Jesus' tears and the Haiti earthquake

Prologue

On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude quake hit Haiti, just 10 miles west of Porte-au-Prince. There were 3 million people in need of emergency aid after major earthquake. The major quake sent 33 aftershocks ranging in magnitude from 4.2 to 5.9. As Haiti has poor construction work, a lot of buildings collapsed and increased the death toll further. 200,000 people are estimated dead, and 3 million more are affected. Haiti is one of poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 80% of the 9 million residents living in poverty. You can imagine the nightmares and horrors that the Haitians have to live through. Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian writer and political activist, said that,

In this kind of natural disaster, it is almost always the poorest who suffer the most -- those who have the least to lose are often those who lose the most. Life is always hard for poor people -- living on the edge is insecure and full of risk. Natural disasters make it worse. Yet even in normal times, poverty is hidden and not reported by the media. In times of disaster, there continues to be little coverage of the excessive impact on the poor.[1]

Not too long ago, Typhoon Morakot hit Taiwan leaving at least 461 people killed, 192 people missing, and 46 injured, and one village buried. How should we Christians view natural disaster? How should we respond? In this afternoon, I hope to draw upon a passage from Lazarus’ resurrection as we reflect together.

Jesus the Resurrection and the Life

Jn 11:17 When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, some two miles away, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them about their brother. 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary stayed at home. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.”

The Gospel of John was written in the midst of fierce theological debate in the early Jewish-Christian community, and with aim of convincing the readers that Jesus was the Messiah. “Whereas Mark begins with the baptism of Jesus, and Matthew and Luke with the birth of Jesus, John begins ‘at the beginning,’ before the creation.”[2] The gospel of John portrays Jesus as the Logos incarnate and the author is the witness. The author shows Jesus Christ as being thoroughly human, with Jesus’ first miracle during the wedding at Cana in Galilee and his last miracle, which is the resurrection of Lazarus, at Bethany near Jerusalem. Jesus participates in the joy of human celebration, and weeps at the loss of a dear friend. Let us look in details at the resurrection of Lazarus. Prior to Jesus’ arrival at Bethany, he had received a message that Lazarus was ill, and he remarked “This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” He intentionally delayed his arrival and he told his disciples “For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe” (Jn 11:15). These implied that Jesus knew what was going to happen, and he allowed Lazarus to die. Upon his arrival at Bethany, we are told that Lazarus has been in the tomb for four days, and many Jews had come to comfort the sisters. Martha receives Jesus before Mary, and this opens up a conversation between Martha and Jesus. Martha expresses hope that her brother would not have to die if Jesus had arrived earlier. We have to pay careful attention to Jesus’ following reply as that is the key to this narrative.

Jesus reassures Martha that her brother will rise again, and Martha assumes that Jesus is referring to the last day or the resurrection at the end of time. To emphasize what he is implying, Jesus adds that “I am the resurrection and the life (v.25a),” and explains “Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die (v.25b-26a).” What does he mean by that? First we know that Jesus is responding to Martha’s misconception that her brother will only rise at the end of time. Second, we also know that Jesus is referring to the present. He is saying that eternal life begins now, and those who believe in Jesus Christ already have life that transcends death. “Jesus shares completely in God’s ability to give life (5:21-29). As the resurrection and the life, Jesus defeats the power of death in the future (v.25b) and in the present (v.26a).”[3] He then invites Martha to confess her belief, and she declares “Yes” and going beyond the affirmative, adds “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming in to the world (v.27).” This proclamation is normative in the confession of the gospel of John (cf. 20:31). What did Martha do after her confession?

Jesus Weeps

Jn 11: 28 When she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary, and told her privately, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” 29 And when she heard it, she got up quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31 The Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary get up quickly and go out. They followed her because they thought that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34 He said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus began to weep. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”

Martha informs Mary about Jesus’ arrival. Unlike Philip who relayed his belief in Jesus as the Messiah when he told Nathanael about Jesus (v1:43-45), Martha does not. However, Mary’s response is prompt upon hearing the Jesus’ arrival. Similarly, she expresses belief that her brother would not have died had Jesus arrived earlier. She is the same Mary who had anointed Jesus’ feet, and in this scene, she falls at Jesus’ feet. There has been a lot of argument on how verse 33b should be translated. NRSV translates this verse Jesus as “greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved,” NIV renders it as “deeply moved in spirit and troubled,” while Chinese Union Version has it as “心里悲叹、又甚忧愁” (he lamented, and was in deep sadness)。There is an intense emotion displayed here, and such intense emotion is usually either an expression of indignation or anger. “Is Jesus angry at death, angry at people’s lack of faith, grieving with or for his friends, or responding to the immediate prospect of his own death?”[4] I am inclined to a New Testament scholar, Moody Smith’s view that

