A mum laments, ‘Have we done something wrong that provokes our God to punish our daughter to be a homosexual? ‘ An African mourn, ‘Have we committed unforgivable sin so that God has used AIDs to destroy our home and our family?’ Their questions are legitimate, because tragedy itself is unfair. We need explanation, because we want justice and fairness. Nevertheless, we have to admit that our experiences in life sometimes are incomprehensible. Even though we may explain how earthquake is happened for instance, we can’t explain why it has taken place here and now, and why it has happened to me.
We Christians do not have a better answer to the question of why there is earthquake in Japan, and why people have to suffer the threat of radiation from the destruction of nuclear plants. Ironically, our belief in God makes us fall into deeper contradiction, for the compassionate God does nothing to intervene. We can’t stop asking why God allows such a disaster to happen. But I think a more fundamental question puzzled us deeply, that is, ‘will God forget us forever?’. It is fundamental, not because this is the right question, but because we need salvation more than explanation.
The question of that ‘Will God forget us forever?’ (Ps.13) has assumed that God is our God, and he would not be indifference to what has been happened to us, but in reality, we do not experience God’s providence. Rather we experience the power of disaster and death. It is fear and tear that dominate our world, not God’s power and glory. The question of that ‘will God forget us forever?’ has assumed that our salvation comes from God’s remembrance. Remembrance is not just about memory, but about God’s action and care.. It is impossible for God not to do anything if he remembers us. Will God forget us forever?
But Zion said, ‘The LORD has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me.’ Can a woman forget her nursing-child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. (Isa 49.15-16)
Most of the mothers with small infants in Hong Kong may have shared this experience, because there is a lack of milk powder available. Many mothers are anxious of the supply of milk powder. It seems that God is absence in our tragedy, but he does not forget. Let me share with you a story ..........
Nevertheless, some Christians put emphasis on God’s remembrance as to recover our faults and mistakes, and as a result, the thesis of disasters as God’s punishment is established. This is why they say that the current earthquake in Japan is God’s punishment on what Japan had done in China and Asia during the WWII. I could not accept this understanding of God’s remembrance, because the God whom Jesus revealed is not the God of revenge, but the God of forgiveness. God’s remembrance is not about the record of our sinfulness, but the fatherhood of God. In the Eucharist, we recall Jesus’ story, and this is a story characterized by solidarity, forgiveness and graciousness. On the other hand, we recall God’s promise of new heaven and new earth in the Eucharist. Jesus said,
I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom (Matt 26:29).
Without the power of creating future, remembrance itself would be a spiral of suffering and desperate, for there is no way out. But it is God’s remembrance that breaks the spell of hopelessness and helplessness.
God’s remembrance moves us to be in solidarity with the sufferers. The urgent need in Japan may not be material support, but support and trust in whatever sense. I am happy to see a worldwide solidarity with Japan. Disasters have killed many lives, but never human spirit. Disasters have destroyed buildings, but never hope. Since God would not forget, suffering and death are not our last word. Even though our families and friends might be killed in disaster, their personhood would not disappear, for God has received them into his heart. This is Abel’s experience. After killing Abel, Cain thought that no one would have interest to know and care about this, but
The LORD said, ‘What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! (Gen 4:10)
When Descartes says, ‘I think therefore I am’, we Christians say, ‘We remember and are remembered therefore we are.’ In remembrance, we retrieve our human compassion, and in being remembered, our personhood is formed and received.
2011年3月20日 星期日
2011年3月10日 星期四
真的累了
完成了 '東西神學論壇' 論文後, 並沒有如想像中輕鬆. 因為擺在我面前的論文已逐一排隊. 五月初要完成一篇 'Bird Flu, Massacre and Karma' 論文; 六月初要完成另一篇 'Advocacy as Self-transformation: A Case Study of meditation walk'. 未來一星期要完成另外兩篇論文摘要, 分別是 religion and social policy 和 宗教與身心障礙的會遇. 除此之外, 還要準備與醫生一起負責精神病患和老年痴呆等講座. 很多書等著要看. 還有講道, 教學, 生命教育課程等.
真的累了.
真的累了.
