911對美國社會帶來恐懼政治的出現。恐懼政治指社會政策是基於恐懼產生，並因恐懼緣故，人民對政府不合理的政策仍支持或接受。例如，在恐懼政治下，攻打伊拉克是合理的、竊聽電話是合法的、對一切亞拉伯裔人士的審問是必須的。當政府被賦予這樣權力時，人民就變得更脆弱。雖然恐怖襲擊是真實的，但由恐懼而產生的政策不一定合理．用現代術語，這是靠嚇，即不真實、誇大，甚至有欺騙成份。說回來，是否一切恐懼政治都是不好？這使我想起舊約的先知。
西番雅書一1至二3是一篇很典型的先知之言。它不但指出猶大國的罪惡，更宣告上主的懲罰快將臨到。
我（上主）必伸手攻擊猶大和耶路撒冷的一切居民，也必從這地方剪除所剩下的巴力，並基瑪林的名和祭司， 與那些在房頂上敬拜天上萬象的，並那些敬拜耶和華指著他起誓，又指著瑪勒堪起誓的， 與那些轉去不跟從耶和華的，和不尋求耶和華也不訪問他的。（一4-6）
到那日，我必懲罰一切跳過門檻、將強暴和詭詐得來之物充滿主人房屋的。（一9）
他們的財寶必成為掠物；他們的房屋必變為荒場。他們必建造房屋，卻不得住在其內；栽種葡萄園，卻不得喝所出的酒。（一13）
然而，先知宣告的真實性不是從他的預言實現來定斷，反而從它的不實現來決定它的真實性，因為先知之言的目的是拯救，而不是審判。西番雅宣告，
世上遵守耶和華典章的謙卑人哪，你們都當尋求耶和華！當尋求公義謙卑，或者在耶和華發怒的日子可以隱藏起來。（二3）
先知之言的落空表達出人民的悔改和上主的拯救。先知從來不期望著他所發之言是如此發生（除約拿之外）。靈驗不是先知的追求．
說回來，對聆聽者來說，西番雅之言真是上主之言還是靠嚇？又上主之言是否可以靠嚇？靠嚇是否必然錯誤？或許，當我們將焦點放在言者是否誠實時，我們也需要留意聆聽者的特性。原來，聆聽者從來不是我們想像中這麼理性。他們對忠言沒有興趣，反而對靠嚇之言更留意和敏感。例如，我們以為透過理性分析就不同毒品的禍害，青少年就可以作出合理選擇，但事實並非如此，因為我們以為人的錯誤來自無知，但人的選擇不是只按理性，更受感性影響。所以，縱使三分鐘就需要去廁所一次的政府對反吸毒的宣傳是罕有個案（2%），絕對有靠嚇份，但這宣傳廣告卻令聆聽者有醒覺的可能。這是否等於一切有良好動機的靠嚇之言就是對？
按以上所說，先知之言不在於其預言的準確性來決定這不是靠嚇，反而其真實性在於它帶來聆聽者的醒覺和悔改。因此，先知之言不排除有靠嚇之嫌，因為人已聽不進忠言。西番雅指出猶太人若不放棄拜偶像，並回歸耶和華上主，他們將要受到懲罰。對於因敬拜偶像而獲利甚豐的人來說，忠言沒有任何影響力，因為他們找不到理由要離開對偶像的敬拜。相反，帶有靠嚇之嫌的先知之言卻使他們需要想一想，因為誰人可定斷先知之言是靠嚇還是真實呢！當然，不是每一個聆聽者都受嚇，但當時猶大國國王約西亞卻有正面回應。按王下廿二至廿三章，約西亞廢除異教崇拜，並回復遵守逾越節。對紉西亞，聖經有這樣評論：「 在約西亞以前沒有王像他盡心、盡性、盡力地歸向耶和華，遵行摩西的一切律法。」（王下廿三25）
對於約西亞的回應，我們仍有一個問題：即他的悔改和改革是因恐懼所致還是因受恐懼下帶來的醒覺？前者的表現是一種防衛性，避免犯錯，沒有問甚麼是真崇拜，只著眼於避免假崇拜。換句話說，在恐懼下的悔改沒有經歷自由，只繼續在恐懼下。相反，因受恐懼下帶來的醒覺不是防衛性，因為醒覺使他進入反省，反省使他回應（response），而不是反應（react）。避免錯誤不是醒覺者的主要考慮，而是對耶和華的尋求和敬拜。這使他感受自由與釋放。按王下描述，我會說，約西亞的回應是一種醒覺的表現。
西番雅的言論是一種有靠嚇之嫌的先知之言，但我們社會卻有一種沒有先知之意的靠嚇之言，因為它的目的不是使聆聽者的醒覺和獨立，而是使聆聽者受制、順服和聽話。這使我想起有人提醒香港人不要參與「公投」，不但因為這是違反《基本法》，更因為這會激怒中央。激怒中央無好結果。這是靠嚇之言還是先知之言？同樣，有人提出若香港設立最低工資，香港將失去經濟力。結果是，低收入人士的命運將更遭糕。事實上，當下低收入人士的生活也好不太多。這是靠嚇之言還是先知之言？
當下社會需要聽就是先知之言，不論它是否有靠嚇成份。教會可以承擔這責任嗎？這是能力還是勇氣？這是依戀權力還是甘於被孤立？西番雅說，
世上遵守耶和華典章的謙卑人哪，你們都當尋求耶和華！當尋求公義謙卑，或者在耶和華發怒的日子可以隱藏起來。（二3）
這不是對世界說的，而是對教會說的。
2010年4月2日 星期五
生命的無言（寫在耶穌受難日）
當閱讀近日（2010年3月31日）有關趙連海被控告一事，心中充滿憤怒。其兒子因食用含有三聚氰胺的三鹿奶粉，致左腎結石，趙連海創立「結石寶寶之家」，組織受害兒童家長為子女爭取終身免費檢查治療等權益，但卻於去年11月被當局拘留，並遭控以「尋釁滋事罪」。按控訴書，「尋釁滋事罪」指他在互聯網上惡意炒作，煽動群眾圍堵及非法集會。原來，公義只可以是政府給你的公義和政府為你決定的公義，而不是來自受屈辱的一方對公義的訴求。這是對一個自稱為人民服務政府的反諷。
查實，趙連海的遭遇不是單一事件，也不是只有中國人才有。距今接近二千年，在巴勒斯坦地發生的耶穌被釘在十字架一事也是如此。與趙連海不同的，耶穌被釘在十字架上是當時祭司長和猶太人的集體決它定。這組合似乎代表一種有民眾基礎的決定，符合公共福祉。然而，問題不在於滿足所謂程序的公義（例如，彼拉多讓猶太人選擇釋放巴拉巴還是耶穌（可十五6-15）），更是一個人是否應被犧牲，滿足社會虛偽的義。在耶穌的時代，這是羅馬的和平；在香港社會，這是穩定；在中國社會，這是和諧；在全球化，這是經濟復甦。從此看來，我看不見趙連海與耶穌遭遇的不同，反而見證歷史悲劇的重複。耶穌被殺了，但他的被殺沒有終止不公義，以致我會說，被釘十字架的耶穌與被釘十字架的人民之命運緊扣。
當耶穌被釘在十字架時，我相信當時的環境是很熱鬧和嘈雜，因為那些喊著要「除掉他！除掉他！釘他在十字架上！」（約十九15）的聲音足以令彼拉多沒有勇氣堅持他的意願－即釋放耶穌。當整個環境都情緒高漲，充滿不同口號，爭看熱鬧時，我們卻聽見在這嘈雜環境中生命的無言。無言是一種沒有聲音的言說，但它是一種言說，因為無言以沒有回應挑戰不公義。事實上，不公義政權深明無言的影響力，所以，它以種種方式要求人民表態，高度表達對它的效忠。不公義政權不容許人無言，因為它明白無言不是對它認同，而是對它抗議。藉著沒有迴響，不公義的要求就被否定了。例如，打兵乓球需要回球才可以打下去。無言就是不回球，球賽也只有停下來。當有人以為沒有反對的無言就沾沾自喜時，他們不知道自己已陷於懸崖之邊緣。彼拉多很明白這道理。
