2010年1月28日 星期四

與 Hauerwas 合照


今日, 終於遇上 Stanley Hauerwas. 他比我想像消瘦和蒼老, 但很健壯. 演講昤, 也有中氣和幽默. 或許, 可以跟盧龍光牧師聯絡, 請他來香港. 事實上, 他亦表達有興趣. 與他合照的相片稍後上載.

至於演講內容, 他延續他的神學. 兩位回應者也延續一般批評他的論點. 沒有新驚喜.

另一場演講, 我睡著了, 因內容是討論歐洲宗教處境. 然而, 回應者來頭不少, 他們是LeRon Shults, Arne Rasmusson. 他們沒有成名, 但仍年青, 著作很不錯. 另我意外的, Rasmusson 是很幽默. 未有機會找他談話, 希望稍後可以, 並計劃邀請他擔任校外評審員.

今晚, 終於明白 reception 跟 dinner 的不同. 以食物角度來看, 前者只是小食, 吃不飽, 因為今晚是市政府給我們的 reception. 離開時, 已時八時半. 何來找一處吃飯呢? 還好, 袋子裡有香蕉.

晚上, 跟幾位朋友談話甚歡, 因為他們都是丹麥差會的人, 並有參與緬甸事工. 當然, 我個人對緬甸都有一定認識. 他們認識的人也是我認識的人. 不知日後, 是否可以有不同合作, 為緬甸做一些事.

教會與宣教會議

終於到了丹麥 Aarhus. 飛機下降時, 整個城市都白色一遍. 還好, 飛機沒有滑輪, 成功降落.

會議下午四時開始, 有別於參加其他學術會議. 第一, 主席先作出道歉, 未能讓更多非歐美國家人士參加. 所以,會議討論有關教智與宣教是不全面的. 第二, 每次演講完後, 主席安排有數分鐘, 讓參加者本身可以先自行討論. 第三, 會議安排另外時間讓主講者與參加者對話. 對於大會安排, 我感到很人性.

晚上, 跟一個很有趣的人傾談. 他的工作是在不同宗教人士中做宣教工作. 例如, 他會跟其他宗教人士籌備宗教嘉年華, 推廣宗教. 其間, 他又會為自願者祈禱. 他說, 他第一次靈恩經驗是往埃及參加 Coptic church 的經驗. Coptic church 是 oriental orthodox 傳統. 按我初步觀察, 現時靈恩運動最大的弱點是脫離傳統, 又或新教傳統容不下靈恩經驗. 然而, 這不是正教會傳統. 或許, 我應該留意正教會的靈恩經驗. 他說了一個有趣例子, 考試期間, 教育局長要求 Coptic church 不要就考試內容說預言.

2010年1月27日 星期三

公投-一場已開始了的遊戲

五位立法會議員終於請辭了. 他們計劃的公投如何發生? 反對者建議不參與補選. 他們認為沒有對手選舉的所謂公投就不是公投了. 然而, 反對者徹底錯誤了, 因為這次遊戲的對象不是其他參選者, 而是人民.所以, 投票率才是最重要. 又若只有一人參選, 他就自動當選了. 那麼, 何來可以反映投票率? 這只是一個技術性問題, 找一個做媒就可以了. 所以, 早一段日子, 公民黨提出要達到某投票率才算成功是合理的. 這為自己設的門檻是否為自己設陷阱? 坦白說, 請辭已是為自己設一個陷阱了. 所以, 選擇這條路, 就要有勇氣走下去.

然而, 不是所有反對者都會拒絕參選, 因為這只是策略. 所以, 有政黨會積極參與補選, 令請辭議員落面. 但這有兩個考慮. 第一, 先解除公投意識. 意即, 他們的參選與公投無關. 第二, 他們要肯定可以贏. 否則, 他們就會自己落面了. 查實, 這次補選不是一般的補選, 政治味很重.

按以上分析, 香港人和其他政黨似乎已落於不可以不玩這遊戲了. 不論你支持公投與否, 毓民兄等人提出的想像不到你不服. 然而, 對毓民兄等人來說, 這是一個遊戲還是一場爭取政治本錢之爭? 若可以放開對結果的考慮(指成功當選),這是一場好遊戲. 但政治是否可以不考慮結果嗎? 這就是民主黨的考慮.

