Sze Zeng

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

2012-01-29T17:49:00.000+08:00

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 by 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

2012-01-27T16:15:00.000+08:00

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?

2012-01-25T20:55:00.000+08:00

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!

2012-01-24T10:10:00.002+08:00

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

2012-01-23T10:26:00.000+08:00

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!

2012-01-19T15:19:00.002+08:00

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

2012-01-15T16:35:00.000+08:00

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

2012-01-14T09:54:00.001+08:00

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

2012-01-10T18:12:00.001+08:00

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

2012-01-07T11:04:00.003+08:00

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'

2012-01-05T20:28:00.000+08:00

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...

2012-01-05T00:18:00.000+08:00

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'

2012-01-03T15:29:00.000+08:00

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

2012-01-02T15:48:00.000+08:00

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?

Some unexpectedly-important books I read in 2011, and two unexpected projects

2011-12-29T22:53:00.002+08:00

This list betrays my interests and the fields that I am less incompetent at. Each of these informs and forms my spiritual life in this past one year.

This list is what it is because I wanted to learn about some controversial events in the past (the crusades and Constantine's relationship with the 4th century Church), to be inspired (F.F. Bruce's life), to explore uncharted horizons (contemporary's Pentecostal theology, John Damascene's Byzantine theology, and Islamic theology), to get some sense of what the local theological scene is like (Malaysian and Singaporean authors), and to deepen my understanding on philosophical/public/political theology.

Among them, I thought Oliver O' Donovan's and Philip Goodchild's most difficult to read. Reading them is like choking on ice-cream. Tasty, but choked!

Some of the things I didn't expect from the list:

I didn't expect Simon Chan's treatment on Pentecostal Ecclesiology has so much important thing to say to other Protestant tradition. Low-Church congregants have so much to learn from the book, particularly about the doctrinal status and perception of the Church!
I didn't expect money is laden with so much theology. Philip Goodchild's book basically unpacks the theological aspects of money, exposing the dogmatic conditions for the materialization of money.
I didn't expect Emperor Constantine can be sympathized by present Christians since he has been popularly smudged by the believing community in general. Peter Leithart shows that he can.
I didn't expect a Regius Professor (Nigel Biggar) can write so remarkably clear and comprehensible.

Besides reading these books, completing course assignments and Field Education internship through the year, I had the opportunity to work with others on two unexpected projects.

The first one is with Yale Centre for Faith and Culture's Pathway for Mutual Respect's upcoming literature. Norani, the organization's Asia Project Director, invited each of us to contribute two short essays (350 words) on Muslim-Christian issues. I vaguely have an idea how the final product would be like, as I was told it wouldn't be out so soon.

The second one is a book project on Christian political responsibility in Malaysia. The hardcopies just came out from the press last week. It is titled as 'The Bible and the Ballot: Reflections on Christian political engagement in Malaysia today'. Here's how the book looks like:

When this project was first conceived, I didn't thought that it would be a hardcopy book. Nevertheless, Soo-Inn and Bernice from Graceworks believed in it and carried the project through. This book contains contribution from six of us who share the same mission in this area. Our hope for this project is to provide some clarification on the ambiguous relationship between Christian discipleship and the challenging situations facing the country at the present moment.

Advent and its political theology

2011-12-21T14:41:00.001+08:00

"In the Christ-event we found the elements of God's rule: an act of power, an act of judgment and the gift of possession. But these elements are presented in the narrative account of a decisive act, an act in which God's rule was mediated and his people reconstituted in Christ. We are told of the Advent of the one in whom the possession was vested, the conflict that his coming evoked and the vindication that he received at God's hand. To speak of God's rule from this point on must mean more than to assert divine sovereignty, or even divine intervention, in general terms. It means recounting this narrative and drawing the conclusions implied in it. And so we face the task of tracing its chief moments. We cannot discuss the question of 'secular' government, the question from which Western political theology has too often been content to start, unless we approach it historically, from a Christology that has been displayed in narrative form as Gospel."

(Oliver O' Donovan, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the roots of political theology [UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996], p.133)

Race-based ideology and Islam: The Malaysian enigma

2011-12-20T10:18:00.000+08:00

Published on the New Mandala: New perspectives on mainland Southeast Asia website, dated 5 December 2011.

In the recent United Malays National Organisation’s (UMNO) general assembly, the “Prime Minister and Umno President Datuk Seri Najib Razak launched a Bumiputera Economic Transformation Roadmap” as a gesture to inform the Malay community that his political party will continue to advance the Malay agenda.[1]

UMNO’s Deputy President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin further affirmed this race-based ideology by saying that “it is vital” to protect “Malay political power.”[2] He justified such ideology by painting the picture that the interest of the Malay race, given its demography in the country, dictates the well being of the whole nation. “[W]hen we talk about Malay interest it does not mean we are racist because the largest group in the Malaysian society whether you like it or not is still Malays, Bumiputeras and Muslims.”[3]

Seeing ‘Malays’, ‘Bumiputeras’, and ‘Muslims’ being juxtaposed next to each other certainly stirs up curiosity as to what actually has the third group (Muslims) to do with the other two:

Does Islam teach race-based ideology or race-favouritism? Is it true that Islam requires the advancement of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ (Malay Supremacy)?

It is common understanding among theologians and scholars of comparative religions that Islam promotes racial equality. One of the clearest indications of this is in the fact that Allah’s Prophets consist of individuals from different races. There is no distinction made among them:

“‘Say: “We believe in God and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob and [his] children, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to [all other] prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between any of them; and to Him we submit ourselves.”’ (Qur’an 2:136).

Not all of these messengers are Arab, yet all are considered equally authoritative. There is simply no relevance to their prophethood whether they came from the Jewish, Arabian, or any other race.

Besides the Prophets, there are also Qur’anic teachings concerning equality of humankind:

“O people! Be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship [the wombs]; surely Allah ever watches over you.” (Qur’an 4:1)

Here, the Islamic Scripture teaches that all ethnic groups are created in the same way, and bear close ties to one another.

Reflecting on this, Abd-al‘Aziz ‘Abd-al-Qadir Kamil, Professor at the University of Cairo and Minister of Waqfs and Azhar Affairs of Al-Azhar University, commented that: “God […] commands us to fear two things: God and ‘the wombs’ (al-arham). ‘The wombs’ refers here to the human bond that links all men, however remote they may be from each other in space or time, and however unlike they may be in language and colour, and however much they may differ in economic or social position. We are charged to fear God’s commands, and this applies first and foremost to the observation of human brotherhood on the widest scale…”[4]

At another place of the Qur’an, we find similar teaching:

“O Humankind! We have created you from male and female and have made you into peoples (shu‘ub) and tribes (qaba’il) that you may know one another; truly, the noblest (akram) among you before God are the most pious (atqa) among yourselves; indeed, is God the All-knowing, the All-seeing.”
(Qur’an 49:13).

Although it is commonly interpreted that this passage is talking about race, some said that it actually refers to ‘tribes’ and not ‘race’.

Responding to this, Paul A. Hardy, who lectured on Islamic thoughts at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the Universityof London, remarked that there is no difference between tribe and race in this passage. He pointed out two early Islamic commentators—the eighth century C.E. Sufyan ath-Thawri and the tenth century C.E. Tabari—who understood this verse as reference to genealogy.[5]

In other words, this verse is indeed referring to race. It describes the creation of the various ethnic groups with their own genealogy. No race or genealogical lineage is declared superior or should be favoured than others. The only superiority is that of piety, between those who are loyal to Allah and those who are not—Not between those who are Malay and non-Malay, Bumiputeras or non-Bumiputeras.

Besides, this verse also states that the diversity of races is intended for mutual learning (“that you may know one another”). The instruction to cultivate multi-racial learning is understood by Hardy as “a motivating force for mutual love.”[6] If this is followed, then this further undermines the ideology that one race is or should be more favoured than others.

Turning to the Hadith, we find in Prophet Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon his conviction of racial equality:

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.”[7]

The Prophet has a deep sense of racial impartiality. Probably this is the reason why he condemned those who claim supremacy over others because of their ancestral-racial lineage:

“Allah, Most High, has removed from you the pride of the pre-Islamic period and its boasting in ancestors. One is only a pious believer or a miserable sinner. You are sons of Adam, and Adam came from dust. Let the people cease to boast about their ancestors. They are merely fuel in Jahannam [hell]; or they will certainly be of less account with Allah than the beetle which rolls dung with its nose.”[8]

“Your lineage is of no account… you are all the children of Adam… the pride you take in your forefathers transgresses the teaching of your Lord… no man is superior to another save in faith and fear of God.”[9]

These Hadith accounts prompted Abd-al Aziz Abd-al-Qadir Kamil to conclude that, “Islam sees mankind as a large garden, in which there are flowers of many colours, but no one colour is superior to any other;”[10] and, “The diversity of tongues and colours is simply a manifestation of divine power, and does not imply any notion of preference or privilege. On the contrary, in Islamic thought, privilege is opposed to God‘s commands of love and brotherhood.”[11]

Commenting on the Prophet’s teachings on racial equality, Zakaria El-Berry, the then Minister of State for Wakfs and Head of the Higher Council for Islamic Affairs, who was also Professor of Sharia Law at Cairo University, wrote, “In this powerful style, the Prophet, peace be on him, has destroyed all racial and other discriminatory grounds artificially claimed by selfish and conceited forces.”[12]

The implication of this to the Malaysian context is obvious: the Prophet opposes all race-based ideology, including ‘Ketuanan Melayu’.

Among the Hadith accounts, there was an incident where the Prophet made clear that there should not be favouritism based on racial, cultural, economic, or even familial affinity in Muslims’ handling of public policy:

“During the Prophet’s lifetime, a woman of the Banu Makhzum (a noble Arab clan) stole and was due to be punished. Some of the men of Quraish thought it intolerable that judgement should be executed upon the person of a woman of Makhzum and considered who would be able to speak to the Prophet and convey the people’s intercession to him. Their choice fell on Usamah ibn-Zaid, who was near to the Prophet’s heart and well loved by him, because of his own and his father’s rank and standing. But the Prophet rejected Usamah’s mediation, and rebuked him, saying: ‘Would you intercede against a punishment ordained by God?’ He then stood up and addressed the people: ‘Verily those that came before you were destroyed. It was their wont, if a noble man stole, to let him go free and if a weak man stole, to execute judgement upon him. By God! Were even Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad a thief, she should have her hand severed.”[13]

Such was the firmness of the Prophet’s sense of impartiality. Probably due to his stern stand on this issue that subsequent Muslims continued to exemplify the same deep sense of racial equality. One example is seen in the trial presided by the second Caliph, Umar ibn-al-Khattab, which involved a Jew and Ali ibn-Abi Talib.

During the trial, the second Caliph called the Jew by his name and addressed Ali by his agnomen (Abu al-Hasan), because that was how the Caliph called Ali when they talk. As the trial proceeded, the Caliph noticed the angry expression on Ali’s face. So the Caliph rebuked Ali, “Are you displeased that your opponent is a Jew and that you have appeared with him before the court!”

Ali said in reply, “No, but I take it amiss that you have not treated us equally but have displayed partiality in my favour, inasmuch as you addressed him by his name and me by my agnomen.” (At that time, the use of the agnomen was a mark of esteem).[14]

In this account, Ali displayed the same fervency to uphold racial equality like the Prophet. Such was the admirable sensitivity of the first Muslim leaders with regard to racial differences. (We know that later on Ali assumed the caliphate as the fourth Caliph, ruling over the entire Islamic community of that time.)

The Qur’an stipulates that the concern of the people of Allah should not be dictated by race and kinship, but by justice and righteousness. “O you who believe! Be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah’s sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.” (Qur’an 4:135)

Therefore it is remarkable that some Muslim politicians in our present day differ so much from their earliest religious leaders. The contemporary racist mentality displayed by local Malay supremacists who claim to be Muslims contradicts directly against the values held so dear by earlier Islamic rulers. There is inherent inconsistency to juxtapose the interest of the ‘Muslims’ with that of the ‘Malays’ and ‘Bumiputeras’.

Nonetheless, one may understand that the proponents of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ justify their race-based ideology and propaganda by their appeal to the Malaysian Constitution. The recent remark made by the Rector of Melaka University Technology MARA, Mizan Hitam, is a case in point, “A Malay, as defined in the Constitution must be a Muslim, speaks the Malay language and practices Malay customs. So, it can be concluded that the Malays in Malaysia are Muslims, while the most relevant Malay party is Umno.”[15]

However, there is a grave theological danger in such reasoning for it confuses the place of the Constitution in the Muslim consciousness. Before elaborating further on this, it is worthwhile to take a look at the present consensus among global Islamic authorities on the identity of Muslim.

In “July 2005, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world’s leading Islamic scholars (Ulama) from 50 countries”[16] to engage on the issue of Islamic identity in the present time. The conference unanimously issued a ruling on three points considered fundamental, of which the first is on the identity of Muslims.

In order to facilitate our appreciation of the consensus, I have quoted the relevant portion at length:

“Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i and Hanbali), the two Shi‘i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja‘fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible and impermissible. Verily his (or her) blood, honour, and property are inviolable. Moreover, in accordance with the Shaykh Al-Azhar’s fatwa, it is neither possible nor permissible to declare whosoever subscribes to the Ash‘ari creed or whoever practices real Tasawwuf (Sufism) an apostate. Likewise, it is neither possible nor permissible to declare whosoever subscribes to true Salafi thought an apostate.”

Equally, it is neither possible nor permissible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in God, Glorified and Exalted be He, and His Messenger (may peace and blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and acknowledges the five pillars of Islam, and does not deny any necessarily self-evident tenet of religion.”[17]

Nowhere in the Amman Message states that the Malay ethnicity must be Muslim. The criterion is in the conviction in the tenet of Islam, not in racial identity. These leading Islamic scholars from around the world unanimously do not recognize that one’s religiosity marks one’s ethnicity.

To be fair, the Amman consensus is not aimed at addressing ethnic identity. Rather, it is concerned with the identity of Muslims. However, due to the Malaysian context that intertwines ethnicity with religiosity that the Amman Message carries implication. And as far as it goes, the ijma ulama (concession of Islamic scholars) does not acknowledge any sort of correlation between race and Islam.

It is notable that there are eight signatories from Malaysia who endorse the Amman Message statement: Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi, Anwar Ibrahim, Abdul Hamid Othman, Kamal Hasan, Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Shahidan Kasem, Khayri Jamal Al-Din, and Salih Qadir Karim Al-Zanki.[18] At least three out of these eight are publicly known as leaders in the political party UMNO. This means that either they agree with the statement that there is no correlation between race and Islam, or they simply stamped their signature on the consensus without giving much consideration to its implication.

Now back to the confusion that I have mentioned earlier regarding the Malay supremacists who think that the Malaysian Constitution defines the Malay-Muslim identity. It seems that they have committed very serious mistake. Saying that the Constitution is able to define and identify an ethnic group (Malay) as Muslim, which is not stated in the Amman Message nor the Qur’an, is making the bold claim that the Constitution is superior to the ijma ulama and the Qur’an! This has effectively misplaced the Islamic scholars and the Qur’an in the consciousness of the Muslims.

Nevertheless this is not to say that Malaysia should do away with its Constitution. The Constitution is still essential in governing the country. What I am pointing out is the need to recognize that the Constitution has its limit when it comes to Islamic matters.

“We have revealed the Qur’an to you explaining clearly everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit.” (Qur’an 16:89, emphasis added.)

Defining who is or who is not a Muslim is undeniably an Islamic matter, and hence its appeal should be the Ulama and the Qur’an. Not the Constitution. The Malay supremacists can certainly pursue their race-based ideology all they want. However, they should not confuse their own agenda with that of Islam.

[1] MY Sin Chew website: Lim Sue Goan (translated by Soong Phui Jee), Umno General Assembly and Malay agenda, dated 29 November 2011, http://www.mysinchew.com/node/67075 (accessed 30 November 2011).

[2] Sun Daily website: Umno reaffirms its Malay agenda, dated 30 November 2011, http://www.thesundaily.my/news/224184 (accessed 30 November 2011)

[3] Bernama website: Umno Not A Racist Party—Muhyiddin, dated 26 November 2011, http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=629917 (accessed 30 November 2011). Emphasis added.

[4] Abd-al‘Aziz ‘Abd-al-Qadir Kamil, Islam and the race question (Belgium: Unesco, 1970), p.26.

[5] Masud website: Paul A. Hardy, Islam and the Race Question, http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/race.htm (accessed 30 November 2011).

[6] Masud website: Paul A. Hardy, Islam and the Race Question, http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/race.htm (accessed 30 November 2011).

[7] Islami City website: Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) Farewell Sermon, dated 15 February 2011, http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0107-322 (accessed 30 November 2011).

[8] As stated in Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 41, number 5097. This verse can be read at http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/041-sat.php (accessed 30 November 2011).

[9] Quoted in Abd-al‘Aziz ‘Abd-al-Qadir Kamil, Islam and the race question (Belgium: Unesco, 1970), p.34.

[10] Ibid, p.29.

[11] Ibid, p.63. Emphasis added.

[12] Islam Basics website: Zakaria El-Berry, Man’s Rights in Islam, http://www.islambasics.com/view.php?bkID=5&chapter=1#equal (accessed 30 November 2011). Emphasis added.

[13] Abd-al‘Aziz ‘Abd-al-Qadir Kamil, Islam and the race question (Belgium: Unesco, 1970), p.41-42.

[14] Ibid, p.42. Emphasis added.

[15] Bernama website: Mohamad Bakri Darus, Umno Continues To Promote The Sanctity of Islam, dated 29 November 2011, http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newspolitic.php?id=630401 (accessed 30 November 2011).

[16] The Amman Message (Jordan: The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, 2008), pp.v-vi.

[17] Ibid, pp.16-17.

[18] Ibid, pp.53-53.

Sin and its contextual nature: Plagiarism as case study

2011-11-29T13:24:00.001+08:00

Moral objectivity enables the pronouncement of good and evil. The reality of sin subsists under this objectivity. If there is no such thing as 'what is supposed to be', then there can be no such thing as 'not what is supposed to be'. The acknowledgibility of the latter presumes the former.

However, when it comes to discerning what is sinful (or not) is complicated due to sin's relational nature. The sinful-ness of an act depends on whether that act relates destructively, that is whether it goes against or uphold the greatest commandments stated in Matthew 22:37-40. What is supposed to be is to relate to God and neighbors in love. What is not supposed to be is to relate to the two otherwise.

This is the moral objectivity taught by, though not confined to, the Christian tradition. The context of which sin is realized and understood is the objectivity of this dual-love. In other words, sin emerges through context. We call an act sinful when the act impoverishes according to the demand of the context.

Therefore what is not considered sinful in the past is considered sinful in the present. And what is considered sinful now may be considered not so in the future. It depends on the context whether an act contradicts or conforms with the greatest commandments. An example that we may look at is plagiarism, "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author." (Dictionary.com)

Is plagiarism always a sin? Or, is it only a sin when it contradicts the objectivity of dual-love?

In my time at theological college, I have come across cases where students are forfeited when plagiarism is found in their work. Some are expelled after being caught plagiarizing repetitively. We are taught in the first week of the course that plagiarism is not tolerated.

In more serious cases, reputation and career are jeopardized due to the guilt of plagiarism. One of them was Timothy S. Goeglein, the former Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison from 2001 to 2008. It is reported at News Sentinel that there are at least 27 counts of plagiarism committed by Goeglein.

Earlier this month, Christianity Today did an interview with Goeglein. He remarked that he is a "serious Christian" belonging to the Lutheran tradition. However, he remorsefully confessed that he has committed plagiarism out of "pride and vanity". If anything, this confession testifies to Martin Luther's radical understanding of Christian personhood, which was spelled out five centuries ago in these four words: simul justus et peccator. Literally it means simultaneously a righteous and sinful person.

Back to the question, is plagiarism a sin at all time and places? Is it not the case that plagiarism is wrong only in societies where writing is capitalized as a way to make a living through the publishing industry, which assumes high literacy rate in the society?

The Church Fathers copied each others' works, and many times they don't give citation of who they copied from. Their world is one where writing does not generate money, or at least not in the scale of today's postindustrial world, because publishing technology wasn't available and literacy rate was not high.

Take for example John Damascene, who is known as the last of the Church Fathers. He copied the entire summary of Epiphanius of Salamis' Panarion without giving credit to him. This led an authority on the Damascene, Andrew Louth, to write of John: "By modern standards, with our high evaluation of originality and the 'right of the author', John was scarcely an author at all: he was simply a skilful plagiarist." (St John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology [USA: Oxford University Press, 2002; paperback, 2004], p.24.)

However, John did made clear in the first pages of his Fountain of Knowledge that, "I shall say nothing of my own, but collect together into one the fruits of the labours of the most eminent of teachers and make a compendium." Yet, which eminent teachers, John did not name.

As such, what is sinful with plagiarism in the postindustrial context is that it encourages a culture that subverts the process of money-making of the industry. And by that, it prevents people (in this case, authors and publishers) from earning a living. Simply put, it potentially threatens the livelihood of these people. And such threat can hardly be dismissed as contradicting the love for our neighbors.

If this is the case, then isn't plagiarism only against the neighbors, and hence technically not against the dual-love stated in the greatest commandments?

To this, another John has these to say: "For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. [...] Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister." (1 John 4:20-21) The duality of the dual-love mutually assertive and derivative. Doing one is to do the other; deny one is to deny the other.

If it follows that sin emerges through the dual-love context, this post may have fulfill its duty to shed some light in the understanding on the objectivity of morality in relation to context.

Mohd. Asri Zainul Abidin on Allah's punishment on apostasy

2011-11-11T11:53:00.001+08:00

Interesting short dialog between Nik Nor Zafirah (Zaffyaffendi) and Dr. Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin (Dr MAZA), Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at University Science Malaysia who is a former Mufti of the state of Perlis, Malaysia, sparked by article I wrote on New Mandala website.

You can read the dialog in Malay at the right column of the snippet above. Otherwise, here is the English translation (emphasis added):

Zaffyaffendi: Dr MAZA, need your opinion on the apostasy article and how valid is it?

Dr MAZA: Yes, I agree that that is the opinion of some scholars.

Zaffyaffendi: Then, does that means apostasy from Islam is allowed without punishment if it does not threaten or belittle Islam?

Dr MAZA: That is the view of some scholars.

Zaffyaffendi: Yes, I understand. But the view of scholars is misguided at times too. So does this opinion contradict Allah's law?

Dr MAZA: Allah never mentioned any particular punishment on that.

Following that, Zaffyaffendi twitted:

'He Still Heals' by Craig S. Keener

2011-10-29T23:15:00.004+08:00

Craig Keener, Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary who produced one of the best commentary on John's Gospel, wrote the following article to whet our appetite for his upcoming book on the subject. This piece is dated to the time before Keener moved from Palmer Theological Seminary to Asbury (see his biography at the bottom of the article), which occurred in July 2011:

(This article is originally published at charismamag.com.)

