周四、2010年8月12日、21:12時
我們一群年輕人，在一間新加坡的鄉村教會聚會。當時，我們有一位很委身於上帝的主日學老師，她每主日都會帶領我們查經、解釋人生意義、教導我們禱告等等。在這位主日學老師底下，我們當中獻身當傳道的不少，總共至少有六位！但是，我們踏上這條路，至今我們沒有一位放棄，主要是我們清楚回答了其中一個重要問題：有上帝的話語（即聖經），幹嘛還要讀神學？
許多時候，這是個雞與蛋的問題。我們之所以如此提問，原本就是因為我們聽了教會教牧的教導，說聖經是上帝的話語。許多時候，我們的牧者因在神學院有一些負面的經歷，故他/們本身就更加對神學培訓質疑。或許，在學習的過程當中，我們的牧者也提過同樣的問題。不過，在牧會的過程中，我們的牧者也教導我們神學只是在某方面有幫助而已。其實，一位牧者之所以能夠如此的說，也就是因為他/她已經多少學習了反思和批判思考，只是他/她的思考缺乏完整性和平衡，因此自己的經歷和衝擊令他們擔心會友也會遭到類似的經歷。
但是，我們幹嘛要讀神學呢？如果聖經是神所默示的，那祂應該會賜我們理解祂的話語的能力。那我們幹嘛還要讀神學呢？
以上的問題帶有幾個假設：其一、上帝一定會賜我們理解祂的話語的能力。這個假設其實並不一定有聖經的根基；聖經中雖然提到上帝會賜聖靈指示我們，但那並不等於「一定通過我們自己獨立理解」！其二、神學是不好的。雖然如今沒有人會直接這麼說，但是那些說不需要讀神學的信徒一般上對攻讀神學是帶著一個負面的態度的，而那恰恰是因為他們認為神學只是知識上的累積，並非認識上帝的話語。如此思想的信徒犯了一個大毛病：有關攻讀神學的聖經教導和例子甚多，舊約、新約都有數不盡的嚴厲指示，要信徒對上帝的話語有更深的認識。而神學本身不只是認識上帝的話語，更是認識上帝過去的僕人如何使用、解釋、教導、應用、宣傳上帝的道！再者，神學也是認識上帝的聖靈在舊約、新約教會以及以後兩千年教會歷史中的運作，從而讓我們學習和認識上帝的道和祂運作的歷史。其三、「讀神學」並非對學生的靈命有幫助。其實，「讀神學」的過程本身並非只是理論上的學習，更是刻意的花幾年對自己的生命作出反省，並儘量在這幾年內學習改善和堅固自己的信仰、思考、牧養基礎等。其四、「讀神學」有學術化的傾向，但是上帝的話語不該如此考查。這一個所謂的「學術化」問題主要是出自它的誤解。太多信徒將他們自己的生命分割成幾部份：一部份是「理性」，一部份是「感性」，或者還有一部份是「靈性」。但是，聖經的教導是上帝創造人，並將氣息吹入人，人就有了生命。換句話說，上帝創造人並沒有將他們分割為幾部份，祂所創造的是個「整體性」的人。祂更賜人類一個腦，一個能夠思想的腦，是一個跟其他創造物不同的腦，因它能夠思考上帝的事情！動物如狗、貓、牛、羊等等都有感情，它們會開心，也會悲傷，但是他們的腦只能作基本的生存運作，卻不能思考上帝的事，更不能崇拜上帝。所以，若我們只單單專注「感性」，或只偏向「感性」而忽略「理性」，那我們其實只不過是停留在「動物的基本功能」而已。但是，我們根本就不應該分割化我們的生命。我們必須使用上帝所賜給我們的「腦」，用它來思考、反思、批判的解讀上帝的話語。「學術」一詞其實只不過是指小心翼翼，有根有據的去分析上帝的話語，爲了要從中尋找到上帝的信息，並認識上帝要我們做什麽，好叫我們能夠更加行出上帝的旨意。
幹嘛要讀神學？以上提到的只是冰山之角，我想「裝備」一詞對我們為何讀神學有很好的幫助。任何專業人士，例如：律師、醫生、會計、護士、司機等等，都需要足夠和恰當的培訓，方可出去做好一份工作。同樣的，讀神學主要是爲了裝備被上帝所呼召的信徒，讓他們能夠在那短短幾年內學習基本的教牧事工和神學思考的方法，我們也只能為他們禱告，希望他們讀完幾年後會繼續的使用所學習到的方法去更深入的認識上帝、祂的話語，且建立自己的一個有深度的神學思考。
或許以上也指向另一個層面，即神學老師的教學原則和態度。然而，這應該屬另一個課題。願上主祝福所有正在攻讀神學的信徒，也求上主帶領他們，並賜他們毅力、恒心去完成需要走的道路。阿門！
Friday, April 8, 2011
有效的會議！？
週二、2010年8月17日、13:31時
有人說，如果一個人有六十年的生命，從出世開始每日睡八個小時，到六十歲時他/她就已經睡了二十年！換句話說，活六十年卻只有四十年醒著的時間。我們若是減去成長年日、讀書年日、做白日夢時間、玩等等，真正做認真事情的時間其實是非常少的。因此，詩篇九十篇的作者如此祈禱：「求您教導我們如何數算我們的日子，好叫我們得著智慧的心。」因此，我們在年輕時候，凡事都應該儘量不要浪費我們的時光。
