甚麼是被呼召？
有朋友跟我說，她的朋友認為上帝呼召她參加香港小姐。後來，另一朋友補充說，她參加香港小姐選美時，得到牧師的祝福和全教會的支持。對於呼召一詞，我有數點反省。第一，呼召本身的神秘性。上帝不一定按我們常性出招。再者，在上帝呼召「大晒」的意識下，縱使不認同呼召的內容，我們傾向選擇沉默。第二，呼召似乎往往與一個不普通計劃有關。縱使被呼召者不需要完全清楚這計劃內容，他只要抱著一份戰競的信心參與。所以，我們很少聽見有人說，上帝呼召他今晚吃甚麼菜，因為吃飯太普通了。第三，呼召的內容總不可能太個人化和違反社會道德（這又不一定不可以），所以，聖經支持成為被呼召者一個很重要理據。所謂聖經支持，一個可能就是按所謂靈修的感動，將自己的經驗主導聖經。另一個可能就是以類比形式連繫聖經與當下遭遇，而遭遇的越相似就越容易印證上帝的呼召。
聖經的濫用
就以參加香港小姐為例，聖經的根據可能是以斯帖的經驗。那麼，以斯帖的經驗是甚麼經驗？簡單來說，她以美貌贏取王后，而她王后的位份成為拯救猶太人免被殺戮一個很重要的原因。但這故事是否說明美貌有它的價值而其價值可以帶來權力，改變不公義，造福人民呢？
若以一種經驗相類似閱讀以斯帖的經驗時，有人將參加香港小姐選美合理化。若是，我們是否也可以攪香港靚模選舉？查實，我最大的關心不是選美，而是參加者將美貌與權力拉上關係。不論以經濟或社會地位解釋美貌所牽涉的權力，這是一種對權力的迷思，而缺乏對權力背後的霸權之批判。例如，將美貌等於「三圍數字」、以某種泳裝出現和以娛樂觀眾等等時，這已是一種權力的操縱。可惜的是，在爭取權力時，參加者願意成為這種對女性界定的女性，並將它合理化。我這樣說法是否反對選美會？這不是我今日要討論的課題，而是我對於那以為透過美貌贏取的權力就可以做很多很有價值的事之論述表示懷疑。不錯，香港小姐關懷貧窮人的行動可以推動社會公益，但真正影響社會的卻是德蘭修女式的身體力行，而不是一種宣傳式的呼籲。再者，我沒有看見香港小姐站出來為居港權人士的爭取，卻看見甘神父。同樣，我也沒有看見有香港小姐參加六四晚會。原來，香港小姐的在權力下是在受她倚賴的權力控制。
我尊重人的選擇和自由，但很多選擇不需要有上帝呼召的印證。不是因為我不相信上帝呼召，而是因為成為基督徒就是上帝呼召了。
聖經的運用
說回來，以斯帖的經驗說明甚麼？要解讀以斯帖經驗時，我不認為直接類比式的應用是適合的。事實上，以斯帖怎樣以競爭方式，並成功以美貌成為王后一事與當下香港小姐選美並不等同。第一，以斯帖的經驗是在女性不公平和對王權至上的背景下發生。沒有對父權和王權意識批判下，我們肯定或重複以斯帖經驗只是將悲劇延續。縱使上帝藉以斯帖拯救，但這不等於這制度是合理。第二，美貌不一定需要透過成為王后才可以為自己的民族，甚至為上帝做「大事」。以斯帖的經驗受制於她的時代，但現代社會已經不同了，女性不需要一定以身體和樣貌贏取機會。第三，現代社會特色之一就是商品化，選美就是一個例子。女子只是被包裝，而沒有個性。例如，為何要有年齡限制，為何要未婚，為何不是游泳，也不在海邊，但要穿某種泳裝。因此，我不但會說以斯帖經驗與今日選美無閞，更指出以斯帖的經驗是選美的受害者。那麼，她的經驗向我們說明甚麼。
從故事情節，以斯帖是一個有情的人。（四4）當她知道末底改和猶太人遇上的遭遇時，她的反應是憂愁。又縱使她懷疑末底改建議的可行性（四8-11），她最後仍聽從末底改的建議。或許，我們會質疑她的聽從是由害怕被上帝懲罰而不是情，但若連上帝也不害怕時，這才是人的悲哀。因此，以斯帖不是因為害怕自己受害才去見王，遊說他改變哈曼殺戮猶太人的計劃，反而對上帝敬畏，使她有勇氣去承擔一個她很想，但卻沒有能力承擔的決定。
第二，故事的發展，以斯帖不再停留一個無知少女或只有美貌的角色，反而她主動吩咐末底改（四16-17），並有計謀請哈曼吃兩次飯，來減輕他的懷疑（五）。雖然聖經沒有交代為何王會睡不著，為何他想要讀歷史書解悶，為何他讀到末底改的事，為何哈最剛經過，為何王覺得需要在此刻立即為末底改做一些事。（六1-3）這一切偶爾實在太偶爾了。若非有上帝在背後，猶太人的遭遇不容易改變。雖是如此，但若沒有以斯帖安排哈曼入宮，安排人取歷史書，並閱讀末底改的事給王聽的話，上帝的工作也不容易成全。
以斯帖經驗說出一個女人可以改變一個民族的命運。此外，她是一個有勇氣，也有外交能力和謀略的人。但這一切只有在敬畏上帝下，人才不會只為自己利益著想。
結論
以斯帖的經驗與美貌有關嗎？這只是一個偶爾，而不是必然。再者，美貌與智慧只是一個口號，不是真實的。另一方面，以斯帖的經驗沒有支持選美的正當性，反而提出對上帝敬畏，放下自身利益。這是高委矮肥瘦，美與醜，老與幼的人皆可以。
2009年7月26日 星期日
2009年7月24日 星期五
種族與宗教－維吾爾在中國
（在明報刊登的文章）
雖然中央政府努力將7月5日的新疆騷亂中所牽涉的種族與宗教、維吾爾與漢族、中國與國際伊斯蘭等等的關係淡化，但中央政府的政治上考慮卻避不開維吾爾與宗教密切的關係。事實上，西藏 的藏族不可能與藏傳佛教分割，新疆的維吾爾也不可能與伊斯蘭教分割。透過宗教，維吾爾的身分和價值系統被鞏固。同樣，伊斯蘭教也透過種族建立其影響力。以下，我嘗試從文化政治和宗教政策探討維吾爾在中國。
新疆的出現就是一個問題
清政府要到1759年才全面控制維吾爾居住的地方，並稱這地為新疆（即新的疆土）。雖然自19世紀中葉，漢人逐步移居新疆，但於1864至77年期間，查阿古柏（Yakub Beg）曾反抗清政府管制，自組政府。於1911年期間，新疆曾被中國、英國 和俄國分割控制。此外，分別於1933和1944年，新疆曾先後嘗試獨立。這些歷史反映新疆拒絕認同它是中國一部分。為了進一步控制新疆，中央政府大量將漢人移居新疆來淡化維吾爾在新疆的獨特性，從1949年只有10個百分點的漢人到2000年已增至40個百分點。另一方面，中央政府於1955年成立維吾爾自治區，為要吸納維吾爾的順服。實際上，這距離真正的自治有很大距離，而香港（高度自治 ）就是一個例子。這種軟硬政策也反映在維吾爾的文化生活上。例如，2003年《新疆歷史與發展》白皮書有這樣描述，「自西漢（公元前206年至公元後24年），新疆已是多元種族合一的中國不可分割的部分。漢族是其中最早的人民定居在新疆。於公元前101年，漢朝開始派軍開墾農地……」這是中央政府對少數民族的「文化使命」（civilising mission），目的是要證明他們屬於一個聯合的中國。同時，中央政府又向維吾爾和新疆提供優惠政策，其中包括經濟、教育、宗教和生育等等優惠。然而，中央政府亦知道對少數種?