彼拉多對耶穌說：「你是哪裏來的？」耶穌卻不回答。彼拉多說：「你不對我說話嗎？你豈不知我有權柄釋放你，也有權柄把你釘十字架嗎？」耶穌回答說：「若不是從上頭賜給你的，你就毫無權柄辦我…」從此，彼拉多想要釋放耶穌。（約十九9-12）
然而，猶太人和祭司卻不明白，甚至以為成功將耶穌釘在十字架上就是他們的勝利。雖然我不會認為基督教歷史上的反猶太傳統是對猶太人的報應，但他們失去迎接彌賽亞的來臨。當有人會以無能者的大能形容耶穌的無言，但這可能只是將無能的美化了，因為無言不必然是無言者的選擇。
除了耶穌的無言外，我又聽見另一些人的無言，他們就是耶穌的親朋。從耶穌被捉到審訊，再從判刑到被釘在十字架上，耶穌的門徒、親人和朋友等等都沒有發言。因為他們被剝奪發言的機會和被恐嚇不要發言。不論這言論審查來自政權或自我，無言是因恐懼而產生。這是對政權的恐懼，也是政權對人的恐懼。彼得不認主就是一例。或許，我們常批評彼得沒有勇氣，但我認為彼得也是權力威嚇的受害者。所以，我不會多責怪彼得及其他的無言者，因為我們都是站在同一方，受暴力威嚇之下，變得無言。若以豆腐渣工程、《零八憲章》和「結石寶寶之家」為例，我相信大部份人都會支持他們的，但在中國政府對譚作人、劉曉波和趙連海等人的方法下，很多人被剝奪發言機會了。除代他們發言是一個可能和挑戰那使人收聲的制度外，同在、慰問與關懷是必須的。這是耶穌對那門徒說：「看，你的母親！」（約十九27）
無言者又豈只是耶穌及其親朋，無言者更有路過的人、對耶穌陌生的人。其中一個我們認識的是古利奈人西門。路過的人和陌生人的無言，因為他們沒有機會認識問題的是與非，只可接受官方的解釋。就耶穌的死，官方的記錄是猶太人的王，一個政治的罪名；猶太人和祭司卻認為耶穌的死是他應得的，因為耶穌攪亂了當時猶太人依賴的社會秩序。在這些理解下，耶穌的死是他合理、合法和合情的。陌生人的無言，因為周遭的人也無言，沒有人說真話和真相。教會有責任說出耶穌被釘十字架的真相，其中之中一是，
他誠然擔當我們的憂患，背負我們的痛苦；我們卻以為他受責罰，被上主擊打苦待了。 哪知他為我們的過犯受害，為我們的罪孽壓傷。因他受的刑罰，我們得平安；因他受的鞭傷，我們得醫治。（賽五十三4-5)
當我們以為教會可以解開無言者的矛盾時，但教會卻將耶穌的贖罪非歷史性和個人性，只留下一個神學意含－代罪。雖然教會的聲音很微弱，但教會有責任讓無言者明白耶穌被釘十字架。
十字架的無言使我們聯想起在我們社會中有人被壓迫和被蒙蔽而變得無奈和無言。被釘十字架上的耶穌與被釘十字架上的人民之命運已分不開了。無言不應是最後，因為這與我們所相信公義的上主違背。然而，上主卻在耶穌被釘十字架過程無言了。我們不明白，也不敢相信－上主也無言了。我們只有共同呼喊：「我的上主，我的上主，為什麼離棄我？｣（可十34）
查實，趙連海的遭遇不是單一事件，也不是只有中國人才有。距今接近二千年，在巴勒斯坦地發生的耶穌被釘在十字架一事也是如此。與趙連海不同的，耶穌被釘在十字架上是當時祭司長和猶太人的集體決它定。這組合似乎代表一種有民眾基礎的決定，符合公共福祉。然而，問題不在於滿足所謂程序的公義（例如，彼拉多讓猶太人選擇釋放巴拉巴還是耶穌（可十五6-15）），更是一個人是否應被犧牲，滿足社會虛偽的義。在耶穌的時代，這是羅馬的和平；在香港社會，這是穩定；在中國社會，這是和諧；在全球化，這是經濟復甦。從此看來，我看不見趙連海與耶穌遭遇的不同，反而見證歷史悲劇的重複。耶穌被殺了，但他的被殺沒有終止不公義，以致我會說，被釘十字架的耶穌與被釘十字架的人民之命運緊扣。
當耶穌被釘在十字架時，我相信當時的環境是很熱鬧和嘈雜，因為那些喊著要「除掉他！除掉他！釘他在十字架上！」（約十九15）的聲音足以令彼拉多沒有勇氣堅持他的意願－即釋放耶穌。當整個環境都情緒高漲，充滿不同口號，爭看熱鬧時，我們卻聽見在這嘈雜環境中生命的無言。無言是一種沒有聲音的言說，但它是一種言說，因為無言以沒有回應挑戰不公義。事實上，不公義政權深明無言的影響力，所以，它以種種方式要求人民表態，高度表達對它的效忠。不公義政權不容許人無言，因為它明白無言不是對它認同，而是對它抗議。藉著沒有迴響，不公義的要求就被否定了。例如，打兵乓球需要回球才可以打下去。無言就是不回球，球賽也只有停下來。當有人以為沒有反對的無言就沾沾自喜時，他們不知道自己已陷於懸崖之邊緣。彼拉多很明白這道理。
彼拉多對耶穌說：「你是哪裏來的？」耶穌卻不回答。彼拉多說：「你不對我說話嗎？你豈不知我有權柄釋放你，也有權柄把你釘十字架嗎？」耶穌回答說：「若不是從上頭賜給你的，你就毫無權柄辦我…」從此，彼拉多想要釋放耶穌。（約十九9-12）
然而，猶太人和祭司卻不明白，甚至以為成功將耶穌釘在十字架上就是他們的勝利。雖然我不會認為基督教歷史上的反猶太傳統是對猶太人的報應，但他們失去迎接彌賽亞的來臨。當有人會以無能者的大能形容耶穌的無言，但這可能只是將無能的美化了，因為無言不必然是無言者的選擇。
除了耶穌的無言外，我又聽見另一些人的無言，他們就是耶穌的親朋。從耶穌被捉到審訊，再從判刑到被釘在十字架上，耶穌的門徒、親人和朋友等等都沒有發言。因為他們被剝奪發言的機會和被恐嚇不要發言。不論這言論審查來自政權或自我，無言是因恐懼而產生。這是對政權的恐懼，也是政權對人的恐懼。彼得不認主就是一例。或許，我們常批評彼得沒有勇氣，但我認為彼得也是權力威嚇的受害者。所以，我不會多責怪彼得及其他的無言者，因為我們都是站在同一方，受暴力威嚇之下，變得無言。若以豆腐渣工程、《零八憲章》和「結石寶寶之家」為例，我相信大部份人都會支持他們的，但在中國政府對譚作人、劉曉波和趙連海等人的方法下，很多人被剝奪發言機會了。除代他們發言是一個可能和挑戰那使人收聲的制度外，同在、慰問與關懷是必須的。這是耶穌對那門徒說：「看，你的母親！」（約十九27）