He Still Heals
Craig S. Keener

When Thérèse was 2 years old, she cried to her mother that a snake had bitten her. By the time Antoinette Malombé reached her daughter, little Thérèse had already stopped breathing.

Antoinette lived in a remote region of Republic of Congo in central Africa where medical resources weren’t immediately available. Strapping her child to her back, she started running to a village where a family friend, evangelist Coco Moïse, was staying. When he prayed for Thérèse, she began breathing again. By the next day she was fine.

This account was reported to me directly by Antoinette. When I spoke more with her about it, I asked how long Thérèse had gone without breathing. She paused and thought about the distance she had to traverse to reach the evangelist’s village and said it took her about three hours.

The human brain suffers irreparable damage after only six minutes without oxygen, even if the person can be artificially revived. Thérèse had gone close to 180 minutes without taking a breath. Yet she suffered no brain damage—as she herself can attest to today, many years later. Thérèse recently completed seminary.

I am married to her younger sister, Médine Moussounga Keener, and Antoinette is my mother-in-law. Though not meaning to question my relatives’ account of Thérèse’s healing, I nonetheless checked with Moïse, just to be sure, and he confirmed the story as I had heard it.

A miracle? Certainly. A supernatural event isolated to rural Africa? Hardly.

In a 2006 survey of 10 nations, a whopping 200 million Pentecostals and charismatics claimed to have witnessed or experienced divine healing. Perhaps equally as noteworthy in the 231-page Pew Forum report, titled “Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals,” was that close to 39 percent of other Christians in these countries, who did not identify themselves as Pentecostal or charismatic affiliates, also made the same claim.

Moreover, in China, where the survey wasn’t conducted, it is estimated that healings in Jesus’ name have led to roughly half of the millions of conversions there in recent decades. That estimate comes from China Christian Council, which is affiliated with the Protestant, state-approved Three Self Patriotic Movement. A source with the underground church in China offers a far higher estimate: 90 percent.

Whatever the precise percentage is, worldwide we are talking about hundreds of millions of people who claim to be eyewitnesses of healing miracles.

Yet skeptical scholars often rule out miracles on the basis of an argument by the 18th century philosopher David Hume. At the risk of oversimplifying, Hume’s rationale (which is circular) runs like this: We cannot trust reports of miracles because no one trustworthy reports them.

Hume accepted his own circle (in which no one claimed to have witnessed miracles) as the standard. Had he lived today, with such reports as Pew Forum’s available to him, even Hume might have been forced to reconsider his stance. By comparison, his circular argument, which is nothing more than an assumption, seems impossibly weak today.

Surprised by Miracles

I’ve personally experienced healing, and I witnessed healings after being filled with the Holy Spirit two days after my conversion from atheism in 1975. Yet little in my experience prepared me for the eyewitness accounts of raisings from the dead that I learned of as I collected research for what has turned into a book.

I didn’t set out to write on miracles. I was writing on the historical reliability of the Gospels and simply planned to counter scholarly skepticism about miracles by citing a few modern examples in a footnote. The note, however, grew into a chapter, and after 100 pages I realized I was on to something bigger. It now looks like the book (currently being edited for publication) may be 1,000 pages. Despite including hundreds of accounts of healings, I’ve barely scratched the surface of reports that are available.

These include multiple accounts of the mother of all healings: being raised from the dead. The skepticism that dismisses miraculous cures as merely psychosomatic fails hopelessly in the case of anyone coming back to life. Yet I’ve come across more than 150 such accounts from 50-plus sources in the course of researching.

Given my limited sample size, this number is at most a small fraction of such accounts today. I lack the means to verify some of the reports, but a number of others come from people I know personally or have other reason to trust.

There is the raising of a man pronounced dead in a hospital in Sri Lanka, deceased for roughly 24 hours. Because of communication problems his friends were unaware he had died and kept praying for him. His raising is attested by a friend of mine and known by eyewitnesses there.

A woman I know in the Philippines died from liver cancer. At the morgue, a Baptist pastor—a woman who wasn’t even sure if she believed in divine healing—for some reason prayed over the corpse, and my friend returned to life. Her liver cancer instantly disappeared.

A Nigerian friend of mine shared several miraculous accounts with me. In one, he prayed over a boy’s body for a few hours until he returned to life.

When visiting with my wife in her country, the Congo, I interviewed various laypersons in her circle. These were people known for praying, and all are members of the traditional Protestant denomination there. In the process, I heard seven eyewitness reports of raisings.

“Mama” Jeanne Mabiala shared several cases with me. In one of these, a family brought the corpse of a young woman who had just died after a lengthy illness and laid it on the mat Mama Jeanne used for prayer. She ordered the family out so she and her friends could pray.

The family kept looking in the window to see what would happen. As Mama Jeanne began to call the woman’s name, Marie, she returned to life.

In another, a grandfather was already building the coffin for his granddaughter, who was born dead with the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck, when Mama Jeanne prayed over the infant. The child returned to life and is in school today.

“Papa” Albert Bissouessoue said he shared his faith while working as a school inspector in another part of the country. Some eight hours after a 5-year-old girl had died, family members brought the corpse to Papa Bissouessoue.

Traditional healers had accomplished nothing for the child. Papa Bissouessoue urged her family to turn from other gods to the true God, then prayed for the girl for half an hour until she returned to life. Not surprisingly, a number of people became followers of Jesus after this event.

Why Not in America?

Last year I presented a paper at a secular scholars conference, noting that the eyewitness reports of miracles in many parts of the world today are similar to those recorded in the Bible. My guess is that some of my fellow scholars, unfamiliar with such claims, didn’t know what to make of them.

Yet even in that environment a Nigerian scholar, Ayodeji Adewuya, stood and shared two accounts he witnessed. The first was a miracle over nature; the second, the raising of his baby son 20 minutes after he had been pronounced dead in 1981—a son who recently received a master’s degree in London.

Obviously, not all miracles occurring today are overseas. I’ve researched many accounts of the miraculous here in the United States. But I have also found that some types of miracles seem more common elsewhere.

This begs the question: Why do reports of the miraculous seem to occur more frequently in other parts of the world than the U.S.?

I believe we should consider several reasons, as long as we keep in mind that miracles are signs of the kingdom—that is, they are foretastes of the world to come but not the fullness of the future world itself. All healing is partial and temporary; all of us will die if the Lord tarries. Given that, miracles whet our appetite for what the full life of the kingdom will be like.

First, in some places the need is incomparably greater than it is here. Just as God can provide food for us through natural resources, He can also provide healing for us through medical means.

In much of the world, though, our brothers and sisters in Christ have nothing to depend on except for God to heal them directly. Even in Africa, of course, most people who die remain dead. But God is compassionate toward His desperate children.

Second, we can expect to see signs especially on the cutting edge of evangelism. In the Bible, gifts of healings are for the church and need not be dramatic to accomplish their purpose. By contrast, signs and wonders are meant to draw unbelievers’ attention to the gospel; hence they tend to be more dramatic.

When Heidi Baker—who with her husband, Rolland, directs the interdenominational mission Iris Ministries in Africa—prays for the deaf in Muslim villages in Mozambique, they almost always are healed. Why? The honor of Jesus’ name is at stake, and God wants these Muslims to know how much Jesus loves them.

Several years ago, an Indian doctoral student at my seminary explained that his Baptist church in India had grown from a handful of members to about 600 through prayers for healing. He noted that even if I prayed for the sick in India, they would get healed; yet he was dismayed because no one he prayed for in the United States got healed. God was eager for the precious Hindus this man prayed for to know how much He loved them.

This isn’t to say that signs cannot happen in the context of evangelism here, even among ordinary Christians.

Years ago I was working at an apartment complex during summer vacation from college when an older woman confided to me that doctors had not been able to help her with her knee. So I knelt and prayed for her.

A few days later she returned and said her knee had been better since I prayed for it and that she wanted me to pray for her lungs. A chain smoker, she was coughing up blood. Her doctor thought she had lung cancer. After admonishing her not to smoke, I agreed to pray for her lungs.

“But whether God heals you, you need to be ready to meet Him someday,” I warned.

God did heal her lungs that day, but more importantly, she accepted Christ. Her healing that day was just a foretaste of God’s greater promises for her.

The third reason that healing is less common here is one we can do something about. Hume’s reasoning has not only influenced scholars to doubt but also permeated our culture with disbelief. True, not every claim about a miracle is genuine; there is a place for cautious investigation.

Yet unconsciously mixing our faith with the values of the world, many of us accept a God who acts privately in our hearts but harbor doubts that He will act openly on people’s bodies. Or to use biblical language, we have compromised with “holding to a form of godliness, although [we] have denied its power” (2 Tim. 3:5, NASB).

Often we also think of faith as a mental state void of doubt that we can work ourselves into. Yet real faith is a confidence in the loving God we know because we have an intimate relationship with Him.

Our reaction when we hear of a miracle ought to be the affirmation that God does do works like this today. Perhaps the more we learn to respond to these gifts in faith, the more apt we will be to experience them ourselves.

Craig S. Keener is professor of New Testament at Palmer Theological Seminary of Eastern University in Wynnewood, Pa. He is the author of 16 books. His two latest books, Miracles and A Commentary on Acts, are forthcoming.

人生funny不funny?

2011-10-27T16:47:00.002+08:00

人生本來是 happy，
辛辛苦苦去 study,
找到公作不 easy,
老板说我又 lazy,
到头还是没 money,
不如早点去 marry,
快点生一个 baby,
早上给她吃 roti,
晚上给她吃 curry,
Baby长大变 naughty,
让我每天很 angry,
慢慢我近 seventy,
到了明年就 mati,
一眼已经 history,
你说 funny不 funny?

(现在我在 library,
静静在读 theology.)

Lim Ka-Tong lectures on critical contextualization as reflected through the life and ministry of John Sung

2011-10-26T07:18:00.000+08:00

Yesterday morning Lim, whose biography on John Sung is published recently, gave a crash course on contextualization to us who are taking the course on 'Theology of Mission'. He highlighted many of the cultural issues that missionary face. Prior to stopping by Singapore, he was in Malaysia visiting many of those who have directly and indirectly transformed by Sung's ministry in the late 1930s. Lim was like the walking Google of the late legendary preacher; The most knowledgeable person on Sung that I have come across.

Book Review: 'The Life and Ministry of John Sung' by Lim Ka-Tong

2011-10-25T00:49:00.002+08:00

This book is probably the most detailed study on John Sung available so far. The author, Lim Ka-Tong, has helpfully condensed his 502-pages doctoral thesis submitted to Asbury Theological Seminary in 2009 into this important guide into the life of one of the most well known preachers of 20th century southeast Asia.

The book is structured into 7 parts, 37 chapters, 1 introduction and 1 conclusion. Within each chapter, Lim further categorized the content into sub-chapters. This makes the book tremendously easy to read!

Lim introduces this biography not simply as a story about a person but "a fruitful venue for theologizing" in a "quest for an authentic Asian Christian theology." (p.xiv) The biography in enriching the "cultural worldview of Chinese Christianity, and its effect on the intellectual and affective realm will make truth tangible and real." (p.xviii)

Part 1 of the book describes the historical setting of Sung's world by briefly jotting down the socio-political situation, the condition of Chinese Churches, and the theological controversy in the early 20th century. Lim highlights the love-hate relationship the Chinese in China had towards foreigners.

On one hand, the locals "embraced Western learning and scientific knowledge wholeheartedly" yet on another hand, "deeply resentful of the West". (p.6) The missionary activities and local Churches are caught in this ironic relation. The anti-Christian movement is chronologically distinguished into 3 different waves which took place from 1920 to 1927. It is very interesting that Lim attributed the famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell, who traveled and lectured "extensively" in China between 1919 to 1921, as one of the causes of the anti-Christian movement in China.

During those years, the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy" was not confined only in America. The Bible Union of China is formed as a response to the threats of theological liberalism. Lim pointed to the exchange between Browell Gage and D. E. Hoster as evident of this controversy. The former wrote an article titled 'Why I Cannot Join the Bible Union' in January 1921 issue of The Chinese Recorder. The latter, who was then the director of the China Inland Mission, responded with an article titled 'Why I Have Joined the Bible Union of China' in July 1921. As the result of theological liberalism, the missionary activities are significantly affected.

In Part 2, the book traces Sung's early years from his birth to his release from the Bloomingdale Asylum. Lim patiently recollects Sung's academic pursuit in America, his active involvement in the "Social Gospel", and his various struggles which resulted his admission into asylum. This section has proved to be my favorite in the book, for I am especially interested to learn more about Sung's experience and encounter in that time.

Sung picked up English language, toiled tirelessly to finance his undergraduate study, actively promoted interracial bonding during the segregation period, and received his Ph.D in Chemistry from the Ohio State University at the age of 24. However, it was also within this period that Sung unconsciously adopted scientism and naturalism. Hence as he went further into his studies, he was not able to relate his academic pursuit with the Christian faith he has brought up with. His enrollment into Union Theological Seminary in New York did not help the problem he faced. This struggle has prolonged and caused him to fell into depression.

After his "breakthrough" from the depression in one evening, Sung spent the following week confronting fellow students and professors at the seminary, scolding and pleading them to repent. (p.66) The seminary thought that it would be to Sung's good to have him admitted into Bloomingdale Asylum. The seminary generously paid for Sung's 6-months treatment at the hospital.

Lim used Chapter 11 to assess Sung's mental illness. The hospital record shows that Sung was diagnosed with "Dementia praecox" (schizophrenia) but Lim argued that Sung remained sane throughout his stay at Bloomingdale. (p.69-72) In my view, Lim could be more careful in explaining Sung's predicament. This lack has resulted in a mistaken view on Sung's status as "an icon of Chinese Evangelicalism" (Chapter 36), which shall be pointed out below after my reconstruction of Sung's trouble.

As I see it, Sung's problem originated in his inability to relate his academic pursuit with his Christian religion. We know that Sung enjoyed the intellectual engagement with science (p.56-57) although the subject does not provide him the spiritual fulfillment he used to experience through his faith (as epitomized in his reminiscence of the encounter with 14-years-old evangelist Uldine Mabelle Utley, p.61-63). To Sung, science and Christianity is mutually contradictory (the so-called 'conflict thesis'). After all, it was this intense conflict between two desires (the 'scientist Sung' and 'preacher Sung') that threw him into depression. (p.52-64)

The "breakthrough" that Sung experienced can therefore be understood as an event when Sung has decided to abandon his intellectual engagement entirely for the sake of spiritual fulfillment. Hence, contra Lim, Bloomingdale may be correct to diagnosed Sung as schizophrenic. Therefore Lim's view that "Sung was normal during his whole stay at hospital" (p.70) deserves re-examination. Due to this, Lim wrongly interprets Sung's derogatory reference (written on his second day at the asylum) to the "Spirit of Christ" as "dog" as evident of Sung being Americanized. (p.72) If I am correct in my assessment, this reference is the manifestation of Sung's schizophrenia; He loved and hated the unresolvable conflicting position he found himself in.

To be clear, Sung has already decided which personality he wanted to be before being admitted into Bloomingdale. His stay there would be the period for him to adapt to his decided personality as the preacher Sung, and the asylum's assessment on him was a reflection of this process of adaptation.

If this is true, then Lim's view of Sung as "an icon of Chinese Evangelicalism" for reasons like he affirms the Bible "as the Word of God" as a "scientist" is mistaken. We have to understand that the 'scientist Sung' is already gone when Sung decided to be 'preacher Sung'. Lim may have overlooked this as he himself has recorded Sung's own testimony said in 1938, "[As] a scientist, I believed in natural laws and did not believe in the existence of God. I was against the teaching of the Bible. There's no heaven, and there's no hell." (p.57, emphasis added) Therefore we have to reckon that Sung's famed status as a Ph.D holder in Chemistry, which is one main reason for his popularity, is not representative of the preacher Sung. The scientist Sung is not the preacher Sung; the two personalities are mutual contradicting to Sung himself.

Part 3 to 7 of the book records the life and ministry of the preacher Sung. These chapters contain fascinating accounts of Sung's evangelistic, healing, and Bible-teaching ministries. There are recorded numbers of conversion from a few to the thousands through Sung's rallies. Lim also mentioned Sung's negligence of his family, his bad working relationship with colleagues like Andrew Gih, his encounter with Pentecostalism and theology of the Holy Spirit, his constant scolding of other preachers, his medical condition that led to his death, and his struggles with pride--trying to prove himself as better preacher than others. Despite Sung's flaws, it is amazing to learn of his passionate outreach that spanned across not only China but also almost all parts of southeast Asia. Bear in mind that all those travelings happened in the 1930s!

The conclusion is Lim's constructive sketch of what we can learn from the life and ministry of Sung. Lim explored and developed various theological themes based on the biographical data he provided. One of the many insights that I find helpful is Lim's distinguishing between "Encountering the Power" from "Power Encounter" drawn from Sung's teaching. The former focuses on the process and the fruit of the Spirit, while the latter on the event and the gift of the Spirit. It prompts me to ask what should a present Christian ministry look for? May be Sung himself has asked this numerous times. And the answer to this question could be the very reason that led Sung to work through his life and ministry in the way that he did.

'The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty' by Abdullah Saeed

2011-10-23T22:49:00.000+08:00

(This article is originally published at First Things website for the November 2011 issue [H/T: Andreas Pilipus].)

The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty
A close reading of the Qur’an and the Prophet leads to supporting religious tolerance.
Abdullah Saeed

The words of the Qur’an and hadith contain rich resources for supporting the democratic order. If Muslims are to embrace modernity, including life in a pluralistic, democratic society, without abandoning their faith, they must take up the argument for religious liberty that is embedded in their history and that stands at the center of their most sacred texts.

Although the broad thrust of the Qur’an and hadith supports religious liberty, many parts of these texts can be, and traditionally have been, interpreted as denying it. One example is a qur’anic verse that deals with the question of the jizyah, a tax on non-Muslims: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Q 9:29). The Prophet reportedly sometimes demands the death penalty for apostasy, the most obvious example of this being the hadith “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, Sahih, 9, 84, hadith 57).

These problematic texts are outweighed by the bulk of the texts and instruction provided by the two most important authorities in Islam, the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s actual practice. Both are remarkably supportive of the idea of individual and personal religious freedom.

The bedrock of the Islamic case for religious liberty is the Qur’an’s vision of the human person. The Qur’an’s anthropology—which is shared by Christianity and Judaism—views every human being as a creation of God, blessed with intellect and free will. God created humans “in the best of molds” (Q 95:4) and in doing so honored humanity and conferred on it special favors (Q 17:70). The Qur’an emphasizes that human beings have inherent worth and dignity. Further, it holds that God gave humankind the intellect and ability to discern between right and wrong (Q 17:15 and 6:104).

The Qur’an emphasizes free choice. “The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: Let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it,” it says (Q 18:29). And also: “Whoever chooses to follow the right path follows it but for his own good; and whoever goes astray goes but astray to his own hurt” (Q 17:15). Resoundingly, the Qur’an declares that “there shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (Q 2:256). Belief is an individual choice—or, rather, it is a choice involving the individual and God. Therefore forced conversions are simply unacceptable, and anyone who would use force rather than persuasion to promote religion must ignore the view of the person central to the Qur’an.

The capstone of the qur’anic case for religious liberty is the fact that not even the Prophet Muhammad could impose or force people to profess Islam. When people were unreceptive to the message of Islam, the Qur’an explicitly reminded him that he was never to resort to coercion: “Your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them [to believe]” (Q 88:21).

Evidence from Islamic history suggests that this view was held not only by Prophet Muhammad but also by his political successors. In one recorded example, an elderly Christian woman came to see the caliph Umar and then refused his invitation to embrace Islam. He became anxious that she might have perceived his invitation as compulsion. “O my Lord,” he said, expressing his remorse, “I have not intended to compel her, as I know that there must be no compulsion in religion. . . . [R]ighteousness has been explained and distinguished from misguidance.”

Unfortunately, many Muslim-majority countries have failed to follow the Prophet’s example. Muslims in these states face penalties for blasphemy, heresy, and, most famously, apostasy. Non-Muslims are barred from proselytizing and possessing or importing unsanctioned religious items, including Bibles. They face restrictions on the public practice of religion and strict limits on the building or renovation of places of worship. The government monitors their religious activities, raids private services, and sometimes harasses or imprisons non-Muslim believers simply for practicing their faith.

But the Qur’an says much to undercut such restrictions. On a practical level, it repeatedly emphasizes the role of the Prophet as teaching people about God rather than forcing them to convert to Islam. “The Apostle is not bound to do more than clearly deliver the message [entrusted to him]” (Q 24:54). Similarly, it urges readers to “pay heed, then, unto God and pay heed unto the Apostle; and if you turn away, [know that] Our Apostle’s only duty is a clear delivery of this message” (Q 64:12).

In fact, the Qur’an appears to afford a high degree of freedom to non-Muslims under Muslim rule, particularly Jews and Christians (sometimes known as the “people of the book”). Its relatively tolerant position gave way to restrictions that emerged approximately one hundred years after the death of Muhammad. At the time of the Prophet, the Qur’an clearly distinguished between those non-Muslims who were hostile to the emerging Muslim community and were prepared to use violence against it and those non-Muslims who desired to live peaceably. In passages from the last two years of the prophet’s time in Medina (631-2 c.e.), the Qur’an encouraged, and even commanded, Muslims to bring these hostile forces under the authority of the Muslim state. However, even when exhorting Muslims to fight their opponents, the Qur’an did not suggest that those engaged in hostilities should be forced to convert to Islam. Indeed, it drew a sharp line between enforcing recognition of state authority and forcing any change of religious belief.

So the Qur’an does not endorse use of the sword to force conversions to Islam. But does it command such means to stop conversion from Islam?

The answer, I believe, is no. The Qur’an itself does not prescribe any worldly penalty—let alone death—to those who leave Islam. There are two clear categories of apostasy in the Qur’an. The first concerns Muslims who profess Islam outwardly but who then attempt to destroy the Muslim community from within, using every opportunity to discredit the Prophet (Q 2:8–18). However, the Qur’an does not recommend the death penalty even for this group of religious hypocrites, or munafiqun.

The other category of apostasy concerns Muslims who reject Islam and then return to it, only to reject it again a second or even a third time, seesawing back and forth between Islam and their former religions (Q 4:137). In the case of these serial apostates, the Qur’an does not suggest the death penalty. It specifies only a severe punishment that they will suffer in the life after death—the same other-worldly punishment the Christian tradition reserved for apostates.

And in fact, in the first centuries of Islam after the Prophet’s death, when the community was more threatened from outside forces, the laws prohibiting apostasy, blasphemy, and heresy were used often against political and theological opponents, whereas at other times Muslim critics of Islam were allowed to remain and function within the Muslim community despite their controversial views.