Jesus evidently participates in the mourning and sadness over Lazarus’ death. The flat statement that Jesus wept (v.35) would confirm this. Nothing is said about Jesus’ irritation because of the Jews’ unbelief, or about their forcing his hand by putting him into the position of having to perform a miracle that as a self-revelation would lead immediately to his death.[5]

Jesus began to weep. This is perhaps the shortest verse in the whole gospel. The fact Jesus wept illustrates that Jesus shares the sadness of his friends and their neighbors. Jesus understands the grief of his friends and mourners, and he himself loved Lazarus, his friend and his disciple. The rest of the mourners witnessed the love of Jesus for his disciples, and Jesus loved his disciples till his death (v.13:2). Jesus requests Mary to show him where Lazarus’ tomb is. His love for Lazarus prompts him to action, and such love is not just a state of mind.

Jesus Raises Lazarus to Life

Jn 11:38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

Martha’s response to the opening of the tomb shows that Lazarus is really dead. Jesus utters a proclamation that expresses his confidence in the firm relationship between him and His Father. At his command, Lazarus emerges from the tomb, still wrapped in grave cloth. Lazarus’ resurrection testifies Jesus as the Lord of life and of his intimacy with God the Father. Jesus shows the Jews an even greater miracle than preventing the person’s death. He brought the dead back alive.

What does this narrative tell us about the Haiti earthquake? We do not know why the earthquake strike Haiti, though God knows the earthquake would take place, just like Jesus knew that Lazarus would die, God grieves when 200,000 Haitians died and many more displaced. God loves the Haitians just like God loves us, and when God’s people grieved and wept, God wept with us. Jesus is the resurrection and life, though Jesus may not be physically here to resurrect the dead Haitians, those who believe in Him continues to have an unbroken relationship with Him. Jesus does continue to offer hope and light to everyone who is alive today, and Jesus’ promise does not start after one’s death, but in the immediate now. We do not know why tragedies happen, but we know that God suffers with us, God enters into our grief, and God bears the brunt of suffering on the cross. God is intimate with pain and suffering, and when one suffers, she does not suffer alone but suffers with the One who is intimate with pain and suffering.

What are we expected to do as people of God? We know that Jesus’ love prompts Jesus to respond to Lazarus’ death, and Jesus also said in Matt 25:40 “just as you did to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me,” we are similarly called to respond. Let’s look at Lazarus’ response after his resurrection.

The Plot to Kill Lazarus

12:9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.

After his resurrection, Lazarus was bearing testimony for Jesus, and led many people to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. This incurred the wrath and fear of religious leaders to such an extent that Lazarus’ life was threatened. I believe this is how one testifies about Jesus, by living out our faith. I am not saying that we are to seek death intentionally, but we are called to be Jesus’ faithful followers. Though we cannot bring a person back to life, we are called to offer hope and called to stand in solidarity with people who are suffering. We are called to testify to the hope we have in Christ Jesus. Though we undergo a physical death, we believe in an eternal life with God through Christ which begins now, and in the resurrection to come. This is how God’s love is manifested for us, Christ died for us while we are still sinners (Rom 5:8). God’s love moves us to action. Though we may not be physically in Haiti to assist the people in need, we could:

1) Follow the news on Haiti earthquake so that we know how to continue praying for them;
2) Text "HAITI" to "90999" and a donation of $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross to help with relief efforts, charged to your cell phone bill;

3) Donate financially online through Presbyterian Disaster Assistance on PCUSA  website http://www.pcusa.org/pda/

There are many other means we could respond. We who are loved by God, who are called into relationship with God, are also called to testify the hope we have in Christ. Like Lazarus who experienced Christ’s radical grace, let us also acknowledge the radical grace we receive from God and manifest it in our life. Let us join our hearts in prayer:

We pray for Haiti

God of compassion

please watch over the people of Haiti,

and weave out of these terrible happenings

wonders of goodness and grace.

Surround those who have been affected by tragedy

with a sense of your present love,

and hold them in faith.

Though they are lost in grief,

may they find you and be comforted.

Guide us as a church

to find ways of providing assistance

that heal wounds and provide hope.

Help us to remember that when one of your children suffers

we all suffer;

through Jesus Christ who was dead, but lives

and rules this world with you. Amen.

