Wednesday, 13th October 2010, 22:48 hrs
Since my arrival here in the middle of 2008, there are two rather unpleasant habits I often witness among people I have come across (there are more, but for now I shall just mention two). One is the tendency to sniff food directly under the nose; the other is the tendency to talk with a full mouth of food. These are basic manners, really, and have nothing to do with cultural differences.
But I should first of all talk about what constitutes basic manners in human behaviour and between humans. By the term 'basic', I mean what a person ought and ought not to do by his or her commonsense. We are all aware that the nose takes in the air, and very often the hair inside the nostrils trap pollutants, viruses and bacteria, and at times leftover mucus gets dried up and turns into rather unpleasant stuff. With these, we jubilantly hold a packet of coffee powder a friend has just purchased and bring in directly under our nose and sniff! In most cases, when someone does that to my coffee, or anything I am supposed to consume, I would have simply discarded it. Thus, sometimes I would jokingly (but half seriously) say to someone who sniffs my coffee powder or dried mangoes or anything that I saw something dropping into it! One of the worst is when someone brings my soup under his or her nose to sniff.
What's the problem, one may ask. After all, the person is sniffing in, not exhaling! But this is precisely the point: you need to exhale before you can take a good sniff! And usually, as I have observed, these people who sniff tend to hold the stuff under their noses and exhale before they 'inhale' or sniff. How can I ever consume that stuff again?
The above sniffing act is not confined to food or drinks alone, but also to such things as ointment. And what is worse is that if a particular bottle of ointment is used for rubbing our own noses! Can you imagine someone has just done an 'exhale' act, then done a 'sniff' on the bottle of, say, tiger balm, and thereafter you scrape a little with your finger to rub it under your nose? Doesn't that sound yak?
Ok, enough of the 'sniffing' manners. Let me turn to the 'full mouth'. This is by far one of the most horrible things one would like to experience during a meal!! I once was eating an egg, only to see right in front of me someone with her mouth full of a whole crushed, messed up egg while she talked and mumbled away. What makes it worse is that as she talked, some of the stuff such as a small tiny fragment of the egg white mixed with a little yellow came flying out! I almost threw up all my eggs of yesteryears!
Well, there is also the situation in which someone with his mouth full of food speaking, 'ai bluw id en dare was no sound, hahaha...', then came flying the little grains of rice and he simply continued!
One of the things people should learn with regard to talking with food in their mouths is to eat small portions, without opening their mouths as they chew. And if they feel a sense of urgency to say something while the food is still in their mouths, all they have to do is do cover their mouths as they raise their point. But that should be the extreme case, when death and life are involved. If not, what's the problem of waiting for a few seconds, after the food in the mouth has been fully chewed and swollowed? I mean, if the person still feels so strongly that he or she has to speak, then for goodness' sake, just swollow the food, or rush to the basin and spit it out first!
The basic manners here are necessary and we will do well if we should keep them, for two simple reasons: (1) for the sake of hygiene, we should not sniff other people's stuff, whatever it may be; (2) for the sake of hygiene and presentability, we should not talk while we've food in our mouths.
So next time if you have some flying grains falling on you, you should know in all likelihood someone nearby must be talking while having a mouth full. Or if you find some foreign object in your food or anything else, it could well have come from somebody else's nose!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
性骚扰——我们当如何回应？
週六、2010年10月16日
性騷擾發生在每一個社會、每一個階級、每一個機構、每一個宗教……
香港法律在這一方面乃是基於國際性的法律來裁決。性騷擾可發生在任何人身上，無論年齡、性別、種族等等。其騷擾者可男可女，且不論階級。
性騷擾並非一定牽涉到動作，語言上亦可發生，而且它並不一定需要明確的，騷擾者可用間接地語言、暗示的語言，或假借一個合理的課題來發揮性騷擾的作用。
