Monday, March 27, 2006

16th Entry - Undercurrent


Faye Wong (left; source: http://www.bigbaer.com/blog/archives/2005/02/) is one of my favourite Hong Kong singers/artistes. While she seems to project a rather cold and unfriendly image, and (in my opinion) she does behave quite arrogantly at times, I enjoy listening to her voice and I admire her beauty, her boldness in dressing differently from mainstream and her strong personality.

A few of her earlier songs have left a deep impression in my mind. Among these is Undercurrent, which was sung in Cantonese dialect. My close friend KC also likes this song (she says its one of her favourites), and she even attempted a translation of the lyrics into English as well as gave a commentary of it. With her permission, I have reproduced it here on my blog.

-----

Undercurrent -- from Toy EP
music: Chen Hui Yang
lyrics: Lin Xi

  1. Even if the sky gets deeper
  2. Can't see through the cracks
  3. The forehead's still cramped with clouds
  4. Even if the house is dimly lit
  5. And it can't shine through me
  6. Still it reflects your heart
  7. Let this puff of smoke rise
  8. My body sinks low
  9. How once I had wanted, wanted to move closer
  10. Your heart and eyes, mouth and ears are ill-fated
  11. I can't keep my hold on them
  12. Afraid the tragedy will repeat itself in my life, in my life
  13. The more beautiful things are, the more I can't touch them
  14. History is repeating itself in this bustling city
  15. It doesn't make sense that love can be without undercurrent
  16. Actually what's the use of loving you
  17. As if this time by holding you close, it won't come to nothing
  18. Still quietly waiting for you to tell me not to waste my efforts
  19. I have a sixth sense about everything
  20. And then can't open both eyes to see fate's arrival
  21. And then the clouds gather thickly over the sky once more

KC's Commentary:

Verses 1-6 -
Notice the visual images that is evoked so poignantly in just these few verses. The association of sky and cracks brings out a startling visual image of the sky like a painting, or at least, something tangible that has cracks. Then Lin Xi brings out another image, that of a dimly-lit house, as a metaphor for the lover's heart. This first stanza alone is enough to cue the listener that the theme is going to be fatalistic.

Verses 7-11 -
I have done a literal translation of the fourth line in this stanza because I thought it is simply beautiful how it was written in Cantonese. The lover's facial features are personified, and the heart, eyes, mouth and ears, like persons, are described as being not fated to meet, a lyrical way of explaining the protagonist's inability to hold onto the lover, both outwardly (his appearance) and inwardly (his love).

Verses 12 and 13 -
Rather melancholic here. But still, it fits well with the cascading music, and brings out the mood of the theme.

Verses 14 and 15 -
The protagonist's insecurity and doubt is expressed explicitly here...

Verses 16 and 17 -
...and here.

Verses 18-21 -
This last stanza ends ominously with the image of the clouds again, a neat technique to sort of wrap up the theme with a repeat of this image that is originally mentioned in the first stanza. We get a sense of gloom, and at once, we think about a stormy sky that spells something unfavourable in the protagonist's fate with her lover.

Overall -
In general, this entire song is really quite depressing, but what I find unusual about it is its operatic feel -- the powerful lyrics and the enigmatic music with its series of climaxes make this song strangely unforgettable.

-----

My comments:

I love the main melody of this song, which is played with keyboard (piano), with string accompaniment in the background. I feel as though viewing a film in which the director captures fast-paced, ever-changing clouds in a gloomy sky via the use of the time-lens photography technique.

The song strikes a chord in my heart because at times I think my beloved S is enigmatic, and a lot of things may not be what they seem on the surface. Although I am very happy in our relationship, I feel that I cannot see through my lover, and my understanding of S remains superficial. I have an irrational fear that our relationship will be threatened by this.

Ultimately, as the saying/song goes, "que sera, sera" - what will be, will be. As I never expected to fall in love again after my 2nd failed relationship, now that I am blessed with this opportunity, the least I can do is cherish every moment I am together with S and try to understand and love my partner. Nothing can ever be taken for granted or planned in advance - God will determine the outcome according to His divine will, which I willingly submit to.

Friday, March 24, 2006

15th entry - Homophobia and the Russian Society


In the course of my research on gender studies, I came across a website on the "gay subculture" of Russia and found some interesting scholarly sociological work done on the subject. The website contains a clearly written and concise social and political history of homosexuality in Russia. Written by a purportedly well-known Russian scholar, Professor Igor S. Kon, the collection of articles under "Moonlight Love" caught my attention. (The main website is at http://www.gay.ru/english/)

As I was reading the articles, I thought I could easily replace the words "Russia" with "Singapore" and "Russian" with "Singaporean" in most places, without changing the meaning of the text. If we take away the social and political context specific to Russia, the article could just as well be about homosexuality in Singapore. Up to the early-90s, the gay subculture merely existed as a clandestine social group or even as fodder for homophobic jokes; its "perverse" activities were perceived to be too "disgusting" to be taken seriously.

