Monday, 4th October 2010, 22:07 hrs
Psalm 96.1-13; Matthew 6.9-15
Psalm 96 is a call to the people of Israel to sing to the Lord a new song. The psalm is likely post-exilic, so that the people, having witnessed and experienced Yahweh's deliverance, are urged to sing to him a new song. For they now realised that the exile was not forever.
The Lord's Prayer is Jesus' response to his disciples' request to teach them how to pray. It is not meant to be a magical prayer, nor is it a method that gets a person well simply by having the person press the button! It is Jesus' instruction on prayer.
The term 'our father' is significant in that it tells us that prayer must primarily, and is, relational. The second term 'hallowed' speaks of the person who offers prayers as one who ought to first and foremost offer worship to God. It further tells of the importance of the name of God. To 'hallow' the name of God is to empty oneself, for it focuses one on the God of heaven, who then requires one to empty oneself, for this is the prerequisite of 'hallowing' God's name. There is to be no compromise when it comes to 'God's holiness' and human frailty.
In the early church, this understanding of God as father was quickly transformed into one that includes Jesus Christ. John's Gospel 14.7ff speaks of Jesus and God the father being in each other. In the Old Testament, of course, God was not usually called 'father', though in ancient Judaism this eventually evolved into a common currency, particularly in Aramaic speaking community.
But 'hallowing' God's name carries several ideas: praise; bless; glorify; etc. Essentially it means not only words of blessing and praise, but also refers to acts that demonstrate the holiness, specialness, trustworthiness, and the like, of God. In the Greek, ho pater hemon on en to ourano...Indeed, it speaks of God as 'our', the possessive genitive hemon is striking. We usually think of ourselves as belonging to God, as God's creatures and children. But here in this line, it is we who possess God as our father! Thus, as our father who is in heaven, he ought to be blessed.
The term 'hallowed' here is not an active meaning (as the preacher mistakenly says it is), nor can it be evangelistic (as the preacher erroneously emphasised), for the context here is more doxological rather than evangelistic (although it may have such a by-product). It is a form of wish and blessing. Thus, the line ought to have been translated as 'let your name be hallowed', or 'may it be that your name is hallowed'.
The term en in the Greek in this context of the Lord's Prayer seems to be locative in usage. However, it is likely to carry a sense of God's reign in all spheres. For if God even rules over heaven, then naturally he has authority over the earth. Thus, our father in heaven speaks of humans as having God, but being ruled over by him. Or to put it in another way, humans who submit themselves to the God of Jesus in fact not only acknowledge the fatherhood of Jesus' God, but also willingly and humbly subject themselves to his rule. In fact, this is confirmed by what Jesus will say in the next line: 'thy kingdom come...'.
When we come before the God of heaven, we cannot but 'hallow' him. But how can sin-infested humans ever 'hallow' a sinless and absolutely holy God? This question is being addressed in yet another line later when Jesus teaches that we should ask God for forgiveness. More on this in another note.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
A Correct Balance, Wisdom, and Integrity
Monday, 11th October 2010, 20:55 hrs
For a period of time between 16th October 1979 and 15th October 1986, when I was enlisted in the Armed Forces of Singapore and later the Republic of Singapore Air Force, the book of Proverbs was my daily reading. In the forces, one oftentimes has to be careful with what one says, does, and ensure that he or she is in keeping with the rules and orders laid down by the defence ministry. It was during this time of the daily reading of the proverbs that I discovered the wisdom of wisdom. Today, I decided to look at Prov. 11.1-3, and once again realise the theme of these verses to so strikingly wise.
Proverbs 11.1 speaks about two basic things in the social life of Solomon's time, when he was king of Israel. People were perhaps cheating each other, particularly in the markets, grocer shops, the butchers, and the like. And during those comparatively primitive times, the one equipment was the scale. The grocer shop owner would put a particular weight on one side of the scale, while the other side would be placed the amount of goods the buyer purchases. However, it was often a practice among the unscrupulous businessmen to place an incorrect weight on one side, often far lighter but which bore a far heavier written weight. This is called 'a false balance'. The writer of this proverb says that while nobody knows about this matter (i.e. when it's happening, though nearly every poor citizen knew about it!), 'a false balance' is a 'false balance'. Even though no one saw it, God did. Thus the writer says 'a false balance is an abomination to the Lord'.
