The (Singaporean) wedding feast

The wedding feast was ready.

This was the big one. No expense was too big and no detail too small to be fussed over. It was a once in an eternal lifetime wedding feast of the bridegroom to his church.

He had a flawless track record and had put himself in harm’s way to the point of death for her. The bride looked great today in flawless white, but it had not always been so. To be frank, she had once been a common prostitute hiring herself out to any with trinkets. But then, as he said, he came for such people.

Back to the feast. The tables were groaning with the best food and drink of all creation. Every taste and cuisine was represented. A small army of minor angels had been assigned to care for the Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Mexicans, French, Italians, Africans, Russians, Indian (north and south) and the rest. (It was universally agreed to leave British, American and Australian cuisine off the list as thy were better eaten in another place.) The Asian table was especially resplendent in a myriad of Chinese dishes, along with Vietnamese, Laotian, Japanese, Cambodian, Myanmese, Indonesian; Peranakan and Singaporean.

Singaporean! That table poised a particular challenge given the reputation of those from the little red dot. The Lord assigned senior seraphim to oversee its stocking and himself received daily updates on the nasi lamak, mee goreng, laksa, chicken rice and more.

And now the feast was ready to begin. The combined new creation choir sang a magnificent grace and then the Lord raised his hand to say: “let the wedding feast of the lamb begin.”

Silence! 

A slipper-clad Singapore aunty shuffled into view. Her upraised nose and peering eyes suggested suspicion. All held their breath as she tasted first this then that. (She and her kind were renown for finding fault with any meal.) At last she paused, smiled, faced the throne and said, ‘this is the best!”.

And so the new creation rejoiced. Singapore was satisfied.

Gender and violence

Gender and violence

The recent attack on a young woman in Melbourne Australia has unleashed debate about gender and violence. The lady concerned was walking alone through an inner-city park after finishing a late night’s work as a comedienne. She was raped and murdered by a young man who is now before the courts. Large public vigils have been held and social media is abuzz.

Victorian Police issued a statement urging people to show situational awareness and look after themselves. That has been heavily critiqued as a gender-shaped blaming of the victim and there is a counter push of comment asserting a women’s right to dress, go and behave as she chooses free from male violence. (www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-15/warning-on-personal-safety-after-eurydice-dixon-death-criticised/9873588).

Let it be known that most violence involves a male perpetrator (up to 95%) and that women experience more violence than they perpetrate (https://www.ourwatch.org.au/understanding-violence/facts-and-figures). We men have a lot to answer for and take responsibility for, both in violence against men and the majority) violence against fellow men. We commit most crimes including assault (www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/facts_figures/2_offenders/A2/).

In a Christian view, men and women are equals in sin, but our sins take different shape. Violence against women and against other men is a particularly male sin. Not all men are violent, and most male violence is against other men, but most violent people are men.

However, is it wise to run gender-specific campaigns in response to violence by men against women? Or do they run the risk if dividing the community by getting men’s backs up rather than getting them on side? Given that men as a group are responsible for most violence, such divisiveness seems counterproductive.

Why not a campaign that urges all to take responsibly for themselves and those around them? That means all take responsibility for themselves in situations where they could be victims, whether male or female. And it means that all take responsibility for themselves in situations where they could be perpetrators. And yes, that means its mostly women who need situation awareness as potential victims and we men who need situational responsibility as potential assailants. Pointing to the dominance of male violence without seeing joint responsibility achieves little to make it safe for people to walk home from work.

-->