In what sense is the HDB flat like the kingdom of God?

As I was preparing for Bible study on the gospel of Mark in my internship church, I tried to juxtapose with the lessons I learned in my class on Aristotle. I saw grounds for cross-fertilization in explaining  the kingdom of God. This article is a crystallization of my thought process as I seek to compare the similarities between HDB flat and the kingdom of God. I hope to use a contemporary setting familiar to all of us so that we could look afresh on what the kingdom of God is like (or unlike).

Preface: When I say "the kingdom of God is like"…. I am drawing an analogy. Analogy has its limitations and is not to be taken as "the kingdom of God is equal to…" The following analogies assume that you are still paying for HDB loan, and may not be applicable if you are already debt-free.

1. When we purchase our HDB flat or any apartment, we have to make a down payment of 10% to 20% before the flat is potentially ours. So, when we work, our CPF goes towards our monthly installment. Before we finish our installment, the flat is potentially ours as it can be re-possessed by the bank if we default on our monthly installment and we could not re-negotiate on the loan package. The kingdom of God is like our HDB flat in the sense that Jesus Christ has made a down payment for us by His death and resurrection. The kingdom of God is only fully here when Jesus Christ returns. So, from now till his return, we work to actualize the kingdom of God in our midst. However, the point of departure is that we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to actualize the kingdom of God.

2. Christ's return is just like the end of our installment. When Jesus Christ returns, we would see the full actualization of God's kingdom, just like at the end of our monthly installment, our HDB flat is fully ours. The difference is that you can finish your installment in your lifetime, but we do not know when Jesus Christ will return.

3. The kingdom of God embodies God's presence just like our flat embodies our presence. The way we renovate the house, the way we place our furniture, and how we use the space in our house are an extension of ourselves in space. The kingdom of God manifests God's presence. The whole of God's creation is a theatre of God's glory. God puts us in His creation so that we could work hand-in-hand with Him to manifest His glory. It is just like how we would like to work hand-in-hand with our family members to make our HDB flat habitable, such that we may even take pride in our house. Doesn't that speak to the way we should govern the earth? Shouldn't we recycle our used materials so that our non-renewable resources can last longer? Shouldn't we invest in more renewable energies and build sustainable community and economies so that God may take pride by entrusting His creation to our care?

4. Dick Lee once sang that Singapore has a trinity: the father, the son, and the holy Goh. Though it is a crude joke, it does illustrate the intimacy of the three figures. I see another concept of trinity in our immediate environment. We live in three spheres during our waking hours: within our family, within our company or institution, and within our church. Though only the first can be tied to HDB flat, the fact that we exist in a community illustrates that we need the nourishment of different (or three-tiered) communities to sustain us. Without these different forms of nourishment, we would not be able to last long in our life, and there goes our HDB flat. This is just like the kingdom of God. The Holy Spirit empowers us which is only possible due to Jesus Christ's down payment for us, and by faith in Him, we are reconciled back to God, and to work for the actualization of the kingdom of God.

5. Where is the kingdom of God? It is not here nor there, it is within us (Luke 17:21). It is only when the kingdom of God is within us that we can finally see that we are already living within the kingdom of God. We are called to actualize it by seeking God's kingdom actively (i.e. we are to seek His will). It is just like when we live in our HDB flat, we can no longer say "where is it?". It is here, but not yet.


I just finished writing this article within the last one hour, and didn't have time to examine it critically. Please give me feedback, if any. Thanks.

Theology from Western, white context

As I continued reading Soong-Chan Rah's The Next Evangelism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity, I echo what he said about doing theology from Western, white context. I recall two classes I had.


The first was on Theory and Method of Comparative Religion. I had to write a final research paper of which 25% was on definition of religion. Most of the reference books I could find defined religion mainly from American/European, theistic perspective. It was upon encounter with Buddhism that the definition started to shift from reference to a Being to a transcendent reality. But if that is the case, how about Confucianism? Is it a religion? How about Chinese folk religion where you have a mixture of Daoism, Buddhism and Confucianism? Is it a religion or three religions? If it is a religion, would that alter the definition of religion? If it is three religions, what kind of borrowing took place that could synthesize the three systems to co-exist side by side for a practitioner, and which works well for centuries? In the end, I stick to a definition characterized by sacred practices or rituals that produce long, lasting effects on civilization. At the moment, I am still open to a better definition.