That is the qur’anic teaching. What do the hadith, the collected traditions and sayings of the Prophet, say about religious liberty? Some appear to indicate that any Muslim who changes his or her religion should be killed. However, the hadith themselves offer no evidence to suggest that Prophet Muhammad himself ever imposed the death penalty for the mere act of conversion from Islam. For example, a hadith in Bukhari’s collection (one of the most important collections of hadith for Sunni Muslims) tells of a man who came to Medina and converted to Islam. Shortly after his arrival, however, he informed Prophet Muhammad that he wanted to return to his former religion. Far from punishing him with death, the Prophet let him go free, without imposing any penalty at all (Bukhari, Sahih, 9, 92, hadith 424). A contradiction, therefore, exists between certain sayings attributed to the Prophet and his actual conduct.

Of course, there are instances when the Prophet did impose the death penalty. What are we to make of them? In these cases, the accused had joined an enemy camp, or taken up arms against the Muslim community, or done something else that made their act more than a simple conversion. One version of an important hadith says: “A man who leaves Islam and engages in fighting against God and His Prophet shall be executed, crucified, or exiled.” (Abu Duwad, Sunan, 33, hadith 4339). The crime being singled out for punishment is not the simple changing of one’s faith but rather the definite choice to engage in war against the Muslim community.

Another hadith, attributed to the Prophet, affirms the idea that it is not simply a change of religion that warrants the death penalty for apostasy: “The blood of a Muslim who professes that there is no God but Allah and I am His Messenger is sacrosanct except in three cases: in the case of a married adulterer, one who has killed a human being, and one who has abandoned his religion, while splitting himself off from the community” (Muslim, Sahih, 16, hadith, 4152).). The reference here to “splitting himself off from the community” is interpreted to mean one who actively boycotts and challenges the community and its legitimate leadership.

The various hadith that appear to command Muslims to kill apostates from Islam must, therefore, be understood in their proper political context. Most Muslim scholars today rely on the legal reasoning of the classical jurists without considering whether their reasoning should be considered authoritative or how changed political and legal conditions should shape our reception of that tradition’s authoritative elements. In the view of Muhammad Mutawalli al-Sha’rawi, for example, a preacher from Egypt, the liberty of a Muslim is restricted in that a Muslim may not leave Islam once he becomes a Muslim. He argues that although a person is free to believe or not to believe in Islam, once he has embraced the Islamic faith he is subject to all of its requirements, including the contemporary stand on apostasy and its punishment.

At the time of Prophet Muhammad there was no “state” as such. A tribal system was in place in much of Arabia in the sixth and early seventh centuries. With the rise of Islam and its consolidation in Medina during the last decade of the Prophet’s life (622–32 c.e.), converts to Islam from various tribes joined a community that was political as well as religious. Given the ongoing hostility between the Muslims and their opponents, conversion from Islam generally meant that a person left the Muslim community and joined its opponents. Apostasy was the equivalent of treason.

If the Qur’an does not speak against religious liberty, and if the evidence from relevant hadith is weak, how can we account for the restrictions on religious liberty in Muslim-majority states? Most of these restrictions can be traced back to classical Islamic law. The classical legal texts from each of the surviving schools of Islamic law provide a range of restrictions on the religious liberty of both non-Muslims and Muslims. These are not inevitable developments of Islam’s two most authoritative sources, the Qur’an and the Prophet’s actual practice, but rather a contestable departure from them.

About one hundred years after the death of the Prophet, Muslim theologians and jurists during the Umayyad dynasty began to define Muslim and community. Discussions of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims and of Islam’s superiority over other religions were intertwined with theological debates over matters such as free will, predestination, and the nature of God. These debates produced a wide range of positions and schools of thought. It was within this context of religious pluralism and conflict that Muslims had to deal with the problem of religious liberty.

Over time, limits on religious liberty for non-Muslims were added. These included restrictions on the building of places of worship, public readings of Scripture, and the ability of non-Muslims to engage publicly in certain activities that Muslims considered forbidden (such as drinking alcohol) if these non-Muslims were living in Muslim communities. It is far from clear how consistently or stringently the restrictions were applied in practice. Like apostasy law, they may have been used only at particular times of uncertainty, difficulty, or tensions with an external enemy.

Although these restrictions have come to form an influential part of classical Islamic law, non-Muslims under Muslim rule generally have been granted the prerogative to manage their own affairs (including religious affairs) from the time of the Prophet Muhammad onward. This practice was adhered to in various Muslim empires (from the Umayyad through to the Abbasid and the Ottoman). One example is the “millet system” established by the Ottoman Empire. One of the major challenges for the Ottomans was finding ways to govern the broad array of people, religions, cultures, and languages contained within their empire. Under the millet system, the Ottomans gave people of various religious traditions the right to practice their own religion and preserved their places of worship, provided they recognized the Ottoman state and the superiority of Islam.

With these arrangements in place, Ottoman society remained generally free of large-scale religious conflict for centuries. Even the Jews fleeing persecution in Spain found that they were welcome in Ottoman lands. This tolerance did not necessarily result in full equality or equal citizenship (which are, in any case, relatively modern concepts even in the West), but non-Muslims nonetheless rose to prominence in many Muslim states.

Today there is some movement toward Muslim acceptance of religious liberty. In global legal terms, religious liberty receives its primary definition from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been incorporated into other international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Many Muslim-majority states have even signed and ratified the ICCPR, which contains the wording of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration, with some minor changes. The article reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Though they may continue to flout these ideals, the many Muslim-majority countries that have accepted this statement have, in some minimal legal sense, already committed themselves to the ideal of religious liberty.

Sadly, the implementation of this standard continues to be painfully slow because of certain trends within Islam. At a time when a number of ultraconservative voices appear to be dominating the discourse in many parts of the Muslim world, Muslim scholars who advocate for religious liberty are fiercely opposed. They are often labeled as stooges of the West or accused of being apostates or heretics. Many such scholars in Muslim nations are imprisoned for their views or have their publications banned. My book Freedom of Religion and Apostasy in Islam was banned in the Maldives in 2008 after a targeted campaign against my coauthor (and brother) Hassan Saeed by certain politicians and an ultraconservative group.

Despite current challenges, the degree of freedom available to many Muslims, particularly those who are based in intellectually free societies

(many of which are in the West), can be used to challenge those who threaten religious liberty. Muslims, who now make up roughly 20 percent of the world’s population, have a political and religious duty to take into account the important values and norms that have extensive grounding in Islam’s most sacred texts and its own tradition. In doing so, Muslim thinkers will be returning to their most important sources of authority, the Qur’an and the Prophet, in support of tolerance and religious liberty.

Abdullah Saeed is the Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne, Australia. This essay includes material delivered in a lecture given to the James Madison Program at Princeton University.

Freeman J. Dyson on the mystery of the origin of life

2011-10-18T10:47:00.000+08:00

Freeman J. Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Mathematical Physics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Advanced Study's School of Natural Sciences, acknowledges the mystery of the origin of life in the face of all the fancy claims postulated by scientists (H/T: Uncommon Descent):

"The origin of life is the deepest mystery in the whole of science. Many books and learned papers have been written about it, but it remains a mystery. There is an enormous gap between the simplest living cell and the most complicated naturally occurring mixture of nonliving chemicals. We have no idea when and how and where this gap was crossed. We only know that it was crossed somehow, either on Earth or on Mars or in some other place from which the ancestors of life on Earth might have come."
(Freeman J. Dyson, A Many-Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe [USA: University of Virginia Press, 2010], p. 104. Emphasis added.)

The Church should be above politics?

2011-10-16T23:31:00.000+08:00

Should it? Or, should we find out what do we mean by 'above' politics? In the sense the Church is floating and so passing by all matters political, untouched and untainted by them?

The Church concerns only with God and what God has done, is doing, and will do with his people. In this sense, there are indeed areas that the Church bypasses without needing to give any regard, for eg. the vague scenario whether should you eat cabbage or broccoli at the hawker's center tomorrow. Hence the question is not whether should the Church float above politics, but is politics included in what God has done, is doing, and will do with his people?

As citizens of a nation-state and people who confesses allegiance to God and his Christ, the Church is inevitably overlapped by anything non-Church that are located within the shared national border and policy. This overlap means that the politics of the non-Church may occasionally spill over into the Church, and vice versa. So, if politics affects the Church, then the Church cannot help but to engage it. In other words, the Church should not float above politics.

One may object by saying that anything political is dirty and therefore the Church should not have anything to do with it. But isn't the Church itself dirty, filled with weed? (Matthew 13:24-30) So should we then ask the stupid question, should then the Church floats above itself? Or should we pretend that the Church consists of utopian human beings who have no qualm giving up their parking lot to other Church members during Sunday service?

If politics is part and parcel of the Church, and if national politics and the Church mutually affects each other, then in order to do Church, we have to do politics. And here lies a fundamental question to ask: What does it mean for the Church to do politics?

From that one question springs other questions: Does doing politics mean having the parliament filled with Church people? Does it mean legislating laws based on obligations that are meant only for the people of God? Does it mean 'Christendom'? If it is, then what is 'Christendom'?

There are of course many other questions that we can ask. However, the point of this post is simply to point out that the Church does not and should not be above politics. In any case, the Church is called to be precisely what it is not: the light and salt in a world that overbears upon the people of God.

A recent example of how this is played out is Rowan Williams' meeting with Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe.

"The Archbishop of Canterbury is using his moral authority to persuade Mugabe to desist and repent. He denounces the injustices and demands change. It may not work, of course, but merely by visiting the land and speaking out, he manifests humanitarian conviction and moral fibre. He shames our politicians and eclipses other church leaders as he confronts face-to-face that which is largely ignored by the African Union, the British Government, the US, the EU and the UN."
(Cranmer blog: The Archbishop of Canterbury shames our politicians, dated 11 October 2011, http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/10/archbishop-of-canterbury-shames-our.html [accessed 16 October 2011], emphasis added).

A historico-theological approach to understand the significance of 'homoousios' to theology proper

2011-10-01T08:10:00.000+08:00

There is a popular rumor about the Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, having imported foreign categories into theology proper. It charges that Christianity's understanding of Jesus Christ since the fourth century is deeply infiltrated by paganistic Greek philosophy.

The famous case is none other than the word homoousios' (Greek: 'of the same substance'), which is seen as a dubious theological imposition on the earliest Christians' historical experience of God and Jesus, to which has since distorted the (trinitarian) idea of divinity in the consciousness of the Church. To inquire into this matter, we may look back into the uncompromising dispute between Arius and Athanasius.

The Alexandrian presbyter Arius and his followers (Arians) challenged one of the most sacred conviction among the Christians in the fourth century. They proposed that Christ is not God but simply a pristine being created by God. Hence the Son does not exist eternally.

The main person who was more than able to engage the Arians was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria at that time. He insisted that the Son exists eternally along God and shares the same divine nature. Although Athanasius is not the one who introduces the term homoousios to the world, he is the best known defender of it in that century.

Hence if homoousios is an invalid theological construct, we would have Athanasius to blame. But we have to ask whether is this the case?

Those of the view that the Bishop is responsible to corrupting Christianity's theology proper often do not realize what was at stake in the Arian controversy. Alasdair Heron has helpfully elaborated that the main contention in the dispute is due to the different paradigm held by Arius and Athanasius. To quote Heron extensively,

The origins of the Arian conception of God lay in the tradition of philosophical theology which had begun with Xenophanes. This took as axiomatic an absolute distinction between God and the world, which was closely bound up with equally radical disjunctions between the mind and the body, and between the intelligible and the sensible realms. Thus the being of God, while in one sense seen as totally separate from non-divine being, is yet implicitly conceived of as being epistemologically accessible to the mind whose vision is clarified and refined. Through self-knowledge lies the path to knowledge of God, and the being of God may be grasped and spoken in terms drawn from the mind's self-analysis, and then further qualified to take account of the difference even between the mind and God. [...] Athanasius does not entirely reject this sort of approach: it has a part to play in his theology, as in most Christian theology before and since. What he does insist on, however, is that this avenue to knowledge of God must be controlled by the fact that God himself has made himself known in Christ, and that it is with Christ as God that genuine knowledge of God must begin. Arius on the other hand never reaches the point where he can admit that Christ is God: his thought is wholly shaped by these other influences, and his epistemological starting-point is thus at the opposite pole from Athanasius.
(Alasdair I. C. Heron, 'Homoousios with the Father,' in The Incarnation: Ecumenical Studies in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed A. D. 381, ed. Thomas F. Torrance [UK: Handsel Press, 1981], pp.70-71. H/T: Leow Theng Huat.)

The Arians' paradigm is traced back to Xenophanes, while Athanasius' back to "the fact that God himself has made himself known in Christ". To understand Athanasius's point further, we may juxtapose it with the historical findings of Larry Hurtado,

To judge by NT writings, Jesus was not reverenced at the expense of God, but instead as the unique agent and expression of God (e.g., as God’s “Image,” “Son”), and in obedience to the one God, who has designated Jesus as the “Kyrios” to whom this robust cultic reverence is to be given.

In the historical context, it is a novel development: professing the “one God” of Israel and yet also including as rightful (even required) recipient of devotion a distinguishable, second figure. The NT evidences, not dreams of some future time when a messianic figure may be reverenced (as, e.g., in the “Similtudes” of 1 Enoch), but instead a real and dramatic re-formulation of regular devotional practice in historically identifiable circles of early Christians. Given the special significance attached to worship practice, the programmatic inclusion of Jesus as co-recipient/recipient of their devotion is remarkable.

Of course, these first Christians insisted that they remained true to the “monotheistic” stance inherited from the ancient Jewish tradition. But, judging by the actual way that they practiced their worship and larger devotional life, theirs was a distinguishable form of “monotheistic” practice involving the programmatic inclusion of Jesus along with God. (Emphasis added)

With this juxtaposition, we see that the theological term homoousios is not a distortion, but rather the approximated term that is considered to be the most appropriate constructed description of the earliest Christians' knowledge of God and Jesus.

It seems clear that Athanasius is well aware that homoousios is not a foreign imposition forced into the theology proper of the Church. In contrast to the Arians, who were too ready to perceive God and Jesus through Xenophanes' philosophy, Athanasius understood well the 'novelty' of the earliest Christians' encounter with God and Jesus. The employment of homoousious is therefore used as a restrictive category that prevents the perception of God from being corrupted by foreign ideology. And precisely because of its preventive function, the category enables Athanasius to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son as how it was encountered by the earliest believers. To him, the theological notion that Jesus shares the same divine nature as God is not something he pulled out from the air but a responsible exercise of historico-theological construction. Instead of being the epitome of the invasion of Greek philosophy on theology, homoousios is the necessary category to avoid precisely that during the fourth century.

3 things: Which upset you the most?

2011-09-26T00:09:00.004+08:00

From Tony Campolo, one of my favorite preachers:

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
(Christianity Today website: Ted Olsen, The Positive Prophet, dated 1 January 2003, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/january/1.32.html [accessed 26 September 2011]. H/T: Dante Lum.)

Malaysia is a political theology: A deliberation on promise and doctrine

2011-09-23T01:25:00.000+08:00

Malaysia is a political theology... Look at our National Pledge and Principles (taken from The Malaysia Government's Official Portal: Rukunegara, http://www.malaysia.gov.my/EN/Main/MsianGov/GovRukunegara/Pages/GovRukunegara.aspx [accessed 22 September 2011]):

Our Nation, Malaysia is dedicated to: Achieving a greater unity for all her people; maintaining a democratic way of life; creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably distributed; ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural tradition, and building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology.

We, the people of Malaysia, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends, guided by these principles:
Belief in God
Loyalty to King and Country
Upholding the Constitution
Sovereignty of the Law, and
Good Behaviour and Morality

Malaysia continue to exists through these pledges and principles which are fundamentally ideologies containing hopes and imagination.

As an entity that is spoken into being, Malaysia is a speech, a word, a logos. Its creatureliness lies in the verbalization of promises and doctrines.

As logos of promise and doctrine, all creativity, non-creativity, productivity and non-productivity within this nation are extensions of itself, realities created in its own images of pledge and principles. Malaysia is political theology is a claimant of this basic national experience.

If Malaysia is a speech, its society is the sensibility of that speech. What is understood from a speech is by the grasping of its sensibleness. The ability to make sense presumes congruence. And congruence is predisposed to negotiation. And negotiation subsists by contradiction. And at the core of contradiction is politics.

Therefore to do Malaysia is to make sense of the promises and doctrines of the nation. To deliberate the doing is to engage in the politics of pledge and principles. If the national pledge is principled on the belief in God, then doing Malaysia is doing theology. And doing theology is doing Malaysian politics.

If Malaysia is political theology that is spoken into being, is it not also the creature of promise and doctrine; is it not a creation of divine speech?

If the Malaysian society is the sensibility of its political theology, is it not also the possibility and confirmation of congruence, negotiation and contradiction of the logos; are not its creativity, non-creativity, productivity and non-productivity extensions of its pledge and principles?

If the answer is 'yes' to these two questions, then the Malaysian social realities are politico-theological imaginary shaped by promises and doctrines. That makes the social activity or movement in the country the deliberation of orthodoxy; what promises and which doctrines?

The Christian's first contribution can then be the grasping of this basic national experience. That Malaysia is a political theology. The next question is of course, what then makes up the Malaysian promises and doctrines, and how can the Christian heritage deliberate along this process of making up?

Hurtado-ian perspective on Trinitarian and Christological controversies

2011-09-22T14:00:00.001+08:00

Some thoughts on the relationship between theology and biblical studies:

(Larry) Hurtado-ian perspective concerns over the peculiar historical phenomena where a group of monotheistic Jewish people pay homage to a human person along with their devotion to one God.

To read historical theology particularly the 3rd and 4th theological controversies over God through the Hurtado-ian lens is to see these debates as the various Christian communities' articulation of the earliest Christians' experience of Jesus Christ.

What these Church Fathers were doing through the ecumenical councils is to adjudicate the best theological judgment over the historical devotion exemplified by their religious ancestors.

Divided scholarship among the Christian populace

2011-09-09T20:28:00.000+08:00

The moment I finished reading Tim Grass' fine biography of F. F. Bruce, I thought to myself how wonderful it would be if someone writes a biography of contemporary biblical scholars like Larry Hurtado and James D. G. Dunn?

These scholars are highly regarded in the academia while only relatively known among the wider Christian community. I remember recommending a local scholar as the speaker to an upcoming conference to my planning committee, and none of them have heard about him. I have to admit my surprise. The committee members are all my senior and have been around the Christian circles for decades yet they have no idea who the scholar is.

After I put down Grass' book, I googled to find out if there are other biographies about biblical scholars of previous or our generation. Found a few autobiographies. Then I chanced upon John Stackhouse' brief recollection of Hurtado's life leading up to his appointment at the University of Edinburgh. They were colleagues at the University of Manitoba.

I did not know that Hurtado was born in America. I always have the impression that he is from UK.

Stackhouse mentioned something very interesting:

Indeed, given how brilliantly and accessibly Larry speaks, it remains a scandal to me that he has not been asked to address major conferences such as InterVarsity’s Urbana, Lausanne meetings, WCC conferences, and more. But so few leaders of popular church movements do pay attention to scholarship nowadays that I am not as disappointed as I used to be. If you work for years as a faithful interpreter of Scripture and early church history at the highest levels, no matter how well you speak or write, I’m afraid you have to aim pretty low to show up on the radar of the people who seem to run those sorts of things.

The reason why this is interesting is because it coheres well with the sentiment felt among local scholars that I know. One of them recently told us how his research project is not appreciated by his Church and the local Christian community. He lamented that, "the church leaders have completely no clue/interest in my academic research."

There is strong resistance from the wider Christian community to reject whatever they are not familiar with or see value in them.

Take for example, recently I asked a para-Church organization whether they interested to learn textual criticism and reliability of the NT from local scholar, who is also a great expositor of the scripture. They said that the fact that they are Christians means that the NT is by default reliable to them and hence there is no need to learn. Obviously, they have no idea that Bart Ehrman was a Christian.

So it really is not surprising that Hurtado is not invited to be the speaker to major conferences like Lausanne meetings. To the wider Christian community, the fact that Christ is worshipped as god by the earliest believers (Hurtado's lifelong research interest) is by default a tautology. Hence needless to invite someone to preach on tautology.

But then is not the mandate to proclaim the gospel a tautology to Christians too? Why is the Christian populace prizes one over the other?

Marriage, divorce and re-marriage of the same divorced couple: Ancient Israelite and present Singaporean practices

2011-09-08T13:11:00.012+08:00

I. Ancient practices

In the times when Deuteronomy was first read, marital status is legitimatised, sustained, and recognized by the religious-communal system which consists of but not limited to (1) the married couple’s praxis according to YHWH’s ordinance[1], (2) the theological emphasis on marriage as covenant,[2] (3) the accountability by immediate family members that uphold the marriage (which is presumed by the practice of ‘Levirate marriage’[3]), and (4) the governance of marriage through the theological concept of ‘holiness and defilement’[4] ruled by a group of elders.[5] The civil and legal affairs of the community are grounded in their religion. Within this system, marital matters are part of the community’s corporate worship and the individual’s relationship with God. [6] This is the common assumption in the ancient world. Therefore inter-religious marriages are not encouraged nor allowed in general because to marry to someone of a different religion entails participation in the other person’s religion (Deuteronomy 7:3-4, 1 Kings 11:7-10, Ezra 9:1-2, 10:2-3, 10-11 and Malachi 2:11).[7] For that, the ancient Israelites’ marriage contract, ‘ketubah,’[8] is the manifestation of the religious meaning in practical terms.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 permits divorce. Although the Shammai and Hillel schools differ with each other on the ground for divorce, both agree that divorce is permissible. Other rabbis think likewise though emphasize that divorce is undesirable on the basis of the religious-communal system (Babylonian Talmud Gittin 90b[9]). Two other famous first century Jewish teachers teach against divorce because it contradicts the institution of marriage.[10] Apparently one of them thinks that divorce is to limit a problem and not the authorization for its permeation by misunderstanding this allowance as divine endorsement (as God’s will).[11] Some commentators suggest that the production of divorce certificate is to protect the defenceless woman.[12] I think it is more likely that the certificate is meant to secure the woman from being reclaimed by her former husband when she is already married to another man and so to prevent her and her new husband from being executed for committing adultery as per Deuteronomy 22:22.[13] Hence it is not merely to protect the woman but both herself and her new husband.[14] In other words, divorce is permitted to control post-divorce consequences. For this reason, the religious-communal system treats divorce as a contingency and contradiction against the institution of marriage.