在國際層面，自蘇聯解體後，中國政府已意識到新疆維吾爾將會是一個全球化問題，因為在中亞新成立的國家中多是伊斯蘭教。於1996年，中央政府與哈薩克斯坦、吉爾吉斯坦和塔吉克斯坦等成立上海 合作會議，其中一個重要合作是不支持分離組織。於1999年，俄羅斯 加入，並就邊界安全、打擊恐怖主義、分離主義和犯毒等議題得到共識。烏茲別克於2001年加入上海合作會議。按國務院報告（2002年），在1990至2001年期間，不同維吾爾分離分子發動200多次恐怖襲擊。911事件 給中國政府一個好機會，以打擊恐怖分子為名混淆恐怖分子、分離分子和公民權利支持者的區別。在2002年，美國 和聯合國 支持中國定東突厥斯坦伊斯蘭運動為國際恐怖組織。
以上的描述是要指出新疆的出現本身就是一個問題。經過中央政府多年的努力，種族融和有一定成績。然而，在一個中國的原則下，種族融和政策總不能滿足那些爭取更多自主的維吾爾。以下，我將探討中央政府如何從宗教政策回應維吾爾。
中國宗教政策在新疆
就着宗教在新疆的角色，國家宗教事務局長葉小文2000年曾說：
宗教有能力去連繫和動員少數種族……近年，我們看見一些教派常常利用宗教爭取權力和利
益，激起麻煩，甚至傷害其他人……他們利用宗教狂熱分裂人民，破壞不同種族的合一。
中央政府於2001年頒布《新疆維吾爾自治區管理宗教事務的規則》取代1994年的規則。在中國，是否依法辦事本身已是一個很嚴重問題，但2001年《規則》卻進一步控制伊斯蘭教活動（留意：維吾爾是伊斯蘭教信徒）。例如，1994年《規則》中反分離活動的指控只針對宗教人士，但2001年《規則》卻適用於所有信徒。此外，2001年《規則》對正常宗教活動和宗教印刷比1994年《規則》有更多限制。事實上，中央政府針對新疆分離活動的政策已於1996年的「嚴打」措施、1997年的「改正社會秩序」、2000年的「改正宗教場所」等等已開始了。911事件後，中央政府推行「嚴打，高壓」措施對付分離分子、宗教極端者和恐怖分子（中央政府稱此為「三股惡勢力」）。如上面所說，中央政府刻意沒有將公民權利爭取者分別出來。結果，任何以宗教名義爭取權利就是宗教極端者和恐怖分子了。
於1953年成立的中國伊斯蘭教協會受中央政府控制，多於伊斯蘭教影響中央政府的宗教政策。自1994年，中央政府提出社會主義與宗教相適應政策後，中國伊斯蘭教協會舉行背誦《可蘭經 》比賽、舉辦麥加朝聖團、以維吾爾語文出版的《中國穆斯林》期刊和出版簡明版《可蘭經》等等。相適應的另一面，就是伊斯蘭宗教教育中需要加插愛國教育，維吾爾的宗教人士並需要參加由中央政府負責的宗教愛國教育。新疆維吾爾自治區黨委書記王樂泉2005年說：
我們一定要加強對宗教公眾人物管理，並肯定他們符合政治要求。這是第一個基本要求。政
治要求是：熱愛祖國、支持共產黨領導人和社會主義系統、反對國家分裂主義和非法宗教活
動、維護國家統一和配合國家法律和政策。
中央政府清楚認識宗教與種族的密切關係，以致它不再選擇以消滅宗教的態度來看待宗教。但在沒有共存的意識下，宗教政策和少數民族政策（《中國的民族區域自治》（2005年））始終不能產生真正的尊重。
結論
經濟發展和中央政府的政治改革將會慢慢容許少數民族有更大的參與，甚至有真實的自治──這是很多評論者的觀點。然而，這條漫長的路是否可以抗衡受國際關係影響的維吾爾運動，我並不太樂觀。
雖然中央政府努力將7月5日的新疆騷亂中所牽涉的種族與宗教、維吾爾與漢族、中國與國際伊斯蘭等等的關係淡化，但中央政府的政治上考慮卻避不開維吾爾與宗教密切的關係。事實上，西藏 的藏族不可能與藏傳佛教分割，新疆的維吾爾也不可能與伊斯蘭教分割。透過宗教，維吾爾的身分和價值系統被鞏固。同樣，伊斯蘭教也透過種族建立其影響力。以下，我嘗試從文化政治和宗教政策探討維吾爾在中國。
新疆的出現就是一個問題
清政府要到1759年才全面控制維吾爾居住的地方，並稱這地為新疆（即新的疆土）。雖然自19世紀中葉，漢人逐步移居新疆，但於1864至77年期間，查阿古柏（Yakub Beg）曾反抗清政府管制，自組政府。於1911年期間，新疆曾被中國、英國 和俄國分割控制。此外，分別於1933和1944年，新疆曾先後嘗試獨立。這些歷史反映新疆拒絕認同它是中國一部分。為了進一步控制新疆，中央政府大量將漢人移居新疆來淡化維吾爾在新疆的獨特性，從1949年只有10個百分點的漢人到2000年已增至40個百分點。另一方面，中央政府於1955年成立維吾爾自治區，為要吸納維吾爾的順服。實際上，這距離真正的自治有很大距離，而香港（高度自治 ）就是一個例子。這種軟硬政策也反映在維吾爾的文化生活上。例如，2003年《新疆歷史與發展》白皮書有這樣描述，「自西漢（公元前206年至公元後24年），新疆已是多元種族合一的中國不可分割的部分。漢族是其中最早的人民定居在新疆。於公元前101年，漢朝開始派軍開墾農地……」這是中央政府對少數民族的「文化使命」（civilising mission），目的是要證明他們屬於一個聯合的中國。同時，中央政府又向維吾爾和新疆提供優惠政策，其中包括經濟、教育、宗教和生育等等優惠。然而，中央政府亦知道對少數種?