無言者又豈只是耶穌及其親朋，無言者更有路過的人、對耶穌陌生的人。其中一個我們認識的是古利奈人西門。路過的人和陌生人的無言，因為他們沒有機會認識問題的是與非，只可接受官方的解釋。就耶穌的死，官方的記錄是猶太人的王，一個政治的罪名；猶太人和祭司卻認為耶穌的死是他應得的，因為耶穌攪亂了當時猶太人依賴的社會秩序。在這些理解下，耶穌的死是他合理、合法和合情的。陌生人的無言，因為周遭的人也無言，沒有人說真話和真相。教會有責任說出耶穌被釘十字架的真相，其中之中一是，
他誠然擔當我們的憂患，背負我們的痛苦；我們卻以為他受責罰，被上主擊打苦待了。 哪知他為我們的過犯受害，為我們的罪孽壓傷。因他受的刑罰，我們得平安；因他受的鞭傷，我們得醫治。（賽五十三4-5)
當我們以為教會可以解開無言者的矛盾時，但教會卻將耶穌的贖罪非歷史性和個人性，只留下一個神學意含－代罪。雖然教會的聲音很微弱，但教會有責任讓無言者明白耶穌被釘十字架。
十字架的無言使我們聯想起在我們社會中有人被壓迫和被蒙蔽而變得無奈和無言。被釘十字架上的耶穌與被釘十字架上的人民之命運已分不開了。無言不應是最後，因為這與我們所相信公義的上主違背。然而，上主卻在耶穌被釘十字架過程無言了。我們不明白，也不敢相信－上主也無言了。我們只有共同呼喊：「我的上主，我的上主，為什麼離棄我？｣（可十34）
2010年3月25日 星期四
2010年3月21日 星期日
The face of the other
Doing the right thing is what we are used to emphasize. But right is not necessarily good, for rightness does not give respect to situation. In order to be fairness, rightness requires one to close his/her eyes, and the other is faceless. This is what the statue of Lady of Justice represents. This is the concern of today scripture (John 12:1-8).
According to John, the comment raised by Judas is invalid, ‘not because Judas cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.’ (v.6) I do not know how reliable John’s accusation was, for John might have prejudice against Judas after Judas betrayed Jesus. Even though John’s accusation is valid, we still have to deal with the comment raised by Judas, that is to say, it is right to give money to the poor instead buying perfume for anointing Jesus. Regarding this, how do we decide which one is more right to do? Some would suggest the criteria of the degree of necessary and for others. Spending money on the poor is more convinced than buying perfume for anointing. But Jesus holds different view. He argues that ‘it is for the day of his burial’ (v.7). On the one hand, it means that death allows one to over-ride the normal logic of rightness in everyday life. On the other hand, since human beings can only have one death, over-riding the normal logic of rightness is acceptable, for it would not turn to become the new logic of rightness. But is Jesus’ argument acceptable? What Jesus has argued is simply a matter of goodness, not rightness. Goodness can be amoral and even immoral, for goodness is largely determined by context. In other words, we can argue what goodness is in a context, but no absolute conclusion can be made, for goodness means differently to different people. Otherwise, it is rightness. In the case of Jesus, the goodness of spending money on perfume for anointing him is good, and it justifies over-riding the rightness of spending money on the poor. John shared Jesus’ preference, but Judas and other might not share. Those who disagree with Jesus’ argument do not mean that