True, the "gay scene" here is now more prominent, active and vibrant, but to some this is probably viewed as a form of social "tokenism", or at most the superficial manifestation of a reluctant society "keeping its eyes closed", rather than genuine openness, acceptance and tolerance. Topics on homosexuality can now be discussed in certain public forums and domains such as the Internet, but not totally without sanction. Discrimination still exists, carefully hidden under guise of religious piety and moral conservatism.

At the end of the day, the bulk of heterosexuals are still ignorant and bigotted about homosexuals, often seeing the gay subculture as a morally and sexually perverted segment of liberal society. In fact, I would say to some extent that Russian society is more progressive in terms of its attitudes than Singapore's - at least gay publications and media programmes are allowed, albeit with some amount of censorship. The fact that the movie, Brokeback Mountain, was allowed to be screened in Singapore could be considered somewhat of a generous compromise, a "big" step forward in the direction of a more sexually pluralistic society (at least on the surface).

Before I become accused of trying to prejudice anyone's views, I guess I should talk more about the articles. "Moonlight Love" was adapted from the title of a book, 'People of Moonlight', written by a purportedly distinguished Russian philosopher V. Rozanov in 1898(?). The introduction read:
"This book was the first ever published in Russian that covered the controversial subject of homosexuality from a non-medical point of view. Moonlight has a light-blue color, and 'goluboy' ('a light-blue one') is a common Russian word to denote a male homosexual. The title of the book suggests that the word existed long before the book was published, otherwise such jeu de mots would not be clear for contemporary readers.
A hundred years later, on the verge of the new millennium, a famed Russian scholar Professor Igor S. Kon was the first to trace back the history of homosexuality in Russia and to share the results of his research with the open public. As if to stress the continuity of traditions, Professor Kon similarly named his book on same-sex love 'Moonlight at Dawn' (published 1998)."

I was fascinated by the introduction, and as I read on, the following paragraphs on factors affecting societal and individual attitudes and perceptions towards homosexuality and homophobia struck me. These paragraphs are reproduced from the chapter "Changing Public Opinion":

"The social situation of sexual minorities is everywhere affected by public attitudes, which do not change overnight. Homophobia and discrimination against gay men and lesbians are still conspicuous in present-day Russian sexual and political culture. Soviet society has been characterized by extreme intolerance of any dissident thinking or uncommon behavior, even if entirely innocent, and homosexuals are the most stigmatized of social minorities.
The term 'homophobia' itself is inadequate, inasmuch as it is associated with individual psychopathology - with the individual's own repressed or latent homosexuality, with neuroses, sexual fears, and the like. But while homophobia may exist in many such individuals, an adverse attitude toward homosexuality is primarily the result of negative attitudes in the culture and public consciousness - prejudices and hostile stereotypes similar to racism, sexism or anti-Semitism - and we can come to understand it only in that sociopsychological context. Individual predilections are derivative of cultural norms and social interests.
As cross-cultural research shows, the level of homophobia in a given society depends on a wide range of factors.
First, it depends on the overall level of a society's social and cultural tolerance. Intolerance of differences, typical of any authoritarian regime, is ill-suited to sexual or any other kind of pluralism. From the totalitarian standpoint, the homosexual is dangerous primarily because he is a dissident, because he differs from the rest. A society that tries to control the width of trouser legs and the length of hair cannot be sexually tolerant.
Second, homophobia is a function of sexual anxiety. The more anti-sexual the culture, the more sexual taboos and fears it will have. The former USSR in this respect was, as ever, an extreme case.
Third, homophobia is closely linked with sexism, and sexual and gender chauvinism. Its major function in social history has been to uphold the sanctity of the system of gender stratification based on male hegemony and domination. Obligatory, coercive heterosexuality is intended to safeguard the institution of marriage and patriarchal relations; under this system, women are second-class beings, their main - perhaps even sole - function is to produce children. In that ideology, a woman who works outside the home is just as much an instance of sexual perversion as the person involved in same-sex love. Moreover, the cult of aggressive masculinity is a means of maintaining hierarchical relations in male society itself; the gentle, nonaggressive male and the powerful, independent woman are both challenges to the dominant stereotypes. Even some sexually tolerant societies accord great importance to sexual positions: the one who is the inserter is worthy and normal, while the insertee is unworthy and dependent. Hatred of homosexuality is also a means of upholding male solidarity, particularly among adolescents, whom it helps to affirm their own problematic masculinity.
Fourth, much depends on the nature of the dominant traditional ideology, particularly the attitude of religion toward sex. Anti-sexual religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, are usually more intolerant of homosexuality than are more prosexual religions, such as the Tantra and Buddhism.
Fifth, the overall level of education, in particular the public's level of sexual culture, is extremely important. Education in itself does not obviate prejudices and stereotypes but, other things being equal, it does facilitate the fight against them. To understand Soviet and post-Soviet public consciousness on the subject of sexuality, one must imagine America before Kinsey or even before Freud.

