changer for him. And the results show.

Since then, his Church grew from 2,000 to 15,000 and now, 33,000. Surely, the numbers must mean something right? Then came the miracles, the testimonies, the healings, the freedom and liberation, the business successes and the conversion. This is what Joseph Prince wrote: “In fact, some of the top business people, management executives, entrepreneurs, lawyers, accountants and consultants in my country attend our church…you will hear wonderful and amazing testimonies of how marriages have been restored, how huge debts that had run into the millions have been supernaturally cancelled, how terminal diseases have been miraculously healed and other awesome testimonies that the good news of Jesus brings!”

Of course, I have to add a word or two here. It’s a caveat of reality. I am sure that there are other testimonies that are less triumphalistic than those mentioned above – like anonymous divorces, hidden depression, disappointed departure, unanswered prayers, de-conversion, terminal illnesses and premature deaths. No community of faith is immune from such personal derailment and trials. Life is seldom such a smooth sail. In other words, not all will live a one-dimensional life of untold prosperity and ageless longevity. There are in fact many who have died for their faith, forsaken all for their belief and lived amongst the poor with hope and joy. Aren’t their testimonies equally, if not more, inspiring to the faith?

Strangely, you will never read any of that in Joseph Prince’s books because this is what he has to say about God’s grace: “God’s grace produces faithful husbands, loving wives, and children who honor their parents. God’s grace produces strong marriages and healthy families that are anchored in a local church. Why? Because grace isn’t a teaching, doctrine, or formula. Grace is a person and His name is Jesus!”  

Now, who can ever argue with that? As believers, there is always a buoyancy of spirit whenever that name is echoed in our hearts (however, let’s not forget that God’s grace also produces perseverance, joy and hope in suffering/trials for His glory).

So, if you want to understand Joseph Prince, this is a good start. He is actually incredibly optimistic. The only other megachurch preacher who can match his level of optimism to panglossian exactitude is his American counterpart, Joel Osteen. They are actually two happy peas in the same pod – both flourishing in their own ways. They should in fact be the first face you see when you enter St Peter’s gate of eternal rest.

Somehow, to associate God’s grace with redemptive sufferings, selfless sacrifices and death by standing firm on one’s belief is simply unthinkable for preachers like them. Their world after Calvary is one of victory, successes and endless happiness – where wealth comes in hot on one’s heels.

To be honest, I have nothing against that. What harm does a little hope (well, an understatement I guess for them) bring to the table of an already demented, fallen world?  

But if the early disciples of Jesus are of any indication, I am afraid things might not be as rosy as Prince and Osteen would like them to be. You see, some of the disciples were crucified, beheaded and stoned to death. Peter was crucified with his head downwards. It is recorded that his parting words to his wife who was also led to martyrdom was this, “O thou, remember the Lord!”

Andrew himself was tied to the Cross for three days with thick ropes and before his final breath, exclaimed, “Accept me, O Christ Jesus, Whom I saw, Whom I love, and in Whom I am; Accept my spirit in peace in Your Eternal Realm.”

The hardy Paul died for his faith, suffering endlessly prior to his death in a body that was repeatedly beaten, stoned, deprived, starved and tortured. Only John lived to a ripe old age in Ephesus. He will always be remembered by his disciples for repeating these words to everyone he met: “Little children, love one another!” When asked why he kept telling them that, he said, “It is the Lord’s command. And if this alone be done, it is enough.”

My point here is not that I am morbid about the faith. I am also not trying to damper the Spirit here. Wet-blanket I hope I am not. Neither am I trying to be morose nor ominous. If anything, I intend to let a little ray of realism into the hard cobblestone path of our faith’s journey. In other words, I am trying to balance rainbow-like cheeriness with a deft touch of level-grounded-ness. Here is what I mean.

I recall that Joseph Prince once said this with gusto! (exclamation added here for effect): “When you’re smoking, confess that you’re the righteousness of God in Christ. When you’re watching porn, confess that you’re the righteousness of God in Christ. Your addiction cannot be broken with human effort and will power.”