In Deuteronomy 24:4, the remarriage of the same divorced couple—after the wife had other marriage(s) that ended either by natural death of or divorce with her subsequent husband(s)—is forbidden because it “is an abomination before the LORD.” Among other reasons,[15] this ordinance serves to “discourage hasty divorces by requiring a man to stipulate a reason for divorce in writing, and also by prohibiting him from remarrying his divorced wife.”[16]

II. Present Singapore practices for non-Muslims[17]

The practice of marriage and divorce is the change of one’s marital status before the Singapore State through the Women’s Charter. It is understood that “before the Women's Charter was passed by the People's Action Party (P. A. P.) government in 1961, there existed in Singapore as many different forms of marriage as the different ethnic communities had commonly practised in their home countries, according to their own cultural-religious traditions. Once the P. A. P. came into power, one of its first tasks was to bring order and uniformity into the prevailing legal chaos.”[18] In other words, marriage and divorce in the present Singapore is not located within a religious-communal system like that of the ancient Israelites. Rather, it belongs to a civil-contractual system. Marital affairs as practiced in the civil-contractual system is legitimatised and sustained by the apparatuses of the State, where civil and legal affairs are grounded in secular morality even though it is an inheritance of the religious-communal system. The Registry of Marriages deliberates upon all marriages regardless of customary and/or religious consideration.[19] For that, marriage contract is an end in itself without any religious meaning besides being an apparatus, ‘proof,’ for legal purposes.[20] (Therefore polygamous or polygynous marriages can be charged under section 494 of the Penal Code even in cases where such unions are arranged in the name of custom/religion.[21]) In short, only the apparatuses of the civil-contractual system can make effective any marital arrangement. The religious-communal system is basically invalid (the Muslim community is an exception) since all civil and legal affairs are grounded in secular moral paradigm.[22]

Under the civil-contractual system, divorce is a legal proviso to “minimize bitterness, distress and humiliation experienced by the parties, and to achieve a harmonious resolution of the most painful dispute anyone can experience in the course of their lives.”[23] In other words, it is an allowance for struggling married couples to be liberated from pre-divorce problems.[24] If marriage instituted in this system is an inheritance of the religious-communal system but devoid of its theology[25] and hence a parody of the latter, then divorce is the remedy of the former’s own farce.

Should the divorced couple decide to marry with one another again, they are allowed to do so. And their remarriage is not considered as a reactivation of their previous marriage but a new marriage under the Registry of Marriage in Singapore.[26]

[1] Genesis 2:24 is a stipulation based on the theological understanding described in Genesis 2:20 – 23. ‘4Q Sapiential work A’ from the Dead Sea Scroll records “Walk together with the helpmate of your flesh according to the statute engraved by God that man should leave his father and his mother… and that they should become one flesh.” (As quoted in John J. Collins, 'Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second Temple Judaism' in Leo G. Perdue, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins, & Carol Meyers, Families in Ancient Israel [USA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], p.127. Emphasis added.)

[2] Malachi 2:14.

[3] Although Genesis 38:8 and Deuteronomy 25:5-6 oblige the brother-in-law to marry his widow and childless sister-in-law to carry on the deceased brother’s name (the ‘yibbum’ practice), there is the ceremony of ‘halizah’ where such obligation can be avoided as testified in the Babylonian Talmud: “At first, when the object was the fulfilment of the commandment, the precept of the levirate marriage was preferable to that of halizah; now, however, when the object is not the fulfilment of the commandment, the precept of halizah, it was laid down, is preferable to that of the levirate marriage. Rabbi said: ‘But no coercion may be used. […] If you wish, submit to halizah; if you prefer, contract the levirate marriage; the All Merciful has given you the choice: And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, implying, if he likes he may, whenever he wishes, submit to halizah or, if he prefers, contract the levirate marriage.'” (Come and Hear website: Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth, Folio 39b, http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_39.html [accessed 1 September 2011].)

[4] Leviticus 21.7, 14, 22:13 and Ezekiel 44:22

[5] Deuteronomy 22.15 – 18.

[6] Therefore I disagree with Daniel I. Block’s statement, “[Apart] from the fact that weddings were civil rather than religious affairs, the Old Testament provides little information on the nature of Israelite weddings,” (Daniel I. Block, ‘Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel’ in Ken M. Campbell, ed., Marriage and Family in the Biblical World [USA: IVP, 2003], p.44) and John J. Collins’ description of ancient Israelite marriages as non-religious and hence non-moral, “Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of these contracts from a modern viewpoint is precisely the consistent view of marriage as a contract. The witnesses are human, not divine. It is assumed that the arrangement can be terminated at will by either party, without necessarily entailing moral culpability.” (John J. Collins, 'Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second Temple Judaism' in Leo G. Perdue, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins, & Carol Meyers, Families in Ancient Israel [USA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], p.109.)

[7] This is the same concern why the present Shariah court does not allow inter-religious marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims. Singapore Statutes website: Administration of Muslim Law Act (Chapter 3): Part VI: Marriage and Divorce, http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-3 (accessed 5 September 2011).

[8] See the discussion on pages 188 to 198 in David W. Chapman, ‘Marriage and Family in Second Temple Judaism’ in Ken M. Campbell, ed., Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (USA: IVP, 2003), p.183 – 239.

[9] Pointed out in Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (USA: Hendrickson, 2005), p.356. The theological undesirability of divorce can be read in Babylonian Talmud Gittin 90b: “R. Eleazar said: If a man divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears, as it says, And this further ye do, ye cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with sighing, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, neither receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion and the wife of thy covenant.” (Come and See website: Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin, Folio 90b, http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_90.html#PARTb [accessed 28 July 2011].)

[10] Mark 10:5-9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

[11] Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27 – 16:20 (USA: Thomas Nelson, 2001), p.84.

[12] Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27 – 16:20 (USA: Thomas Nelson, 2001), p.84; William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), p.354; James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002), p.301.

[13] Although to Jesus the remarriage to another person by the one who initiated the divorce is considered adultery (Mark 10:11 – 12), it is not clear would the remarriage to another person by the one who received the divorce is considered as such as well.

[14] The certificate is the proof of the woman’s “freedom to remarry.” (Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy [USA: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], p.222.) Ben Witherington III may have implied this reading when he wrote “bill of divorce was required to be given to the woman, to make sure that she was no longer married.” Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001), p.276.

[15] Israel men may cite Deuteronomy 24:5 to defer from military service by divorcing and remarrying their wife. Deuteronomy 24:4 prevents such abuse. See Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10 – 34:12 (USA: Thomas Nelson, 2002), p.563.

[16] James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002), p.301.

[17] Muslim marriage does not come under the purview of the civil court but under the Syariah court in Singapore according to Women’s Charter Ordinance No. 18 of 1961; now Cap. 353 (4). Singapore Statutes website: Women’s Charter (Chapter 353), http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-353 (accessed 1 September 2011).

[18] Eddie C. Y. Kuo & Aline K. Wong, eds., The Contemporary Family in Singapore (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1979), p.8.

[19] The Registry of Marriages website: Frequently Asked Questions: Divorce, Question no. 7, http://app.customerfeedback.mcys.gov.sg/rom_faqmain.asp?strFaqSysid=200410411548&strItemChoice=2004101144855&strSubItemChoice=2004121394837&action=SHOWTOPICS&m_strTopicSysID=20041213101239#200410411548 (accessed 1 September 2011).

[20] “Every marriage register kept by the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar under the provisions of this Act and any copy of any entry therein certified under his hand and seal of office to be a true copy or extract shall be prima facie evidence in all courts and tribunals in Singapore of the dates and acts contained or set out in such marriage register, copy or extract.” (Singapore Statutes website: Women’s Charter (Chapter 353): Part V: Penalties and Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to Solemnization and Registration of Marriages, http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-353&doctitle=WOMEN%92S%20CHARTER%0a&date=latest&method=part (accessed 2 September 2011).

[21] Singapore Statutes website: Women’s Charter (Chapter 353): Part II: Monogamous Marriages, http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-353 (accessed 1 September 2011).

[22] “[The] law can continue to expound moral message to the divorced parties. It is a good law that aims to expound a moral message to a husband and wife both during the subsistence of their marriage and even on its termination by divorce.” (Leong Wai Kum, The Singapore Women's Charter: 50 Questions [Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011], p.119)

[23] Leong Wai Kum, The Singapore Women's Charter: 50 Questions (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011), p.68.

[24] Leong Wai Kum, The Singapore Women's Charter: 50 Questions (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011), p.65 – 119.

[25] See page 119 – 120 of Debbie Ong, ‘Reflections on the Law of Marriage & Divorce in Singapore’ in Daniel K. S. Koh and Kwa Kiem-Kiok eds., Issues of Law and Justice in Singapore: Some Christian Reflections (Singapore: Trinity Theological College and Genesis Books, 2009).

[26] This is confirmed by a personnel named “David” from the Registry of Marriages in Singapore. Phone conversation dated 1 September 2011. The same divorced couple who plans to remarry is required go through the same application as every other couple.

Why prayer life is important for preachers?

2011-08-22T00:12:00.004+08:00

Prayer is important in the life of a preacher because it is a summary, really, of the vocation of being a preacher. For a preacher, to pray is an immersion of the person’s life into the sea of conviction that the great impossible has happened.

The notion that the transcendent God, who is perfect and self-sufficient in every way, would take interest, not to mention the bloody trouble, to invite the preacher and the congregation to share in the divine life through Christ is simply an impossible thought. In our daily experience, we interact with others and invest in them only to seal some of our own lack, be it in the form of emotion, psyche, finance or physic. The sense of being absolutely self-sufficient is a state far removed from our grasp. We don’t relate with others without in some way the relation benefits us.

God being entirely satisfying by his nature doesn’t need to relate to us. Our experience, which is perennially surrounded by the effort to overcome our lacks, doesn’t give us the ability or the framework to understand the rationale that God would literally desire us to death. Either by experience or rational, the cross and the resurrection remain unimaginable. Unless of course that that is really the case.

Therefore prayer, more than fostering, is to serve as the ground that nourishes the preacher to be a preacher. It substantiates rather than supplements the calling of the preacher to proclaim the impossible.

Prayer, regardless of its audibility, stays as the amplification of the impossibility that heaven and earth have been reconnected. Hence a fervent prayer life of the preacher is like the resonance that vibrates so strong that the preacher’s presence itself testifies to how God’s kingdom has come upon our earthly city by Jesus’ death and resurrection.

In this way, rather than as an address to God, prayer is God’s address to us. It is via prayer that the preacher hears anew the story that he takes as the message to which his life proclaims for the rest of its allotted time. Cultivating a habitual prayer life can then be likened to amplifying the unimaginable message of God’s desire for us. The resounding reaches first to the preacher’s own being as a preacher, continuously nurturing him into a worthy messenger who is immersed in the factuality of divine love. From the preacher’s life, the resonance bounces off itself reaching unto the ear of the hearers. This is why prayer is important to a preacher’s life.

After writing the above to hand-in as an assignment, I think I've come to agree with what is written. Now enjoy this video:

Sketching as faith seeking understanding: A reflection on drawing Rowan Williams

2011-08-10T15:10:00.013+08:00

I sketched this last night as a break from my routine reading. Three reasons why this sketch.

First, I was curious whether I still able to sketch after haven't been doing it for many years. Second, I'm finding ways to reconnect the whatever little artistic skill that I have with the theology that I'm learning. Third, I always thought of drawing some theologians.

I took a photo and posted it on Facebook as a backup copy in case the hardcopy is lost.

A friend, Andy Lie, who is currently located in England, saw it and wrote, "You have somewhat restored the humanity into RDW compared with some of the caricatures in the British press."

Restored the humanity into RDW (Rowan Douglas Williams)? How so? All I wanted to do was to sketch.

Upon further thoughts, my friend who being in England is more sensitive to the media portrayal of Williams than I am. Therefore, it could be that this sketch though does not bear any restoring significance to me is seen by him with wider connotation and deeper meaning.

One can simply google through the various comical portraits of Williams in the British media and notice how each carries certain caricature. One can tell what is the press trying to say about it's impression of the person from the way the person is portrayed, not only through words, but also through their drawings and photos. The portraits represent in some sense the producer's attachment to the object.

Here is a reflection by Roland Chia that makes the point:

"[The] arts can be said to be that human activity which, by engaging with the materiality of the world, illumines in various media something about the world's depth and reality. Ther arts, therefore, can be said to be a way of knowing, a way of being and a way of doing. They represent knowledge of reality by reflecting on the meaning of the way things are: the world's being and becoming. Art is an activity because it is also a response to perceptions of reality. In this way, the arts, like everything else about human culture, cannot be understood in abstraction but must be located in a historical, cultural and social milieu."
(Roland Chia, 'Artistic Makings and Meanings: Contours of a Theology of the Arts,' in Sights and Sounds: A Christian Response to the Creative Arts and Media, ed. Robert M. Solomon and Lim K. Tham [Singapore: Genesis Books, 2006], p.9)

One may call Andy's reading of the sketch a 'dimensional disobedience'. This disobedience is not negative. It is disobedience, nonetheless, because the sketch does not carry the dimension perceived by the observer (Andy) when it is produced by the artist (me). In Williams' own words:

"The degree to which art is 'obedient'---not dependent on an artist's decisions or tastes---is manifest in the degree to which the product has dimension outside of its relation to the producer, the sense of alternative space around the image, of real time and contingency in narrative, of hinterland. [...] The artist does not exhaust the significance of his or her labour, but creates an object, a schema of perceptible data, that will have about it the same excess as the phenomena that stimulated the production in the first place. Art moves from and into a depth in the perceptible world that is contained neither in routine perception nor in the artist's conscious or unconscious purposes."
(Rowan Williams, Grace and Necessity: Reflections on Art and Love [UK: Continuum Books, 2005], p.147, 149-150.)

When I was sketching this piece, I found my hand being moved by various self-directed insistences and concerns: the face has to be thinner, needs more shadow at the bottom of the nose, the coat needs to be sketched in another direction to prevent the dwarfing of the body, and... the beard.

The most wearisome of all was that I would end up drawing Karl Marx.

There is always risk and fear throughout the process. For one, the pressures and insistences that moved the pencil in the best envisioning did not actually provide any glimpse of how the product would look like in the end. All that I had at that moment is solely the desire to see how would the finished work be, and the imagination that is driven by this desire.

Therefore to sketch is always to risk deviant representation of the object. With a few careless strokes, Rowan Williams becomes Karl Marx.

What's up with a group of Dutch Christians and Richard Hays and arts?

2011-08-08T19:09:00.005+08:00

It has been a while I has not written a What's up? post that highlights and comments on news that came to my attention. Here is a new one.

It is reported by BBC a group of Dutch people who identify themselves as Christians yet does not believe that God exists. Here's how one of the leaders describes their idea of God:

"When it happens, it happens down to earth, between you and me, between people, that's where it can happen. God is not a being at all... it's a word for experience, or human experience."

I think those who lived through the 60s, 70s, and 80s would be familiar with such 'God-is-dead' theology. It's nothing new, hence I puzzled over the news report to call this phenomenon 'new Christianity'. The media-giant BBC has amnesia?

Those Dutch clergymen featured in the news seem to have no idea that Don Cupitt and his cohort have tried this decades earlier. For that, I wouldn't expect them to have read Rowan Williams' critique on Cupitt.

Recently Richard Hays, one of the foremost New Testament expert of our time, writes on the relation between Christians and the arts. Here is the portion that I am intrigued by:

"How does the architecture of the buildings in which we live and work shape us? How do iTunes and Netflix tell us stories about who we are and what we should desire? How does the diction of advertising stunt our capacity to speak kindly and truthfully to one another? If theological education focuses only on ideas and fails to reflect on their artistic milieu, we will be quite literally tone-deaf or insensible to major elements of human experience, and we will fail to perceive ways in which the gospel may challenge and transform us."

Hays highlights something we often miss: the aesthetically pleasant things or beings around us tell stories. It tells us who we are and what we are becoming. Have we ever wonder why do we attracted to something and not other things? For that, possibly our preference for which visual and audio stimulant says more about us and our deep-held beliefs than the creed we profess.

Book Review: 'The Enduring Word: The Authority and Reliability of the Bible' by Robert M. Solomon

2011-08-04T16:35:00.001+08:00

This book is written to educate the general Christian population in order to help them deal with the issues raised by popular works by scholars in textual criticism, particularly Bart Ehrman.

Solomon in this work tries to cover all the major pertinent concerns surrounding the Bible such as the theology of scripture, the canonical process, the textual variants, and translation. With his gifted writing style, Solomon makes these topics easily accessible to those who have no exposure to them previously.

That is the strength of the work. It is a popular-level work meant to counter popular-level challenges.

When dealing with the theology of scripture, the author summarizes the various approaches to understanding the nature of the scripture. (Chapter 2)

Scripture is understood as the result of special revelation, that is the process proceeded from God's keenness to "make Himself known---He is keen to reveal His thoughts and purposes" directly to humans (p.20-21). The scripture is an inspired book which means it is "the unique inspired book in the world, in which God revealed Himself to humankind." (p.24)

Following Rene Pache, Solomon asserts that the "Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but is itself the Word of God." (p.24. Emphasis original) Yet there is a difference between the scripture and Jesus Christ who is also recognized as the Word of God. Therefore the bible should not be worshiped in the same way as Christ.

There are several theologies of scripture that Solomon rejects. First, the 'Spiritual Principles Theory', which teaches that only the spiritual principles in the Bible is inspired. 2 Peter 1:20 is quoted by Solomon to show that "All Scripture is inspired". (p.25. Emphasis original.)

The second rejected theology is the mechanical 'Dictation Theory' that affirms that the authors of the scripture are merely recorder of God's words and have no input of their own. Solomon thinks that inspiration is a "more complex and dynamic process than God merely dictating words to the writers," where the "human individuality" is involved. (p.25-26)

Solomon thinks that the most satisfactory theory to think about inspiration is one that he calls "Verbal-Plenary Inspiration" that affirms all scripture to be inspired dynamically. He thinks that this theory is confined only to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and is "not generally extended to the transmission (copying) and translation of those original autographs which are now not available to us." (p.29)

Besides inspiration, Solomon also stresses the theology of illumination that says that the Holy Spirit helps readers of the Bible to understand what they read, and the theology of inerrancy that teaches that "the original manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew were error-free and totally trustworthy." (p.30)

On top of that, Solomon seals his theology of scripture in divine providence to preserve the Biblical texts:

"Because of the nature of divine inspiration, the autographs or original manuscripts written in Hebrew (and Aramaic in a few places) and Greek cannot be with error. This protection against any error cannot be said of copies of the originals and translated versions. However, divine providence is still at work in the process of transmission and translation." (p.31)

Moving onto Chapter 3, Solomon turns his attention to the canonical process by laying a confessional statement that the Protestant canon is closed by referring to Deuteronomy 4.2 and Revelation 22.18-19. (p.38) Though his appeal to these two verses are anachronistic yet he can hardly be faulted since his appeal is on confessional ground. Nonetheless I think Solomon is assuming too much in this chapter. Three examples to show what I mean.

First, on page 41, Solomon writes:

"Jesus declared, "'Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.' Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:44-45). We have already seen how the Hebrew Bible was divided into three major sections---the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (the key book being Psalms). Jesus, in referring to all three major sections of the Hebrew Bible, gave further confirmation of the canon of the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament). This confirmation comes from none other than the Lord Himself."

There is an assumption in the above quote that (1) the word "Psalms" in Luke 24.44-45 refers to the "Writings" category of the Hebrew Bible, and (2) the Hebrew Bible was divided into three major sections---the Law, the Prophets and the Writings---in the time of Jesus.

Craig A. Evans provides several reasons why these two assumptions are doubtful:

(a) 4QMMT, a letter from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection, seems to list 4 categories of the Hebrew canon: 'Book of Moses', 'books of the Prophets', 'book of David', and 'chronicles of every generation'.

The category 'book of David', since it is separated from the 'chronicles of every generation', could well refers only to the Psalms and not the 'Writings' as Solomon assumes (as per the quote above and his list of the 'Writings' on page 38). Therefore we cannot be certain if there was a clear three division of the Hebrew Bible as Solomon assumes.

(b) Due to (1) the close correlation of the Psalms to the Prophets as seen in Dead Sea Scrolls, (2) that David is seen as a prophet (Acts 1.16, 2.30, 4.25), and (3) Psalms is recognized as prophecy (Acts 1.20), the phrase "the Prophets and the Psalms" in Luke 24.44 may best be read as one category.

The reading of this verse should be something like this: "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets (including the Psalms)."
(See Craig A. Evans, 'The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers' in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders [USA: Hendrickson, 2001], p.185-195)

Second, on page 44, Solomon writes:

"Jesus and the apostles, though they quote extensively from the canonical Old Testament books, never refer to the Apocrypha. Also, the New Testament writers, in quoting verses from the Septuagint, never used the Apocrypha."

Yet when we turn to Jude 14-15, we find parallels in 1 Enoch 1.9 and 60.8. Then we have early Church authorities like Athenagoras of Athens, Irenaeus of Gaul, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian of Carthage who recognize 1 Enoch as canonical, if not almost with the same status as the Old Testament. (See James C. Vanderkam, '1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,' in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, ed. James C. Vanderkam and William Adler [Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Comp. B. V., 1996], p.35-60.)

Although it is debatable whether did Jude actually refer to 1 Enoch or a tradition he received, the point is that Solomon is assuming too much that this issue is settled.

Third, we find on page 45:

"When it came to the Apocrypha, [Jerome] clearly differentiated between the Old Testament canonical books as authoritative in the canonical sense, and the Apocrypha as books that were not canonical but which had some spiritual value. [Solomon went on to cite Jerome's 'Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs']"

Solomon's selective usage of Jerome's work misrepresents Jerome's position. There are three letters that are dated to be written later than 'Preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs' show us another side of Jerome.

In these letters, passages from the Apocrypha are quoted side-by-side with Old Testament canonical works as if they bear similar authority:

At least that is what Solomon says: 'wisdom is the gray hair unto men’ [Wisdom 4:9]. Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion [Numbers 11:16]? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age [Story of Susannah 55-59].
(Letter to Paulinus.)

I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Psalm 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ezekiel 18:23] and those of Baruch, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] and many other proclamations made by the trumpets of the prophets.
(Letter to Oceanus.)

Does not the scripture [Sirach 13.2] say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power'...
(Letter to Eustochium.)

A five-points summary regarding the issue of Apocrypha is given on page 48. Although this book is not entirely about canonization, yet the discussion of these issues could be handled with more care.

The next two chapters are detailing the manuscript record of the Old and New Testaments. We are introduced to the various oldest copies of surviving manuscripts and their implication to the confidence to trust that the current biblical texts in our hand are reliably transmitted.

After that, Solomon dedicated a chapter discussing issues surrounding problematic texts like the ending of Mark's gospel and John 7.53-8.11, which apparently are not found in earliest manuscripts. In tackling these problems, Solomon relies heavily on the work of Bruce Metzger, who was the teacher of Bart Ehrman.

Next, the book describes and compares the different version of Bible widely used at the present. Solomon helpfully summarizes the translation philosophy of each version and provides a chart to guide readers to understand the differences between each version. (p.164)

The final chapter carries on what is being discussed in Chapter 2. After expressing his appreciation for the works that have been done and still doing in the field of textual criticism (p.172-173), Solomon raised three important theological aspects of scripture to the Christian community: (1) The Bible ought to be read, (2) the scripture is accessible and can be understood even after a long process of transmission and translation, and (3) God's Word is to be obeyed.

Overall, this is a remarkably easy-to-read book which lives up to its intended purpose. The author has also provided a Glossary section at the end of the book to facilitate readers with technical terms that are used in the book. This book can be used as a brief introduction for catechism in Churches. It is a good prelude on the extensive issues surrounding the Bible.

