Thursday, May 31, 2007

Romance recommendation

Is this some kind of a mistake??

No... =P

I read this comment by Darlene Marshall on the web. She is a romance writer, I knew her name from Books and Writers Community even though I have never read any of her books before.

Finally, since I’m about to sign off for Shavuot (Pentecost/Feast of Weeks), let me recommend The Book of Ruth. It’s got meeting cute ("Hey! Who’s that chick gleaning in my fields? Maybe I can invite her to eat lunch with me!"), sexual tension (the threshing floor scene), a black moment (will the kinsman closer to Ruth’s late husband free her to marry Boaz?), dramatic denouement (Boaz makes his case in front of the town elders), dialog, and a HEA.

One year I was discussing Ruth with my rabbi and I said “It’s the perfect romance novel! I couldn’t have written it better myself!”

There was a stunned silence, and then my rabbi cleared his throat and said, “Why Darlene, how very modest of you.”

What? You think the Book of Ruth is a perfectly decent book where characters are morally perfect? It's MOST CERTAINLY NOT a romance?! It's not just a romance, but if you really think Boaz and Ruth are perfect. Try listening to the interpretation on the book by Dr. Stephen Lee 李思敬博士--植根滄桑人生的信仰-從智慧文學角度看路得記. You'll view the book totally differently after listening to this set of CDs.

(btw, HEA is Happy Ever After. Yes, I do read romances, just never read her books before. =))

Thursday, May 24, 2007

The Challenge of Jesus


I don't even remember why I have started reading NT Wright's books, I bought this book long ago but did not start reading it until yesterday. Last night, I was discussing the whole CU student newspaper incident with a friend and thinking about where we should set our boundary.

Then I thought, "What would Jesus do?" One would say Jesus would have loved them, one would say Jesus would scold them, but what was Jesus' priority?

Then I dug this book out from my TBR pile, and started reading.

For those of you who are not familiar with NT Wright is doing in his quest for historical Jesus, let me start by this intro. (Reading his books are definitely eye-opening for me, you would start to realise stuff like rapture may never happen, NOT because the Bible is a story book, but because we've been interpreting the whole thing wrongly.)

Wright challenges us to roll up our sleeves and take seriously the study of the historical Jesus. He writes, "Many Christians have been, frankly, sloppy in their thinking and talking about Jesus, and hence, sadly, in their praying and in their practice of discipleship. We cannot assume that by saying the word Jesus, still less the word Christ, we are automatically in touch with the real Jesus who walked and talked in first-century Palestine. . . . Only by hard, historical work can we move toward a fuller comprehension of what the Gospels themselves were trying to say."

The Challenge of Jesus poses a double-edged challenge: to grow in our understanding of the historical Jesus within the Palestinian world of the first century, and to follow Jesus more faithfully into the postmodern world of the twenty-first century.

I have only read the first chapter. Unexpectedly, the first chapter answered one of the questions my friend and I discussed on how to read the Bible. She was puzzled by how to answer people's accusation that the Bible is indecent.

clip_image002

Sounds interesting?? Afraid that the book will be daunting?? Well, Wright's books are easy to read, and this book is NOT a scholarly book, this is the reason why I bought this one instead of Jesus and the Victory of God.

Something interesting I found on the web while trying to find the excerpt of the first chapter (to save myself some trouble in typing it =P), I came across this.

I rang Tom Wright in January 2001 having just skimmed one chapter of The Challenge Of Jesus, on walking with Jesus on the road to Emmaus in the postmodern world. Or something like that. I had just bought four tomes of his, including the two much much bigger ones, JVG and NTPG. To everyone's surprise who's heard the story I not only got through but had about 25 minutes of conversation with the big man.

He was especially interested in what I had made of the first chapter of his I had read. I wasn't able to say much of great import but I was struck by how much Tom wanted to know if he had been effective in communicating to one rather dim-witted lay-person.

Well, he's such a writer, so don't worry, start reading!