As a Christian, the latter part of that statement is true. But I can’t say that it is all that simple. Really? Confess and that’s that? Of course, there is a whole lot of context to that confession part (for JP once said that if you take the text out of context, you are left with “con”). You will just have to attend his services or read his books to discover it for yourself. If you are interested of course.

However, the common thread that runs through his radical grace prescription for earthly troubles of all shapes and sizes is positive confession. That’s the nutshell in a nutshell. That is, he insists that you just have to confess it right (or believe right) and you will get it right – somehow.

My issue with that is twofold: First, not all remedies to life’s issues are reducible to confession, period. Sometimes, it takes more than that. It may take time, medication, understanding, community, honest sharing, reflection, silent tears, confrontation, painful admission or apology, making amends, personal discipline, and even more time to see the light or resolution. All these are done in faith and hope.

Joseph Prince however tends to take things at face value without delving deeper into the multifarious issues that make up an emotional, spiritual and physical struggle. Some struggles may even last far longer. His solutions therefore appears more formulaic to me than realistic. I guess no leadership bedazzles more than to project the image that you have the answers to most of life’s puzzling dilemmas.

And the second point comes in a question form: What if getting it right is not about fixing it straightaway, but it is about going through it with hope, faith and perseverance? That is, what if it’s about the thorn in one’s flesh that one has to endure for God’s glory like Apostle Paul had to endure his?

I feel that Joseph Prince’s teaching leaves little or no room for that. Or at least, he doesn’t equip his members to embrace trials for purpose of personal growth. His theology on this is sadly lop-sided or deficient. His and Joel Osteen’s methodology is to always smile at the storm instead of confronting it. At times, I feel that preachers like them make promises in God’s name over the pulpit, or in online sermonettes, like a bankrupt would sign off blank cheques to his unwitting investors. On this score, I feel that they could learn a thing or two from this Franciscan benediction:

“May God bless you with a restless discomfort about easy answers, half-truths, and superficial relationships, so that you may seek truth boldly and love deep within your heart.

May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.

May God bless you with the gifts of tears to shed with those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation, or the loss of all that they cherish, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and transform their pain into joy.

May God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you really can make a difference in this world, so that you are able with God’s grace, to do what others claim cannot be done.

And the blessing of God the Supreme Majesty and our Creator, Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word Who is our Brother and Savior, and the Holy Spirit, our Advocate and Guide, be with you and remain with you, this day and forevermore. Amen.”

Now, I can write other things about Joseph Prince concerning the way he views repentance, the Holy Spirit and asking for big things from God, but I will limit myself to what is most disquieting about his radical grace teachings. There is in fact no better way to understand him than to understand how he views the Law in the light of the dispensation of Grace. I would like to preface here that I think no one is more conflicted than Joseph Prince when it comes to dealing with God’s laws. If you read his books and listen to his sermons, you will know that he has a love-hate relationship with the Law. The tension is clearly palpable and at times, painful to hear. This is what I mean.

You see, when it comes to the Law, Joseph Prince is either the most misunderstood or the most mystifying preacher this side of heaven.

Misunderstood because he has declared both in written words and openly that he is 100% for the Law. This is what he wrote: “Let me say this explicitly so that there is no misunderstanding: I am for the Law, for the purpose for which God gave the law (and you can quote me on this).” (I am doing just that here).

He further wrote that he “has the highest regard for the law. The law is holy, just and good.” He even compared the Law to a mirror with this metaphor: “My friend, if you look in the mirror and see someone ugly, don’t blame the mirror. Don’t get mad and punch the mirror. It’s not the mirror’s fault. The purpose of the mirror is simply to expose your flaws. In the same way, the law is not at fault.”

So, for those opponents of Joseph Prince, enough said? Isn’t he most misunderstood?