在國際層面，自蘇聯解體後，中國政府已意識到新疆維吾爾將會是一個全球化問題，因為在中亞新成立的國家中多是伊斯蘭教。於1996年，中央政府與哈薩克斯坦、吉爾吉斯坦和塔吉克斯坦等成立上海 合作會議，其中一個重要合作是不支持分離組織。於1999年，俄羅斯 加入，並就邊界安全、打擊恐怖主義、分離主義和犯毒等議題得到共識。烏茲別克於2001年加入上海合作會議。按國務院報告（2002年），在1990至2001年期間，不同維吾爾分離分子發動200多次恐怖襲擊。911事件 給中國政府一個好機會，以打擊恐怖分子為名混淆恐怖分子、分離分子和公民權利支持者的區別。在2002年，美國 和聯合國 支持中國定東突厥斯坦伊斯蘭運動為國際恐怖組織。
以上的描述是要指出新疆的出現本身就是一個問題。經過中央政府多年的努力，種族融和有一定成績。然而，在一個中國的原則下，種族融和政策總不能滿足那些爭取更多自主的維吾爾。以下，我將探討中央政府如何從宗教政策回應維吾爾。
中國宗教政策在新疆
就着宗教在新疆的角色，國家宗教事務局長葉小文2000年曾說：
宗教有能力去連繫和動員少數種族……近年，我們看見一些教派常常利用宗教爭取權力和利
益，激起麻煩，甚至傷害其他人……他們利用宗教狂熱分裂人民，破壞不同種族的合一。
中央政府於2001年頒布《新疆維吾爾自治區管理宗教事務的規則》取代1994年的規則。在中國，是否依法辦事本身已是一個很嚴重問題，但2001年《規則》卻進一步控制伊斯蘭教活動（留意：維吾爾是伊斯蘭教信徒）。例如，1994年《規則》中反分離活動的指控只針對宗教人士，但2001年《規則》卻適用於所有信徒。此外，2001年《規則》對正常宗教活動和宗教印刷比1994年《規則》有更多限制。事實上，中央政府針對新疆分離活動的政策已於1996年的「嚴打」措施、1997年的「改正社會秩序」、2000年的「改正宗教場所」等等已開始了。911事件後，中央政府推行「嚴打，高壓」措施對付分離分子、宗教極端者和恐怖分子（中央政府稱此為「三股惡勢力」）。如上面所說，中央政府刻意沒有將公民權利爭取者分別出來。結果，任何以宗教名義爭取權利就是宗教極端者和恐怖分子了。
於1953年成立的中國伊斯蘭教協會受中央政府控制，多於伊斯蘭教影響中央政府的宗教政策。自1994年，中央政府提出社會主義與宗教相適應政策後，中國伊斯蘭教協會舉行背誦《可蘭經 》比賽、舉辦麥加朝聖團、以維吾爾語文出版的《中國穆斯林》期刊和出版簡明版《可蘭經》等等。相適應的另一面，就是伊斯蘭宗教教育中需要加插愛國教育，維吾爾的宗教人士並需要參加由中央政府負責的宗教愛國教育。新疆維吾爾自治區黨委書記王樂泉2005年說：
我們一定要加強對宗教公眾人物管理，並肯定他們符合政治要求。這是第一個基本要求。政
治要求是：熱愛祖國、支持共產黨領導人和社會主義系統、反對國家分裂主義和非法宗教活
動、維護國家統一和配合國家法律和政策。
中央政府清楚認識宗教與種族的密切關係，以致它不再選擇以消滅宗教的態度來看待宗教。但在沒有共存的意識下，宗教政策和少數民族政策（《中國的民族區域自治》（2005年））始終不能產生真正的尊重。
結論
經濟發展和中央政府的政治改革將會慢慢容許少數民族有更大的參與，甚至有真實的自治──這是很多評論者的觀點。然而，這條漫長的路是否可以抗衡受國際關係影響的維吾爾運動，我並不太樂觀。
2009年7月19日 星期日
我們宣講甚麼福音 What we proclaim
以為今日還打風（颶風），誰知它快來快去。所以，今早仍要講道，但昨晚的講座取消了。按著教會給我的三代經題，我的分享如下：
Jer 23:1-6 was a very reassuring message for the exiled, for they were promised to be given a home and shepherded. Besides, they would have a bright future. Why were they fallen into such misery, that is, exile? It was not because they were unlucky, but because the shepherds (the kings) had failed to their callings. Their failure not only led to the fall of the nation, but also made their people homeless. Hence, it was so important to have a good king. In fact, God promised them to appoint a new king. He was honest, clever, compassionate and justice. Since this message is addressed to the exiled Israelites in 5-6th century BC, what is its meaning to us? Firstly, I would have to say that the Israelites’ unique experience has provided us a glass to glimpse who God is. He is the God on the side of the victims, powerlessness and homelessness. The God who had saved the people in the 5-6th century would be the same God who saves us now. Secondly, this message has reflected that a king should rule with justice and compassion. Although we may be used to the argument that the demand of Israelites to have a king is against God (1Sam 8), the central issue is not the kingship, but who the king is. When we put these two reflections together, we can conclude that God’s salvation is both personal and structural. No salvation can be fulfilled without making structure justice, and no salvation has meaning without giving one hope. Today, my reflection is primarily based on God’s structural promise to the Israelites,
Someday I will appoint an honest king from the family of David, a king who will be wise and
rule with justice. As long as he is king, Israel will have peace, and Judah will be safe. The name
of this king will be ‘The Lord gives Justice.’
Regarding the promise, we have to ask whether it has been fulfilled in Israelites’ history. Honest to say, the Israelites are not able to identify any ruler as the king whom God has promised till now. In other words, the promise is still an unfulfilled promise. However, we Christians have a different interpretation, for we believe that Jesus Christ is the promised king. But the Israelites find difficulty to accept this, for Jesus Christ does not come with a kingdom and he is not a king in a political sense. The Israelites’ objection is valid, but it is wrong to say that Jesus’ salvation has no intention to revive Israelites’ nation. Instead God’s promise is for all peoples, not just Israelites; God’s salvation is comprehensive, not just political. Hence, the revival of Israelite’s nation is too shallow and superficial to understand God’s promise. Jesus’ life and ministry has reflected the nature of God’s salvation. In short, Jesus’ crucifixion is a result of his practice of justice and compassion. He challenged the unjust social and religious norms, and the represented interest parties. He chose to be with the poor, sinners and marginalized, not the power and the rich. He was put into death, because he refused to support the kingdom of the oppressors. The mistake of the Israelites is that they fail to understand God’s salvation in a macro, radical and comprehensive way. Likewise, we Christians make another great mistake, because we are inclined to spiritualize God’s promise, and ignore the political reality of God’s kingdom.
