今年教會年曆的安排，刻意在棕枝日之前三個星期，以耶穌在三次逾越節前的片段作為福音的內容。第一個片段是耶穌潔淨聖殿（約二13-22）；第二個片段是今天的耶穌給五千人吃飽（約六4-14）；第三個片段是耶穌講述他的死與我們的關係（約十二）。這三段福音從以不同角度預備我們回應主耶穌的苦難和使命。約二要求清除教會難阻人敬拜上主自以為義的制度，而今日的經文（約六4-14）是面對五千人的食物需要，耶穌向門徒發出的問題：「我們到哪裏去買餅給這些人吃呢？」（約六6）用當下經驗，耶穌的問題將會是：面對香港嚴重貧富懸殊和土瓜灣社區的需要時，你們計劃如何回應他們的需要？
耶穌的問題已假設他和門徒有責任要照顧這五千人的物質需要。在符類福音記載中，門徒傾向儘快打發這些人走，不但因為他們自知沒有經濟能力回應他們的需要，更因為這五千人跟他們沒有親密關係。然而，這不是耶穌的態度。耶穌的問題指出門徒對他者的責任不應受他們的能力多少來決定，也不應親疏有別，反而要認識他們的責任，並有勇氣承擔。對門徒來說，耶穌的要求是不切實際，但耶穌卻肯定責任基本上是一個價值的考慮，而不是一個計算的考慮。現實上，耶穌的看法卻有一定困難和危險性，因為我們無可能有無限資源。再者，在有限資源下，不分優先和先後必定製造社會矛盾。簡單來說，教會的慈惠金是否也適用於非教友？
我們承認價值與計算有一定張力，但不應讓計算掩蓋價值，否則，教會的社會服務就不會有發展的可能，宣教也無需要做，因為我們總是不夠。當門徒的焦點放在人數和他們擁有多少物資時，他們忽略那看不見的。現象學對此有一個很好的理解，當將焦點集中在我這個人時，你們就忽略了襯托我的教會；又將焦點集中在教會時，你們就忽略了襯托出教會的土瓜灣和香港；又將焦點集中在香港時，你們就忽略了襯托出香港的全球。按這邏輯推論下，一件事件、一樣事物或一個行動絕非如想像中獨立和單一。基督徒理解這種關聯為「萬事互相效力，叫愛上主的人得益處。」（羅八28）我們可能未能辨識上主在某事件或行動上的參與，也不完全估計某事件或行動引發的漣漪，但不要受限於或只以自己的能力來推卸對責任的承擔，反應儘自己能力去回應。縱使只有五個餅，二條魚，就拿出來；縱使只可能吃飽十人，也不應擔心4990沒有得吃，甚麼都不做。故事的發展就是這五餅二魚吃飽了五千人，而眾人因這神蹟，便說，「耶穌真是那要到世間的先知。」究竟是因這五餅二魚不斷變大還是其他人也跟隨這孩子的行動拿出他們所有的參與這分享，以致五千人的需得到滿足？如何不是重點，重點是我們沒有以計算決定價值，並我們以不同形式參與神蹟。
2010年12月，一個八十後女孩子名叫fun fun開始一個後來名為「籽樂行動」。放工後，她回家煮糖水。每星期一晚，她送糖水給大埔露宿者，與他們建立友誼。作為基督徒的她說，「報佳音是為了甚麼？去唱詩歌嘅意義係乜？只係為咗慶祝節日？我想做啲唔同啲嘅嘢。」這行動是她一個人的行動，但透過facebook，不同人參與這行動，成為城市中一個愛心行動。她們聽過不少質疑與批評，「話我哋冇效率，幾個鐘探幾個阿婆，探完之後啲阿婆第二日生活又點樣？我哋咁樣播種法，未必好大成效，但如果我哋唔先做一啲嘢，唔播一啲種籽，咁所有嘢就永遠唔會發生。」她們需要計算煮多少糖水，也要計算如何分配，但計算不是先要責任和對露宿者的關愛，而永遠是在責任和關愛之後。又近月，一位牧師主動每星期一晚在深水埗跟露宿者露宿，關懷他們，並向食環處抗議他們時常清場，令露宿者無處可容。他說，「停車場午夜泊車$50，但露宿者連車都不餘。」查實，類似行動以不同形式在我們社會出現，而我們是否因而被感動而參與。
在預苦期，我們被提醒，要對人的物質需要敏感、有反應、不要只從自己的限制去衡量我們的責任和關愛．我們要相信「萬事互相效力，叫愛上主的人得益處」，讓神蹟在我們社會發生，並說「耶穌真是那要到世間的先知。」。在剩下二個星期的預苦期，讓我們謹記主的話，「你們給餅他們吃。」
2012年3月18日 星期日
2012年3月10日 星期六
沒有宗教地跟隨主 (約二 13-22)
宗教的弔詭性在於它的傳承要靠制度，但當它成為制度化宗教時，它就很容易失去其原初理想和目的。我不知道耶穌基督的原意是否要為他的跟隨者成立一個制度，但其生平似乎沒有這傾向。耶穌基督沒有像當時的拉比建立一個學派，只有一班雜亂的跟隨者。他沒有嘗試組織跟隨者，只讓他們自由地以他們的經驗和方式建立與他的關係，詮釋他是誰（四本福音書就是例子）。然而，當跟隨者人數漸多時，制度化終避不了。這有點像哈伯瑪斯（J.Habermas）對系統與生活世界的理解。系統的需要是要協助跟隨者認識他們所跟隨，並忠心地跟隨，而不應是限制他們的信仰經驗。事實卻是反轉來，人要配合系統生活。這正是為何耶穌在安息日治病時，他說，「人不是為安息日而設，安息日是為人而設。」（可二27）
說回來，當抱怨制度的封閉和扼殺人的思想時，跟隨者有一定責任，因為他們賦予制度的合法性。就此，我想起前捷克總統哈維爾一個蔬果店的故事。故事描述在共產主義下的捷克，每一小商戶都要在櫥窗貼上一張大海報，內容是全球無產階級站起來，團結一起，建立共產社會。這店主並不相信這海報所說，但他仍然要貼這海報。終於有一天，他決定不貼這海報，因為他相信謊言。當然，他被捉去問話。這就是哈維爾的名言，「說真話。」說真話最基本的，就是不參與講謊言。跟隨者應拒絕事事跟隨教會，不介意在教會的邊陲，卻忠心地跟隨主。與此同時，教會需要鼓勵會眾自由地和忠心地跟隨主，甚至不介意他們離開教會。以上看法不是要否定教會，反而嘗試正確地認識教會的身分。一方面，教會是一群忠心地跟隨主的人；另一方面，教會可以成為人跟隨主的阻礙。
