Church in Singapore

So, what is the church in Singapore supposed to look like? To answer that question, we need to know what the church is all about in the first place. Yes, we studied Lumen Gentium, which was good. We did not take Gaudium et Spes as seriously as I think we should have, because it is in the vis-a-vis with the world that the church both knows herself and knows where she is, very much like we know ourselves best in our interactions with others.

But even if we were to take that enterprise of commenting and re-reading Gaudium et Spes, I still fear some may say, “but that is idealistic” or “that was written 40 years ago” or “that is for Rome and Europe, we live in Asia” etc.

In my opinion, there are three areas of concern where the local church should focus.

First, a lack of “right tolerance” in the sense that we are often obsessed with our own ideals of the church as if only one was the full truth about the church. The church is also a human community and needs several models to express the richness of both the human genius and the fertility of the Holy Spirit. So, we should not feel frustrated if I like “praise and worship” but see the church praying in Latin or vice versa. Of course there are practices off-limits and even among those within the limits some are better than others. But a certain healthy plurality should be an expression of the richness of the church.

The other problem I see is the lack of the human aspect that the church cannot but have. A company may be judged by its efficiency. After all, that is what a company should do. Singapore has been running very much like a company and this mentality is very much imbued in most parishioners. So, in our local church, we want results, and want them fast. Well, perhaps the church should not be a company. In our families we do not elect the father or the mother according to competence, and we don’t fire them if they become inadequate. We do not ask the question, “Is this a successful family?”

Families are not measured in terms of efficiency, but fidelity. A good family is the place where people stand for each other and show unconditional support. That is a service to society only families can give. An accomplished family is the place where the persons are formed and learn to be good persons. The yardstick should be the persons of the community and not the external aspect, external behaviour or eventual results. So, do we want our church to look like a company or to look like a family?

The third aspect that perhaps the universal church should look into is that most of the Catholic practices are absorbed or concentrated into Sunday Mass. Indeed the liturgical worship is the supreme act of the church, according to Sacrosantum Concilium. But for the liturgical worship to produce the expected fruits, those who participate in it must be adequately disposed, and that disposition goes beyond being “in a state of grace”. We lack platforms and spaces for formation in the faith. Most of the formation is entrusted to a short weekly homily because we have come to believe that all a Catholic needs to do today is to go to Sunday Mass and if possible become active in the parish.

Teenagers after receiving Confirmation, precisely at the most vulnerable age, are practically abandoned in the middle of a secularized culture with not enough answers to satisfy the questions and we expect that a Sunday homily and the memories of their catechism days will suffice for them to practice the adulthood in their faith. Forty years ago, a 20-year-old was ready to work, marry and start a new family. That is, he or she was considered an adult. Today, few dare to do that until they are well in their 30′s. If they don’t consider themselves adults in the society, should the church considered them adults in the faith? Or should the church “move with the times” and move the age for Confirmation to a more realistic one?

The lack of platforms and occasions for formation is a serious handicap in today’s church where the challenges of an increasingly intellectual world challenges traditions and believes that were unquestioned decades ago. In other words, we not only need a church that worships; we desperately need a church that knows the whats, the hows and the whys she worships and believes.

In the same vein, we need more awareness of our interaction with the world. In Gaudium et Spes the church is said to be the soul of the world. Is the local church the soul of Singapore?

Local Church in Singapore

I forgot to say that it took me a while to start posting again because I got distracted with activities. We had the presbyterium meeting and then I spent the whole weekend at the Choice retreat.

The meeting was, as usual, amusing. In these meetings, one always hopes to find some fellowship, but also some clear direction as where we are and where we are going as local church.

Perhaps what struck me most was a certain level of frustration. Nevermind the fact that Mass attendance in Singapore is about 80%, which, I presume, must be one of the highest in the world. We are frustrated. At least, that was what I concluded. Why? Well, it appears that the local church we have does not seem to fit with any one’s expectations.

Some priests would love to see hundreds of teenagers jumping up and down in the indoor stadium. A more vibrant church, they call it. Others would love to see less Catholics migrating to the Protestant side and more of the latter migrating to the Catholic side. Allegedly, the only way to achieve that would be competing with the separate brothers in being as “attractive” as they are.

Some yearn for the effectiveness that characterizes the corporate environment in Singapore, with high emphasis in having full-time fully-paid staff working for the church. In other words, a church that looks more like an efficient company. Others yearn for more solemn celebrations. Some would love to see a more socially committed church, while the ghost of the historical fear keeps haunting this alternative. Finally, all expect more understanding among all.

But… are we aware that if everyone is pushing for a different and exclusive model of church, we are all bound to be exhausted from too much pushing and frustrated for pushing all against each other?

Only if we make an effort to answer the crucial question, “What is the church?” can we all work in the same direction. However, the crucial question becomes forgotten and silenced by the shouts about the superficial matters. If we are not ready to address the fundamentals, we will spend the rest of our days beating around the bushes.

So, what is the church supposed to be like? What does it mean to be a lively church? Is there only one fixed model of a church that we all must strive to achieve or are there several compatible, acceptable and complementary models of a church?