言語方面，直接的，騷擾者可能談到自己的一些經歷，或假借自己的性想像來談論人類的原始等等。他/她可能以問題來向被害者查詢，例如：「身為一位男生（或女生），你怎麼處理像我這種想法呀？」如此問題故意假設被害者已經有類似經歷，而如此問題主要是讓被害者回答已經假設的想像。騷擾者亦可能直接向被害者提問他/她的性經歷等等。更糟的是騷擾者可借題發揮，例如：假借報章的一個有關生理報導，向被害者直接談論自己的性器官，或向被害者提問他/她的性器官的課題。
在基督教機構中，如此事情經常發生，但是因教會常說要「彼此寬恕」、「彼此接納」、「彼此原諒」、「彼此相愛」等等，結果許多時候，這些披著羊皮的狼就利用基督徒的一些理念來作出性騷擾的舉動。不久前，我一個傳道朋友跟我說，他的教會在主日崇拜邀請了一位來自浸信會大學宗教與哲學部門神學講師，陳士其博士，來講道，題目是：「不要叫我們遇見試探」，取自主禱文。證道過程中，講員這麼說：「對我來說，試探就是一個美女脫光站在我面前。」然後他繼續說：「讓我補充一下，我想姐妹的試探就是一個脫光光的劉德華在她們面前。」這才剛發生在幾個星期前！這就是一個典型的性騷擾。而若是在場的任何弟兄或姐妹感到被侵犯，他們都有全部的權利報警，而他的罪名是無可推諉的。在以上這一個例子，差不多全部的崇拜者都非常的生氣，但是沒有人提出來，只是在崇拜後議論紛紛。
但是，什麽是「性騷擾」呢？法律的定義很簡單：任何動作、言語，只要讓另一個人覺得不舒服、不自在，且該動作或言語或兩者帶有「性侵犯」的成份，那罪名便成立了。在法庭中，如果沒有證據，法庭將採納所謂的「合理的反應」的辯證（argument of reasonable behaviour）。這一個辯證法主要是按著人基本、自然地反應來決定，就是說一個人在這種情況之下，是否有必要作出如此舉動或說如此的話，而一個領受者又會有如何的反應？譬如說，一個生理學老師只是按著課本討論人類的生育，且沒有作出其他的私人或個人提問，任何投訴就很難成立。但是，如果這位生理老師在討論人類的生育時轉向男女之間的「做愛過程」，並向同學（或一位或全部，無論是男是女）：你們是否有做愛經驗？並提問一些與課題無關的細節，那若是任何同學，即便是一個，感到不舒服、不自在，他/她便有權利控訴這位老師，而就算全部的同學覺得挺好玩的，只要有一位感到不好，法庭只需要證明這位老師的確說了所謂「性騷擾」的話，而這位同學有如此感覺，這位老師的罪名就成立了。
讓我提出一些例子。例子一：曾經有一位女士報警，控訴一位男士同事摸了她的手，這女士感到非常的不自在，因她覺得這位男士的捂摸並非友誼式，而是另有意圖。結果，警方在追查過程中，最後決定以「非禮」罪名控訴這位男士，罪名成立，他被判幾個星期坐牢，並且被鞭打幾鞭！
上述所言讓我們看到，那位女士以為是「性騷擾」的舉動，其實在法律上卻是屬「非禮」舉動！換句話說，若是以上的捂摸可算是「非禮」，那「性騷擾」舉動就有可能更加普遍了！
例子二：有一位牧師朋友常對女生說一些令她們覺得不自在的話。有幾次，他私底下對一位女會友說：「哇，你今天穿得好性感啊！」這位姐妹收在心中，又有一次，他對另一位姐妹說：「你有一雙真性感的腿！」完了，這位姐妹向教會張執說了，最後，領袖們調查了，這位牧者也承認了，他後來被隔職了。
經常「性騷擾」牽涉到上級騷擾屬下，但是也有屬下騷擾上級的，但並不多。問題是，我們該怎麼做？有幾點我們必須清楚明白的：
一、若是你是一位受害者，並且投訴，或是向相關的部門提出，這是你的權利，沒有人有權利說你是錯的！
二、你是一個自由人，你有自己的尊榮，沒有人（無論他或她或他們是有多么高的地位）有權利批評你作出「性騷擾」的舉動或說話的投訴！
三、記錄事情發生的日期、時間、地點、處境、具體的「性騷擾」舉動或（和）說話。
四、跟你的相關上司談論（如果騷擾者不是他/她）。在教會的話，就必須跟牧者談（如果騷擾者不是牧者）。
五、若在你的處境中所能夠提出的人，你都向他們提了，可是他們都不採取任何行動，那在香港有相關機構可進一步投訴。經常若是你警告那些有能力處理的人你會把這件事帶到相關機構，他們將會面對很嚴重的控訴——因有能力處理而不處理的人士一般上會被法庭視為「同謀者」！
六、在最後關頭，你還可以去找一位律師討論，一般上在討論的這一步，價錢是非常低的，有時可能還不算費用。而若是律師最終把這事當成一個官司來向法庭控訴「性騷擾者」，最後你在贏了官司後，一般上犯罪那一方必須付起你的費用（當然，並非一定是全部）。不過這是屬於一個civil case，即一個民與民之間的問題，所以很可能「性騷擾者」必須付所有的費用。另外，若是法律發覺「性騷擾者」的舉動直接牽涉到法律的某一條，那就成為一個criminal case，也就是成為社會與民的控訴，我們稱之為the people versus Mr (or Ms) so-and-so.
要記住，這種「性騷擾」必須處理，否則「性騷擾者」會變本加厲！
性騷擾發生在每一個社會、每一個階級、每一個機構、每一個宗教……
香港法律在這一方面乃是基於國際性的法律來裁決。性騷擾可發生在任何人身上，無論年齡、性別、種族等等。其騷擾者可男可女，且不論階級。
性騷擾並非一定牽涉到動作，語言上亦可發生，而且它並不一定需要明確的，騷擾者可用間接地語言、暗示的語言，或假借一個合理的課題來發揮性騷擾的作用。
言語方面，直接的，騷擾者可能談到自己的一些經歷，或假借自己的性想像來談論人類的原始等等。他/她可能以問題來向被害者查詢，例如：「身為一位男生（或女生），你怎麼處理像我這種想法呀？」如此問題故意假設被害者已經有類似經歷，而如此問題主要是讓被害者回答已經假設的想像。騷擾者亦可能直接向被害者提問他/她的性經歷等等。更糟的是騷擾者可借題發揮，例如：假借報章的一個有關生理報導，向被害者直接談論自己的性器官，或向被害者提問他/她的性器官的課題。
在基督教機構中，如此事情經常發生，但是因教會常說要「彼此寬恕」、「彼此接納」、「彼此原諒」、「彼此相愛」等等，結果許多時候，這些披著羊皮的狼就利用基督徒的一些理念來作出性騷擾的舉動。不久前，我一個傳道朋友跟我說，他的教會在主日崇拜邀請了一位來自浸信會大學宗教與哲學部門神學講師，陳士其博士，來講道，題目是：「不要叫我們遇見試探」，取自主禱文。證道過程中，講員這麼說：「對我來說，試探就是一個美女脫光站在我面前。」然後他繼續說：「讓我補充一下，我想姐妹的試探就是一個脫光光的劉德華在她們面前。」這才剛發生在幾個星期前！這就是一個典型的性騷擾。而若是在場的任何弟兄或姐妹感到被侵犯，他們都有全部的權利報警，而他的罪名是無可推諉的。在以上這一個例子，差不多全部的崇拜者都非常的生氣，但是沒有人提出來，只是在崇拜後議論紛紛。
但是，什麽是「性騷擾」呢？法律的定義很簡單：任何動作、言語，只要讓另一個人覺得不舒服、不自在，且該動作或言語或兩者帶有「性侵犯」的成份，那罪名便成立了。在法庭中，如果沒有證據，法庭將採納所謂的「合理的反應」的辯證（argument of reasonable behaviour）。這一個辯證法主要是按著人基本、自然地反應來決定，就是說一個人在這種情況之下，是否有必要作出如此舉動或說如此的話，而一個領受者又會有如何的反應？譬如說，一個生理學老師只是按著課本討論人類的生育，且沒有作出其他的私人或個人提問，任何投訴就很難成立。但是，如果這位生理老師在討論人類的生育時轉向男女之間的「做愛過程」，並向同學（或一位或全部，無論是男是女）：你們是否有做愛經驗？並提問一些與課題無關的細節，那若是任何同學，即便是一個，感到不舒服、不自在，他/她便有權利控訴這位老師，而就算全部的同學覺得挺好玩的，只要有一位感到不好，法庭只需要證明這位老師的確說了所謂「性騷擾」的話，而這位同學有如此感覺，這位老師的罪名就成立了。
讓我提出一些例子。例子一：曾經有一位女士報警，控訴一位男士同事摸了她的手，這女士感到非常的不自在，因她覺得這位男士的捂摸並非友誼式，而是另有意圖。結果，警方在追查過程中，最後決定以「非禮」罪名控訴這位男士，罪名成立，他被判幾個星期坐牢，並且被鞭打幾鞭！
上述所言讓我們看到，那位女士以為是「性騷擾」的舉動，其實在法律上卻是屬「非禮」舉動！換句話說，若是以上的捂摸可算是「非禮」，那「性騷擾」舉動就有可能更加普遍了！
例子二：有一位牧師朋友常對女生說一些令她們覺得不自在的話。有幾次，他私底下對一位女會友說：「哇，你今天穿得好性感啊！」這位姐妹收在心中，又有一次，他對另一位姐妹說：「你有一雙真性感的腿！」完了，這位姐妹向教會張執說了，最後，領袖們調查了，這位牧者也承認了，他後來被隔職了。
經常「性騷擾」牽涉到上級騷擾屬下，但是也有屬下騷擾上級的，但並不多。問題是，我們該怎麼做？有幾點我們必須清楚明白的：
一、若是你是一位受害者，並且投訴，或是向相關的部門提出，這是你的權利，沒有人有權利說你是錯的！
二、你是一個自由人，你有自己的尊榮，沒有人（無論他或她或他們是有多么高的地位）有權利批評你作出「性騷擾」的舉動或說話的投訴！
三、記錄事情發生的日期、時間、地點、處境、具體的「性騷擾」舉動或（和）說話。
四、跟你的相關上司談論（如果騷擾者不是他/她）。在教會的話，就必須跟牧者談（如果騷擾者不是牧者）。
五、若在你的處境中所能夠提出的人，你都向他們提了，可是他們都不採取任何行動，那在香港有相關機構可進一步投訴。經常若是你警告那些有能力處理的人你會把這件事帶到相關機構，他們將會面對很嚴重的控訴——因有能力處理而不處理的人士一般上會被法庭視為「同謀者」！
六、在最後關頭，你還可以去找一位律師討論，一般上在討論的這一步，價錢是非常低的，有時可能還不算費用。而若是律師最終把這事當成一個官司來向法庭控訴「性騷擾者」，最後你在贏了官司後，一般上犯罪那一方必須付起你的費用（當然，並非一定是全部）。不過這是屬於一個civil case，即一個民與民之間的問題，所以很可能「性騷擾者」必須付所有的費用。另外，若是法律發覺「性騷擾者」的舉動直接牽涉到法律的某一條，那就成為一個criminal case，也就是成為社會與民的控訴，我們稱之為the people versus Mr (or Ms) so-and-so.
