Sunday, 14th March 2011, 01:54 hrs
一人犯罪万人受罚，一人受罚万人得救。
古往今来上主晓谕，罪人吾儿务必归吾。
先知君王奉命传道，罪人悔改遵守托拉，
屡次放弃圣洁之道，神圣上主预言赐子。
基督耶稣降世成人，黑暗世界无地容纳，
可怜圣子降生马槽，无非为要拯救世界，
黑暗世界拒绝圣道，犯罪作恶出卖圣子，
巴结罗马为己之益，贪慕虚荣违背良心，
三十银钱即被贿赂，基督被卖冤枉被审，
爱世之主唯有一路，十架道路通向阴间，
三日之后基督复活，绝望世界领受恩典，
从今往后回归上主，圣灵充满信基督者，
尽管此生充满苦难，信基督者永恒盼望，
恩惠慈爱必随着我，我愿为主天天舍己，
背起十架天天随他，随时随地肝脑涂地，
天堂有主心有圣灵，死亡来到天门打开，
永远在天与主同在，此乃人生最深意义。
潘隆成
於二零零七年春季
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
When God is slowly closing the door...
Sunday, 6th March 2011, 15:15 hrs
Events in the past week helped to decide that I should indeed make a trip home to Singapore, just for a break. Prior to my departure I emailed my brother in Singapore and a senior counsel in Christ, a scholar from Cambridge, Dr Bruce Winter, both of whom gave appropriate advice with the latter providing much godly and wise counsel. And one of the things which Bruce said to me was something to this extent: 'Dear brother, when God is closing a door he somehow will see to it that you get to enter another door...'. Although this is an oft-repeated cliche, when it comes from a godly man it takes on a completely different meaning.
Bruce is a senior man in his early 70's. We met years ago in England where we attended the British New Testament Conference. He has published many works, mostly on Graeco-Roman culture, Philo, Paul and such like. He was also editor of Tyndale Bulletin when he was warden of Tyndal House, Cambridge while also being a faculty member of Cambridge's divinity faculty. We had met many times in Singapore, had coffee and chatted over scholarly works as much as we did over church and seminary politics. Bruce is a man committed to the gospel, and so we could see eye-to-eye on many issues, though we may differ over interpretative issues in other biblical areas. I have learnt much from him and prayed together with him many times as well.
Bruce has returned to Australia the last few years to head a theological college. We're far from each other, being located in different parts of the globe but, from July onwards, our paths would likely cross in Cambridge where he'll be visiting for a couple of his major writing projects.
Indeed as scholars we all remain human. Most of what every person in the street faces are equally our concerns. We have met all sorts of characters and personalities, of which the most obstreperous always seem so 'omnipresent'! I have my fair share of having to deal with their ubiquity. But do we fight such obstreperous and nonsensical characters, or do we simply move on and do what the sovereign Lord has given us to do in our limited lifespan?
When I was in my first seminary, a godly colleague once said to me that he never wanted to engage in any conversation with a quarrelsome person. That was when I personally witnessed a fellow colleague yelling at him for no apparent reason. It was fortunate that the seminary is one of the finest in Asia, both academically and morally. The problem was dealt with quickly. For personal reasons, this godly colleague later moved on to a seminary in the States and is doing what the Lord has called him to do, effectively and productively, away from all the irrelevant, unnecessary, and ungodly quarrels. He has always been a fine example to me.
What do I do when God is indeed slowly closing my door? Perhaps, how do I know God is closing my door? I think Bruce has wisely pointed out that a good indication is when things just no longer operate the way they should. For example, when the gospel truth is no longer upheld in life, in personal conduct, and in a corporate body, and that the operation of the 'house' of which the door is slowly closing is carried out in contradistinction to the values I hold dear that are rooted in Scripture, that should be one major indication that the Lord is telling me that the door is slowly closing. This is particularly so when efforts to the contrary are being ignored or frivolously glossed over.
Since I'm returning to Singapore and will get to meet my brother he has asked me to call him and we'll talk further. My brother has been a pastor for about 11 over years and thereafter gone on to the States to study while at the same time pastoring a few Chinese churches. Though a few years older he has been able to provide some very important and wise counsel as well. Because as a close family member he has given me detailed advice which is not convenient to divulge here. However, I shall say more as time goes on...
I am reminded of what the psalmist says when he prays, 'I lift up my eyes to the hills, from whence doeth my help come? My help cometh from the Lord God who created the heavens and the earth'. In all of one's life, it is imperative that one always remembers to focus on the Lord of creation. For he is in charge and above all things!
When God is slowly closing a door, I should seek after him and learn my part of the responsibility. 'Wait upon the Lord,' cries the psalmist. All of us might see doors flung wide open; some might face a tightly shut door; still others might witness doors that are creaky when turned. Whatever it is, we should note that after all efforts have been ignored or ineffective, we should consider that the Lord might be slowly closing the door.