Book Review: 'From Christ to Social Practice' by Ng Kam Weng

2011-07-31T09:37:00.017+08:00

This book is originally the doctoral dissertation of Ng Kam Weng, the present Research Director of Kairos Research Centre in Malaysia, submitted to the University of Cambridge, under the supervision of Stephen Sykes who was then the Regius Professor of Divinity there.

The whole title of the book 'From Christ to Social Practice: Christological Foundations for Social Practice in the Theologies of Albrecht Ritschl, Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann' is already quite informative to the reader of what to expect.

The dissertation was done in the late 1980s and published in 1996 by Alliance Bible Seminary, Hong Kong. It is a research into the theology of three significant theologians, namely Albrecht Ritschl, Karl Barth, and Jürgen Moltmann.

Ng explores the social ethics produced by these three theologians from three different social conditions. He is interested to see how each's theological response to their social challenges is connected to their Christology. The purpose of this is to identify "theological resources [of these past theologians] relevant to a contemporary ethical problem." (p.6)

Ng expounds each theologian's social ethics within their overall Christological framework and so it is impossible to highlight all the important theological insights contained in the book. Therefore this review focuses only on Ng's appreciation and critique of their social ethics.

Ng sees Ritschl's social ethics as 'Social Influence' theory where Christians' obedience to Christ "will extend Christ's spiritual influence to and transform all social conditions." (p.38) That's why to Ritschl, Christian social practice should pervade social institutions as the "social shape of the kingdom [of God] is not totally dichotomised from nor discontinuous with existing forms of institutions." (p.39)

However, this does not mean Ritschl simply identifies the kingdom of God with the best social order and culture. He left this part without explanation. Ng critiques Ritschl's social ethics to be individualistic and has departed from his earlier insistence on communal effort for social engagement. (p.44) This weakness is rooted in Ritschl's "defective christology" that is devoid of "ontological, societal or cosmic significance." (p.48)

On Barth's social ethics, Ng points to a remarkable statement drawn from Church Dogmatics volume 3 on the theological nature of ethics:

"...ethical theory is not meant to provide man with a programme the implementation of which would be his life's goal. Nor is it meant to present man with principles to be interpreted, applied, and put into practice... Ethics exists to remind man of his confrontation with God, who is the light illuminating all his actions and before whom men must act responsibly." (p.63)

To Barth, ethics is when we place our life story within the context of the narrative of Jesus Christ by participating in the community founded by Christ. The community is more than just fellowship of believers,

"As a christocratic brotherhood, it consists of ordered relationships, implying the need for form, order and law having exemplary significance for the world. [This does not imply that] the community of Christ should impose its order over wider society. It does not pretend to be an exact fulfillment of the eschatological kingdom so much as a provisional representation. It is not a direct portrayal of God's design for human society. It is only a human society moving like all others to the eschatological manifestation of the kindgom. [...] The church exists as a paradigm community which demonstrates God's reconciliation within world history. [...] Jesus did not sanctify himself for his own sake nor for the sake of a little flock of believers but for all humanity. Neither is his community to exist for itself. His community exists to represent provisionally, but with certainty, the great alteration of the human situation secures in Jesus Christ." (p.107 - 108)

Ng's critique on Barth is that his social theology may contain the "dangerous tendency of losing touch with existing social realities." (p.196) That is to say that though the general framework provided by Barth is affirming and illuminating yet it remains to be demonstrated how this affects the challenges that the society is facing.

In addition, Ng discusses Barth's notorious rejection of natural theology and concludes that Barth does not entirely diminish the prospect of learning from social theories. For instance, Ng demonstrates that Barth accepts "descriptive anthropology" but rejects "speculative anthropology." (p.92)

For Moltmann, Ng points out his call for the church to "mediate the freedom of faith into the realm of social reality by creating in the realm of social reality practices that are "correspondences", "reflections" and "images" of the kingdom of God. It is true that the church is only an anticipation of the kingdom but precisely for that reason it has the task of representing the kingdom to wider society." (p.166)

Moltmann's social ethics can be broadly understood in the following quote Ng picked up from Richard Bauckham, an authority on Moltmann:

"The Church is paras pro toto: a preliminary and fragmentary part of the coming whole (the universal kingdom), and so representative of the whole for the sake of the rest of the world whose future the whole is. Consequently, the Church can only prove itself as an anticipation of the coming kingdom 'through intervention and self-giving for the future of others'." (p.167. Italics original.)

We see Barth's influence here on Moltmann. Ng appreciates and acknowledges Moltmann's effort in carrying Barth's social ethics further by grounding it in social realities, for example in dialogue with social theories. However, for that, and the way how it was carried out, Moltmann's position is seen by Ng to be "riddled with contradictions." (p.204)

Moltmann's drawing of a dialectical relationship between the Church and the society is perceived by Ng to have fell into a confusing category. If the Church is in a dialectical relationship with the society, that means the Church is opened to be influenced by social forces. For this, Ng concludes that "Moltmann's social practice remains arbitrary in that he failed to demonstrate that his specific social policies are the logical outcome of a dialogue between 'Barthian' insights and social theory." (p.205)

Now, we turn to Ng's own Christological social ethics.

One of the major questions that Ng tried to solve is in the book is which Christological framework should inform the Church's social practice?

On one hand, Ng rejects the type of practice that simply imitates the historical deeds of Jesus,

"[Leonardo Boff and Jon Sobrino] have chosen to focus on the significance of the historical activities of Jesus for social practice rather than the Christ in the christological dogma. Undoubtedly, it is easier to make a direct appeal to the historical Jesus rather than the Christ of the dogmas to underpin the social practice of the church. But the question arises whether in any theology which ignored the Christ of the dogmas one would not be left with a christological framework that is too restrictive. One advantage of the decision to focus the enquiry upon Ritschl, Barth and Moltmann is that the christological framework offered by these writers provides an ostensibly more comprehensive context for the grounding of the social practice of the church." (p.5. Emphasis added.)

While on another hand, Ng seems to affirm what he views as too restrictive,

"The person of Christ and his work has always functioned as an inspiration and often the primary model for christian action. Our focus on Christ gives us the advantage of dealing with a historical personality rather than an abstract concept [of Christ?]. This is certainly consistent with our claim that theological ethical resources are better appropriated through exemplification." (p.7. Emphasis added.)

I'm here reading Ng's phrase "Christ of dogmas" in the former quotation as identical with "abstract concept" in the latter. I may be identifying too much due to my lack of grasp over the categories that Ng employed. Nonetheless, if it is true that Ng wants to differentiate the "historical Jesus" from the "Christ of dogmas", as seen in the two quotations above, the interchangeable referencing appears to muddle the differentiation.

(The only instance he clarified his usage of the phrase "historical Jesus" is to differentiate it [not from the "Christ of dogmas", but] from "historian's Jesus". By the former, Ng means "Jesus in his life and existence in historical Palestine while the latter refers to the portrait of Jesus constructed from the application of historical criticism based on historical sources such as found in the New Testament." [p.22, n.30])

The interchangeable referencing of the phrases is noticed again in the following quotation:

"To be sure, the significance of Jesus remains as the past example, the prototype or model for social practice. But his significance must not be reduced to his past activities. For the Christian, the significance of Jesus must also be eschatological in that the future of the risen one determines the future of the church. The significance of Jesus for his disciples is that he enables them to take responsibility for and to redirect their own history. This requires that Christians follow Jesus' "attitude" to life and history rather than any specific social programs." (p.198. Emphasis added.)

It seems from the above quotation there is no differentiation between "historical Jesus" (with his past activities) from "Christ of dogmas" (whose future determines the Church's future). Ng notes that the Jesus with historical activities is also the risen Christ whose future determines the future of the Church. If this is true, then it is curious how Ng rejects and affirms social practice that is derived from the historical deeds of Jesus.

Nonetheless it is probably the case that Ng's Christology goes beyond the distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ of dogma. Yet, it remains to be seen how such distinction distances itself from Ng's condemnation of the "direct appeal to the historical Jesus rather than the Christ of the dogmas to underpin the social practice of the church."

One theme that keeps appearing in Ng's thesis is his insistence on relating theology and social theory (foreshadowing John Milbank's theology as social theory project and present works on relating theology with continental philosophy?). Here are few instances:

"[The] challenge today is to meet the need for a contemporary theological ethic and practice that interacts more extensively with insights from social theory." (p.132)

"[Christian] social practice is not to be established solely on philosophical or theological insights. Rather, it is to be a result of a conversation and collaboration between theology and social theory." (p.193)

"[It] could be claimed that theology must take seriously the social phenomenon if christological social practice is to succeed in relating itself to concrete social realities." (p.197)

Ng concerns to ground Christology, particularly the reality of the historical Jesus and the resurrection, as the Church's engagement in the social reality of the day. And to achieve this, one must connect theology and social theories.

Overall, Ng's work is a compact treatise on three great strands of theological social ethics that provides good summary of each one, coupled with valid critiques. At the concluding section, Ng ends by directing our attention to the significance of worship in Christian's social engagement, a sight that Christians cannot afford to lose:

"[Worship] is necessary to ensure that christian practice be not reduced to its utilitarian value. It must be humbly admitted that many of the goals for social transformation are not longer uniquely christian since there are also other social movements which share the same social goals today. Indeed, such are the connections between church and civil society that Christians may offer themselves as agents in transforming social practice under pressure from these other social groups, for no better reason than to demonstrate the 'relevance' of Christianity for society. At the same time, it is precisely because the goals of social action groups are similar that Christians often have to justify their actions on the same grounds as these other social movements. As such, Christians must be alert to the possibility that in trying to be relevant they may allow others to determine their values and priorities. It is therefore important that the christian social activist be sustained by a worship which highlights a God who has engaged in a history that is both his and ours, but a history of which he is lord and we are not. This vital insight must be preserved if the Christian is to be spared from attempting any self-justification. For it is precisely because the social activist takes himself too seriously that he yields to the temptation of claiming finality and absolute authority, with the consequence that many revolutionary changes degenerate into reigns of terror and counter-terror. Christian worship frees the Christian from falling into a utilitarian vision of human existence. Religion as the source of transcendence is the authority which reminds society that the worth and dignity of human beings are not exhaustively defined by their social role." (p.210)

Upcoming event: 'God's Two Books: Scripture and Science' by Ron Choong

2011-07-28T17:00:00.003+08:00

Engineering and Science Christian Fellowship (ESCF) organizing a talk on science and Christianity 'God's Two Books- Scripture and Science'.

Date: Thursday, 4 August, 2011
Time: 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM
Venue: 420 North Bridge Road #05-04 North Bridge Centre, Singapore 188727
Speakers: Rev Dr Ron Choong

SYNOPSIS of the talk:
In God’s creation of the World, we observe God’s first book. In God’s revealing of the Word, we receive God’s second book.

The World testifies to God’s existence and creation through the findings of the sciences and its expression in technologies. In the history of of the human race, there are two scientific discoveries and two technologies that shook the world:

1) The two discoveries: Modern understanding of time and space.
2) The two technologies: Telescope and the microscope.

The Scripture testifies to God’s revelation through the accounts of witnesses. And "witnesses" presumes the capacity to speak, to memorize, to write and to read. These capacities allow us to worship and communicate with God. By the time the first Scripture was written (c.1000-500 BC), the human brain had evolved to pass on God’s revelation in the form of God’s Word.

We refer to God’s Two Books as Scripture and Science. God reveals by World (Nature) and by Word (Scripture).

About the SPEAKER:
Rev. Dr. Ron Choong is an ordained minister and has served as a Christian apologist in New York City since 1991.

He is an interdisciplinary scholar with a global ministry to both Christians and skeptics as the Director of the Academy for Christian Thought. Prior to that, Ron has practiced public international law and commercial law at Lincoln’s Inn, served as an urban missionary in New York, as well as taught philosophy and theology at seminaries in the US.

He was born in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia and earned the BA, LLB Hons, STM, MDiv, ThM and PhD degrees from London, Yale and Princeton.

His doctoral dissertation, examined the relation between contemporary neuroscience and theology, titled 'Do We Sin Because We Are Sinners or Are We Sinners Because We Sin?: Neuroscience, Nolition and the Kenotic Doctrine of Moral Cognition.' He and his wife attends Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York.

To find out more about Ron, go here

Discovering phase: Missiology, ecclesiology, and political theology

2011-07-19T07:55:00.002+08:00

During breakfast yesterday (18th July, Monday), somehow Edmund and I chatted about the fact that I am currently taking the course 'Theology of Mission' in this new semester.

I found myself saying, "Nowadays I have come to sense a gradual draw towards mission and missiology. And the draw is getting stronger by the day."

My enrollment into theological studies is not due to 'mission' in the sense of how usually being understood as planting churches in the conventional way. The discovery of interest in the area of mission is not so much simply the change in preference but a new appreciation of what 'mission' actually is.

To briefly recall the process of the discovery, the experience owes much to the course on ethics that I took under Daniel Koh last semester. Through the course, I was introduced to the importance of ecclesiological ethics, the Church as a moral community, that helped to boost an appreciation of the ontology of the Church.

By the time I submitted my final paper for Daniel Koh's course, it dawned on me a necessary and natural relation between ethics and ecclesiology in a way that redefines my understanding of mission and all its sub-categories such as evangelism and missiology. And it is for the sake of continuing to further develop and nuance this understanding that I signed up for Andrew Peh's Theology of Mission course for this semester.

It is 7.15am as I'm typing this. And I have been awake for more than three hours, since about 3.50am.

I went to bed at 12.50am, and I don't know why I woke up in the middle of the night after a mere 3 hours sleep. Could be the milk tea that I had for dinner earlier.

After failing to get myself to lose consciousness, I decided to pick up something to read. And somehow I felt drawn to a book that I have bought last year but yet to read. It was Langham Partnership's International Director Christopher Wright's 'The Mission of God's People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission', published last year under Zondervan's Biblical Theology for Life series.

I have no idea why I was drawn to read that book (despite other books that I am usually more keen to read like those on social engagement) in the middle of a sleepless night. Until last Friday before I cleaned my room, that book was laid at the bottom of a stack of other books.

By the time my eyes felt sore, at about 6.30am, I realized that I've finished reading the first five chapters. Through these chapters that I was guided by Wright to connect ethics, ecclesiology, and mission in a nuance and elaborate way.

Commenting on Genesis 18.18-19, Wright writes,

"[Genesis 18.18-19] binds together election, ethics and mission into a single sequence located in the will, action and desire of God. It is fundamentally missional declaration, which explains the reason for election and explains the purpose of ethical living. [...] We should particularly notice the way ethics stands as the mid-term between election and mission. Ethics is the purpose of election and the basis of mission."
(p. 92-93. Emphasis original.)

"Here [is a] passage that shows us the important link, in our biblical theology, between our ecclesiology and our missiology. We have already pointed out how important it is to see the missional reason for the very existence of the church as the people of God. In this age, the church is missional or it is not church.

"But now we see more clearly that this link between church and mission is also ethical. The community God seeks for the sake of his mission is to be a community shaped by his own ethical character, with specific attention to righteousness and justice in a world filled with oppression and injustice. Only such a community can be a blessing to the nations. [...] There is no biblical mission without biblical ethics."
(p. 93-94. Emphasis original.)

The connection between public theology, political theology, social engagement, ethics, missiology and ecclesiology is all there in-between.

I didn't start with an interest in 'mission' but in subjects like historical Jesus studies and systematic and philosophical theology. It seems that it's the other way around as I experienced it.

Enough writing for now. Have to prepare for 'Theology of Mission' class, which will be starting at 8.30am later.

Book Review: 'Issues of Law and Justice in Singapore: Some Christian Reflections' edited by Daniel K. S. Koh and Kiem-Kiok Kwa

2011-07-18T13:31:00.015+08:00

This book is initiated to provide accessible resources about matters on law and justice in Singapore, to put "on record what Singapore Christians have been thinking; and in so doing encourage more Asian Christians to participate in the contextual enterprise of public discourse on subjects which would contribute to the strengthening of community life." (p. ix)

The seven chapters in the book is categorized in two parts. The first part concerns theological and biblical framework on law and justice.

In the first chapter, Daniel Koh, a noted theologian-ethicist from Trinity Theological College, opens up the book by briefing the reader of the various nuances of the word 'justice' as discussed by Ronald Preston, Duncan Forrester, Reinhold Niebuhr, John Rawls and others.

Without addressing the matter in an aloof manner, Koh draws the connection between the philosophical discussion on 'justice' with Singapore's National Pledge:

"There may not be a country anywhere in the world, either now or in the past, with a perfect understanding or a perfect system of justice in place. But justice as a desirable and essential component of the kind of society Singapore hopes to build is clearly echoed throughout the state in the pledge which school students recite at the start of each new day when they promise "to build a democratic society based on justice and equality..."" (p. 6)

One of Koh's most insightful discussions is on the relationship between love and justice. Following Preston and Forrester, he suggests that the relationship can be best understood in a reciprocal way,

"[A] fuller appreciation of justice should be enhanced and nourished by the presence of love. While the two may be different, if there is no justice, there is no love and if there is no love, what is offered as justice is likely to be a truncated version of what real justice ought to look like." (p. 31)

By that, Koh means that justice when pursued as fairness must not be focused on satisfying individual's self-interest but rather to be balanced by a genuine intention for the well-being of others regardless whether or not the self benefited from it. (p. 20-22) This would also help to re-discover the scope and extent of cultivating self-love. (p.22-31)

It seems fair for Koh to say that this theological perspective on justice "can be applied in assisting Christians, in particular, and fair-minded Singaporeans, in general, to place justice in the forefront of their social engagement in the public square for the benefit of all people." (p. 32-33)

The second chapter is Gordon Wong's reflection on the issue of law and justice through the Old and New Testament. Wong started off by disclaiming that his article is just random reflections instead of a full summary of the Bible's perspectives on the topic.

Cautiously, the Professor of Old Testament points out that the reader of the Bible must not be too ready to conflate into single meaning the various references of the word 'law' as appeared at different places of the Bible. For instance, when apostle Paul wrote about the law, was he referring to the Mosaic law, natural law, or the legal tradition developed by the Pharisees?

By looking into the recent public debate on the law on homosexual practice in Singapore, Wong draws the example of how those from both sides of the debate have been talking across each other by not being attentive to how each side understands the law. Those who want to remove the law understands it as criminal law, while those who want to maintain it understand it as moral law. "An awareness of this difference in understanding what type of law is being discussed may help advance the debate." (p. 38)

On another note, Wong reminds the reader that,

"So central and important is the practice of justice that it even takes precedence over the practice of worship. As important as acts of worship are in the Old Testament, they are not as important as acts of justice!" [For eg. Amos 5:23-24] (p. 45)

The second part of the book consists of five chapters concerning the various issues of law and justice in Singapore.

William Wan writes on Christian's relation with the four major aspects of legal punishment: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation.

On retribution, Wan comments that it is justified and required because what underlies this aspect is that the criminals "must take personal responsibility for their wrongdoing." (p. 60) On deterrence, the author remarks that this aspect of punishment violates the imago Dei. The person being punished is made an example to others and hence is treated as a means to an end. (p. 77)

While Wan asserts that the prevention through imprisonment is valid yet this must only be carried out on those who are convicted of a crime and not on those who might commit crime. (p. 79)

The rehabilitation aspect has to be carried out with due consideration given to the criminal. Wan quotes C. S. Lewis, "[When] we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a 'case'." (p. 80)

There is one point in Wan's article that needs further comment. He writes that "Deuteronomy 24:16 articulates the doctrine of individual responsibility: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."" (p. 73) Yet there is Exodus 34:7 where punishment extends to subsequent generations: "[He] punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." So the appropriation of doctrine for criminal responsibility in common law remains a question to be explored.

Tan Seow Hon, who is currently Associate Professor of Law at Singapore Management University, writes a sharp essay on the issue of abortion. She revisits the Abortion Bill 1969 and discusses extensively its underlying problems.

Her article indirectly highlights the hasty legislation process of the Bill that does not undergo a more sustained debate. (A brief version of her in-depth argument is published in the Straits Times, dated 24 July 2008, reprinted at Asiaone news website titled 'Time for Singapore to relook abortion law'.)

I am especially in agreement with the following two points concerning a just discourse etiquette that she makes in the essay. First,

"Just as religious persons may not cite a religious text without more reasons, non-religious persons should not regard it as relevant that their interlocutor is religious if she is willing to offer non-religious reasons in discourse." (p. 102)

Second,

"If an argument stands the test of reason, may it not be impugned on the ground only that it is made by someone who happens to be religious. Otherwise, the religious would be in a [...] situation in which if they made a religious argument that was not accessible to all, they would be silenced, and if they made a non-religious argument, they would be accused of a facade of rationality." (p. 112-113)

Both were not uphold, as demonstrated in the article, during the abortion bill debate in 1969.

Debbie Ong contributes in Chapter 5 on the issue of marriage and divorce. As a Mediator in the Family Court, Ong points out the developmental history of the marriage and divorce law in Singapore as well as shares a real scenario of how divorce is deliberated.

Ong brings to our awareness how local legal system negotiate through the problems like monogamous heterosexual marriage, equality of husband and wife, qualifications to file for divorce, and the difficult issue of "marital rape".

Kiem-Kiok Kwa, who lectures on inter-cultural studies at East Asia School of Theology, examines the Methodist Church in Singapore in her essay.

She lists the various exemplary activities that have been undertaken by the local Methodist Churches as the manifestation of their seriousness is adhering and commending the 'Social Principles' stated in their Book of Discipline. Kwa makes a passing note that the statement "We deplore capital punishment" is taken out from the 1985 edition without further elaboration.

Commenting on the root of Methodist's social work, Kwa writes that these Social Principles is a

"unique reflection of Methodist theology and praxis since Wesley was concerned for the physical, intellectual, spiritual and social needs of people even as he preached personal redemption and social holiness." (p. 156)

Due to this, the Methodist Churches' comprehensive programs range from providing pre- and post-marital counseling, social-outreach activities across generation, education institutions, to engaging in public issues and social movements that care for the less-privileged, lower level of the society, and the environment.

In promoting for a just economy, Kwa recommends the option of fair-trade. Although Kwa is not intentional in addressing political economy in detail, yet it bears reminded that the suggestion for fair-trade falls into the problem of cultural capitalism, as emphatically raised by Slavoj Zizek:

"We are encouraged to believe that tokens of charity benefit those who suffer. Rather than look at the cause of problems, an overbearing system, deluded social psychology, personal abdication of responsibility and faulty philosophical worldview all of which try to alleviate problems of it’s own making using the same methodology that creates and sustains these problems, we simply work the dysfunctional system harder and faster."

That means activities such as the fair-trade initiative not only fail to address the problem but actually prolong it. In Zizek's words, this sort of "remedy is part of the disease." It still remained to be seen how this option can lead to a just economic practices without also inheriting the violence of the economic system that it condemns.

The last chapter, which is also the longest in the book, written by Thio Li-ann deals with the general approach towards public engagement. The article contains many illustrations taken from debates occurred around the world to serve as a guide to understand local issues.