2011年3月6日 星期日
信仰危機 (彼後一16-21)
主是否再來
在彼得後書的時代，信徒面對的挑戰是：主是否再來？自耶穌復活和升天幾十年後，甚至使徒也逐一離世，耶穌還沒有回來。這不禁使當時的信徒開始質疑他們的盼望。在這背景下，彼得後書的目的就是要肯定耶穌會必會再來的事，並駁斥那些認為耶穌不再來的人之言論。表面看來，主是否再來是一個信仰內容，但這信念是影響一個人的道德生活。例如，二10、12-14。沒有正確信仰就沒有道德可言是當時信徒的態度。
回應那些認為耶穌不再來的人之言論，彼得提出四個理由，其中兩個理由就是今日所讀的聖經（彼後一16-21）。第一，彼得以其親身經驗見證耶穌再來。他親身經驗是指福音書中描述耶穌改變形象一事（可九2-8）。為何彼得選擇引用這事作為論証支持耶穌會再來？耶穌改變形象與主再來有何關係？在時序上，耶穌改變形象是祂在受難時的遭遇，不是耶穌復活後的事，但在耶穌復活後，耶穌改變形象一事已被理解為一件終末的事，即耶穌是全地之主，並得著榮耀尊貴。主再來不只是時間的議題，更是耶穌的主權的彰顯，而後者已經發生了。
第二，彼得引用舊約的預言和應許見證主再來。然而，彼得沒有說清楚那些舊約聖經，反而只帶出一個信息，就是他們對舊約預言的理解是來自聖靈的感動，不是人自由的話。對彼得來說，整本聖經都指向上主，並見證上主的救贖和榮耀的彰顯。彼得的反應反映當時的信徒中，有人質疑他對聖經的解釋。至於第三個理由就是上主審判（二3-10），而第四個理由是上主話語的主權（三5-7）。
信仰危機
說回來，今日我們的信仰危機是甚麼？教會的信仰危機是甚麼？基督徒都會相信主再來，也不會質疑為何主仍未再來，因為在主耶穌復活升天接近二千年後的今日仍相信耶穌的人，甚少會懷疑主再來的事。縱使可能因親朋離世，倖存者會懷疑主再來的可信性，但這個人信仰危機不會構成教會的信仰危機，因為教會是在苦難中成長的教會。第一，今日教會的信仰危機不是不相信主再來，而是看不見主再來所代表上主主權已經在當下彰顯了。第二，今日教會的信仰危機不是不相信永生，而是將永生視為個人遭遇，與社會正義拉不上。
以今日香港社會為例，我真的對這個政府完全失望。為了贏取立法會支持通過財政預算案，政府竟可以完全徹底推翻其原則，不分皂白（包括移民海外人士），每人六千元（18歲以上的香港永久居民）。這與政府的慷慨和順民意無關，而反映這個政府已沒有管治理想和方向。政府已徹底被騎挾了。令我失望的，佔立法會一半以上議席的「親政府」議員竟然提出向每位香港永久居民派六千元建議，而沒有考慮用這500億為香港作長線計劃。在功能組別制度下，這些議員代表將會繼續主導香港。當未來兩屆立法會選舉（2012年和2017年）都沒有改變功能組別下，香港的未來是暗淡的。香港沒有將來，不是因為我們跑輸了給上海和星加坡，而是因為掌管香港的政府和某些議員是如此白痴。面對這樣的政府，我們仍可以相信上主的主權和榮耀在香港彰顯嗎？
坦白說，有青年人向我表達說，他們想移民，不是因為他們不愛香港，而是因為他們對這個政府失望了。失望不是因為他們不願意付出，而是因為他們沒有機會以民主方式參與社會改革。對政府來說，市民對它的失望是一個政治危機，但對信徒來說，這是一個信仰危機，因為我知道我需要留在香港，與那些被壓制和不能走的人一起，建立一個讓人有尊嚴生活的香港，但我真的失望了，沒有動力。廿幾年前，因著九七和六四，有10%香港人移民。移民是個人選擇，並不一定牽涉個人誠信。但對基督徒來說，我們多了一份責任與承擔的考慮。縱使我個人力量有限，但我不可以走，因為我對不能走的人有責任，對香港有承擔。想不到回歸14年後的今日，我再遇上這問題了。
渴望上主顯現
我沒有像彼得一樣親眼看見耶穌改變形象和體會耶穌主權的彰顯，以致在失望之餘，我仍可以「頂硬上」。我知道上主沒有離開這紛亂和不正義的世界；我也知道祂不是一個旁觀者，而是參與者，不會讓世界自我毀滅。但我真的渴望看見主耶穌的顯現。主耶穌，你的拯救在貧窮人當中嗎？主耶穌，你的正義在一個無能的政府當中嗎？主耶穌，你的忿怒在地產霸權當中嗎？主耶穌，你的安慰在菜園村當中嗎？在信仰危機下，教會是否可以指出和見證主耶穌在日常生活的彰顯，好讓我們那些不願走的人不走，為這城求福祉。
在顯現期最後一個星期日，我們向上主祈求，「開我們的眼睛，讓我們在黑暗和烏雲中，看見你的榮耀和主權。」
在彼得後書的時代，信徒面對的挑戰是：主是否再來？自耶穌復活和升天幾十年後，甚至使徒也逐一離世，耶穌還沒有回來。這不禁使當時的信徒開始質疑他們的盼望。在這背景下，彼得後書的目的就是要肯定耶穌會必會再來的事，並駁斥那些認為耶穌不再來的人之言論。表面看來，主是否再來是一個信仰內容，但這信念是影響一個人的道德生活。例如，二10、12-14。沒有正確信仰就沒有道德可言是當時信徒的態度。
回應那些認為耶穌不再來的人之言論，彼得提出四個理由，其中兩個理由就是今日所讀的聖經（彼後一16-21）。第一，彼得以其親身經驗見證耶穌再來。他親身經驗是指福音書中描述耶穌改變形象一事（可九2-8）。為何彼得選擇引用這事作為論証支持耶穌會再來？耶穌改變形象與主再來有何關係？在時序上，耶穌改變形象是祂在受難時的遭遇，不是耶穌復活後的事，但在耶穌復活後，耶穌改變形象一事已被理解為一件終末的事，即耶穌是全地之主，並得著榮耀尊貴。主再來不只是時間的議題，更是耶穌的主權的彰顯，而後者已經發生了。