要記住，這種「性騷擾」必須處理，否則「性騷擾者」會變本加厲！
Some Refelctions
Wednesday, 20th October 2010, 00:21 hrs
Three interesting things happened on Monday afternoon. The first is a lunch conversation with a 'friend', who had planned to have lunch with me two weeks ago but, owing to the last-minute visit of an official guest, the originally planned lunch had to be cancelled. We then re-scheduled another day, which took place last Monday.
The conversation, on the face of it, appeared rather superficial and mild. We exchanged a little information of our activities the past couple of years, for me it was the past two years. The reason is that this was in fact our first lunch. The conversation had begun with a focus on my 'church life', that is, what church I was attending and what sort of tradition it was and the like. With that beginning, the focus shifted to our preference for sacred music. This led to a mutual exchange of, first, our views and then our ideas. It was impressed upon me that people, particularly the young of today looked at sacred music and its lyrics rather differently, and that the repetitive singing in many of the praise songs today was in fact calculated to ensure that the songs and their words would penetrate into the deeper levels of the worshippers.
I thought to myself. Perhaps, there remains a struggle between what N. T. Wright says 'a system of piped water' versus 'a bursting forth of the under-the-concrete-pavement water'. The former refers to the traditional philosophy that kept people and belief separate from everyday life, whereas the latter speaks of the longing, thirsting, and the consequent gushing forth of 'spiritualities' seen today in many different and varied forms, and in various religious garbs and unconventional apparatuses. While Wright has his own convictions re the many things Christian and secular, it is of fundamental importance that we consider the reformers' dictum of 'the reformation is always reforming'. It is true we need to adapt to the ever changing world and circumstances; but it is equally true of the never-changing foundation of the apostolic faith, which has given rise to the many traditions today, not least of which is the theologically founded and content-filled singing at formal worship. It must be mentioned though, that Wright is not to be misunderstood as opposing tradition. In fact, what he argues for in his Simply Christian (London: SPCK, 2006) is a call to a more biblical, more robust, much more solid faith.
The conversation has spurred me on to further reflections on some of my own recent struggles, in terms of cultural, theological and spiritual values. I have been rather vocal over several issues. However, I have been seen as possessing a different set of cultural values owing to the fact of my differing cultural background. Never mind the oft-repeated call for the celebration of diversity! I have now better understood the implications as well as ramifications of some of what I have raised, and the general discomfort of others resulting from it. The well nuanced conversation calls to mind Proverbs 19.20, which says, 'Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom for the future'. I particularly love the next verse: 'The human mind may devise many plans, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will be established'. The Proverbs here does not advise against planning or discussion. In fact, it encourages planning, only that the planner should be sensitive to the fact that whatever one plans it is the Lord's purposes that are to be established. Thus every human's plan should rightly fit into God's purposes. What these purposes are is another question altogether.
I must say I would be a fool, indeed, not to heed the advice resulting from the lunch conversation.
The other interesting thing I happened to witness was how a wasp attacked a dragon-fly double its size. First the wasp flew on top of the dragon-fly and struggled and finally snipped off the latter's wings. It then drove its sting into the head of the dragon-fly and, with all its legs properly and firmly holding the dragon-fly, hoisted the latter and flew off, presumably to its lodging to feed its young.
I watched with amazement and felt a sense of wonder, though at the same time a sense of the seemingly animal-insect world in which we humans sometimes (or oftentimes?) live. It speaks of strategy, self-interest, annihilation of the other, and such like. But I do not wish to sound too despondent. The truth of the matter is that we live in a fallen world, in which most of the times our minds and thoughts are warped and crooked. Today, we are in such urgent need of justice. Yet, oftentimes what we regard as injustice in far away lands happens right in our midst and, sometimes, we even perpetuate such injustices as racism, discrimination against the poor and women, the ever widening divide between the rich and the poor, the use of authority in the name of religion to dominate and exercise hegemony over those under us, and the like. How can we as Christians reflect the justice of God, even as God has demonstrated his justice in the incarnation?
There is a third experience, that of discrimination I personally experienced at Wellcome. At the check-out counter, after picking up my groceries, I realised the counter staff spoke a brand of Cantonese that was simply too colloquial for me. Upon learning that I could not speak Cantonese, the staff immediately expressed her irritation and impatience, with explicit facial expressions. We tried to communicate in putonghua but, to my dismay, she simply could not understand my putonghua, nor I hers! She grew more impatient and turned to her colleague for help, who simply could not be bothered when she realised it was a putonghua speaker (assuming I came from the mainland). Behind me was another patron, a man about 1.8 metre in height, who looked at me with equal amount of unfriendliness. He then tried to help, as he would be held up if he didn't. But as he spoke, he gave me a look of utter contempt and in a tone that, though not raised, was sufficiently unfriendly for me to sense a certain animosity and dislike. At that very moment, the first in my almost half a century of my life on earth, I felt absolutely and totally discriminated against. I spoke so softly, as I had become so intimidated and, with trepidation, thanked the staff and the man and walked away shaken and in tremour. While on the light rail I felt, for the first time in my life, no anger but instead, almost driven to tears... I have thought to myself that from now on, I shall speak only English...but then was immediately reminded that earlier in the evening when I made a call to the Bank of China, the person answering the phone, upon hearing me speak English, banged the phone down.