Prayer by Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the 218th General Assembly (2008), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); and Linda Valentine, Executive Director, General Assembly Mission Council, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

---

[1] Jim Wallis, Sojourners, http://blog.sojo.net/2010/01/14/god-is-suffering-with-those-who-are-suffering-in-haiti/ (accessed Jan23, 2010).

[2] R. Alan Culpepper, The gospel and letters of John (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 16.

[3] The Gospel according to John, The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (Nashville, TN: 2003), 1931. 

[4] Culpepper, The gospel and letters of John, 188.

[5] D. Moody Smith, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: John (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999), 224.

Imperfect people, imperfect church

Theme: Imperfect people, imperfect church

Prologue
While I was in a conversation with my old friend in Singapore, and we have known each other for twenty years, he asked me what I am studying at Boston. When I told him divinity, he said that this subject must be very sacred, and only meant for those holy people, and the church is also meant for holy people. I immediately corrected him that the church is not for holy people, but for people with problems. Indeed, the more I thought about it, the more I believe that the church is only meant for people with problems. I had once asked people coming to church for reasons why they are coming. The responses I gathered are scattered, some said that they came here to find life partner. Some said that they came here because there is free lunch. Some came here because they want to worship God. There are plenty of reasons. Saint Augustine of Hippo once said that church is the hospital for sinners and this is in accord with Matthew 9:12-13 where Jesus replied to the Pharisees saying “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick…I have come to call not the righteous but the sinner.” Let us turn to passages in the Scripture where this theme is more evident.


Jesus Chooses the Twelve Apostles
Lk 6:12 Now during those days he went out to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God. 13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Now, Jesus has to choose from among his followers who responded to his teachings, twelve who will be sent out for his missions. He has to choose carefully, and he spends a whole night in prayer. But why does Jesus need to spend the whole night in prayer? What would he be praying for?

Let’s take a look at each apostle. Peter was the first one in the group and to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, but would also disown Jesus three times during Jesus’ trial. Peter’s brother Andrew was a fisherman and he accepted John the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus. He was the one who told Peter about Jesus. May we be like Andrew. James and his brother John asked Jesus for places of honor in his kingdom, and wanted to call fire down to destroy a Samaritan village. That is why James and John were called Sons of Thunder. Philip questioned Jesus how he would feed the five thousand. Bartholomew also known as Nathanael initially rejected Jesus because Jesus was from Nazareth. Matthew also known as the tax collector was despised among the Jews and was considered a sinner. Thomas refused to believe in Jesus resurrection till he could touch and see Jesus. James son of Alpaeus is relatively unknown. Simon the Zealot was a party member who used violence to justify their political means. Judas son of James once asked Jesus why he would reveal himself to his followers and not to the world. Judas Iscariot eventually betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

Now as you look at the twelve apostles, would you like anyone of them to be your closest friend, or your leader? I don’t think so, yet, Jesus chose these twelve, and almost all have flaws in their character that we would not consider them appropriate for leadership role. So why did Jesus choose these twelve people? My most immediate response is that these twelve apostles represent us. Our flaws can be found among the twelve. In times of intense pressure, we may forfeit biblical principles for immediate benefits just like Peter did. In times of frustration, we may wish the death of our antagonist just like James and John did. In times of surmounting doubts, we may ask God to manifest Godself before us so that we could believe, just like Thomas did. When confronted with almost impossible task, we may question God how it could be done, just like Philip did. I could easily identify myself with the flaws of the twelve apostles. I think that would be why Jesus spent such a long time praying on a mountain. Jesus knows the flaws of his chosen apostles, yet he trusts that these flaws do not spell the end of his mission. He entrusted his life mission to these twelve after he died and resurrected. He has chosen to love these twelve, made himself vulnerable, and despite their weaknesses, he continued to love them till the end of his life. However, this is not an easy task. I do not know the amount of pain, frustrations, and fear that Jesus might go through before choosing the twelve, but I know that Jesus spent a long time in prayer with God before he emerged with a firm trust in God’s will. I also know that this is the way God works with us. God calls us into relationship with Him, God redeems us from our bondage to sins, God works with imperfect people like us, and God made Godself vulnerable by choosing fallible people like us. Church is made up of people called by God, and also people with plenty of flaws. Church is a hospital for sinners not for saints. This is true even for the early churches during the time of the apostles. We will take a look at an infamous church, the Corinthian church. Corinth was a capital of Achaia (present-day Greece), a busy sea port, and converging point for trade routes. It was a prosperous city that was also home to more than a dozen pagan temples. Apostle Paul had built a church in Corinth and the Corinthian letters gave us good insight to the problems in the church.