they are bad people, for goodness is not solely determined by moral law, but also by the analysis and assessment of the situation. For instance, some argue that flowers in the altar should be fresh, but some suggest plastic, because the latter consider that the fresh flower wastes money, and it is better to spend this amount of money on the poor. Who are more Christians? Who are more devoted to God? I would say that this is not a matter of rightness, but goodness. Since it is goodness, understanding is more important than argument.
Despite the fact that spending money on the poor or the perfume for anointing Jesus is not a moral issue, Jesus’ response has raised an important but neglected dimension of our decision-making, that is, our passion and the face of the other. An emphasis on morality is vital, for it challenges a kind of instrumental rationality that is widespread in society. Therefore, it is absolute right and important to uphold values like helping the poor, but another question is whether the poor in the value of helping the poor are faceless remains a question. The faceless of the poor is not the result of the seriousness of poverty, but comes from the heartless of the helpers. My critique is not to suggest those who give money to the poor are always heartless, but it is not enough to satisfy the moral demand of taking care of the poor. It is a charity, but a charity without passion. This is what Judas is in accordance with John. However, this is not to suggest that spending on the perfume for anointing Jesus is an act of passion. It can still be a heartless act, but this is not the case of Mary. According to Jesus’ word, she is doing with passion. It is this passion that Mary finds it is worth to spend a whole salary on the perfume, and it is good to use it for Jesus instead of the poor. Giving attention to the importance of heart and passion is often criticized as too subjective and emotional. Ironically, in order to be objective, we have lost our passion and heart. More seriously, we fail to turn to see the face of the people, for a faceless value is more importance than the face of the other. My comment has no intention to justify any amoral and immoral act in the name of passion, heart and the face of the other, but the moral value remains coldness if the face of the other has not been seen. One of the lessons we learn from today scripture is that it is not enough to have a right value and even right action, but also to retrieve our passion and heart so that we see the face of the people whom we meet. The latter gives us the context to determine what the goodness is.
