I am outraged that Kong Hee would go to such lengths to defend Sun’s actions. Don’t get me wrong here, I am all for Christians going into the world and engaging society and culture at large. But the question we all have to consider is, ‘At what cost?’ There are some points in Kong Hee’s post which I find highly controversial and wish to surface them out for our consideration.
According to Kong, ‘I agree that if she is a “pastor” or “preacher,” perhaps the video would have been inappropriate. But Sun is not a pastor. She is an entertainer. All her music videos are not produced by the church but by her secular music label, the company that she is working for.’
There is an explicit agreement on his part that the video is ‘inappropriate’, but he does not do so without first justifying that it is acceptable for Sun to be involved in such an engagement just because she is not a pastor or preacher. I am not sure how this double standard came to be, but I do not see a biblical warrant for differing standards between clergy and laity.
Paul does indeed list down certain attributes and characteristics the leaders in church ought to have (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13; Ti 1:5-9), but not once has he ever suggested that there should be differing standards in the way both groups of people should live their lives. Paul lists down the criteria not because God demands a higher standard from pastors and preachers, but because these people have influence over the lives of the flock, and if the shepherds misbehave, it will be inevitable that the flock will do likewise. Did Paul not exhort the people unto holy living in all of his epistles? Did Paul demanded holy living and a special standard of holiness only from his pastoral epistle to Timothy? Did not God say to Moses and Aaron ‘Speak to the people of Israel, saying… For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.’ (Lev 11:2, 44). If my pastors ever preached such differing standards in terms of holiness between clergy and laity, I would be the first to leave such a church.
Kong seems to be shifting the responsibility of Sun’s controversial engagement to that of the music company in the second part of that statement. A question we all ought to consider in response to this is ‘Does Sun not have autonomy over her artistic expression?’
There is a very interesting interview with an artiste published in the Life! section of The Straits Times dated December 15 2008. Here’s an excerpt:
‘”I remember watching Achar! And thinking that I don’t recognise myself. I was doing kissing scenes and all this annoying behaviour. I watched the show and thought that was not me. All I saw in my eyes was the hunger for fame and popularity. I really hated what I had become”…
…So she quit smoking and drinking. She quit wanting to be famous and popular. And most significantly for her career, she quit doing kissing and intimate scenes…
… She says: “The result of my decision is that my opportunities now are very much limited, because generally, such kissing scenes are required.”’
I am not sure if the interviewed artiste is a Christian, but what she has articulated so clearly is that there indeed are choices we can make. She has articulated so blatantly that the autonomy is there. There are however consequences to the choices we make. She has, in her case, chosen a door with far less opportunities to fame and fortune, but one that deeply reflects where her convictions lie. Rui En, well done!
Again Kong emphasises, ‘From her royalties, Sun has built eight schools, two orphanages, two medical centers, one rehabilitation clinic, and two housing projects. Through her connections, she has helped with the establishing and fund-raising of four other orphanages, two hospitals, two community services, and one charity foundation. For all these humanitarian achievements, Sun was awarded the Top Outstanding Young Person of the World in 2003, and became China’s Charity Ambassador of Children since 2004. In 2007, she sang the theme song for the Special Olympics at Shanghai. Last year, she sang the 2008 Olympic Anthem during the pre-game launch at Beijing. The unchurched throughout Asia loves Sun and views her as an exemplary model to the youths of society.’
There is a difference between being engaged in social action and manifesting the glory of God. Do not get me wrong here, I am not pushing for a Bible banging approach of evangelism as the sole means of reaching the lost. What I am trying to surface is Kong’s attempt at trying to redeem Sun’s actions by diverting the attention to the social action causes she is engaged in, and downplaying the issue of her controversial engagement (this is not to say that I am not supportive of Christian artistes trying to engage the world, but it is questionable if some of their actions are edifying).