Overall, the various issues highlighted in the book are important for local Christians and Churches to be familiarized with in order to get hold of the present situation as well as learning which approaches to be considered and which to be avoided. I have come to reckon this volume as a necessary compendium for the Christian community for its deliberation in the area of public theology, social engagement, legal system and justice with a high level of relevance and sensitivity to the local context.

Amused by 'Are you even a Christian at all?'

2011-07-15T23:16:00.006+08:00

As I was clearing my moderation box of this blog, I came across a comment which I received in September 2010 which I didn't approved. After reading it again, I decided to publish it as a blog post in verbatim rather than approving it as a comment on the particular post, which is the review of Joseph Prince's book 'Destined to Reign'.

It is written by some 'Chris' that links to this empty blog with a Chris-ly title 'christjesusmylife':

Hi Sze Zeng,

Honestly this question first came to my mind when I read your comments. The question was: Are you even a Christian at all? I asked this question because i have many friends who actually are people who just basically go around finding fault with what other preachers preach. If you are a Christian, why would spend all this time and all this effort to write and give critics about other preachers. Jesus came to spread the message of his father's love to the world. You don't see him spend time and all his effort attacking the Pharisees. I have nothing else to say but I hope that you would think and reconsider what you are doing. Would you spend all the time and effort to spread the good news or just attack what others say. Sure some of them maybe wrong but would you want to waste time doing that rather then helping to save one more soul.

Daniel Koh's full response to the Straits Times's report on teenage preachers

2011-07-14T08:47:00.000+08:00

The Strait Times published a report titled 'Young, trendy--and a 'preacher'' on 11 July 2011, written by Yen Feng, Religion and Culture Reporter of the Straits Times Singapore. (A [edited?] reprinted version can be read at Jakarta Globe website.)

The main feature in the report is Elijah Ng, a teenage preacher from City Harvest Church, who "has a personal hairstylist" and wears designer branded clothes.

Daniel Koh, a lecturer at Trinity Theological College, has written a response to the report at the Straits Times Forum, wondering if the media is going only for the sensational. However his question is deleted completely.

This is the published version (ST Forum: Shepherd teen preachers carefully, dated 13 July 2011, http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_689841.html [accessed 13 July 2011]):

IT IS natural for religious groups to encourage young and capable members to consider joining the religious orders ('Young, trendy - and a 'preacher''; Monday). This will ensure continuity and is a healthy form of leadership renewal.

However, while Elijah Ng may be oratorically gifted and dressed like a celebrity, as a secondary school student he is still in his formative years. He still has much to learn and should be guided with care. He should also be encouraged to pursue appropriate theological studies at the right time, in preparation for pastoral work if the church sees potential in him.

Daniel Koh Kah Soon

While the original version is this (with permission from Daniel to post it on this blog):

Dear Editor,

Monday's Straits Times carried a number of articles about young Singaporeans becoming priests, pastors and Quran reader. It is natural for religious groups like any farsighted institution to encourage young and capable members to consider joining the religious orders. This will ensure continuity. It is a healthy form of leadership renewal.

I am particularly attracted to the report about Elijah Ng, a teenager who is "Not a preacher, but people treat him like one." (ST July 11).

While he may be oratorically gifted, and he may be expensively dressed up like a celebrity, as a secondary school student, he is still in his formative years. There is still much to be learned for this young lad. He should be guided with care and prayer, and encouraged to pursue appropriate theological studies at the right time, in preparation for pastoral work if the church sees the potential in him to be one.

Instead of featuring Elijah, who is not typical of what is happening in the churches in Singapore, I wonder why the Straits Times reporters did not consider the many other young pastors who are now working as pastors in various churches, some of whom would have inspiring stories to share about why they have left their well-paid jobs, to become ordinary pastors of churches which shun razzmatazz religiosity and celebrity culture, and which are definitely not part of the glamourised "mega-church" league.

Daniel Koh Kah Soon

Report on BERSIH 2.0 by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

2011-07-13T10:26:00.006+08:00

From Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' website, dated 12 July 2011 (http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11225&LangID=E):

Malaysia: Government risks undermining democratic progress, say UN experts

GENEVA – UN human rights experts* on Monday expressed their dismay at the use of tear gas and water cannons by security authorities against peaceful protestors in Malaysia on Saturday, reportedly leading to injuries and one death, and the arrest of more than 1,600 people at the Bersih 2.0 rally.

“The right to freedom of opinion and expression, including in the form of peaceful protests, is essential for democracy. By declaring the demonstration illegal, sealing off parts of the capital in advance and responding in such a heavy-handed manner against peaceful demonstrators, the Government of Malaysia risks undermining democratic progress in the country,” said Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Tens of thousands of people gathered near the Medeka Stadium on Saturday despite the announcement made by the police that no gathering would be permitted that day on the basis of the Malaysia Police Act, which requires organizers of public gatherings of three or more persons to seek permits beforehand. The protests were called by Bersih, a coalition of more than 60 non-governmental organizations seeking to promote free and fair elections in Malaysia.

“Actions taken by the authorities prior to and during the rally unduly restricted the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association,” said La Rue. “Declaring Bersih illegal based on claims that it is trying to topple the Government or is a risk to national security and public order - in the absence of any credible evidence to substantiate such claims – is also an unnecessary restriction of civil and political rights.”

According to Malaysian police, all of those arrested on Saturday have been released. But the UN experts noted that six leaders from the Socialist Party of Malaysia reportedly remain in detention. These individuals include Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj, Sukumaran Munisamy, Letchumanan Aseer Patham, Choo Chon Kai, Sarasvathy Muthu, and Satat Babu Raman.

“We remain deeply concerned about the detention of six individuals since 25 June under the Emergency Ordinance, which allows for detention without trial for up to 60 days,” said El Hadji Malick Sow, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also reiterated its recommendation, made to the Government of Malaysia following a visit to the country in June 2010, to repeal the Emergency Ordinance and other preventive laws, on the grounds that they significantly hinder fundamental human rights, such as the right to fair trial.**

The independent experts reminded the Government of Malaysia of its obligation to fully respect the rights to peaceful assembly, association, and expression, as guaranteed under the Federal Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They also recalled that as a member of the Human Rights Council, Malaysia has pledged to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.

“Malaysia, as a dynamic, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and pluralistic nation, should remain open to legitimate political discourse on democracy, including the expression of dissent,” the experts said. “We urge the Government to allow all individuals to enjoy their human rights, and to address the problem of preventive detention. Likewise, we call upon the Government to ensure that there will not be any punitive measures taken against peaceful demonstrators.”

END

*Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Frank La Rue; and Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Mr. El Hadji Malick Sow.

The erotic human body: a borrowed transference

2011-07-12T14:19:00.008+08:00

The book that occupied my time in the past few days was a collection of polemical essays written by a leading theologian-ethicist Oliver O' Donovan on the homosexual issue facing the Anglican Communion.

Among many astute insights into the tension, ranging from the discourse over the liberal paradigm, the nature of ethical disagreement and hermeneutics, O' Donovan highlights also the issue of human body, particularly the erotic aspect of it as a "beckoning".

That is to say, the body is a medium of divine calling through which we are called to reflect beyond it. Failing to reflect the beyond is to be stuck at the medium. And that is where temptation lies.

"It is possible, of course, to use the word "erotic," as a great many of our contemporaries do, simply as a synonym for sexual desire. But that is to miss almost everything of interest that has been thought about the erotic. Eros is precisely not sexual impulse; it is an aspect of the spiritual life of mankind, though inevitably engendering bodily experiences to accompany it since we are psychosomatic beings whose every moment is a mediation of the spiritual through the bodily. Reflecting on the body, it responds with yearning for its lurking hint of beauty and truth. It responds to something beckoning through it from beyond it. Precisely that moment of reflection is the temptation [...] understood. The familiar body, the body that we live in, object of wonder though it is, is too essentially present to us, too intimate, too enclosing--let us say, too heavy to beckon us beyond itself. But the body of the spiritual imagination is light and elusive. If we fail to carry the act of reflection through to its conclusion, if we fail to inquire what the erotic body is a medium for, then we end up investing our perfectly ordinary experiences of sexual attraction with an ontological weight that is, in fact, a borrowed transference, and in our confusion we fail to understand either ourselves or our bodies. We cannot and should not take that moment of rapture in the presence of the beautiful body quite at its face value--though we cannot and should not ignore it, either. We must interrogate it for its meaning."
(Oliver O' Donovan, A Conversation Waiting to Begin: The Churches and the Gay Controversy [UK: SCM Press, 2009], p.93-94. Emphasis original.)

The imagery of the erotic aspect of the human body is therefore not plain nakedness but the embodied lurk of beauty and truth that summons the observer's desire to go through it and back into desire itself. By going back into desire that we can interrogate the meaning of the body.

Aunty Annie Ooi with her stalk of flowers

2011-07-11T12:08:00.005+08:00

While the authorities went with their trucks, shields, batons, water cannons and tear gas, aunty Annie went there in her yellow t-shirt and a stalk of flower.

(Photo: Hugo Teng)

Images from BERSIH 2.0: 9th July 2011

2011-07-10T15:57:00.008+08:00

(The authorities fired tear gas and water cannon into Tung Shin Hospital.)

(An old lady, Annie Ooi, wore yellow t-shirt and joined the march.)

(The Inspector-General of Police reported there were only 6,000 people in the rally but eyewitnesses approximated to be about 50,000 people.)

Blessed/Cursed interior design?

2011-07-09T22:51:00.003+08:00

Chronic book collectors may be interested with the innovative design of this small 'shelf-pod' house in Osaka. To me, I'm not sure if such design is a blessing or a curse.

Certainly, it is soothing to be able to access to references whenever I need, but when it comes to interior design, there is a paradoxical preference for minimalism. Unless of course, one can afford a large storage area. Anyway, here's the shelf-pod (H/T: Joycelyn Ong):

Would this design be a blessing or curse to you if you have it?

Vatican & TULIP: Metaphysics of Divine-Human Action

2011-07-07T11:17:00.009+08:00

Roman Catholicism is sometimes being rejected as less-Christian, if not non-Christian, by Protestants in general, and by certain cohort belonging to the Reformed circle in particular.

The usual reason for such rejection is that the Protestant thinks that Roman Catholic does not share their view on the doctrine of justification, sanctification, etc.

It worths bearing in mind that the central dispute in the mentioned doctrines lies not in the doctrines themselves but in another doctrine: the assumed differences on the idea of the God-human dynamics, commonly known as the Divine-Human action.

Both sides missed this important metaphysical issue when they leaped straight into the scriptures to quote passages that apparently supporting their view on justification, sanctification, etc.

Yet despite all the differences between Roman Catholicism and certain circle of the Reformed tradition that holds on to the Five-Points Calvinism, there is a central convergence between the two that those from both sides seem to have often missed.

As I looked into two official documents by each group in October 2006, I discovered that there are two shared convictions on this metaphysical problem:

(1) the necessity of divine initiative for human redemptive decisive action, and

(2) the real possibility that the influence of the divine can be resisted.

Let's take a look at these metaphysical affirmations:

From Roman Catholicism:
"When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight..."
(Vatican website: 'Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525', quoted in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, Article 2:1:1993, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Y.HTM [accessed 7 July 2011]. Emphasis added.)

From Five-Point Calvinism:
"Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God...The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible... The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills."
(Desiring God website: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism, dated March 1998, http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism [accessed 7 July 2011]. Emphasis added.)

Both converges on two points. Roman Catholicism's metaphysics in this aspect is not that different from the view of those who hold on to TULIP. Many differences can be better understood, if not eliminated, if we pay attention to what each others are really talking about.

The artwork above by Pietro da Cortona titled 'Allegory of Divine Providence and Barberini Power' covers the ceiling of the Gran Salone of the Palazzo Barberini in Italy, commissioned by Pope Urban VIII in the early 17th century. The Pope meant the artwork to glorify his reign but those who look at it today admire little of his achievement. Rather they are directed to a glory that surpasses all human action even though the art itself is a product of creaturely effort.

Book Review: 'Making Globalization Work' by Joseph Stiglitz

2011-07-05T10:39:00.006+08:00

Joseph Stiglitz is awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001 together with his two other colleagues, George A. Akerlof and A. Michael Spence, for their pioneering research done in the area of information economics. This book is developed on the basis of their research in that area.

Basically their research assessed the significant role played by information in the current practice of economic transaction. Their study shows that the existing asymmetry of information between agents, due to each agent’s pursuit of self-interest, compromises fair transaction in the market. For instance, a client doesn't reveal his health problems to his insurance agent. Or a car salesman holds back certain information from his customers about the secondhand car he tries to sell. And this, according to Stiglitz, is in direct contrast against Adam Smith's market economy.

More than three hundred years ago, Adam Smith wrote that the characteristic pursuit of self-interest in the market will effectively though unintentionally bring about the common good of the society at large. The famous metaphor 'invisible hand' is used by Smith to describe how this accumulated pursuit of self-interest by every individuals in the society will eventually work towards the common good.

In other words, Smith was saying that self-centred pursuit indirectly contributes to the welfare of the community even though the individuals pursuing it often are not conscious of these wider positive implications that their pursuit has. Hence external factors such as the involvement of government in the redistribution of wealth and the management of the natural resources are redundant as the invisible hand by itself knows why it should do what when and how to do it.

As Smith has written in Part IV.I.10 of 'The Theory of Moral Sentiment',

“[The rich] are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.”
(Adam Smith, ‘Part IV: Of the Effect of Utility upon the Sentiment of Approbation, IV.I.10’ in The Theory of Moral Sentiment, available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS4.html#Part IV. Of the Effect of Utility upon the Sentiment of Approbation (accessed 5 July 2011).

Stiglitz remarked that Smith's idea has been inherited as a dogma in economics and have spawned what we now called "market fundamentalism", a "belief that markets by themselves lead to economic efficiency." (p.xiii)

Stiglitz’s research raises critical questions concerning Smith’s proposal by pointing out that the pursuit of self-interest does not promote common good for the society. He shows that the existence of asymmetry of information due to the pursuit of self-interest has jeopardized the prospect that common good can be attained without any external regulation.

In Stiglitz’s own words,

"My research on the economics of information showed that whenever information is imperfect, in particular when there are information asymmetries—where some individuals know something that others do not (in other word, always)—the reason that the invisible hand seems invisible is that it is not there. Without appropriate government regulation and intervention, markets do no lead to economic efficiency." (p.xiv)

However, that is not the gist that Stiglitz’ wanted to make in this book. Rather it serves as the framework to understand the entire argument in 'Making Globalization Work'.

The major portion of the book is compilation of incidents happened around the world that Stiglitz perceived as evidences that expose the inadequacy of Smith’s idea. Pages after pages are problems seen in our current globalized context. Stiglitz, nonetheless, clarified that these problems are not due to globalization but "in the way globalization has been managed." (p.4)

One very good point raised in the book is the need for countries to adopt Human Development Indicator (HDI), which provides a broader approach to appraise development by combining the measures of income, life expectancy, and education, as a gauge for nation’s development rather than depending solely on Gross Domestic Product (GDP). (p.44)

To reflect further on Stiglitz's proposal, the importance of metric measurement lies in the fact that such measurement does not merely provide a track record of a country’s economic performance but actually supply a national narrative for the country. And with that, the national identity and responsibility for the country and towards fellow citizens to make sense of themselves in the reality of a nation-state.

That means if a country is obsessed with GDP, then economic performance will be prioritised at the expense of other significant aspects that mark a healthy community such as manageable stress level, better quality of family life, low crime rate, high level of tolerance over differences, ecological concerns, and others.

The book is critical over the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for its inconsistency and hypocrisy, and over various profit-driven legislature bodies like the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

It is difficult for the reader to fail to notice the author's extensive exposure to international issues, covering almost every continent. However, I find two of his analyses on Malaysia's condition mistaken.

First, his positive evaluation of Malaysia’s ruling party UMNO’s "aggressive affirmative action program to help the ethnic Malays." (p.49) Stiglitz affirmed this policy as,

"[A]n important part of nation building; the view that all groups would benefit from a more stable and equitable society was widely accepted, even though some members of Malaysia’s ethnic Chinese community may have lost opportunities as a result." (p.49)

Stiglitz does not seem to be aware that such program has backfired itself. Instead of developing the Malay community, the community has become too dependent on the program.

Due to the nature of the program that is based on ethnicity, the racial gap in the Malaysian society has since widened and deepened, producing a segmented job market. We find that the majority of the Malays occupies the civil sector while other ethnic groups have no choice but to strive in the industrial and commercial sectors. As a result, the middle class of other ethnic groups expanded faster than the Malay.

The race-based policy also has implicated the education system of the country. Generally the other ethnic groups have to work harder compared to the Malays to gain entry into local public universities. Many of the Malays take it for granted that the government will provide a place for them in the universities with the race-based quota system.

It worth bearing in mind that this quota system is not similar with those in America that serves the purpose to cultivating a multi-cultural learning environment among university students. In the Malaysian context, this quota system has been abused: Many Malays lack the willingness to strive since they perceive that they can always rely on the government to favor them. This inevitably drives racial discrimination, intellectual disparity, and increased distrust among different ethnic communities.

Stiglitz's second mistaken analysis is on the Malaysia’s management of its natural resources through Petronas. (p.33-34, 143) The oil business in Malaysia is a controversial affair. For instance, the federal government has been depriving millions of dollars of oil royalty to opposition-ruling states such as Kelantan. (See Kelantan claims RM800m per annum oil royalty, http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/kelantan-claims-rm800m-per-annum-oil-royalty/ [accessed 5 July 2011].)

As a side note, I find it puzzling for Stiglitz who spent the entire Chapter 6 of the book in alarming the current ecological crisis would affirm so highly the economic values of the oil industry.

The fact is that Malaysia’s economy has become too dependent on its petroleum business arm, Petronas, which contributes up to half of the country’s revenue. (See FACTBOX-Petronas: Malaysia's golden goose, http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKSGE65T0DL20100701 [accessed 5 July 2011].) It is only a matter of time for the country's economy to arrive at its impeding crisis for heavily relying on a natural resource that is depleting.

Moving on to other matters discussed in the book. The author, despite all his practical recommendation for governmental intervention in contemporary world, has ignored (if not failing to make explicit) the fundamental issue contributing directly to the discourse on economics: the notion of justice in power relations.

This lack rendered the reader a sublimed sense of vagueness in the solution proposed by the author. Unless this issue is addressed, there simply would not be resolution among dissenting countries and corporations since everyone is driven by self-interest.

To give an example, Stiglitz argued from the ground of "fundamental values" that a comprehensive democratic process would subject pharmaceutical companies to trade off profit for the right of life. (p.131-132) However, it is doubtful that democracy, which basically a polity empowered by the people’s self-interest, would bring about a better-adjusted economic process.

When subjected to democratic process, pharmaceutical companies' willingness to trade off profit depends on workers in the companies to cast vote for that trade off. If the majority of the citizens are against the trade off, then does that means there is nothing can be done?

The persistence of these perplexing questions demonstrates that at the bottom of the discussion on globalization is the negotiation on who says what belongs to who and why. This is a political question as much as a moral discovery. If it is not the invisible hand, then who should have the final say on goods distribution, citizens’ employment and welfare, and corporations’ global responsibility? In the book, Stiglitz tells us that there is no invisible hand and hence the market by itself cannot provide answers to these questions. Yet he does not tell us how can the government and citizens of the globe fare better.

UMNO & Malaysian police force facilitating violence

2011-07-04T11:27:00.003+08:00

Malaysia's ruling party UMNO-BN and the police force arrested and detained peaceful citizens who wore yellow t-shirt featuring BERSIH 2.0 rally, but allowed violent demonstration by UMNO-BN and PERKASA members at Georgetown, Penang.

If ever Malaysia becomes chaotic, it is all due to the ruling party's failure to conduct itself in fairness.

This is the public statement by Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng (emphasis added):

Press Statement By Penang Chief Minister and DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 4 July 2011.

Does Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein Dare To Ban Perkasa As He Has Banned Bersih Or Arrest Senator Ezam Mohamad And Khairy Jamaluddin Just As The Police Has Arrested Sungai Siput MP Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj Under The Emergency Ordinance To Prove That The Police Does Not Practice Double-Standards Or Favouritism?

Does Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein dare to ban Perkasa as he has banned Bersih or arrest UMNO’s Senator Ezam Mohamad and UMNO Youth head Khairy Jamaluddin just as the police has arrested Sungai Siput MP Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj under the Emergency Ordinance to prove that the police does not practice double-standards or favouritism?

DAP questions Hishammuddin insistence that the authorities will act fairly in stopping all gatherings despite only outlawing electoral reforms group Bersih, when no action was taken against UMNO and Perkasa for organising a violent demonstration in Penang on 1.7.2011. Why has Hishamuddin also not arrested Ezam under the Emergency Ordinance for his threats that there is no need to wait for general elections and he wanted to do more protests to force me to step down as Chief Minister earlier?

The Penang Chinese Journalists and Photographers Association (Pewaju) has condemned the unprovoked attacks on a journalist, a photographer and a videographer by the protestors during violent and illegal rallies in George Town downtown and on Penang Bridge. Pewaju questioned why the police did not enforce the law and failed to take preventive measures to stop the demonstration before hand when they already knew about it a day earlier.

Question also arises on why the police have been so tough to clamp down on the Bersih 2.0 rally which is yet to take place, while being incompetent in halting an illegal rally by Umno and Perkasa that actually took place. What is shocking is Pewaju’s statement that the attacks on the journalists took place right before the police eyes, but the law enforcers were hapless, helpless and hopeless to stop the assault. The ineptness of the police raised a question on their integrity, competency and credibility to protect ordinary Malaysians.

DAP supports peaceful demonstrations but condemns violent demonstrations. The failure by the police to act against the violent demonstration by UMNO and Perkasa only shows that there is clear double-standards and favouritism.

Jeyakumar was unjustly arrested under the Emergency Ordinance with 5 other PSM members despite the government’s failure to produce any proof that he was waging war against the King and country. Allegations of spreading communism is ridiculous when Malaysia enjoys close relations with Communist countries like Cuba, China and Vietnam.

Should not then Khairy Jamaluddin be also arrested and charged for trying to revive communism by setting up a permanent secretariat on October 12 2009 to strengthen ties between Barisan Nasional Youth and the Communist Youth League of China (CYL). Barisan Youth chairman Khairy Jamaluddin had said that the permanent secretariat would facilitate continuous bilateral programmes to promote a stronger bond between the two entities.

Clearly the BN government is only victimising Bersih supporters who are arrested in the past week and its secretariat raided on Wednesday, when they have not organised any demonstration whilst UMNO and Perkasa demonstrations are allowed to proceed unpunished. These unjust actions will only sully Malaysia’s international image and its record of not practicing what it preaches on respecting basic human rights.

What's your favourite Contemporary Christian Music?

2011-07-01T09:27:00.003+08:00

Many friends have shared about their favorite Christian hymns. From the comments, it seems that the most favored one is 'Be Thou My Vision', which its original lyrics is traced back to the 6th century A.D. Ireland when it is sung in Irish folk song's tune. The song was 'hymnized' in the early 20th century by Welsh musician David Evans.