What do I do in such unjust circumstances? I do not know. Perhaps, it tells me that this is but part and parcel of living in a broken and fallen world. While I may hope people will eventually grow and become mature, I cannot hold out much, or expect too much.
I thought to myself that every human person is a creature of the divine, wherever he/she comes from, whatever he/she may be (race, job, sex, health), whatever age he/she may be, I cannot and must not discriminate against him or her. It dawns on me that, as Christians, I would need to regard myself as a citizen of heaven, and therefore while I am on earth I will always be a traveller, and therefore I must embrace every other fellow traveller, ensuring therefore the exclusion of injustice.
Three interesting things happened on Monday afternoon. The first is a lunch conversation with a 'friend', who had planned to have lunch with me two weeks ago but, owing to the last-minute visit of an official guest, the originally planned lunch had to be cancelled. We then re-scheduled another day, which took place last Monday.
The conversation, on the face of it, appeared rather superficial and mild. We exchanged a little information of our activities the past couple of years, for me it was the past two years. The reason is that this was in fact our first lunch. The conversation had begun with a focus on my 'church life', that is, what church I was attending and what sort of tradition it was and the like. With that beginning, the focus shifted to our preference for sacred music. This led to a mutual exchange of, first, our views and then our ideas. It was impressed upon me that people, particularly the young of today looked at sacred music and its lyrics rather differently, and that the repetitive singing in many of the praise songs today was in fact calculated to ensure that the songs and their words would penetrate into the deeper levels of the worshippers.
I thought to myself. Perhaps, there remains a struggle between what N. T. Wright says 'a system of piped water' versus 'a bursting forth of the under-the-concrete-pavement water'. The former refers to the traditional philosophy that kept people and belief separate from everyday life, whereas the latter speaks of the longing, thirsting, and the consequent gushing forth of 'spiritualities' seen today in many different and varied forms, and in various religious garbs and unconventional apparatuses. While Wright has his own convictions re the many things Christian and secular, it is of fundamental importance that we consider the reformers' dictum of 'the reformation is always reforming'. It is true we need to adapt to the ever changing world and circumstances; but it is equally true of the never-changing foundation of the apostolic faith, which has given rise to the many traditions today, not least of which is the theologically founded and content-filled singing at formal worship. It must be mentioned though, that Wright is not to be misunderstood as opposing tradition. In fact, what he argues for in his Simply Christian (London: SPCK, 2006) is a call to a more biblical, more robust, much more solid faith.
The conversation has spurred me on to further reflections on some of my own recent struggles, in terms of cultural, theological and spiritual values. I have been rather vocal over several issues. However, I have been seen as possessing a different set of cultural values owing to the fact of my differing cultural background. Never mind the oft-repeated call for the celebration of diversity! I have now better understood the implications as well as ramifications of some of what I have raised, and the general discomfort of others resulting from it. The well nuanced conversation calls to mind Proverbs 19.20, which says, 'Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom for the future'. I particularly love the next verse: 'The human mind may devise many plans, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will be established'. The Proverbs here does not advise against planning or discussion. In fact, it encourages planning, only that the planner should be sensitive to the fact that whatever one plans it is the Lord's purposes that are to be established. Thus every human's plan should rightly fit into God's purposes. What these purposes are is another question altogether.
I must say I would be a fool, indeed, not to heed the advice resulting from the lunch conversation.
The other interesting thing I happened to witness was how a wasp attacked a dragon-fly double its size. First the wasp flew on top of the dragon-fly and struggled and finally snipped off the latter's wings. It then drove its sting into the head of the dragon-fly and, with all its legs properly and firmly holding the dragon-fly, hoisted the latter and flew off, presumably to its lodging to feed its young.
I watched with amazement and felt a sense of wonder, though at the same time a sense of the seemingly animal-insect world in which we humans sometimes (or oftentimes?) live. It speaks of strategy, self-interest, annihilation of the other, and such like. But I do not wish to sound too despondent. The truth of the matter is that we live in a fallen world, in which most of the times our minds and thoughts are warped and crooked. Today, we are in such urgent need of justice. Yet, oftentimes what we regard as injustice in far away lands happens right in our midst and, sometimes, we even perpetuate such injustices as racism, discrimination against the poor and women, the ever widening divide between the rich and the poor, the use of authority in the name of religion to dominate and exercise hegemony over those under us, and the like. How can we as Christians reflect the justice of God, even as God has demonstrated his justice in the incarnation?
There is a third experience, that of discrimination I personally experienced at Wellcome. At the check-out counter, after picking up my groceries, I realised the counter staff spoke a brand of Cantonese that was simply too colloquial for me. Upon learning that I could not speak Cantonese, the staff immediately expressed her irritation and impatience, with explicit facial expressions. We tried to communicate in putonghua but, to my dismay, she simply could not understand my putonghua, nor I hers! She grew more impatient and turned to her colleague for help, who simply could not be bothered when she realised it was a putonghua speaker (assuming I came from the mainland). Behind me was another patron, a man about 1.8 metre in height, who looked at me with equal amount of unfriendliness. He then tried to help, as he would be held up if he didn't. But as he spoke, he gave me a look of utter contempt and in a tone that, though not raised, was sufficiently unfriendly for me to sense a certain animosity and dislike. At that very moment, the first in my almost half a century of my life on earth, I felt absolutely and totally discriminated against. I spoke so softly, as I had become so intimidated and, with trepidation, thanked the staff and the man and walked away shaken and in tremour. While on the light rail I felt, for the first time in my life, no anger but instead, almost driven to tears... I have thought to myself that from now on, I shall speak only English...but then was immediately reminded that earlier in the evening when I made a call to the Bank of China, the person answering the phone, upon hearing me speak English, banged the phone down.
What do I do in such unjust circumstances? I do not know. Perhaps, it tells me that this is but part and parcel of living in a broken and fallen world. While I may hope people will eventually grow and become mature, I cannot hold out much, or expect too much.
I thought to myself that every human person is a creature of the divine, wherever he/she comes from, whatever he/she may be (race, job, sex, health), whatever age he/she may be, I cannot and must not discriminate against him or her. It dawns on me that, as Christians, I would need to regard myself as a citizen of heaven, and therefore while I am on earth I will always be a traveller, and therefore I must embrace every other fellow traveller, ensuring therefore the exclusion of injustice.
Some Thoughts on John 5.1-18
Thursday, 21st October 2010, 22:29 hrs
Most of us would have heard, I assume, that God never forces us anything we never want or desire, for example, salvation. In other words, if we do not want to go to heaven, God is unlikely to carry us kicking into heaven! However, today we do hear often that there are sick people who in fact never want healed, much like those who, mistakenly, refuse salvation. One of the interpretations of the Gospel of John chapter 5 and verses 1-18 is precisely one such example of mistaken hermeneutics, which posits that the man paralysed for 38 years in fact did not wish to be healed.
