The survey, I concluded despite a lack of a title or an introduction from them, was one seeking to know religious attitudes of youths in Singapore. I personally found it quite odd that many of the question already seemed to assume that those being surveyed were Christians. One of the questions went like this;

"What would you do if your friend one day told you he/she wanted to become a Christian? (Assuming you would not refer him/her to a pastor or someone else)"

I couldn't stay for long because my bus came just as I finished the survey, but according to an acquaintance in the Navy who also happened to be there that night (and had done the survey a few nights ago himself), if I had stayed longer they would have popped the question, "Do you want God as your saviour?"

My dad tells me frequently when I talk to him about Christianity once in a while that I should keep an open mind, but in recent times I've been realising that there's been a serious flaw in some believers in how God may fit into their lives, and the way they live it. Of course, I'm not about to tar every believer with the same brush, neither is this post meant to lambast a following that has in recent weeks already been subjected to greater scrutiny.

To note, this applies not just to Christianity, not just to religion, but to many more of the personal choices we make in life. The only reason why Christianity is discussed here is in view of an article that I read today in the papers, on how the City Harvest Pastor plauguarised the works of three American authors, which compelled me to do a post on this topic.

The flaw is that some attribute too many events that happen to them to the will of God. It may be a joyous event or that of suffering, it may be something trivial or of utmost importance to them, but what I'm focusing on is mistakes that these individuals make in life, and the way they choose to deal with them.

I believe that being sincere in one's apologies relies on the ability of a person to recognise where he or she has gone wrong, and to note that the external party who has been affected by situation is indeed affected by it, regardless of how small or trivial the offender might think his or her actions might have been. After all, it's not your feelings that person cares about, it's his/her own.

The problem comes in when some (possibly unknowingly) attribute it to fate, or a path which God has divined for them. In some cases, they may believe that God has done so so as to impart to them a lesson or message that they will carry out from now on. Also, some may believe it's a path that had to be taken, no doubt to it.

Those of whom learn a lesson from their mistakes, which could either hurt just themselves, or hurt others in the process, are better off than those who simply take it as a message from above and fail to do anything about it. But in both cases, I see the 'divine intervention' as an unnecessary interference, if I may be so bold as to say that, and one that hinders the ability of a person to learn from his or her mistake.

In attributing a part of the mistake to divine will, no matter how small a part it plays, is essentially transferring a portion of the blame to a third party that has no say in the situation. That is, it will be unable to argue that it has got nothing to do with the situation, and so becomes a convenient scapegoat for the problem at hand. Of course, I say this as a non-believer, and reducing the divine to such a position is surely not going to go down well with believers. Still, I believe this is essentially what it is.

Where others who make mistakes and try to place the blame on friends present are likely to get a swift rebuttal from said party if he or she hasn't done anything to negatively influence events, my concept of the divine scapegoat is akin to that of a person blaming the incompetent bus driver for turning up late. The bus driver isn't present in the flesh to argue that he's kept to his schedule. And even if he's indeed been late in arriving at the bus stop, it's no fault of his that the poor person placed blind faith in the punctuality of the bus service rather than provide for a buffer time. It's more that the person was simply lazy in accounting for how much time he/she needed to provide so as to be on time for the appointment. Thus people come up with the excuse "The bus was late."

More damaging to the situation is not in the fact that the external party gets a compromised apology (or sometimes, it's not even an apology but an excuse) but that the offender doesn't learn from his or her mistake precisely because of the presence of the scapegoat. The inability of this group of people to point a finger at themselves also means the inability to learn from the mistake, because after all, it wasn't one which they committed. In this case, nothing learned is nothing gained; the error of judgement isn't fully learned, or sometimes isn't learned at all. So long as they believe it's a path that has been mapped out for them, rather than one which they have chosen for themselves, the goat will remain.

What these kind of followers need is to be aware that a line has to be drawn between personal mistakes, and where God plays a part in their lives. The belief that God permeates through every aspect of their lives may be utterly sincere, but where personal faults lie, it may sometimes be more of a curse than a blessing to bring God into the picture.

As always, alternative viewpoints are seen as a blessing to what I hope could be a discussion.

0 comments