I mean, this is the same preacher who said that we should not get angry with the mirror/Law as it is never the fault of the mirror/Law. He did not stop there. He is in fact enlightened enough to write this: “What the devil has done is to keep the law over people’s heads all the time, so that they will constantly feel condemned and guilty. The devil is the master legalist.” He was almost Shakespearean-like when he called the devil a “master legalist”.

Then, his enlightenment went further with this observation: “Now, please understand this: the Ten Commandments are glorious! The problem has never been the Ten Commandments or God’s perfect law. The problem has always been imperfect man’s ability to keep God’s perfect law.” This is in line with Romans 7:7 when Paul said, “So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin…I love God’s law with all my heart.” And in Hebrews 10, after Calvary, God put it all in Paul’s beating heart and wrote it on his vibrant mind.

At this point, I am almost tempted to say this: “To those who think that Joseph Prince is against the Law, well, don’t you think you owe him an apology?” But hold that thought…

Now, here comes the mystifying part about his radical grace message. On the one hand, Joseph Prince clearly embraced the Law wholeheartedly, maintaining its purity from the corruption of man and the devil, and showing complete respect for it, and on the other hand, he condemns it most openly.

Recently, he preached that one perverts the Gospel of Grace if the Law is added to Grace. He even said that there is a double curse on anyone who preaches Law. He said that New Testament curses are possible for preachers of Law or those mixing Law with the Grace message. He even grouped the social media users under this category. This in fact goes back all the way to the Swiss Alps encounter – “You cannot put grace and law together.”

I am godsmacked here. Here I am trying to understand him and now he throws me a curve ball. Mm…another Gordian knot to disentangle I guess. I am undaunted nevertheless. I just need to put it into perspective. I just need to break up his above statement into three categories for reflection: Content, Clarity and Chronology.

First, content.

What does Joseph Prince mean by “Law” in the first place? What is it about the Law that would pervert the Gospel of Grace if they are delivered together? I dare to conclude that Joseph Prince was not referring to the man-made traditional laws, that is, the yoke of Moses. These are the Jewish ceremonial, sabbatical, dietary and sacrificial laws regarding circumcision and religious works towards salvation.

His double-curses scripture is actually taken from Galatian and he calls it “Galatianism.” He defines it as “the intermingling of teachings about God which contains a little bit of the law as well as a little bit of grace.” But this is strange because no modern day believer subscribes to these traditional laws of Moses anymore.

I mean, you don’t see anyone responding to the altar call with a goat or sheep behind him to be sacrificed, and for every time the petitioner seeks redemption. Neither does he submit himself to circumcision in order to be saved. Surely, Joseph Prince would have the good sense not to be referring to these antiquated and totally irrelevant laws of old right?

Well, if he is referring to these outmoded laws, then I concede that he has got a point and any modern-day pastor preaching them (as the requisite way to keep one’s salvation after Calvary) is still sadly under the curse of those laws. And I guess there is no fear here.

How about the Ten Commandments then? Is Joseph Prince talking about being double cursed if one mixes the Ten Commandments with Grace? Here, it is tricky. Is he talking about the Ten Commandments standing alone as the way to salvation (or to keep one’s salvation)? I think not. Here’s why from the horses’ own mouth: “When the love of Jesus is in you, you can’t help but fulfill the law. When your heart is overflowing with God’s grace and loving kindness, you will have no desire to commit adultery (Commandment 7) or murder (Commandment 6), bear false witness (Commandment 9), covet (Commandment 10). You will have the power to love your neighbor as yourself.” (underline mine).

This is what is meant by writing the law in one’s heart. Grace and Law thus work together with Grace justifying us in righteousness and the Law sanctifying us in good works, and they are not mutually exclusive,

So, mystery’s solved here. The Law that shouldn’t mix with Grace is NOT the Ten Commandments because – if anything – Grace empowers the believer to fulfill the Ten Commandments. Let’s move on to the next point.