An abomination is something not only bad, but wrong and therefore prohibited. It carries with it the consequence of being hated by God. For it is a prevalent form of social injustice, oppression, and bully. But the writer further tells us that 'a correct weight' is God's delight. In fact, a 'false balance' is a subtle form of disobedience to the commands of God; it is a form of dishonesty.
Today, such a 'false balance' seems remote in our modern society. However, its presence remains. Like the ancient days, when 'a false balance' simply meant giving someone (i.e. the buyer) less than what he/she purchased, our modern times are filled with such 'false balances'. In the supermarkets, we do witness marked up prices of groceries and various stuff. Many incorrigible business-people are profiteering at the expense of the poor.
But we need to ask ourselves, particularly within the Christian church, whether we too practise such 'false balances'. For example, a church in my country of origin once told the church members that it (the church) needed several million dollars for the new building, when in fact the savings from the church funds had already more than covered the cost. This becomes a form of dishonesty. Of course, a certain Christian organisation claims it is delivering some special educational services to people who are interested, but only to be short-changing these believers who come forward to pay for the services. Closer to home, when a preacher says he is preaching the Word of God, proclaiming the message of God, when he or she in fact never prepares the sermon and wanders everywhere in his or her sermonising, he or she is being dishonest and offering a 'false balance' to the worshippers who have come to receive spiritual nourishment. This of course can equally apply to more Christian organisations that offer services of various kinds!
Let us move on to the next verse, which says 'when pride comes, then comes disgrace; but wisdom is with the humble'. Interestingly, most commentators and scholars do not observe any link between this verse and the previous one. They opine that the previous verse seems to revolve around the question of social justice, while the second verse concerns a person's psychological self-regard. But if we observe closely, the writer might well be offering us a certain definition of 'pride'. Perhaps, we can imagine a grocer shop owner who uses an incorrect weight to create a false balance and so cheats his customer. He does not humble himself before God but thinks he can do something 'clandestinely', without anyone knowing. But God sees from above and examines the heart of every human. Thus, he will one day be exposed. When that time comes, 'then comes disgrace'. This is precisely what the verse is saying. Those business-people who refuse to humble themselves, but think they're smart to get away with their false balances will face disgrace when people gather together and expose their misdeeds.
The above comment reminds us who serve within Christian organisations, that when we claim we offer good, high standard services to believers when in fact we are not, we are in fact being 'proud'. And in case we are mistaken, the verse here does not refer to those who try to correct such false balances by speaking up as 'proud'. Indeed, in every Christian organisation, there will be the just, the righteous, the truly humble who would speak up for the oppressed, the bullied, the poor. And these are oftentimes a challenge to the 'powers that be' and the 'establishment'. But let us be sure about this: they are not proud people. The truly arrogant ones are those who persist in their false balances. However, there will be a day when the Lord will gather together all the oppressed people, the poor, the marginalised and expose the 'false balances' of these organisations and those members within who perpetuate such evils. When that time comes, it will indeed be their 'pride that precedes their disgrace'. However, the writer points out, by way of contrast, that wisdom is with the humble. And the humble here are a reference to those who know there is a true God who is watching, and he abhors the practice of false balances.
The third verse is a further extension of the second, which speaks of the integrity of the upright. Who are the upright? Within the context of the three verses, the 'upright' must refer to the 'humble' of verse two. They are conscious of the knowledge and justice of God; their integrity therefore becomes their guide, so that they avoid being dragged into the wiles of the 'proud'. What is this 'integrity'? Well, simply put, it is, within the above context, 'honesty'. The 'upright', as the term suggests, are able to stand straight and tall, without having to bend to avoid being detected. They observe and practise certain principles that are in keeping with 'correct weights', and are consistently faithful to their beliefs in God. Thus, naturally their 'integrity' or their 'honesty' guides them.
