you know sometimes you have one of those days when thoughts suddenly rush thru you so quickly, they just keep coming.. while that happened last thursday when i was thinking about the issue of piercing ears and dying hair in church, and i asked jx about it and suddenly lots of thoughts came into my head.. so i hurry up wrote them down in a microsoft word document.. and i thought maybe i'll just post it...

DISCLAIMER : PLEASE DON'T QUOTE ME. THIS IS JUST MERE PENNING DOWN OF MY THOUGHTS AND IT'S NOT LIKE ANYTHING ACCURATE OR WHAT.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We begin the issue of whether it’s ok for us in church to dye hair, pierce ear, by comparing ourselves with doctors. Why can’t doctors dye hair purple colour?
doctor governed by code of conduct:
why? because it's a profession
Professions enjoy a high social status, regard and esteem conferred upon them by society. This high esteem arises primarily from the higher social function of their work, which is regarded as vital to society as a whole and thus of having a special and valuable nature.
I would like to wear berms to hospital. But I don’t. because it decreases my credibility as a doctor, decreases the trust the public have in my ability as a doctor. I need their trust and my credibility to function as a doctor. Therefore I would agree with you, that what is deemed acceptable is pegged to what society views as acceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a leader in church, it’s different from that of a doctor. No doubt there are still code of conducts, but there are different code of conducts for different levels of leadership in church. For example, vicar with blue hair and pierced ear is no. that’s cos, he’ll immediately lose his credibility of pastoring an adult congregration. Youth pastor however, can become more liberal. Dyed hair, pierced ear might be acceptable, because the expectations placed on him would be pegged to how youths view him. And dyed hair pierced ear is ok with youths.
Hence, I agree, THAT, even in church, the people judge whether something is ok by whether society views it as ok.

HOWEVER, that in itself is the problem I have.
Firstly: your definition of what is acceptable and my definition of acceptable and the definition of what is acceptable by the malay gangster on the street is different. THAT IS INDISPUTABLE. Even within the youth committee, the definition of what is acceptable and what is not will be different. This is due to the different exposure to the various medias available to us, how our minds are tuned inherently, how we’re brought up, perhaps even how much of the world we’ve seen.
Therefore for YOUTHS, like us, the issue is even more tricky because youths are associated with freedom of expression, experimentation, definitely more liberal than mainstream culture, agree? I would be very disturbed if you don’t. Ok so we both agree youths are more liberal than mainstream culture. So, who is to judge what is acceptable, what is not?? You see that is the main problem I have. Who has cultural authority to do that fashion policing of what is acceptable in the eyes of youth and what is not?? I thoroughly feel that for youths, no one can u know….. WHY??? Because, of what I said above, our definition of what is acceptable and not acceptable by society is different.
Makes sense s o far?
i feel that no one can define what is acceptable and not acceptable for us to wear/dress/look,
us ---> youths
the key difference lies in us being youths
YOU SEE
THE BIBLE SHOULD BE THE MORAL AUTHORITY ON ALL ISSUES
BUT FOR ISSUES SUCH AS THIS, WE'VE PEGGED IT TO WHAT SOCIETY DEEMS AS ACCEPTABLE
and THEREIN LIES THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE

it is not possible for us to all agree on what is acceptable to society the key is cos we're youths, and we’re vibrant and youthful.
The youths in Singapore are vibrant and youthful are they not?

THAT IS WHY, I propose freedom of expression, with self regulations, regulated by my own convictions, regulated by my own relationship with God, and not what others think, and not what pastor think.

As to why I propose this, if you understand my arguments, you can probably see why. It perhaps is the only way. Or there might be another complicated way with complicated checks and balances. I do not deny the possible existence of such another system, but until I can be convinced of the validity and feasibility of such another system, then I firmly believe in freedom of expression with self regulation.
Here ends my proposition.


David Lim
15/05/2008

-----------------------------------------

i just wanted to sound pro la. anyway, me, joel pang john pang and ivan chan were discussing this over dinner on sunday and they had many ideas and views to offer to.. all of which would be excellent continuation to what i'm saying here.. while i'm sure they'll be blogging about it too.. well at least we all agree that asking someone to dye his hair back to black or whatever isn't gonna solve a deeper spiritual issue that maybe present ..

okk when i have the rush of thoughts again i'll talk more about this.. interesting topics...