以上反省源自我近日到臺灣考察新興宗教而來。第一，新興宗教的創辦者以種種方法將自己神化，自封自己甚麼偉大名稱，使其跟隨者對他崇拜。「師父如此說」和「與師父神通的經驗」成為他們的口頭襌。相反，耶穌基督沒有為自己宣傳，只宣講上主國。他選擇以謙卑方式服務，拒絕被人擁戴為王。他與社會邊緣者走在一起，不介意被標籤。他沒有為自己的神性爭辯，只讓跟隨者自由地對他的回應。縱使基督徒崇拜耶穌為基督，但這一切是在他受難、復活和升天後對他的認信，而不是他在世上時對跟隨者的要求。我佩服以隱藏彌賽亞形式出現的耶穌，而這是一般新興宗教領袖所欠奉。
第二，制度對宗教生活有其重要性。我們從中被建立，並學習分享和服務。反諷的，沒有一個制度化宗教不會產生某程度壓迫性。壓迫性來自群體生活、制度生活的秩序、權力分配和教理詮釋等等。就此，有些基督徒選擇過一種沒有教會生活的信仰生活。從這角度來看，新興宗教的出現就是對官僚化制度宗教的反抗。當然，新興宗教也離不開制度化的命運。問題不是如何繼續鼓勵新興宗教和新教會的誕生，而是如何保持制度化宗教的彈性、包容性和可能性，讓跟隨主的人可以自由地和忠心地跟隨主。
這一切使我想起耶穌潔淨聖殿一事。潔淨聖殿是一個嘗試回復聖殿的本相，即讓人自由地經歷上主的釋放，並自由地跟隨主和事奉主。可惜的是，耶穌潔淨聖殿的做法卻被狹義理解為聖俗二分。一方面，這潔淨行動反成為某些人以更神聖理由對聖殿另一種操縱。例如，有教會牧者和執事以耶穌潔淨聖殿為理由反對教會協助推廣公平貿易產品（因這牽涉買賣），也有教會牧者和執事不支持將平日空置的教會作非宗教活動用途，更不容納對社會議題的討論，因為教會只可以用作禱告的殿。另一方面，他們刻意淡化耶穌潔淨聖殿行動本身的激進性，並視一切激進行動是破壞性。事實上，由十四世界紀末開始的宗教改革運動就是一場潔淨聖殿運動，但卻被當時羅馬天主教視為激進和顛覆行為。不要忘記基督徒（Protestant）的名稱就帶有激進之意。反諷的，今日任何批評教會的做法就被視為不合一。例如，反對影音使團欺騙地運用挪亞方舟、回歸基督精神同盟反對行政長官小圈子等。視批判等於挑剔不只不明白批判，更以此滅絕批判。
潔淨聖殿的核心不是要維持聖殿的神聖性。所羅門王說，「神果真與世人同住在地上麼。看哪、天和天上的天、尚且不足你居住的。何況我所建的這殿呢。」（代下六18）這不等於說聖殿不需要，但它的需要在於它是上主施恩具之一，不是唯一，讓人自由地經歷上主的釋放和自由地跟隨主。教會沒有壟斷上主的恩典，因為恩典是從上主而來。教會沒有從日常生活中抽離而成為聖潔，也沒有以教義和秩序限制基督徒對上主的跟隨。若有一天，我們的教會變得官僚時，請有勇氣推倒教會的擺設，回復教會的本相。
2012年2月20日 星期一
Identity and Sabbath (Mk 2;23-29)
Circumcision and Sabbath are the two most obvious features of Jewish identity. This is particularly important when Jewish nation no longer exists at the time of Jesus. This explains why the Pharisees take Sabbath very serious. Violation of Sabbath is not just simply disobedience to law, but an act of de-Jewish identity. We as the people of Hong Kong have the similar experience as Jews. In mid 1980s, Deng Xiaopeng affimred the people of Hong Kong of that after 1997, both dancing and racing would be kept on (馬照跑，舞照跳). The issue is not whether both dancing and racing are good to be kept, but they aymbolize the identity of being Hongkongese, that is, one country two systems. Therefore, any attempt to denounce it is an act of de-Hong Kong identity. In this context, Jesus’ violation of Sabbath is not just an argument of how Sabbath is righly interpreted, but how Jewish identity is understood. If so, what is Jewish identity?
