Saturday, 31st October 2009, 16:30 hrs...
A young man wrote me a letter years ago and confided in me his struggles... Recently while in Singapore we reconnected again and so recounted the event that led to his near moral downfall. At this time while I was back in Singapore, he shared about his own experience of God's forgiveness and offered me the permission to share about him in my preaching or other contexts, as long as I do not divulge his name.
Like many people, this friend of mine (let's call him John) spoke of his lack of discipline and self-control and of his subsequent moral delinquency. Because of the lack of self-control, he got himself into all sorts of compromising situations, many of which were sexual. His first encounter was on a flight with a Spanish woman. He was then young, energetic, and relatively charming. Though he and the woman didn't go much further, unfortunately, their heavy petting on board the flight left him wanting more. This led to more encounters after his flight back. In some of his business trips, he kept getting into many of these situations in which he became involved with various ladies whom he hardly knew. Some at home, some abroad. But because of his fear of sexual diseases, he never got himself into the actual sexual act except thrice, once with a young lady, twice with a same lady. However, in every one of these instances, he felt dirty.
What he felt and still feels is important. For he felt dirty and so the first thing he did was to have a thorough shower and scrubbed himself hard with soap. The other feeling is that of guilt and shame. He felt he'd let God down, since he's a Christian. It was then that I realised, indeed, Christians were never spared the sexual temptations as this friend of mine. John had to fly often for business, and oftentimes he would feel lonely after meeting the business clients. This was where he would feel tempted to link up the computer and find someone to chat, which often led to compromising situations. Those of us who never have to be in such a compromising situation should consider themselves blessed.
Finally, he came before the Lord and went on his knees to pray, yet again. It wasn't his first time praying, but it was another of those moments when he had to resort to prayer in order to rid himself of those feelings of guilt. This particular day, he suddenly felt a certain deep understanding of the love and forgiveness of God, when he said to God something like this (I'm recalling what he said to me), "Lord, I'm so sorry for failing you, and for such shameful deeds. I really am sorry. I don't want to displease you; but somehow I keep falling prey to this problem...". And then, for the first time, he actually felt that everything was over; that he was experiencing a new beginning; that he was definitely going to be different; that God would forgive him if he were to be sincere in confessing his sins and turn over a new leaf...
In tears, John (not his real name, as mentioned earlier) shared with me how touching it was for him. He felt that he couldn't and shouldn't get married, as he was afraid he might become unfaithful to his wife, and that his past didn't qualify him for marriage. All he wanted was to lead a life of purity from now on...for he has experienced the loving and forgiving God.
Many Christians today face such temptations or problems. Some heterosexual, others lesbian or homosexual. Whatever they may be, it is important for us to remember the story recorded in the Gospels: a woman was caught in adultery and brought to Jesus. They said to Jesus that the Law of Moses says such a person should be stoned to death. And we notice that Jesus told the men who wanted to stone her, "Those who do not have any sins may be the first to cast a stone on her". These men walked away one by one. After all had left, Jesus asked the woman where the men were, to which she replied, "They've all left". And Jesus replied, "Nor will I judge you. Go and sin no more".
Indeed, we need to recall that Jesus gives those who sin a chance to turn over a new leaf, and he will not judge such people. What's important is his final words, "Go and sin no more".
When faced with the torrents of sin, let us take courage and be strong. For God will not judge us, and he wants us to go and sin no more, if we are sincere, genuine and want to change over.