Second, clarity.

Was Joseph Prince trying to use metaphor to illustrate his point? When he said about mixing the Law and the double curses, is he referring to the Old Testament or the Old Covenant as compared to the New Covenant where Christ has fulfilled it all and we are deemed righteous by His one ultimate sacrifice? If that is the case, why not just be more specific? Why not just say that one would be double cursed if he mixes the Old Covenant with Grace (that is, the New Covenant)? Why scapegoat the Law since it is Legalism that needs to be abolished for good?

At this juncture, I’m sure it is not disputed that when Apostle Paul mentioned that we are “dead to the law” or that we are “not under the law”, he was referring to the Old Covenant mindset to salvation. And such a mindset is futile or hopeless because you break one commandment, you break them all.  In any event, didn’t Joseph Prince say that it is the devil who is the master legalist and that the Law is like a mirror – blameless, holy?

So, I think I can safely conclude that Joseph Prince meant the Old Testament and not the Law, which will invite double curses, right? Maybe his Swiss Alps’ encounter requires some back-to-the-future tweaking?

Lastly, chronology.

Thus far, I think I’ve established that Joseph Prince was not referring to the Pharisaical laws since that is a non-starter because no one follows it anyway. Neither is he referring to the Ten Commandments since he had actually endorsed it as the fruits (or growth) of a Grace-empowered life after the altar call. And for purpose of clarity, if he is referring to the Old Covenant as a possible invitation for double curses, then he should have stated it front and center – instead of blaming the perfect laws of God.

As such, I am left with chronology. Is Joseph Prince trying to say that at the time of salvation, we should not mix Law with Grace lest we get double cursed? Isn’t this a rehashing of the Old Covenant? In any event, Joseph Prince has already said that the Law cannot make one godly. That’s a given. But he has also reminded us that the purpose of the Law is so that “the world would have the knowledge of sin, and recognize their need for a Savior.”

So, the Law still performs a role; it informs. It discloses. It points us to the way of redemption. No doubt it doesn’t save; yet it facilitates, it directs. The theologian David P. Fuller once wrote, “Christ is the telos of the Law, not in the sense of being its termination, but as climaxing it as the One who is in a continuum with it.”

So, no doubt the Law could be used in the way the Pharisee had used it in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, it nevertheless serves multiple roles as follows:-

1)   A mirror to reflect to us our sin.

2)   A guide (to Israel) for nation-building and for personal holiness.

3)   An objective standard of right and wrong, a guard to help keep us on the straight and narrow.

4)   A guide to worship.

5)   A reflection to us of the perfection and nature of God.

6)   A means of Grace to keep us in communion with God and point us to the Messiah.

(Daniel Tong in “Law and Grace”).

How about post-altar call then? Does the Law play any part together with Grace? I guess Daniel Tong again answers it most aptly here: “Yes, under the new covenant the Law is now put upon our hearts and written on our minds. Under this new modality, at issue is not the function of or why it is we should keep the Law, but a focus on it being our joy and duty. “Conformity to the Law, and subjection to the Law of God, is part of our holiness. Therefore it can never be said to be a part of our bondage.” That is to say, we can approach the Law in one of two ways, either as an oppressed and unwilling slave or as an obedient and loving child.” We are freed from the one, namely, the subjection of a slave, which was a part of our bondage, but not from the other, namely, the subjection of a son, which is part of our freedom.” Enough said?

Alas, I started this post with Joseph Prince’s Swiss Alps vacation and the voice of God which told him NOT to put Grace and Law together – lest he neutralizes the former. Yet, I ended here still trying to understand how Grace works to the complete exclusion of God’s perfect Laws. I admit that this Swiss Alps encounter is perplexing to me, to say the least.

Honestly, I am none the wiser. I guess I am just thick in the skull. But I suspect the majority of his 30-thousand strong church members had somehow fully understood the radical grace message, and there is hope for mankind after all. Cheerz.