Persecution against Christians; Perseverance for co-existence

It is very scary for me to read the recent declaration made by the Sunni Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, on the necessity to destroy all churches in the Arabian peninsula.

The Grand Mufti, who is also the highest official of religious law and the head of the Supreme Council of Islamic Scholars in Saudi Arabia, invoked Prophet Muhammad’s last words, “There are not to be two religions in the Arabian Peninsula,” as an injunction.

I did not know where to turn or who to speak to. I do not know how would the Muslim communities in South East Asia, especially Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, see the Grand Mufti's command.

This hostility against Christians is the most recent one among all that have been happening. Raymond Ibrahim has collected a list of cases. Here are but three:

Indonesia: A sticker on the back of the car of a member of the beleaguered Yasmin church saying "We need a friendly Islam, not an angry Islam," distributed by the family of the late Muslim president, prompted another Islamic attack on the church: scores of Muslims "terrorized the congregation and attacked several church members." Since 2008, the congregation has been forced to hold Sunday services on the sidewalk outside the church and then later in the home of parishioners. Not satisfied, hundreds of Muslims later searched and found the private home where members were congregating and holding service and prevented them from worshiping there as well: "It crosses the line now. The protesters now come to the residential area, which is not a public place." A new report notes that anti-Christian attacks have nearly doubled in the last year.

Nigeria: Boko Haram Muslims set ablaze a Christian missionary home. Occupants of the home, mostly orphans and the less-privileged, were rendered homeless as a result. Meanwhile, a top officer allowed the mastermind behind the Christmas Day church bombings to escape, evincing how well entrenched Islamists are in government.

Syria: The Christian community in Syria has been hit by a series of kidnappings and brutal murders; 100 Christians were killed since the anti-government unrest began; "children were being especially targeted by the kidnappers, who, if they do not receive the ransom demanded, kill the victim, including some who are "cut into pieces and thrown in a river." These latest reports are reminiscent of the anti-Christian attacks that have become commonplace in Iraq for a decade.

A friend shared with me this event that happened in Indonesia, where a church service is being disrupted by the blast from loud speakers set up by those who claimed themselves as 'Muslims':

What happened to the sort of mutual respect exemplified by prominent Muslim leaders such as Caliph Umar?

Whenever a church was taken over for use as a mosque, furthermore, the building was not allowed to revert to its former religious use. One of the traditions concerning Umar tells of his first visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. As the hour for Muslim prayer approached, the Christian bishop invited the caliph to offer prayer inside the church. The caliph is said to have declined, and instead to have stepped outside to do so. Were he to offer prayer inside the church, he said, the zealous among his followers would have claimed the building as a mosque. By praying outside the church, Umar preserved it as a Christian house of worship.
(Dale T. Irvin and Scott W. Sunquist, History of the World Christian Movement [USA: Orbis, 2001], p.274)

To the Christians, the body of Christ consists of the churches formed by individual Christians. When one part suffers, the rest are affected:

Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. [...]

But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
(1 Corinthians 12:12-27. Emphasis added.)

I want to believe that Muslims and Christians can co-exist at every parts of the world. I want to believe that we can respect each others' religious observance and practices. I want to believe that we can acknowledge one another as missional community, where we take it for granted that both Muslims and Christians are called in their own respective way to proclaim their religion in non-violent manner.

I think these three desires are essential in giving reason and hope to work through differences and establish interreligious trust among ourselves. Therefore these rampant religious persecutions are very stiffling. One's belief in co-existence is constantly tested; one's prejudice is instantly formed. May the Trinity sustains me to persevere on in refusing to abandon these beliefs, in resisting the formation of prejudice.

I want to believe.

Ibrahim Ali and his 'Apostasy Act' remark

(First published on The Malaysia Insider, on 16 March 2012.)

The Pasir Mas Member of Parliament Ibrahim Ali recently said:

I think that a Akta Murtad (Apostasy Act) must be passed to handle the apostasy issue. [...] Presently, there are already Muslims who are turning to the church to find peace. [...] Less fortunate Muslims are not being helped, thus the Christians are using charity as a means to get close to (poor) Muslims.

There are two problems in Ibrahim’s proposal.

First, if the law is passed, it will surely be difficult for non-confessing people to leave Islam. However, such legislation will risk turning the word “Muslim” into nothing but a meaningless and irrelevant label to the non-submitting person.

Every Muslim understands that the word “Muslim” itself means the person who submits to Allah (swt), the God revealed in the Quran. Hence, by definition the meaning of the word “Muslim” is dependent on whether the person submits or not. It is meaningless to call someone a “Muslim” if he or she does not submit. Hence, the word is only meaningful when applied on those who submit. Without submission, “Muslim” is simply meaningless when applied to the non-submitting person. 

For instance, “Muslim” is meaningful when applied to Ibrahim Ali because he submits according to the religion. And the title “Christian” does not have a meaning when applied to Ibrahim Ali because he does not submit to it. So even if the whole world calls Ibrahim a “Christian”, that label simply does not mean anything on him. And to force the label “Christian” on him despite his non-submission to the religion is to risk turning the word “Christian” into obscurity. 

(If you still do not get what I am saying here, you can start calling Ibrahim Ali a “Christian”, and his reaction will make it clearer.)

That is probably the reason why the idea of proposing an Apostasy Act to prevent people from leaving Christianity has not come across the mind of any thinking Christian in Malaysia. They do not want to risk turning the word “Christian” into an obscure label. Ibrahim Ali, on the other hand, seems to be very enthusiastic in doing so for his own religion. 

Second, Ibrahim remarked that Christians are “using” charitable deeds “as a means” to approach Muslims, presumably, to convert them. It is obvious that this misrepresentative statement is the result of Ibrahim’s ignorance of Christians’ belief and practices.  

Christianity has been teaching the imperative to carry out compassion deeds to people regardless of religion, ethnicity or proselytising opportunity. This is seen in the commitment statement produced from the 2010 Cape Town conference, which comprised “4,000 Christian leaders from over 190 nations” (emphasis added):

The Bible tells us that the Lord is loving toward all he has made, upholds the cause of the oppressed, loves the foreigner, feeds the hungry, sustains the fatherless and widow. […] Such love for the poor demands that we not only love mercy and deeds of compassion, but also that we do justice through exposing and opposing all that oppresses and exploits the poor.

I am not saying that proselytisation is not part of Christian teaching. Proselytisation is as much part of Christianity as it is part of Islam. All I am saying that it is a mistake to confuse compassion deeds done from the sense of divine calling (like the one stated in the Cape Town statement) and deeds done in order to proselytise. 