Whereas people in general look for ways to succeed in this world, the 'upright' allows their 'integrity' to guide them in the path of their maker. This means when something is wrong in that a principle is contradicted, they would ensure that it is put right as soon as possible, without dilly-dallying, or connive at the wrongs out of 'face-saving' reasons, such as 'wanting to please the wrong-doer', etc. In fact, to the world, those who avoid pointing out the wrongs committed, and pretend to be gracious and nice when basic principles of decency have been compromised are truly nice, pleasant and humble people. But according to the second half of verse three, there is nothing humble about such people, nor are they nice and pleasant. The verse describes them as 'treacherous', and predicts that such people will be destroyed by their own quality, which is 'crookedness'.
What the penultimate paragraph says is that those who refuse to point out the false balances, speak up against them, put a stop to them, correct and rectify them, are in fact an abomination to the Lord, for they are proud, treacherous and crooked.
Do we have such people within the Christian churches? Are there Christian organisations where 'false balances' have been practised, where those who are absolutely aware of their existence refuse to correct the situation? I'm sure we all know the answer. Perhaps, we may be even experiencing it, or worse still, we might even be the culprits ourselves!
The answer to the above lies in the key of knowing the Lord, which, interestingly, is what verse one is hinting at: if a false balance is an abomination to the Lord, how then can one avoid the abhorrence of God? It is by exercising correct weights. But why should one do so, unless one knows the Lord and seeks after his delight! Thus, verse one says, '...but an accurate weight is his delight'.
'Our father in heaven, grant that we may never practise false balances, but help us exercise correct weights, wherever we are, whatever we are, and whatever we do. Amen.'
For a period of time between 16th October 1979 and 15th October 1986, when I was enlisted in the Armed Forces of Singapore and later the Republic of Singapore Air Force, the book of Proverbs was my daily reading. In the forces, one oftentimes has to be careful with what one says, does, and ensure that he or she is in keeping with the rules and orders laid down by the defence ministry. It was during this time of the daily reading of the proverbs that I discovered the wisdom of wisdom. Today, I decided to look at Prov. 11.1-3, and once again realise the theme of these verses to so strikingly wise.
Proverbs 11.1 speaks about two basic things in the social life of Solomon's time, when he was king of Israel. People were perhaps cheating each other, particularly in the markets, grocer shops, the butchers, and the like. And during those comparatively primitive times, the one equipment was the scale. The grocer shop owner would put a particular weight on one side of the scale, while the other side would be placed the amount of goods the buyer purchases. However, it was often a practice among the unscrupulous businessmen to place an incorrect weight on one side, often far lighter but which bore a far heavier written weight. This is called 'a false balance'. The writer of this proverb says that while nobody knows about this matter (i.e. when it's happening, though nearly every poor citizen knew about it!), 'a false balance' is a 'false balance'. Even though no one saw it, God did. Thus the writer says 'a false balance is an abomination to the Lord'.
An abomination is something not only bad, but wrong and therefore prohibited. It carries with it the consequence of being hated by God. For it is a prevalent form of social injustice, oppression, and bully. But the writer further tells us that 'a correct weight' is God's delight. In fact, a 'false balance' is a subtle form of disobedience to the commands of God; it is a form of dishonesty.
Today, such a 'false balance' seems remote in our modern society. However, its presence remains. Like the ancient days, when 'a false balance' simply meant giving someone (i.e. the buyer) less than what he/she purchased, our modern times are filled with such 'false balances'. In the supermarkets, we do witness marked up prices of groceries and various stuff. Many incorrigible business-people are profiteering at the expense of the poor.
But we need to ask ourselves, particularly within the Christian church, whether we too practise such 'false balances'. For example, a church in my country of origin once told the church members that it (the church) needed several million dollars for the new building, when in fact the savings from the church funds had already more than covered the cost. This becomes a form of dishonesty. Of course, a certain Christian organisation claims it is delivering some special educational services to people who are interested, but only to be short-changing these believers who come forward to pay for the services. Closer to home, when a preacher says he is preaching the Word of God, proclaiming the message of God, when he or she in fact never prepares the sermon and wanders everywhere in his or her sermonising, he or she is being dishonest and offering a 'false balance' to the worshippers who have come to receive spiritual nourishment. This of course can equally apply to more Christian organisations that offer services of various kinds!