And this is where I've found the excerpt. And for a taste of his works, go to his website, here.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

What's so Amazing about Evangelicals? (again)

I wonder what it will take to get evangelicals out of their false sense of security of cheap grace.

Armed with cheap grace, people began to develop a superior attitude, (I hope I will not be like this) I believe in Jesus so I'll get saved no matter what I do, while no matter how many good deeds you do, you're not going to get saved. We just so often think our sins are less than those of, say, homosexuals, adulterers. They simply cannot be accepted in church, yet we can go to church late and hate our co-workers and we consider ourselves "good" Christians.

I AM SICK OF THIS!

So many people are leaving evangelical churches, the number of Christians in Hong Kong today is the same as the number years ago when I was a kid.

I just googled "hate" and "evangelical" and I got 1260000 search results. Some of them are pretty creative, I have to say I like this one. (Way more creative than suggesting that the Bible is indecent.)

I am certain many people I know will simply say "prophets have always been hated by sinners." or something similar.

The fact is even prominent evangelicals are leaving for other churches now.

What does it take to wake them all up?

P.S. When I am seriously thinking about all this today (because I am so MAD) and whether there are any Anglo-Catholic churches for me to try out in Hong Kong, God reminded me if I leave I will no longer have influence on these people and the only good it does will be making myself feel better.

P.P.S. I have modified the previous post on CU student newspaper.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

CU Student newspaper again?!

It's been some time since I have received so many emails or read so many responses on a subject.

After reading littleho's response (his opinion is the one I agree the most after reading so many different views on this matter, please read it), I remembered something I have read a while ago (from Dr. Stephen Lee) on discrimination of sexual orientation.

李:這個問題很複雜,我們太輕易將之簡單化了,因為我們現在參與的是一場民主的遊戲(遊戲這辭並非貶意),就是要將事情簡單化,從而令最多的人來投一票支持你,傾向將所有的問題來個黑白分明。你說要分三點再加另外的看法,是很討人厭的,會被指為牆頭草。

  若我們要參與民主遊戲,就必須要清楚,遊戲規則是我們會贏也會輸──對不起,這不是屬靈的爭戰,你徹夜在立法會外祈禱,你還是會輸的。不是上帝無能,不是你不夠誠心,這只不過純是一套政治遊戲的規則。其實輸贏在政治上只是兩個星期的事,永遠有下次機會。

  甚麼時候你一定會贏?就是極權,政教合一,君王在你那邊,將對手殺光,仁慈一點的就將對手放逐。遊戲規則改了,我們已不再活在基督教王國(Christiandom)這中世紀的觀念之中,政治力量站在宗教立場上──我們說是真理。

  回到聖經裡去問,當你「企硬」基督徒立場,為信仰做見證時,結果如何?聖經只有一個答案。新約聖經「見證」一詞,就是殉道。在任何社會,你為你的信仰立場「企硬」,結果不會是主流所支持的。所以,今天為何那麼害怕坐牢?為何今天反對性傾向歧視立法,要引用外國教師坐牢丟職的例子,好像基督徒不需坐牢、受逼迫一般?反過來說,你儘管立法,我明天就借最大的教會講聖經立場,後果會如何?若我們真的有一位神學院老師坐牢,輿論會看哪邊贏?對方都不想你坐牢,政府也不願製造一名烈士。如果要玩這遊戲,就不是黑和白那樣玩得簡單。

...  教會一直都是少數,之不過教會現在很喜歡玩政治遊戲,而且教會有部分人錯誤地以為政治行動如登報章廣告就等於見證。對不起,登報是值得做的,但不是見證;要不然,傳福音只要天天登報就成了。回望教會和以色列的歷史,上帝影響歷史一直都不是靠政治,而是靠殉道。

  我不想貶低現正進行的工作,這些都值得去做,但不要搞錯,要認清遊戲規則就去做。

李:殉道不是一種好鬥挑釁(Aggressive)的態度,不是「人肉炸彈」,那是恐怖主義。一些很保守很有立場的基督徒願意為自己的立場殉道,他沒法控制社會上其他人怎樣對待他,但他能控制怎樣待人,不需要傷害其他人。

  我們要明白,多元社會的歷史很淺。美國頭一百五十年都是基督教國家,直到二十世紀六十年代才成為多元社會國家,這是他們的社會學家說的。五十年的實驗,是否成功?在種族融和的課題上就失敗了。

時:你覺得基督徒在這樣的實驗性社會下,應是橋樑還是殉道者?