God bless us.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
批改作业之标准何在？
周五，2009年9月25日，8.41pm
在神学院当老师至今已将近九年，不知自己是否有慢下来，抑或是懒散了，但是我必须好好的追求上进，不让任何学生的态度，或学院办事欠佳，或个人偶尔对学院的失望，或对自己缺乏发表等而失望。人生在世，毕竟有不少自己理想中期望能够做而却做不到的事，也有许多自己不想做但是却必须做的事，也有许多自己被逼而做的事等等。最重要的是在做任何事，都当带着勤奋的态度，且专注所做的事，避开闲话。
其中一项在这些年当教师的日子中所面对的事，就是作业批改。多少同学就因着我严格而导致他们拿不到“优”等成绩而感到不满意。有些认为我是个没有“牧者心肠”的老师，有些则认为我没有“恩典”，更有些认为我没有基督！这些主要都是在新加坡的几间学院所经历的，其中最严重的可说是新亚学院。
这是一所自称是有灵命的学院，可做事却没有原则的学院！曾经有一位中国人，李天峰，自以为毕业于北大，就很傲慢，但他的作业是多么的没有水准而只从我这里拿到了一个C的时候，他对我是多么的没有礼貌，甚至不停的在我的背后传播诽谤的谎言！问题是：学院的中文部主任竟然维护他，甚至说他是一个谦卑的同学！
这些不以高要求为水准的学院和主任似乎只是在讨好学生，结果批改作业时也一直给予同学们A，使他们拿A惯了，就不能接受自己是不适合读书的人。我个人认为象李天峰那样的学生，学院应该严重惩罚他，让他学习学习真正的谦卑。
论到批改作业的水准，我想我们真的还在西方后面很远。他们关心水准，而我们却经常讲假话。每当我想起这些事，我就好感恩，因为上帝带我脱离如此的一个学院。感谢主！
在神学院当老师至今已将近九年，不知自己是否有慢下来，抑或是懒散了，但是我必须好好的追求上进，不让任何学生的态度，或学院办事欠佳，或个人偶尔对学院的失望，或对自己缺乏发表等而失望。人生在世，毕竟有不少自己理想中期望能够做而却做不到的事，也有许多自己不想做但是却必须做的事，也有许多自己被逼而做的事等等。最重要的是在做任何事，都当带着勤奋的态度，且专注所做的事，避开闲话。
其中一项在这些年当教师的日子中所面对的事，就是作业批改。多少同学就因着我严格而导致他们拿不到“优”等成绩而感到不满意。有些认为我是个没有“牧者心肠”的老师，有些则认为我没有“恩典”，更有些认为我没有基督！这些主要都是在新加坡的几间学院所经历的，其中最严重的可说是新亚学院。
这是一所自称是有灵命的学院，可做事却没有原则的学院！曾经有一位中国人，李天峰，自以为毕业于北大，就很傲慢，但他的作业是多么的没有水准而只从我这里拿到了一个C的时候，他对我是多么的没有礼貌，甚至不停的在我的背后传播诽谤的谎言！问题是：学院的中文部主任竟然维护他，甚至说他是一个谦卑的同学！
这些不以高要求为水准的学院和主任似乎只是在讨好学生，结果批改作业时也一直给予同学们A，使他们拿A惯了，就不能接受自己是不适合读书的人。我个人认为象李天峰那样的学生，学院应该严重惩罚他，让他学习学习真正的谦卑。
论到批改作业的水准，我想我们真的还在西方后面很远。他们关心水准，而我们却经常讲假话。每当我想起这些事，我就好感恩，因为上帝带我脱离如此的一个学院。感谢主！
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Education Can't be Rushed, and Treatment of Professors Must be Fair
Friday, 25th September 2009, 07:53am
It was with much rushing and flying that I visited Singapore from 17th July to 10th August 2009, and again from 18th to 20th September 2009. During this periods, particularly the former, I had more time to spend time with some friends, most of whom are in education line. One of my purposes in the visit was to preach in Providence Presbyterian Church as part of its invitation preparation to serve full-time there. That is to say, the leadership of the church would like to hear me preach first, before proceeding further. I on my part decided to accept the invitation on a non-committal basis.
It was there that I learnt more about the situation in Singapore a year after I left for Hong Kong. First of all, the church does not seem to know what my role/s would be. This once again re-emerged as an issue during my latter trip. Further, I now understood from the leadership represented by one of its key leaders that theological education would be something the church should not be embarking upon. In addition, the remuneration package would have to be far below my current package. All this is helpful for my own decision making.
Secondly, I came to appreciate my teaching job here in Hong Kong. For during the two trips, I discovered that the Pentecostal College I was working in before my departure for Hong Kong actually invited a former SBC (Singapore Bible College) colleague of mine to be a faculty member and offered him a starting salary of S$4,000.00, which was S$1,000.00 more than what I was offered! This was something I was upset about, for that former colleague of mine holds only a master of divinity degree from Singapore Bible College, and has not been able to complete his PhD at a nineth rate seminary in the States. He has no publications and his PhD does not seem to be near completion anytime now. Yet, that College offered him such a big salary!
I should know better, actually. For when I was there in that Pentecostal College, the leadership actually told a few blatant lies. One of which in fact directly involved me. It was over several 'descriptors' which the leadership had asked others to write, but have my name down as the writer. These were in fact the equivalents of our 'course syllabi', written up as part of the requirement for the application for validation of our BA in theology degree by a UK university. And it was only about an hour and a half before a scheduled meeting with the representatives from the UK university that I was told to lie that I was the one who wrote it, if I was ever asked by any of the representatives. The other lie was about the college not making a single cent from the doctoral programme conducted on behalf of that UK university, when in fact that university gives back to this Pentecostal college two-thirds of what a student pays for the fees. In other words, the Pentecostal college was and is making quite an amount from the PhD programme. But the leaders have lied about it, not once, nor twice, but again and again.
Having learnt about the first incident, that my friend was offered S$4,000.00, I am quite pleased that I have left the college and come to Hong Kong.