If we examine more closely, the text has not an iota of hint that the man did not want to be healed. For in verses 2-5, the reader is introduced to the context in general, i.e. the place, the many different kinds of sick people, and then verse 5 zooms in on the paralysed man with these words, 'One man was there who had been ill...'. In other words, the writer of the Fourth Gospel did not intend to focus on healing per se, since only one out of so many was chosen for the story. Rather, the paralysed man plays only a small role in the larger scheme of things of the writer. And for all we know, this is not even the main focus of this passage! Still, we would need to clarify this particular point.
So clarify we must! We are told in verse 6 that Jesus 'saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time' (italics mine). In other words, Jesus must have observed for a while and so discovered about the paralysed man's desire and hope. And the end of verse 6 reports Jesus' question to the man if he would want to be healed. Verse 7 records the man's answer, almost as if he was saying to Jesus, 'What do you think? Just look at the situation I am in - whenever the water was stirred and I was trying to get in, someone would go ahead of me'. And the fact that this man had been there for so many years shows that he truly wanted to be made well. Thus, Jesus must have understood from the man's response that he genuinely wanted to be healed. That is why Jesus followed up with the imperative, 'Stand up, take your mat and walk' (v 8). This is where what Jesus has done is what we have said earlier, would Jesus impose healing upon the paralytic if the latter did not want healing? And as verse 9 tells us, 'At once the man was made well' (emphasis mine). The term for 'at once' in the Greek is eutheos, which hints at the possibility that the man did indeed want healing.
If we should accept the idea that the man in fact refuses healing, but that Jesus nonetheless made him well, then we are as good as making the suggestion that Jesus would impose on someone or, indeed, anyone or even everyone, what he or she does not want. And if we push this idea or argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no need for evangelism, since God will after all make everyone believe in him!
But the more important is that the healing of the paralytic is not even the central point of the story! We are told it was on a Sabbath that Jesus did the healing, and the Jews were displeased over the fact that this act of 'lifting' the mattress and the healing itself were both acts which broke the Sabbath rule. The act of Jesus in healing the man posed as a direct challenge to the Jewish authority, which in turn challenged the authority of Jesus. More interestingly, the act of healing speaks of Jesus' rule over sickness. This further puts him on a level quite above human ability. And later we are told that the Jews started persecuting Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath, and the Gospel's writer has Jesus say that he and God are one (v 18).
Indeed, the penultimate paragraph is further confirmed by the verses that follow, which focus on Jesus' authority as the son of God. The same theme then keeps running for many more paragraphs to come.
But interpreting the Fourth Gospel is not easy and cannot be done simply by looking at a little story without considering the overall structure of the Gospel, the overall theological thrust of the biblical author, and the literary and social contexts. For example, the question of the severity of breaking the Sabbath in John 5 cannot be overlooked, nor the structure of the 'Seven Sign's'.
We need to be strict and not draw applications in a haphazard manner. The overall theme of this passage is the authority of Jesus, we therefore cannot say that the intention of the biblical author is unimportant, or unnecessary. If the meaning of the base text is not established first, how can we ever go further? And if we do go further, without regard for the meaning of the text, then are we not guilty of corrupting the Word of God?
How then should I approach this passage? It depends on what I wish to do. If, supposing, I am going to preach on this particular passage, what I wil do is to set the text as deeply as I can in its social context. In other words, the first thing I will do is to draw attention to the Jewish setting as mentioned in verse 1. This will set the tone and mood of the story, and rightly! I would then focus on the 'implications of Jesus' healing on a Sabbath'. I think this is a far better title, and a more nuanced one. A rough outline would be as follows:
(1) Introduction - introduces the title, the text, the flow of the sermon.
(2) How the text came to focus on this healing event
(3) Implications of breach of the Sabbath - who Jesus really is!
(4) What theological meaing there might be for believers today
Blessed be the God who has given us his Word, so that we may not only study it, but also analyse it, debate it, quarrel with it, and above all, love it.
Most of us would have heard, I assume, that God never forces us anything we never want or desire, for example, salvation. In other words, if we do not want to go to heaven, God is unlikely to carry us kicking into heaven! However, today we do hear often that there are sick people who in fact never want healed, much like those who, mistakenly, refuse salvation. One of the interpretations of the Gospel of John chapter 5 and verses 1-18 is precisely one such example of mistaken hermeneutics, which posits that the man paralysed for 38 years in fact did not wish to be healed.
If we examine more closely, the text has not an iota of hint that the man did not want to be healed. For in verses 2-5, the reader is introduced to the context in general, i.e. the place, the many different kinds of sick people, and then verse 5 zooms in on the paralysed man with these words, 'One man was there who had been ill...'. In other words, the writer of the Fourth Gospel did not intend to focus on healing per se, since only one out of so many was chosen for the story. Rather, the paralysed man plays only a small role in the larger scheme of things of the writer. And for all we know, this is not even the main focus of this passage! Still, we would need to clarify this particular point.
So clarify we must! We are told in verse 6 that Jesus 'saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time' (italics mine). In other words, Jesus must have observed for a while and so discovered about the paralysed man's desire and hope. And the end of verse 6 reports Jesus' question to the man if he would want to be healed. Verse 7 records the man's answer, almost as if he was saying to Jesus, 'What do you think? Just look at the situation I am in - whenever the water was stirred and I was trying to get in, someone would go ahead of me'. And the fact that this man had been there for so many years shows that he truly wanted to be made well. Thus, Jesus must have understood from the man's response that he genuinely wanted to be healed. That is why Jesus followed up with the imperative, 'Stand up, take your mat and walk' (v 8). This is where what Jesus has done is what we have said earlier, would Jesus impose healing upon the paralytic if the latter did not want healing? And as verse 9 tells us, 'At once the man was made well' (emphasis mine). The term for 'at once' in the Greek is eutheos, which hints at the possibility that the man did indeed want healing.
If we should accept the idea that the man in fact refuses healing, but that Jesus nonetheless made him well, then we are as good as making the suggestion that Jesus would impose on someone or, indeed, anyone or even everyone, what he or she does not want. And if we push this idea or argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no need for evangelism, since God will after all make everyone believe in him!
But the more important is that the healing of the paralytic is not even the central point of the story! We are told it was on a Sabbath that Jesus did the healing, and the Jews were displeased over the fact that this act of 'lifting' the mattress and the healing itself were both acts which broke the Sabbath rule. The act of Jesus in healing the man posed as a direct challenge to the Jewish authority, which in turn challenged the authority of Jesus. More interestingly, the act of healing speaks of Jesus' rule over sickness. This further puts him on a level quite above human ability. And later we are told that the Jews started persecuting Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath, and the Gospel's writer has Jesus say that he and God are one (v 18).
Indeed, the penultimate paragraph is further confirmed by the verses that follow, which focus on Jesus' authority as the son of God. The same theme then keeps running for many more paragraphs to come.