Let us move on to the next verse, which says 'when pride comes, then comes disgrace; but wisdom is with the humble'. Interestingly, most commentators and scholars do not observe any link between this verse and the previous one. They opine that the previous verse seems to revolve around the question of social justice, while the second verse concerns a person's psychological self-regard. But if we observe closely, the writer might well be offering us a certain definition of 'pride'. Perhaps, we can imagine a grocer shop owner who uses an incorrect weight to create a false balance and so cheats his customer. He does not humble himself before God but thinks he can do something 'clandestinely', without anyone knowing. But God sees from above and examines the heart of every human. Thus, he will one day be exposed. When that time comes, 'then comes disgrace'. This is precisely what the verse is saying. Those business-people who refuse to humble themselves, but think they're smart to get away with their false balances will face disgrace when people gather together and expose their misdeeds.
The above comment reminds us who serve within Christian organisations, that when we claim we offer good, high standard services to believers when in fact we are not, we are in fact being 'proud'. And in case we are mistaken, the verse here does not refer to those who try to correct such false balances by speaking up as 'proud'. Indeed, in every Christian organisation, there will be the just, the righteous, the truly humble who would speak up for the oppressed, the bullied, the poor. And these are oftentimes a challenge to the 'powers that be' and the 'establishment'. But let us be sure about this: they are not proud people. The truly arrogant ones are those who persist in their false balances. However, there will be a day when the Lord will gather together all the oppressed people, the poor, the marginalised and expose the 'false balances' of these organisations and those members within who perpetuate such evils. When that time comes, it will indeed be their 'pride that precedes their disgrace'. However, the writer points out, by way of contrast, that wisdom is with the humble. And the humble here are a reference to those who know there is a true God who is watching, and he abhors the practice of false balances.
The third verse is a further extension of the second, which speaks of the integrity of the upright. Who are the upright? Within the context of the three verses, the 'upright' must refer to the 'humble' of verse two. They are conscious of the knowledge and justice of God; their integrity therefore becomes their guide, so that they avoid being dragged into the wiles of the 'proud'. What is this 'integrity'? Well, simply put, it is, within the above context, 'honesty'. The 'upright', as the term suggests, are able to stand straight and tall, without having to bend to avoid being detected. They observe and practise certain principles that are in keeping with 'correct weights', and are consistently faithful to their beliefs in God. Thus, naturally their 'integrity' or their 'honesty' guides them.
Whereas people in general look for ways to succeed in this world, the 'upright' allows their 'integrity' to guide them in the path of their maker. This means when something is wrong in that a principle is contradicted, they would ensure that it is put right as soon as possible, without dilly-dallying, or connive at the wrongs out of 'face-saving' reasons, such as 'wanting to please the wrong-doer', etc. In fact, to the world, those who avoid pointing out the wrongs committed, and pretend to be gracious and nice when basic principles of decency have been compromised are truly nice, pleasant and humble people. But according to the second half of verse three, there is nothing humble about such people, nor are they nice and pleasant. The verse describes them as 'treacherous', and predicts that such people will be destroyed by their own quality, which is 'crookedness'.
What the penultimate paragraph says is that those who refuse to point out the false balances, speak up against them, put a stop to them, correct and rectify them, are in fact an abomination to the Lord, for they are proud, treacherous and crooked.
Do we have such people within the Christian churches? Are there Christian organisations where 'false balances' have been practised, where those who are absolutely aware of their existence refuse to correct the situation? I'm sure we all know the answer. Perhaps, we may be even experiencing it, or worse still, we might even be the culprits ourselves!
The answer to the above lies in the key of knowing the Lord, which, interestingly, is what verse one is hinting at: if a false balance is an abomination to the Lord, how then can one avoid the abhorrence of God? It is by exercising correct weights. But why should one do so, unless one knows the Lord and seeks after his delight! Thus, verse one says, '...but an accurate weight is his delight'.
'Our father in heaven, grant that we may never practise false balances, but help us exercise correct weights, wherever we are, whatever we are, and whatever we do. Amen.'