李:我會這樣問:有甚麼是你作為一個人的責任?做橋樑,締造和平,是人人的責任。在公共空間生活,就要睦鄰。反之,有甚麼是基督徒額外要做的?有甚麼基本立場是基督徒在這實驗社會中必須持守?我想我們還未懂得問這個問題。我們看一個城市,很多基本問題的仍待分清,很多事情卻太簡化。從前有人說基督徒不應參政,現在就硬說基督徒都要參政,我們就常常在這黑白二分法下:人人都要做、都要[文字過濾]、都要簽名……「凡事人人都要做」是民主遊戲,但這不是教會。教會是一個身體上有不同恩賜,人人做不同的事,沒有誰比誰重要。

  再講得嚴重一點大膽一點:你作為保守的基督徒,你關心不到你所反對的人;若有另外一些基督徒可以關心他們,那是好事還是壞事?如果在悉尼同志大[文字過濾]中有傳道人站在他們身邊,你怎麼看?是的,他有機會被誤會,以為他就代表了所有基督徒,這是從宏觀新聞報道的角度來看,就如七一[文字過濾]不讓同志先行。但試試從個人的關係來看:當這同志運動的領袖有需要之時,他身邊有沒有基督徒?當他要尋問時,他會否找明光社?

  這樣問下去,你就會看到教會的大公性(Ecumenicity)的重要。上帝擺了一個對問題有不同看法的基督徒在這班人身邊,是好事還是壞事?我不同意他的看法,但我不可以說他不是基督徒,我甚至不可以反對他去基恩之家當牧師。我當然不會去,不敢去,不想去,反對他們的看法……這個只是我,上帝沒有呼召我去做這些事。教會是甚麼?教會只是我?不是。教會只是他?也不是。教會是包括我和他,都是基督的身體。

  這是一種讓人很不舒服的神學,然而保羅關於肢體配搭的話,其實並不輕鬆。若不返回聖經,重看教會和基督徒的身分,那段時間流行甚麼,大家就蜂擁過去。

I don't think Jesus ever scolded any "sinners" as much as he did the Pharisees and Sadducees. Think about the Samaritan woman, Zacchaeus and the woman who was about to be executed for her adultery. If He has ever scolded them as much, I don't think they'd ever be with him that much of the time.

This small incident of a student newspaper is not very important, but the way we're handling this subject and their response to us seemed to reveal how much we have managed to antagonise so many people. Most of whom are those Jesus said he has come for.

On a related subject matter
What's so Amazing about Evangelicals

P.S. I cannot believe that this is the fourth post I have written on this matter, although one of them is just a link...

Added on 23/5/07
What will forcing an apology out from the students or labelling their publications as indecent accomplish? The students will mature in a few years, they will realise they can handle things in a different way. (On how to promote a discussion on sexuality AND handling criticism) However, they will probably hate Jesus because of what we did.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer


I'm thinking about reading this book, wonder if I can ever finish it, coz my friend Andre (who's currently studying in seminary) also said it's heavy, but as I have mentioned before I hate "easy" stuff, the stuff we hear every day... so still thinking (I still haven't finished Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday yet), going to share with you some excerpts I found on the web. (Though it's only an excerpt of chapter 1, it's quite long, hey, so many of it is very good, I have highlighted some of the very good points in red. And the words in black are my own comments.) You will be able to see why I wanted to read this book so much. =)

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting to-day for costly grace...

The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits...


Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Instead of saying Jesus is just talking about these metaphorically, he said Jesus meant it! We need to be able to do all those to follow Jesus.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

Costly grace is the sanctuary of God; it has to be protected from the world, and not thrown to the dogs. It is therefore the living word, the Word of God, which he speaks as it pleases him. Costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."...

This grace was certainly not self-bestowed. It was the grace of Christ himself, now prevailing upon the disciple to leave all and follow him, now working in him that confession which to the world must sound like the ultimate blasphemy, now inviting Peter to the supreme followship of martyrdom for the Lord he had denied, and thereby forgiving him all his sins. In the life of Peter grace and discipleship are inseparable. He had received the grace which costs.

As Christianity spread, and the Church became more secularized, this realization of the costliness of grace gradually faded. The world was Christianized, and grace became its common property. It was to be had at low cost. Yet the Church of Rome did not altogether lose the earlier vision. It is highly significant that the Church was astute enough to find room for the monastic movement, and to prevent it from lapsing into schism. Here on the outer fringe of the Church was a place where the older vision was kept alive. Here men still remembered that grace costs, that grace means following Christ. Here they left all they had for Christ's sake, and endeavoured daily to practise his rigorous commands. Thus monasticism became a living protest against the secularization of Christianity and the cheapening of grace. But the Church was wise enough to tolerate this protest, and to prevent it from developing to its logical conclusion. It thus succeeded in relativizing it, even using it in order to justify the secularization of its own life. Monasticism was represented as an individual achievement which the mass of the laity could not be expected to emulate. By thus limiting the application of the commandments of Jesus to a restricted group of specialists, the Church evolved the fatal conception of the double standard -- a maximum and a minimum standard of Christian obedience. Whenever the Church was accused of being too secularized, it could always point to monasticism as an opportunity of living a higher life within the fold, and thus justify the other possibility of a lower standard of life for others. And so we get the paradoxical result that monasticism, whose mission was to preserve in the Church of Rome the primitive Christian realization of the costliness of grace, afforded conclusive justification for the secularization of the Church. By and large, the fatal error of monasticism lay not so much in its rigorism (though even here there was a good deal of misunderstanding of the precise content of the will of Jesus) as in the extent to which it departed from genuine Christianity by setting up itself as the individual achievement of a select few, and so claiming a special merit of its own.

Here I thought this is just a problem of the modern Christian world, for me modern means "now" of course, but it has been there for thousands of years, even before the time of Bonhoeffer. There was monasticism in those old days to prevent the church to lapse into utter chaos, with "cheap grace", what's here now for the Protestant church? People complained no one talked about sins in church, I disagree, it's not a common topic, but it's still there, sometimes.

I never hear people talking about how much we need to sacrifice to follow Jesus, it's always "this salvation is God is free, you just need to come and believe in Jesus." Sometimes, not even believe Jesus as your Lord!!!

When the Reformation came, the providence of God raised Martin Luther to restore the gospel of pure, costly grace. Luther passed through the cloister; he was a monk, and all this was part of the divine plan. Luther had left all to follow Christ on the path of absolute obedience. He had renounced the world in order to live the Christian life. He had learnt obedience to Christ and to his Church, because only he who is obedient can believe. The call to the cloister demanded of Luther the complete surrender of his life. But God shattered all his hopes. He showed him through the Scriptures that the following of Christ is not the achievement or merit of a select few, but the divine command to all Christians without distinction. Monasticism had transformed the humble work of discipleship into the meritorious activity of the saints, and the self-renunciation of discipleship into the flagrant spiritual self-assertion of the "religious." The world had crept into the very heart of the monastic life, and was once more making havoc. The monk's attempt to flee from the world turned out to be a subtle form of love for the world. The bottom having thus been knocked out of the religious life, Luther laid hold upon grace. Just as the whole world of monasticism was crashing about him in ruins, he saw God in Christ stretching forth his hand to save. He grasped that hand in faith, believing that "after all, nothing we can do is of any avail, however good a life we live." The grace which gave itself to him was a costly grace, and it shattered his whole existence. Once more he must leave his nets and follow. The first time was when he entered the monastery, when he had left everything behind except his pious self. This time even that was taken from him. He obeyed the call, not through any merit of his own, but simply through the grace of God. Luther did not hear the word: "Of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness." No, Luther had to leave the cloister and go back to the world, not because the world in itself was good and holy, but because even the cloister was only a part of the world...