On Sunday worship, the pastor announced that Alice would be getting married on coming Tuesday. The pastor continued to say that the church would pray for her marriage and advise her to be faithful in her faithful. I felt a little bit strange of what the pastor had said. Later, I noticed that Alice was pregnant. It is not my position here to discuss whether the pre-marital sex is right or wrong, but I am very appreciated for what the pastor has done, for he sees the face of Alice and responds with passion and heart, not just the moral rightness.
Whether spending money on the poor or the perfume for anointing Jesus is right. The issue is not that it is Jesus and therefore, every act for Jesus is right, but rather it is about an act with passion, heart and the face of the other that matters. This demands us to respond to Jesus as well as others with such qualities.
According to John, the comment raised by Judas is invalid, ‘not because Judas cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.’ (v.6) I do not know how reliable John’s accusation was, for John might have prejudice against Judas after Judas betrayed Jesus. Even though John’s accusation is valid, we still have to deal with the comment raised by Judas, that is to say, it is right to give money to the poor instead buying perfume for anointing Jesus. Regarding this, how do we decide which one is more right to do? Some would suggest the criteria of the degree of necessary and for others. Spending money on the poor is more convinced than buying perfume for anointing. But Jesus holds different view. He argues that ‘it is for the day of his burial’ (v.7). On the one hand, it means that death allows one to over-ride the normal logic of rightness in everyday life. On the other hand, since human beings can only have one death, over-riding the normal logic of rightness is acceptable, for it would not turn to become the new logic of rightness. But is Jesus’ argument acceptable? What Jesus has argued is simply a matter of goodness, not rightness. Goodness can be amoral and even immoral, for goodness is largely determined by context. In other words, we can argue what goodness is in a context, but no absolute conclusion can be made, for goodness means differently to different people. Otherwise, it is rightness. In the case of Jesus, the goodness of spending money on perfume for anointing him is good, and it justifies over-riding the rightness of spending money on the poor. John shared Jesus’ preference, but Judas and other might not share. Those who disagree with Jesus’ argument do not mean that they are bad people, for goodness is not solely determined by moral law, but also by the analysis and assessment of the situation. For instance, some argue that flowers in the altar should be fresh, but some suggest plastic, because the latter consider that the fresh flower wastes money, and it is better to spend this amount of money on the poor. Who are more Christians? Who are more devoted to God? I would say that this is not a matter of rightness, but goodness. Since it is goodness, understanding is more important than argument.
Despite the fact that spending money on the poor or the perfume for anointing Jesus is not a moral issue, Jesus’ response has raised an important but neglected dimension of our decision-making, that is, our passion and the face of the other. An emphasis on morality is vital, for it challenges a kind of instrumental rationality that is widespread in society. Therefore, it is absolute right and important to uphold values like helping the poor, but another question is whether the poor in the value of helping the poor are faceless remains a question. The faceless of the poor is not the result of the seriousness of poverty, but comes from the heartless of the helpers. My critique is not to suggest those who give money to the poor are always heartless, but it is not enough to satisfy the moral demand of taking care of the poor. It is a charity, but a charity without passion. This is what Judas is in accordance with John. However, this is not to suggest that spending on the perfume for anointing Jesus is an act of passion. It can still be a heartless act, but this is not the case of Mary. According to Jesus’ word, she is doing with passion. It is this passion that Mary finds it is worth to spend a whole salary on the perfume, and it is good to use it for Jesus instead of the poor. Giving attention to the importance of heart and passion is often criticized as too subjective and emotional. Ironically, in order to be objective, we have lost our passion and heart. More seriously, we fail to turn to see the face of the people, for a faceless value is more importance than the face of the other. My comment has no intention to justify any amoral and immoral act in the name of passion, heart and the face of the other, but the moral value remains coldness if the face of the other has not been seen. One of the lessons we learn from today scripture is that it is not enough to have a right value and even right action, but also to retrieve our passion and heart so that we see the face of the people whom we meet. The latter gives us the context to determine what the goodness is.
On Sunday worship, the pastor announced that Alice would be getting married on coming Tuesday. The pastor continued to say that the church would pray for her marriage and advise her to be faithful in her faithful. I felt a little bit strange of what the pastor had said. Later, I noticed that Alice was pregnant. It is not my position here to discuss whether the pre-marital sex is right or wrong, but I am very appreciated for what the pastor has done, for he sees the face of Alice and responds with passion and heart, not just the moral rightness.