Events in the past week helped to decide that I should indeed make a trip home to Singapore, just for a break. Prior to my departure I emailed my brother in Singapore and a senior counsel in Christ, a scholar from Cambridge, Dr Bruce Winter, both of whom gave appropriate advice with the latter providing much godly and wise counsel. And one of the things which Bruce said to me was something to this extent: 'Dear brother, when God is closing a door he somehow will see to it that you get to enter another door...'. Although this is an oft-repeated cliche, when it comes from a godly man it takes on a completely different meaning.
Bruce is a senior man in his early 70's. We met years ago in England where we attended the British New Testament Conference. He has published many works, mostly on Graeco-Roman culture, Philo, Paul and such like. He was also editor of Tyndale Bulletin when he was warden of Tyndal House, Cambridge while also being a faculty member of Cambridge's divinity faculty. We had met many times in Singapore, had coffee and chatted over scholarly works as much as we did over church and seminary politics. Bruce is a man committed to the gospel, and so we could see eye-to-eye on many issues, though we may differ over interpretative issues in other biblical areas. I have learnt much from him and prayed together with him many times as well.
Bruce has returned to Australia the last few years to head a theological college. We're far from each other, being located in different parts of the globe but, from July onwards, our paths would likely cross in Cambridge where he'll be visiting for a couple of his major writing projects.
Indeed as scholars we all remain human. Most of what every person in the street faces are equally our concerns. We have met all sorts of characters and personalities, of which the most obstreperous always seem so 'omnipresent'! I have my fair share of having to deal with their ubiquity. But do we fight such obstreperous and nonsensical characters, or do we simply move on and do what the sovereign Lord has given us to do in our limited lifespan?
When I was in my first seminary, a godly colleague once said to me that he never wanted to engage in any conversation with a quarrelsome person. That was when I personally witnessed a fellow colleague yelling at him for no apparent reason. It was fortunate that the seminary is one of the finest in Asia, both academically and morally. The problem was dealt with quickly. For personal reasons, this godly colleague later moved on to a seminary in the States and is doing what the Lord has called him to do, effectively and productively, away from all the irrelevant, unnecessary, and ungodly quarrels. He has always been a fine example to me.
What do I do when God is indeed slowly closing my door? Perhaps, how do I know God is closing my door? I think Bruce has wisely pointed out that a good indication is when things just no longer operate the way they should. For example, when the gospel truth is no longer upheld in life, in personal conduct, and in a corporate body, and that the operation of the 'house' of which the door is slowly closing is carried out in contradistinction to the values I hold dear that are rooted in Scripture, that should be one major indication that the Lord is telling me that the door is slowly closing. This is particularly so when efforts to the contrary are being ignored or frivolously glossed over.
Since I'm returning to Singapore and will get to meet my brother he has asked me to call him and we'll talk further. My brother has been a pastor for about 11 over years and thereafter gone on to the States to study while at the same time pastoring a few Chinese churches. Though a few years older he has been able to provide some very important and wise counsel as well. Because as a close family member he has given me detailed advice which is not convenient to divulge here. However, I shall say more as time goes on...
I am reminded of what the psalmist says when he prays, 'I lift up my eyes to the hills, from whence doeth my help come? My help cometh from the Lord God who created the heavens and the earth'. In all of one's life, it is imperative that one always remembers to focus on the Lord of creation. For he is in charge and above all things!
When God is slowly closing a door, I should seek after him and learn my part of the responsibility. 'Wait upon the Lord,' cries the psalmist. All of us might see doors flung wide open; some might face a tightly shut door; still others might witness doors that are creaky when turned. Whatever it is, we should note that after all efforts have been ignored or ineffective, we should consider that the Lord might be slowly closing the door.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Of Compulsory Attendance...
Sunday, 8th January 2011, 09:06 hrs
In theological education, we talk about 'spiritual formation' through non-classroom activities such as chapel, vespers, prayer meetings and such like. The 'classroom' learning usually refers more to 'academic' training. In order to raise the level of spirituality of seminarians many seminaries resort to what I might call 'repressive' recourse, i.e. compulsory attendance at chapel services, prayer meetings, etc.
Last week our chaplain further announced that those who failed to attend any of such activities without seeking prior official permission would face the disciplinary action of having a 'minor offence' recorded.
Sometime last year during one of our faculty meetings I raised the question as to what our attendances of all these activities would be like if we abolished the requirement, that is, if we made it non-compulsory. Our dean's response was a little reflective, 'Oh yes...it's something we won't know...'; but our registrar's response was a disappointing, 'Then nobody would come'. My immediate response was, 'That's our attitude! We have a negative attitude towards our students and assume that they won't turn up. Our imposition of such a requirement is driven by something negative'. No one had an inkling of what I was talking about.
Last week, the registrar was sitting next to me when the announcement was made. We spoke a little and she said the dean was reserved about imposing a 'minor offence' penalty, which she thought the dean was absurd. But I told her that I didn't believe in making such things compulsory. For the way to get people to attend such activities should not be through 'punishment'. Some of our faculty members are ultra-fundamentalists who, if they were of other faiths, could have turned into terrorists! If we talk about 'spiritual formation', how then can we contradict this concept of 'formation' by 'compulsion' and the 'compulsion' by 'repression' through 'threat of punishment'? Further, by imposing such a requirement of compulsory attendance with the threat of punishment, we abdicate our responsibilities of helping our students 'form' spiritually, and this takes place on several levels. Let me elaborate.