第二，彼得引用舊約的預言和應許見證主再來。然而，彼得沒有說清楚那些舊約聖經，反而只帶出一個信息，就是他們對舊約預言的理解是來自聖靈的感動，不是人自由的話。對彼得來說，整本聖經都指向上主，並見證上主的救贖和榮耀的彰顯。彼得的反應反映當時的信徒中，有人質疑他對聖經的解釋。至於第三個理由就是上主審判（二3-10），而第四個理由是上主話語的主權（三5-7）。
信仰危機
說回來，今日我們的信仰危機是甚麼？教會的信仰危機是甚麼？基督徒都會相信主再來，也不會質疑為何主仍未再來，因為在主耶穌復活升天接近二千年後的今日仍相信耶穌的人，甚少會懷疑主再來的事。縱使可能因親朋離世，倖存者會懷疑主再來的可信性，但這個人信仰危機不會構成教會的信仰危機，因為教會是在苦難中成長的教會。第一，今日教會的信仰危機不是不相信主再來，而是看不見主再來所代表上主主權已經在當下彰顯了。第二，今日教會的信仰危機不是不相信永生，而是將永生視為個人遭遇，與社會正義拉不上。
以今日香港社會為例，我真的對這個政府完全失望。為了贏取立法會支持通過財政預算案，政府竟可以完全徹底推翻其原則，不分皂白（包括移民海外人士），每人六千元（18歲以上的香港永久居民）。這與政府的慷慨和順民意無關，而反映這個政府已沒有管治理想和方向。政府已徹底被騎挾了。令我失望的，佔立法會一半以上議席的「親政府」議員竟然提出向每位香港永久居民派六千元建議，而沒有考慮用這500億為香港作長線計劃。在功能組別制度下，這些議員代表將會繼續主導香港。當未來兩屆立法會選舉（2012年和2017年）都沒有改變功能組別下，香港的未來是暗淡的。香港沒有將來，不是因為我們跑輸了給上海和星加坡，而是因為掌管香港的政府和某些議員是如此白痴。面對這樣的政府，我們仍可以相信上主的主權和榮耀在香港彰顯嗎？
坦白說，有青年人向我表達說，他們想移民，不是因為他們不愛香港，而是因為他們對這個政府失望了。失望不是因為他們不願意付出，而是因為他們沒有機會以民主方式參與社會改革。對政府來說，市民對它的失望是一個政治危機，但對信徒來說，這是一個信仰危機，因為我知道我需要留在香港，與那些被壓制和不能走的人一起，建立一個讓人有尊嚴生活的香港，但我真的失望了，沒有動力。廿幾年前，因著九七和六四，有10%香港人移民。移民是個人選擇，並不一定牽涉個人誠信。但對基督徒來說，我們多了一份責任與承擔的考慮。縱使我個人力量有限，但我不可以走，因為我對不能走的人有責任，對香港有承擔。想不到回歸14年後的今日，我再遇上這問題了。
渴望上主顯現
我沒有像彼得一樣親眼看見耶穌改變形象和體會耶穌主權的彰顯，以致在失望之餘，我仍可以「頂硬上」。我知道上主沒有離開這紛亂和不正義的世界；我也知道祂不是一個旁觀者，而是參與者，不會讓世界自我毀滅。但我真的渴望看見主耶穌的顯現。主耶穌，你的拯救在貧窮人當中嗎？主耶穌，你的正義在一個無能的政府當中嗎？主耶穌，你的忿怒在地產霸權當中嗎？主耶穌，你的安慰在菜園村當中嗎？在信仰危機下，教會是否可以指出和見證主耶穌在日常生活的彰顯，好讓我們那些不願走的人不走，為這城求福祉。
在顯現期最後一個星期日，我們向上主祈求，「開我們的眼睛，讓我們在黑暗和烏雲中，看見你的榮耀和主權。」
2011年3月3日 星期四
The Trinity, the Church and China’s Harmonious Society:A Virtue of Persuasion
(After a month struggle of writing up the paper, I come to finish. This is the introduction of the paper.)
In contemporary China, religion does not have its own right of existence. Rather religion has been assigned a social role to perform. Since the introduction of the idea of harmonious society in 2004 by the government, religion is expected to be one of the social forces contributing to the realization of a harmonious society. The purpose of this paper is to review how Chinese Christianity responds to and reflects its expected role. Due to political reasons, Chinese Christianity does not have full autonomy to develop its theological reflection freely, but this does not imply that the church would not be able to develop a sound and relevant theology. A certain degree of theological accommodation should not be negatively criticized as handing over the faith, for