Ibrahim did not seem to show any knowledge of Christianity’s nuance teaching on compassion deeds. In spite of that, he took the liberty to comment on it and, in so doing, misrepresented it. Or, perhaps he was too blinded by his own sense of righteousness that he simply unable to see that other religions are actually capable of genuine care for the less fortunate without attempting to proselytise them?

(By the way, this is not the first time his ignorance of non-Muslims’ belief and practices came to light. Just less than two months ago, he gave out white packets, which signified funeral gift, to the Chinese during Chinese New Year.) 

Besides, does Islam teach that it is wrong for non-Muslims to carry out compassion deeds to Muslims? And, does Islam teach that it is wrong for Muslims to receive compassion from non-Muslims? I may be wrong but I do not think Islam teaches either.

It is therefore very unfortunate for this multi-cultural country to have a member of Parliament who pushes for legislation that turns the word “Muslim” into obscurity on one hand, and disrespectfully misrepresents and continuously displays ignorance of non-Muslim beliefs and practices on another.

Religion and civil engagement in Malaysian society after regime change

(This article was published at New Mandala, on 10 March 2012. It belongs to a series under the theme 'Malaysia After Regime Change', as a contribution to the public opinion as we are heading towads the 13th General Election. I'm humbled by the editor's, Greg Lopez, invitation to contribute to the series. All the other contributors have either a Doctorate or a Master's degree, or both---I don't even have an undergraduate degree. Some of them work at top institutions in the world such as Cornell, Yale, McGill, ISEAS, etc, while I am just a student. Hence I was actually very anxious when writing it. God's grace!!)

The most controversial issue pertained to religion in the first six months after Malaysia’s 12^th General Election was Bar Council’s forum on Islam. The event was seen as anti-Islam by then-PKR’s MP Zulkifli Noordin, who led an aggressive group of protestors to sabotage the event.

When asked later why he saw the forum as anti-Islam, Noordin remarked that,

When you talk of sensitivities of others, do so behind closed doors and only invite those in authority. Don't invite any Tom, Dick or Harry. You can talk about Islam but you cannot talk for Islam. […] I don't call any mamak chendol or kacang putih seller to talk about Hinduism, do I? That would only look stupid. I would call the priest, the authority and then I can get a better picture on Hinduism. […] Just because some mosquito group of Muslims start talking about Islam, they represent Islam. I don't think that is fair.   

Apparently, Noordin did not bother to check the fact that if not for the hostility showed by aggressors like him, the forum would have attended by Mohd Naim Mokhtar (Syariah Prosecutor for Federal Territory's Islamic Affairs Department and former Syariah High Court judge) and Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad (Director of the Syariah Law and Political Science Centre and Senior Fellow of the Institute for Islamic Understanding of Malaysia) as panelists. Neither of these jurists can be considered as “Tom, Dick and Harry” nor “mosquito group of Muslims” in the field of Islamic jurisprudence in the country.

It was due to the inability of Noordin and the like to comprehend the contributory importance of civil discourse for the development of the society, an opportunity for learning about Islam has slipped away. Just like that.

Of course to Noordin, he has always wanted to see himself as the protector of Islam,

For me Islam comes first. I am a Muslim first, a party member second. A Muslim first, a lawyer second. A Muslim first, an MP second. [...] You attack Islam, I'll be there, even if I have to do it on my own. [...] Whatever it is, Islam comes first.

Noordin is not alone. There are others who see themselves along him as bouncers of Islam: Ibrahim Ali, who threatened holy war against Christians and chided other Muslims who disagree with him as liberals; and Hasan Ali, who saw himself as savior of Islam.

While they continue to promote themselves as championing Islam, there are sections among the Muslim community that do not share their understanding of the Islamic cause.

For instance, Mohd Hanipa Maidin and Dr Mehrun Siraj differed from Noordin in their judgment of the Bar Council’s forum. To them, intellectual and dialogical engagement is the way forward in the building of civil society and contributing to the cause of Islam. To have operated like Noordin was to do disservice to the faith.

It is observable that issues of such intra-religious nature are frequently raised since the 12^th General Election. Just to highlight some recent ones, PAS spiritual advisor Nik Aziz Nik Mat has recently condemned UMNO as un-Islamic, criticizing the latter along the line that it worships lust as its god; The former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad sarcastically congratulated PAS for its willingness to consider accepting non-Muslim as deputy president for the party; PAS’ Rani Othman stated that UMNO is ignorant of the Quran; The differing views between Perak Mufti Harussani Zakaria and former Perlis Mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin on ethnic-based jihad; And the disagreement between the Islamic Renaissance Front with the UMNO government in the extradition of Hamza Kashgari.

As long as race-based politicians such as Noordin and the two Ali seek to seal their public image as the champions for Islam, we can expect plenty of unfounded accusations to be hurled around. This is what happened to Pakatan Rakyat since 2008. It could be as typical as racial discrimination charges (here and here) to something as novel as ex-communists trying to Christianize the country.

The rise of intra-religious debates is as evident as they are important. When each fraction of the Muslim community claims to represent Islam, it creates theological contestation that is good for the Malaysian society in general and for the Muslim community in particular in that it protects Islam from being domesticated and manipulated by any quarter.

However, this contestation cannot be left at that for it will degenerate into unhealthy pluralism where every claim made on Islam becomes as valid as every other. Or worse, the quarter with the most guns, bullets, and keris will stamp out fellow Muslims who disagree with them.

For that, one main challenge that has to be taken up by the national leaders after the regime change is the facilitation of civil engagement in two areas: Between Muslims and non-Muslims; and among Muslims themselves.

These engagements will play significant role in promoting the country’s socio-economic development through inter and intra-religious discourses. Among many things, this means that the State would have to guarantee civility in the society by providing avenues for these engagements to take place.

However, such providence does not mean absolute absence of restriction. The current restriction is designed to impress upon citizens that it is only under the UMNO regime that unity, harmony and stability in the society can be guaranteed.

This impression is notable as recent as in the speech of Prime Minister Najib Razak, “If we are to achieve national unity, the main key to it is unity among the Malays.” And echoed by Ibrahim Ali a few days later, “What Perkasa wants is Malay unity, which is a unity of the faith, a way of life, culture and Scripture.”

The impression underlying these speeches restricts society’s civil engagements in that unity, harmony and stability can only be conceived under political parties.

The new restriction has to change this impression. Instead of having the ruling regime (whichever political party that rule the day) perceived as the guarantor, the impression to uphold unity, harmony and stability has to be distilled onto the various communities regardless of ethnicity, religion, or theological standing. Each community has to own its role as the guarantor of civility in the society despite racial and theological differences.