Both God’s promise to Israelites and God’s promise realized in Jesus Christ have given us a vantage point to reflect the political dimension of salvation. Firstly, those who hold power are always tempted to abuse power for his own benefits and the privileged. Hence, a check and balance of the power is important. During the time of Old Testament, the prophets mostly picked up this duty. They challenged the kings and spoke on behalf of God and the people. Jeremiah was an example. Due to this, they were suffered. In the 21st century, our political structure is very different, and it always has had a built in check and balance mechanism to watch the government and provide protection to the prophets and the protestors. We appreciate people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi, and we need people like them in society. But they would not need to be suffered if there is a better political structure. I am not saying that democracy can save, but rather democracy, to a large extent, can reduce unnecessary sacrifice. God’s promise of salvation is not simply for the victims, but also to prevent the emergence of victims.
Secondly, even though we know that no earthly government can be compared with the kingdom Jesus Christ represented, it does not mean that it is better for us to wait for the coming kingdom, and do nothing. What God has promised in the Old Testament and the life of Jesus Christ have expressed the quality of a king, that is, honest, clever, just and compassionate. However, it is almost impossible to have such a king, and this is why the king of Israelites is God himself. Despite this, this does not mean that we do not need to have any expectation from a king. On the one hand, we should not mytheologize a king, or he should not mytheologize himself. On the other hand, a demand to be honest, just and compassionate is applied to him. I am not in a position to tell you whether our government has done a good job or not, for you can make your own judgement. What I can share with you is a story of the mentally retarded people. Starting from this September (2009), mentally retarded students aged over 18 would not receive any subsidy to study in schools. Previously, they can remain in the subsidised school till aged 20. Ironically, this policy does not apply to the so-called normal students. You may argue that this policy is fair, for the mentally retarded people may use the excuse of going to schools to avoid working. If this is so, many of the so-called normal students are doing this, but they are not deprived of subsidised education. Justice is not about fair distribution, but about compassion, and therefore, it is just to give preference to the less advantaged.
God’s promise of salvation is both personal and structural. Political salvation cannot be replaced by personal salvation, and vice versa. They co-exist. If missing any one of the dimensions, we are simply proclaiming an opium form of salvation.
Jer 23:1-6 was a very reassuring message for the exiled, for they were promised to be given a home and shepherded. Besides, they would have a bright future. Why were they fallen into such misery, that is, exile? It was not because they were unlucky, but because the shepherds (the kings) had failed to their callings. Their failure not only led to the fall of the nation, but also made their people homeless. Hence, it was so important to have a good king. In fact, God promised them to appoint a new king. He was honest, clever, compassionate and justice. Since this message is addressed to the exiled Israelites in 5-6th century BC, what is its meaning to us? Firstly, I would have to say that the Israelites’ unique experience has provided us a glass to glimpse who God is. He is the God on the side of the victims, powerlessness and homelessness. The God who had saved the people in the 5-6th century would be the same God who saves us now. Secondly, this message has reflected that a king should rule with justice and compassion. Although we may be used to the argument that the demand of Israelites to have a king is against God (1Sam 8), the central issue is not the kingship, but who the king is. When we put these two reflections together, we can conclude that God’s salvation is both personal and structural. No salvation can be fulfilled without making structure justice, and no salvation has meaning without giving one hope. Today, my reflection is primarily based on God’s structural promise to the Israelites,
Someday I will appoint an honest king from the family of David, a king who will be wise and
rule with justice. As long as he is king, Israel will have peace, and Judah will be safe. The name
of this king will be ‘The Lord gives Justice.’
Regarding the promise, we have to ask whether it has been fulfilled in Israelites’ history. Honest to say, the Israelites are not able to identify any ruler as the king whom God has promised till now. In other words, the promise is still an unfulfilled promise. However, we Christians have a different interpretation, for we believe that Jesus Christ is the promised king. But the Israelites find difficulty to accept this, for Jesus Christ does not come with a kingdom and he is not a king in a political sense. The Israelites’ objection is valid, but it is wrong to say that Jesus’ salvation has no intention to revive Israelites’ nation. Instead God’s promise is for all peoples, not just Israelites; God’s salvation is comprehensive, not just political. Hence, the revival of Israelite’s nation is too shallow and superficial to understand God’s promise. Jesus’ life and ministry has reflected the nature of God’s salvation. In short, Jesus’ crucifixion is a result of his practice of justice and compassion. He challenged the unjust social and religious norms, and the represented interest parties. He chose to be with the poor, sinners and marginalized, not the power and the rich. He was put into death, because he refused to support the kingdom of the oppressors. The mistake of the Israelites is that they fail to understand God’s salvation in a macro, radical and comprehensive way. Likewise, we Christians make another great mistake, because we are inclined to spiritualize God’s promise, and ignore the political reality of God’s kingdom.
Both God’s promise to Israelites and God’s promise realized in Jesus Christ have given us a vantage point to reflect the political dimension of salvation. Firstly, those who hold power are always tempted to abuse power for his own benefits and the privileged. Hence, a check and balance of the power is important. During the time of Old Testament, the prophets mostly picked up this duty. They challenged the kings and spoke on behalf of God and the people. Jeremiah was an example. Due to this, they were suffered. In the 21st century, our political structure is very different, and it always has had a built in check and balance mechanism to watch the government and provide protection to the prophets and the protestors. We appreciate people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi, and we need people like them in society. But they would not need to be suffered if there is a better political structure. I am not saying that democracy can save, but rather democracy, to a large extent, can reduce unnecessary sacrifice. God’s promise of salvation is not simply for the victims, but also to prevent the emergence of victims.
Secondly, even though we know that no earthly government can be compared with the kingdom Jesus Christ represented, it does not mean that it is better for us to wait for the coming kingdom, and do nothing. What God has promised in the Old Testament and the life of Jesus Christ have expressed the quality of a king, that is, honest, clever, just and compassionate. However, it is almost impossible to have such a king, and this is why the king of Israelites is God himself. Despite this, this does not mean that we do not need to have any expectation from a king. On the one hand, we should not mytheologize a king, or he should not mytheologize himself. On the other hand, a demand to be honest, just and compassionate is applied to him. I am not in a position to tell you whether our government has done a good job or not, for you can make your own judgement. What I can share with you is a story of the mentally retarded people. Starting from this September (2009), mentally retarded students aged over 18 would not receive any subsidy to study in schools. Previously, they can remain in the subsidised school till aged 20. Ironically, this policy does not apply to the so-called normal students. You may argue that this policy is fair, for the mentally retarded people may use the excuse of going to schools to avoid working. If this is so, many of the so-called normal students are doing this, but they are not deprived of subsidised education. Justice is not about fair distribution, but about compassion, and therefore, it is just to give preference to the less advantaged.
God’s promise of salvation is both personal and structural. Political salvation cannot be replaced by personal salvation, and vice versa. They co-exist. If missing any one of the dimensions, we are simply proclaiming an opium form of salvation.