論到浪費時間，在基督教會中最浪費時間的其中一項事可說是會議了！或許以下我們可以以幾個句子思考思考：
何謂「有效的會議」？
會議前：
1. 不知道要討論的項目；
2. 不知道會議需要多少時間；
3. 不知道有幾個人會參加會議；
4. 不知道會議記錄程序；
5. 不知道會議記錄負責人；
6. 不知道自己不知道什麽！
會議中：
1. 重複過去已經決定的事；
2. 討論離題的事；
3. 討論一半講笑話；
4. 討論時轉成談天；
5. 討論到一半忘記在討論什麽；
6. 用一個小時討論一項只需十分鐘討論的事項；
7. 同時候很多人在說話；
8. 有人在睡覺；
9. 主席自己團團轉；
10. …………
會議後：什麽都沒有更進……等下一個會議重複以上全部！
有人說，如果一個人有六十年的生命，從出世開始每日睡八個小時，到六十歲時他/她就已經睡了二十年！換句話說，活六十年卻只有四十年醒著的時間。我們若是減去成長年日、讀書年日、做白日夢時間、玩等等，真正做認真事情的時間其實是非常少的。因此，詩篇九十篇的作者如此祈禱：「求您教導我們如何數算我們的日子，好叫我們得著智慧的心。」因此，我們在年輕時候，凡事都應該儘量不要浪費我們的時光。
論到浪費時間，在基督教會中最浪費時間的其中一項事可說是會議了！或許以下我們可以以幾個句子思考思考：
何謂「有效的會議」？
會議前：
1. 不知道要討論的項目；
2. 不知道會議需要多少時間；
3. 不知道有幾個人會參加會議；
4. 不知道會議記錄程序；
5. 不知道會議記錄負責人；
6. 不知道自己不知道什麽！
會議中：
1. 重複過去已經決定的事；
2. 討論離題的事；
3. 討論一半講笑話；
4. 討論時轉成談天；
5. 討論到一半忘記在討論什麽；
6. 用一個小時討論一項只需十分鐘討論的事項；
7. 同時候很多人在說話；
8. 有人在睡覺；
9. 主席自己團團轉；
10. …………
會議後：什麽都沒有更進……等下一個會議重複以上全部！
Thursday, April 7, 2011
理发师找老公？
周六、2010年8月21日、23:37时
十六岁的时候，曾在新加坡神学院上晚间课程，科目乃是The Doctine of Man。有一个晚上，老师提到一个有趣的事实：根据调查，在外面的要进去；而在里面的要出来。但是，到底“进去”哪里呢？而又是从“哪里”出来呢？
原来这一位老师所指乃是婚姻。他说没有结婚的，许多时候都盼望、期待、祷告祈求，甚至努力追求进入婚姻。那是因为他们不知道婚姻真面目。但是，这并非属实。其实，人是需要伴侣的，因人的基本性质就是群体，而非孤独。但是，太多人带着一个完美的理想进入婚姻，结果当他们发觉婚姻并非他们想象的，那些不是因内心的爱所启发和激发去结婚的人，很快就要离婚。也就是如此，很多在里面的要出来。
但是，若上述所言属实，那离婚的人士应该不会再婚。然而，许多离婚人士其实在很短的时间就再婚了。或许他们真的太孤单了。按照DSM IV，家庭压力最大的属丧偶，其次就是离婚。换言之，许多离婚者其实经历了非常严重的压力和伤害，而“再婚”可说是他们寻求医治的一种自然举动。
今早，本人去剪发。这是我在港两年所去的理发师。有一次，她说跟她的丈夫离婚了，后来认识了目前的“情人”，也是个离婚者，两人都是受过伤的，所以他们决定不结婚，只一起生活，过一个好象夫妇的生活，但却非“合法”的夫妇。虽知道，她的“情人”有一天喜欢上一个印尼顾客，应该是个印尼女佣，结果就跟着她走了，离开了这一位理发师“情人”。
真没想到，今天她跟我说了那么多，竟然突然问我月薪多少，是否要找个女朋友结婚，是否还想要有小孩，是否觉得孤单等等。这一位年纪不小的理发师这么的问，我开始还以为她只是想尽量对顾客友善，谁知道问了这些话以后，她突然说：“以后你常来找我，好吗？”我还未能作出任何答复，她又说：“跟我一起吃饭，好吗？”我说：“哦，我一般上吃很少的……”还没说完，她又突然问：“你是否有回新加坡啊？”我回答说：“上个月我刚返新……”，还未说完，她竟然说：“以后我跟你去新加坡玩，好吗？”那时，我真的吓了一跳，不知如何说，还好想到一件事实，便赶快说：“其实我也没什么回新加坡，我把房子卖了，而且新加坡的消费也太高了，……”，还未说我不太习惯跟不太认识的人旅行，他竟然说了一句把我吓到差点站起来就跑的话：“如果我跟你回去新加坡，你的家人会不会嫌我太老啊？”奇怪，我都没说要跟她在一起，也没说我要找一个理发师当老婆，也没说我要跟她作朋友，更完完全全没有想到跟一个比我还大的老女士一起吃饭、旅行，死都没想过要带一个陌生女士回新加坡！！！