First, we abdicate the responsibility of patiently and painstakingly reaching out to students who for reasons we may not know or understand fail to attend such activities. By reaching out to students, we will have to expend out time and energy, which perhaps is something we're not quite prepared to do. Instead of being 'counsellor's to students', we end up alienating them. Second, we abdicate the responsibility of carefully planning our activities and seriously supervise and direct every activity. By so doing, we actually create a bad habit of allowing everyone to do the same: haphazard planning is alright, since everyone will turn up for the event! Third, there is a lack of corporate mutual responsibility of 'care of the soul', in imposing such a requirement. For students who cannot be present will now have to make an application and the whole 'forming' process becomes legalised and mechanical. There is proportionally 'lesser' care for their reason/s behind their absence. There are more reasons I can think of; but the above are sufficient to illustrate my point.
I find it difficult to continue in such an environment where non-thinking persons are appointed to important positions who are always looking for ways to hit out at students, all under the pretext of 'spiritual formation'. This is fundamentalism - people who are sick in the mind!
In theological education, we talk about 'spiritual formation' through non-classroom activities such as chapel, vespers, prayer meetings and such like. The 'classroom' learning usually refers more to 'academic' training. In order to raise the level of spirituality of seminarians many seminaries resort to what I might call 'repressive' recourse, i.e. compulsory attendance at chapel services, prayer meetings, etc.
Last week our chaplain further announced that those who failed to attend any of such activities without seeking prior official permission would face the disciplinary action of having a 'minor offence' recorded.
Sometime last year during one of our faculty meetings I raised the question as to what our attendances of all these activities would be like if we abolished the requirement, that is, if we made it non-compulsory. Our dean's response was a little reflective, 'Oh yes...it's something we won't know...'; but our registrar's response was a disappointing, 'Then nobody would come'. My immediate response was, 'That's our attitude! We have a negative attitude towards our students and assume that they won't turn up. Our imposition of such a requirement is driven by something negative'. No one had an inkling of what I was talking about.
Last week, the registrar was sitting next to me when the announcement was made. We spoke a little and she said the dean was reserved about imposing a 'minor offence' penalty, which she thought the dean was absurd. But I told her that I didn't believe in making such things compulsory. For the way to get people to attend such activities should not be through 'punishment'. Some of our faculty members are ultra-fundamentalists who, if they were of other faiths, could have turned into terrorists! If we talk about 'spiritual formation', how then can we contradict this concept of 'formation' by 'compulsion' and the 'compulsion' by 'repression' through 'threat of punishment'? Further, by imposing such a requirement of compulsory attendance with the threat of punishment, we abdicate our responsibilities of helping our students 'form' spiritually, and this takes place on several levels. Let me elaborate.
First, we abdicate the responsibility of patiently and painstakingly reaching out to students who for reasons we may not know or understand fail to attend such activities. By reaching out to students, we will have to expend out time and energy, which perhaps is something we're not quite prepared to do. Instead of being 'counsellor's to students', we end up alienating them. Second, we abdicate the responsibility of carefully planning our activities and seriously supervise and direct every activity. By so doing, we actually create a bad habit of allowing everyone to do the same: haphazard planning is alright, since everyone will turn up for the event! Third, there is a lack of corporate mutual responsibility of 'care of the soul', in imposing such a requirement. For students who cannot be present will now have to make an application and the whole 'forming' process becomes legalised and mechanical. There is proportionally 'lesser' care for their reason/s behind their absence. There are more reasons I can think of; but the above are sufficient to illustrate my point.
I find it difficult to continue in such an environment where non-thinking persons are appointed to important positions who are always looking for ways to hit out at students, all under the pretext of 'spiritual formation'. This is fundamentalism - people who are sick in the mind!
Thursday, December 30, 2010
How I am Ending 2010...
Friday, 31st December 2010, 14:58 hrs
In a rather strange way I am finishing my year. For the past couple of years I had been returning to Singapore during the end of the year, mostly for the purpose of medical follow-up. This year is no exception, save the fact that the time spent seems quite different. The past couple of days I spend my breakfast with different people. And other than the first day, when I was in the hospital the rest of my days till today have been spent doing nothing!
Yesterday, I visited my mother-in-law who on the previous day didn't seem quite keen to have me over. After the visit to my in-law's I went to visit my second brother who equally was less keen to meet up, citing reasons of his busy schedule. Today, after breakfast with two former students I returned to my room and started watching a Chinese TV serials till now. I don't know where to go to and feel rather lost and lonely. For one thing, I don't have any friends. And even the few friends that are left, they are all simply too busy.
So this trip I really feel such a terrible alien. Meanwhile I learnt about the response of the Board members to the faculty's thoughts on the campus development. I did have a few email exchanges with our registrar, whose latest reply to me was relatively off-putting. Her statement that if it (the campus) is ours it is ours; if not it will never be ours. This sort of thinking smacks of fatalism. Once again I'm reminded of her theological background and have to remind myself that fundamentally I do differ very much from this group of people whose ideas, theology, mode of thinking and the like and mine are not only markedly but wholly different.