Within such context, political parties have to work their way through the differences and similarities of these communities. On one hand, this reduces the chances for any party to manipulate racial and religious divide in order to rule. On the other hand, it enhances the ruling party’s nation-building effort that is supported by inter-community cooperation afforded by their similarities.

Much of this impression of civil engagement is already evident in the various peaceful initiatives such as the BERSIH assemblies, how the Coptic Christians joined hands to protect the Muslims while the latter group prayed, and how the Egyptian Muslims came together to protect the Christians when they observe their religious service.

The desire for civility seems to be shaping Malaysians’ political consciousness. Nowadays, the majority of the Malay-Muslims youth are concerned over Islamic radicalism in politics, corruption and lack of freedom of expression.

Besides, since 2008, Pakatan Rakyat has cultivated good working relationship in a civil manner. Initially there was suspicion over each other within the coalition, yet they have improved tremendously. In terms of religion and civil engagement, each community has learned to work on the similarities while seeking avenues for discourses with other parties.

Therefore after the regime change, there is high tendency for each community to continue engaging with other community for common cause of which sustaining civility in inter and intra-religious discourses is one. These glimpses of civil engagement need further elaboration, structure, and administration in order to have sustained effect towards the development of the country in relation to Islam. Muslim scholars and non-Muslim organizations, such as the Bar Council, can then work together without being threatened by hostile incivility coming from those who masquerad themselves as champions of the Islamic faith.

Soliloquy at thirty

When the great philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel was fifty years old, he wrote:

"I am just fifty years old and have spent thirty of them in these endlessly unsettled times of fear and hope, always hoping that sometime fear and hoping will be ended. Now I'm forced to see that it will always continue, indeed, in gloomy moments one is inclined to think that things will be getting worse."
(Quoted in Robert Heiss, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Marx, trans. E. B. Garside [USA: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1975], p.11.)

I find no immediate consolation reading this on my thirtieth birthday. Both fear and hope constantly dominate my days. And according Hegel, this will only get worse.

Two months to graduation and I still haven't secure employment. Without savings and a home, I have no idea where will I and the five hundred books are going to stay. The only resistance against desperation is a directionless hope. 

In times like this, I can only trust in the invisible. Directing faith towards the unseen; leap into the dark.

"...faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)

That is comforting... at least until one comes to a subsequent verse: "...all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised." (Hebrews 11:39)

"None received what had been promised..."

Which criticism can I use to un-read this? 

Textual, as in seeing this verse as late edition by the Church? Historical, as in it is only meant for that specific context? Rhetorical, as in it is to support a point rather than being the point itself?

Anyway, do I know that John Calvin published the Institutes of the Christian Religion when he was twenty-seven?

.......I'm not Calvin.

Do I know that Rowan Williams obtained his doctorate by submiting an acclaimed thesis on Vladimir Lossky when he was twenty-five?

.............I'm not Williams.

Who then am I? Someone who is still completing undergraduate study when he is thirty?

......................

So... what then? 

No one. 

Huh?

No one..

I can't hear...

Absolutely no one! I'm zero... No achievement, no contentment, no legacy...

Am I depress?

I'm comfortable enough not to. At least for now.

So, what is there that keeps me believing it is still worthwhile?

People. Those who have decorated my past with beauty, love, and grace. And those who are still doing it now.

Is that all?

No, there is still the directionless hope.

Seriously, directionless hope? Why don't I consider growing up, start living like someone who is thirty?

That's harsh...

Yea.

Hey, as Sean Maguire said, "I know who I am... I was a conscientious choice, I didn't fuck up!"

Am I living in fictional character now?

Am "I" not a fiction already? Look at my shoes and hairstyle as a starter. Aren't they are how they are because fiction says so? Look at the prices of everything that I pay for. Aren't they cost what they cost because fiction says so? I can go on.

Okay. But what about people?

Oh, that...

Attire for Church service

Last Sunday, I was among 12-years-old Sunday School kids. They were discussing what is considered proper attire for Church Service. 

One girl said along the line that her parents asked her to wear nicely to Church so that she won't be a disgrace.

Hearing that, I wonder disgrace to who? To Jesus, who is known to approach beggars (Luke 18:35) and diseased people (Luke 17:11-19)? Or to the little girl's parents?

After the service, I saw an elder in the Church who always wear tie for the Service. So I asked him why does he do that every week. He said that because he wanted to wear his best for God. 

The little girl and the elder don on their best for Sunday Service, but both do it for different reasons.

Anyway, there is a good write-up by Duane Litfin, President of Wheaton College, on the meaning of attire to the individual as well as to the community. Seven observations are highlighted:

1. The wearing of clothing is exclusively a human characteristic. We share many attributes with other creatures, but the inclination to clothe ourselves is not one of them. Those who know the account of Adam and Eve will understand why this is so. There is a moral and even spiritual dimension to human clothing.
   
   
2. Our clothes serve a variety of practical, social, and cultural functions. Protection and modesty spring first to mind, but our clothes do far more. We sometimes dress to conceal or deceive. More often our clothes serve to reveal. We use clothing for decoration, for sexual attraction, for self-expression and self-assertion. By our attire we display our gender, our religion, our occupation, our social position, or causes with which we identify (e.g., sports jerseys). Our apparel may express our group membership or our role in society (e.g., company or police uniforms). Many dress to impress, while others choose the reverse: they express their rejection by intentionally flouting accepted clothing norms.
   
   
3. Our clothing is one of our most elemental forms of communication. Long before our voice is heard, our clothes are transmitting multiple messages. From our attire, others immediately read not only such things as our sex, age, national identity, socio-economic status, and social position, but also our mood, our attitudes, our personality, our interests, and our values.
   
   
4. We constantly make judgments about one another on the basis of clothing. Common wisdom has it that you can't judge a book by its cover. But this is only partly true; we regularly read one another's covering. What's more, we're better at it than we think. Research suggests that if you stand someone before an audience of strangers and ask them to draw inferences merely on the basis of what they see, the audience's inferences will tend toward consensus, and those inferences will tend to be more or less accurate. Why should this be? We spend our lives making judgments based on appearance and then testing those judgments in our subsequent relationships. In this way, we become rather adept at the process. Judgments based on appearance are scarcely infallible, of course, and we are wise to hold them tentatively. But it's almost impossible to avoid making them in the first place.
   