In this passage, Jesus considers that first, the Jewish identity is not primarily about Jewish, but about being considerate. Jesus uses the story of David to argue that being considerate is more important than observing the law, and respecting the law has to subject to the love of people. In other words, Jewish identity is formed by its hospitality and gracious to the need more than meeting the requirements of the rituals. This is hardly to be appreciated, for at that time, the Pharisees are used to define identity by boundary, such as, Jews and gentiles. As a result, Jewish identity becomes a kind of chauvinism. Jesus here is not against the Jewish identity, but attempts to expand the meaning of Jewish identity from the political consideration to the concern of the need of the people.
Second, the Jewish identity lies on the relationship between God and Jews, not between Sabbath and Jews. It is God who makes the covenant with the Jewish community, and makes them become the people of God. The covenant with God is expressed in Torah, but the Torah is not God himself. Torah is a symbol pointing to and even participating into God’s covenant with the Jewish community, but it is not the one who makes the covenant. The failure of the Pharisees is not their unfaithful to Torah, but rather they turn the finite into infinite, the law into God himself. Jesus’ saying of that ‘the son of man is the lord of the Sabbath’ is not about his own authority, for this is against the concept of hidden Messiah in Mark’s Gospel, but is a reminder to them what their identity lies on.
In Jesus’ eye, Jewish identity is more than an ethnic issue. Rather it is derived from the belief in God who is the God of Jews and gentiles, the God of law and gospel. Jesus challenges the over-riding of Jewish national identity against their religious identity represented by love and inclusion. Can such a religious identity be integrated with the national identity in real life? When I studied in Denmark in 1986, I had heard a story about the Danes in solidarity with the Jewish community during the occupation of Hitler. The Jews in Denmark were requested to wear a yellow ribbon in their arms in order to be differentiated from the Danes. Surprisingly, the king of Denmark appealed to his people to wear a yellow ribbon also. The Danes took the King’s appeal positively at the risk of their lives, for their act would be considered as against Hitler. However, I have to tell you that this is not a true story. It is not found in history, but it is the myth that the Danes believe, that is, a sense of solidarity with people who are in danger. The myth is more powerful than the fact, for the values and ideal reflected in the myth shapes our lives. In the case of the Danes, the Danes is not just a national identity, but also their inclusiveness and solidarity.
Recently, we the people of Hong Kong are in a crisis of identity. Many people from China mainland come to Hong Kong to give birth in order to get Hong Kong residency, and this threatens both their lives and our medical system. Drivers of China mainland may be allowed to drive in Hong Kong for leisure, and this may affect both our road safety and air quality. Our shops and shopping malls have been converted to serve the people from mainland China, and the people of Hong Kong are marginalized from the city life. Since the Hong Kong economy is more dependent upon China mainland and Hong Kong has gradually lost all its advantages, all these make us lose our confidence and feel unsecure. The Hong Kong identity is getting diluted and unclear. In order to maintain our identity, some discriminate people from China mainland, project them as uncivilized and even condemn them as 蝗虫.
We are reminded by Jesus that the Hong Kong identity is not preserved by discrimination and exclusion. Rather our identity is maintained by our commitment to inclusion, hospitality and respect. We lose our identity, not because there are more people coming from China mainland, but because we are becoming more excusive, mean and arrogant. This does not mean that we should allow the Chinese pregnant women abusing the Hong Kong medical system, for instance. We should do what we can in law and in act to prevent the abuse, but not discrimination. We Christian should not allow our Hongkong identity over-riding our Christian identity. These two identities are not in opposition to one another, but they are not necessarily equivalence. We are remind that we are called to the ministry of reconciliation. Where there is hatred, we sow love. Where there is conflict, we sow peace. Where there is distrust, we sow hope.