2009年7月16日 星期四
2009年7月13日 星期一
Pepsi in Blue
I like Coca-cola more than pepsi. In Indonesia, I found Pepsi in blue, but no pepsi in black. Is this an authentic pepsi? Guess whether I have taken it or not.
2009年7月12日 星期日
總有出路
這個星期給以賽亞書 43: 14-21 深深吸引. 所以, 不論婚禮訓勉, 靈修分享和講道都環繞這主題. 早上崇拜講道後, 就會與一位 13 年前的學生及其先生一起吃午飯. 隨即, 就要出席一個由 Roundtable 主持的講座, 題目是宗教衝突對國際秩序的影響. 晚上, 就會同parents in law一起晚餐.
Text: Isa 43: 14-21 (There is always a way out)
Since we are so used to the material interpretation of the concept of creation out of nothing, the newness of that 'I (God) am about to do a new thing' (Isa 43:19) is mostly understood nothing related to the previous or the past. In fact, what creation out of nothing is concerned is about the meaningfulness instead of the origin of existence. Also with the deep influence of capitalism, the newness is more identified with replacement of the old, for the old has to go in order that the mechanism of capitalism can smoothly function. Such kind of understanding is very un-ecological.
The rise of the ecological consciousness in the last 40 years reminds us that the newness is more appropriate to be understood in the light of renewal, rebirth or regeneration of the old. The ecological interpretation tells us that the old would not be thrown away or destroyed due to the emergence of the new, but rather the new is a kind of continuity and discontinuity of the old. This is a common theme found in the Bible. The new covenant symbolized by the gospel is not to replace the old symbolized by the law, but the new regenerates the old. Likewise, circumcision practiced in the old covenant is not replaced by the baptism practiced in the new, but the old is not understood exclusively. Resurrection of the body is new, not in a sense of against the body, but in relation to the body in a sense of discontinuity and continuity.
However, you may not find the interpretation correct, for this is not what the text means (Isa 43:14-21), because the Israelites were asked not to remember the former things and consider the things of old (v.18). Ironically, it was God who reminded the Israelities the Exodus event. (v.16-17) The Exodus event was the former thing, but the Israelites who could believe in what God promised in verses 19-20 were dependent upon the remembrance of Exodus event. This ambiguity brings us to reconsider what the former things and the things of the old are in God’s request. In short, Israelites were in exile at that time, and this was why many passages of God’s promise of salvation were found in different chapters of Isaiah. In this context, the former and the old were most likely referred to the so-called glorious time, the Israel nation. In other words, the exiled people considered that the restoration of the nation was the realization of God’s salvation. This was also the belief of the Israelites during the time of Jesus. With this understanding, God’s request of not to remember the former things and the things of the old was to urge the Israelites not to have any dream of restoration of the Israelite nation. Despite this, God still saved them by making them a new people (v.21), and God’s providence was found in their lives. (v.19-20)
However, the application of this passage has to be careful. For instance, does this passage say no to Uighur Christians in Xinjiang, if any, asking for independence? Should they accept the reality? Likewise, does this message say no to Sun Yat Sen’s revolutionary movement against the Ching government? It can’t be denied that the Bible is spoken to the people at that time, but is not restricted to it. If so, how can we understand this passage in a very different context? A common practice is that Christians ignore the context and read the text from a personal sense. What I mean is that Christians just replace the Israelite concern with our own experience. An example of this is the story of the Lutheran Theological Seminary. In the mid 1980s, the old campus of the LTS was under the threat of the confiscation, for the government might have to use the land for building the Shing Mun’s Tunnel. This text (v.19) became the promise as well as the comfort for the president of LTS at that time. That is to say, God would provide a new campus for LTS. This is why the text inscribed on the cross in LTS’s campus. In order not to interpret the text as our wish, I think the key is verse 21, that is, God is going to create the people to declare God’s wondrous act. This new community is created not based on nationalism, but based on the relationship with God. In fact, the promise of a new community is not new, but rather Israelites had forgotten it, because they were absorbed to national identity. Nevertheless, the identity of being God’s people is not in contrast with one’s national identity, but they are not the same. In other words, don’t abuse the name of God for fighting one’s political aim, but there is nothing wrong to fight for political aim as a Christian. The identity of being God’s people still continues even though one has lost the national identity. In fact, one of the reasons of contemporary Israelite and Palestinian conflict is that the Israelites subject being God’s people to the land’s people.
Unlike the Israelites, we Christians are easier to understand being the worshipping community mentioned in verse 21. However, we should not turn the worshipping community into a ghetto characterized by lifestyle, but rather we are asked to declare and witness to God’s wondrous act. What is God’s wondrous act? According to the text, it is God’s promise of salvation. In Chinese, God’s promise is 總有出路 (there is always a way out). Those who are fallen in a very difficult relation always have a way out. Even though it may end up in divorce, God still makes a way in wilderness, and rivers in desert. Likewise, those who have had a very difficult financial burden always have a way out. A way out does not mean to release all financial burden, but rather bankruptcy, if happens, is not the end of the world.
When the Lord said, 'I am about to do a new thing', it is not about destruction. Neither is it a return to the previous glorious stage. Rather it is a promise of salvation. It requests us to have the courage to be separated from the ideology that we are identified with, and at the same time, to believe that we have future even though it seems impossible. The emergence of the worshipping community is a witness to it.
Text: Isa 43: 14-21 (There is always a way out)
Since we are so used to the material interpretation of the concept of creation out of nothing, the newness of that 'I (God) am about to do a new thing' (Isa 43:19) is mostly understood nothing related to the previous or the past. In fact, what creation out of nothing is concerned is about the meaningfulness instead of the origin of existence. Also with the deep influence of capitalism, the newness is more identified with replacement of the old, for the old has to go in order that the mechanism of capitalism can smoothly function. Such kind of understanding is very un-ecological.
The rise of the ecological consciousness in the last 40 years reminds us that the newness is more appropriate to be understood in the light of renewal, rebirth or regeneration of the old. The ecological interpretation tells us that the old would not be thrown away or destroyed due to the emergence of the new, but rather the new is a kind of continuity and discontinuity of the old. This is a common theme found in the Bible. The new covenant symbolized by the gospel is not to replace the old symbolized by the law, but the new regenerates the old. Likewise, circumcision practiced in the old covenant is not replaced by the baptism practiced in the new, but the old is not understood exclusively. Resurrection of the body is new, not in a sense of against the body, but in relation to the body in a sense of discontinuity and continuity.