But interpreting the Fourth Gospel is not easy and cannot be done simply by looking at a little story without considering the overall structure of the Gospel, the overall theological thrust of the biblical author, and the literary and social contexts. For example, the question of the severity of breaking the Sabbath in John 5 cannot be overlooked, nor the structure of the 'Seven Sign's'.
We need to be strict and not draw applications in a haphazard manner. The overall theme of this passage is the authority of Jesus, we therefore cannot say that the intention of the biblical author is unimportant, or unnecessary. If the meaning of the base text is not established first, how can we ever go further? And if we do go further, without regard for the meaning of the text, then are we not guilty of corrupting the Word of God?
How then should I approach this passage? It depends on what I wish to do. If, supposing, I am going to preach on this particular passage, what I wil do is to set the text as deeply as I can in its social context. In other words, the first thing I will do is to draw attention to the Jewish setting as mentioned in verse 1. This will set the tone and mood of the story, and rightly! I would then focus on the 'implications of Jesus' healing on a Sabbath'. I think this is a far better title, and a more nuanced one. A rough outline would be as follows:
(1) Introduction - introduces the title, the text, the flow of the sermon.
(2) How the text came to focus on this healing event
(3) Implications of breach of the Sabbath - who Jesus really is!
(4) What theological meaing there might be for believers today
Blessed be the God who has given us his Word, so that we may not only study it, but also analyse it, debate it, quarrel with it, and above all, love it.
I'm Just a Poor Wayfaring Stranger...
Friday, 22nd October 2010, 22:32 hrs
During teenage years, my eldest brother taught me a Christian folk song that belonged to the conservative evangelical ethos and is eschatologically orientated. It goes as follows:
I'm just a poor wayfaring stranger
A-traveling through, this world of woe.
Yet there's no sickness, toil nor danger
In that bright land, to which I go.
I'm going there to see my father
I'm going there no more to roam;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I know dark clouds will gather round me
I know my way is rough and steep;
Yet beauteous fields lie just before me
Where God's redeemed, their vigils keep
I'm going there to see my mother
She said she'd meet me when I come;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I'll soon be free from every trial,
From every sorrow, and each deep grief,
Stressed by Christians I feel so tired,
I wish to leave this world in peace.
I'm going there to meet my dear wife,
Who's waiting for me everyday;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I want to sing salvation's story,
In concert with the blood-washed band;
I want to be with my dear Jesus,
When I get home to that good land.
I’m goin' home to see my Savior;
Who shed for me his precious blood;
I’m just a-goin' o'er Jordan,
I’m just a-goin' o'er home.
The above folk song somehow captures my thoughts and, perhaps, some of my 'emotions' (if there are any). I have reflected over the past two years on my journey to Hong Kong. I've wondered about the things that have happened to me and understood that in life, there would always be good and bad decisions, choices, regrets, and such like. What decisions and choices I have made and how I feel, I do not think it wise to explicitly express them here, since I'm in a community of rumour mongers. But the title of the song and some of the lyrics are so well written and reflect so much of what I feel.
Thank God for songs!
During teenage years, my eldest brother taught me a Christian folk song that belonged to the conservative evangelical ethos and is eschatologically orientated. It goes as follows:
I'm just a poor wayfaring stranger
A-traveling through, this world of woe.
Yet there's no sickness, toil nor danger
In that bright land, to which I go.
I'm going there to see my father
I'm going there no more to roam;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I know dark clouds will gather round me
I know my way is rough and steep;
Yet beauteous fields lie just before me
Where God's redeemed, their vigils keep
I'm going there to see my mother
She said she'd meet me when I come;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I'll soon be free from every trial,
From every sorrow, and each deep grief,
Stressed by Christians I feel so tired,
I wish to leave this world in peace.
I'm going there to meet my dear wife,
Who's waiting for me everyday;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I want to sing salvation's story,
In concert with the blood-washed band;
I want to be with my dear Jesus,
When I get home to that good land.
I’m goin' home to see my Savior;
Who shed for me his precious blood;
I’m just a-goin' o'er Jordan,
I’m just a-goin' o'er home.
The above folk song somehow captures my thoughts and, perhaps, some of my 'emotions' (if there are any). I have reflected over the past two years on my journey to Hong Kong. I've wondered about the things that have happened to me and understood that in life, there would always be good and bad decisions, choices, regrets, and such like. What decisions and choices I have made and how I feel, I do not think it wise to explicitly express them here, since I'm in a community of rumour mongers. But the title of the song and some of the lyrics are so well written and reflect so much of what I feel.
Thank God for songs!
I Life up My Eyes...
Co-workers’ Prayer Meeting
5th November 2010; 0800 hours
Psalm 121: The title – Song of Ascent
This is in fact a Song of Ascents, which really means ‘going up’. It means both a physical move upwards, suggesting a physical expression of worship, and a mental upward look, suggesting a certain psychological hope. But it also suggests to the congregation that the ‘song’ is meant to move up in tune, reaching a climax at the end where the people would declare and affirm the everlasting presence of Yahweh, and therefore of his ever abiding protection.
We do not know who in fact penned the psalm, nor can we tell who its author is. It has both very early wilderness connotations as well as post-exilic tones. Perhaps this is why we are able to use it more freely.
Verse 1
In verse one, the psalmist speaks of lifting his eyes to the hills, and there he raises a question: from whom does my help come? And he goes on to answer it himself.
‘Hill’ or ‘mountain’ in the Ancient Near East represented a dwelling of the divine, where worship usually took place. Thus, we read in the Old Testament that the kings of Israel committed sins by building places of worship on high places. Of course, ‘mountain’ also reminds us of the story of Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai where Yahweh met and gave him the Ten Commandments. Similarly, we learn that Elijah encountered God in the mountains.
But over here in this verse, the psalmist uses the plural ‘hills’, as if to ask if all the gods might be able to help. He then goes on, in verse two, to refer to the God who created the heavens and the earth – thus he looks beyond hills and mountains to the one who transcends all creation.
Verse 2
Verse two is almost a declaration against all the gods of the nations by focusing on Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and the earth. What we see here is the ‘sovereignty’ of Yahweh, a concept of God that is relatively well developed, and therefore the verse suggests a relatively late date for this psalm.
Verses 3-4
When Israel was in the wilderness, and later during the exile, they had their own arrangements for centry and guards. They know how difficult it is to stay awake. But in the process they have experienced God’s protection and so concluded that the God who created the heavens and the earth does not slumber nor sleep (不打盹，也不睡覺). For they realise that those times when they fell asleep, it was their creator who preserved them and therefore ensured their continued existence.
Verse 5
Therefore in verse five, the psalmst is able to say that Yahweh is Israel’s ‘keeper’ (保護者) and ‘your shade’ (蔭庇者). Thus we see a move from understanding Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and earth, as someone who transcends the creation, to a national ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’.
This understanding shows us how they have come to understand God as not only universal but also national, and indeed personal.