   
5. Because our clothing is one of the fundamental ways we communicate with others, what we wear is never a purely personal matter. Our attire exerts a social influence on those around us. One famous study, for example, discovered that unwitting subjects were significantly more willing to jaywalk when following individuals wearing "high status" clothing than when following individuals wearing "low status" clothing. What we wear can shape patterns of communication around us, depending on what messages people are picking up. Consider, for example, the varied cues we send by the way we dress: "I want people to notice me." "I'm very confident." "I want to hide." "I care only about comfort." "I want to look seductive." "I repudiate you and your expectations."
   
   
6. How we dress not only affects others; it also affects us. This dynamic is often circular: how we feel influences the clothes we put on, and the clothes we put on in turn shape how we feel. Changes of clothes can generate a change of mood; the soldier feels different in his uniform than he does in street clothes. In some settings our choice of attire can make or break us. If we like the way we look for a job interview, for instance, it will tend to strengthen our confidence. We feel better about our chances, as reflected in improved posture, more fluent speech, more dynamic gestures. On the other hand, inappropriate dress can sap our confidence. We have all experienced the uncomfortable effects of feeling under-dressed in a particular social setting.
   
   
7. Much of the social meaning of our clothing is contextual. The appropriateness of our dress is often dictated by the situation. Dress that would send a given message in one setting might send a very different message in another. Picture, for example, a young woman dressed in hiking boots, sweatshirt, and shorts. Around a campfire the message might be, merely, "I'm ready for the trail." Choosing that same outfit for her aunt's funeral would say something rather different. Regional variations and issues of local dress loom large. Times change, values change, situations change; what was proper ten years ago may not be proper today, or vice versa.

On the other hand, there is this discussion over the appropriateness of women attire in Church. I have noticed that the most usual form this discussion takes is whether should women wear spaghetti straps, hot pants, or short skirt to Church?

Alan Noble highlighted a recent survey done on this discussion. He gives a balanced view on the expectation required from both male and female. We shall not think that it is solely the responsibility of the women to not stumble the men, as if men are merely passive victim of eccentric influence:

...honest men will admit, the stumbling threshold is relative, arbitrary, potentially very low. But I don’t think we can go to the other extreme and encourage our sisters to not care about how their appearance affects others.

To me personally, I don't have problem with spaghetti straps, hot pants, and short skirt around the Church. (If you think attire is an issue for the Church, check out Christian naturists!) So if I stumble by what others wear, that shows how fallen I am and how much spiritual formation I need to cultivate.

It's difficult to correct a rumor...

Someone just googled this:

Here is my previous post about this.

Who is intolerant in Singapore? Any idea how to be tolerant here?

Anyone thinks that the local non-Christians, who always criticize Christians for being intolerant and insensitive to non-Christian beliefs and practices, are missing the fact that Christians are not the ones who complain to the authorities when non-Christians display disagreement to Christian belief and practices?

When was the last time an individual Christian or a Christian organization complain to the Home Ministry when they come across disagreeable opinion given by non-Christians on Christian belief and practices?

Take an example: Any Christian complain to the Internal Security Department (ISD) when local non-Christians ridicule some of the Christian beliefs and practices, such as glossolalia (speaking in unfamiliar languages when a person is overwhelmed by the power of God the Spirit), calling it "rubbish"?

Ridiculing glossolalia is insulting most of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians, which includes some among the mainline denominations under the National Council of Churches of Singapore. But not a single Christian who practices glossolalia complain to ISD about this. Nor did any Christian make a big fuzz over it. 

That is probably because Christians in Singapore respect and tolerate different views in the real manner. They don't criticize non-Christians who express disagreeable opinion as intolerant. Neither do they lodge report to the authorities against non-Christians when the latter publicly express their opinion on Christian belief and practice.

On the other hand, local non-Christians always criticize Christians as intolerant because Christians hold and express their own view of non-Christian belief and practice. As if that is not enough, the non-Christian would lodge report to the authorities against the Christians. (Aren't the recent ISD's investigations on religious affairs came about when non-Christians complained against the Christians for publicly expressing their disagreeable view?)

To me, this situation in Singapore can be simplified in the following way.

Y makes a disagreeable opinion about X's religion. X does not react by making a big fuss about Y as intolerant. Neither does X lodge report to the authorities against Y.

X makes a disagreeable opinion on Y's religion. Y reacts by making a big fuss about X as intolerant. Y goes on to lodge report to the authorities against X. On top of that, Y accuses X for attempting to inaugurate religious war into the country, and hence disturb the harmony in the society.

It seems to me that many locals like to think that (1) Y is correct to make a big fuss about X as intolerant, (2) Y is correct to lodge report to the authorities against X for being intolerant, and (3) Y is correct to accuse X for attempting to inaugurate religious war into the country, and hence disturb the harmony in the society.

And it also seems to me that the fact that the local authorities take up the cause of Y implies their agreement with and approval of (1), (2), and (3). 

If this is the case, does that mean for me to be "tolerant" in the local context, I would have to make a big fuss about those who publicly express disagreement with my religious belief and practice, lodge a report to the authorities against them, and accuse them as intolerant war-mongers who disturb the harmony in the society?

Is this how people view pastors in Singapore?

Someone googled this:

Richard Dawkins by his own standard is not actually an evolutionist

Recently the famed militant atheist Richard Dawkins released some statistics which claim that those who identified themselves as "Christian" are not actually Christian because they "couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament."

So Rev. Giles Fraser interviewed him on radio. It turns out that by Dawkins' own standard he can't be an "evolutionist" since he couldn't identify the whole title of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

Here's the transcript:

Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.

Dawkins: Yes I could.

Fraser: Go on then.

Dawkins: On the Origin of Species…Uh…With, oh, God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

Fraser: You are the high hope of Darwinism... if you ask people who believe in evolution what that question and you came back and said 2 per cent got it right, it would terribly easy for me to go they don't really believe in it after all. It is just not fair to ask people this question. They self-identify as Christian and I think you should respect that.

Listen to the one-minute-twenty-one-seconds interview (H/T: Uncommon Descent):

 

Be careful with 1 Timothy 2:12: It may not be as complementarian as some want it to be

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12)

I just read through a syntactical study widely regarded (even by its critics) as the most convincing work that argues for 1 Tim 2:12 to be understood as how a complementarian sees it ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man") and not as how an egalitarian sees it ("I do not permit a woman to falsely teach in domineering manner over a man").

It is written by Andreas Köstenberger, a complementarian. This position simply means the affirmation "that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function. In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men." 

The whole article is here. A summary is here.

I must say it is really a good and detailed study!

