“Because Muslims believe that Jesus was an ordinary man who received divine revelation through intimate communion with God. In Islam, he is understood to be the penultimate Prophet and messenger of God sent to guide the children of Israel with the al-Injīl. Now, assuming that Islam is right, if Jesus were around, he’d probably start a holy war with the NECF, the DAP and the Malaysian Churches for distorting the truth as it was revealed to mankind through the Holy Quran”
THE THIRD FORCE
Last Tuesday, Free Malaysia Today carried another one of its religious themed twaddles by quoting the chairperson of the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), Eu Hong Seng. According to the self-claimed expert on Christ, Churches are nonpartisan towards politics simply because Jesus Christ was himself a nonpartisan religious leader. What Mr. Eu is trying to say is this – if Jesus were alive, he’d probably denounce the administration of Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak for insinuating that the Churches were politically slanted.
“On this Christmas Day, let us remember the focus of Jesus was always to be mindful of the poor, the needy, the sick, the widows, the prostitutes, the children and the tax collector,” he was quoted as saying.
Well, let me begin by saying this – not only is Eu Hong Seng prostituting himself, he’s prostituting the religion of Christ. Now, I seriously don’t mind if this fellow chooses to prostitute himself, but he should refrain from misleading the faithful by depicting stuff that isn’t reflective of Christian articles of faith. It amazes me how he deliberately ignores Jesus’ slant in favour of the poor and maligned, which, in politics, borders on the core tenets of socialism and the Utopian dream of a collectively-engaged and harmonious society. If that isn’t indication that the “Son of God” was partisan, then tell me, what is?
Which is why, a true Christian would never hesitate to concede that the Bible was sketchy in its description of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic ambience that pervaded the life and times of Jesus. He (or she) would concur that there is no legitimate point of reference from which we could derive with any degree of certainty what the Messiah’s political affiliations or biases were. We could, however, surmise that Jesus despised totalitarian regimes given his compassion for the plight of the needy and oppressed.
We could, because the act of leaning favourably towards any socioeconomic class for whatever reason tends towards partisanship. The fact that Jesus cared for the poor and maligned means he likely despised totalitarian dictatorships that exploited the majority. The fact that he sought a form of governance that did not oppress the working class points to principles of Utopian-socialism, which, in today’s world, is largely identified with the core tenets of Communism.
And I’m not making this up.
Not many are aware that the term Utopian-socialism was first coined by the father of Communism himself, Karl Marx. In 1843, Marx penned For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything before coming up with The Communist Manifesto half a decade later. If you were to read these magnificent works of genius, you’d immediately sense semblances to the very principles advocated by Jesus and the philosophies subscribed to this day by the true keepers of the Christian faith.
Sadly, Mr. Eu isn’t one of them.
If he were, he would have explained to his audience how people like Jesus were likely opposed to democracy. In Marx’s books, a dictatorship by the working class (or the proletariat) is the first step towards a communist state administered by a single, centralized party apparatus that is non-totalitarian. According to him, such an apparatus would lead towards equality as the instrument of oppression used by the capitalistic ruling class would ultimately become non-existent. Now, isn’t that what Jesus was all about?
Yes, Mr. Eu knows that “The Son of God” insisted that there be no distinction made between the rich and the poor, the leper and the Prince or even the beauty and the beast. If anything, the truest of evangelical traditions demands that the road towards salvation be paved on principles of equality, where a centralized party apparatus functions without favouring a single social class, race or ethnicity. But there is a reason the NECF chief isn’t telling you this.
If he did, you’d immediately sense a ring of “Malaysian Malaysia” to it.
Seriously, why do you think Lim Kit Siang spent almost five decades evoking Islamophobia while attacking the national language and the special privileges accorded to the Malays? The de facto Chief of the DAP is a closet evangelist, much like Hannah Yeoh, Anthony Loke, Lim Guan Eng, Tony Pua, Teresa Kok and even Liew Chin Tong are. However, unlike the Marxists, their concept of equality revolves around a totalitarian dictatorship which is directly opposed to what Jesus expected of mankind.
And believe me, such a dictatorship will eventually come into existence.
It will, the minute the DAP-led Pakatan Harapan is given the mandate to march into Putrajaya and form government. People like Kit Siang and Dr. Mahathir Mohamad would immediately get to work abolishing the Monarchical Institution and dismantling Barisan Nasional. Once that happens, Malaysians would no longer have recourse to alternatives as the senior Lim would work with Mahathir to ensure that no other political alliance could ever exist. Under the circumstances, if Kit Siang were to tell you that the GST would go up 20 percent, there’s literally nothing you can do about it.
Now, does that not sound a lot like what’s going on in North Korea?
Under Kim il-Sung, the former Japanese territory turned into a totalitarian dictatorship with a publicly owned and planned economy. The supreme leader exalted his status to cult proportions in the late forties by doing away with every possible form of opposition towards government. Thereafter, he announced that his dictatorship would subscribe to a “creative application” of Marxism which he promised would lead to equality and harmony. But along the way, he bundled a couple of Marxist-Leninist principles together and came up with the Juche, an ideology he claimed was an “original, brilliant and revolutionary contribution to national and international thought” by him.
A mere mention of Christ’s name and you’d be slaughtered by the late il-Sung’s psychopath of a grandson, Kim Jong-in. In the “honorable” Jong-un’s books, prophets like Christ and even Muhammad pose a threat to his regime as people would believe that there existed Messiahs who were greater than him. If Christ were to return to North Korea, he’d immediately oppose the Jong-un regime and would likely rethink his position on Utopian-socialism.
Yes, if Christ were alive today, he’d be more partisan than Eu Hong Seng could ever imagine. If he were to somehow land in Malaysia, he’d probably go straight for Lim Kit Siang’s jugular once he discovers that the NECF – which is funded by a Singaporean evangelist movement – is a front to mask activities by a group of radical evangelists led by the senior Lim himself. And the minute he discovers that the fellowship branded him “the Son of Allah,” he’d go for Mr. Eu’s jugular as well.
Do you know why?
Because Muslims believe that Jesus was an ordinary man who received divine revelation through intimate communion with God. In Islam, he is understood to be the penultimate Prophet and messenger of God sent to guide the children of Israel with the al-Injīl. Now, assuming that Islam is right, if Jesus were around, he’d probably start a holy war with the NECF, the DAP and the Malaysian Churches for distorting the truth as it was revealed to mankind through the Holy Quran.
Now, that’s a form of partisanship.
If, however, you subscribe to Christian articles of faith, you’d be inclined to believe that the Quran is wrong, that Jesus is indeed “the Son of God.” Under the circumstances, Jesus would no longer be the penultimate Prophet and messenger of God, meaning, he’d get pissed with the DAP and the NECF anyway the minute he discovers that these guys are linking him with Islam by announcing that he is “the Son of Allah.”
And that again is yet another form of partisanship.
So you see, whichever way the wheel is spun, the idea that Christ was nonpartisan towards politics is a load of claptrap. Yet, you have people like Eu Hong Seng telling you that Churches are nonpartisan because Christ himself wasn’t.
Please, can someone stop the lies?