(on cheap grace) The upshot of it all is that my only duty as a Christian is to leave the world for an hour or so on a Sunday morning and go to church to be assured that my sins are all forgiven. I need no longer try to follow Christ, for cheap grace, the bitterest foe of discipleship, which true discipleship must loathe and detest, has freed me from that...

This description totally describes what we do now.

But do we also realize that this cheap grace has turned back upon us like a boomerang? The price we are having to pay to-day in the shape of the collapse of the organized Church is only the inevitable consequence of our policy of making grace available to all at too low a cost. We gave away the word and sacraments wholesale, we baptized, confirmed, and absolved a whole nation unasked and without condition. Our humanitarian sentiment made us give that which was holy to the scornful and unbelieving. We poured forth unending streams of grace. But the call to follow Jesus in the narrow way was hardly ever heard. Where were those truths which impelled the early Church to institute the catechumenate, which enabled a strict watch to be kept over the frontier between the Church and the world, and afforded adequate protection for costly grace? What had happened to all those warnings of Luther's against preaching the gospel in such a manner as to make men rest secure in their ungodly living? Was there ever a more terrible or disastrous instance of the Christianizing of the world than this? What are those three thousands Saxons put to death by Charlemagne compared with the millions of spiritual corpses in our country to-day? With us it has been abundantly proved that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. Cheap grace has turned out to be utterly merciless to our Evangelical Church.

When will churches forget about numbers and concentrate on quality? I think this is a vicious cycle, when you want a lot of people to become "believers", you give them easy-to-swallow messages. And then after a while, they found out being a Christians doesn't guarantee you're going to live happily ever after, and there are SO many problems in church, and many leave as a result. Even if they are still here, they are spiritual corpses. (Yeah, many people KNOW being Christians isn't just a bed of roses, but when they suffer, they still ask "Why? I serve you...", deep down many of us still expect God to make our lives good if we believe in Him.)

I think it's only when a church is suffering, e.g. those under Communism rule, in Islamic countries, it prosper. (Not necessarily in number.) Because for them, believing in Jesus doesn't mean going to church every Sunday, or praying before meals, it MEANS the choice between LIFE AND DEATH! And these people choose to follow Jesus no matter what the consequences are. And this is the church that will ultimately attract people, NOT our fancy movies, food, jokes, whatever we use to "attract" people.

This cheap grace has been no less disastrous to our own spiritual lives. Instead of opening up the way to Christ it has closed it. Instead of calling us to follow Christ, it has hardened us in our disobedience. Perhaps we had once heard the gracious call to follow him, and had at this command even taken the first few steps along the path of discipleship in the discipline of obedience, only to find ourselves confronted by the word of cheap grace. Was that not merciless and hard? The only effect that such a word could have on us was to bar our way to progress, and seduce us to the mediocre level of the world, quenching the joy of discipleship by telling us that we were following a way of our own choosing, that we were spending our strength and disciplining ourselves in vain -- all of which was not merely useless, but extremely dangerous. After all, we were told, our salvation had already been accomplished by the grace of God. The smoking flax was mercilessly extinguished. It was unkind to speak to men like this, for such a cheap offer could only leave them bewildered and tempt them from the way to which they had been called by Christ. Having laid hold on cheap grace, they were barred for ever from the knowledge of costly grace. Deceived and weakened, men felt that they were strong now that they were in possession of this cheap grace -- whereas they had in fact lost the power to live the life of discipleship and obedience. The word of cheap grace has been the ruin of more Christians than any commandment of works.