Now, I wonder what's your favorite Contemporary Christian Music (commonly abbreviated as CCM)?

CCM is, as described in wikipedia, "a genre of modern popular music which is lyrically focused on matters concerned with the Christian faith." The famous CCM artists are Michael W. Smith, Jars of Clay, Steven Curtis Chapman, Casting Crowns, and others.

This is my favorite CCM, a song with vivid observation of evil, exploration in theodicy, self-criticism, pastoral exhortation and a deep yearning for the apocalytic:

What's wrong with the world, mama
People livin' like they ain't got no mamas
I think the whole world addicted to the drama
Only attracted to things that'll bring you trauma
Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin'
In the USA, the big CIA fightin'
The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK
But if you only have love for your own race
Then you only leave space to discriminate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And when you hate then you're bound to get irate, yeah
Madness is what you demonstrate
And that's exactly how anger works and operates
Man, you gotta have love just to set it straight
Take control of your mind and meditate
Let your soul gravitate to the love, y'all, y'all

[Chorus]
People killin', people dyin'
Children hurt and you hear them cryin'
Can you practice what you preach
And would you turn the other cheek
Father, Father, Father help us
Send some guidance from above
'Cause people got me, got me questionin'
Where is the love

Where is the love
Where is the love
Where is the love
The love, the love

It just ain't the same, always unchanged
New days are strange, is the world insane
If love and peace is so strong
Why are there pieces of love that don't belong
Nations droppin' bombs
Chemical gasses fillin' lungs of little ones
With ongoin' sufferin' as the youth die young
So ask yourself is the lovin' really gone
So I could ask myself really what is goin' wrong
In this world that we livin' in people keep on givin' in
Makin' wrong decisions, only visions of them dividends
Not respectin' each other, deny thy brother
A war is goin' on but the reason's undercover
The truth is kept secret, it's swept under the rug
If you never know truth then you never know love
Where's the love, y'all, come on (I don't know)
Where's the truth, y'all, come on (I don't know)
Where's the love, y'all

[Chorus]
People killin', people dyin'
Children hurt and you hear them cryin'
Can you practice what you preach
And would you turn the other cheek
Father, Father, Father help us
Send some guidance from above
'Cause people got me, got me questionin'
Where is the love

Where is the love
Where is the love
Where is the love
Where is the love
Where is the love, the love, the love?

I feel the weight of the world on my shoulder
As I'm gettin' older, y'all, people gets colder
Most of us only care about money makin'
Selfishness got us followin' our wrong direction
Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria
Kids wanna act like what they see in the cinema
Yo', whatever happened to the values of humanity
Whatever happened to the fairness in equality
Instead of spreading love we're spreading animosity
Lack of understanding, leading lives away from unity
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' under
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' down
There's no wonder why sometimes I'm feelin' under
Gotta keep my faith alive till love is found
Now ask yourself

Where is the love?
Where is the love?
Where is the love?
Where is the love?

Father, Father, Father help us
Send some guidance from above
'Cause people got me, got me questionin'
Where is the love?

Sing with me y'all:
One world, one world (We only got)
One world, one world (That's all we got)
One world, one world
And something's wrong with it
Something's wrong with it
Something's wrong with the wo-wo-world, yeah
We only got (One world, one world)
That's all we got (One world, one world)

What is your favorite CCM?

The child of secularism: The myth of religious violence

2011-06-30T09:00:00.000+08:00

William Cavanaugh argued strongly against the myth of religious violence, exposing their origin as a political rhetoric:

"My hypothesis is that religion-and-violence arguments serve a particular need for their consumers in the West. These arguments are part of a broader Enlightenment narrative that has invented a dichotomy between the religious and the secular and constructed the former as an irrational and dangerous impulse that must give way in public to rational, secular forms of power. In the west, revulsion towards killing and dying in the name of one's religion is one of the principal means by which we become convinced that killing and dying in the name of the nation-state is laudable and proper. The myth of religious violence also provides secular social orders with a stock character, the religious fanatic, to serve as enemy. Carl Schmitt may be right--descriptively, not normatively--to point out that the friend-enemy distinction is essential to the creation of the political in the modern state. [...] The danger is that, in establishing an Other who is essentially irrational, fanatical, and violent, we legitimate coercive measures against that Other."
(William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence [USA: Oxford University Press, 2009], p.4-5)

Further commenting on what is written,

"Today in the West, killing for Jesus or for Christianity is universally considered repugnant, yet the worthiness of killing for one’s country or for an ideal such as “freedom” is generally taken for granted."

Since violence is a given in human society, to set up the religious as the epitome of violation of peace and civility is very much an employment of excessive rhetoric.

How's it like after two years in a theological college?

2011-06-29T10:34:00.006+08:00

I noticed a significant change in my disposition towards academic studies as a whole and the discipline theology itself. I notice this change by re-reading the past posts archived in this blog.

There are posts that I have written to which I now disagree with. Then there are those that I feel embarrass when reading them again. Then there are some that I feel angry with myself to have written them back then. In fact I noticed a shift in my blogging pattern too. I notice that the shift subtly took place late last year, in my third semester (I'm going to the fifth semester now).

One particular subject that I've learned to appreciate more is the importance to understand the Church. Since the last semester, I began to capitalize the word 'Church' whenever I use it (unless I'm referring it to the name of an organization or when I quote from others).

My Protestant background has not been placing much significance in this area. It is admissible that local Protestant Churches in general do not have a robust theological understanding of the Church. The practice of the Christian faith has always emphasize on individual's spirituality which is often a sacralized form of individualism.

To give an example of what I mean: It is common in the Protestant community to champion the pursuit of the Kingdom of God without asking where's the place of the invisible Church in this pursuit?

Protestants often speak of the Church as 'community' and 'fellowship', two words that are not incorrect by themselves as description of the Church. However, these words dissociate the visible/physical Churches from the invisible Church too easily.

The invisible Church is the theological concreteness of the physical Church where Sunday services and all other Church-related activities are held. If the physical Churches are the architectural product, the invisible Church is the blueprint.

The absence of robust ecclesiology has caused Churches to function merely like any other corporation with their vision statement, mission statement, goals and strategy planning to sustain themselves for the sake of sustaining themselves.

The issue is not that Churches should not operate like a corporation but to continuously inquire with their Master not only what is their role but also how should they function and what is their status at this point in history.

Being in the council of a local influential Christian network and participating in many other informal activities among the educated class of the society, I'm privileged to meet many influential Christians in high positions.

And by 'high', it often means all the way up there. Take for example, I just met a director of one of Asia's leading financial institutions over the weekend and talked about marketplace theology. At the end of our conversation, he invited me to do some research in that area with a group which he is part of.

Everyone that I met through these gatherings are very fervent God-loving Christians. Each one's life is filled with stories and theological struggle that are very encouraging and honorable.

Nonetheless, I find that many of them hold suspicion towards the Churches and pastors for various reasons. The most common ones are (1) the pastors are irrelevant to marketplace and the secular world, (2) academic theologians have lost touch with the real world, and (3) seminaries and Churches are teaching non-practical things.

Some of them make that point by sharing the story that Martin Luther locked his Church's door from Monday to Saturday as a symbol to tell his congregation to live their faith as Christians not only in the Church during Sunday service, but in their workplace during the weekdays.

And often these laities do not share their suspicion with pastors and academic theologians out of pleasantry and courtesy, or simply have not cross their mind to raise this issue when they meet.

One may attribute the cause of this suspicion to the individual's expectation of the Churches. And the cause of this expectation lies, may I suggest, in the lack of robust understanding of the invisible Church.

The exposure to ecclesiology guides me to approach this disparity between the Churches, the non-Church/para-Church organization, and the seminary. It has to do with how one answer the question: where is the place of the invisible Church in the pursuit of the Kingdom of God?

As how John Calvin in his quoted Cyprian of Carthage:

"I shall begin then, with the church, into the bosom of which God is pleased to gather his children, not only so that they may be nourished by her assistance and ministry while they are infancts and children, but also so that they may be guided by her motherly care until they mature and reach the goal of faith. "For what God has joined together, no one shall divie." (Mark 10.9). For those to whom God is Father, the church shall also be their mother."
(Quoted in Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction [Singapore: Blackwell, Fifth Edition 2011], p. 383. The italic is added to indicate the quotation of Cyprian of Carthage. See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge [USA: Hendrickson, 2008], p. 672.)

To even hint on a possible answer requires an essay with length and depth that a blog post cannot afford to provide (or perhaps just my incapability to produce such post). However, this is just to point out a particular subject that marks a significant shift in my two years of theological studies.

Regarding how this shift took place, I have to acknowledge the course that I took under Daniel Koh on ethics. Through the course, I was introduced to two important books that the class used: Malcolm Brown's 'Tensions in Christian Ethics: An Introduction' and Samuel Wells' and Ben Quash's 'Introducing Christian Ethics'.

The course requires us to submit a 10-pages essay either on the debate on capital punishment or the relation between moral formation and the Christian community. I chose to write on the latter. And it was through my research for this essay (which largely following the trails pointed out in the two mentioned books) that the shift was made.

At the end of the essay, I learned that ecclesiology enables a more coherent perspective on the relation between the individual Christian and other spaces in this world like the state, other religions, corporation, intra-Church communities and para-Church organizations.

How's it like after two years of theological study?

I find myself appreciating nuance more in studies, conversation as well as perception. I also find myself to have developed deeper admiration for the faculty members at Trinity Theological College for their works which unfortunately are often not known among the local Christian community.

Many laities and local pastors have the impression that local academic theologians are not relevant, but I wonder if that is because they are not expose to their work?

Laities prefer to read books or websites from the west and pay very little attention to those from one's own context and then suspect the local theologians are not doing anything 'practical' or 'relevant'. This is of course not the fault of the laities (nor the academicians). This is just what it is at this point in time, where the local atmosphere is still very much entrenched with its post-colonial history and present experience of globalization.

Nonetheless, the laities and pastors shouldn't be too quick to judge the local theologians as insipid. Likewise, the laities shouldn't hastily see the pastors as irrelevant. Each person has his/her professional demands to meet and various responsibilities to look into.

Living in the college allows me to witness some aspects of the life of local theologians and the works that they have been doing that others don't usually see. Participating in many Christian gatherings among the educated class in the society allows me to understand their expectation and desire for the Kingdom of God that pastors usually are not able to attend to. Being around with pastors and pastors-to-be afford me to know firsthand the straining expectation that are expected from them and the limitation that they have which they seldom talk about and laities are not really interested or have the time to know.

The laities, pastors, and academic theologians are all creatures of the invisible Church. In this case, the first step to reconcile each group to one another is to re-learn what does it mean by Church?

Be open to learn and see before passing judgement is an important lesson that I've picked up.

Holy Spirit helps us to understand scriptures?

2011-06-27T10:06:00.006+08:00

Yes, Holy Spirit helps us to understand scriptures. Yet this claim can easily be abused. Here is an interesting and humorous remark made by Kristen M. Swenson:

Now, I know that many Christians, relying on biblical texts, maintain that the Holy Spirit will make the meaning of biblical texts clear to believers. And I don't deny it, but maybe you know this story:

The Church decided to establish a monastery in a wild, rural area. Some time later, the bishop paid a visit, to see how things were going. After reviewing the buildings and activities, the bishop wandered admiringly in its lovely gardens. To the monk toiling there, he said, "My, my! The good Lord and you have made a beautiful place." The gardener monk replied, "You should see how it looked when the good Lord was taking care of it by himself."

Potshot at Rowan Williams, Singaporean style

2011-06-26T00:14:00.016+08:00

It is quite common to read about western mainstream media and local tawdry bloggers taking cheap shots at Rowan Williams. Today I come across someone highly educated doing that.

I just came back from an informal forum featured a speaker who has two doctorates in natural sciences. At one point the speaker, who throughout the session implied that he was a biblical Christian representing the Christian orthodox position, commented that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is not a Christian. He alleged Williams to be ruining the Anglican Communion and distorting the scriptures on some issues.

After listening for a while, I raised objection. I told him that I have read Williams' biographies and his works, and I disagree with his assessment of Williams.

The speaker admitted that he has not read Williams' works. (Of course, there are people who still condemn Williams after they read his works. Yet to condemn someone without knowing what the person's stands are and how he got there is completely unacceptable.) That was before the speaker said that Williams joined pagan druidism prior to his election to the seat of Augustine of Canterbury.

Honestly, I was taken aback.

Williams was once a Presbyterian. He contemplated Roman Catholicism at certain period of his life before committed his life to the Church of England. He was never into pagan druidism.

However, the speaker assured us again and again that Williams did joined druidism. He asked us to check the news.

And check I did.

I found out that in July 2002, BBC reported that Williams was inducted as an "honorary druid" at the National Eisteddfod's Gorsedd of Bards.

However, there is nothing paganistic about the group and the event. National Eisteddfod is actually an organization to "honour the literary achievements of Welsh poets and prose writers" with an annual festival featuring the cultures of Wales.

Wales is a country in the United Kingdom (which comprised of four countries: England, Scotland, North Ireland, and Wales) with its own cultural expression, such as their own language (Welsh) and the Celtic heritage. Williams is a Welsh.

The difference between Welsh and English is something like the difference between Malay and 'orang asli' (aborigines) in Malaysia. Just as it is difficult for a non-Malaysian to distinguish Malay from aborigines (unless he/she study the subject), it is difficult for us to distinguish between Welsh and English (unless we study it).

Therefore to say that the fact of Williams' participation in the Gorsedd of Bards is an evident that he was and still is a pagan is akin to say that Malay Christians' participation in Malay culture such as wearing 'baju melayu', speak Malay, enjoy Dangdut, and celebrate Hari Raya are evidents that they were and still are pagans.

Given that Williams is an accomplished poet (who has published 4 collections of poems), it is only expected that he is honored by the National Eisteddfod, an organization that honors Welsh culture.

To say that Williams' acceptance of such honor as participating in a pagan religion is akin to saying a Malay Christian who accepts a recognition for his publication of poems as participating in a pagan religion.

The speaker's potshot on Williams tells me more about the speaker himself rather than about Williams. One doesn't need two doctorates to make sweeping statement. A mouth and an overblown ego would do.

Did I mention about my previous encounter with the speaker? He is that Dean of Biblical Studies.

The canonical collection of scriptures as 'library' among early Christians?

2011-06-23T23:31:00.006+08:00

Craig A. Evans has posted a piece that suggests that the collection of literatures written by the apostles and earliest followers of Jesus were perhaps served as a library to be referred to by the community.

Evans' suggestion came by the appropriation of George W. Houston's research over,

"fifty collections and libraries (mostly) from the second century BCE to the third century CE. These were libraries and collections that were thrown out intact and centuries later recovered more or less intact. In addition to literary works were dated correspondence, notes, and commentaries that have made it possible in many cases to determine when manuscripts were copied and how long they were in use before being replaced or discarded. Houston finds that literary manuscripts were in use anywhere from 150 to 500 years, with the average usually 200 to 300 years."

If this is indeed the practice of the ancient Church, then that means the original writings, the autographs, were highly probably still in existent up till the third century A. D. This is significant because if this is true, then the transmission gap is much narrow than some presumed.

There are two implications. First, the content of the scriptures were more stable and less likely to be corrupted through the hand of the copyists because the original writings were still around for reference up to the third century A. D. That is Evans' point.

Second, which is my conjecture, is that the canonization process can be traced through this 'libraries' and hence explains the exclusion of other writings like those found in Nag Hammadi. These other writings were not recognized as canonical simply because they were not in those ancient collection.

If these two implications are correct, then it is not only that the transmission of the scriptures is stable but the collection of the canon itself existed very early and persistent.

Human uniqueness and the 'image of God' in relation to biological similarity and differences with other creatures

2011-06-22T00:57:00.004+08:00

It is undeniable that human beings share significant biological similarity with other non-human creatures on earth. Besides the intricate physical system that keep us alive, humans participate in a range of activities such as eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting, and reproducing like other creatures.

These observations present a reason for us to constantly revisit the idea of 'image of God', the imago Dei, through the scriptures and how the Church has been negotiating for a better understanding of this concept throughout the ages.

Given that humans have both remarkable similarities and stark differences with other creatures, it is too superficial to apply the category of 'animal' to describe non-humans to the exclusion of humans from this category on one hand, and too presumptuous to simply categorize humans as mere 'animal' as if we are essentially identical with non-human creatures on another hand.

Without adopting the problematic human-animal distinction, a possibly better way to inquire into this would be to ask what is the uniqueness of human beings in relation to other creatures?

Here is a suggestion given by J. Wentzel van Huyssteen on how we can go about it:

“Personhood, when reconceived in terms of embodied imagination, symbolic propensities, and cognitive fluidity, may enable theology to revision its notion of the imago Dei as an idea that does not imply superiority or a greater value than animals or earlier hominids, but might express a specific task and purpose to set forth the presence of God in this world. I would therefore call for a revisioning of the notion of the imago Dei in ways that would not be overly abstract and exotically baroque, that instead acknowledges our embodied existence, our close ties to the animal world and its uniqueness, and to those hominid ancestors who came before us, while at the same time focusing on what our symbolic and cognitively fluid minds might tell us about the emergence of an embodied human uniqueness, consciousness, and personhood, and the propensity for religious awareness and experience.”
(J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, 'What Makes Us Human? The Interdisciplinary Challenge to Theological Anthropology and Christology,' in Toronto Journal of Theology 26/2, 2010, p. 149-150. Emphasis added.)

On a specific trait that marks human different from other creatures, van Huyssteen cautiously and modestly points out that:

“Our very human capacity for self-definition can most probably be seen as one of the crowning achievements of our species. As we all know today, however, no one trait or accomplishment should ever be taken as the single defining characteristic of what it means to be human.”
(J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, 'What Makes Us Human? The Interdisciplinary Challenge to Theological Anthropology and Christology,' Toronto Journal of Theology 26/2, 2010, p. 145-146. Emphasis added.)

These excerpts are taken from a paper van Huysteen prepared for workshops held at the University of Toronto in February 2010, co-sponsored by Emmanuel College and the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology.

Van Huyssteen first shared these notions when he delivered the prestigious Gifford Lectures in 2004 at the University of Edinburgh. The lectures have since been published as 'Alone In The World?: Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology'.

To van Huyssteen, the uniqueness of human being lies in the given mission to present the nearness and realness of God through the person's life in the world.

I think this suggestion equates the image of God merely on function. Does that mean those who are incapable, due either to natural or accidental disability, to "set forth the presence of God" do not have the imago Dei?

Does this also mean that those who rebelliously choose not to "set forth the presence of God" not created in the image of God?

Would this then mean that one's status as bearer of the imago Dei is momentary and not ontological, as in a person is only in God's image when he/she performs the God-given task?

If this is so, how then should we make sense of the idea that human beings are created in the image of God since the word 'created' does sound as if humans are ontologically bearer of imago Dei regardless whether they are performing any task?

Though harboring these questions to van Huyssteen's project, his approach still seems to me a possible first step to revisit the appropriation of imago Dei, especially in his highlight of humans' capacity of self-defining.

Article on apostasy in Islam is now published on the World Reformed Fellowship website

2011-06-20T22:35:00.010+08:00

Those who are interested may access the article here.

It is very encouraging to read the email from Samuel T. Logan, Jr., the International Director of the World Reformed Fellowship who is also the President Emeritus at the Westminster Theological Seminary and the Special Counsel to the President of Biblical Seminary:

Singapore mainstream media generally anti-religion, particularly anti-Christianity?

2011-06-18T21:28:00.034+08:00

Not sure about others, but I find that the official news agencies in or of Singapore often portray religion, particularly Christianity, in the negative especially when it concerns government-related or public matters. Here is one example:

 Notice the title of this news report by Channel News Asia, dated 18 May 2011, written by Christine Ong. It states that the 'Catholic Church in Philippines wages war against reproductive health bill'. (Emphasis added.)

Isn't this very manipulative of human's emotion by implicating religious body with violence (in this case, religious institution starts war) that goes against an central aspect of humanity (in this case, 'health')?

  When the reproductive health bill is approved, we don't see Channel News Asia published the news with headlines like 'New reproductive health bill wages war against Catholic Church's values'.  

One may say that such negative portrayal sells because it is controversial.

But I think that is not the case at all. If being controversial is the main aim, then a headline with title something like 'Parliamentary oppressive bill forces Catholic Church into action' can be as controversial.

The kind of title that I've suggested will not be used because it will put the parliament/government in the bad light for they are being portrayed as bully while religion as the victim. Hence there is something more to it than simply for the sake of controversial.

From the way the government-owned-news-agency describes the Catholic Church in Philippines, it is obvious that the government wants to impress on readers that religious institution is violent warmonger while the 'secular' parliamentary approved bill is humane since it is related to 'health' and nothing violent about it. When portrayed in this way, the government hence is seen as an innocent victim of the warmongering Church. What is worse is that it subtly impresses on the readers that the Church wages war against humanity.

Is this not bad journalism with an anti-religion political agenda?

One may also say that it is a given that news agencies are bias, so there shouldn't be any big deal about it.

Of course, every news agency is bias. Yet the problem in local media is not that it is bias per se, but is such bias justifiable in a world that urgently needs solidarity and mutual respect rather than divisiveness and demonisation that causes deep mistrust and animosity?

The constant negative portrayal of religious communities especially when it concerns government related matters is not helping to foster civility and social cohesion.

Here is another example:

The Strait Times titled the news, written by Yen Feng and published on 26 May 2011, as 'SGH warns against evangelising', with subtitle 'Christian volunteer told to leave after complaint by a Taoist patient's son'.

The sign at SGH reads 'At SGH, we respect the religious and ethnic beliefs of Singaporeans. No staff, patient, visitor or volunteer is allowed to impose their religious beliefs on another.'

It is clear that the sign says that SGH is against the imposition of any religious beliefs on one another, not particularly 'evangelising' which is generally understood as Christian proselytisation.

So why is the Strait Times giving the impression to the public that Singapore General Hospital's warning sign is specifically directed to 'evangelising' (an explicit Christian terminology) and not all types of proselytisation?

One may say that the report's title is fair since it all started with the case involving a Christian volunteer, a Taoist man and his son, who is identified as Mr. Chan.

But besides the title of the news, one hardly can conclude from the report's content, which is reproduced at SGH's website, that what has taken place was indeed 'evangelising'. Let me quote the report at length:

"The move to spell out guidelines on proselytising follows an incident involving a Christian volunteer and an elderly patient who is a Taoist. The patient’s son wrote to the Health Ministry last month seeking an explanation, and the ministry asked SGH to investigate the matter.

The patient’s son, who would only give his surname as Chan, said the volunteer had approached him and his father on April 2, asking if they wanted to learn origami. The volunteer is a member of the Church of Praise in Lavender Street.

Mr Chan, 38, said: “I told her no, then she started asking me about my father. That was when she told me she’s a stroke patient and that the Lord saved her.” She began talking about her faith, he added.