Whether spending money on the poor or the perfume for anointing Jesus is right. The issue is not that it is Jesus and therefore, every act for Jesus is right, but rather it is about an act with passion, heart and the face of the other that matters. This demands us to respond to Jesus as well as others with such qualities.
2010年3月16日 星期二
寫在國際反歧視日前
初期教會，一個主要爭論點是外邦人信徒的地位（見使徒行傳第十五章）。但當外邦人信徒的數目不斷增加時，外邦人信徒反過來對付猶太人（例如，306年Elvira 大會禁止基督徒與猶太人通婚和一起進食；1050年Narbonne 大會禁止基督徒住在猶太人家中；1215年第四次Lateran會議要求猶太人穿著特別服飾，從基督徒中分別出來）。這些經驗指出宗教也避不了對其他種族的歧視，所以，教會不要以為相信「上帝愛世人｣，就不會有種族歧視。
歧視的出現往往是多數對少數。所以，若在美國，我們會留意中國人和其他族裔人士是否有受歧視？在香港，我們會留意菲律賓人和其他族裔人士是否有受歧視？然而，歧視不一定是多數對少數，因為多數仍可以是沒有權力的。經歷殖民統治的香港人深明這道理。此外，歧視不只是人與人的關係，更是一種集體意識下的表現。例如，若我對黑人沒有好感，不只是我個人的態度，更是受社會對黑人意識形態影響。例如，黑就被聯想為不好（是非黑白）、污穢和壞（黑社會）等等。意識比權力更難改變。香港的情況又如何？
香港的華人對種族歧視絕對需要有敏銳自覺性，因為華人是香港社會絕大多數（95%），以致華人會較易忽略從少數族裔看事物。縱使華人仍有一定機會接觸少數族裔（留意：這接觸是非常片面），但又因佔大部份的少數族裔朋友都是從事勞動工作和海外僱員，華人那份高高在上的僱主心態使他們對種族歧視輕視了。我們需要對《種族歧視條例》有認識，不是為了避免觸犯法例，而是為了不因無知而帶來對人的傷害。只有如此，歧視才不會以無形繼續出現。
種族歧視可以以另一種形態出現，就是對外藉英語人士優惠，從而產生對本地人不公平和歧視。這是一種後殖民心態，即人沒有因離開殖民角色而變得自主，反而昔日管治者的思維繼續是他今日的管治態度。例如，有大學有內部指引，外藉英語申請人優先聘請。查實，我們社會仍有很多人對歐美人士存在迷思，以致歐美人士比華人和菲律賓人等等獲得更有禮貌和歡迎的對待。這種後殖民意識需要更認真被認識和批判。
說回來，歧視牽涉權力不平衡和錯誤意識，所以，我們也需要從充權方面考慮，讓少數族裔有平等參與社會的機會。在就業、教育、福利和保護其文化傳統等等，社會需要積極提供支援，而不只呼籲不要種族歧視。
我喜見有教會推動「與家傭同行」運動。雖然這運動的重點是僱主與僱員，但在香港社會，這絕對是種族的課題。這不只是一種柔性運動，它更為僱員爭取合理工資。此外，有基督徒團體在深水埗推動種族共融運動。例如，一個名為「Colour in Peace」的運動。雖然語言和文化的差異使我們不容易一起坐下來吃一頓飯，但當因耶穌基督的死與復活，使聖殿的幔子，從上到下裂為兩件時（馬太福音二十七51），教會認識它作為種族間的和好使者的職份是上主的呼召（哥林多後書五17-21）。
歧視的出現往往是多數對少數。所以，若在美國，我們會留意中國人和其他族裔人士是否有受歧視？在香港，我們會留意菲律賓人和其他族裔人士是否有受歧視？然而，歧視不一定是多數對少數，因為多數仍可以是沒有權力的。經歷殖民統治的香港人深明這道理。此外，歧視不只是人與人的關係，更是一種集體意識下的表現。例如，若我對黑人沒有好感，不只是我個人的態度，更是受社會對黑人意識形態影響。例如，黑就被聯想為不好（是非黑白）、污穢和壞（黑社會）等等。意識比權力更難改變。香港的情況又如何？
香港的華人對種族歧視絕對需要有敏銳自覺性，因為華人是香港社會絕大多數（95%），以致華人會較易忽略從少數族裔看事物。縱使華人仍有一定機會接觸少數族裔（留意：這接觸是非常片面），但又因佔大部份的少數族裔朋友都是從事勞動工作和海外僱員，華人那份高高在上的僱主心態使他們對種族歧視輕視了。我們需要對《種族歧視條例》有認識，不是為了避免觸犯法例，而是為了不因無知而帶來對人的傷害。只有如此，歧視才不會以無形繼續出現。
種族歧視可以以另一種形態出現，就是對外藉英語人士優惠，從而產生對本地人不公平和歧視。這是一種後殖民心態，即人沒有因離開殖民角色而變得自主，反而昔日管治者的思維繼續是他今日的管治態度。例如，有大學有內部指引，外藉英語申請人優先聘請。查實，我們社會仍有很多人對歐美人士存在迷思，以致歐美人士比華人和菲律賓人等等獲得更有禮貌和歡迎的對待。這種後殖民意識需要更認真被認識和批判。
說回來，歧視牽涉權力不平衡和錯誤意識，所以，我們也需要從充權方面考慮，讓少數族裔有平等參與社會的機會。在就業、教育、福利和保護其文化傳統等等，社會需要積極提供支援，而不只呼籲不要種族歧視。
我喜見有教會推動「與家傭同行」運動。雖然這運動的重點是僱主與僱員，但在香港社會，這絕對是種族的課題。這不只是一種柔性運動，它更為僱員爭取合理工資。此外，有基督徒團體在深水埗推動種族共融運動。例如，一個名為「Colour in Peace」的運動。雖然語言和文化的差異使我們不容易一起坐下來吃一頓飯，但當因耶穌基督的死與復活，使聖殿的幔子，從上到下裂為兩件時（馬太福音二十七51），教會認識它作為種族間的和好使者的職份是上主的呼召（哥林多後書五17-21）。
2010年3月14日 星期日
Divine word and human word
My first experience of giving a name to someone is to my daughters. It is a challenging task, for their names are not just a matter of the distinction of identity, but also they are their names. This is why most parents spend a lot of time to give thought on naming their children. My first daughter is Jeng Sum that means to rectify one’s heart, and the second is Jeng Hang that means to rectify one’s act.