Today being the last day of the year my second sister has invited me to visit her place for dinner. My efforts in trying to contact her have been quite unsuccessful. I might just quietly let it pass without joining them. This trip is a sad one. For I have nothing left here in Singapore, even though I haven't given up Singapore yet. Further, my siblings are all quite scattered and friends are not contactable. So my reasons for returning home in future will be even fewer.
I have not felt at home in Hong Kong, even though I now own a flat and have a job. I remain a Singaporean, though I do not have any possibility of returning here to work, since there is no job available. With the kind of working style and thinking of the people in my seminary, I find it very difficult to continue. But I can't do anything else...
Today is the end of the year. How am I ending it? I don't know, except that I know I'll most likely spend it on my own. The thoughts of returning to Hong Kong have become stronger, though once back I know I'll start feeling a sense of homelessness.
How shall I end my year? I could stay back here and watch the TV via the internet, or read a book.
Perhaps I should learn to ask myself another question: instead of asking 'How shall I end the year?' I could ask: how shall I end my everyday so that it becomes meaningful and serves as a foundation for my many tomorrows!
The next question I should be asking is my own plan regarding my new year, and my career. Should I return to Singapore eventually? S\hould I stay on in the current job or resign to seek another one? In all of this I need plenty of wisdom...
In a rather strange way I am finishing my year. For the past couple of years I had been returning to Singapore during the end of the year, mostly for the purpose of medical follow-up. This year is no exception, save the fact that the time spent seems quite different. The past couple of days I spend my breakfast with different people. And other than the first day, when I was in the hospital the rest of my days till today have been spent doing nothing!
Yesterday, I visited my mother-in-law who on the previous day didn't seem quite keen to have me over. After the visit to my in-law's I went to visit my second brother who equally was less keen to meet up, citing reasons of his busy schedule. Today, after breakfast with two former students I returned to my room and started watching a Chinese TV serials till now. I don't know where to go to and feel rather lost and lonely. For one thing, I don't have any friends. And even the few friends that are left, they are all simply too busy.
So this trip I really feel such a terrible alien. Meanwhile I learnt about the response of the Board members to the faculty's thoughts on the campus development. I did have a few email exchanges with our registrar, whose latest reply to me was relatively off-putting. Her statement that if it (the campus) is ours it is ours; if not it will never be ours. This sort of thinking smacks of fatalism. Once again I'm reminded of her theological background and have to remind myself that fundamentally I do differ very much from this group of people whose ideas, theology, mode of thinking and the like and mine are not only markedly but wholly different.
Today being the last day of the year my second sister has invited me to visit her place for dinner. My efforts in trying to contact her have been quite unsuccessful. I might just quietly let it pass without joining them. This trip is a sad one. For I have nothing left here in Singapore, even though I haven't given up Singapore yet. Further, my siblings are all quite scattered and friends are not contactable. So my reasons for returning home in future will be even fewer.
I have not felt at home in Hong Kong, even though I now own a flat and have a job. I remain a Singaporean, though I do not have any possibility of returning here to work, since there is no job available. With the kind of working style and thinking of the people in my seminary, I find it very difficult to continue. But I can't do anything else...
Today is the end of the year. How am I ending it? I don't know, except that I know I'll most likely spend it on my own. The thoughts of returning to Hong Kong have become stronger, though once back I know I'll start feeling a sense of homelessness.
How shall I end my year? I could stay back here and watch the TV via the internet, or read a book.
Perhaps I should learn to ask myself another question: instead of asking 'How shall I end the year?' I could ask: how shall I end my everyday so that it becomes meaningful and serves as a foundation for my many tomorrows!
The next question I should be asking is my own plan regarding my new year, and my career. Should I return to Singapore eventually? S\hould I stay on in the current job or resign to seek another one? In all of this I need plenty of wisdom...
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Forward-looking...
Tuesday, 23rd November 2010, 23:00 hrs
It’s a weekday, when a group of nine of us set out to view a recently vacated international school compound that’s up for sale. We’ve discussed it quite extensively and, since our last annual planning meeting retreat, decided to pay a visit there. The result? Well, what we saw was far above what we had thought and expected.
I for one thought it was indeed unpleasantly run down, with the surrounding areas either abandoned or disused, and an atmosphere that was unfriendly and unsafe. However, when we got out of the west rail line, we were immediately greeted by a panoramic view of the sea with a beautifully landscaped public park. We took a leizurely walk in the surrounding neigbourhood and visited the mall opposite. Though the mall is sparsely occupied, we were not particularly perturbed. There are various eateries and even a MacDonald’s!
The school compound is located on the fourth level, with its own private lifts. Since it used to be an international school, the inside was basically designed and planned for educational purposes. The area is more than double our current size and the look of it tells us instinctively that we could use it for the next twenty years without problem. And the entire entourage was consistently positive about it.
We will have to work out some details as to what we could do with regard to our dialogue with the board members, three of whom are quite strongly opposed to the idea. However, our current location simply will not do and does not allow us to continue operating meaningfully.