But the above issues are not as problematic as the attitude of rushing to get a degree programme validated, while professors and lecturers are being unfairly and unjustly treated. One of these problems has to do with the idolatrous practice of 'worshipping the whites and the west'! If a lecturer comes from the West, then he is better and should be rewarded more. He is even better if he is a white. In the first theological school I taught at, if the lecturer is a white, and comes from some of those schools considered 'elite' by the leadership (but in fact are nineth rate seminaries such as Dallas and Trinity), then that lecturer will have carpet reception, and whatever he says will be treated with more than the gospel truth! Such is the college's idolatry!
In another theological college, if a lecturer is a local but attends one of the 'elite' schools such as RI (Raffles Institute) or ACS (Anglo-Chinese School), and is a member of the Methodist, then he is one-up and will receive better treatment. If he is an Anglican, he too will be well treated. For the bishop of the Anglican church is very much involved in the governance of the college. Better still, if the lecturer has attended an 'elite' university in the UK or a seminary in the States, never mind if he cannot teach, or is hot-tempered or stupid.
It is important for education to be made available to as many as possible. However, education takes time and therefore cannot be rushed. For educating a person is a long and arduous process, and more so theological education. There is a need to know, understand and grasp the philosophy of education of a school, before one proceeds further. In this light, education can never be embarked upon for the purpose of profiteering. This is even more so in theological education. In almost every seminary in Asia, none can survive as a seminary by solely depending on income generated from school fees. For fees only make up about a tenth of the budget in most seminaries. Even in secular universities, none have managed to make its programme part of the overall profit-making strategy. Usually, universities that survive well financially are those that engage in cutting-edge and high level research, which yields original results for the industry. In theological education, seminaries would need to engage the 'industry (i.e. the church)' if they ever want to survive financially.
Further, the professors are the real backbone or software of the seminary. If the professor/lectuers are not respected and given the space to work and develop themselves, then the seminary would have to be prepared for frequent faculty exits! In a sense, education not only involves the persons being educated, but also the faculty who are themselves continually being educated, and self-educating. The progressive ones will want to grow and seek the betterment of the self, while the incompetent ones usually will be content with the status quo. Seminary's leadership that is satisfied with such a state of affairs only destroys the seminary in the long run.
Let us be quick in thinking, just in treatment of professors, but slow to offer more degree programmes, slow to encourage paper chase.
It was with much rushing and flying that I visited Singapore from 17th July to 10th August 2009, and again from 18th to 20th September 2009. During this periods, particularly the former, I had more time to spend time with some friends, most of whom are in education line. One of my purposes in the visit was to preach in Providence Presbyterian Church as part of its invitation preparation to serve full-time there. That is to say, the leadership of the church would like to hear me preach first, before proceeding further. I on my part decided to accept the invitation on a non-committal basis.
It was there that I learnt more about the situation in Singapore a year after I left for Hong Kong. First of all, the church does not seem to know what my role/s would be. This once again re-emerged as an issue during my latter trip. Further, I now understood from the leadership represented by one of its key leaders that theological education would be something the church should not be embarking upon. In addition, the remuneration package would have to be far below my current package. All this is helpful for my own decision making.
Secondly, I came to appreciate my teaching job here in Hong Kong. For during the two trips, I discovered that the Pentecostal College I was working in before my departure for Hong Kong actually invited a former SBC (Singapore Bible College) colleague of mine to be a faculty member and offered him a starting salary of S$4,000.00, which was S$1,000.00 more than what I was offered! This was something I was upset about, for that former colleague of mine holds only a master of divinity degree from Singapore Bible College, and has not been able to complete his PhD at a nineth rate seminary in the States. He has no publications and his PhD does not seem to be near completion anytime now. Yet, that College offered him such a big salary!
I should know better, actually. For when I was there in that Pentecostal College, the leadership actually told a few blatant lies. One of which in fact directly involved me. It was over several 'descriptors' which the leadership had asked others to write, but have my name down as the writer. These were in fact the equivalents of our 'course syllabi', written up as part of the requirement for the application for validation of our BA in theology degree by a UK university. And it was only about an hour and a half before a scheduled meeting with the representatives from the UK university that I was told to lie that I was the one who wrote it, if I was ever asked by any of the representatives. The other lie was about the college not making a single cent from the doctoral programme conducted on behalf of that UK university, when in fact that university gives back to this Pentecostal college two-thirds of what a student pays for the fees. In other words, the Pentecostal college was and is making quite an amount from the PhD programme. But the leaders have lied about it, not once, nor twice, but again and again.
Having learnt about the first incident, that my friend was offered S$4,000.00, I am quite pleased that I have left the college and come to Hong Kong.