In this passage, Jesus considers that first, the Jewish identity is not primarily about Jewish, but about being considerate. Jesus uses the story of David to argue that being considerate is more important than observing the law, and respecting the law has to subject to the love of people. In other words, Jewish identity is formed by its hospitality and gracious to the need more than meeting the requirements of the rituals. This is hardly to be appreciated, for at that time, the Pharisees are used to define identity by boundary, such as, Jews and gentiles. As a result, Jewish identity becomes a kind of chauvinism. Jesus here is not against the Jewish identity, but attempts to expand the meaning of Jewish identity from the political consideration to the concern of the need of the people.
Second, the Jewish identity lies on the relationship between God and Jews, not between Sabbath and Jews. It is God who makes the covenant with the Jewish community, and makes them become the people of God. The covenant with God is expressed in Torah, but the Torah is not God himself. Torah is a symbol pointing to and even participating into God’s covenant with the Jewish community, but it is not the one who makes the covenant. The failure of the Pharisees is not their unfaithful to Torah, but rather they turn the finite into infinite, the law into God himself. Jesus’ saying of that ‘the son of man is the lord of the Sabbath’ is not about his own authority, for this is against the concept of hidden Messiah in Mark’s Gospel, but is a reminder to them what their identity lies on.
In Jesus’ eye, Jewish identity is more than an ethnic issue. Rather it is derived from the belief in God who is the God of Jews and gentiles, the God of law and gospel. Jesus challenges the over-riding of Jewish national identity against their religious identity represented by love and inclusion. Can such a religious identity be integrated with the national identity in real life? When I studied in Denmark in 1986, I had heard a story about the Danes in solidarity with the Jewish community during the occupation of Hitler. The Jews in Denmark were requested to wear a yellow ribbon in their arms in order to be differentiated from the Danes. Surprisingly, the king of Denmark appealed to his people to wear a yellow ribbon also. The Danes took the King’s appeal positively at the risk of their lives, for their act would be considered as against Hitler. However, I have to tell you that this is not a true story. It is not found in history, but it is the myth that the Danes believe, that is, a sense of solidarity with people who are in danger. The myth is more powerful than the fact, for the values and ideal reflected in the myth shapes our lives. In the case of the Danes, the Danes is not just a national identity, but also their inclusiveness and solidarity.
Recently, we the people of Hong Kong are in a crisis of identity. Many people from China mainland come to Hong Kong to give birth in order to get Hong Kong residency, and this threatens both their lives and our medical system. Drivers of China mainland may be allowed to drive in Hong Kong for leisure, and this may affect both our road safety and air quality. Our shops and shopping malls have been converted to serve the people from mainland China, and the people of Hong Kong are marginalized from the city life. Since the Hong Kong economy is more dependent upon China mainland and Hong Kong has gradually lost all its advantages, all these make us lose our confidence and feel unsecure. The Hong Kong identity is getting diluted and unclear. In order to maintain our identity, some discriminate people from China mainland, project them as uncivilized and even condemn them as 蝗虫.
We are reminded by Jesus that the Hong Kong identity is not preserved by discrimination and exclusion. Rather our identity is maintained by our commitment to inclusion, hospitality and respect. We lose our identity, not because there are more people coming from China mainland, but because we are becoming more excusive, mean and arrogant. This does not mean that we should allow the Chinese pregnant women abusing the Hong Kong medical system, for instance. We should do what we can in law and in act to prevent the abuse, but not discrimination. We Christian should not allow our Hongkong identity over-riding our Christian identity. These two identities are not in opposition to one another, but they are not necessarily equivalence. We are remind that we are called to the ministry of reconciliation. Where there is hatred, we sow love. Where there is conflict, we sow peace. Where there is distrust, we sow hope.
2012年2月16日 星期四
Religion in China
Just finish a paper on religion in China. This is my first time to write something on Buddhism, and I learn a lot from it.
Topic: Religion in China as Political Religion, Apolitical Religion and/or Religious Politics: A Case Study of Humanistic Buddhism
Abstract: Unlike the engaged Buddhism in south and southeast Asia, the development of Buddhism in China and Chinese speaking societies has a different face. Socially engaged Buddhism in China and Chinese speaking societies is called humanistic Buddhism under the influence of Master Taixu and Yinshun. In short, it is involved in programs of poverty alleviation, relief and education, but rare in political activism and human right agitation, except Master Xingyun of Foguangsha in Taiwan. Apart from the differences between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism, this paper considers that both the political environment and the Chinese culture play an important role to shape the social form of Buddhism in China. In comparison with other religions in China, Buddhism has been rapidly developed. Research questions are: How is Buddhism understood and shaped in Chinese culture and politics? In what way is humanistic Buddhism incorporated into the ideology of harmonious society of the Chinese Communist government? How does humanistic Buddhism reconstruct its identity? This paper argues that humanistic Buddhism is one of the models that the Chinese government would like religion to be, but paradoxically, the policy of accommodation to the ideology of harmonious society helps the modernization of humanistic Buddhism. Nevertheless, it is unrealistically expecting that humanistic Buddhism in China can play a role in the rebellion against the overbearing states, for instance, but its role in creation and accumulation of social capital is one way or another an important resource for a humane society which is reflected in reports on humanistic Buddhism in local communities.