We’re running out of space at present – the library, the administrative office, the faculty offices, space for students, etc. Besides, our current location is used illegally. Our students are unable to study, hold meetings, pray and share together; nor can our faculty members meet students for confidential discussions, and most of what we’re doing is basically done on constricted space.
Some of the concerns of the board appear to be largely based on misinformation. For example, one reason is the ‘spiritual’ atmosphere that is not present in this new location. However, the sort of spiritual atmosphere referred to is about trees, flowers, fish pond and the like. This is in fact nothing to do with ‘spirituality’. For true ‘spirituality’ is about the inner person.
Some have voiced concern that there’s a lack of grandeur, which, to my mind, borders on absurdity. Under the current dire needs of the seminary, we cannot allow ‘grandeur’ to be a guiding factor in our decision. Further, the hope of some that we could look for a better place is perhaps unrealistic. The truth of the matter is that we don’t even have that sort of resources. We should indeed be going for what we can afford for now.
Now we can only look to the Lord for his provision of another place where we can operate meaningfully and successfully, to the honour and glory of the Lord.
It’s a weekday, when a group of nine of us set out to view a recently vacated international school compound that’s up for sale. We’ve discussed it quite extensively and, since our last annual planning meeting retreat, decided to pay a visit there. The result? Well, what we saw was far above what we had thought and expected.
I for one thought it was indeed unpleasantly run down, with the surrounding areas either abandoned or disused, and an atmosphere that was unfriendly and unsafe. However, when we got out of the west rail line, we were immediately greeted by a panoramic view of the sea with a beautifully landscaped public park. We took a leizurely walk in the surrounding neigbourhood and visited the mall opposite. Though the mall is sparsely occupied, we were not particularly perturbed. There are various eateries and even a MacDonald’s!
The school compound is located on the fourth level, with its own private lifts. Since it used to be an international school, the inside was basically designed and planned for educational purposes. The area is more than double our current size and the look of it tells us instinctively that we could use it for the next twenty years without problem. And the entire entourage was consistently positive about it.
We will have to work out some details as to what we could do with regard to our dialogue with the board members, three of whom are quite strongly opposed to the idea. However, our current location simply will not do and does not allow us to continue operating meaningfully.
We’re running out of space at present – the library, the administrative office, the faculty offices, space for students, etc. Besides, our current location is used illegally. Our students are unable to study, hold meetings, pray and share together; nor can our faculty members meet students for confidential discussions, and most of what we’re doing is basically done on constricted space.
Some of the concerns of the board appear to be largely based on misinformation. For example, one reason is the ‘spiritual’ atmosphere that is not present in this new location. However, the sort of spiritual atmosphere referred to is about trees, flowers, fish pond and the like. This is in fact nothing to do with ‘spirituality’. For true ‘spirituality’ is about the inner person.
Some have voiced concern that there’s a lack of grandeur, which, to my mind, borders on absurdity. Under the current dire needs of the seminary, we cannot allow ‘grandeur’ to be a guiding factor in our decision. Further, the hope of some that we could look for a better place is perhaps unrealistic. The truth of the matter is that we don’t even have that sort of resources. We should indeed be going for what we can afford for now.
Now we can only look to the Lord for his provision of another place where we can operate meaningfully and successfully, to the honour and glory of the Lord.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Leadership Failure...
Monday, 15th November 2010, 17:45 hrs
The past two weeks were to some extent challenging again. There was first the problem of a colleague who suddenly went to the dean and complained that I taught Greek wrong, and that I had used the wrong textbook. He further said that he could complete the entire introductory Greek in one trimester, which meant I taught too slowly. I suppose that carried the implication that I wasn't efficient or competent enough.
This happened during a time when our new prospectus was due for revision. The registrar was in charge of this and so needed the course descriptions in the prospectus to be re-written. Since my colleague had some thoughts about me and my teaching, the dean wanted me to sit down and talk to this colleague, an 'instruction' he conveyed through the registrar. However, I thought otherwise and felt it fine to discuss the revision of the course description but not my teaching. But the colleague had in fact wanted me to teach according to the previous course description written by him. This, of course, was something totally absurd. Further, when I first joined the seminary and was asked to teach Greek I had first cleared with the dean as to the use of the textbook I preferred, who gave me the immediate go-ahead.
According to the registrar, the dean revealed that the colleague had done the same with two previous New Testament lecturers. This really angered me, as I failed to understand why the dean would still entertain this colleague and allow him to continue his nonsense.
The registrar wanted me to speak to the colleague, together with her and the dean. However, I had decided against speaking to them, as this would be tantamount to an affirmation of that colleague. What surprised me next was that the registrar went and spoke to the president, who then called me up and, once I had sat down, asked me, 'What's happening to Greek?' This whole approach was most upsetting. Although the president put it quite nicely to me, it gave me the feeling that I was the one at fault, when in fact I had done absolutel nothing!
The president made a number of points: (1) that anyone who is teaching Greek will also be the one who writes the course description; (2) whoever is teaching should be given the full trust and freedom to teach; (3) however, it would still be helpful for the two of us (the colleague and I) to sit and discuss what goes into the course. For he (the president) felt that if I were to simply leave it all to the colleague, it might even show I didn't have trust in him, whose logic perhaps my mind is too small to comprehend.