However, you may not find the interpretation correct, for this is not what the text means (Isa 43:14-21), because the Israelites were asked not to remember the former things and consider the things of old (v.18). Ironically, it was God who reminded the Israelities the Exodus event. (v.16-17) The Exodus event was the former thing, but the Israelites who could believe in what God promised in verses 19-20 were dependent upon the remembrance of Exodus event. This ambiguity brings us to reconsider what the former things and the things of the old are in God’s request. In short, Israelites were in exile at that time, and this was why many passages of God’s promise of salvation were found in different chapters of Isaiah. In this context, the former and the old were most likely referred to the so-called glorious time, the Israel nation. In other words, the exiled people considered that the restoration of the nation was the realization of God’s salvation. This was also the belief of the Israelites during the time of Jesus. With this understanding, God’s request of not to remember the former things and the things of the old was to urge the Israelites not to have any dream of restoration of the Israelite nation. Despite this, God still saved them by making them a new people (v.21), and God’s providence was found in their lives. (v.19-20)
However, the application of this passage has to be careful. For instance, does this passage say no to Uighur Christians in Xinjiang, if any, asking for independence? Should they accept the reality? Likewise, does this message say no to Sun Yat Sen’s revolutionary movement against the Ching government? It can’t be denied that the Bible is spoken to the people at that time, but is not restricted to it. If so, how can we understand this passage in a very different context? A common practice is that Christians ignore the context and read the text from a personal sense. What I mean is that Christians just replace the Israelite concern with our own experience. An example of this is the story of the Lutheran Theological Seminary. In the mid 1980s, the old campus of the LTS was under the threat of the confiscation, for the government might have to use the land for building the Shing Mun’s Tunnel. This text (v.19) became the promise as well as the comfort for the president of LTS at that time. That is to say, God would provide a new campus for LTS. This is why the text inscribed on the cross in LTS’s campus. In order not to interpret the text as our wish, I think the key is verse 21, that is, God is going to create the people to declare God’s wondrous act. This new community is created not based on nationalism, but based on the relationship with God. In fact, the promise of a new community is not new, but rather Israelites had forgotten it, because they were absorbed to national identity. Nevertheless, the identity of being God’s people is not in contrast with one’s national identity, but they are not the same. In other words, don’t abuse the name of God for fighting one’s political aim, but there is nothing wrong to fight for political aim as a Christian. The identity of being God’s people still continues even though one has lost the national identity. In fact, one of the reasons of contemporary Israelite and Palestinian conflict is that the Israelites subject being God’s people to the land’s people.
Unlike the Israelites, we Christians are easier to understand being the worshipping community mentioned in verse 21. However, we should not turn the worshipping community into a ghetto characterized by lifestyle, but rather we are asked to declare and witness to God’s wondrous act. What is God’s wondrous act? According to the text, it is God’s promise of salvation. In Chinese, God’s promise is 總有出路 (there is always a way out). Those who are fallen in a very difficult relation always have a way out. Even though it may end up in divorce, God still makes a way in wilderness, and rivers in desert. Likewise, those who have had a very difficult financial burden always have a way out. A way out does not mean to release all financial burden, but rather bankruptcy, if happens, is not the end of the world.
When the Lord said, 'I am about to do a new thing', it is not about destruction. Neither is it a return to the previous glorious stage. Rather it is a promise of salvation. It requests us to have the courage to be separated from the ideology that we are identified with, and at the same time, to believe that we have future even though it seems impossible. The emergence of the worshipping community is a witness to it.
2009年7月11日 星期六
推薦張婉雯新書出版
認識婉雯是很偶然, 但有趣的是, 她竟與內子認識. 因著她,我開始稍為認真思考有關動物倫理和動物神學的議題. 生命就是從相遇開始, 與人相遇, 與動物相遇 ...
有幸, 我竟然可以在婉雯新著寫了以下一篇反省文章.
情與理－動物與人的相遇
2005年8月，當颶風Katrina吹襲美國時，有當地居民選擇
不疏散，因為他們不忍心留下他們的朋友（貓與狗）獨自 生活（當時的救援行動是先救人，後救動物）。我問內子，「你會留下與貓狗一起還是選擇與我們疏散？｣她亳不疑惑，便說，「我會留下。你們可以彼此照顧，但貓狗們就不可以了。｣
2009年6月，一位朋友對一隻剛出世不久而被遺棄的小貓動了慈心，將她帶回家。奈何，他妻子反對。就這樣，這小貓已到了我家暫住。內子和對責任心不明白的女兒們很喜歡她，家中的大狗和小魚也沒有反對。沒有表態的我也不需就她的去留表態。
這兩件不同的事使我與動物建立一份很複雜的關係。一方面，動物可能會令我失去內子（當然，我也可能會選擇留下與動物共存）；另一方面，我的家成為被遺棄動物之家。這兩件不同的事卻有一個共同的主題，就是同情。留下照顧動物是因情，讓動物留下也是因情。這份情是否只是因一時衝動？或同情是否可以成為倫理基礎？
同情在倫理學上並不佔很高地位（尤其在啟蒙運動後），因為同情太個人、太情緒和太容易改變了。雖然同情可以成為人偏見的基礎，但它也可以是一種對牢人理性的顛覆力量。可惜的是，我們社會卻傾向從科學性、思辯性和普遍原則等等看事物，不但因為這代表客觀，更因為這易於控制（傅柯的論點）。在理性主義主導下，我們的世界變得冰冷、僵硬和官僚。結果，我們失去能力，也沒有時間去接觸一個非以理性為主的世界，與他建立關係。這非以理想世界不是一個不理性世界，而是一個要求我們用心去接觸世界。在本文，這非以理性為主導的世界是一個動物世界。或許，有人質疑我對當下世界的批評，因為現代人也養寵物。但問題是，他們是寵物，而不是動物。
為了要維護一個非以理性為主世界的合理性，其中的支持者嘗試提出物種主義（speciesism）為動物伸冤。簡單來說，物種主義認為因對人這物種給予有不成比例的道德價值，人就很自然地比其他物種更有價值。這對一個以人為核心的社會絕對是一個很嚴厲的批判，但物種主義不足以建立對非人的物種之尊重，因為建議者傾向從性別歧視和種族歧視等思維來理解物種主義。結果是，物種主義是基於物種的相似性，而不是不同性。相反，我認為公義是對不同有不同對待，而不是一視同仁。只有如此，不同才不會需要同化，反而可按他們的不同繼續生活。另一方面，不同使那些弱勢的不同者可以獲得額外體恤，而這體恤是基於對差異的尊重。然而，一個不懂用情去接觸世界的人會選擇對不同者歧視和壓迫，不但因為他不明白差異，也因為他沒有空間被改變。
情不是對立於理，而是理不必然是唯一和最後。當要為動物權利找出其合法性時（例如，他們是否可以說話或是否可以理性思考），同則以動物可經驗痛與苦作為基礎。我們不排除後者理解可能仍是人的同情投射在動物身上，而非真是與動物自己的情說話。然而，當看見被遺下的貓狗而變得很孤癖和沒有安全感的樣子時，他們真的感受到苦。又當看見自由貓狗被捉拿和驅逐時，他們的慌張是真實的。情的倫理不是要求我們殺動物時要快要準，而是要求我們拒絕用動物做醫療實驗和非醫療測試，甚至考慮不吃肉。此刻，我明白，也接受內子選擇留下照顧貓狗的決定。她對貓狗的情也是貓狗對她的情，而這情可以走出理性之外。
婉雯的書就是一本有關與貓談情的書。其中，我體驗一種非以理性為基礎的情，所以，婉雯可以很輕鬆地放下步伐去接觸他們、很自然地與他們建立友誼、很投入地為他們伸冤，並很尊重地維護他們的自耕地。
2009年7月10日 星期五
離婚與再婚
明天, 將要在一個婚禮訓勉, 但今晚, 卻要在一個聚會跟人討論離婚. 這是生活的反諷.