寫於往丹麥途中.

2010年1月25日 星期一

在旅途中


在緊張生活之餘, 可以走開數天是很難得的事. 我往往趁機往外地開會, 就多留數天, 可以無聊一下. 但今次往丹麥開會卻有點緊迫, 因為我還未完成論文. 在英國辛苦了兩天終於完成了, 所以, 剩下兩日在英國的日子可以更自由. 坦白說, 所謂工作了兩天,不是24小時, 只是晚上回酒店後, 專心寫作5-6小時吧了.

這兩日, 我經歷數件值得回味的事. 第一, 入球場睇波. 比賽隊伍是 glasgow rangers v hearts. Glasgow rangers 算是一哥, 但水準太低. 雖是如此, 但在球場觀察卻另有發現. 內容將會在時代論壇刊登. 第二, 在雪地開車. 這不是第一次了, 但感覺很特別. 駕車途中, 祈禱著上主保守. 第三, 在英國, 探訪了女兒(現時是中七)的小學同學. 故事很複雜, 不在此交代. 但看見別人女兒的成長, 再看自己孩子的成長時, 她們真的長大了, 而我也不再年輕.

2010年1月17日 星期日

寫在反高鐵之後-愛裡沒有懼怕

我相信我不需要在此為民主提供一個神學註腳。例如,聖經的教導-「上帝照著祂的形象造男造女」-足以肯定我們需要支持民主。然而,在參與民主運動的過程中,基督徒需要有以下考慮:

第一, 我們小心將反對者魔鬼化,因為最壞的人也是上帝形象。這理解沒有要求我們不對抗,而是要求我們需要有愛仇敵的心(太五38-47)。否則,我們在肯定上帝形象時,卻侮辱上帝形象。聖經說,「愛裡沒有懼怕。」(約壹四18) 這正是昂山素姖的體會。愛驅除懼怕,讓我們可以不需要製造敵人而繼續爭取公義與民主;愛驅使懼怕,讓我們可以有勇氣不計算個人名利而堅持正義與愛;愛驅使懼怕,讓我們可以走出句個人情感去愛和擁抱,包括支持或反對公投的 ,也包括中聯辦的官員。

第二, 民主與民生是不能分割。沒有對民生的認識和投入,爭取民主只會淪為意識形態之爭和政黨之爭。我們對民主圴嚮往,因為從民生生活中體驗現時制度的荒謬。真正的民主必須貼近人民生活,為人民生活求幸福。民主運動的成功在於爭取者與人民一起。

第三, 民主體驗不只是選舉,而是參與。選舉固然重要,但不足夠,因為議員不是我們的發言人,我們自己才是。因此,監察政府、政黨和議員是必須的。此外,民間社會的自發力量更是肯定的。2003年71遊行是民間社會的自發力量,與相關議員配合,改變政府。近日發生的反高鐵運動也是民間社會自發運動。雖然沒有改變政府決定,但已振動這個城市了。

第四, 民主是理性,也是感性。我們需要克制,但也需要表達。我不喜歡人講粗口,但若因對不公義而來的的憤怒,需要講粗口的話,請說吧!不要因基督徒的名字而內疚。我不喜歡不守法,但若因對不公義而來的憤怒,需要不守法的話,請放膽吧!當理性已被荒謬的制度和權力控制時,我們還相信這荒謬理性嗎?原來,感性的表達正是要回復理性的本相。

2009年12月27日 星期日

God's hand in our life (Ps.138)

(This is written in support of Liu Xiao Bo)

Coming to the end of the year, we are used to count the graciousness of God, and give thanks to God. Nevertheless, we find hard to sing the hymns of praise and thanksgiving in this moment of time, for our brother, Liu Xiao Bo, is sentenced for 11 years on December 25, 2009. In fact, Liu’s experience is the iceberg. How can we praise God when Liu Xiao Bo is unjustly sentenced? How can we celebrate when our government violates the right of the people?