What caught my attention is his careful qualification in the study's conclusion. He made it very clear that the reason behind the instruction "do not permit a woman teach or to exercise authority over a man" is due to the church's specific circumstances. He was so careful to qualify this that he repeated it a few times in his conclusion as follow (pp.281-282, emphasis added):

 3. A distinction should be made between the fact that two activities or concepts are viewed positively in and of themselves and that they may be prohibited due to circumstances. [...]

4. 1 Tim 2:12 can legitimately be seen as an example of the first pattern, i.e. the denial of two activities which are viewed positively in and of themselves, under contextually adduced circumstances. [...]

5. [...] Thus 1 Tim 2:12 is an instance of the first pattern where the exercise of two activities is prohibited or the existence of two concepts is denied by the writer due to certain circumstances. [...]

It is clear that Köstenberger thinks that the instruction to disallow women to teach and exercise authority over men in 1 Tim 2:12 is due to the circumstances facing the congregation at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) at that time.

As we know, Ephesus was where the powerful Artemis/Diana cult located at that time. This cult revolved around high priestesses and hence promoted a form of women superiority over men.

If this is the case, then Paul's instruction in 1 Tim 2:12 is specifically dealing with the religious-cultural circumstances of the Ephesian church at that time. Probably the women in the Ephesian congregation have adopted some of the pattern of the Artemis cult.

If so, whether can the circumstantial instruction in 1 Tim 2:12 be applied universally for all contexts (e.g. 21st century Singapore's churches) needs much more further investigation so that we don't misapply (or worse, abuse) the Scripture. 

If this is followed, then the suggestion that Paul's instruction in 1 Tim 2:12 should be universally applicable must not be too readily accepted as plain truth.

Nonetheless, one may say that precisely because the Ephesian women have overturned the order in the Church---as influenced by the Artemis cult---that Paul needed to remind them of the complementary position, which is the correct order.

Even so, one still need to demonstrate whether did Paul meant his instruction to be universally applicable or should it be only applicable to the Ephesian congregation at that time, within that context.

If one chooses to think that 1 Tim 2:12 is universal, then one has to deal with 1 Tim 2:15, "But women will be saved through childbearing". Should this also be universal?

I'll discuss this in another post.

John Hick & R. T. France: One after the other

John Hick passed away on 9th February 2012, while R. T. France the next day. Two famed scholars in different fields. What would they say to each other in the other world? Will they puzzle over the fact that the blogosphere is announcing their death?

If you think United Nations & politicians control the world...

Transnational Institute released some interesting reports on 'The State of Corporate Power 2012' (H/T: Kia Meng):

Just 10.9 million people, or 0.15%, control $42.7 trillion dollars or two thirds of world GDP. An even tinier group of people, 0.001%, control a third of that amount. Where are they based? What could this money pay for?

Say you are teaching a class, and only two students sign up...

This semester, there are a few modules with only a handful of students. There was one class that I wanted to attend but was told that that class was for a postgraduate program. And last I heard, there was only one postgraduate student registered for the class.

Whether one is a teacher, pastor, lecturer or any educator, it is always disheartening to see poor turnout at one's class. Imagine you organize a course on an important theologian of your denomination, and only two persons sign up. 

What would you do? Cancel the class?

Here's what John Stackhouse wrote:

In an autobiographical sketch (in the fine collection of Kelly Clark’s Philosophers Who Believe), Yale University philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff recalls his student days at Calvin College in Michigan. Once, he writes, he signed up for a course on Immanuel Kant’s difficult Critique of Pure Reason. Taught by a senior professor, Harry Jellema, the course enrolled just two students. Nicholas Wolterstorff was one.

Guess who was the other student?

He was Alvin Plantinga, one of the greatest living Christian philosophers of our time. Stackhouse continued:

Wolterstorff delightedly notes that every student in that class has since been invited to give the prestigious Gifford Lectures in Scotland, defending the Christian faith. [...]

Harry Jellema, though, could not have foreseen any of that when he faithfully entered his classroom each time to teach just these two students. He simply wanted to teach anyone who wanted to learn.

At the University of Chicago they still enjoy telling the story of astrophysics professor Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. In the 1950s, Chandrasekhar was living in Wisconsin, conducting research at the university’s observatory. The university scheduled him to teach one advanced seminar that winter, however, so Chandrasekhar drove eighty miles each way to teach the course on the main campus to—you guessed it—just two students. He could have cancelled it, but he did not.

In the subsequent decades, both of those students, and Professor Chandrasekhar himself, won the Nobel Prize. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, however, could not have foreseen any of that when he faithfully entered that classroom every time to teach just two students. He simply wanted to teach anyone who wanted to learn.  

This perspective on formal education goes against the prevalent attitude to see the importance of certain subjects based on how much money one can make from it through student registration.

Of course this does not mean education should be operated regardless of monetary profitability. Sustainability is non-negligible. And in the present system, monetary profitability guarantees sustainability. 

What this means is for educators to not lose heart if your classes are not popular. On sustainability, there is always a market for the niche.

The Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks a Radical Orthodoxian? A specter of Radical Orthodoxy in contemporary Western public discourse

Jonathan Sacks presented a noteworthy speech to Benedict XVI late last year, addressing the European context in general, the economic challenges in particular. After going through the transcript, one finds it curious that the gist of the speech very much resembles with the thesis tabled by John Milbank et al in the Radical Orthodoxy project.

The rabbi cited works done by various researchers from diverse background such as Niall Ferguson, David Landes, Eric Nelson, Rodney Stark, and William Rees-Mogg in his highlight on the undeniable influence of the Judeo-Christian heritage on the present economic system:

"...the market economy and modern capitalism emerged in Judeo-Christian Europe and not in other cultures like China that were more advanced in other ways. The religious ethic was one of the driving forces of this once new form of wealth creation.

Equally however, this same ethic taught the limits of capitalism. It might be the best means we know of for generating wealth, but it is not a perfect system for distributing wealth."

In similar fashion, Milbank offered his "archeaological approach" with "inestimable advantages" to narrate the emergence of present western secular discourses, of which the economic system is one:

"…on my reading, secular discourse does not just borrow inherently inappropriate modes of expression from religion as the only discourse to hand, […] but is actually constituted in its secularity by 'heresy' in relation to orthodox Christianity, or else a rejection of Christianity that is more 'neo-pagan' than simply anti-religious."
(John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond secular reason [UK: Blackwell, 1990; Second edition, 2006], p.3. Emphasis original.)