Finally, there are situational, sociopolitical factors. Homophobia, like other social fears and forms of group hatred, is usually exacerbated at moments of social crisis, when an obvious foe or scapegoat is needed.

The level of toleration of homosexuality is historically changeable and varies from country to country. According to the American political scientist and social psychologist Ronald Inglehart, the Netherlands was the most tolerant country in 1980-82, with Denmark and West Germany following behind (22%, 34%, and 42% of those surveyed, respectively, agreed that "homosexuality is always wrong"), while Mexico and the United States were the most intolerant, as 73% and 65%, respectively, condemned homosexuality in all instances. Young people (between 18 and 24) in all societies, however, were considerably more tolerant than their elders - twice as much so as those over 65. This may be due to their greater overall tolerance and level of education; also, they feel themselves more sexually confident and therefore can allow themselves more variation in behavior and attitudes than older people. Soviet society was generally distinguished by extreme intolerance of dissident thinking and uncommon behavior, even when entirely innocent. And homosexuals are still the most stigmatized of all social groups, including even prostitutes and drug addicts (with whom homosexuals were frequently associated, owing to tendentious anti-AIDS propaganda).

-----

Some things appear to be evolving in Russia today - and I would interpret this as a positive change for Russian society as regards openness, tolerance and maturity, as the following paragraphs suggest:

"The most obvious social change in Russia is the disappearance of the old conspiracy of silence and the appearance of same-sex love as a fashionable topic for newspapers, art, and salon conversation. Formerly suppressed and forbidden 'gay sensibilities' and eroticism are gradually being recognized and integrated into the elite culture. The most popular theater director in Moscow is the openly gay Roman Viktyuk, and his theater, where some performances have marked homoerotic overtones, is always full, although the audience is not even predominantly gay. In St. Petersburg, the eminent classical dancer Valery Mikhailovsky recently established a first-rate all-male ballet company, and the prominent choreographer Boris Eifman staged a very successful piece about the life of Tchaikovsky in his Modern Ballet Theater. The problems of gay and lesbian life are often discussed on television and in the mainstream newspapers. A shockingly revealing interview with Boris Moiseev, an openly gay popular dancer, was recently published. Moiseev spoke frankly about his sexual experiences with former Komsomol bosses. Foreign films with homosexual allusions, and even some completely dedicated to this topic, are shown openly in the cinemas and sometimes even on television.
Mikhail Kuzmin's classic homoerotic poetry and his famous novel, Krylya, as well as novels by Jean Genet, James Baldwin, and Truman Capote have been published. A two-volume collection of the works of the Russian gay writer, actor, and theater director Evgenii Kharitonov (1941-81) was published for the first time in 1993.

Changes can also be seen in everyday life. Whereas Russian gays used to have to meet each other in the streets or public toilets, which was dirty and risky, now there are at least five openly gay discos and bars in Moscow and St. Petersburg; they are very expensive, however, and are practically monopolized by nouveaux riches and foreigners on the one hand and male prostitutes on the other. Describing a gay restaurant in Moscow, a visitor commented: "The street-sex heritage, in combination with the typical male mentality - all men are sexy animals - turns many victims of passion into a commodity in this market. Here men buy others and sell themselves. It is a constant haggle, a real market where attractive but impecunious youth pay for merriment and satiety to rich, but no longer fresh, old age, using the only currency youth has - their own bodies (Paramonov, 1993, p. 60).
Approximately half a dozen gay newspapers are published in Russia. Kalinin's Tema, which had published a total of 13 issues, ceased publication in 1993; according to Kalinin, it had "fulfilled its historic mission." Kalinin himself is now more involved in gay commercial activities. Seven issues of RISK (Ravnopravie-Iskrennost-Svoboda-Kompromiss, or "Equality-Sincerity-Freedom- Compromise"), edited by Vladislav Ortanov, with a circulation of 5,000, were published between 1992 and 1994. In 1994, Ortanov published also the first issue of an illustrated erotic gay journal, ARGO. The gay newspaper published most regularly - ten issues since November 1991 (up to mid-1994); largest circulation a print run of 50,000 copies - is 1/10, edited by Dmitri Lychev; in 1994, the first international edition, in English, was published. Other gay newspapers and illustrated magazines (Ty [You] and Gay, Slavyane) are rather ephemeral, often publishing one issue and then disappearing because of financial and other difficulties.
The gay newspapers and magazines cover virtually the same issues as those in the West - information about gay and lesbian life, erotic photos (taken mainly from Western journals), translated and original articles, personal dating service ads, medical and other advice (on how to deal with gay-bashing, for example), advertisements for condoms and other sexual aids - but they are, of course, poorer. Material of interest to women, as well as erotica for them, is in substantially shorter supply than material for men. Much appears primitive, but the overall intellectual and artistic level of the publications is rising steadily, which is especially impressive when one considers how difficult and costly it is to publish at all.
Letters and ads vividly show that the lifestyles of and problems facing Russian gays are just as multifarious as in the West. A typical personal ad reads, "Social, easygoing, intelligent young man, 22/180/58, seeks tall, sports-loving, educated gay friend with decent statistics and 22-28 cm size penis." Many young men frankly seek rich patrons. On the other hand, there are also quite a few ads stressing the need for love and friendship."

