When I first read today passage (Mk 9:30-37), I am deeply puzzled. My discomfort is not whether what Jesus’ saying is radical or not, but whether his saying really makes the world better for living. During the cultural revolution in late 1960s, intellectuals in China were forced to become factories’ workers, farmers and labourers, while the farmers had taken the position of managers, teachers and CEO. This radical change had finally made China finally complete social disintegration and disruption. Therefore, what Jesus’ saying, ‘Whoever wants to be first must place himself last of all and be the servant of all’, should not be interpreted as that the pastor does the cleaning duties or the cleaner does the pastoral duties. It is not a matter of defending the hierarchy, but this is not a right way to understand Jesus’ saying.
There is an incident yesterday. A pupil who was injured and admitted to the casualties, but he hadn’t had a Hong Kong Identity Card (HKID) with him, and his mum was asked to send a copy of his certificate of birth to confirm his citizenship status. Otherwise, he had to pay the non-local medical fee before he could be admitted to the hospital. Since this was an urgent case, his mum did not argue with the hospital and paid the non-local medical fee. After the treatment, his mum complaint to the hospital and this incident has raised the public concern. The government quickly responded that what had been happened was absolutely unacceptable, because this incident had happened in the casualties. Casualties meant urgent and emergency, and therefore, medical treatment should be provided irrespective of whether the patient was able to pay.
This experience provides us a perspective to understand what Jesus’ saying. We are called to serve which is not necessarily related to pick up positions of servant and lower ranks. Since what matters is serving, the CEO can still be a leader but serving, and the pastor can be a leader but serving. However, serving here is not understood in the setting of customer service, but is about adopting the perspective of the option for the less advantaged in your job duties. Let us return to the case I have mentioned. The managers, the doctors and the nurses have to give weight to the perspective of the option for the less advantaged to design the hospital’s building, administration and management. The pupil was rejected from immediate treatment, because the staffs did not have the patients’ perspective in their mind. On the contrary, patients have to be fitted into the bureaucratic system. In fact, this is only the tip of the iceberg. For example, hours of visitation in hospital is set by the hospitals, and no consultation with the patients and their family. It is convenience to the hospital, not the patients. Thus, the servants are servants, but they are not serving. On the other hand, the managers are not servants, but they can be serving. Serving is about taking the perspective of the option for the less advantaged.
Apart from the saying, ‘whoever wants to be first must place himself last of all and be the servant of all’, Jesus puts his arm around a child and says, ‘Whoever welcomes in my name one of these children, welcomes me.’ This is another way of talking about serving. Why is a child chosen? The reason is not only because they are vulnerable, but because you would not receive reward from a child. For instance, a child seldom gives tips after the meal; a child seldom says thank you when you hold the door for him; a child seldom sends you a gift of appreciation. My description of a child has no intention to look down on a child, but this is the ‘is’ of a child. In this understanding, what Jesus requests us is to embrace and welcome a child whole-heartedly without any expectation of return. To show your embrace and welcome is not just about a word, but about extra time and energy. For instance, although I am not in a senior position in the University, I can’t deny that my position makes me have influence. Some years ago, I worked with a professor from the Social Work Department to support the workers in our university to fight for fair terms of service. Because of our presence, the workers felt being supported and encouraged. We had received a clap from the workers, but we might receive a ‘pig stamp’ from the University. I am not asking you to copy what I have done, but it is not enough just to fulfil the requirement of the job duties and to meet the needs of the boss. We should go beyond the terms of service, and make those who receive our service feel better.
I do hope that the interpretation above would not distract the child whom Jesus refers to is really a child. In other words, we should not ignore the needs of children. Some years ago we are very concerned about poverty of next generation (跨代貧窮). Children poverty is serious in Hong Kong. To embrace and welcome children means to have a social policy that supports them to participate into society freely and joyfully. In the coming government’s policy address, we have to ask what the government has done to combat poverty of next generation.
To be honest, what Jesus has said here is not really radical, for this is the value we find no difficulty to accept no matter whether you are Christian or not. But what this story inspires us is that we are exactly the children being embraced by God. We are the people being served (saved) by God. Once we realize that we are the recipients rather than the givers, we will be easier to identify taking a perspective of the option for the less advantaged, doing something more than duties and caring the children, for our Lord is there.