The Radical Orthodoxy's offered solution to our present problems is to "re-envision" a "more incarnate, more participatory, more aesthetic, more erotic, more socialized, even 'more Platonic' Christianity," (John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Graham Ward, eds., Radical Orthodoxy: A new theology [UK: Blackwell, 1999], p.3).

Notice the identical language in Sacks' solution below?

"Economic superpowers have a short shelf-life: Spain in the fifteenth century, Venice in the sixteenth, Holland in the seventeenth, France in the eighteenth, Britain in the nineteenth, America in the twentieth. Meanwhile Christianity has survived for two thousand years, and Judaism for twice as long as that. The Judeo-Christian heritage is the only system known to me capable of defeating the law of entropy that says all systems lose energy over time."

With these similarities, one wonders whether is the Chief Rabbi a closet Radical Orthodoxian?

Probably Radical Orthodoxy has been criticized so much so that it has become a vulgarity in the field and an obscenity in its own right. Hence people can't resist but simply to shy from the label.

Nonetheless, as seen here, its specter lingers, and manifests itself in the works of Ferguson, Landes, Nelson, Stark, Rees-Mogg, and Sacks---those who are not related to Radical Orthodoxy in anyway.

There is always another way to call a female canine, no?

Making icon out of dust

God said, “Let us make mankind in our icon [Septuagint: "image"], in our likeness..."

The LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

(Genesis 1:26, 2:7)

Craig Evans versus Bart Ehrman: Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the Historical Jesus?

Two established scholars in New Testament studies taking each other to task. 

Ehrman is doing what he does best: Pointing out "contradictions" in the four gospels as the reason to doubt the historical reliability of them, and hence the historical portrayals of Jesus. If these accounts contradict each other, then they are not historically accurate. Hence we cannot be too quick to assume their reliability.

Evans highlights the first principle that contemporary biblical scholars ground their researches (including that of Ehrman): The gospel accounts are reliable as far as historical research is concerned, and this is the starting point of biblical scholarship itself. Can we assume these documents are inaccurate just because we cannot make historical sense from them despite there are details found in them that correspond with archaeological findings and extra-biblical historical data?

Both agree that the gospel accounts are difficult for contemporary readers to comprehend. For Ehrman, this means "contradiction" and so we must read them as fabrication---those events just didn't happen. 

For Evans, this means that we can still ascertain historical data from the texts even though there is difficulty---we have to continue to work on understanding those difficulties with what we can historically affirm.

Isn't the two scholars' so-called historical conclusion philosophical differences?

Happy Chinese New Year, the second day!

May you, readers, be blessed with good (mental & physical) health and wealth so that you may continue to pursue your life in Christ as a blessing to others in this Dragon year! 

Even if health fails and wealth nil: 

We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.

We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body. So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in [others].

Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
(2 Corinthians 4)

Worship, sensus divinitatis, and local students

It is reported that local students are now worshiping the "Bell Curve God" (H/T: Ronald Wong):

The bell-curve refers to a grading method where students' grades are assigned based on the relative performance of their peers. [...]

As seen in the photo above, an altar is set up with food, drinks, and vitamin C tablets offered to this god. 

One picture even shows a sign hung up on the ceiling, that "cursed" whoever entered the room without a food offering for the "Bell Curve God".

This news is particular interesting when read along John Calvin's sensus divinitatis, which simply means that humans are born with some vague ideas that divinity exists. To Calvin, this is the Christian God. And the vague ideas is given by this God to everyone.

G. K. Chesterton has similarly said, "For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything." 

Or, as apostle Paul put it: "...since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made..." (Romans 1:30)

Humans are inevitably homo religiosus. We are endowed with the inclination to worship. And I tend to think it is this inclination that guides all direction and path taken by us in searching for the purpose and the meaning of life, as well as the rationale in ethics and philosophy. And in this case, the hope of some local students.

Riusuke Fukahori's 3D art is awesome!

Any difference between 'Jew', 'Israelite', and 'Hebrew'?

There are so much that I have taken for granted in term of the concern of local congregation. Take for example, yesterday during Bible Study session, the issue about the identity of 'Jews' and the 'Israelites' came up.

Are the Jews identical to Israelites? 

I have all this while assume that they are the same. Yet how sure am I that they are indeed identical? 

There was the notion among local Church members that 'Jews' refers to a 'race', while 'Israelites' is a theological synonym to 'people of God' (therefore 'Christians' are also called 'Israelites').  The former is strictly an ethnic group, while the latter is more inclusive (one can be an 'Israelite' by embracing Judaism, but one cannot be a 'Jew' by that). 

I didn't know whether was this correct. So after the Bible Study session, I did a search.

I knew that 'Israelite' refers the descendants of Jacob, who is known as Israel. I also knew that after Solomon, there were two kingdoms, with the north known as Israel while the south as Judah. But I didn't know how did the reference 'Jew' and 'Israelite' came to be, and whether is there distinction between the two.

According to Oxford Dictionary, the word 'Jew' originally used during the Middle English era, derived from "Old French juiu, via Latin from Greek Ioudaios, via Aramaic from Hebrew yĕhūḏī, from yĕhūḏāh" ('Judah').

So, 'Jew' is just a translation of 'Judah'. This means that a Jew is also an Israelite, a descendant of Jacob.

How about 'Hebrew'? 

Oxford Dictionary states that the English word 'Hebrew' is translated "from Old French Ebreu, via Latin from late Greek Hebraios, from Aramaic ‘iḇray, based on Hebrew ‘iḇrî understood to mean 'one from the other side (of the river)'."

This word is synonym to 'Jew' and 'Israelite', though it too can mean the Jewish language. This may shed some understanding of 2 Corinthians 11:22 as Paul highlighting the three different aspects of his ethnicity: "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I."

He was a true Hebrew because he spoke the language. He was an Israelite because he was from the lineage of Jacob. He was Abraham's descendant because he was born into the covenantal community. This may suggest that these three aspects in Paul's understanding constitute a true Jew.

The more interesting note about Jew's own understanding of these phrases can be found at Judaism101 website. It is highlighted that the Jews see ethnicity as inherited through the mother:

The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where it is understood that the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is a Jew, and several other passages where it is understood that the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not a Jew.

In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [i.e., the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (i.e., a Jew).

On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

To sum up, 'Jew', 'Judahite', 'Hebrew', and 'Israelite' can be used interchangeably. Yet there are some occasions where I think a distinction may be helpful, for instance when one is writing something about the post-Solomon era of northern and southern kingdoms.

Sorry, but the claim "I hate religion, but love Jesus" is plain stupid

This video has been shared at least 10 times by others on my Facebook page. My fellow theological student also experienced the same thing on his page. 