Topic: Religion in China as Political Religion, Apolitical Religion and/or Religious Politics: A Case Study of Humanistic Buddhism
Abstract: Unlike the engaged Buddhism in south and southeast Asia, the development of Buddhism in China and Chinese speaking societies has a different face. Socially engaged Buddhism in China and Chinese speaking societies is called humanistic Buddhism under the influence of Master Taixu and Yinshun. In short, it is involved in programs of poverty alleviation, relief and education, but rare in political activism and human right agitation, except Master Xingyun of Foguangsha in Taiwan. Apart from the differences between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism, this paper considers that both the political environment and the Chinese culture play an important role to shape the social form of Buddhism in China. In comparison with other religions in China, Buddhism has been rapidly developed. Research questions are: How is Buddhism understood and shaped in Chinese culture and politics? In what way is humanistic Buddhism incorporated into the ideology of harmonious society of the Chinese Communist government? How does humanistic Buddhism reconstruct its identity? This paper argues that humanistic Buddhism is one of the models that the Chinese government would like religion to be, but paradoxically, the policy of accommodation to the ideology of harmonious society helps the modernization of humanistic Buddhism. Nevertheless, it is unrealistically expecting that humanistic Buddhism in China can play a role in the rebellion against the overbearing states, for instance, but its role in creation and accumulation of social capital is one way or another an important resource for a humane society which is reflected in reports on humanistic Buddhism in local communities.
2012年2月11日 星期六
醒一 D (路16:1-13)
今年的財政預算沒有派錢安排，二百多N無人士遊行反對。我贊成派錢，不但因為這有助凝造一個全城歡樂氣氛，更因為手執六千元的我們可以決定如何支持不同社會服務團體，擺脫社會服務團體只受政府決定的宿命。意即，六千元不只是還富於民，更是還政於民。然而，現實是有多少個不是靠六千元存活的人有還政於民的意識，將錢支持社會服務團體？我擔心的是：我們的貪心使我們失去自主能力，而最後，只有由政府代我們決定。現實是今次財政預算並不反映政府有較長遠計劃。
今日的聖經描述一個不義的管家（路十六1-13）。這管家被告發浪費主人的錢財，所以，主人要向他查帳。他知道他無法逃過主人的懲罰。所以，在他可以還有影響的範圍下，他選擇改寫欠債人的債單，由一百簍油改為五十，一百石麥子改為五十。他這行動進一步肯定他是一個不義的管家，因為他慷他人的慨，為自己鋪路。令人感到詫異的，就是主人誇獎這不義的管家做事精明，但與此同時，主人又說，人在最小的事上忠心，在大事上也忠心；在最小的事上不義，在大事上也不義。究竟我們是否應向這管家學習？對於這故事，我們要小心解讀，即不要過份仔細。否則，我們會問主人是否放貴利？管家是否收數？若是，不義的管家才是義人，因為他不滿主人「食水太深」。他管理不力才是正義行動，而主人才是真正的不義。因此，我們要留意故事的重點，即不義的人當知道上主要來，以致他很快為自己預備後路，但代表光明之子的我們卻沒有任何危機感，對上主向我們問責一事不放在心裡。簡單來說，耶穌的比喻提醒我們，對上主國醒目點和敏感點。如何醒目點？
第一，「要藉着那不義的錢財結交朋友，到了錢財無用的時候，他們可以接你們到永遠的住處去。」六千元是否不義之財？這可能是，因為這筆錢應用來發展基本社會服務和社會保障，但政府沒有選擇這樣做，卻將這筆錢以派錢方式用了。移民數十年的香港人都有。所以，這筆錢不是橫財，而是不義之財。有人選舉不領取，但我會申領，因為這不義之財可以用在結交朋友上。結交朋友不是與舊朋友團聚，而是新朋友團聚，就是那些你沒有想過要結交。他們是誰？露宿者、貧窮人、精神病患者等。藉不義之財，創造一個有情的世界。
第二，「一個僕人不能服侍兩個主；他不是恨這個愛那個，就是重這個輕那個。你們不能又服侍神，又服侍瑪門。」錢有一種魔力，因為它會令我們變得貪心，只關注自己的利益。當政府宣佈派六千元時，我們可能有份參與批評政府短視和懶惰，認為政府應用這筆錢作長遠計劃。但當六千元在我們戶口時，我們已忘記我們之前的言論，反而計劃如何換一部手機、補錢買一部電腦和吃一頓轟轟烈烈的晚餐。要醒目，不要被錢蒙蔽。
第三，「人在最小的事上忠心，在大事上也忠心；在最小的事上不義，在大事上也不義。」或許，只有很少人還未向政府申請六千元。大部份人不但已經用完六千元，甚至用多了六千元。雖是如此，但我們可以考慮透過減少其他開支，贖回某部份現金，實踐在數百元這最小事上的忠心，即將這數百元捐贈，建立有情世界。預苦期將到, 讓我們藉這日子, 為那些在苦難中的人, 吃少一餐, 用省回來的金錢與他們結交朋友.