And we say Catholicism is heretic... sigh...

To read the whole excerpt of chapter 1 of the book, here.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

CU Student Newsletter

Regarding the other aspects of the CU student newsletter, I have already discussed in my other blog.

This is an article which I think we should all read. I don't agree with everything in it, but I think this is something we should think about.

Raised From Dust 舉自塵土

This seemed like a very good movie, much better than those produced by Media Evangelism in Hong Kong... seriously we should rethink what we're doing with all those poor TV shows/movies... A pity I can't watch this as I'll be visiting a China church when it'll be shown at Broadway Circuit 2/6-3/6...

There are 80 millions Christians in China. Where are they in Chinese movies? GAN Xiao’er brings us the first Chinese film about Christians in China after his debut “The Only Sons” (2002). Xiao-li is an orchestra member of the church located in a Chinese village. Her dying husband is suffering from pneumo silicosis and lying in a hospital. She has to worry for the hospital fee, as well as the tuition fee for her nine-year-old daughter, Sheng-yue. The faith of God is her only force to face the difficulties. The ending of the film seems helpless but actually worth thinking over. The story of Xiao-li reminds us, especially for those Christians living in a wealthy society, the meaning of life and what religion is for.

Pamphlet download


And here are some links discussing the movie. (All are in Chinese)
Interview with the director
Intro
Review from someone's blog
Another interview with the director

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Mission Trip

I've never been to Macau for mission trips, most of my trips are to the Guangdong Province and I have been to Indonesia once.

Amazingly there are over 300 mission trips to Macau every year but less than 1% of the population are Christian. (Even less than China probably.)

Here's a good piece of reflection on what we do on our short mission trips. (It's in Chinese.)

As we're preparing for another short mission trip to China early next month, I think we should bear these in mind.

However, I think Macau is different from China. I remembered being told by church members in some small towns that after we've been there, more people accept Christianity. Before then it was thought of as an old women's religion, people who believed in these kind of "nonsense" must be poorly educated. Then the people in town realised lots of people from HONG KONG, EDUCATED PEOPLE (!) actually believe in this Jesus, more people were willing to go to church afterwards.

Lots of good reminders from the article. It is wise to be considerate of the situation and the feelings of these people. And not act as if we're the great charitable donors. I think most of the time we should see God's grace and power more than our own work in these situations. We are the receivers as well. The money issue mentioned is important, and I've never thought of it that way before.

Same as everything we do in life, if we ever think it's US who get the job done, it's wrong. And if we know who's in charge, we'll be a lot more humble.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Francis Beckwith

Former ETS president speaks about what he takes from evangelicalism back to the Roman Catholic Church. Read his interview and his blog.

Well, if you know me, I've always defended Catholicism. (Even though I'm a Baptist, I don't like calling myself "Baptist" though, Baptists are like the worst bunch of people in discriminating against many people... sigh... I know not everyone is like that, but seriously, so many of us do this kind of disgusting thing, it hurts whenever I thought about it...)

I like many Catholic stuff and beliefs. Here're some interesting stuff from the interview and his blog. (in purple, those in black are my own opinion.)

I still consider myself an evangelical, but no longer a Protestant. I do think I have a better understanding of what sometimes the Catholic Church is trying to convey. Protestants often misunderstand. The issue of justification was key for me. The Catholic Church frames the Christian life as one in which you must exercise virtue—not because virtue saves you, but because that's the way God's grace gets manifested. As an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so. Now there's a kind of theological framework, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something. It's important to allow the grace of God to be exercised through your actions. The evangelical emphasis on the moral life forms my Catholic practice with an added incentive. That was liberating to me.

I have to say I agree with this, this is what I've always been saying... We've been emphasizing too much on grace/faith and accusing anyone who dared to talk about action/work as heretic, when this is clearly also an important part in the Bible.