Scripture for today is also about naming.
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. (Gen 2:19)
This one shall be called Woman. (Gen 2:23)
Adam is given the authority to name animals, and even to name another human being as the woman. Does it mean that Adam has the power over or superior to animals and the woman? I do not think so, but on the contrary, it is more about the responsibility of Adam to animals and the woman. This is my experience of being a father. I have more responsible to those whom I name than those whom I do not name. It may be right that Adam’s responsibility of naming is related to his language and intellectual ability, but language is not self-invented, for Adam is born into a language. In other words, it is Adam who learns the language first and reproduces the language in his activity of naming. Hearing or listening is prior to speaking. What Adam has heard is the Divine word, and what he has named is to reproduce the Divine word. Here, the Divine word and human word are merged. Thus, the names of animals and the woman are not just for the sake of the distinction of identity, but also reflect the Divine word. When we hear names of animals and the woman, we can discern the Divine word and the glory of God.
Since listening is prior to speaking or reproducing, we have to ask what Adam has heard from the Divine word, for this is the Divine word that human word is to reproduce. Firstly, Adam is told ‘to till and keep the garden of Eden’. (2:15) Tilling and keeping are not only just to maintain what has been already there, but also to bring out the potentiality of the garden. Adam is for the garden, but also the garden is for Adam. (2:8) Adam and the garden are mutually dependent. The best word to understand their relationship is gift. Gift is the reproduction of the Divine word in terms of human word. The command to till and keep is the command to work, but this is a work of gift. At the same time, Adam has received a gift, the garden of Eden. Although we do not know what names Adam had given to animals, I believe, based on what has been discussed, that the names of animals should reflect a sense of gift. On the contrary, names like pig and dog have been abused in current use when human word is alienated from the Divine word.
Secondly, Adam is told to eat freely of the trees. (Gen 2:16) To eat freely is not a result of Adam’s hard work of tilling and keeping the garden, but rather it is the gift of the garden. (2:9) However, there is a condition of eating freely, that is, not to eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (2:17) It is not my purpose here to discuss different interpretations of the tree, but the Divine word, at least, has implied that freedom has constraints. This is something that our society has difficulty to accept, for freedom means no constraint. In the Divine word, constraint is a reminder, not a bondage, but since the human word is alienated from the Divine word, the meaning of the tree has been changed to a matter of control. I do not know whether the forbidden is applied to Adam only, but it is sure that Adam had reproduced the Divine word in human word to the woman. Despite this, we are not sure whether Adam reproduced accurately or the woman reproduced it differently. This remains a puzzle.
What I have said so far is to suggest that Adam is asked to reproduce the Divine word in human word. It is not only whether the message of the Divine word is accurately reproduced, but also whether the glory of the Divine word is reflected in human words. On the other hand, we also have to learn to discern the Divine word implicitly reproduced in human word. The Church does not hold the Divine word, but rather the Divine word is spoken at its own. Listening is always the basic. We hear the Divine word from the Scripture, but we also hear the Divine word among the poor, for the poor is the chief addressees of Jesus’ ministry. (Lk 4:19) Despite its inadequacy and fragmentary, we humbly reproduce the Divine word in human word so that God’s glory is manifested. This is the ministry of the Church.
Although sin alienates the Divine word from human word, we have discerned the Divine word in the current’s ‘ascetic walk’ (苦行) against the construction of high speed rail. In ascetic walk, the value of high speed is countered by slow walk, the value of development is countered by the love of land. It is this human word reproducing the divine word to unmask the pride and the falsehood of human word. Theological education is first to listen and then to reproduce in human word. This is what we are learning here.
Scripture for today is also about naming.