-----

Nevertheless, homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals are still pervasive phenomena in modern Russia. Some things, apparently, are more difficult to change:

"Despite obvious achievements, homosexuals in Russia remain 'a marginalized and maligned community' (Gessen, 1994, p. 59). They are subject both to public prejudice and to state discrimination in every field of social and private life. If the Moscow Justice Department can discriminate against the organization of homosexuals on 'moral' grounds, an even worse reception may be expected in the provinces. Most Russian state officials, especially police officers, are strongly homophobic, and gay-bashing is widespread. Organized bands of hooligans, sometimes acting with the silent acquiescence of the police, blackmail, rob, assault, and even murder gay men. They portray their actions as protecting public morals, calling it remont [repair work] - that is, eliminating vice with their own methods. The police often blame the victims for having provoked such crimes. Since gays are afraid of reporting such incidents, they mostly go unpunished. Many common murders and robberies of gays are attributed by the police to pathological homosexual jealousy. Old police records and lists of known homosexuals are preserved and can be used for blackmail. In the absence of effective legal control, the victims have no defense. But then, practically any Russian citizen risks facing such situations.
In 1993 the IGLHRC reported numerous cases of discrimination. After the repeal of Article 121.1, legal and prison authorities have been in no hurry to release the victims of that law. When an IGLHRC delegation tried to collect information about prisoners and their possible release, many officials were unwilling to help. Sometimes it was through mere bureaucratic inertia and lack of specific instructions. One official told them: 'We have a thousand inmates here. Do you want me to look through everybody's file?' In other cases, open animosity was expressed: 'I don't care what has been repealed. They're still in there and they will stay in there.' Or, 'They chose this life for themselves, don't deny that they are this way, so why should we try to protect them?' (Gessen, 1994. pp. 28-29).
Antigay articles are often published in the Russian government newspaper Rossiyskie vesti (Russian News). A typical example is an article entitled 'Pathology should not take hold of the masses,' by the Moscow psychiatrist Mikhail Buyanov (during perestroika he became a vocal critic of the former Soviet 'repressive psychiatry'), which was full of open hatred toward homosexuals and their 'sympathizers' and demanded strong, repressive measures against them. Like other 'patriots,' Buyanov claims that homosexuality was always alien to Russia and that its 'popularity' now is the result of Western, primarily American and British, ideological expansionism.

...

The strong public and official homophobia means that gays and lesbians are afraid to come out to their work colleagues, friends, or even parents. Some are terribly lonely, and gay newspapers are full of sad letters. Most people understand that in the relations between men and women there is much more involved than sex, but same-sex love tends to be thought of as exclusively a matter of exotic, unusual, and dangerous sex.

...

Living in an atmosphere of secrecy and fear, many gays and lesbians have personal problems, but for them access to effective psychological services is difficult. They are afraid to approach official Russian state psychiatry, which always was, and still is, prejudiced, hostile, and ignorant about homosexuality. The new breed of self-educated, private psycho-analysts are even more ignorant. Even in Moscow and St. Petersburg it is difficult to find a doctor who is both well educated and sympathetic.

...

Gays and lesbians are now finally coming out in Russia as a social and cultural minority, but they still lack a clear self-image. And it is very dangerous to come out into a ruined and chaotic world, where everything is disconnected and everyone is looking not for friends but enemies. If the country takes a radical turn to communism or fascism, gays and lesbians and their 'sympathizers,' along with Jewish intellectuals, will be the first candidates for murder and the concentration camps. Once again, this a social, not a sexual problem...