Honestly, though crude, the claim made in this video is plain stupid. As a theological student, I have concern when such stupid claim is being widely shared around by other believers, thinking that it speaks the truth. The problem is that it is not the truth.

Why?

Brian LePort, who shared similar concern, has written two posts on this video. The first one titled 'Remember, Jesus practiced religion too!':

Jesus is used as a poster-boy for people who want some mystical connection with him, but dislike the practices of others.

If Jesus stands against anyone it is not because they are “religious”. Yes, some religions and religious practices can distract us from Jesus, but so can being irreligious!

If you participate in the Eucharist, if you were baptized, if you gather together to worship, if you pray, if you meditate, if you sing and play music, if you observe holy days, if you do any of these things you are using religious practices to connect with the risen Christ.

Leport's second more elaborate post basically reiterates the same claim.

Kevin DeYoung has written a substantial comment on this video too. He analyzed each of its claims and helpfully showing why some of them are wrong:

More important is Bethke’s opening line: “Jesus came to abolish religion.” That’s the whole point of the poem. The argument—and most poems are arguing for something—rests on the sharp distinction between religion on one side and Jesus on the other. Whether this argument is fair depends on your definition of religion. Bethke sees religion as a man made attempt to earn God’s favor. Religion equals self-righteousness, moral preening, and hypocrisy. Religion is all law and no gospel. If that’s religion, then Jesus is certainly against it.

But that’s not what religion is. We can say that’s what is has become for some people or what we understand it to be. But words still matter and we shouldn’t just define them however we want. “Jesus hates religion” communicates something that “Jesus hates self-righteousness” doesn’t. To say that Jesus hates pride and hypocrisy is old news. To say he hates religion—now, that has a kick to it. People hear “religion” and think of rules, rituals, dogma, pastors, priests, institutions. People love Oprah and the Shack and “spiritual, not religious” bumper stickers because the mood of our country is one that wants God without the strictures that come with traditional Christianity. We love the Jesus that hates religion.

The only problem is, he didn’t. Jesus was a Jew. He went to services at the synagogue. He observed Jewish holy days. He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He founded the church (Matt. 16:18). He established church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He instituted a ritual meal (Matt. 26:26-28). He told his disciples to baptize people and to teach others to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). He insisted that people believe in him and believe certain things about him (John 3:16-18; 8:24). If religion is characterized by doctrine, commands, rituals, and structure, then Jesus is not your go-to guy for hating religion. This was the central point behind the book Ted Kluck and I wrote a few years ago. (Emphasis original)

Tan Kim Huat's commentary on Mark's gospel, and Leow Theng Huat's commentary on P. T. Forsyth's theodicy

These two books finally arrived at our shore. Just got a copy of each from Trinity Theological College's Administration Office.

The Gospel According to Mark (Asia Bible Commentary Series). 

Tan Kim Huat is the Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament and Dean of Studies of Trinity Theological College, Singapore. He is also the author of Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus (Cambridge University Press, 1997). 

I took his New Testament Exegesis course last semester. I'm now going through his New Testament Theology class. He is an excellent communicator, hence an excellent teacher and preacher.

The Theodicy of Peter Taylor Forsyth: A "Crucial" Justification of the Ways of God to Man.

Leow Theng Huat is a Lecturer in Theology at Trinity Theological College, Singapore. This is his first monograph, based on his doctoral thesis.

Last semester, I was in his Historical Theology I class. Now in his Historical Theology II class. Wrote an essay on John Damascene's theology of religion under him. His knowledge on early theological controversies on Trinity, Christology, and Pneumatology is impressively vast and deep.

Obvious Christological speech act

Ava, 2 years old toddler, is having a conversation with her mother, Lily. 

Both of them are deaf.

This is a good and heartwarming example of communication with sign. I like to think that this is also good analogy to help our understanding of Jesus' divinity in the gospel story.

The question, 'Did Jesus see himself as God?' is very much alive, especially in interfaith conversation between Christians and Muslims. 

In fact even among Christians, when exploring the question, we may find ourselves hard pressed to find explicit verbal affirmation in the three synoptic gospels that Jesus was indeed God.

And I think this difficulty is much owed to our unfamiliarity with the speech act language understood in Jesus' context. Take for example the scenario right after Jesus healed the paralyzed man:

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:5-7)

Jesus' speech acted as his pronouncement of forgiveness of sin. The teachers of the law who were there immediately understood that speech act. Jesus was performing the role that belonged solely to God alone. Hence by doing what only God does, Jesus was communicating his divinity. 

Many today overlook this because of the distance between the speech act language in Jesus' time and ours. An example from our present society is the nodding of head. We generally nod to communicate our "yes", while we turn our head to communicate "no". But in some culture (my Indian friends for instance) the turning of head is communicating "yes" at times. This is a real difference between two sets of speech act language.

When Jesus performed the forgiveness of sins, it was clear to his contemporaries what he was communicating. What Jesus communicated was so obvious that the teachers of the law were offended and anxiously thought to themselves: Jesus was blaspheming!

Content Page and the contributors of 'The Bible and the Ballot'

Some friends asked about the topics covered in The Bible and the Ballot: Reflections on Christian Political Engagement in Malaysia Today. Hope this extract from the book's Content page helps:

Foreword

Rt Rev Datuk Ng Moon Hing 

Introduction

Joshua Woo 

Naming Names: Can Preachers Tell You Whom to Vote For?

Alwyn Lau 

Strengthening Democracy in Malaysia: The Need for a Vibrant Public Sphere

Christopher Choong 

Vote!: Voting as a Christian Duty

Tan Soo Inn 

Vote for Changes: My Decision at This Point in History

Tan Soo Inn 

Prayer and Political Consideration: How and What to Pray For?

Joshua Woo 

Why Am I Attending Vigils For Dr Jeyakumar and EO6?

Rama Ramanathan 

Afterword: Christians: A Blessing to Malaysia?

Sivin Kit 

Appendix: Petition by 34 Leaders of the Christian Community in Malaysia

Some friends asked about the contributors to the book. Here's their information:

Alwyn Lau is a member of Friends in Conversation (friendsinconversation.wordpress.com). A lecturer in Marketing and Sociology at KDU University-College. He is also pursuing a Ph.D (Arts) at the University of Monash (Sunway). He blogs at wyngman.blogspot.com. 

Christopher Choong is a member of Friends in Conversation (friendsinconversation.wordpress.com). He holds a doctorate in Political Science where his research interest lies in the interaction between religion and politics (with particular reference to Christians in Malaysia). He teaches at a private university and blogs at cacoescrib.wordpress.com. 