Verse 6
That is why in verse six, the psalmist speaks about the sun and the moon (白日太陽和夜間月亮). Israel was in the wilderness and knew well the summer heat in the desert. The term ‘strike’ might well be a reference to ‘heatwave’ or ‘extreme sun-burns’. And the ‘moon’ will not pose a problem. The Chinese translation is interesting (夜間月亮不會害你). We know it is in the ‘dark’ that evil schemes plotted. The Israelites experienced sudden attacks in the night (突擊). The ‘sun’ and ‘moon’ also represent something beyond them, over which they have no control. But Yahweh is the creator and therefore is sovereign over his creation.
Verse 7
So from a high and lofty creator, the psalmist gradually comes to understand Yahweh as Israel’s ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’.
Here the term ‘keeper’ carries the concept of ‘保守’. And the psalmist understands this as ‘keeping Israel from all evil’; and the other way of looking at it is that Yahweh gives life when he keeps it (保守).
But how do we explain human plight, both natural and bilateral or transnationl?
Verse 8
In fact, this psalm was written for the purpose of Israel’s plight as well as restoration. Thus, the psalmist in this verse speaks about ‘your coming in and your going out’ (你出你入). The ‘going out’ and ‘coming in’ are not the ‘出入平安’ that we Chinese refer to, but are a reference to Israel’s history during which Yahweh was her ‘keeper’. Whether it was ‘going in’ to Egypt, ‘coming out of’ Egypt, ‘going into’ the wilderness’, ‘coming out of’ the wilderness’ and ‘going into’ the promised land, ‘being deported out of’ Jerusalem’ and later ‘back into’ Jerusalem’ (i.e. return), the high and lofty creator is their protector.
This final verse therefore suggests that the psalm was penned years after the return (post-exilic), after the destruction of the temple. That is why it is called Song of Ascent, perhaps there is no temple for them to go up to.
Conclusion
The psalm brings to mind the everlasting Yahweh, as the final clause says, who does not ‘slumber’ nor ‘sleep’. And the clause ‘henceforth and forever more’ became a central thought on which the people of Israel could draw for their national restoration in 1948, the years before which Jews everywhere basically kept in mind the ‘land of Israel’ (eretz Izra-el) as given by Yahweh.
He (Yahweh) goes on to deliver his people years later through Jesus Christ, so that a ‘new Israel’ was formed and ‘new people’ created. Today, believers in Christ Jesus are part of this ‘new people’, ‘new Israel’. And indeed, we are part of this.
It therefore calls for our similar act in ‘lifting up our eyes to the hills’ and re-affirm the fact that our help comes from Yahweh who made the heavens and the earth.
Let us pray:
Dear creator God and father of humanity, grant us eyes that lift up to the hills, and hearts that understand you as our ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’, our deliverer who will guard our ‘coming in’ and our ‘going out’, now and forever. Thank you in Jesus Christ. Amen.
5th November 2010; 0800 hours
Psalm 121: The title – Song of Ascent
This is in fact a Song of Ascents, which really means ‘going up’. It means both a physical move upwards, suggesting a physical expression of worship, and a mental upward look, suggesting a certain psychological hope. But it also suggests to the congregation that the ‘song’ is meant to move up in tune, reaching a climax at the end where the people would declare and affirm the everlasting presence of Yahweh, and therefore of his ever abiding protection.
We do not know who in fact penned the psalm, nor can we tell who its author is. It has both very early wilderness connotations as well as post-exilic tones. Perhaps this is why we are able to use it more freely.
Verse 1
In verse one, the psalmist speaks of lifting his eyes to the hills, and there he raises a question: from whom does my help come? And he goes on to answer it himself.
‘Hill’ or ‘mountain’ in the Ancient Near East represented a dwelling of the divine, where worship usually took place. Thus, we read in the Old Testament that the kings of Israel committed sins by building places of worship on high places. Of course, ‘mountain’ also reminds us of the story of Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai where Yahweh met and gave him the Ten Commandments. Similarly, we learn that Elijah encountered God in the mountains.
But over here in this verse, the psalmist uses the plural ‘hills’, as if to ask if all the gods might be able to help. He then goes on, in verse two, to refer to the God who created the heavens and the earth – thus he looks beyond hills and mountains to the one who transcends all creation.
Verse 2
Verse two is almost a declaration against all the gods of the nations by focusing on Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and the earth. What we see here is the ‘sovereignty’ of Yahweh, a concept of God that is relatively well developed, and therefore the verse suggests a relatively late date for this psalm.
Verses 3-4
When Israel was in the wilderness, and later during the exile, they had their own arrangements for centry and guards. They know how difficult it is to stay awake. But in the process they have experienced God’s protection and so concluded that the God who created the heavens and the earth does not slumber nor sleep (不打盹，也不睡覺). For they realise that those times when they fell asleep, it was their creator who preserved them and therefore ensured their continued existence.
Verse 5
Therefore in verse five, the psalmst is able to say that Yahweh is Israel’s ‘keeper’ (保護者) and ‘your shade’ (蔭庇者). Thus we see a move from understanding Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and earth, as someone who transcends the creation, to a national ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’.
This understanding shows us how they have come to understand God as not only universal but also national, and indeed personal.
Verse 6
That is why in verse six, the psalmist speaks about the sun and the moon (白日太陽和夜間月亮). Israel was in the wilderness and knew well the summer heat in the desert. The term ‘strike’ might well be a reference to ‘heatwave’ or ‘extreme sun-burns’. And the ‘moon’ will not pose a problem. The Chinese translation is interesting (夜間月亮不會害你). We know it is in the ‘dark’ that evil schemes plotted. The Israelites experienced sudden attacks in the night (突擊). The ‘sun’ and ‘moon’ also represent something beyond them, over which they have no control. But Yahweh is the creator and therefore is sovereign over his creation.
Verse 7
So from a high and lofty creator, the psalmist gradually comes to understand Yahweh as Israel’s ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’.
Here the term ‘keeper’ carries the concept of ‘保守’. And the psalmist understands this as ‘keeping Israel from all evil’; and the other way of looking at it is that Yahweh gives life when he keeps it (保守).
But how do we explain human plight, both natural and bilateral or transnationl?
Verse 8
In fact, this psalm was written for the purpose of Israel’s plight as well as restoration. Thus, the psalmist in this verse speaks about ‘your coming in and your going out’ (你出你入). The ‘going out’ and ‘coming in’ are not the ‘出入平安’ that we Chinese refer to, but are a reference to Israel’s history during which Yahweh was her ‘keeper’. Whether it was ‘going in’ to Egypt, ‘coming out of’ Egypt, ‘going into’ the wilderness’, ‘coming out of’ the wilderness’ and ‘going into’ the promised land, ‘being deported out of’ Jerusalem’ and later ‘back into’ Jerusalem’ (i.e. return), the high and lofty creator is their protector.