Looking at tradition would also help evangelicals learn about Christian liturgical traditions, like Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, that evangelicals reject because they say liturgy is unbiblical. When did these practices come to be? It turns out many of them came to be very early on in church history when people were close historically to the apostles themselves. There must be something to these practices that the early Christians thought was perfectly consistent with what they had received from the apostles.

I have always like the liturgical traditions of Catholicism. We're too "free" in my opinion.

I thought to myself,
How come every evangelical book that I've read on Catholicism didn't get this right? Part of it is a paradigm problem. I don't think it's duplicity. I just think if you hold to a highly cognitive, almost legal model of justification, there is no component for God's grace working out salvation within you.

Well, STOP reading those books about Catholicism you can find in Christian bookstores, all of them are rubbish!

As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.

So what is stopping me from converting to Catholicism? =P I cannot honestly say I'll never do it. However, the thoughts of "Virgin Mary", "Pope" still bug me... (I can understand why Catholics believe these, but I can't say I totally agree with them) not to mention my friends in my church, and some reason you may be able to guess if you know me. =P And most of all, I cannot accept the idea that everyone may be saved even if they don't believe in Jesus... (it isn't as bad as it sounds, but I'm not going into details here.) even though I think I know the logic behind...

I really hope Catholics will be understood better by Protestants. In the meantime, I guess I'll continue in my role as a staunch supporter of Catholicism among Protestants. =)

God being inefficient etc...

Last night, a friend of mine asked me why God is so inefficient, choosing this bunch of people who turned to sin so often, how come He doesn't do things in a better way?

God doesn't want "efficiency" like what we want, He has His own plans, better plans. That's why it is ridiculous when modern churches tried to do things like commercial firms. =P

And interesting point she raised is that Jesus chose to come 2000 years ago, when there was no TV, no internet =P, that is why she doesn't think TV evangelism is a good way of spreading the Gospel. haha!

sigh... I have always thought our way of dealing with the Gospel is not good. "God is love, we have sinned, we have to repent and get eternal life" is only a partial view of the Good News from Jesus, I think this is more of a package for the West.

The parts we have neglected may appeal to the practicality of Chinese, who are kinda like Jews I think. When will we get the more complete picture?? hmm...

CGST TEE course

The new summer course list for CGST's theological education by extension is available here.

I had the course by Dr. Ng on the works of John, it opened my eyes on reading John's works, I strongly recommend the course on the Gospel of John!! =)

I noticed that most of the courses are not held in the main campus at Kowloon Tong this time...

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Weird Dream

Last night I had this weird dream, I dreamt that I scolded the pastor-in-charge (who quit his job recently) for all the wrong things he said, and then when he wanted to leave, I told him to sit down and listen to me...

Is my subconscious telling me I'm really angry with him? haha! It's not as though it's any secret...

Really weird, in the sense it happened after he left, all these years I have never had this kind of dream...

Friday, May 04, 2007

Summary on Dr. Stephen Lee's talks on Christian Times

千六人參加浸大講座 李思敬主講舊約聖經文學與生命培育
四百人出席猶大福音講座 李思敬:我們對猶大理解有誤

Just 1600 people? AC Hall is so small... =P I was one of those who queued up long before the talks started...

Dealing with Death

As my mom is approaching her 60s, I think she's more and more aware of her own mortality. My neighbour's family recently hanged a white cloth on the front door. I did not even realise this until my mom mentioned it. (This neighbour who died probably is of similar age to my mom, coz her daughter is around the same age as me.)

As I'm recently reading all these books on life and death, I'm thinking what I can do to help my mom. She's a Christian, but she's still kinda afraid of dying. (I guess everyone is, to a certain extent, worried about things we're not sure about.) The things I told her seemed to fall on deaf ears. (e.g. God is faithful, I'm sure He'll take care of us when we die.) She's a "better" Christian than me, in my opinion, maybe it's the age, if I were at her age, I might feel the same way?! I'm not sure.

In Down-to-earth Spirituality, Richard John Neuhaus was quoted, "It used to be said that the Victorians of the nineteenth century talked incessantly about death but were silent about sex, whereas today we talk incessantly about sex and are silent about death."