My response was: (1) my colleague could take over the course, and therefore he could write the description; (2) I did not want to discuss the contents of my teaching, save the course description; and (3) that it was alright not to discuss what went into the course description, as I'd trust my colleague.
I've been most upset by the entire turn of events. For one, the registrar in fact was opposed to the idea of robing in the president, when the dean first made the suggestion. Yet, she had finally got the president to speak to me. For all the 'trust' the president spoke about, the fact that I was being spoken to already shows there was no trust. I was relatively angry with the failure in leadership over such a matter. In fact, to my mind, this is tantamount to harrassment by one colleague against another through interference in the latter's work! However, the leadership simply connived at such an ill. That day, after leaving the president's office and returning to my own office I broke down and cried. For I felt so intruded and offended.
I thought to myself: for all that I've given up and this is what I'm getting. What scholar would do what I have done? And having done what I've done, who would have tolerated such nonsense?
I did something else, following the conversation with the president. I spoke to the colleague and said he could take over with immediate effect from the second trimester. He gleefully agreed. I spoke to the president immediately, who then said he would need to confirm with the dean. I further wrote an email to all parties concerned, i.e. the dean, president, registrar, and my colleague, informing them that the two of us had spoken and concluded that he could and would take over the teaching of Greek in the second trimester. Thus, he would also write the course description.
The dean replied, without sending any copies to the others, that he was 'surprised' by the 'very clear conclusions' between my colleague and me and simply stated that there was way to change the lecturer. I replied by pointing out that the 'very clear conclusions' were with regard to the discussion between my colleague and myself, and the discussion was held simply because he wanted us to discuss. That was the only time the dean communicated with me over the matter! So much for his failed leadership!
After thinking through all this, I've decided it's enough. I shall leave upon finding a new job. That week, I sent an email to a friend in another seminary enquiring the possibility of joining his seminary after July next year, when my contract expired. He replied asking for my CV and saying that he and the president would discuss in three weeks' time, when the president returned from overseas.
With the above, I see so clearly so much nonsense in this seminary. The dean, who has been so lazy, inefficient and incompetent, unprofessional and so pre-occupied with 'face', only brings harm to the seminary! Meanwhile, there's so much other nonsense involved with no careful foresight nor thinking. I ask myself again and again, 'What am I doing her?' 'Why am I wasting my life here?'
I think through again and the hymn 'Be Thou My Vision' came to mind. If only we were to allow the Lord Jesus to be our vision. This morning, while looking through the library catalogue for new books I had to decide on whether to purchase a book on B. B. Warfield, I went online to check it out more and found out about how a man of great piety would focus not only on building godly lives of students, but also their learning.
Then, this morning I heard again the rejection of a proposal by the president to the Board for the purchase of a disused school nearby. The school has a net area of 30,000 square feet, about double the entire net area of our current location. Again, I fail to understand how these small, peanut-minds could be making decisions for a seminary! And all this is a strong signal to me to bid farewell...
'Lord, have mercy...'
The past two weeks were to some extent challenging again. There was first the problem of a colleague who suddenly went to the dean and complained that I taught Greek wrong, and that I had used the wrong textbook. He further said that he could complete the entire introductory Greek in one trimester, which meant I taught too slowly. I suppose that carried the implication that I wasn't efficient or competent enough.
This happened during a time when our new prospectus was due for revision. The registrar was in charge of this and so needed the course descriptions in the prospectus to be re-written. Since my colleague had some thoughts about me and my teaching, the dean wanted me to sit down and talk to this colleague, an 'instruction' he conveyed through the registrar. However, I thought otherwise and felt it fine to discuss the revision of the course description but not my teaching. But the colleague had in fact wanted me to teach according to the previous course description written by him. This, of course, was something totally absurd. Further, when I first joined the seminary and was asked to teach Greek I had first cleared with the dean as to the use of the textbook I preferred, who gave me the immediate go-ahead.
According to the registrar, the dean revealed that the colleague had done the same with two previous New Testament lecturers. This really angered me, as I failed to understand why the dean would still entertain this colleague and allow him to continue his nonsense.
The registrar wanted me to speak to the colleague, together with her and the dean. However, I had decided against speaking to them, as this would be tantamount to an affirmation of that colleague. What surprised me next was that the registrar went and spoke to the president, who then called me up and, once I had sat down, asked me, 'What's happening to Greek?' This whole approach was most upsetting. Although the president put it quite nicely to me, it gave me the feeling that I was the one at fault, when in fact I had done absolutel nothing!
The president made a number of points: (1) that anyone who is teaching Greek will also be the one who writes the course description; (2) whoever is teaching should be given the full trust and freedom to teach; (3) however, it would still be helpful for the two of us (the colleague and I) to sit and discuss what goes into the course. For he (the president) felt that if I were to simply leave it all to the colleague, it might even show I didn't have trust in him, whose logic perhaps my mind is too small to comprehend.