Finally, it has to be said that, however bad the situation may be for homosexuals in Russia today, it is much better than it was in most times past, say 2, 5, 10, 20, or 60 years ago. Some of the present difficulties should disappear in time, but some will need special measures. Russian gay organizations receive a little money from abroad, mainly for political purposes, but collaboration in comparative social research or help with the education of doctors, social workers, and other professionals dealing with individuals seems harder to obtain. Continual pressure on the Russian government by the West on matters of human rights is very welcome, but other forms of constructive help are also needed."

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Interlude - A Poem for my Honeybun Sweetie



My heart beats for just you, my love.
Hear it calling to you in the night
to fill your heart with pure delight,
a sweet song of joy sent from above.

Let me take you in my arms tonight,
hold you close and dance so slow
we move together in the candlelight,
I whisper words of love to let you know.

You mean more than the world to me.
This is what we've been waiting for,
a time of healing love and joy so sweet,
a place where we can be as complete.

Let me hold you into my arms tonight,
press you close and dance so slow
we move together in the pale moonlight
I belong with you, my love, I will never let you go.

(source: http://www.1lovecards.com/nl/rc/arms.html

Monday, March 20, 2006

14th entry - A Weekend of Surprises


(photo: :"Un-Tied" - Felix Drobek-Truesdale)

Last weekend, I told S before we arranged to meet that I had a surprise for S. My surprise was actually meant to be given during the week before, to celebrate our 2nd-month anniversary, but I didnt get a chance to give it to S at the weekend. In fact, we did not even meet up even though we had arranged it, and I missed S terribly. After that S went on a short trip, so I thought of giving S the overdue surprise upon S's return to make S happy.

S had guessed what the "surprise" was even before I gave it to S. I had earlier given S a card for our anniversary, and on it I embedded a photo of a love doll having its arms and legs tied to the 4 corners of a bed. I told S that I would restrain S with some of my business ties while I gave S a continuous, mind-blowing fellatio until S climaxed.

The much anticipated weekend finally came. Both of us took leave on Friday. We cooked a new dish called "Love Forest" together and enjoyed our simple lunch at S's apartment. (The dish was steamed chicken sausage roll with blanched broccoli.) After lunch, we played out our "scene", making love like a pair of ravenous wolves, hungry for our desire to be fulfilled - in fact we became so exhausted afterwards that we drifted into sleep lying on the bed in each others' arms and bodily fluids. In the evening we cooked another dinner together at S's apartment and went to bed.

On Saturday evening we met up again. Surprisingly, S agreed that we could spend another night together. This was unprecedented because S never allowed me to stay over for more than 1 night. I was really happy to be spending more time with S. S prepared a lovely dessert soup and after enjoying S's delightful labour of love, we made love again.

The final surprise came on Sunday evening, as S and I chatted on the phone. What I thought would be a typical conversation consisting of mutual updates of our day's activities turned out to be an opportunity for S to tell me what S did not like about me, and for me to clarify my behavior. In the end, we developed a deeper mutual understanding, and we became even closer as partners/ lovers. Our bond is now stronger, and we are even more assured that we are very compatible.

This was most certainly a weekend of surprises for us, and it was indeed wonderful that all the surprises we had experienced were pleasant ones. :-)))

Monday, March 13, 2006

13th entry - Being a "Pharisee"



Two weeks ago, my church cell group embarked on a weekly chapter-by-chapter study of Philip Yancey's "The Jesus I Never Knew" (1995). For the 3rd week's discussion, the corresponding chapter was "Background: Jewish Roots and Soil", in which the author highlighted salient aspects of the time and place when and where Jesus was born and brought up, so that readers can have a better understanding of the Messiah. For the benefit of those of us who neither read the book nor intend to do so, I have decided to provide a summary of the key points in the chapter before attempting to articulate my views.

Before I begin, I would like to admit that I have not finished reading the entire book, which meant that my interpretation of the implications behind individual chapters will be understandably lacking in depth and breadth. Nevertheless, from the chapters that I read, I felt that Yancey was trying to fill the gaps we have in our understanding of Jesus, which arise from relying solely on the Gospels without an appreciation of the social and political history of His time. As Yancey began to paint a picture of Jesus' life, starting from the circumstances surrounding His birth, readers would catch glimpses of a world that is so culturally remote from ours. I cannot help but marvel at the fact that the sermons and parables Jesus delivered then (specially-tailored for His people) could still be so applicable to us now.