Yes, Christians do have to be actively engaged in social causes, but in doing so we should not, at the very least, be the cause of the dilution of the Christian message. Ramachandra expresses it best, “Integral mission flows out of an integral gospel and an integrated people… ‘Integral mission’ has to do with this basic issue of the integrity of the church’s life, the consistency between what the church is and what it proclaims. On this understanding, what makes an ‘evangelical’ politician truly ‘evangelical’ is not that he adds gospel preaching onto his daily political activities, to make the latter more ‘holistic’; but rather that his political outlook and agenda are profoundly shaped by a vision and values that spring out of the Evangel (for instance, defending the most vulnerable- whether unborn children, the mentally disabled, cultural minorities or downtrodden tribal groups, working for ethnic reconciliation and so on).” [Ramachandra, Vinoth: What is Integral Mission?, 2006, pp. 9,10. http://micah.thinkleft.com/sites/micahnetwork.org/files/What_is_Integral_Mission.pdf]
I am sure that Sun’s actions in China Wine certainly are incongruent with what the Bible demands of Christians and find it hard to envision that it actually is ‘shaped by a vision and values that spring out of the Evangel’.
Kong then goes on to exclaim how ‘“Christian” productions been so ineffective in their reach to the unchurched, to the extent that even believers are not interested in their products.’ While it is true that not all Christian productions have been able to hit the market as ‘well’ as Sun has, I am appalled that someone, who is so actively engaged in the cultural climate as he is, can actually make such a statement as this, ‘No wonder Christian artists have such a difficult time selling their products beyond small book tables in churches.’
Let us be clear for a moment that many of the Christian productions do serve a very niche market so to speak, and may actually be deemed as ‘offensive’ in the world. But there are other productions, both Christian and having Christian influences that have well penetrated the secular world and gain recognition for their artistic endeavours, while at the same time not diluting the Gospel that they have been charged to proclaim. Casting Crowns gain scores of accolades even by secular music organisations. Many of my non Christian friends do listen to Switchfoot. Let us also not forget our home grown pride and joy Corrine May, whose songs are heavily tinted with gospel notes and yet are highly received by the secular crowd. Brother Kong, I profess to be one who is not as culturally savvy as you are, yet I am very sure you are aware of these Christians who have penetrated the world without diluting the ‘vision and values that spring out of the Evangel’. When salt has lost its saltiness, it is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.
Kong goes on further to state how themes in the Bible are strikingly contemporary in relating to culture. I applaud him for doing so. Yet it detracts the readers from the real issue at hand and fails to deal with the question if Sun’s engagement in the production of China Wine is edifying for the Body of Christ. The biblical characters and account do indeed reflect the reality and rawness of life, but definitely not in the raunchy and sexually explicit way Sun has in China Wine. Sex is good! It is given by God. But only if it fulfill its biblically intended purposes, and most certainly not in the fallen and promiscuous way Sun has portrayed in China Wine. In fact, I was discussing with a couple of pastors how there is a link between ‘knew’ used in Jdg 19:25, Mt 1:25 and Mt 7:23, how truly knowing Christ denotes a greater and more intimate union and is described with allusion to the intimacy of a redeemed sexual intercourse, and not one that is fallen. I think that our brother Kong has stretched it too far here, and I cannot bring myself to agree with the message of what both he and his wife is promulgating.
The last straw came with Kong’s blatant misrepresentation of Scripture. Both Kong’s and Sun’s actions are indeed offensive, but does it mean that they are right in their actions? I do not see how his use of Mt 11:6 gives him the right to offend other Christians in such a way. Let us be clear here. The Gospel is offensive because it goes against the grain of life in the flesh. It bids us to deny ourselves and take up the Cross. It is not offensive to the Word of God, neither is it offensive to the standards of the Holy God. The yardstick by which we come to measure our actions is not simply based on how much we offend others, but how far do we measure up with the image of Christ.