In a statement to The Straits Times, SGH said the incident was “isolated” and it has asked the volunteer to leave. It added that all volunteers are expected not to impose their religious views on anyone. “Any volunteer who breaches this code of conduct will be asked to discontinue their involvement with the hospital,” it said." (Emphasis added.)

How is talking about one's experience with one's own religious faith in how it has helped the person amount to imposing religious views on another person?

Does Mr. Chan has the tendency to interpret a person's describing his/her experience with his/her own religious belief as imposition of one's religion to another?

Do the Health Ministry and SGH share the same tendency to interpret such activity as imposition of one's belief to another?

Does the Strait Times also have the exact tendency?

When PM Lee Hsien Loong revealed to Charlie Rose in an interview, which took place in April 2010 (an excerpt is published with the title 'PM Lee on nepotism and his father's legacy' in the Strait Times dated 16 April 2010), that Singapore is governed by "basic Confucian precept", does any organization in Singapore put up warning signs and local media publishes the news with title that PM Lee is imposing religious beliefs on everyone in Singapore?

"The whole of our system is founded on a basic concept of meritocracy. You are where you are because you are the best man for the job, and not because of your connections or your parents or your relatives.

And if anybody doubts that I as Prime Minister am here not because I'm the best man for the job but because my father fixed it, or that my wife runs Temasek because I put her there and not because she's the best woman for the job, then my entire credibility and moral authority is destroyed because I'm not fit to be where I am.

And it is a fundamental issue of fitness to govern.

First, you must have the moral right, then you can make the right decisions. It's a basic Confucian precept." (Emphasis added.)

PM Lee was describing his experience with a religious belief as how it has helped him to do his job, that is in managing a country. Now, why didn't Mr. Chan write to the Prime Minister's Office seeking for an explanation?

One may say that Confucianism is not a religion and so it is not a case where one is imposing one's religion to another.

Those who say that are either unfamiliar with Confucianism or ignorant of the nature of religion, or simply both.

Xinzhong Yao, the Honorary President of the Confucian Academy of Hong Kong and the Director of the China Institute at King's College London, has this to say in his book on Confucianism:

"Confucianism is a humanistic religion because the Confucian understanding and conception of the Ultimate, of the imminent power, of the transcendent, of the world, life and death are all related to, and based on its exploration of human nature and human destiny. Human life is meaningful and invaluable, not only because it is a way of fulfilling human destiny, but also because it is the only way of bridging this life and the beyond, the limited and the infinite, the temporal and the eternal, which is well illustrated by Confucius in his reply to the questions of how to serve spiritual beings and how to understand death: 'If you do not yet understand life, how can you possibly understand death?' (Lunyu, II:12)."
(Xinzhong Yao, An Introduction to Confucianism [UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000], p. 46. Emphasis added.)

In the terms of sociology of religion, Confucianism is recognized as a religion alongside Taoism in Chinese civilization:

"In one sense, the emperor was the high priest of the state religion. The worship of deities was a matter of state business, while ancestor worship was required of all social classes. […] In this sense Confucianism was a state theory which institutionalized filial piety as the core duty of religious activity. Confucianism tolerates both magic and mysticism, provided they were useful instruments for controlling the masses. […] We can reasonably regard Confucianism as the state religion of the literati, and Taoism as the popular religion of the masses."
(Bryan S. Turner, 'The Sociology of Confucianism' in The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, ed. Peter Clarke [UK: Oxford University Press, 2009], p. 92. Emphasis added.)

Confucianism is reckoned as a religion at the present as well as in the past.

While the Christian volunteer was only describing her own experience which hardly an imposition of her faith to anyone, PM Lee was making a public statement that his government is employing Confucian precept to manage the entire Singaporean society without regard to each citizens' and each politicians' religious belief.

I think the word 'imposition' is more appropriate as a reference to PM Lee's administration than to the Christian volunteer who merely shared her story about her own religious experience to Mr. Chan. I think the eloquent editors of the Strait Times wouldn't disagree with me on this.

Hence it puzzles me why Mr. Chan and those who share his tendency to interpret one's talking about one's experience with a religious faith as imposing one's religious belief on another do not also extend their enthusiasm to PM Lee?

To be fair and consistent, they should. But of course, that is if they are indeed fair and consistent to begin with, and not merely picking on the Christians and Christianity. Yet as we have observed in this case it is not clear that they are.

Let me be clear that I'm not questioning PM Lee's decision or his experience. Only he knows the constant pressures and demands required of him as the nation's leader, and so he has all the rights to decide which religious belief assists him best in doing his job.

What I'm questioning is the puzzling reaction displayed by Mr. Chan, the Health Ministry, SGH, and the Strait Times in dealing with one particular incident. An incident that has unfortunately mis-presented Christianity in a unjust manner.

Is this not an evident of anti-Christianity on the part of Mr. Chan, Health Ministry, SGH, and the Strait Times? Perhaps.

It is reported at Dailymail.co.uk by Paul Revoir on 1 June 2011 about an interesting survey carried out at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The survey was conducted as part of the BBC’s ‘Diversity Strategy’ and involved 4500 people, including some BBC staffs. Here are some of the findings:

  "According to viewers, Christians are badly treated with ‘derogatory stereotypes’ which portray them as ‘weak’ or ‘bigoted’.  

It was suggested that there was a bias against Christianity and that other religions were better represented.

The consultation concluded: ‘In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity.’

It added: ‘Christians are specifically mentioned as being badly treated, with a suggestion that more minority religions are better represented despite Christianity being the most widely observed religion within Britain.’" (Emphasis added.)

This makes me wonder if local news agencies like the Channel News Asia and the Strait Times would be interested to conduct similar study? May be a better wonder would be if the local media even willing, not to mention dare, to conduct such study?

Individual's consciousness, like that of Mr. Chan, feeds on the mainstream media's constant negative portrayal of the Christians and Christianity in relation to government-related or public matters. One can only hope that the news agencies can be more alert to the implication that their news reporting has to the society. Subtly (consciously or unconsciously) fuelling discrimination on the religious communities via the public media is not helpful to nation building and the fostering of social harmony.

Book Review: 'Pilgrims and Citizens: Christian Social Engagement in East Asia Today', edited by Michael Nai-Chiu Poon

2011-06-16T15:51:00.015+08:00

This book is a collection of essays presented at the 'Seek the Welfare of the City' conference held at Trinity Theological College Singapore, with the National Council of Churches of Singapore and Tyndale House Cambridge as co-sponsors, in August 2005.

Altogether there are sixteen articles with the 'Foreword' written by Singapore Methodist Bishop Robert Solomon, 'Introduction' by Singapore Anglican Archbishop John Chew, and 'Editor's Introduction' by Michael Poon, the Director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia.

The essays are grouped into five parts:

Preliminaries
Biblical Studies
Historical and Theological Studies
Contemporary Engagements
Concluding Reflections

For the 'Preliminaries', two political leaders contribute their perspectives on the relation between the government and the various religions.

Lim Siong Guan, who was the Head of the Singapore Civil Service and the Permanent Secretary of Singapore's Ministry of Finance, examines whether are religions positive or negative factor in Singapore. He prefaces his presentation that it is purely his "personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the government." (p.3)

Lim's main point is that the only role religions can play in society is in the building of people whose morality is motivated by fear. In his words:

"Where the conscience in the individual is strong and where people have the fear of God---which very often is a fear of divine retribution and of what may happen to them in this life or after they die---people will behave responsibly even when there is no one to catch and punish them. The weak society is where people need to be forced to do things, and lose their sense of concern and responsibility for their fellowman. This is where religion plays the role only it can play, of bringing to people a consciousness of god, even a fear of god, that will cause them to do what is right and good even when there is no law to force them to do so, or no policeman around." (p.13-14. Emphasis added)

Religions, by playing this role, help to preserve social harmony and stability in Singapore. Lim ends his essay by raising this concern: "How can we make religion a positive factor?" (p.16. Emphasis added.)

Lim's concern assumes that religion is something that can be made into something some parties desire. If this is the case, then religion is just a manipulative tool employable for hegemonic purposes or national interest.

Yes, we cannot deny that religion has been employed in such way before. Yet to say that religion is meant to be used in that manner does not contribute to the understanding of religion and hence impede on the effort to relate it to the society.

Besides, whether is a religion "positive factor" depends on whose interest the religion serves. This makes ambiguous Lim's assumption that religion is perceived primarily for its manipulative characteristic.

The second Preliminary essay is written by Ye Xiaowen, the Director-General of the State Administration of Religious Affairs of China. He presents China as a country that seeks harmony but not uniformity as it is one of the Chinese people's national characteristic.

Ye assures us that China's "respect for freedom of religious belief is sincere and consistent." (p.22) He cites quotations from the Qur'an, Bible, Buddhist sutra, and Confucian literature to point out the message of peace and harmony in each religion.

The diplomatic tone in the essay somehow gives a sense of superficiality underlying its message which fundamentally shares the same mistaken assumption on religion with the previous essay by Lim.

Next, entered the 'Biblical Studies' part where Bruce Winter, Tan Kim Huat, and Paul Barnett, three accomplished scholars on the Christian scriptures, explore historical precedences that illuminate the challenges to live as a follower of Christ in the present world.

Winter examines the early Christians' paradoxical perception of being a citizen yet at the same time a foreigner in their social environment. He noted that the early disciples as citizens "devote themselves to the doing of good deeds in all human activities in the private as well as the public spheres of life." (p.33) However, as foreigners, they "must withdraw from the self-indulgent lifestyle of their contemporaries." (p.32)

Tan writes a substantial article detailing the contributions of the diaspora Jews to the cities of their dwelling between 323 B.C. to 66 A.D. Tan highlights the types of Jewish participation in civic life and individuals like Philo of Alexandria who are highly regarded and trusted among the Gentiles.

Tan points out a remarkable discovery where Jewish names are found among Greek participants in the gymnasia. "The inclusion of Jews in these ephebic lists demonstrates that they were numbered among the elite. Jews did not shy away from enrolling in the gymnasia even when it was clear that their being circumcised might expose them to ridicule in a place where males trained naked." (p.45)

Tan argued that we do not need to conclude that these diaspora Jews apostatised from their tradition or syncretised into their surrounding pagan culture. He thinks that:

"What might be a better explanation is that they have managed to negotiate the intricacies of diaspora and learned to live and let live, to contribute and also to receive. [...] What we have established thus far is that Jews were very much aware of the kind of cultural ethos they were encountering and were also either contributing to it, being part of it or milking it." (p.48)

Tan's essay ends with further list of five different areas the Diaspora Jews have contributed to their cities, namely moral, military, administrative and fiscal, and benefactions.

Barnett's piece looks briefly into Jesus' relation to the Roman state, and how his followers up to the fourth century A. D. have since tried to imitate his example.

By looking into Mark 12.13-17, where Jesus proclaims the rightness to "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," Barnett shows that Jesus "repudiates zealotry and theocracy." Furthermore,

"In effect, then, Jesus attributes all authority to God, demanding due recognition of his deity and sovereignty. Beneath that sovereignty, however, Jesus located a rightful role 'Caesar', that is, for the state. In the divine order, Caesar is to provide an infrastructure for the welfare of his citizens." (p.68)

Barnett concludes his article with six reflection pointers to direct present followers of Jesus to pick up as they engage in the society.

Oliver O'Donovan's probing essay that unpacks the complexity of the Christian proposition "All authority is from God" graces the opening of the third part of the book on 'Historical and Theological Studies'.

In this essay, O'Donovan demonstrates not in one but in two areas how political authority when pursued without reference to theology---when secularised---is fundamentally ungrounded. Political authority is similar yet profoundly different with two other authorities we are familiar with, namely authority of the wise or experts, and authority of a parent over a child.

Political authority in the former sense only possible on "matters and occasions for which it has functional use" while in the latter sense it is "a simple givenness" that "can persist in the face of startling failures of wisdom and virtue on the part of those who exercise it." (p.85)

However, political authority "having no natural basis on the one hand" (unlike a parent's relation to the child) and "no basis in achievement on the other"(for politicians' failures in being wise and virtuous), "seems to float in the air without support. It is ungrounded." (p.85)

O'Donovan inquires further, "Since human beings have no natural sovereignty over one another, by what sovereignty are they authorised to dispose of one another's lives in the service of justice [for eg. when policeman shot down a running suspect, or countries exercising capital punishment]?

He points out that the notion of social contract employed to justifies sovereignty of the government over citizens cannot do the job:

"The central Western myth of the social contract has imagined citizens contracting with one another to make their lives subject to a form of government that they set up. But not only is it impossible to imagine such a contract---how would you make such a contract where there was not even the most vestigial notion of what contracting and promising meant?---it is not clear how such contract could introduce a right of government. I may perhaps agree to surrender my goods and liberty and life to the judgment of the state; but can I agree to surrender yours? Or my grandchildren's?" (p.87)

O'Donovan is not hesitate to assert that "the Western tradition can offer no answer. The Christian answer is: 'all authority is from God.'" (p.87)

Michael Poon's essay, drawing from the works of Jaroslav Pelikan, suggests that the "non-Western world to learn again from the early church, to establish a canonical frameworks that can enable them to become a confident Christian society for today." (p.106. Emphasis original.)

Here, I need to emphasize that Poon does not mean to establish a Christian state, but a community that "by demonstrating in its own life the welfare of the heavenly city would it be able to discern the needs of the wider society, and find fresh initiatives to seek for its true welfare." (p.106)

At another place, Poon writes similarly that the "Christians in East Asia need to move out of an entrenched understanding that they are local agents of mission societies and movements. They need to recover the vision that the Christian community itself assumes a public form; its manner of life creates a social reality that contributes to the true welfare of people and nations." (p.104)

Hwa Yung, the Malaysian Methodist Bishop, produces an inquiry into the formation of civil society. First, he expounds from Ernest Gellner's work that the characteristics of a 'civil society'

"excludes all forms of centralised authoritarianism, whether Marxist or otherwise, as well as the stifling communalism of segmentary societies,"

while possesses

"an effective central state which, while acquiring such great power, nevertheless did not pulverize the rest of society, rendering it supine and helpless. A society emerged which ceased to be segmentary---either as an alternative to the state, as a mode of efficient state-lessness, or as an internal opposition to the state or in part its ally---yet capable of providing a countervailing force to the state." (p.110. The latter paragraph is a quotation from Gellner's work.)

Hwa probes into Islamic and Chinese tradition to see if both can materialize the said civil society. By looking into the achievement of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Rachid Ghannoushi, and Abdolkarim Soroush, Hwa concludes that though there are many strengths in

"classical Islam on issues of justice, rule of law, human rights, and so forth, in and of itself it did not and could not produce civil society as defined here. Indeed for Islam to come to terms fully with civil society, people like Soroush must be taken seriously. But it is far from certain that this is where the majority of Muslims wish to go at the present." (p.117)

On Chinese tradition, Hwa looks into the works of Hu Shih, Lee Kuan Yew's appeal to Confucian tradition and Goh Chok Tong's observation. He sums up that "despite the elements that can contribute to civil society found in Islamic and the Chinese traditions, civil society did not emerge from within these or any other culture apart from the West [in the form of liberal democracy at its best not at its worst], shaped as it is in large measure by its Christian heritage." Therefore, "if we are serious in wanting our own nations to become civil societies, it would be wise for us to ask how that came about in the only one place where we meet it in human history." (p.120. Emphasis added.)

After Hwa's piece, we have an article examining theological metaphors best describe Christians in East Asia by theologian-ethicist Daniel Koh. He wonders if the metaphor 'resident aliens' popularized by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon appropriate since it "has given support, perhaps unintentionally, to those who take an explicit stand that Christian should not be socially engaged." (p.127)

Besides, by adopting 'resident aliens' as identity metaphor in the East Asia context that often misunderstands Christianity as an alien religion "will only give further credence to the already suspicious Asians that the faith we hold an our belief in Jesus Christ is an adoption of a foreign faith that supports the political and commercial agenda of the Euro-North American powers." (p.141)

Koh affirm that there is "no denying that Christians are citizens of two cities, but we do not have to overemphasise that identity by displaying the 'resider aliens' membership card." (p.142)

Nonetheless, taking "such a stance [...] is not being anti-West. What we are asking for is that in as much as we should be critical in our social engagement in the local public arena, we ought also to be critical in our engagement with the Euro-North American world. This is not endorsing the status qou or glorifying all things Asian." (p.142)

In replacement, Koh proposes the metaphor of 'salt and light' that are "associated with food and energy" and hence might be better understood and appreciated. (p.143)

The fourth part of this book on 'Contemporary Engagements' comprises four essays. Two focus on China, one on Singapore, and one on Roman Catholic perspective on social engagement.

The first article in this section by Cao Shengjie, President of China Christian Council, is overlaid with angst over imperialistic injustice done on China. For example, this paragraph:

"Undoubtedly some [Western] missionaries were sincere in their beliefs and made some contribution in East-West cultural exchanges. However their missiological outlook was not in accordance with the truth of the gospel. They harmed the interests of the nation to which the Chinese believers belong, and separated them from their own compatriots. Their presentation of the 'gospel' made the majority of Chinese people reject Christianity and regard it as 'an alien religion'." (p.148-149)

For that, the author gives the impression that Chinese Christians reacted by combining nationalism with their Christian faith. For instance, Cao endorses this remark made by former Anglican Bishop Kuang-hsun Ting, who was the Chairperson of Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Cao's predecessor in the China Christian Council:

"'[T]he cosmic Christ bestows his grace to all people in the world'; 'there also exists truth, kindness and beauty outside of the church'; and 'Chinese Christians shall combine two 'Cs' together, namely Christ and China.'" (p.150. Emphasis added.)

This seems to me to be the logical end of the mistaken assumption that I have underlined in Lim Siong Guan's paper above. When religion is perceived as meant to be made as (Lim's words) "positive factor" for hegemonic purposes (in the case of imperial West) or national interest (in the case of China's angst over its colonial experience), the religion will be distorted to serve whoever that claims patronage over it. For the China Christian Council, Christ and China are to be combined.

I wonder isn't this the exact mirror-image of the distortion of Christianity made by Western imperialists that combined the gospel with imperialistic goals, which summed up in the phrase 'God, Gold and Glory'?

Apparently, the Chinese Christians in their reaction have assumed exactly in the likes of those they loath towards.

Nonetheless, Cao makes a good point that the notion that "Christian lives only for his own benefit in order to go to heaven after this world and that too much care about this world will weaken commitment to God" as "obstacles" for Christian social works. (p.152)

The following essay by Zhuo Xinping, the Director of the Institute of World Religions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, details the Christian contribution to China prior to 1949. Zhou lists four areas where Christian contributions are evident: (1) the spiritual cultivation of the Chinese people, (2) public education, (3) development of news and publication, and (4) social welfare and philanthropy.

Zhou recognizes that "Christianity should or could not be interpreted or represented by political images [i.e. imperialist aggression], which are at best partial. [...] [W]e can still discern or discover its light behind the political shadows." (p.167)

Richard Magnus, a Senior District Judge in Singapore, provides a framework based on local historical precedences of how Singaporean Christians can contribute to the society.

First, Christians' loyalty to the nation is "unquestioned". (p.172) Second, Singaporean Christian's work "is also to preserve the good gifts of a good creator: marriages, families, work and leisure, friendships, the inter-racial and inter-cultural community, the arts and our environment which enhance our quality of human life." (p.172) Third, Christians support national leaders by praying for them. Fourth, Christians should promote justice.

Fifth, Christians should encourage reconciliation and peace. Sixth, helping dysfunctional individuals. Seventh, promoting the sciences by participating in bioethics discussion. Eighth, helping societies in other countries, and ninth contributing to the society in love in instances like helping to deal with "social fallout and offer counseling for people with gambling problems" after the government decided to approve the building of two casinos in Singapore. (p.177)

I find Magnus's proposals puzzling, not least the last point. It gives the impression that the government expects the Churches to help clean up the mess it caused. And it is surprising that Magnus does not note whether the Churches obliges without giving a stern warning to the government of the severity of its decision.

Fr. Kenson Koh, the current Dean of Studies at St. Francis Xavier Major Seminary, offers the Roman Catholic perspective on Christian social engagement. He argued for a critical appraisal of globalisation which very much affects the economic and social landscape of Singapore.

Fr. Kenson focuses on the common good, subsidiarity and solidarity that form the Catholic's response to the present society. He emphasizes the need for "inculturation", a "dialogical process between the cultures and the ecclesial community for the growth and enrichment of persons," and the need to be vigilant that this process does not lead the Churches to end up either as arrogant or syncretic. (p.188)

The 'Concluding Reflections' contains three write-ups. The first one is by Oliver O'Donovan on the necessity of the Church's continuous effort in "testing, questioning and examining" the discourse on the relation between the Church and the society.

The second write-up is by Zhou Xinping on the role of Christianity in the construction of a harmonious society.

The final article is by Daniel Koh, that asserts the necessity for the state to know its place that it is not a religious authority that should trespasses into adjudicating the Church's concerns, implying that this should be the case even on issues that the Church disagrees with the decision of the state. On this basis, Koh questions some of the points made by Lim and Ye in their respective essays.

Overall, this is a relatively small book (206 pages) covering a huge discourse comprising various perspectives. It is unfair to view the author of each essay as a product of their profession, yet it is not difficult to sympathize with the author's concern if we associate it with his job. Those who hold or held government post (Cao, Lim, Magnus, Ye, and Zhuo) are expectedly not critical on their professional establishment or their ethos. At times, their essays give the impression that they are the publicist for the government. Hence contributions by others like O'Donovan, Koh, Hwa, and Poon are valuable not only for the points raised but also for their differing perspective from the former group. Nevertheless, all the articles are worth collecting as each presents a significant point of view on the relation between the Christians and society in a contextually sensitive manner.

What does it mean to be a follower of Christ in Singapore?

2011-06-12T22:12:00.007+08:00

Here is a nuance suggestion offered by Daniel Koh, Lecturer in Ethics and Pastoral Theology at Trinity Theological College, Singapore:

"The Singaporean followers of Christ are not persecuted, nor are they targeted for discrimination in this plural Asian society, the way Christians in the early church history were discriminated. While it is true that all Christians are 'resident aliens' in the theological sense that we are citizens of God's Kingdom, and therefore our ultimate loyalty should be to God and the demands of his Kingdom, we are also citizens of the world which is God's creation and his gift to humanity. Needless to say, the theological understanding of our identity as 'resident aliens' should remind us not to place too much trust in the principalities and powers of this world, or the status quo, yet it does not require of us to denounce the world or to be preoccupied with a 'hard difference' that emphasises on the peculiarity of our identity. Even in time of undeserved discrimination, Christians were advised to 'do good,' not within the confines of the Christian community, but also for the sake of others who are not Christians. Properly understood, one cannot 'do good' without intentional participation and active engagement in fostering societal well-being, as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ."
(Daniel K. S. Koh, 'Resident Aliens and Alienated Residents', in Pilgrims and Citizens: Christian Social Engagement in East Asia Today, ed. Michael Nai-Chiu Poon [Australia: ATF Press, 2006], p.140-141. Emphasis added.)