If there’s anything that’s starting this Chinese New Year with a bang, it ought to be Pastor Rony Tan’s controversial videos that appeared to have denigrated not just the Buddhists and Taoists, but also the homosexuals. If you have taken the time off  last weekend during your New Year Munching regimes and take a look at the videos in question, you will realize that, on hindsight, the intent of Pastor Rony Tan’s sermons is inherently sound; however, he could have done better.

These days, church pastors, especially the charismatic ones that I’ve heard from, exhibit several trends when preaching from the pulpit. I am assuming that these trends — pop music, concert lights, huge space, visually appealing graphic presentations and satire — show significant promise in attracting a younger audience. Pastor Rony’s approach was no different.

It’s patent enough why his first video was inappropriate. He trivialized Buddhist and Taoist chanting rituals and equate them with Ross Bagdasarian, Sr’s Witch Doctor song. He accused spiritual manifestations observed by Buddhists and Taoists as the work of the devil while praising God for a spiritual healing experienced by his church member. With this, he glorified God’s supremacy and divinity but at the same time denigrate the beliefs of other faiths.

The greater problem lies more with the second video.

Pastor Tan maintained what he mentioned in the second video (the one where a testimony featuring an ex-lesbian) was “nothing wrong” and that his statements commensurate with the government’s policies regarding homosexuality in Singapore. His intention of using the testimony is to illustrate that homosexuality is extrinsically motivated; according to him, in most instances, homosexuality is not an inherent preference, but rather, an adapted lifestyle that people chose to undertake. He did explain that he believed or is convinced that a small portion (really tiny, he emphasized) is genetically caused. So, in a way, God did create these people that way, but not many of them (but how does he know?).

I’m confused. If he was adamant that God did not create homosexuals that way, and that in general, homosexuality is an adopted lifestyle, then why will he make a statement that suggest an otherwise theory? I was wondering if there is a possibility that these two theories may be true.
Then again, theory two suggests that if God did make homosexuals this way and later criminalize the act altogether, God will be unfair. It is then more plausible to understand why most churches today chose to maintain that their stance that homosexuality is an adopted lifestyle to begin with — Christians believe that God is a good God. He is fair and just.

(Digression: besides, in order to register a church in Singapore,it cannot preach doctrines that homosexuality is intrinsic. In a way, this will be in conflict with Singapore’s nation building policies.)

Anyway, the main point of contention arose when Pastor Rony associate homosexuality with zoophilia and paedophilia. I think the discourse became overly simplistic when he chose to link these two examples together. The ultimatum came when he supplemented his theory with satire involving Singaporeans applying HDB apartments with their donkey-spouses and monkey-spouses. I don’t know if he really meant that way, but when he brought up instances and instances to prove that homosexuality is extrinsically motivated and then linked homosexuality with zoophilia, what he is attempting to prove is as though he fully comprehend the struggles faced by a homosexual. In one blanketed approach, he suggested that homosexuals are sexual deviants, and they have a higher proclivity in targeting children and animals.

While satire is necessary to keep audience engaged, it seemed inappropriate to pepper some onto topics that deserve some seriousness. And in my opinion, Pastor Rony failed to keep his priorities checked and have failed to display sensitivity that’s required.

If you realize, the two videos become controversial because of the poorly conceived jokes that Pastor Rony added to his preaching. The entire testimony would have been more convincing if he had those jokes omitted.