My response was: (1) my colleague could take over the course, and therefore he could write the description; (2) I did not want to discuss the contents of my teaching, save the course description; and (3) that it was alright not to discuss what went into the course description, as I'd trust my colleague.
I've been most upset by the entire turn of events. For one, the registrar in fact was opposed to the idea of robing in the president, when the dean first made the suggestion. Yet, she had finally got the president to speak to me. For all the 'trust' the president spoke about, the fact that I was being spoken to already shows there was no trust. I was relatively angry with the failure in leadership over such a matter. In fact, to my mind, this is tantamount to harrassment by one colleague against another through interference in the latter's work! However, the leadership simply connived at such an ill. That day, after leaving the president's office and returning to my own office I broke down and cried. For I felt so intruded and offended.
I thought to myself: for all that I've given up and this is what I'm getting. What scholar would do what I have done? And having done what I've done, who would have tolerated such nonsense?
I did something else, following the conversation with the president. I spoke to the colleague and said he could take over with immediate effect from the second trimester. He gleefully agreed. I spoke to the president immediately, who then said he would need to confirm with the dean. I further wrote an email to all parties concerned, i.e. the dean, president, registrar, and my colleague, informing them that the two of us had spoken and concluded that he could and would take over the teaching of Greek in the second trimester. Thus, he would also write the course description.
The dean replied, without sending any copies to the others, that he was 'surprised' by the 'very clear conclusions' between my colleague and me and simply stated that there was way to change the lecturer. I replied by pointing out that the 'very clear conclusions' were with regard to the discussion between my colleague and myself, and the discussion was held simply because he wanted us to discuss. That was the only time the dean communicated with me over the matter! So much for his failed leadership!
After thinking through all this, I've decided it's enough. I shall leave upon finding a new job. That week, I sent an email to a friend in another seminary enquiring the possibility of joining his seminary after July next year, when my contract expired. He replied asking for my CV and saying that he and the president would discuss in three weeks' time, when the president returned from overseas.
With the above, I see so clearly so much nonsense in this seminary. The dean, who has been so lazy, inefficient and incompetent, unprofessional and so pre-occupied with 'face', only brings harm to the seminary! Meanwhile, there's so much other nonsense involved with no careful foresight nor thinking. I ask myself again and again, 'What am I doing her?' 'Why am I wasting my life here?'
I think through again and the hymn 'Be Thou My Vision' came to mind. If only we were to allow the Lord Jesus to be our vision. This morning, while looking through the library catalogue for new books I had to decide on whether to purchase a book on B. B. Warfield, I went online to check it out more and found out about how a man of great piety would focus not only on building godly lives of students, but also their learning.
Then, this morning I heard again the rejection of a proposal by the president to the Board for the purchase of a disused school nearby. The school has a net area of 30,000 square feet, about double the entire net area of our current location. Again, I fail to understand how these small, peanut-minds could be making decisions for a seminary! And all this is a strong signal to me to bid farewell...
'Lord, have mercy...'
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Meaning Business with God?
Sunday, 10th October 2010, 20:00 hrs
The past several months have been relatively depressing for me in terms of work. Let me begin with the month of July, after my trip back to Singapore.
We first had a departmental heads' meeting for a day, followed by another morning of co-workers meeting. During the former, we discussed various issues of which 'fasting' was a heated one. We contributed our views and, at times, with force and rigour, even to the point of developing into a heated exchange. At the end, we did resolve most issues. However, to my realisation the following day, the discussion the day before had not gone down well with our dean, who began a personal diatribe the following day when it was his turn to speak about the academic aspect during the co-workers' meeting. I was taken aback by such unnecessarily personal and immature way of handling things,which upset me.
What made matters worse was that the discussion the previous day on whether or not 'day of fasting' should be made compulsory to all faculty as well, as it was made known to me, was motivated by the chaplaincy's desire to respond to a certain faculty's attitude during 'fasting' days in the past. And the 'certain faculty' apparently was me! I was flabbergasted, as it was so unnecessary for the chaplaincy to respond to me in such a manner. They could have first clarified with me, rather than simply listened to rumours. But no attempt was made to clarify with me, nor remind me of my lack of care in offering some students 'peanuts'. Apparently at some point I offered a student some 'peanuts' on a fasting day. But I could have forgotten it was a day of 'fasting', since our 'day of fasting and prayer' is usually just a day without food, without any other activities save the one and a half hour of prayer at the morning assembly.
Following the above saga, we began our first trimester with new students sharing their testimonies. Apparently, these students had been told what to do, how much time they were to spend on sharing, etc. But most of them either did not keep to the time, or simply spoke about all sorts of things, or both. Little seems to be done to improve the situation. On one occasion a faculty member was supposed to preach while our president would conduct the holy communion. But both the faculty member and president went beyond the time allocated to them. The faculty by 20 minutes, while the president took 25 minutes to conduct the holy communion. By the time we ended, it was 12:45 hrs and we had to cancel the announcement.