different degree of accommodation cannot be avoided in relationship, even in divine-human relation. (Balserak, 2006) On the other hand, the recent emergence of exchange politics in China has provided Chinese Christianity a relatively wider room to participate into public life. (Kung, 2010) Since God has been involved in his world, whether the Trinitarian God should serve as a model for human community is not the concern of this paper, but rather the matter is in which respects and to what extent it would do so in the Chinese socio-political context. This paper suggests that persuasion as virtue reflected in the Trinitarian God inspires Christian engagement with society, and challenges the propaganda-form of communication.
In contemporary China, religion does not have its own right of existence. Rather religion has been assigned a social role to perform. Since the introduction of the idea of harmonious society in 2004 by the government, religion is expected to be one of the social forces contributing to the realization of a harmonious society. The purpose of this paper is to review how Chinese Christianity responds to and reflects its expected role. Due to political reasons, Chinese Christianity does not have full autonomy to develop its theological reflection freely, but this does not imply that the church would not be able to develop a sound and relevant theology. A certain degree of theological accommodation should not be negatively criticized as handing over the faith, for different degree of accommodation cannot be avoided in relationship, even in divine-human relation. (Balserak, 2006) On the other hand, the recent emergence of exchange politics in China has provided Chinese Christianity a relatively wider room to participate into public life. (Kung, 2010) Since God has been involved in his world, whether the Trinitarian God should serve as a model for human community is not the concern of this paper, but rather the matter is in which respects and to what extent it would do so in the Chinese socio-political context. This paper suggests that persuasion as virtue reflected in the Trinitarian God inspires Christian engagement with society, and challenges the propaganda-form of communication.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)