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. (Gen 2:19)
This one shall be called Woman. (Gen 2:23)
Adam is given the authority to name animals, and even to name another human being as the woman. Does it mean that Adam has the power over or superior to animals and the woman? I do not think so, but on the contrary, it is more about the responsibility of Adam to animals and the woman. This is my experience of being a father. I have more responsible to those whom I name than those whom I do not name. It may be right that Adam’s responsibility of naming is related to his language and intellectual ability, but language is not self-invented, for Adam is born into a language. In other words, it is Adam who learns the language first and reproduces the language in his activity of naming. Hearing or listening is prior to speaking. What Adam has heard is the Divine word, and what he has named is to reproduce the Divine word. Here, the Divine word and human word are merged. Thus, the names of animals and the woman are not just for the sake of the distinction of identity, but also reflect the Divine word. When we hear names of animals and the woman, we can discern the Divine word and the glory of God.
Since listening is prior to speaking or reproducing, we have to ask what Adam has heard from the Divine word, for this is the Divine word that human word is to reproduce. Firstly, Adam is told ‘to till and keep the garden of Eden’. (2:15) Tilling and keeping are not only just to maintain what has been already there, but also to bring out the potentiality of the garden. Adam is for the garden, but also the garden is for Adam. (2:8) Adam and the garden are mutually dependent. The best word to understand their relationship is gift. Gift is the reproduction of the Divine word in terms of human word. The command to till and keep is the command to work, but this is a work of gift. At the same time, Adam has received a gift, the garden of Eden. Although we do not know what names Adam had given to animals, I believe, based on what has been discussed, that the names of animals should reflect a sense of gift. On the contrary, names like pig and dog have been abused in current use when human word is alienated from the Divine word.
Secondly, Adam is told to eat freely of the trees. (Gen 2:16) To eat freely is not a result of Adam’s hard work of tilling and keeping the garden, but rather it is the gift of the garden. (2:9) However, there is a condition of eating freely, that is, not to eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (2:17) It is not my purpose here to discuss different interpretations of the tree, but the Divine word, at least, has implied that freedom has constraints. This is something that our society has difficulty to accept, for freedom means no constraint. In the Divine word, constraint is a reminder, not a bondage, but since the human word is alienated from the Divine word, the meaning of the tree has been changed to a matter of control. I do not know whether the forbidden is applied to Adam only, but it is sure that Adam had reproduced the Divine word in human word to the woman. Despite this, we are not sure whether Adam reproduced accurately or the woman reproduced it differently. This remains a puzzle.
What I have said so far is to suggest that Adam is asked to reproduce the Divine word in human word. It is not only whether the message of the Divine word is accurately reproduced, but also whether the glory of the Divine word is reflected in human words. On the other hand, we also have to learn to discern the Divine word implicitly reproduced in human word. The Church does not hold the Divine word, but rather the Divine word is spoken at its own. Listening is always the basic. We hear the Divine word from the Scripture, but we also hear the Divine word among the poor, for the poor is the chief addressees of Jesus’ ministry. (Lk 4:19) Despite its inadequacy and fragmentary, we humbly reproduce the Divine word in human word so that God’s glory is manifested. This is the ministry of the Church.
Although sin alienates the Divine word from human word, we have discerned the Divine word in the current’s ‘ascetic walk’ (苦行) against the construction of high speed rail. In ascetic walk, the value of high speed is countered by slow walk, the value of development is countered by the love of land. It is this human word reproducing the divine word to unmask the pride and the falsehood of human word. Theological education is first to listen and then to reproduce in human word. This is what we are learning here.
2010年3月12日 星期五
基督徒身分
已有一段日子沒有在網誌留言, 只因生活忙碌, 不是因生活無感. 近日對於基督徒要有勇氣以基督徒身分說話,有很大的體會. 受Stanley Hauerwas影響的我, 我的立場不難理解. 例如, 我會以崇基神學院老師身分描述自己, 而甚少以文化與宗教研究學系. 但我卻越來越發現有很多基督徒(指那些熱心的)嘗試用種種方式掩藏其基督教視野和論點, 目的是為了讓社會對他們的論點和處事有更大的認同, 所謂福音藉此宣講了. 當然, 若這議題不牽涉基督教視野的話,這是可理解的. 但若是基督教的話, 我就很難認同了. 例如, 小弟負責的優質生命教育中心是基於基督教視野而成立的, 所以, 我們就要有勇氣表達出來, 而不是掩藏基督教. 強調基督教不是要排斥其他視野, 而是相信基督教對生命教育有肯定的貢獻. 請不要用世俗主義包裝基督教. 基督教立場可以用世俗理性陳述, 但不是為要掩飾基督教身分, 得到別人的接納.
我開始發現我在別人眼中的開放原來仍是很保守(對基督教身分的肯定), 反而那所謂很傳統和很福音的人卻是很自由(說得直接一點, 很機會主義).
我開始發現我在別人眼中的開放原來仍是很保守(對基督教身分的肯定), 反而那所謂很傳統和很福音的人卻是很自由(說得直接一點, 很機會主義).
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)