Rama Ramanathan graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 1982 and has since worked in factories and in regional roles in operations and quality management. He blogs at write2rest.blogspot.com. 

Sivin Kit is a founding member of Friends in Conversation (friendsinconversation.wordpress.com) and one of the initiators of Micah Mandate (www.themicahmandate.org). He served as the pastor of Bangsar Lutheran Church from 2000 to 2010 and has been actively engaged in civil society in Malaysia since 2007. Currently, he is pursuing his Ph.D in Religion, Ethics and Society at the University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway. He blogs at sivinkit.net. 

Tan Soo Inn is a member of Friends in Conversation (friendsinconversation.wordpress.com). He holds a Doctor in Ministry from Fuller Seminary. His doctoral project focused on how one discerns vocation in the context of community. Together with his wife Bernice, Soo Inn directs the works of Graceworks (www.graceworks.com.sg), a training and publishing consultancy committed to promoting spiritual friendship in church and society. 

Weird search...

Today, a netizen googled the following and ended up at this blog:

Must be my Methodist friend who has been praying hard for my salvation. Or, perhaps a fellow Presbyterian who simply doesn't wish that I'm one. ;)

3 Reviews on Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature'

I haven't read Pinker's book and currently don't have plan to read it anytime soon. This post is simply to point out three interesting reviews for those who are interested. 

First review is by John Gray, a political philosopher formerly at London School of Economics. He argues against Pinker's proposals that the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, is the reason for the decline of violence. He also questioned Pinker's statement that violence has declined. The review is here.

The second one is by Steve Clarke, an ethicist at Oxford University. He commented on John Gray's review of Pinker, pointing out that Gray has made a case to argue against Pinker's proposal. But he concluded that Gray has not successfully show that violence has not decline. The review is here. 

Timothy Snyder, a historian at Yale University, provided the third review. Snyder critiqued Pinker's dismissing the first part of twentieth century global violence and doubted Pinker's collection of "informed guesses" as reliable historical data. He saw Pinker's work as "unscientific". The review is here.

Paul Knitter sees Buddhism's Sunyata as Trinity

There are many approaches to interfaith understanding. Most of them agree that integrity is essential; that is we have to understand any one religion on its own term and not domesticate its teaching to suit our own understanding for whatever reason. 

Integrity in this area is especially important in comparative studies between religions so that we do not distort any religion to contrast or conform with another according to whim.

Paul Knitter, who professes to be a Roman Catholic and a Buddhist (his blog titles 'How a Buddhist Christian sees it'), in his lecture 'Only One Way?' (H/T: Justin Taylor) proposes that the translation of Buddhism's Sunyata concept is pointing to the God to whom is the reference of Christianity.

The Union Theological Seminary's professor invokes the translation of Sunyata as "InterBeing" as a reference to the relational Trinity. As he wrote in his book:

"Thich Nhat Hanh, a modern practitioner, scholar, and popularizer of Zen Buddhism, translates Sunyata more freely but more engagingly as InterBeing. It's the interconnected state of things that is constantly churning out new connections, new possibilities, new problems, new life." (p.12)

"...to believe in a Trinitarian God is to believe in a relational God. The very nature of the Divine is nothing other than to exist in and out of relationships; for God, "to be" is nothing other than "to relate." That, among other things, is what the doctrine of the Trinity tells Christians. (p.19)

"To experience and to believe in a Trinitarian God is to experience and believe in a God who is not [...] the Ground of Being, but the Ground of InterBeing! [...] God is the activity of giving and receiving, of knowing and loving, of losing and finding, of dying and living that embraces and infuses all of us, all of creation. Though every image or symbol limp, Christians can and must say what Buddhist might agree with---that if we're going to talk about God, God is neither a noun nor an adjective. God is a verb! With the word "God" we're trying to get at an activity that is going on everywhere rather than a Being that exists somewhere. God is much more an environment than a thing.

"And therefore, if we Christians really affirm that "God is love" and that Trinity means relationality, then I think the symbol Buddhists use for Sunyata is entirely fitting for our God. God is the field---the dynamic energy field of InterBeing---within which, as we read in the New Testament (but perhaps never really heard), "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28)."
(Paul F. Knitter, Without Buddha I Could not be a Christian [UK: Oneworld, 2009], p.19-20. Emphasis original.)

For Knitter to make his case, it is fundamental that his understanding of Sunyata as InterBeing is correct. And it is on this fundamental level that I have a question to raise: Is Knitter's equating Sunyata as InterBeing valid?

Knitter himself acknowledges that this equation is the product of Thich Nhat Hanh's "free" translation. In Chinese, Sunyata is simply translated as 空, which means "emptiness" or "void". Hence the famous verse from the Heart Sutra, "色即是空, 空即是色," ("Form is emptiness; emptiness is form") to which Knitter mentioned in the lecture.

Of course, how should Sunyata be understood is still a debate among the different Buddhist sects. Nonetheless, what we can be certain here is that Knitter chooses to use a free translation to draw out conformity between Buddhism and Christianity. He disregards the question over the validity of this translation and uses it anyway.

Besides, is the Suntaya really means interconnectivity among beings? If so, then according to the Heart Sutra, interconnectivity among beings is void. ("不生, 不滅, 不垢, 不淨, 不增, 不減。是故空中. 無色, 無受, 想, 行, 識. 無眼, 耳, 鼻, 舌, 身, 意. 無色, 聲, 香, 味, 觸, 法. 無眼界. 乃至無意識界. 無無明. 亦無無明盡. 乃至無老死. 亦無老死盡. 無苦. 集. 滅. 道. 無智, 亦無得." Translation: "The void is without beginning, ending, form, embodiment, consciousness, sensation, thought, deficiency, completeness, etc." Simply said, the void is nothing.) 

The Sunyata refers to the interconnectivity that has nothing and is nothing. It is ontologically impersonal.

If this is true, then I have another question to raise: If Suntaya refers to the impersonal interconnectivity among beings, how then can Knitter proposes that it is an equation to the Trinitarian God, who is fundamentally recognized in Christianity as personal? 

One can see that Knitter's intention is to point out convergence between Buddhism and Christianity. However, in the way he did it, there are violations done on both Buddhism and Christianity. On one hand, Knitter knowingly used a free translation to represent Buddhism's Sunyata concept, while on the other hand, he deprived Christianity's Trinity from its nature as a personal being. As mentioned above, there are many approaches to interreligious understanding; is this how a Buddhist Christian sees it?