1. 聖經對離婚者的態度
* 約翰福音第四章有關耶穌與撒瑪利亞婦人相遇的故事：
+ 節16-18，耶穌沒有評論她的婚姻狀況（她是一個曾離婚的人）。再者, 作者約翰也沒有用
離婚（或被休和再嫁）這字眼描述她。
+ 節29，這婦人的反應反映她與耶穌的對話中得到肯定，因為她被剝奪的悲哀
(disenfranchised grief) 得到平反。
* 約翰福音第八章有關被捉淫婦的故事
+ 耶穌的反應代表一種審判的懸掛。
* 馬可福音十1-12和馬太福音十九1-12
+ 肯定婚姻的不可分開性，但接受有例外的。
+ 馬可沒有就分開一事提出條件，但馬太卻提出條件。這不同的記錄反映不同處境。在馬太
處境，當時的群體面對Hillel和Shammai對休妻不同理解，以致耶穌回應他們。
* a 當時，只有男性才有休妻的權力（申命記廿四1），所以，耶穌站在弱勢女人那一方。
b 審判的懸掛之原則，即不是事事需要作道德判斷。
c 不同處境應對離婚可以有它不同處理。
2. 離婚的神學反省
* 當婚姻關係已陷入不可復修地步時，離婚是罪抑或不離婚才是罪？當罪是關係的疏離時，離
婚可以是坦白承認關係的破裂。關係修復不等於只有再相愛，而是不仇恨。
* 按馬丁路德兩個國度理解，婚姻屬於世界的國度。這國度不是完美，反而回應人的罪。所
以，離婚是一個合乎世界國度的制度，而這世界國度是屬於上帝的。
* 為何人不可以在婚姻犯錯？為何在婚姻的犯錯只有修補關係的選擇？恩典如何可以在離婚與
再婚中體驗？
3. 離婚與牧養
* 從婚姻中釋放
+ 當無法支持婚姻關係；
+ 當婚姻已失去其目的；
+ 當有其他責任比婚姻責任更大。
* 小心運用受害者的心態看待離婚者，因為這可能會製造仇恨。
* 對被剝奪悲哀的再思：這是不道德，悲哀是人的權力。
* 離婚是否罪？我會說，這不是上帝的心意，但上帝的恩典仍舊．
1. 聖經對離婚者的態度
* 約翰福音第四章有關耶穌與撒瑪利亞婦人相遇的故事：
+ 節16-18，耶穌沒有評論她的婚姻狀況（她是一個曾離婚的人）。再者, 作者約翰也沒有用
離婚（或被休和再嫁）這字眼描述她。
+ 節29，這婦人的反應反映她與耶穌的對話中得到肯定，因為她被剝奪的悲哀
(disenfranchised grief) 得到平反。
* 約翰福音第八章有關被捉淫婦的故事
+ 耶穌的反應代表一種審判的懸掛。
* 馬可福音十1-12和馬太福音十九1-12
+ 肯定婚姻的不可分開性，但接受有例外的。
+ 馬可沒有就分開一事提出條件，但馬太卻提出條件。這不同的記錄反映不同處境。在馬太
處境，當時的群體面對Hillel和Shammai對休妻不同理解，以致耶穌回應他們。
* a 當時，只有男性才有休妻的權力（申命記廿四1），所以，耶穌站在弱勢女人那一方。
b 審判的懸掛之原則，即不是事事需要作道德判斷。
c 不同處境應對離婚可以有它不同處理。
2. 離婚的神學反省
* 當婚姻關係已陷入不可復修地步時，離婚是罪抑或不離婚才是罪？當罪是關係的疏離時，離
婚可以是坦白承認關係的破裂。關係修復不等於只有再相愛，而是不仇恨。
* 按馬丁路德兩個國度理解，婚姻屬於世界的國度。這國度不是完美，反而回應人的罪。所
以，離婚是一個合乎世界國度的制度，而這世界國度是屬於上帝的。
* 為何人不可以在婚姻犯錯？為何在婚姻的犯錯只有修補關係的選擇？恩典如何可以在離婚與
再婚中體驗？
3. 離婚與牧養
* 從婚姻中釋放
+ 當無法支持婚姻關係；
+ 當婚姻已失去其目的；
+ 當有其他責任比婚姻責任更大。
* 小心運用受害者的心態看待離婚者，因為這可能會製造仇恨。
* 對被剝奪悲哀的再思：這是不道德，悲哀是人的權力。
* 離婚是否罪？我會說，這不是上帝的心意，但上帝的恩典仍舊．
2009年7月9日 星期四
上帝要為你們做一件新事
以下是我將要在一個婚姻中的訓勉
約一年前，當我答應xx為他和xy做婚前輔導時，那時xy並沒有應承與xx結婚。不知道是否xx明白不是決定結婚後才進行婚前輔導的道理還是他想藉婚前輔導這幾個字給xy一點壓力，但一次會面後，xy對我說，她有信心與xx一起。xx，你成功了。
很多人習慣用因果關係看拍拖與結婚。所以，結婚是對多年拍拖的收成，而婚禮就是對這「流淚撒種，歡呼收割｣的慶祝（詩一百廿六5）。查實，從因的角度比從果的角度去理解婚姻可能更適合，因為結婚真是新的開始。當結婚是因時，結婚就絕不是戀愛的墳墓，而是新生活的開始。例如，管教xx的將是xy而不是xx的母親，照顧xy將是xx而不是xy的父母。xx，你準備好被管教這新開始嗎？xy，你對xx照顧你這新開始有信心嗎？
以上所講婚姻的新只屬於一個適應新生活的範圍，但婚姻的新更關乎是創造新生活的機會。或許，雙方父母聽見這話就很贊同，甚至微笑起來，因為創造新生活的機會跟他們抱孫的渴望可能不謀而合。我相信xx和xy沒有否定這理解，但你們也會從創造去理解婚姻的新。雖然我沒有機會拜訪你們的新居，但從你們口中知道，你們已預備一間房間作祈禱之用。這是婚姻的新創造的好例子。我相信你們會在生活中有很多新創造。
當我們集中從創造新生活去理解婚姻時，我們可能慢慢只專注自己的安樂窩。例如，家居佈置、由小屋搬大屋和旅遊計劃等等。這一切都是重要的，但婚姻的新也是上帝要在祂設立的婚姻中為你們創造一件新事。對於這一件新事時，你們可能有點緊張。例如，上帝是否要使你們的家成為無家者的家或要將你們一切賀禮變買照顧窮人？我不知道，但上帝為你們創造的一件新事是關乎一份禮物。因為這是禮物，所以，這新事是祝福，不是要求；恩典，不是責任。因此，上帝給你的禮物不是一次過的禮物，也沒有有效期。今日收完禮物後，明日會再收，下星期也會有。上帝要為你們創造一件新事就是上帝的承諾與恩典不減不退。事實上，今日婚禮的順利、親朋的祝福, 雷雨的到賀等等也是上主為你們預備的禮物。這新事沒有因著婚禮完成而結束，反而今日只是一個開始，一個對上帝要為你們創造一件新事的見證。
當生活可能使你們心靈和生活的空間變得擠迫時，不要忘記上帝要為你們做一件新事，使你們從擠迫的生活找回生命創造的空間。
祝願你們永結同心，也願你們在婚姻的新預留更新的發現。
約一年前，當我答應xx為他和xy做婚前輔導時，那時xy並沒有應承與xx結婚。不知道是否xx明白不是決定結婚後才進行婚前輔導的道理還是他想藉婚前輔導這幾個字給xy一點壓力，但一次會面後，xy對我說，她有信心與xx一起。xx，你成功了。
很多人習慣用因果關係看拍拖與結婚。所以，結婚是對多年拍拖的收成，而婚禮就是對這「流淚撒種，歡呼收割｣的慶祝（詩一百廿六5）。查實，從因的角度比從果的角度去理解婚姻可能更適合，因為結婚真是新的開始。當結婚是因時，結婚就絕不是戀愛的墳墓，而是新生活的開始。例如，管教xx的將是xy而不是xx的母親，照顧xy將是xx而不是xy的父母。xx，你準備好被管教這新開始嗎？xy，你對xx照顧你這新開始有信心嗎？
以上所講婚姻的新只屬於一個適應新生活的範圍，但婚姻的新更關乎是創造新生活的機會。或許，雙方父母聽見這話就很贊同，甚至微笑起來，因為創造新生活的機會跟他們抱孫的渴望可能不謀而合。我相信xx和xy沒有否定這理解，但你們也會從創造去理解婚姻的新。雖然我沒有機會拜訪你們的新居，但從你們口中知道，你們已預備一間房間作祈禱之用。這是婚姻的新創造的好例子。我相信你們會在生活中有很多新創造。
當我們集中從創造新生活去理解婚姻時，我們可能慢慢只專注自己的安樂窩。例如，家居佈置、由小屋搬大屋和旅遊計劃等等。這一切都是重要的，但婚姻的新也是上帝要在祂設立的婚姻中為你們創造一件新事。對於這一件新事時，你們可能有點緊張。例如，上帝是否要使你們的家成為無家者的家或要將你們一切賀禮變買照顧窮人？我不知道，但上帝為你們創造的一件新事是關乎一份禮物。因為這是禮物，所以，這新事是祝福，不是要求；恩典，不是責任。因此，上帝給你的禮物不是一次過的禮物，也沒有有效期。今日收完禮物後，明日會再收，下星期也會有。上帝要為你們創造一件新事就是上帝的承諾與恩典不減不退。事實上，今日婚禮的順利、親朋的祝福, 雷雨的到賀等等也是上主為你們預備的禮物。這新事沒有因著婚禮完成而結束，反而今日只是一個開始，一個對上帝要為你們創造一件新事的見證。
當生活可能使你們心靈和生活的空間變得擠迫時，不要忘記上帝要為你們做一件新事，使你們從擠迫的生活找回生命創造的空間。