But the above issues are not as problematic as the attitude of rushing to get a degree programme validated, while professors and lecturers are being unfairly and unjustly treated. One of these problems has to do with the idolatrous practice of 'worshipping the whites and the west'! If a lecturer comes from the West, then he is better and should be rewarded more. He is even better if he is a white. In the first theological school I taught at, if the lecturer is a white, and comes from some of those schools considered 'elite' by the leadership (but in fact are nineth rate seminaries such as Dallas and Trinity), then that lecturer will have carpet reception, and whatever he says will be treated with more than the gospel truth! Such is the college's idolatry!
In another theological college, if a lecturer is a local but attends one of the 'elite' schools such as RI (Raffles Institute) or ACS (Anglo-Chinese School), and is a member of the Methodist, then he is one-up and will receive better treatment. If he is an Anglican, he too will be well treated. For the bishop of the Anglican church is very much involved in the governance of the college. Better still, if the lecturer has attended an 'elite' university in the UK or a seminary in the States, never mind if he cannot teach, or is hot-tempered or stupid.
It is important for education to be made available to as many as possible. However, education takes time and therefore cannot be rushed. For educating a person is a long and arduous process, and more so theological education. There is a need to know, understand and grasp the philosophy of education of a school, before one proceeds further. In this light, education can never be embarked upon for the purpose of profiteering. This is even more so in theological education. In almost every seminary in Asia, none can survive as a seminary by solely depending on income generated from school fees. For fees only make up about a tenth of the budget in most seminaries. Even in secular universities, none have managed to make its programme part of the overall profit-making strategy. Usually, universities that survive well financially are those that engage in cutting-edge and high level research, which yields original results for the industry. In theological education, seminaries would need to engage the 'industry (i.e. the church)' if they ever want to survive financially.
Further, the professors are the real backbone or software of the seminary. If the professor/lectuers are not respected and given the space to work and develop themselves, then the seminary would have to be prepared for frequent faculty exits! In a sense, education not only involves the persons being educated, but also the faculty who are themselves continually being educated, and self-educating. The progressive ones will want to grow and seek the betterment of the self, while the incompetent ones usually will be content with the status quo. Seminary's leadership that is satisfied with such a state of affairs only destroys the seminary in the long run.
Let us be quick in thinking, just in treatment of professors, but slow to offer more degree programmes, slow to encourage paper chase.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Christian Unequal Treatment?
Saturday, 11 March 2008, 3.23pm...
Today I discovered that a new colleague who came from China is made associate professor of our college. I was of course taken aback, given the fact that he received his PhD in theology only very recently, and one from a nineth-rate university! He has no theological publications, nor theological teaching experience, but has jumped straight to the rank of associate professorship. This upsets me.
I came with a PhD under a top New Testament scholar in the world today, with publications and almost seven years teaching experience, including that of supervising postgraduates. Yet I am not even an assistant professor, a rank given to fresh PhD without work experience and publication. But I am worse than that: I have been made a lecturer, a rank given to a master's degree holder!
Fortunately, I will be leaving this unfair organisation which seems not to value its own people, and which appears to be taking in pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-scholars. It doesn't seem to care what sort of PhD an applicant has and where it was taken. Thus, a PhD from a little mission centre, validated by one of the lowest ranked universities, seems totally acceptable to the organisation.
Meanwhile, the leaders are hoping that I would remain if my application for employment pass in Hong Kong is unsuccessful. But now I am totally apprehensive. I don't think I would even want to remain, even if I am not successful in my employment pass application.
That's my position for now.
"Dear Lord,
This is an unfair world. Grant me to find peace and joy in you, even if the world is not that friendly. Give me your grace to live my life honourably, to the glory and praise of our heavenly father. In Jesus' name. Amen'.
Today I discovered that a new colleague who came from China is made associate professor of our college. I was of course taken aback, given the fact that he received his PhD in theology only very recently, and one from a nineth-rate university! He has no theological publications, nor theological teaching experience, but has jumped straight to the rank of associate professorship. This upsets me.
I came with a PhD under a top New Testament scholar in the world today, with publications and almost seven years teaching experience, including that of supervising postgraduates. Yet I am not even an assistant professor, a rank given to fresh PhD without work experience and publication. But I am worse than that: I have been made a lecturer, a rank given to a master's degree holder!
Fortunately, I will be leaving this unfair organisation which seems not to value its own people, and which appears to be taking in pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-scholars. It doesn't seem to care what sort of PhD an applicant has and where it was taken. Thus, a PhD from a little mission centre, validated by one of the lowest ranked universities, seems totally acceptable to the organisation.
Meanwhile, the leaders are hoping that I would remain if my application for employment pass in Hong Kong is unsuccessful. But now I am totally apprehensive. I don't think I would even want to remain, even if I am not successful in my employment pass application.
That's my position for now.
"Dear Lord,
This is an unfair world. Grant me to find peace and joy in you, even if the world is not that friendly. Give me your grace to live my life honourably, to the glory and praise of our heavenly father. In Jesus' name. Amen'.