Christ Jesus did come and dine with the tax collectors and prostitutes, but not once did He compromise. He defied the stipulations set by the self-righteous religious right of the day by mingling with those in need of a Physician. But not once in Scripture has our Lord Jesus compromised with the standard of holiness.
Yes brother Kong, the tax collectors and prostitutes are indeed entering into the kingdom of God before the religious right, not because of their status, but because they have come face to face with Truth, acknowledged the Truth, repented from their ways and lived the Truth in their lives, unlike the self-righteous who have resisted the Truth and carried on in their denial of who Truth is and what Truth demands of those who follow Him. My prayers are with you.
For the Cause of Christ,
Anglicanitis
agree with your comments. I felt that his heading of wholesome shallowness and his equating Sun with Jesus and Daniel , Proverbs to the Simpsons and Job to Forrest Gump was stretching it too far. I understand Sun is coming out with some new albums like Fancy Free etc. Perhaps he is trying to “set the stage” to avoid more flak…ie Sun is fulfilling his “cultural mandate” so everyone should not criticise but support her , and hence reach the “marketplace” ? I find his theology a bit “strange” for me…
Interesting way you wrote your first para.
On reflection, just some things you might wanna note.
1. Your pastor actually did comment to “make someone’s blood boil”? Why would he want to do that? I thought as ministers of God we would want to spread the gospel of Love and not hatred? Surely making someone’s blood boil isn’t the best way to solve anything?
2. “The perfect way to make mine boil is by sending notes such as this….” Er… clearly, you made the decision to click on the link to read it. No one forced you to, no one induced you to, and surely no one deceived you into. So how does “sending” here make sense?
3. You are outraged. Okay, fair enough. Be outraged if it offended you. I would be equally outraged if Kong Hee openly condemned Sun’s actions. She is, after all, his wife. Further, how is it that Kong Hee was defending her actions is again depending on how you choose to read the article – either as providing a different aspect, or as how you perceived it. Be outraged if you must, but please try to be a little less emotional in your attempt to bring up points to consider, and not forcing it down others’ throats as your text suggests.
4. “There is an explicit agreement on his part that the video is ‘inappropriate’”. Please return and read that part again. I don’t see in any way which Kong Hee agreed that it was inappropriate explicitly. All I understood from that part was that Kong Hee agreed that those within the religious fraternity would feel it was inappropriate for a Christian to be featured in a dance video. Please do not attempt to mislead others with your comments.
Basically, what you are doing with this piece is to dissect each paragraph from Kong Hee’s blog and challenge everything that he says. Now, while it is good to stimulate discussion, your utter bias-ness and plain one-sidedness in the argument just shows you are against the person, and not his deed.
If I must quote this, even the bible teaches to love the sinner, but not the sin. I don’t see how your piece is doing anything like that.
On a side note, I just read your entry on Occlusion, TCM, Barth and the Common Grace of God. And I loved it. You provided a very sound argument to those who condemned TCM flatly. Never did you condemn these people, but objectively put forward sound reasonings to present to them that their perceptions toward TCM were wrong.
It occurs to me that these 2 posts were written to address two perceived controversial issues, by the same person obviously. Yet, the tone was entirely different. One was objective and sound, the other open biasness and bordering on slander. Don’t you think so?
@Rafe
the following from Kong Hee’s blog -
“I agree that if she is a “pastor” or “preacher,” perhaps the video would have been inappropriate. But Sun is not a pastor. She is an entertainer. All her music videos were not produced by the church but by her secular music label, the company that she is working for.”
some other blogger (non Christian obviously) commented that he thought Christians were supposed to live by the same standard whatever their occupations. And I felt a tinge of pain when I read that. Cos he is right…. We can’t use our profession / job to justify something we would feel embarrassed abt if seen as a Christian. If Sun’s entertainment company asked her to act as a prostitute or porn star in a move , would she do it ? (ie ACT as porn star with a body double perhaps?) And would her husband still justify it ? also the comparison of her to Daniel , Proverbs to the Simpsons and Job to Forest Gump really trivialises Daniel / Proverbs/Job. I guess it’s hard to draw the line between “being sanitised” and compromising. I could argue that Daniel should have eaten what the Egyptians ate so he would be more in touch with the Egyptians than being a “sanitised” Jew….where does one draw the line ?