有人認為六千元是橫財；有人認為六千元是天降甘霖，合時地解救他們生活的壓力。你會如何看待這六千元？或許，這問題問得太遲了。應該問題是：你還剩下多少錢呢？甚至這問題都問錯了，因為已多用了。今年沒有派錢，我們似乎沒有甚麼可以做。若派錢才可以做一點事，我們就談不上自由，不明白還政於民。耶穌提醒我們要對上主國醒目點和敏感點，就讓我們在定期奉獻之餘，每月撥出數百元和時間，結交朋友。
今日的聖經描述一個不義的管家（路十六1-13）。這管家被告發浪費主人的錢財，所以，主人要向他查帳。他知道他無法逃過主人的懲罰。所以，在他可以還有影響的範圍下，他選擇改寫欠債人的債單，由一百簍油改為五十，一百石麥子改為五十。他這行動進一步肯定他是一個不義的管家，因為他慷他人的慨，為自己鋪路。令人感到詫異的，就是主人誇獎這不義的管家做事精明，但與此同時，主人又說，人在最小的事上忠心，在大事上也忠心；在最小的事上不義，在大事上也不義。究竟我們是否應向這管家學習？對於這故事，我們要小心解讀，即不要過份仔細。否則，我們會問主人是否放貴利？管家是否收數？若是，不義的管家才是義人，因為他不滿主人「食水太深」。他管理不力才是正義行動，而主人才是真正的不義。因此，我們要留意故事的重點，即不義的人當知道上主要來，以致他很快為自己預備後路，但代表光明之子的我們卻沒有任何危機感，對上主向我們問責一事不放在心裡。簡單來說，耶穌的比喻提醒我們，對上主國醒目點和敏感點。如何醒目點？
第一，「要藉着那不義的錢財結交朋友，到了錢財無用的時候，他們可以接你們到永遠的住處去。」六千元是否不義之財？這可能是，因為這筆錢應用來發展基本社會服務和社會保障，但政府沒有選擇這樣做，卻將這筆錢以派錢方式用了。移民數十年的香港人都有。所以，這筆錢不是橫財，而是不義之財。有人選舉不領取，但我會申領，因為這不義之財可以用在結交朋友上。結交朋友不是與舊朋友團聚，而是新朋友團聚，就是那些你沒有想過要結交。他們是誰？露宿者、貧窮人、精神病患者等。藉不義之財，創造一個有情的世界。
第二，「一個僕人不能服侍兩個主；他不是恨這個愛那個，就是重這個輕那個。你們不能又服侍神，又服侍瑪門。」錢有一種魔力，因為它會令我們變得貪心，只關注自己的利益。當政府宣佈派六千元時，我們可能有份參與批評政府短視和懶惰，認為政府應用這筆錢作長遠計劃。但當六千元在我們戶口時，我們已忘記我們之前的言論，反而計劃如何換一部手機、補錢買一部電腦和吃一頓轟轟烈烈的晚餐。要醒目，不要被錢蒙蔽。
第三，「人在最小的事上忠心，在大事上也忠心；在最小的事上不義，在大事上也不義。」或許，只有很少人還未向政府申請六千元。大部份人不但已經用完六千元，甚至用多了六千元。雖是如此，但我們可以考慮透過減少其他開支，贖回某部份現金，實踐在數百元這最小事上的忠心，即將這數百元捐贈，建立有情世界。預苦期將到, 讓我們藉這日子, 為那些在苦難中的人, 吃少一餐, 用省回來的金錢與他們結交朋友.