祝願你們永結同心，也願你們在婚姻的新預留更新的發現。
2009年7月4日 星期六
一件新事
逗留印尼Malang已有三天多．除了開會，我沒有特別任何寫作．雖然手上還有一大堆未完成工作，但總想在晚上可以無無聊聊地過，不想太有目的生活．事實上，間中無聊卻可以為生活帶來創造性，因為它製造空間，而空間就容許有創造的可能．
開會期間，我負責一次晚禱．除了詩歌和禱文外，我有一篇３分鐘的分享．
Since Christian concept of creation out of nothing is mostly understood in a material sense, the newness of that 'I (God) am about to do a new thing' (Isa 43:19) is nothing related to the previous or the past. It is a completely new. Also with the deep influence of capitalism, the newness is more identified with replacement of the old, for the old has to go in order that the mechanism of capitalism can smoothly function. However,I am afraid of that this understanding can be very un-ecological.
The awareness of the ecological consciousness in the last 40 years reminds us that the newness is more appropriate to be understood in the light of renewal, rebirth or regeneration of the old. The ecologica linterpretation tells us that the old would not be thrown away or destroyed due to the emergence of the new, but rather the new is a kind of continuity and discontinuity of the old. In fact, this is also the biblical message. The new covenant symbolized by the gospel is not to replace the old symbolized by the law, but the new regenerates the old. Likewise, circumcision practiced in the old covenant is not replaced by the baptism practiced in the new, but the old is not understood exclusively. Resurrection of the body is new, not in a sense of against the body, but in relation to the body in a sense of discontinuity and continuity.
When the Lord said, 'I am about to do a new thing', it is not about destruction. Neither is it about the replacement. Rather the newness requests us to have the courage to allow changes, and at the same time, to believe that the old has future .
開會期間，我負責一次晚禱．除了詩歌和禱文外，我有一篇３分鐘的分享．
Since Christian concept of creation out of nothing is mostly understood in a material sense, the newness of that 'I (God) am about to do a new thing' (Isa 43:19) is nothing related to the previous or the past. It is a completely new. Also with the deep influence of capitalism, the newness is more identified with replacement of the old, for the old has to go in order that the mechanism of capitalism can smoothly function. However,I am afraid of that this understanding can be very un-ecological.
The awareness of the ecological consciousness in the last 40 years reminds us that the newness is more appropriate to be understood in the light of renewal, rebirth or regeneration of the old. The ecologica linterpretation tells us that the old would not be thrown away or destroyed due to the emergence of the new, but rather the new is a kind of continuity and discontinuity of the old. In fact, this is also the biblical message. The new covenant symbolized by the gospel is not to replace the old symbolized by the law, but the new regenerates the old. Likewise, circumcision practiced in the old covenant is not replaced by the baptism practiced in the new, but the old is not understood exclusively. Resurrection of the body is new, not in a sense of against the body, but in relation to the body in a sense of discontinuity and continuity.
When the Lord said, 'I am about to do a new thing', it is not about destruction. Neither is it about the replacement. Rather the newness requests us to have the courage to allow changes, and at the same time, to believe that the old has future .
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)