@salt and light
I thank you for your reply. I fully agree that we are called to live by the same standard. That being said, could you fully define what standards are we based upon? Let’s take the topic of drinking for instance. Does this mean that Christians are not allowed to drink? Now it must be noted that many non-Christians perceive christians are not allowed to drink, something similar to the Muslims.
I deeply appreciate that the non-Christian was able to provide such an insight to this topic. His comment really laid a solid platform for reaching out to him and letting him know more about God. Unfortunately, no one truly showed him that there was a line between an act and reality. In truth, if this is Sun’s behaviour in reality, like if she is a frequent clubber and dances the way she did to men in a provocative manner, then I would be really worried. Art forms should take place in a manner that does not contradict the bible.
I feel that your argument for Sun’s act as a porn star or prostitute if her company requires seems unbalanced. The bible laid the ten commandments clearly. Now if acting as a prostitute requires her to engage in sexually immoral acts explicitly, I would be appalled myself if she actually did it. However, if it is clearly a role which she had to play in a movie or show, but does not cause her to engage in any act that would contradict the ten commandments and laws God has laid down, then I don’t see what is the issue here. This is simply because, in the entertainment world, there are countless other christians who have had to act such a role one way or another, be it as a murderer, prostitute, gambler, etc.
Are you meaning to say that such roles in shows are meant only for non-Christians? Then, what chance do they have to enter the kingdom of God?
@Rafe
thanks for the exchange of views. I guess the question is “by what standards are we basing our lives on” as u pointed out. And that’s something between a believer and God , and no one else.
I personally think it’s ok to drink but not end up drunk.. And I think Christians should not be behaving “holier than thou”. My discomfort with Kong Hee’s blog was his attempt to equate wholesomeness to shallowness , Sun to Daniel. It’s interesting your thoughts on where Sun should draw the line as an entertainer. I just think it’s easier to flee from temptation than to reach a point where one gets desensitised to things. Have u watched her interview here ?
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2182261#utm_campaign=twitter.com&utm_source=2182261&utm_medium=social
I watched it thru to the end and I leave you to decide if she attempted to come out as a modern day Daniel in that interview. I thought she came across well as a S’porean entertainer. And she showed how hard she worked for the music video. But I personally saw no attempts at being a modern day Daniel. All I heard was the sound of Sun , world domination , the Sun is rising etc. The only reference to God was the few “Oh God !” that she exclaimed after the 8th minute of the interview.. In any case, Sun should be free to pursue fame and “world domination” as an entertainer. But there should not be a compulsion for others to accept Kong Hee’s assertion that she is a modern day Daniel or that Job=Forest Gump and Proverbs = Simpsons. Thanks for your very civil exchange of thoughts and I wish CHC, Kong Hee and the congregation well !
Read through all his blog entries and it leaves me to think that:
1 he is very business minded. He even mentioned that Jesus was a businessman, and so he would be in business until Jesus comes again. Jesus a buskinessman? All I know is that Jesus came into this world on His Father’s mission, and that is to provide redemption for humans by dying on the cross. A businessman, in my definition, would be one who deals so as to make profits.
2 as far as I know, pastors always encourage their parishioner couples to stay together, ie if the husband is posted overseas for work, the wife is encouraged to accompany. After all, God gave us a command that the two shall cleave together and become one. Why is there an exception that his wife resides in such a far away place to carry out his cultural mandate, and he has to travel like almost every week there to be with her just for a couple of days? In any case, isn’t that wastage of resources? Shouldn’t he just pack up and go there too?