Psalm 138 is a psalm of praise, but this is not the Psalm without context. It is in the context that God looks upon the lowly (v.6). Who are the lowly? The lowly are not just the poor. Nor are they taking up laborous work. Otherwise, there would not have enemies (v.7-8). The lowly are not the unfortunate, but rather are the people suppressed by the power. Hence, the phrase of that God looks upon the lowly means God’s justice instead of about seeking a well paid job for the lowly. Both God’s justice and solidarity encourage and strengthen the lowly (v.3). The author continues to say that ‘when I walk amid trouble, you grant me life in face of my enemies’ fury.’ (v.7) The Chinese version translates it into that ‘you save my life.’ Which is the appropriate translation? Perhaps, the history of humankind tells us that not so many righteous persons would be saved from being suffered and killed. Neither is Jesus. Therefore, I prefer to the English translation. In fact, the fury of enemies easily makes the lowly scare or fear, for the power can take the life of the lowly away. This is exactly what the Chinese government does on Liu Xiao Bo. No matter whether Liu has committed crime or not, 11 years sentence is enough to make Liu scare. Once you scare, you lose the life, for you no longer have freedom. I never blame people for the lack of courage. Rather I ask for God’s blessing so that I have courage and life in face of my enemies’ fury. Having courage and the power of life does not mean that the lowly would not be killed, but he would not lose his life before being killed. In fact, what makes the enemies scare is not because the lowly could not be hurted, but because the lowly have not lost courage and power of life even in the moment of being killed. This is what has been happened in Jesus’ life.

Even the lowly is killed, verse 8 affirms that ‘God acts as avenger on my behalf.’ The Chinese version is that ‘God will fulfill my concerns.’ These two translations are slightly different, but are related. On the one hand, God will act on my behalf even though I am not able to do. On the other hand, God will fulfill what I intend to achieve. Here, the I is not confined to the existential I, but rather the I is realized in God and in the truth. This is something that the existentialists do not accept, for the I is the most important. However, those who are struggling for the rights of other may understand the phrase- God acts as avenger on my behalf- better. Only in this light, Aung San Syu Kyi can see her life-fulfillment (the peace of her nation) even after her death. I believe that this is also the belief of Liu Xiao Bo and others working for the rights of others. In fact, if we do not have such a belief, I cannot imagine that we can fight for justice, for the road to justice is always discouraging.

Psalm 90 is a witness to God’s everlasting love and faithfulness. We may not be in the similar situation as the author. Despite this, Psalm 90 invites us to have a faith that, firstly, thanksgiving is not only dependent upon what God has fulfilled our prayers, but also is a result of our faith in God. Without the former, the latter can be a projection; likewise, without the latter, our faith in God is too functional. I am not asking that a suffering person gives thanks to God, but this is not ridiculous, for God acts on my behalf and fulfill my concerns. It is the tear with thanksgiving. Thus, thanksgiving is not based on what God has done, but what God will do.

Secondly, thanksgiving is possible even though we are the lowly, because God looks upon the lowly. In Jesus’ life, we see that God not only looks upon, but he is in the midst of the lowly. God’s compassion and justice brings him into action. Jesus’ life has shown us how courage and life can be emerged in the midst of difficulty. We give thanks to God, because we witness to a life that has not been scared by the power of threat. It is a life with hope and strength.

We pray for Liu Xiao Bo, Aang San Sku Kyi and many others so that they have courage and life in this difficult time. At the same time, we proclaim that ‘God acts avenger on our behalf’ (God fulfills my concerns).

2009年12月25日 星期五

A good place for living

剛從平安夜崇拜回來。因與兩位朋友計劃參加明年六月在香港嶺南大學舉行的文化研究研討會,趕快完成我的論文提綱。我們的專題是 A good place for living. 一位朋友將討論大澳, 另一位則討論梅窩, 而我則討論菜園村. 我的論文提綱如下:

Topic: Choi Yuen Village as Heterotopia: A Study of its Change of Function in the Process of the Protest Against the Demolition of Choi Yuen Village

Abstract: The paper employs the notion of heterotopia proposed by Foucault to analyze how the function of Choi Yuen Village has been articulated, reframed and transformed in the process of the protest against its being demolished that is due to the construction of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. The protest has reflected Choi Yuen Village as heterotopia understood in terms of the contrast between China and Hong Kong, urban and rural, landlords and leaseholders, service industry and farming, government and people. This paper suggests that since the protest itself is a process of rewriting the script of identity of the people of Hong Kong, Choi Yuen Village as being a heterotopia of illusion challenges the ideology of the good place for living featured by urbanization, commercialization and China-zation.