Of Formal Address
Monday, 4 March 2008, 8.10am...
This morning I received an official and formal email from a college in Singapore, with the opening address as Dr Richard, which upset me. My surname is Phua, not Richard. Richard is my first name. Somehow, this seems to be increasingly getting more popular. Perhaps people who address us by our first name are trying to be friendly. But I fail to understand the rationale behind this move. After all, if one addresses a person by a title, one is being formal. Yet, by calling the person by his or her first name with the title, one is in fact insulting the person so addressed. It is equivalent to changing the surname of the person addressed! In a sense, it is no different from calling that person being addressed a bastard!
In the college where I now teach, this absurd way of addressing people is being practised. And despite the protests of a former Western colleague and a student, nothing changed. What is even more disturbing is the fact that after being told, these people refused to address us properly. Sure, by all means address those who wish to be so addressed. But once a person has expressed his or her preference to be addressed properly, the request should at least be respected! I have often expressed my willing acceptance of being addressed by my first name without the title. In other words, those who address me may freely call me by my name. But, I have insisted, if people should address me by my title, they should and indeed ought to address me by my surname!
Another reason for my insistence is that we are an educational institution. Students will follow us and do the same when they return to their homes or work places. This will not auger well for our reputation as a college. Management consulting companies will readily tell us that the right way of addressing a person by title is "title+surname". Unfortunately, too many Asian companies and leaders are simply unteachable and arrogant.
My brother told me that by insisting on being addressed properly I was making life difficult for the people. Perhaps so. I only hope that this will change over time when people will respite the very simple rule of addressing.
I do recognise the fact that I am serious in everything that I do. Perhaps this has caused unease among the people around me. Resultantly, some colleagues, past and present, are not too happy. Even when things do not concern them! For example, I have been so used to speaking proper English. But this has been an offence to a present colleague that he keeps going around rumour mongering about me speaking good English. While the fact that I speak good English is not an issue, the trivialities he injects into his rumours are certainly not welcome! In addition, since the publication of my PhD thesis, this rather idiotic colleague has been going around telling people that he has written for me my PhD thesis! What an absurd claim! He not only speaks bad English, but also writes exceptionally poor English! How can he ever write my thesis for me?!
Anyway, in every such unhappy occurrence, it is important that I seek to be gracious and magnanimous. As the saying goes, "To err is human; to forgive is divine". May I seek to be like Christ, always forgiving, even when people do not appear to deserve it.
"Dear Lord Jesus,
Forgive me my trespasses, and teach me how to forgive the trespasses of others. Help me to forgive others, and so learn to seek forgiveness from you. Amen".
This morning I received an official and formal email from a college in Singapore, with the opening address as Dr Richard, which upset me. My surname is Phua, not Richard. Richard is my first name. Somehow, this seems to be increasingly getting more popular. Perhaps people who address us by our first name are trying to be friendly. But I fail to understand the rationale behind this move. After all, if one addresses a person by a title, one is being formal. Yet, by calling the person by his or her first name with the title, one is in fact insulting the person so addressed. It is equivalent to changing the surname of the person addressed! In a sense, it is no different from calling that person being addressed a bastard!
In the college where I now teach, this absurd way of addressing people is being practised. And despite the protests of a former Western colleague and a student, nothing changed. What is even more disturbing is the fact that after being told, these people refused to address us properly. Sure, by all means address those who wish to be so addressed. But once a person has expressed his or her preference to be addressed properly, the request should at least be respected! I have often expressed my willing acceptance of being addressed by my first name without the title. In other words, those who address me may freely call me by my name. But, I have insisted, if people should address me by my title, they should and indeed ought to address me by my surname!
Another reason for my insistence is that we are an educational institution. Students will follow us and do the same when they return to their homes or work places. This will not auger well for our reputation as a college. Management consulting companies will readily tell us that the right way of addressing a person by title is "title+surname". Unfortunately, too many Asian companies and leaders are simply unteachable and arrogant.
My brother told me that by insisting on being addressed properly I was making life difficult for the people. Perhaps so. I only hope that this will change over time when people will respite the very simple rule of addressing.
I do recognise the fact that I am serious in everything that I do. Perhaps this has caused unease among the people around me. Resultantly, some colleagues, past and present, are not too happy. Even when things do not concern them! For example, I have been so used to speaking proper English. But this has been an offence to a present colleague that he keeps going around rumour mongering about me speaking good English. While the fact that I speak good English is not an issue, the trivialities he injects into his rumours are certainly not welcome! In addition, since the publication of my PhD thesis, this rather idiotic colleague has been going around telling people that he has written for me my PhD thesis! What an absurd claim! He not only speaks bad English, but also writes exceptionally poor English! How can he ever write my thesis for me?!