And R Paul Stevens suggested a few points on how to prepare for dying in our lives.
1. We must repudiate the death denial of contemporary Western culture.
2. The idea of dual citizenship in Christianity ( I like this in particular. "We are equidistant from eternity every moment of our life from conception to resurrection.")
3. Numbering our days means treating every day as a gift.
4. Everyday hardships give us an opportunity to learn to "die daily".
5. We can practise progressive relinquishment.

Are we ready to die today?

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday

I started to pick up Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday again after a couple of months and decided to skip a few chapters =P

Before introducing the book, let me start by explaining why on earth I started reading such a book, on theology (!) =P

Last year, I read a book written by Rev. Yeung Mook Kuk. If I remembered correctly, it was the book in which he talked about his daughter's SLE (the name of a disease). He said Dr. Stephen Lee recommended an article written by Alan Lewis's widow. (Alan Lewis is the author of this book. And two of my fav Bible teachers talked about this person, how can I resist finding more about him? haha!) I couldn't find the article, it was in some Scottish theology journal. Anyway, I found this book written by him, and it sounded very intriguing. The concept of someone exploring the meaning of the Holy Saturday. We usually talked about Good Friday and then (!) Easter Sunday, and forgot the day in between when disciples lost all hope, since they (unlike us, who had the benefit of hindsight) had no idea Jesus would rise from the dead.

Here's an introduction of the book from Amazon.com

For much of Christian history the church has given no place to Holy Saturday in its liturgy or worship. Yet the space dividing Calvary and the Garden may be the best from which to reflect on the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection. This superb work by the late Alan Lewis develops on a grand scale and in great detail a theology of Holy Saturday.

The first comprehensive theology of Holy Saturday ever written, this book shows that at the center of the biblical story and the church's creed is a three-day narrative. Lewis explores the meaning of Holy Saturday—the restless day of burial and waiting—from the perspective of narrative, doctrine, and ethics. Along the way he visits as many spiritual themes as possible in order to demonstrate the range of topics that take on fresh meaning when viewed from the vantage point of Holy Saturday.


While writing this book Lewis experienced his own Holy Saturday in suffering from and finally succumbing to cancer. As a result his theology is uniquely moving and deeply rooted in Christian experience.


The reason I stopped reading the book is that Lewis spent pages & chapters explaining ideas that could be dealt with in a paragraph... (If you have read my blog/know me personally, you know I am a very impatient person.) That is why despite the good ideas, I eventually stopped reading the book after 70 pages.

I started to pick up the book again after the lecture last weekend. Dr. Stephen Lee talked about how we should dwell on sufferings like Biblical poetry. I began to read the book again from where I left off, but finally could not stand the repetition of similar ideas in various different ways (his vocabulary was excellent, I had no idea there are so many different ways and words to explain these ideas...) and skipped the initial theory chapters, and it's good. I'll share more about this book later. I'll try to get back to the first part of the book later...

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

God With Us, Grieving

A bit outdated? Still talking about the incident at Virginia Tech?? I just read this yesterday. (btw, there's another shooting at Missouri (if I remember correctly) on Sunday.)

From one of my fav Biblical scholar- NT Wright on the tragedy at Virginia Tech

......

Having said all that, what my faith tradition insists upon, in a way that marks it out at this point from most if not all other faith traditions, is that the fact of the incarnation and the cross means that the creator God is with us in the middle of the horror, sharing and bearing the pain and the burden. This, clearly, is why so many medieval churches -- at a time of endless wars, incurable diseases, social ills, and so on -- had (to us) quite graphic and gory pictures and statues of the crucifixion.

The church has always found, not always explicitly in words but often through symbol and action, and supremely the Eucharist, that the God we know in Jesus Christ is not, as it were, the lofty C.E.O. of the Universe, 'running' the world as it were at a distance, but the God who is strangely present in the midst of the horror, taking its main weight on himself and working from within to bring healing and hope.