The following faculty meeting the chaplaincy raised the question of punctuality for discussion (I don't quite understand why there was a need for discussion at all, when the clock simply shows either we're on time or unpunctual!). I had originally decided not to say anything any more, but had decided to speak strongly about the matter. It was my suggestion that should a faculty, or a student, or even a guest speaker were to go over the time, without any sign of stopping, we should stop the person from continuing! Alas, this view of mine was and remains to be viewed as harsh, strong, of a different culture and principle and such like.
On Tuesday last week, i.e. 5th October, we had three students who went up to share. The first student took up almost 20 minutes, and still had the cheek to say he took only 18 minutes! The other two were speaking basically rubbish! When the first student did not seem to want to stop, despite two members of the chaplaincy waving to him from behind, I decided to raise my hand and hit hard on my watch with my other hand to catch his attention. This has become the talk of the seminary - everyone, practically, thinks I was wrong! But what was it that I did wrong? Why was it wrong?
The unfortunate thing is that I spoke to several other students and found out, to my horror, that they were not told of what they were supposed to say, and most were told only before the start of the assembly that they had 15 minutes to share. I have no opportunity to clarify with the person in charge. But I would be surprised the few students all tried to lie! With all this, now I am an even worse person. A student who is up there in the lecturn not sharing what he is supposed to share but uttering rubbish is right, whereas a lecturer who signals strongly is wrong while his fellow colleagues who are responsible for the assembly are not wrong when they fail to act decisively!
Before my trip back to Singapore on 30th Sept 2010, we had a meeting for the Dedication Camp committee on 29th Sept. The president was invited to sit in. During the beginning of the meeting my views on the number of days for the camp (one day or two days) and the theme happened to differ from those of another faculty member. I did raise the concern that we had a theme that matched our goal, and not introduce a theme that reflected a lack of depth. Perhaps at some points I spoke strongly on them (this is me!). After the meeting, the chairwoman, a fellow faculty member came and said to me, 'Thank you!' I was a little surprised as to why she should thank me and asked, 'Why are you thanking me?' She replied, 'Thanks for not quarrelling with Mr L'. I was initially surprised and then the surprise turned to incomprehension, and the incomprehension turned to displeasure. She further said it was because of her fear that I would quarrel with Mr L that she got the president to sit in the meeting.
I was quite displeased with the sort of unnecessary and unfounded presumptions. In the first place, I have never had a quarrel with the faculty member in question. Secondly, I fail to see what reasons she may have for thinking that I would pick a quarrel with the other colleague! Why me and not him picking a quarrel with me? Indeed, that particular faculty member did pick a quarrel with me once, on a personal level, by storming into my office and suggesting that I didn't know how to teach Greek. But that was all. I never believe in quarrelling with another person for no reason. In any case, I would never quarrel, indeed, I would never delight in quarrelling with a fool!
The other problem concerns the issue of the warden for the ladies hostel. Before the faculty decided to separate the males and females under a male faculty and a female faculty respectively, I had thought they should be separated. Out of respect for the former warden Mr P, I asked him (Mr P) if he would like to raise the matter, as I have thought of raising it. He replied that he would be the appropriate person to do so and would be most happy to raise it. However, after the faculty meeting Mr L the new warden was unhappy and so went to speak to Mr P about the decision. Mr P turned around and said that in fact he did not want to raise it, it was Mr Poon (that is, I) who asked him to raise it. He further spoke to the woman faculty member that he was willing to withdraw the proposal, since he was the one who first proposed it. Why should Mr P do such a thing? I never asked him to raise it. I only asked if he would like to raise it. Again, this upsets me quite a bit.
Recently I was told that our dean, during the 'day of fasting and prayer', prayed for the faculty. One of the things he said was that the faculty should not be proud. Some students have felt that that was a veiled reference to me. This reminds me of a lady student from China who said to me, when I walked out of one of the assemblies, that I gave the impression of being self-centred and that I was one cut above others. I cannot understand this sort of warped view of humility!
Just a week ago, the librarian came to me and said that the dean spoke to her about the arrangements for the library's opening hours on Saturday. Apparently, Mr P (the one who's in charge of MCSS) had spoken to the dean about the matter. I thought the SC (senior council) had already decided on this matter and that we were working on it, and I had further spoken to Mr P about the matter. Yet he has gone behind me to lodge a veiled complaint.
The above several issues are upsetting me very much. This is a place where people simply don't want to do things the proper way. They like to leave things as they are. When a person raises his concern, that person is proud, individualistic and a trouble-maker.
I am totally fed up and feel a terrible sense of regret for having thought and taken seriously the mission and goals of the seminary. I regret having given up all in Singapore, only to plunge into a seminary where people are so uninterested in serving God seriously. The concern is with how to make money, but never once is it mentioned how we can serve God more faithfully!
Do we mean business with God? I remember what Leonard Ravenhill once said, in his Why Revival Tarries? that when we fail to pray. But at our seminary we seem to be talking about prayer all the time. So what's happening? Well, I think that is more a play, a show, than serious praying.
I can only ask God for mercy... Meanwhile, I have decided to stop speaking and voicing my concerns, challenging any decision however stupid it may be, responding to what is happening at the morning assembly, giving any practical help such as finding part-time lecturers and the like. God willing, I shall exit this place as soon as possible...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)