Anyway, in every such unhappy occurrence, it is important that I seek to be gracious and magnanimous. As the saying goes, "To err is human; to forgive is divine". May I seek to be like Christ, always forgiving, even when people do not appear to deserve it.
"Dear Lord Jesus,
Forgive me my trespasses, and teach me how to forgive the trespasses of others. Help me to forgive others, and so learn to seek forgiveness from you. Amen".
Saturday, March 31, 2007
中国神学教育
最近有机会认识更多来自国内的基督徒，并从他们身上更加体会到中国神学教育的需要。中国是如此的庞大，而神学教育的需要也就自然的庞大了。目前三自教会是中国基督教前程的唯一希望，故此，其属灵、道德、培训、领导等等的责任之重要性是大不可想象的。尽管“家庭教会”有其自己的“使命”与“信仰理念”，但是其教导、培训、领导等之缺乏已经导致一个及其危险的状况，即与异教难以分辨。俩会－－“中国基督教三自爱国运动委员会”与“中国基督教协会”－－在中国可算是上帝所托付的器皿，为要把上帝在耶稣基督里给人类的福音传开来。而其中最重要的责任之一乃是培训教会领袖；而此责任跟神学教育是不能分开的。神学教育如何，教会也必将如何。以下有几个要点，是俩会必须专注的。
其一、神学教育只能提升。金陵神学院目前是全中国规模最大，水准最高的神学院。自二零零五年初，其新的校园也已经快要完成。新的图书馆可容纳三十万本书，整个学院可容纳五百位学生。若是到其网站御揽，便可看到这是一间充满潜能的学府。因此，它更必须勇敢的提升学院每一方面的设备。而最重要的乃是软件，即教职员。是的，学院的新校舍、宿舍、图书馆、电脑设备等等可说是做出了一个难以想象的跳跃了！可是硬件的发展必须有软件的发展支撑着。
目前金陵神学院之教职员有三十位，可没有一位教职员拥有大学哲学博士学位。当然这并不说明没有博士学位的老师就无能力作深入的研究。主要是大学的哲学博士学位的课程一般上是比较有学术水准，又比较有客观的批判标准，且有几年的研究要求和发表，因此，凡是受过如此严格训练和装备的学者都是会给他们所任教的学府带来更高深的研究和学习标准。若金陵要在国内以及国际的神学领域上有所贡献，其中一项重要的计划应当是有系统的召进拥有大学哲学博士的老师，以及有计划的栽培如此的老师。
其二、语言的提升。若是按人数来说，普通话可算是全世界最通用的语言之一。然而，英文在国际各个领域之广泛的应用使其位置被提升到一个不可缺乏学习的语言之一。况且绝大多数的神学书籍和刊物都是以英文著作，西方之神学研究也比全世界其他地方来得早、来得深入。既然中国一直在向外开放，神学研究就更加必须与外界有深入的交流。为此目的，国内的神学教育应当强烈的提倡外语的学习（当然，学生必须有加倍小心的指导，以避免不良好的价值观之影响）。
其三、提升与西方直接的交流。中国人是有独立且批判的能力，我们是能够直接与西方神学做出直接的交流，不需要透过第三者，除非这“第三者”是中国神学界必须有交流的对象。新加坡是一个在不少领域上跟中国都有交流的国家，尤其是政治和商业。近年来，其宗教的交流也增加了不少。论基督教神学教育，中国跟新加坡更是越来越靠近。可是新加坡之神学教育却是缺乏本色化。因着它太过受西方的影响，其神学教育、教会等也受了西方神学很大的影响。既然新加坡之神学教育主要是西方神学，中国到不如直接的与西方神学教育做出直接的交流。这也将为中国神学教育的前途打开一道很大的门－－以后的神学储备师职可直接送到这些西方的大学。
其四、神学院的领袖更新。任何成功的组织都必须有计划、有系统的领袖更新。其目的有三。一、领袖更新为组织带来年轻的接棒人，而随着年轻的接棒人的到来，也就有更新鲜的思路和想法。二、年轻一代毕竟对新一代的神学生之装备的需要比较清楚和了解。如此，教会与社会的需要也就比较被多加考虑。三、领袖更新将会驻使组织的继续提升。当然，话虽如此，一个组织仍然必须有长辈的智慧与指导。换言之，神学院的领袖更新不是指全面的更新，而是指有计划与系统性的更新。