有人認為六千元是橫財；有人認為六千元是天降甘霖，合時地解救他們生活的壓力。你會如何看待這六千元？或許，這問題問得太遲了。應該問題是：你還剩下多少錢呢？甚至這問題都問錯了，因為已多用了。今年沒有派錢，我們似乎沒有甚麼可以做。若派錢才可以做一點事，我們就談不上自由，不明白還政於民。耶穌提醒我們要對上主國醒目點和敏感點，就讓我們在定期奉獻之餘，每月撥出數百元和時間，結交朋友。
2012年2月5日 星期日
Curing and healing (Mk 1:29-39)
Being cured is what the sick hope for. The gospels have constantly portrayed Jesus as the one who not only cured the sick, but also cared the sick. This is the story of today scripture. First, Jesus cured Simon’s mother-in-law on Sabbath. Second, Jesus cured many who were sick with various diseases. There is no story in the gospels that Jesus was not able to cure or the sick did not receive Jesus’ curing when they came to Jesus. Nevertheless, this is not the experience of many who are sick today. Many of them are disappointed no matter whether you are Christian or not. How do we understand this dilemma, that is, the story of the gospels and the story of real life?
If Jesus cures the fever of Simon’s mother-in-law and people with various diseases, why are our beloved and we not being cured? Is this something related to our lack of faith? I don’t think so, because it is the need of those who are sick that Jesus responds to, not their faith makes them being cured. Is this something related to Jesus’ autonomy? This may be so, but we don’t understand how the compassionate God can close his eyes to the sick. How is the dilemma to be answered? Till now, I am satisfied with one possible justification, that is, the gospels do not report the full story. The authors records selectively, and those who are not cured haven’t been recorded. In order to convince others to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, it is understandable why the authors write selectively.
Donald Senior makes a distinction between healing and curing. Curing is fundamentally a biological concern with particular reference to physical recovery, but healing has a deeper and wider meaning. Apart from the concern of physical recovery, healing includes spiritual recovery as well as the manifestation of justice. He concludes, ‘Not all the people in the gospels are cured, but everyone is invited to be healed.’ Senior is right that curing is different from healing. Healing can be taken place even though there is no curing, and curing requires healing. A man has not been cured, but he is healed, for he comes to realize what he should pursue, what the most important in his life is and be harmonious with his body. Ironically, curing does not necessarily bring us healing, for a member of triad is cured, but he can continue to destroy relationship with others. I am not saying that curing is less important than healing. Healing is not opposite to curing, but they are different. Sometimes, they are united, but sometimes they are not. This explains why Jesus both cures and preaches the gospel so that the sick are taken care.
For those you are cured, we give thanks for you, for this is God’s gracious upon you. For those you are not cured yet, we pray for you, for healing would take be taken place in different ways in your life. Today the Old Testament reading comforts us that
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. He gives power to the faint, and strengthens the powerless. Even youths will faint and be weary, and the young will fall exhausted; but those who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint. (Isa 40:28-31)
Both the faint and powerless are strengthend, not necessarily in the sense of having power, but in the sense of being empowered. In empowerment, the sick are still the sick, but the sick would not be further 'sickened'. He is able to create, to laugh and to chat.
If Jesus cures the fever of Simon’s mother-in-law and people with various diseases, why are our beloved and we not being cured? Is this something related to our lack of faith? I don’t think so, because it is the need of those who are sick that Jesus responds to, not their faith makes them being cured. Is this something related to Jesus’ autonomy? This may be so, but we don’t understand how the compassionate God can close his eyes to the sick. How is the dilemma to be answered? Till now, I am satisfied with one possible justification, that is, the gospels do not report the full story. The authors records selectively, and those who are not cured haven’t been recorded. In order to convince others to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, it is understandable why the authors write selectively.
Donald Senior makes a distinction between healing and curing. Curing is fundamentally a biological concern with particular reference to physical recovery, but healing has a deeper and wider meaning. Apart from the concern of physical recovery, healing includes spiritual recovery as well as the manifestation of justice. He concludes, ‘Not all the people in the gospels are cured, but everyone is invited to be healed.’ Senior is right that curing is different from healing. Healing can be taken place even though there is no curing, and curing requires healing. A man has not been cured, but he is healed, for he comes to realize what he should pursue, what the most important in his life is and be harmonious with his body. Ironically, curing does not necessarily bring us healing, for a member of triad is cured, but he can continue to destroy relationship with others. I am not saying that curing is less important than healing. Healing is not opposite to curing, but they are different. Sometimes, they are united, but sometimes they are not. This explains why Jesus both cures and preaches the gospel so that the sick are taken care.
For those you are cured, we give thanks for you, for this is God’s gracious upon you. For those you are not cured yet, we pray for you, for healing would take be taken place in different ways in your life. Today the Old Testament reading comforts us that
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. He gives power to the faint, and strengthens the powerless. Even youths will faint and be weary, and the young will fall exhausted; but those who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint. (Isa 40:28-31)
Both the faint and powerless are strengthend, not necessarily in the sense of having power, but in the sense of being empowered. In empowerment, the sick are still the sick, but the sick would not be further 'sickened'. He is able to create, to laugh and to chat.