属灵和宣教培训
周二、2010年10月12日、20:55时
在一个动荡不安的时代，教会面对有增无减的需要，不只是教会内在的需要，教会更是一直扮演着社会的光，世界的盐，为着沉沦的世界指出一条光明之路的角色。而教会若是要有效的达到如此目标，或有效的负担起这一个神圣的责任，那就必须有更多愿意把自己摆上的爱主耶稣基督的信徒。但是，即便有了更多爱主、愿意为主付出、愿意牺牲的信徒，教会又当如何培育他们呢？就是在如此情况之下，一间反潮流、反传统的神学培训教育学府必须出现。
目前我们每周有一次祷告会、两次的早会，每个学期有五次师生小组、走读生聚会、使命团聚会、教会实习、本地教会实习座谈会、禁食祷告日、中国短宣等等等。除了这些，我们还有各种各样的课程，同学要毕业，必须修将近160学分，同时候，我们近年来也开始强调学术水准等等。
不过若是真正要把属灵灵命搞好，又要提升宣教使命感，那以下有几个建议可供我们思考：
1. 废除所有学术的课程，鼓励同学依赖圣灵。“释经学”其实乃属“自我依靠”的一种课程，我们应该多依靠上帝的圣灵来引导我们进入祂的真理，而非依靠我们自己的方法和能力。这自然包括原文了。原文只不过是当时的人从圣灵那里得到默示，我们如果依靠上帝的圣灵的默示，那为何需要学习原文呢？与其花费这么多的时间和精神去读、背原文，我们倒不如把时间花在祷告、读经、禁食、敬拜等！
2. 废除所有“学术标准”，因这些标准主要是模仿世界，而非圣经的教导，更不是圣灵晓谕我们的标准。相反的，我们应该专注灵命操练，让所有同学、老师、同工都专注如何活出一个与福音相乘的生命，并将荣耀归于父上帝。
3. 将图书馆的学术著作完全除去，只留下灵修文集、分享著作、见证、伟人的见证、祷告书籍、讲道记录等等，如此，同学们就不需要花没必要的时间看那些所谓的“学术著作”（其实这些资料只不过是人爱犯罪的思考），而是专注学习圣经的内容，认识上帝在圣经中给予人类的旨意。
4. 加强有属灵的使命感的老师，并特别改化那些在任倾向学术的老师（尤其是圣经课博士），让他们悔改转向属灵生命的塑造。
5. 废除所谓的“毕业论文”，尤其是“学术”论文，并以分享见证取代，或是以长篇正道记录取代，如此，毕业同学真正的学习如何作见证和讲道。
6. 加强祷告气氛——每日早晨8:30至9:30祷告会。
7. 为了更加提升属灵素质，出了每日早祷，每周还要有两次一个半小时的敬拜早会。
8. 每周一次禁食祷告。
9. 开始祷告小组，这包括所有老师和同学，每周必须聚集一次。
10. 开始一个彼此认罪小组。因我们面对一个充满试探的世界，我们也免不了会经常跌倒犯罪，所以我们有必要彼此认罪，让我们彼此洁净，好叫我们能得到更完整的装备。
11. 增加更多中国宣教，并要求所有老师同工也参与，从四年三次增加到四年中至少八次，每年两次。
12. 废除所有学费，同学被上帝呼召，神学院并非一个生意机构，所以，不应该收学费，让学院开始以完全依靠上帝的供应来维持神学院。当然，老师的薪水也必须更换——所有的老师都不再有薪水，而是靠祷告、靠圣灵感动其他教会和信徒来支持学院。
13. 学院不再出版“学术文章”，也不再出版任何其他著作，只出版属灵分享、见证、祷告蒙应允见证等等。
14. 为了学习背起十字架，学院所有的空调都除掉，只学习依靠上帝所供应的自然气流和风。
15. 所有的课程不再有“学术作业”，而是读经、预备讲章。所有课程减少，因为必须废除所有的原文、释经学、神学、历史等等。同学应该有完全的空间默想、祷告、灵修、读经、写奖章、写见证、预备短宣。
16. 所有课程不再有“不及格”，全部以一个等级来算，那就是A。为何呢？因为只要一个同学得到上帝的呼召，只要我们入取如此一位同学，只要他愿意接受如此培训，那他的水准应该总是A。
17. 学院也可称为“中国宣教灵修神学校”。
当以上如此一间神学校被设立了，结果将会是什么呢？