Chapter 3 particularly delved in-depth into Jesus' race during His time, and explained why the Jews received their Messiah with skepticism, suspicion and even hatred. Jesus was very ordinary in many ways; in fact, He chose deliberately to be ordinary:


  1. Jesus neither had a privileged family background nor the benefit of superior religious scholarship. His ancestry consisted of people from a wide stratum of society - from King David to the prostitute Rahab, from Jews to gentiles (non-Jews).
  2. Jesus had an ordinary name in His time, and He lived His life as an ordinary Jew. Up to the commencement of His ministry, Jesus grew up like most typical Jews - in poverty and under oppression.
  3. As a Galilean (a northerner), Jesus was even despised or looked down upon by other Jews, as the Galilean Jews were considered a culturally backward bunch.
With such lack-lustre ancestry and possibly even dubious family background, it is little wonder that Jesus' claim to be the chosen Messiah was met with skepticism and suspicion. It did not help that during Jesus' time, there were plenty of false prophets and individuals claiming that they were the Messiah. In contrast to what the prophet Isaiah had foretold, and much to the disappointment of the "lavish" Jews, Jesus' arrival was not heralded with earth-shattering, highly-visible signs.

The Jews held high hopes for their Messiah, as they had been suffering oppression under the Roman empire. Most Jews in Palestine resisted adopting Roman culture (to varying degrees), refusing to compromise especially as regards their monothesistic faith. Herod ruled the Jews with an iron thumb to quelch the rebellious groups among them. Ironically, the Jews under the Romans lived in a similar way that the Palestinians now lived under the Israelis - as "second-class citizens". Back then, the Jewish Zealots behaved like Islamist Palestinian terrorists of today - the last son of Judas, a founding member of the Zealots, captured the Roman stronghold of Masada and in order to defend it, 960 Galilean Jews (including children) chose to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner.

However, not all the Jews were equally resistant to their oppressors. Some, like the Sadducees, collaborated with the Romans and enjoyed life, as they did not believe in an afterlife or divine intervention on earth. The Essenes were Pacifistic, withdrawing into segregated communities in caves or the dessert, believing that they could quicken the advent of the Messiah by religious piety.

The majority of the Jewish middle-class were sort of "in between" - many of them belonged to the Pharisees, who held high standards of purity and imposed them on everyone else. They were "hesitant to follow too quickly after any imposter or miracle worker who might bring disaster" on the Jews (hence their relentless scrutiny of Jesus). However, they adopted a "pragmatic approach to the ruling government" but balanced this with "a willingness to stand up for principle".

Although the Gospels record much conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, Yancey explained that decades after Jesus' death, when Jerusalem had been destroyed and all other Jewish groups had been diminished, the Pharisees were the sole surviving threat to the early Christians and thus understandably became the focus of the Gospel writers, when in fact Jesus had more in common with the Pharisees than any other group at the time.

Yancey commented that for all their differences, the Jewish groups had this in common - the desire "to preserve what was distinctively Jewish, no matter what". Jesus represented a threat, and even Yancey would have perceived the threat. Ironically, the real threat that brought down Jerusalem in A.D. 70 came from other charismatic Jews who by their extremist actions provoked Rome to destroy the temple and the city. The city was later rebuilt but Jews were forbidden to enter it.

What is my own take on this? If I had been born in Jesus' time, would I have readily accepted Him as my Lord and Saviour? The answer is probably a "yes" if I was one of those who were privileged enough to be healed by Him, or to have had the time to listen to His sermons or witness His miracles. After Jesus died, for a time I would probably shake my head and return to my normal way of life, being disillusioned and resigning to my "fate".

Would I support the Apostles? I probably will, if I believed their miracles and witnessing about Jesus' resurrection and ascension. My heart might nurse hopes that Jesus would come back really soon and bring with Him the heavenly armies to crush the Roman oppressors. Would I have declared myself to be a Christian and lived like the Apostles? Probably not, for I would fear persecution from the rest of my community, which might come before the Messiah returned. I do not think that I will have the courage to be a martyr - who would take care of my family if anything happened to me?

What kind of a Jew would I be in Jesus' time? I dont think I want to be a Essene recluse - with so many restrictions, my life would be no different than under oppression by the Romans. I also dont want to be stricken with a guilty conscience by living lavishly like a Sadducee, even if I had the means to. Not only would I see the Zealots as a terrorist group and distance myself from them, I might even speak out against them openly and report them to the authorities if I knew their identities.

Like Yancey, I would probably be a Pharisee as well. If my mind were closed up and my heart was hardened, I would probably believe my well-meaning friends or the highly respected Rabbis who would be cautious and skeptical, and join in their condemnation of Jesus' declarations as heresy. I would find it easier to believe that everything society is willing to accept must be right. Wouldnt most people do that? I probably dont have the resources to analyze the truth from multiple sources of information, or the time and energy to bother since I would have other urgent preoccupations like where my next meal is coming from.

We now live in a world where multiple sources of information are widely available, and most of us have the time and energy to pursue things we enjoy. But have people changed? Arent many of us still as closed-minded and hard-hearted - i.e. prideful and judgmental - as ever? Arent Sadducees similar to the vast majority who pursue materialism and pleasure in today's context? Arent the Essenes similar to those who seek refuge from the secular world and adopt bizzare rituals of "soul-cleansing" and "mind-purification"?