2012年2月4日 星期六
死有輕於鴻毛，重於泰山
（動物安息禮拜的證道）
這話不單描述兩種不同的死亡，更期望著我們不要虛度一生。我們要為更偉大和更有意義的事而活和死，不要只為自己的利益或一些無意義的事。例如，我的小女兒說，「為了打機「升le」而猝死就輕於鴻毛了。」然而，以上對「死有輕於鴻毛，重於泰山」的理解並不適用在盼盼（她是一隻貓）身上，不但因為盼盼帶著病出世，更因為她沒有很多機會發揮她的潛能和恩賜。雖是如此，但主耶穌說，「兩個麻雀，不是賣一分銀子麼！若是你們的父不許，一個也不能掉在地上。」（太十29）原來，「死有輕於鴻毛，重於泰山」不只在於我如何看待自己的生與死，更在於上主如何看待我的生與死。在政府眼中，動物的死是輕於鴻毛，因為他們只有功具價值。所以，政府不會因禽流感而屠殺禽鳥有內疚，也不會考慮為動物死亡提供火葬設備，但上主卻看重禽鳥的生與死，盼盼的生與死。
生命的價值不在於他先對世界有甚麼貢獻，反在於他先是被愛和被擁抱。然而，這話卻很弔詭。一方面，有人因不再愛和擁抱他的動物，將他遺棄了，但不覺有甚麼不對。另一方面，因被愛和被擁抱，被遺棄動物卻回復其尊嚴。這弔詭是生活現實，但這沒有改變生命的基本，就是生命是先被愛和先被擁抱。約翰提醒我們，「我們愛，因為上主先愛我們。」（約壹四19）上主創造萬物就是他對萬物的愛。
盼盼是幸福的，不但因為她被上主所愛和擁抱，更因為麗芳對她的愛和擁抱。同樣，麗芳是幸福的，不但因你被上主所愛和擁抱，更因為盼盼愛你，並不時向你撒嬌地meow。在愛與被愛的關係下，我們體會死有重於泰山之真意。重於泰山不是因為盼盼成功捉老鼠、嚇走小偷、提醒你家居安全，而是因為她由出生到死亡都在上主和麗芳的愛中。沒有死是輕於鴻毛，只有當我們沒有愛和失去愛。
約翰再說：「我又聽見，在天上、地上、地底下、滄海裡、和天地間一切所有被造之物，都說，但願頌讚、尊貴、榮耀、權勢都歸給坐寶座的和羔羊、直到永永遠遠。」（啟五13）在新天新地，盼盼會與我們眾人，並一切活物一同復活，高唱hallelujah。
這話不單描述兩種不同的死亡，更期望著我們不要虛度一生。我們要為更偉大和更有意義的事而活和死，不要只為自己的利益或一些無意義的事。例如，我的小女兒說，「為了打機「升le」而猝死就輕於鴻毛了。」然而，以上對「死有輕於鴻毛，重於泰山」的理解並不適用在盼盼（她是一隻貓）身上，不但因為盼盼帶著病出世，更因為她沒有很多機會發揮她的潛能和恩賜。雖是如此，但主耶穌說，「兩個麻雀，不是賣一分銀子麼！若是你們的父不許，一個也不能掉在地上。」（太十29）原來，「死有輕於鴻毛，重於泰山」不只在於我如何看待自己的生與死，更在於上主如何看待我的生與死。在政府眼中，動物的死是輕於鴻毛，因為他們只有功具價值。所以，政府不會因禽流感而屠殺禽鳥有內疚，也不會考慮為動物死亡提供火葬設備，但上主卻看重禽鳥的生與死，盼盼的生與死。
生命的價值不在於他先對世界有甚麼貢獻，反在於他先是被愛和被擁抱。然而，這話卻很弔詭。一方面，有人因不再愛和擁抱他的動物，將他遺棄了，但不覺有甚麼不對。另一方面，因被愛和被擁抱，被遺棄動物卻回復其尊嚴。這弔詭是生活現實，但這沒有改變生命的基本，就是生命是先被愛和先被擁抱。約翰提醒我們，「我們愛，因為上主先愛我們。」（約壹四19）上主創造萬物就是他對萬物的愛。
盼盼是幸福的，不但因為她被上主所愛和擁抱，更因為麗芳對她的愛和擁抱。同樣，麗芳是幸福的，不但因你被上主所愛和擁抱，更因為盼盼愛你，並不時向你撒嬌地meow。在愛與被愛的關係下，我們體會死有重於泰山之真意。重於泰山不是因為盼盼成功捉老鼠、嚇走小偷、提醒你家居安全，而是因為她由出生到死亡都在上主和麗芳的愛中。沒有死是輕於鴻毛，只有當我們沒有愛和失去愛。
約翰再說：「我又聽見，在天上、地上、地底下、滄海裡、和天地間一切所有被造之物，都說，但願頌讚、尊貴、榮耀、權勢都歸給坐寶座的和羔羊、直到永永遠遠。」（啟五13）在新天新地，盼盼會與我們眾人，並一切活物一同復活，高唱hallelujah。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)