Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Background:
On 6 September 2018, the supreme court of India scrapped Section 377 of the Indian
constitution, putting an end to a colonial‐era law that banned gay sex. Singapore has a similar
law (Section 377A) and the news in India stirred much disquiet amongst the Singaporean
population.
A common response among concerned Christians was to sign online petitions to keep Penal
Code 377A (like this one: https://www.change.org/p/singaporeans‐please‐keep‐penal‐code‐
377a‐in‐singapore) and to appeal to fellow Christians to do likewise.
What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?
Clearly, the Bible prohibits homosexuality:
Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a
detestable sin. (Leviticus 18:22; NLT)
and warns that unrepentant homosexuals would be amongst those who do not inherit eternal
life:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,
will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you
were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the
Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9‐11; NASB)
Also, the Bible alludes to homosexuality being a consequence of rebellion towards God:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which
is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since
the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are
without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give
thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was
darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the
incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four‐
footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of
their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than
the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged
the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men
abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one
another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the
due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:18‐27; NASB)
The History of Section 377A
According to Wikipedia, Section 377 of the British law was enacted in 1534 and drew inspiration
from ecclesiastical law:
The wording used, which included "abominable" (taken from the book of Leviticus in the
Old Testament), "buggery" (which, by the 13th century, had become associated with
sodomy), and "vice", confirms its religious character. It was formulated in the context of
King Henry VIII's break from papal authority to establish the Anglican church. Its purpose
was to justify the seizure of Catholic monasteries and the confiscation of their other
wealthy properties. The pretext was the alleged sexual immorality of those in the
religious vocation. Without this anti‐Catholic agenda, it seems unlikely that it would
have been enacted.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore) )
In Singapore, Section 377A was introduced into the Penal Code in 1938 to criminalise all other
non‐penetrative sexual acts between men.
My Response
Section 377 of the British law has a questionable origin, in that it was purportedly put in place
by the late King Henry VIII to steal wealth from his political enemies.
It is against this backdrop that some may find Section 377A unacceptable, and view it as
prejudiced, arbitrary or capricious.
Some Christians in Singapore fear that repealing Section 377A could lead to a deluge of
immorality in the land.
One, however, observes that although Section 377A is still in effect, this has not stopped
support for the homosexual community from gaining traction over the years. According to a
Mothership article, more than 20,000 people attended Pink Dot SG 2018
(https://mothership.sg/2018/07/10‐years‐pink‐dot/), as compared to an estimated 2,500
attendance at Pink Dot SG 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Dot_SG).
Also, a Straits Times report on Pink Dot SG 2018 included the following observation:
Mr Paerin Choa, 42, a spokesman and volunteer who has been with the Pink Dot
movement since its inception in 2009, said the traction gained over the years surpassed
his expectations. He said: "When we first started out in 2009, we had hoped to fill the
park in 10 years, but just three years in, in 2011, the park was already full."
(https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/pink‐dot‐movement‐marks‐10‐years)
Now, Section 377A states that:
“Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or
procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross
indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to 2 years.”
and one wonders whether this penal code might have led many homosexuals to refrain from
homosexual intercourse.
Indeed, the inspiration behind Section 377 is apparently the Mosaic law, and this is what the
Apostle Paul had to say about the latter:
“The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature.”
(Romans 8:3a; NLT)
He added:
“So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we
sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin's control over us by giving his
Son as a sacrifice for our sins.” (Romans 8:3b; NLT)
What the Apostle Paul seems to be implying is that human rules and regulations are ineffective
in changing the human heart.
That said, Christians who think that the contest against immorality can be won through
petitions and letters seem to be fighting on the wrong front:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places. (Ephesians 6:12; KJV)
According to the bible, how can principalities, powers, rulers, and spiritual wickedness in high
places be overcome? Only through prayer.
The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. Elijah was a human being,
even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the
land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the
earth produced its crops. (James 5:16b‐18; NIV)
However, the ability to pray powerfully and effectively as Elijah did requires significant self‐
denial ‐‐ it is not a cost that the ordinary Christian might contemplate bearing:
Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep
watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. “Watch and pray so that you will not
fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Matthew 26:40‐41;
NIV)
When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.
So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same
thing. (Matthew 26:43‐44; NIV)
Consequently, it seems far easier for the ordinary Christian to sign petitions and write letters,
than it is for him/her to immerse himself/herself deeply and fully in prayer.
This perhaps also explains why there is a general lack of suitable candidates to stand in the gap
before God:
“I looked for someone among them who would build up the wall and stand before me
in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found no one.
So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing
down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord.” (Ezekiel
22:30‐31; NIV)
Coming back to Section 377A, many Christians may see it as a beachhead that, if removed,
might encourage a deluge of vice and immorality in the land, and therby make living in society
difficult.
Perhaps their fears are not totally unfounded (and specifically, that a deluge of vice and
immorality in the land would make it difficult for the morally upright to live in such a society),
based on Lot’s experience while living in Sodom (Genesis 19),
However, a fixation on a piece of legislation for one’s future security and well‐being seems akin
to idolatry. Indeed, as Christians, shouldn’t our hope be in God?
Do any of the worthless idols of the nations bring rain? Do the skies themselves send
down showers? No, it is you, LORD our God. Therefore our hope is in you, for you are
the one who does all this. (Jeremiah 14:22; NIV)
Also, does it make sense for Christians to be fixated on Section 377A, given that although this
penal code is presently still in force, the tide of homosexuality has not waned?
Hence, as I see it, the Christian’s contest is not about preventing, at all cost, Section 377A from
being scrapped.
Rather, the contest is a spiritual one, and one which believers must see overcome through
spiritual means.
Indeed, during the Apostle Paul’s conversion, the Lord Jesus said to him:
“I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light,
and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins
and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” (Acts 26:17b‐18; NIV).
The requirement for bringing those in bondage to darkness to the light is that their eyes be
opened.
Satan intends to keep the eyes of those in bondage closed.
For the Singapore Christian, therefore, therein lies the true nature of the contest.
Written by: Roy Chan
Version dated: 24 September 2018
FREE for circulation and distribution; this essay was written as a public service.