2012年9月23日 星期日

Following Jesus as welcome children (Mk 9:30-37)



There are at least two forms of understanding. First, I don’t understand, because I do not have relevant knowledge. So, please explain and teach me. Second, I do not want to understand, because it is against my wish or expectation. The latter is the attitude of the disciples towards what Jesus has said about his own suffering. In fact, this is the second time of Jesus’ talking about his suffering (the first is on Mk 8:31). Are the disciples so stupid that they are not able to understand what Jesus has said? If not, why don’t the disciples want to understand? According to Mark, understanding Jesus’ suffering is not simply about knowledge and information, but that it demands a change of life. In this Jesus’ second saying of his death, the disciples are asked to ‘welcome one such child in my name’, and this is the disciples find it hard to accept.
Those who have been teaching chilren Sunday School would definitely feel happy, for you not only welcome children, but also welcome Jesus and God the father. But don’t be too early to be happy, for children in Jesus’ usage is not just about a matter of age. Rather children is a symbol of those children who are vulnerable, helpless, marginalized, and despised, and therefore, they can be children as well as adults. Jesus is asking the disciples to welcome these people. Apparently, this is a noble act, but this is not a favourable act. We praise what Mother Teresa has done for the poor, but we would not choose to do it. We teach our children to show respect and appreciation to cleaners, but we won’t encourage our children to be cleaners.

In this summer, we have a good experience of welcome children. When the government insists to introduce national education to schools, a parent concern group is formed in order to defend the freedom of thought of their children. Its slogan is 良心話事,守護孩子 (our conscience speaks, and defends our children). A mother shares,

我只是一個好平凡的師奶,平時只是照顧子女飲食,叫他們不要打太多機,預備他們上課的午餐,我只係吾想個仔被洗腦,吾想個仔日日食毒藥,如果我作為媽媽,我不保護他,誰來保護他?

This movement has successfully appealed to the public. Many people join it in order to defend the children. The movement against the national education tells us that first, welcome children is more than giving them a home, sweeties and toys, but also defending their freedom of thought. Second, welcome children is learn to be the voice of the voiceless. And at the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether our voice has covered the children voice, and make them voiceless. Third, welcome children requests one to leave one’s comfort zone to do to do small things (such as, distributing black ribbon) and even pick up a unwelcome role. Welcome children is a conscientious act. It has no reward, no glory and no guarantee of success. Also, welcome children is an egg’s act against the wall. There is no romance in the struggle, and there is no hero, but only servant and tiredness.
I would say that these mothers are more able to understand (認同) what Jesus has said about himself, The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.’ It is because their welcome of children shares the features of Jesus life, not victory and power, but rather misunderstanding, suffering and servanthood. In contrast, the disciples are reluctant to admit that suffering is the destiny of Jesus, not because they do not want their Master to suffer, but because they do not want to suffer with their Master. They may have a pure heart to follow Jesus at the beginning, but now it is the glory, power and victory that matter most.
  
By sharing with the disciples that he would be suffered and killed, Jesus reminds them that following him would not bring one to glory and power. Rather it demands discipleship characterized by welcome children. It is in such kind of act that we understand what the suffering of Jesus is, and it is in such kind of act that understanding is following.

2012年9月9日 星期日

剩下絕食的身體---反國民教育的反思



不可因人貧寒就搶奪他,也不可在城門口欺壓困苦人,因耶和華必為他們辯護,也必奪取那搶奪者的命。(箴言廿二:22-23

貧寒人與困苦人都是社會中的弱勢,但令人感到疑惑的,他們仍要受到不公平對待。一方面,他們沒有得到應得的憐憫,反而進一步被剝奪。另一方面,他們的弱勢理應對有權者不會產生嚴重威脅,但在審判官前(當時的審判處是東面的城門口)卻得不到公義。這是顛倒常理,違反正義,但這卻真實地發生了,甚至到今天也是如此。這兩個月來發生有關國民教育科一事的爭論正是一個例子。