在一个动荡不安的时代，教会面对有增无减的需要，不只是教会内在的需要，教会更是一直扮演着社会的光，世界的盐，为着沉沦的世界指出一条光明之路的角色。而教会若是要有效的达到如此目标，或有效的负担起这一个神圣的责任，那就必须有更多愿意把自己摆上的爱主耶稣基督的信徒。但是，即便有了更多爱主、愿意为主付出、愿意牺牲的信徒，教会又当如何培育他们呢？就是在如此情况之下，一间反潮流、反传统的神学培训教育学府必须出现。
目前我们每周有一次祷告会、两次的早会，每个学期有五次师生小组、走读生聚会、使命团聚会、教会实习、本地教会实习座谈会、禁食祷告日、中国短宣等等等。除了这些，我们还有各种各样的课程，同学要毕业，必须修将近160学分，同时候，我们近年来也开始强调学术水准等等。
不过若是真正要把属灵灵命搞好，又要提升宣教使命感，那以下有几个建议可供我们思考：
1. 废除所有学术的课程，鼓励同学依赖圣灵。“释经学”其实乃属“自我依靠”的一种课程，我们应该多依靠上帝的圣灵来引导我们进入祂的真理，而非依靠我们自己的方法和能力。这自然包括原文了。原文只不过是当时的人从圣灵那里得到默示，我们如果依靠上帝的圣灵的默示，那为何需要学习原文呢？与其花费这么多的时间和精神去读、背原文，我们倒不如把时间花在祷告、读经、禁食、敬拜等！
2. 废除所有“学术标准”，因这些标准主要是模仿世界，而非圣经的教导，更不是圣灵晓谕我们的标准。相反的，我们应该专注灵命操练，让所有同学、老师、同工都专注如何活出一个与福音相乘的生命，并将荣耀归于父上帝。
3. 将图书馆的学术著作完全除去，只留下灵修文集、分享著作、见证、伟人的见证、祷告书籍、讲道记录等等，如此，同学们就不需要花没必要的时间看那些所谓的“学术著作”（其实这些资料只不过是人爱犯罪的思考），而是专注学习圣经的内容，认识上帝在圣经中给予人类的旨意。
4. 加强有属灵的使命感的老师，并特别改化那些在任倾向学术的老师（尤其是圣经课博士），让他们悔改转向属灵生命的塑造。
5. 废除所谓的“毕业论文”，尤其是“学术”论文，并以分享见证取代，或是以长篇正道记录取代，如此，毕业同学真正的学习如何作见证和讲道。
6. 加强祷告气氛——每日早晨8:30至9:30祷告会。
7. 为了更加提升属灵素质，出了每日早祷，每周还要有两次一个半小时的敬拜早会。
8. 每周一次禁食祷告。
9. 开始祷告小组，这包括所有老师和同学，每周必须聚集一次。
10. 开始一个彼此认罪小组。因我们面对一个充满试探的世界，我们也免不了会经常跌倒犯罪，所以我们有必要彼此认罪，让我们彼此洁净，好叫我们能得到更完整的装备。
11. 增加更多中国宣教，并要求所有老师同工也参与，从四年三次增加到四年中至少八次，每年两次。
12. 废除所有学费，同学被上帝呼召，神学院并非一个生意机构，所以，不应该收学费，让学院开始以完全依靠上帝的供应来维持神学院。当然，老师的薪水也必须更换——所有的老师都不再有薪水，而是靠祷告、靠圣灵感动其他教会和信徒来支持学院。
13. 学院不再出版“学术文章”，也不再出版任何其他著作，只出版属灵分享、见证、祷告蒙应允见证等等。
14. 为了学习背起十字架，学院所有的空调都除掉，只学习依靠上帝所供应的自然气流和风。
15. 所有的课程不再有“学术作业”，而是读经、预备讲章。所有课程减少，因为必须废除所有的原文、释经学、神学、历史等等。同学应该有完全的空间默想、祷告、灵修、读经、写奖章、写见证、预备短宣。
16. 所有课程不再有“不及格”，全部以一个等级来算，那就是A。为何呢？因为只要一个同学得到上帝的呼召，只要我们入取如此一位同学，只要他愿意接受如此培训，那他的水准应该总是A。
17. 学院也可称为“中国宣教灵修神学校”。
当以上如此一间神学校被设立了，结果将会是什么呢？
Some Basic Manners...
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)