This final verse therefore suggests that the psalm was penned years after the return (post-exilic), after the destruction of the temple. That is why it is called Song of Ascent, perhaps there is no temple for them to go up to.
Conclusion
The psalm brings to mind the everlasting Yahweh, as the final clause says, who does not ‘slumber’ nor ‘sleep’. And the clause ‘henceforth and forever more’ became a central thought on which the people of Israel could draw for their national restoration in 1948, the years before which Jews everywhere basically kept in mind the ‘land of Israel’ (eretz Izra-el) as given by Yahweh.
He (Yahweh) goes on to deliver his people years later through Jesus Christ, so that a ‘new Israel’ was formed and ‘new people’ created. Today, believers in Christ Jesus are part of this ‘new people’, ‘new Israel’. And indeed, we are part of this.
It therefore calls for our similar act in ‘lifting up our eyes to the hills’ and re-affirm the fact that our help comes from Yahweh who made the heavens and the earth.
Let us pray:
Dear creator God and father of humanity, grant us eyes that lift up to the hills, and hearts that understand you as our ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’, our deliverer who will guard our ‘coming in’ and our ‘going out’, now and forever. Thank you in Jesus Christ. Amen.
不再是个孤零零的老头子
週四、2010年11月11日、21:16時
在一個冬天的夜晚中，一個孤零零的中年人踏進他的晚年，成為一個老年人……
他坐下來，把放在床底下的箱子拉出來，箱子蓋充滿了灰塵，還有個鎖，他便把它打開，嘩啦一聲……哇，他一生的積蓄全都落出來……有銅幣、瑪瑙戒指 、金鏈子、鈔票、古董銅幣……他看著這些積蓄一陣子，舉起頭來望著在牆上的一面鏡子，看到自己所剩的頭髮都白了許多，面上也多了許多皺紋，兩字眼睛也沒什麼精神。他再往上望，看到自己家裡掛著的一副十字架，這麼久了，也已經充滿灰塵了。原來他是個基督徒，因十字架是個空的，他並非天主教徒……
他坐在那裡發呆一陣子，突然間客廳的時鐘響了，啊？他已經發呆了兩個半小時了！他開始想了……我是個基督徒……又怎樣呢？
他想到曾經在教會火熱的做事，即是所謂的“服事”，但是到頭來，他的家人一個一個的過世了，開始的時候，教會還鼓勵他，但是他的失去也改變了他，使他多想一些人生的事，因此他也變成一個很靜的人，教會就慢慢的拒絕他，最終，他就停止去教會了。最後，人人所說的“耶穌的愛”全都不知去了哪裡……
可是，他繼續的信下去，因為這是他唯一的信仰，也是他這麼多年來所得到的教導。雖然身旁沒有人，他總可以跟自己說話，跟自己說笑……
這一個晚上，他看著自己的樣子，想起年輕時的頭髮、精神的眼神、光滑的皮膚、寬闊的肩膀，但是現在的他卻只剩沒幾根白頭髮、一個稍微凸出的肚腩、兩隻沒什麽力量的腳，全身都在疼；而在這一個晚上，他又發覺他兩隻手已經不聽使喚，它們一直不停的抖，他問自己：“我是否患上了帕金森氏病？”然而，他也似乎不太憂慮，或許只有他自己一個人吧？
不久前，他結交了一些朋友，他們起初跟他挺好的，但是後來卻開始跟他爭這爭那，他不明白一個老頭子，爲什麽人家還要這麼對待他，後來他發覺，原來他一生中給他問題的人都有一個共同點：他們都是信耶穌基督的，且都炫耀自己很有靈命。他終於學習到，人生不是學習信仰，而是活出信仰……
老頭子在這一個晚上就坐在那兒，想啊想啊……
一個星期後，終於有人發覺在元朗的一間房子里，有個老頭子坐在那裡發呆，他身旁有一個箱子……他們報警了，後來證實了，他已經發呆一個星期了……
一個星期前，在天堂里有一個客人到訪，他是一個有一頭黑髮的年輕人，眼神很有精神，身體結實，許多天堂的人都伸出手來歡迎他……
在一個冬天的夜晚中，一個孤零零的中年人踏進他的晚年，成為一個老年人……
他坐下來，把放在床底下的箱子拉出來，箱子蓋充滿了灰塵，還有個鎖，他便把它打開，嘩啦一聲……哇，他一生的積蓄全都落出來……有銅幣、瑪瑙戒指 、金鏈子、鈔票、古董銅幣……他看著這些積蓄一陣子，舉起頭來望著在牆上的一面鏡子，看到自己所剩的頭髮都白了許多，面上也多了許多皺紋，兩字眼睛也沒什麼精神。他再往上望，看到自己家裡掛著的一副十字架，這麼久了，也已經充滿灰塵了。原來他是個基督徒，因十字架是個空的，他並非天主教徒……
他坐在那裡發呆一陣子，突然間客廳的時鐘響了，啊？他已經發呆了兩個半小時了！他開始想了……我是個基督徒……又怎樣呢？
他想到曾經在教會火熱的做事，即是所謂的“服事”，但是到頭來，他的家人一個一個的過世了，開始的時候，教會還鼓勵他，但是他的失去也改變了他，使他多想一些人生的事，因此他也變成一個很靜的人，教會就慢慢的拒絕他，最終，他就停止去教會了。最後，人人所說的“耶穌的愛”全都不知去了哪裡……
可是，他繼續的信下去，因為這是他唯一的信仰，也是他這麼多年來所得到的教導。雖然身旁沒有人，他總可以跟自己說話，跟自己說笑……
這一個晚上，他看著自己的樣子，想起年輕時的頭髮、精神的眼神、光滑的皮膚、寬闊的肩膀，但是現在的他卻只剩沒幾根白頭髮、一個稍微凸出的肚腩、兩隻沒什麽力量的腳，全身都在疼；而在這一個晚上，他又發覺他兩隻手已經不聽使喚，它們一直不停的抖，他問自己：“我是否患上了帕金森氏病？”然而，他也似乎不太憂慮，或許只有他自己一個人吧？
不久前，他結交了一些朋友，他們起初跟他挺好的，但是後來卻開始跟他爭這爭那，他不明白一個老頭子，爲什麽人家還要這麼對待他，後來他發覺，原來他一生中給他問題的人都有一個共同點：他們都是信耶穌基督的，且都炫耀自己很有靈命。他終於學習到，人生不是學習信仰，而是活出信仰……
老頭子在這一個晚上就坐在那兒，想啊想啊……
一個星期後，終於有人發覺在元朗的一間房子里，有個老頭子坐在那裡發呆，他身旁有一個箱子……他們報警了，後來證實了，他已經發呆一個星期了……
一個星期前，在天堂里有一個客人到訪，他是一個有一頭黑髮的年輕人，眼神很有精神，身體結實，許多天堂的人都伸出手來歡迎他……
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)