Arent the Pharisees similar to religious conservatives who advocate high standards of moral living and impose them on others like yokes of slavery, yet like hypocrites they occasionally cook up perfectly plausible and believable excuses for their own transgressions ("O, the Devil can outsmart us at our most vulnerable time! It was a moment of weakness that I had sex with your wife when we were praying together. But the Word of God said we should forgive each other...By the way I hope you still remember that you owe me money - you wouldnt want to impoverish a fellow brother, would you")?

Many Christians, including myself, need to "repent" at some point. We need to ask ourselves if we are ever too quick in judging others but always too slow in reprimanding ourselves. We need to examine our behaviour constantly to make sure that we do not apply "double standards" when relating to others. My prayer is for God's mercy and grace to be upon us, as we seek His understanding and patience in guiding us.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

12th entry - A Controversial Movie


"And the award for the most controversial movie of the year goes to ... "
















After learning that the highly-acclaimed Brokeback Mountain lost the Best Picture award to a "dark horse" movie Crash at the recent Oscars, I decided to write my own view about the highly controversial movie and some of the views I had come across, as well as the issue about homosexuality from a Christian viewpoint. But first, allow me to present two very contrasting perspectives or opinions about the movie.

The first perspective that I found about the movie was one that my good friend Teflonman put up on his Blog. It was written by Daniel Mendelsohn, a frequent contributor to The New York Review, and the author of a memoir, The Elusive Embrace, and a critical study of Greek tragedy, Gender and the City in Euripides' Political Plays. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18712

Mendelsohn critiqued both the film as well as the reviews that he read about it. As regards the film, he saw it as a "tale of two homosexual men". In his view, the film went beyond the portrayal of a tragic love between 2 men. It was "a tragedy about the specifically gay phenomenon of the 'closet'—about the disastrous emotional and moral consequences of erotic self-repression and of the social intolerance that first causes and then exacerbates it". More importantly, however, he pointed out that the film was "primarily a psychological tragedy, a tragedy of psyches scarred from the very first stirrings of an erotic desire which the world around them represents as unhealthy, hateful, and deadly." As regards the reviews, Mendelsohn disagreed with those who saw the film as one about romance with universal appeal, a "universal story" or a "love story", as these perspectives missed the whole point.

The second perspective that I chanced upon was found on www.christianitytoday.com. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/004/1.46.html). The article was submitted by Dennis Belkofer, an active member of the Chicago Tabernacle, a plant of the Brooklyn Tabernacle. Responses to the article could be found at http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/02/the_hidden_bles_1.html.

Belkofer suffered sexual abuse as a teenager, which, according to him, scarred him psychologically and affected the way he related to people and God in subsequent years of his life. He was ashamed by the fact that he was "secretly attracted to men", and his shame and guilt (in his mind he was committing a sin) prevented him from forming meaningful and satisfying relationships with both men and women. He eventually found refuge by turning to Christ. About Brokeback Mountain, the only thing he learnt about the film was that he did not want to end up like Ennis - and following Christ was the only way he could achieve this.

I tried to put my own opinion on the blog but I suppose the moderators found my response too "extreme" as I did not see it published on the blog. That's why I decided to say it here on my own blog. :-D

In my earlier comment that I tried unsuccessfully to post on the blog, I did not respond directly to Belkofer's story. Instead, I was expressing my view regarding the views of others who were apparently dispensing words of "encouragement" to him. I said that all of mankind is included in God's will, and His will is simply this: He wants us to love Him and love one another, justs as He loves us. I asked several questions at the end: How do we know God never intended homosexuals to be part of His will? Didnt God want us to love each other unconditionally, and leave judgment to Him? Shouldnt we examine our own behaviour first before imposing the same standards on others?

This is my subjective interpretation or assessment of Belkofer's story. Firstly, in my opinion he was confused by his earlier sexual awakening (corrupted by the trauma of sexual abuse) and his subsequent attraction to, and yearning to have sexual relations with, other men. Secondly, he mistakenly thought that homosexuality is a sin that he needs to repent from, and that the film proved there would be no happiness in pursuing a homosexual relationship.

To be honest, I feel sorry for Belkofer for 2 reasons. Firstly, I suspect that there is no one who can convince Belkofer that it is all right to be gay and Christian - he seems to have made up his mind that being gay goes against Christian principles. Secondly, he is a victim of society's narrow and prejudicial outlook on life and mainstream Christians' standards of holy living - he allows himself to be bullied in order to be accepted by others.