Theological and Economic Ethics of Globalization was the second class. In giving a definition of globalization, the professor narrowed it down to the distribution of production mode from America to overseas. I immediately proposed a different perspective "If globalization were characterized by the exchange of goods and services between countries, and which results in flow of information and culture across continents, shouldn't globalization begin long ago along the silk road, with active trade between China and the Middle East way before America existed?" Well, if we were to go back to the common notion of what is globalization, of course my professor would be right, because most people assume globalization from Western, white perspective. It is something like the concept of GMT. Where is GMT 0? In Britain. The rest of the world has to take reference from Britain in setting their time zone. The time zone was set in place when Britain was the world superpower. Similarly, why is it that only US registered website does not have extra suffix in their internet address? For e.g. the Google homepage in US is http://www.google.com; but in Singapore, it is http://www.google.com.sg. The answer is the same as the previous one.


I would like to quote three paragraphs from Rah's The Next Evangelism which express my sentiment as I learn to do theology in US context:

Because theology emerging from a Western, white context is considered normative, it places non-Western theology in an inferior position and elevates Western theology as the standard by which all other theological frameworks and points of view are measured. This bias stifles the theological dialogue between the various cultures. "Attendant assumptions of a racial hierarchy that assumes the intellectual and moral, superiority of the Caucasians, has hampered our understanding of the text by unnecessarily eliminating possible avenues of study."[30] We end up with a Western, white captivity of theology. Western theology becomes the form that is closest to God. "It is a pretentious illusion that there is something pure and objective about the way theology has been done in the Western church, as if it were handed down directly by the Almighty to the theologians of the correct methodology."[31]


This marginalization of non-Western theology is reflective of Edward Said's description of "orientalism." Said examines Western perceptions of the Orient (in Said's case, he focuses on Arabic and Middle-Eastern cultures when referring to the Orient) and reveals how the exoticizing of "oriental" culture allows Western culture to create a sense of otherness for these cultures. "Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient—dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism is a Western style for dominating, structuring, and having authority over the Orient."[32]


Creating "the other" allowed Western culture to express its power over non-Western cultures. Inferiority is inferred when a culture or people are categorized as "the other." "European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even an underground self."[33] In the same way that Western culture diminishes non-Western culture through the creation of an "otherness," Western Christianity diminishes non-Western expressions of Christian theology and ecclesiology with the creation of "otherness."

Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 78-9.


[30] Peter T. Nash, Reading Race, Reading the Bible (Minneapolic: Fortress, 2003), p.58.
[31] Ibid., pp. 25, 26.
[32] Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1978), p. 3.
[33] Ibid.

Measuring “success” in the typical American church

As I was reading Soong-Chan Rah's The Next Evangelism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity, I came across a section where he reflects on how typical America churches will probably measure success. An excellent piece of reflection:

Over the last decade or so, I have had the opportunity to travel to different cities throughout the United States on various preaching and teaching engagements. My travels allow me the opportunity to see the wide range of expressions found in the evangelical church in different regions of America. I make it a point to ask someone from the host church or institution to tell me about the successful churches in the area. Without fail, I will be directed toward the church with the largest attendance in the region. A typical answer will be: "You've got to visit ______ Church. They draw over ten thousand worshipers."


How do we measure "success" in the typical American church - by the standards of Scripture or by the standards of the American consumer value system? Typically, we will see the success of churches ' measured by the numerical size of the church and the financial health of the church (oftentimes reflected in the condition and appearance of the church building). In more colloquial language, we focus on the ABCs of church success: Attendance, Buildings and Cash. Or even more directly, the three Bs of church success: Building, Bucks and Butts. The church holds the same materialistic values held by American society. We measure success in the church with standards as worldly as the most secular Fortune 500 company. Churches are no more than businesses (albeit nonprofit ones) with the bottom line being the number of attendees or the size of the church budget. American evangelicalism is held captive to the materialistic and consumeristic values of American society.


When we measure success by Western values, we create heroes out of those who succeed by Western culture's standards over and above the standards of Scripture. The pastor that fulfills an American definition of success becomes a leader in the evangelical community. If you pastor a megachurch or have authored a New York Times bestseller, then you now have the capacity and wisdom to save entire nations and continents. If you are successful in the United States in developing and marketing your church, then your ideas are applicable in nearly every setting. If you can make it here, then you'll make it anywhere.

Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 56.