在國民教育科一事上,誰是弱者?明顯地,弱者是學生,不但因為他們沒有機會參與討論他們將要接受的教育,更因為他們沒有得到免被洗腦的保護。有人認為強調學生的參與是不切實際,因為他們缺乏所需要的知識。但問題是:(一)我們從沒有嘗試邀請他們參與討論。再者,學民思潮的學生所反映出來的思辯能力足以說服我們的偏見。(二)當國民教育本身仍存在一定程度的爭議性時,學生就不應成為白老鼠,反應受更大保護。

除了學生外,家長是弱者。一方面,當政府從家庭搶走對孩子教育的話事權後,很多家長被迫成為教育制度的幫凶去壓迫孩子(例如,考入名校和考試)。我承認我的說法有點偏頗,因為有很多學校確實成為孩子成長很重要的幫助,也有家長沒有做好家長的責任。雖是如此,但每年看見家長們為其子女找幼稚園、小學和中學時那種焦慮時,我會說,家長已失去反抗教育制度的能力,甚至不自覺地成為其擁護者。當家長被剝奪其對子女教育權而被要求要對教育制度的信任時,這制度卻濫用他們對它的信任,使他們變得脆弱,沒有反抗能力。

老師,甚至學校也可能是弱者之一,尤其那些受政府津貼的學校。例如,每年小學和中學中央派位,學校都不知道報導其校的學生人數。教育局可以透過控制派多少個學生來要脅學校配合。意即,若學校長期不合作,政府可以令學校縮班,甚至面對殺校的危機。在這背景下,我們就明白相關報導帶來的白色恐怖教育局8月底向全港65間官校發出「限閱文件」,命令校長記錄官校教師對國教科的取態,指若有教師罷課,教育局將「視乎個案的實際情况考慮如何處理」。教育局又口頭向校長提出,要上報周一(93日)「穿黑衣行動」當日,穿黑衣、繫黑布帶的師生人數並記錄在案。

強調學生、家長和老師等是弱者沒有企圖製造二元思維,也無意將他們受害化。事實上,在這反國民教育這場爭辯中,我們看見反對國民教育者中只剩下自己的身體可以抗爭。他們以絕食表達他們自主,拒絕被控制,卻被批評為激進。他們每晚拖著疲累身體參與集會,以同在表達他們的立場,拒絕被安排,卻被批評為無政府狀態。他們沒有政治籌碼,也不倚靠任何政黨,他們只有的就是絕食的身體、出席的身體和疲累的身體。雖然這些身體只會被消耗下去,但他們義無反顧用這屬於他們的身體,仍去抗爭。他們不是要爭取更大的政治權力和經濟利益,只是很簡單地要取回思想的自由和被剝奪的教育子女的話事權。可惜的是,他們的權利被蔑視了。(一)政府說,你住在香港,就要學我認為你要學的國民教育。但問題是:為何香港人要從國民教育界定?(二)政府說,國民教育已經過咨詢,獲廣泛支持。但問題是:為何仍有很多人表達不滿?為何他們的聲音沒有被反映?(三)政府說,有學校願意開科。但問題是:他們的接受是被利誘結果還是出於自由?

不知是否政府被絕食的身體、出席的身體和疲累的身體所感動還是被立法會選情的考慮,梁振英昨晚決定5年任期內不會將國民教育獨立成科。無論如何,學生、家長和學校等可以先回家休息,計劃下一步如何監察政府。貧窮人和困苦人的力量不是甚麼政治力量,只是一股正義力量,並由此產生一種感染力。很多人參與支持反國教,因為他們被絕食的身體、出席的身體和疲累的身體感動了。聖經說:耶和華必為貧寒人和困苦人辯護,也必奪取那搶奪者的命時,上主不但被他們的遭遇打動了,也被他們的堅持與正義感染了,以致他義無反顧為他們辯護,參與絕食、出席集會,削髮,並以審判者的身分向政府宣判,你不但錯誤,更是不正義,要為此負責任。

民間反對國民教育科大聯盟接受政府的讓步,事情似乎暫時結束,但抗爭並沒有停下來。然而,教會要從這事反思.面對絕食的身體、出席的身體和疲累的身體時,上主選擇了.你站在哪裡?