I am grateful that such a film was made. Prior to this, I watched Saving Face and Facing Windows. Commenting about these films probably warrant a separate blog entry to do justice to their merits, but in general I feel that more of such movies should be made, and more "Mendelsohn"s should come out to widen the narrow lenses of society. I hope society will start to develop and show (by their actions) genuine compassion and empathy for homosexuals who are oppressed psychologically and emotionally by them.

Meanwhile, the gay debate rages on in the Christian community.

I recently came across an article about Soulforce, a gay-rights activist group, launching Equality Ride, a 7-week bus tour that will take 35 gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and straight 18- to 28-year-olds to Christian colleges in the US with behavior codes that Soulforce calls discriminatory. The article is at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/110/42.0.html.

Jacob Reitan, the man leading the Equality Ride, said one goal is to raise public awareness of the colleges' policies by using the media. "We also hope to send out a clear message to gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender students that God loves them as they are," Reitan said. "Today, it's gay and lesbian people who are the outcasts of the church, and later the church will have to repent from it."

Reitan also wants to convince administrators to allow for biblically based dissent of school policies. "When Paul was writing in the New Testament, he didn't have an understanding of homosexuality as we know it today," he said. "We believe that Christ is our best defense, because the message of Christ was always to embrace people and love them." Reitan, 24, who graduated from Northwestern University (Ill.), was raised in a Lutheran home. He decided to form the Equality Ride after he met a closeted Wheaton College student in Chicago who spoke of his difficulty in reconciling sexuality with Christianity at a Christian institution.

In my opinion, since God created all of mankind, and He created us for a purpose - His purpose, and since He also created homosexuals, I think homosexuals are also in His divine will and created for His purpose as well. My hope for the Christian community at large is that God will allow them to mature and open their hearts and minds to love homosexuals for who they are, accept them as part of God's will for mankind and to stop imposing their views on others who are different from them. My prayer for homosexual Christians is that they continue to trust God as they fight the good fight - to stand up for their belief against those who stereotype them and oppress them, work out a way to coexist in harmony with the heterosexual majority, and discover for themselves what God intended to achieve in their lives.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

11th entry - Humility


Most of us understand the word "pride" to have more than one meaning. According to my Cambridge English Dictionary, it denotes the feeling of pleasure and satisfaction that we get because we or people associated with us had done or possess something good. It also refers to our feelings of self-worth and respect. How many of us knew that pride also refers to a group of lions? So far, these meanings of pride appear to be positive. However, is pride really a good thing?

Pride is the opposite of humility; in Chinese societies, outward expressions of pridefulness usually take the form of boastfulness or ostentation, and these are regarded with disdain by people at the receiving end. Interestingly, prideful people have a way of hiding or disguising their pride behind a veil of hypocrisy or false humility. Yet, if we criticise the proud, we might be misconscrued as being envious - "sour grapes" is a common expression for this.

To Christians, pride is sin. Pride is the elevation of self above God, a declaration to our Creator that we are just as good if not better than He who created us. Its saying we can achieve success without His blessing, and whatever we did was done on our own strength. In sum, it is the failure to recognise God for who He is. As the saying goes, Pride goes before a fall. Many people do not bask in pride for too long - they turn complacent, lose their fleeting advantage over others, and realise that their source of pride cannot be sustained.

Pride is often confused with dignity. Dignity according to my dictionary is the quality or state of deserving respect, especially because of being controlled, serious and calm. It also means the opinion we have of our own importance and value. In God's eyes, all of us are important and valuable in our individual ways - enough to be considered His children and to be worthy of the sacrifice of a sinless man and Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pride often causes us to judge others, and impose conditions that they need to abide by before we can accept them. If we are truly humble, we will not perceive ourselves to be better than others and therefore we will recognise that we are in no position to judge others and exclude people who we assess to fall below the standards that we set for ourselves. While its true that the Bible provides highly recommended standards for living a holy life set apart for God, we need to examine whether we ourselves fall short of these standards before we begin to impose them on others or criticise other people for falling short of them.

Many Christians are perceived to be lacking tolerance and respect for others who are different from them. This could be because they do not practice self-reflection and self examination and critique. Many choose the easy way out by pointing an accusatory finger at others, forgeting that in the process usually 3 of our other fingers are pointing towards ourselves (I say "usually" because most of us have 4 fingers and a thumb but this does not apply to some).

The above was crystalised from a message that I heard at the church on 26 Feb 06. Its a reminder to me to try to be truly humble, and to focus on loving God and other people wholeheartedly. I know that when I learn to put God and others before myself every time, my heart will be lighter without the burden of grudges borne against anyone (a result of pride), my mind will be more open and begin to improve, and my eyes will start to see things from God's perspective. May the Holy Spirit prompt me this reminder whenever I am tempted to judge others and forget our merciful, gracious and loving God.

(the rose in the photo is called the American Pride - I thought it apt to put the rose here)