中国教会之需要是很迫切的。中国在文化革命之下失去了多年的文化价值。如今，中国人因经济与科技的发展、国家硬件的发达，其文化是必须面对重建的。基督教之道德理念与福音的盼望可成为中国文化重建的一个亮光。但愿上主祝福他所爱的中华人民共和国。
“爱中华人民共和国的上主，
求您按着您的怜悯、慈爱、恩典，眷顾中国。求您透过中国的每一间神学院来装备新一代的教会领袖和神学教授。愿您祝福金陵神学院的扩建计划，赐其领导者属天的智慧，也带领适合的哲学博士加入其社体。祝福及带领俩会的所有成员，好叫您自己的名因他们在基督里的事奉得着荣耀。阿门。”
二零零七年四月一日，凌晨十二点三十八分。
其一、神学教育只能提升。金陵神学院目前是全中国规模最大，水准最高的神学院。自二零零五年初，其新的校园也已经快要完成。新的图书馆可容纳三十万本书，整个学院可容纳五百位学生。若是到其网站御揽，便可看到这是一间充满潜能的学府。因此，它更必须勇敢的提升学院每一方面的设备。而最重要的乃是软件，即教职员。是的，学院的新校舍、宿舍、图书馆、电脑设备等等可说是做出了一个难以想象的跳跃了！可是硬件的发展必须有软件的发展支撑着。
目前金陵神学院之教职员有三十位，可没有一位教职员拥有大学哲学博士学位。当然这并不说明没有博士学位的老师就无能力作深入的研究。主要是大学的哲学博士学位的课程一般上是比较有学术水准，又比较有客观的批判标准，且有几年的研究要求和发表，因此，凡是受过如此严格训练和装备的学者都是会给他们所任教的学府带来更高深的研究和学习标准。若金陵要在国内以及国际的神学领域上有所贡献，其中一项重要的计划应当是有系统的召进拥有大学哲学博士的老师，以及有计划的栽培如此的老师。
其二、语言的提升。若是按人数来说，普通话可算是全世界最通用的语言之一。然而，英文在国际各个领域之广泛的应用使其位置被提升到一个不可缺乏学习的语言之一。况且绝大多数的神学书籍和刊物都是以英文著作，西方之神学研究也比全世界其他地方来得早、来得深入。既然中国一直在向外开放，神学研究就更加必须与外界有深入的交流。为此目的，国内的神学教育应当强烈的提倡外语的学习（当然，学生必须有加倍小心的指导，以避免不良好的价值观之影响）。
其三、提升与西方直接的交流。中国人是有独立且批判的能力，我们是能够直接与西方神学做出直接的交流，不需要透过第三者，除非这“第三者”是中国神学界必须有交流的对象。新加坡是一个在不少领域上跟中国都有交流的国家，尤其是政治和商业。近年来，其宗教的交流也增加了不少。论基督教神学教育，中国跟新加坡更是越来越靠近。可是新加坡之神学教育却是缺乏本色化。因着它太过受西方的影响，其神学教育、教会等也受了西方神学很大的影响。既然新加坡之神学教育主要是西方神学，中国到不如直接的与西方神学教育做出直接的交流。这也将为中国神学教育的前途打开一道很大的门－－以后的神学储备师职可直接送到这些西方的大学。
其四、神学院的领袖更新。任何成功的组织都必须有计划、有系统的领袖更新。其目的有三。一、领袖更新为组织带来年轻的接棒人，而随着年轻的接棒人的到来，也就有更新鲜的思路和想法。二、年轻一代毕竟对新一代的神学生之装备的需要比较清楚和了解。如此，教会与社会的需要也就比较被多加考虑。三、领袖更新将会驻使组织的继续提升。当然，话虽如此，一个组织仍然必须有长辈的智慧与指导。换言之，神学院的领袖更新不是指全面的更新，而是指有计划与系统性的更新。
中国教会之需要是很迫切的。中国在文化革命之下失去了多年的文化价值。如今，中国人因经济与科技的发展、国家硬件的发达，其文化是必须面对重建的。基督教之道德理念与福音的盼望可成为中国文化重建的一个亮光。但愿上主祝福他所爱的中华人民共和国。
“爱中华人民共和国的上主，
求您按着您的怜悯、慈爱、恩典，眷顾中国。求您透过中国的每一间神学院来装备新一代的教会领袖和神学教授。愿您祝福金陵神学院的扩建计划，赐其领导者属天的智慧，也带领适合的哲学博士加入其社体。祝福及带领俩会的所有成员，好叫您自己的名因他们在基督里的事奉得着荣耀。阿门。”
二零零七年四月一日，凌晨十二点三十八分。
Friday, March 30, 2007
感谢上主怜悯
人生在世，无非是短短的几十年，转眼间就过去了。为何人必须诞生在这世界里？此短短几十年的目的何在？或许我们没有选择的余地。圣经的教导是人来到世上，是因为上主在亘古时创造了人类，并将他的气息吹入人里面，人就成为有气息的人。以后人类就一直继续在这世上为上主管理这世界。
