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.

3 則留言:

  1. 我覺得耶穌之所以咁大穫,唔係因為佢chose to be with the poor, sinners and marginalized, not the power and the rich. 佢出左名親近稅吏,而稅吏係算是 power and the rich. 雖然不是當時的李超人,或者連任志剛都算不上,但至少唔係poor。將sinners and marginalized與power and rich對揚起來,可能是一個歷史的誤會。耶穌的一個女門徒,能夠有一瓶真拿達香膏,即係今日擺LV袋著Parda行街的女人,窮極有限。計我話,耶穌衰在兩面逢源,做罪人和稅吏的朋友,又話天國係屬於the poor。言行不一,言而無信,講一套做又一套。睇個樣就知係一條神棍啦,扮曬以色列的救星,愚弄民眾。你搞還搞,搞到羅馬以為我地玩大左,就大家都無得玩。所以有責任的祭司,都要剷除這個不法之徒。我覺得如果能夠同情一點看當時的祭司,是可以發現他們有很正確的理由。我只係想寫下我對耶穌的一些感想,不是就你全篇講章而講的。耶穌不只不support the kingdom of "the oppressor" (priest, Herod),他是不support the kingdom of any oppressor (his own disciples). 所以他門徒也不明白他。Neither you simon (the Zealots), nor the fifty thousand, nor the Romans, nor the Jews, Nor Judas, nor the Twelve, nor the priests, nor the scribes, nor doomed Jerusalem itself understand what power is, understand what glory is. (Tim Rice)

    回覆刪除
  2. Thanks for the note.It is true that among Jesus' followers, there are rich. I should rephrase my words a little bit. However, the rich in terms of the tax collectors can be the marginalized, but surely, some of them enjoy to be marginalized. Therefore, what Jesus is against is the one who worship the power at the cost of others.

    回覆刪除
  3. It sounds better. But Jesus is notorious in his acceptance of those who worship the power at the cost of others to come to him. And tax collectors were just that kind of persons (in the eyes of common people). E.P.Sanders asks, if Jesus ever demand these people to repent before they come to his table, how come Jesus would be so notorious? I think Sanders asked the right question. Who is Jesus against? No doubt the priest would be one of them. But why did Jesus against him? No doubt because the priest is rich and powerful and worship the power at the cost of others. But for that reason alone did not explain why Jesus did not against tax collectors in general. I suspect the reason Jesus reject the priests was because they don't accept Jesus' Kingdom agenda. The core issue is still the notorious Christology. The HCF of Jesus' followers is their willingness to accept the royal messianic claim of this village teacher, a follower of yet another self-proclaimed prophet of the Jordan river bank.

    回覆刪除