我没有办法，因我的头（发）在她手中，所以只能忍（虽然我已经开始生气了）！完了之后，在离开之前，她突然叫我等等，把他的手机中的照片给我看——她的房子！然后说，改天你来我家玩！我的天啊！我赶快说：“我要走了，没时间了！”
气死人了！她把我当着什么了？以后必须找另一个理发师了，跟自己说：“以后一定要找个男的！”但是，又记得以前在新加坡曾遇过同性念的男士想追求我！害我怕得要命，随时都要出拳攻击，打他个落花流水！但是，那又是犯法的，唉呀……太岂有此理了！！
你说，好笑不好笑？今晚，我气到跑去吃了一大碗扬州炒饭，最后还是自己不好受！肚子饱到现在，已经是00:09时了！
还是把这事带到主面前，求主赐属天智慧，凡事心平气和的让主的话语成为我脚前的灯，路上的光！
十六岁的时候，曾在新加坡神学院上晚间课程，科目乃是The Doctine of Man。有一个晚上，老师提到一个有趣的事实：根据调查，在外面的要进去；而在里面的要出来。但是，到底“进去”哪里呢？而又是从“哪里”出来呢？
原来这一位老师所指乃是婚姻。他说没有结婚的，许多时候都盼望、期待、祷告祈求，甚至努力追求进入婚姻。那是因为他们不知道婚姻真面目。但是，这并非属实。其实，人是需要伴侣的，因人的基本性质就是群体，而非孤独。但是，太多人带着一个完美的理想进入婚姻，结果当他们发觉婚姻并非他们想象的，那些不是因内心的爱所启发和激发去结婚的人，很快就要离婚。也就是如此，很多在里面的要出来。
但是，若上述所言属实，那离婚的人士应该不会再婚。然而，许多离婚人士其实在很短的时间就再婚了。或许他们真的太孤单了。按照DSM IV，家庭压力最大的属丧偶，其次就是离婚。换言之，许多离婚者其实经历了非常严重的压力和伤害，而“再婚”可说是他们寻求医治的一种自然举动。
今早，本人去剪发。这是我在港两年所去的理发师。有一次，她说跟她的丈夫离婚了，后来认识了目前的“情人”，也是个离婚者，两人都是受过伤的，所以他们决定不结婚，只一起生活，过一个好象夫妇的生活，但却非“合法”的夫妇。虽知道，她的“情人”有一天喜欢上一个印尼顾客，应该是个印尼女佣，结果就跟着她走了，离开了这一位理发师“情人”。
真没想到，今天她跟我说了那么多，竟然突然问我月薪多少，是否要找个女朋友结婚，是否还想要有小孩，是否觉得孤单等等。这一位年纪不小的理发师这么的问，我开始还以为她只是想尽量对顾客友善，谁知道问了这些话以后，她突然说：“以后你常来找我，好吗？”我还未能作出任何答复，她又说：“跟我一起吃饭，好吗？”我说：“哦，我一般上吃很少的……”还没说完，她又突然问：“你是否有回新加坡啊？”我回答说：“上个月我刚返新……”，还未说完，她竟然说：“以后我跟你去新加坡玩，好吗？”那时，我真的吓了一跳，不知如何说，还好想到一件事实，便赶快说：“其实我也没什么回新加坡，我把房子卖了，而且新加坡的消费也太高了，……”，还未说我不太习惯跟不太认识的人旅行，他竟然说了一句把我吓到差点站起来就跑的话：“如果我跟你回去新加坡，你的家人会不会嫌我太老啊？”奇怪，我都没说要跟她在一起，也没说我要找一个理发师当老婆，也没说我要跟她作朋友，更完完全全没有想到跟一个比我还大的老女士一起吃饭、旅行，死都没想过要带一个陌生女士回新加坡！！！
我没有办法，因我的头（发）在她手中，所以只能忍（虽然我已经开始生气了）！完了之后，在离开之前，她突然叫我等等，把他的手机中的照片给我看——她的房子！然后说，改天你来我家玩！我的天啊！我赶快说：“我要走了，没时间了！”
气死人了！她把我当着什么了？以后必须找另一个理发师了，跟自己说：“以后一定要找个男的！”但是，又记得以前在新加坡曾遇过同性念的男士想追求我！害我怕得要命，随时都要出拳攻击，打他个落花流水！但是，那又是犯法的，唉呀……太岂有此理了！！
你说，好笑不好笑？今晚，我气到跑去吃了一大碗扬州炒饭，最后还是自己不好受！肚子饱到现在，已经是00:09时了！
还是把这事带到主面前，求主赐属天智慧，凡事心平气和的让主的话语成为我脚前的灯，路上的光！
Our Father in Heaven...
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)