根据犹太教和基督教的教导，人类犯了罪，没有顺服上主所吩咐的。故此，人的悖逆引进了其他的问题：人与人之间的怀疑和钩心斗角导致人与人之间的自相残杀、因着人对上主的悖逆人的身体也成为一个悖逆自己的问题导致病魔的搅扰、苦痛、死亡。从此，人类历史就完全改变了。人打从出世哪一日开始，可以说即是往向坟墓的小道奔跑。死亡从一个人呱呱落地时就开始其工作－－从长大到老化死亡无不停留的将他带领到最后的一个站。
可是尽管人类是堕落的，上主却没有因此而完全的毁灭了我们。他继续赐人类机会来弥补自己的过错，也给予人类一个改过自新的机会。此乃上主之基本怜悯。
上主不但给予人类改过自新的机会，他更加给予人类机会学习、创新、彼此关怀、建立社体。再透过社体，他给予人类机会做出对社体有贡献的事件，因而使人类有希望，并且能够在短短的生命活得有意义。此乃上主之怜悯。
更重要的是上主给予人类一个对自己的来源与未来的认识的渴望。人类是所有动物界里的唯一一个能够追求认识自己的来源与未来的“动物”。透过如此的渴望，上主再进一步的把自己敞开来寻找人类。《约翰福音》提到上主“道成肉身”，来到这世界。这世界是黑暗的，而上主却是光。光照在黑暗里，黑暗却不认识光。“道成肉身”其实是指上帝的儿子耶稣基督，他来到这世界，主要是要把上帝启示给人类，好叫人类能够认识创造我们的上帝。此乃上主之怜悯。
以上乃几个有关上主对人类之怜悯的简单及归纳式的小点，以后本人会再继续把自己的心得在此与各位分享。希望读者看了之后，也认识上主，即是“道成肉身”的耶稣基督，并且因信了他而得救。
“上主，
感谢您在创造人类之后继续给予我们改过自新的机会。我们的祖先背叛您，没有遵守您的指示，导致今天人类的堕落与败坏。感谢您赐我们怜悯，因为我们本来就有如孤儿，又有如迷路的羊，在黑暗里寻找我们的出路。我们不认识自己的来源，更不知道自己的将来。然而，您按着您的怜悯寻找我们，把您的光照在我们的道路上，好叫我们的黑暗不再是黑暗，而是光明。感谢您的怜悯。求上主牵着我们的手，带领我们走您永生的道路。阿门。”
二零零七年三月三十一日，中午十二点四十分。
根据犹太教和基督教的教导，人类犯了罪，没有顺服上主所吩咐的。故此，人的悖逆引进了其他的问题：人与人之间的怀疑和钩心斗角导致人与人之间的自相残杀、因着人对上主的悖逆人的身体也成为一个悖逆自己的问题导致病魔的搅扰、苦痛、死亡。从此，人类历史就完全改变了。人打从出世哪一日开始，可以说即是往向坟墓的小道奔跑。死亡从一个人呱呱落地时就开始其工作－－从长大到老化死亡无不停留的将他带领到最后的一个站。
可是尽管人类是堕落的，上主却没有因此而完全的毁灭了我们。他继续赐人类机会来弥补自己的过错，也给予人类一个改过自新的机会。此乃上主之基本怜悯。
上主不但给予人类改过自新的机会，他更加给予人类机会学习、创新、彼此关怀、建立社体。再透过社体，他给予人类机会做出对社体有贡献的事件，因而使人类有希望，并且能够在短短的生命活得有意义。此乃上主之怜悯。
更重要的是上主给予人类一个对自己的来源与未来的认识的渴望。人类是所有动物界里的唯一一个能够追求认识自己的来源与未来的“动物”。透过如此的渴望，上主再进一步的把自己敞开来寻找人类。《约翰福音》提到上主“道成肉身”，来到这世界。这世界是黑暗的，而上主却是光。光照在黑暗里，黑暗却不认识光。“道成肉身”其实是指上帝的儿子耶稣基督，他来到这世界，主要是要把上帝启示给人类，好叫人类能够认识创造我们的上帝。此乃上主之怜悯。
以上乃几个有关上主对人类之怜悯的简单及归纳式的小点，以后本人会再继续把自己的心得在此与各位分享。希望读者看了之后，也认识上主，即是“道成肉身”的耶稣基督，并且因信了他而得救。
“上主，
感谢您在创造人类之后继续给予我们改过自新的机会。我们的祖先背叛您，没有遵守您的指示，导致今天人类的堕落与败坏。感谢您赐我们怜悯，因为我们本来就有如孤儿，又有如迷路的羊，在黑暗里寻找我们的出路。我们不认识自己的来源，更不知道自己的将来。然而，您按着您的怜悯寻找我们，把您的光照在我们的道路上，好叫我们的黑暗不再是黑暗，而是光明。感谢您的怜悯。求上主牵着我们的手，带领我们走您永生的道路。阿门。”
二零零七年三月三十一日，中午十二点四十分。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)