I hope your sermon will not hurt those who serve in the wards. The visiting hour is a calculated compromise given limited human resources. What you say could shift the blame directly to those who serve in the front line, but human resources is not what the front line could do. They have already badly overloaded. Consultation is a good idea, but what if consultation result is conflicting between those from the front line (given limited resources) and those of the "consumer". Putting the issue in a "consumer and service provider" context might stepside your point, but it seems unavoidable in our society. The key is limited resources. Who pay more? My point is that saying those in the hospital are not serving is overdone and may be unfair to those who have already badly overloaded.
回覆刪除I am appreciated that you put this gospel passage in the right track. All too often I heard sermon developing the theme of servant leader in the context of moral character. But that is beside the point, the point of the story is about politics. The unlikely messiah is setting up another political order for his people which upset the very fundamental honour-hurting order in the ancient world. By embracing the kid, the reciprocal honor give and take is upset. I really appreciate that you can spell it out in such exceptional way. But I don't think it is the government's duty to follow this kind of thinking. They have every kind or reason to protest. As said, who pay? Are the public really want to raise the goverment budget? etc. The gospel saying is given to the church. We are those who should live out this kind of "adopting the option of the less advantaged" and we should pay for them. But when we talk about the public, could be simply assume that they should do the same? Why not otherwise, they could ask. I don't think a veil of ignorance can help solving the problem. Said too much. Thank you for your sermon.
Thanks for your comment. I do not know to what extent we can change the management of the hospital, but there are changes in the last 20-30 years. It suggests that if we do not push anything forward, nothing will be chnaged.
回覆刪除We are not the government, and therefore, we can't play its role. More importantly, this is not the task of theology to advise how to increase money. It is very clear in Luther's theology. What we can do is to play as both prophet and priest in society
Thank you so much Kung. Good to read your post here is Romania. It brings me a fresh idea ( or refresh my mind/ heart) on serving the kids here. I will share this with friends here.
回覆刪除I like this saying by a pastor and former lecturer of STM " is not how good I am but is how good I am to others".
回覆刪除It's a good reminder, thank you, only by grace.
回覆刪除Selflessfaithlove, wish you have a great time in Romania. Looking forward to hearing your stories.
Thanks for clarification. Perhaps I haven’t made myself clear at some points. Actually I am not worrying that it is our task to advise how to increase the resources. What triggers me to write those things is your comment, that “for this is the value we find no difficulty to accept no matter whether you are Christian or not.” I found that really incredible. For I find this value is so difficult to accept. For in your sermon, you rightly put the servant-master saying (or whatever you call it) into a socio-political context. And I take my hat off at this point. That is what the text really about, politics. Quite often, I found the text was understood in a moral character framework. If we understood that statement in a moral context, that I can agree with you that “for this is the value we find no difficulty to accept no matter whether you are Christian or not.” The message is simply, be nice to those who are disadvantaged. Well, who will say “No” to that? But if we understand the text in a political sense, that means the then-would-be-Messiah, i.e. Jesus, while his disciples were fighting for high positions in the coming new Kingdom, set up in contrary to all expectation a counter-cultural socio-political order. I think this value is precisely not “we find no difficulty to accept”, even if we are Christian. When it is a socio-political value to be realized in “public” domain, I can imagine many would protest. I am not saying we then shouldn’t say what needed to be said. I just find this political value is not “we find no difficulty to accept” once it is not a “private” moral character issue.
回覆刪除By the way, I am starting to feel a bit uneasy to Luther’s two kingdom segregation. May be I need to do more reading on his theory before dumping it.
I think that you have misunderstood Luther's view of two kingdoms. Rather I find it amazing, for what he is aware of the difference between ethics of absolute value and ethics of responsibility (in Weber's understanding), but unlike Weber, he does not separate these two.
回覆刪除Lastly, I think Christians and non-Christians would accept what Jesus' message is based on reasoning (natural law). So, the discontent may not be because of the value, but the practical concern. This is something we need to distinguish.