Divisions in the Church
1Co. 1:10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. 12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul addresses the Corinth Christians as being called to be sanctified in Christ Jesus. After affirming his relationship with the Corinth Christians, he immediately jumps into the issue of divisions among them. Though they have been baptized in Christ, they are split over the authority of Paul, Apollos- an Alexandrian Jew (Acts 18:24), and Cephas- i.e. Peter. In their culture,

the pupils or ‘disciples’ of a secular teacher had to give exclusive loyalty to him. Traditionally they would engage in quarrels with rival pupils over the merits of their mentors who were also by tradition jealous of each other. Corinthians who were converted and baptized through the ministry of Paul, Apollos and Peter also perceived themselves in this secular way as their exclusive followers and likewise engaged in quarrels over the merits of Christian teachers. (D.A. Carson and Donald Guthrie, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, electronic ed. of the 4th ed., 1 Co 1:10)

Paul declares such loyalty as idolatrous. The rhetorical questions Paul asked are meant to be an emphatic “NO!” Paul is appealing the Corinthians to follow the Messiah and not his servants. Idolizing teachers or ‘charismatic’ speakers who seek the loyalty of ‘their’ members has always been divisive and disastrous for the Christian community. This appeal is based on the Christ Jesus whom they invoked for salvation (1:2). This appeal applies to all of us today.

Though apostles Paul, Peter and Apollos are not with us today, and we do not encounter the split over which of them is more authoritative, but we do have contemporary issues such as which translated version of the Bible is the purest, whether women can be ordained as minister, which worship language should be used, etc. which are causing churches to quarrel and split. The question I want to ask all of us to think about is this “Do we possess the truth?” I ask again “Do we possess the truth?” I am going to answer with an emphatic “NO!” I say that again “NO, we do not possess the truth.” It is TRUTH that possesses us. Let me repeat “It is TRUTH that possesses us, not us who possess the truth.” Do you see the difference here? To claim that we possess the truth is a form of idolatry. God is the embodiment of truth and cannot be possessed. God lays claim on us, God possesses us, and we are in the process of knowing more about God within the community, through God’s Word, and by cooperating with the Holy Spirit. We are finite creatures in the process of trying to comprehend the infinite mystery that has been partially revealed to us, thus our doctrines are fallible, or in the process of being reformed. When you substitute your doctrine in place of God and claim infallibility, that is idolatry.

Despite the fact that we are imperfect people and our knowledge about God is fallible, we know for sure that we are redeemed through the same blood of Christ Jesus, we are reconciled back to the same God through Christ Jesus, and we are filled with the same Holy Spirit, and we have experienced the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. These would be sufficient ground to embark our journey as pilgrims together. God is with us, and God has been revealed in stages. Since the day of the Pentecost, God’s Spirit has been poured out upon us.



The Coming of the Holy Spirit
Ac 2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

The outpouring of God’s Spirit among God’s people is a continuation of the story that God has for us. The Spirit that enabled the early believers to speak in the tongues of other non-believers who came to Jerusalem for Passover is within us. Apart Jesus Christ who has reconciled us, the working of the Holy Spirit warms our heart to respond to God’s calling, the same Spirit enables us to recognize the voices of God in the Scripture, and the image of God in each other. The same Spirit is also at work among us to help us transcend our differences, and molds us for different functions in the church so that we could build the one body of Christ together.

Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we continue to exercise trust in God’s faithfulness, we continue to trust that God is with us, God is working among us through God’s Spirit. Look at Peter, though he denied Jesus three times, he repented, became one of the church’s pillars and eventually martyred for the sake of the gospel. James, son of Zebedee, asked to drink the cup that Jesus drank and became a martyr for Christ. John, also son of Zebedee, became of a church leader, took care of Jesus’ mother after Jesus’ death and wrote the Gospel of John and few other books in the Christian Scripture. Andrew went on to become a fisher of people for Christ. Philip eventually saw the Father through Christ. The doubting Thomas was reputed to carry the gospel to India, and founded the tradition of Mar Thomas Church which remains in India today. Paul the apostle who wrote the most number of books in the Christian Scripture called himself the worst of sinners in his epistle to Timothy (1 Tim 1:15-16).

Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we trust that God will work within us and through us when we continue to be open to God’s calling and leading. When we continue to be faithful to God’s calling, we will be able to testify as one body of Christ. In 1933, when Germany created their national church, they asked all German Christians to recognize the limit of the spiritual domain and to fully cooperate with their chancellor, i.e. Adolf Hitler. A group of German Christians retaliated. This group established the Constitutional Evangelical Church of Germany and insisted that “their unity could only come from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit.” (Jack Rogers, Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions, Louisville. KY: Westminster John Knox Press: 1985, 1991. p. 188). They drafted the Barmen Declaration in 1934 that denounces illegitimate tyranny and proclaims the lordship of Jesus Christ. They recognize only reliance on the lordship of Jesus Christ that gives them strength to be faithful to the Word of God. Fallible people? Yes. Imperfect church? Yes. But together as one community of people called by God, and through God’s Spirit and Word, we can choose to be faithful in our calling, and stand together as one body of Christ.


Final exhortation
Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we continue to hold on to God’s promise. We share our joys and tears, gifts and fellowship together, believing this is how we ought to share lives together. Whether we are elders, deacons, preachers, Bible study leaders, choir members, ushers, people in-charge of preparing fellowship lunch, or worshipers not holding any responsibilities on Sunday, we are all called into one body of Christ. Let us pursue our calling together. It is by sharing our lives together that we can continue to testify the work of God among us; that we can continue to find the moral strength to stand against any form of idolatry; that we can continue to be a voice for God in the world torn by strife, violence, and injustice; that we can continue to bear faithful testimony in family and in our working place. May we worship God in truth and in spirit, may the Word of God be faithfully preached and heard, and may the Holy Communion continue to remind us of God’s grace and faithfulness. Amen.

圣誕節的源由

這是我在大波士頓臺灣基督長老教會 , 成人主日學1月3日2010年 所呈現的內容。

許多人在歡慶圣誕節的期間會知道圣誕節源于基督教。但是，圣經并沒記載圣誕節是在何時，只記載耶穌誕生在馬槽里，并有牧羊人看顧羊群。 "In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night." (Lk 2:8 NRSV); "在伯利恒的郊外，有一群牧人在夜間看守羊群。" (路2:8, 新譯本) 既然有牧羊人在看顧羊群, 曾么會是在中東的冬天呢？所以，我們需要追索歷史，了解圣誕節到原由。

（一）第三世纪末的教會所紀念的節期

最早的教會文件記錄，在第三世纪末，初期教會已在守以下的節期:

1.1）复活節 (Pascha)

1.2）聖灵降临節 (Pentecost)

1.3）主顯節 (Epiphany)

1.3.1）1月 6 日

1.3.2）紀念耶穌誕生

1.3.3）也有另一派認為主顯節是紀念耶穌受洗

1.3.4）無論如何，我們知道主顯節是在1月 6 日，為了紀念上帝透過耶穌向世人顯現 。

1.3.5）為什么是在1月 6 日？我們只能猜測。耶穌既然是在猶太人的逾越節 (Passover) 受死，有人主張瑪利亞應該也是在33/34年的同時被圣靈感孕。所以，耶穌應該是在1月誕身。

（二）主顯節怎樣演變成圣誕節?

2.1）于公元后354年的一份羅馬文件顯示當時在羅馬的教會于公元后336年已定12月25日為耶穌的誕生日。

2.2）為什么是12月25日？有可能是基督徒嘗試取代非信徒在同一天歡慶"不被击败的太陽" (Unconquered Sun) 節日，就是白天在冬至后開始延長。

2.3）圣誕節逐渐地取代主顯節的地位。

（三）40天預備主顯節(Advent)

3.1）西班牙的一個会议会于公元后380年定：12月17日至1月6日（21天）沒有人可在教會中缺席。

3.2）高盧 Gaul (位于今天的法國與比利時) 的教會在五世紀實行40日預備主顯節。

3.3）羅馬教會最后定28日預備圣誕節。初期教會有四個比較有影響力的中心：羅馬 (Rome)，君士坦丁堡（今天的伊斯坦布爾）(Constantinople, i.e. Istanbul)，安提阿 (Antioch)，亞歷山太城(Alexandria)。亞歷山太城地位于埃及，在七世紀歸于回教版圖。安提阿隨后也在七世紀成為回教的帝國。羅馬與君士坦丁堡正式在公元后1054年斷絕關系。君士坦丁堡的東正教的勢力逐渐地轉向基輔(烏克蘭共和國首都)(Kiev, capital of Ukraine), 而后來的改革宗運動發自西歐羅馬天主教的地區。所以源于西歐的新教也普遍稱為基督教 (Protestant churches) 大多數后來都紀念圣誕節(12月25日)。但是要記得的是圣誕節是40天預備主顯節的其中一天。

（四）主顯節節期的意義

4.1）透過教會節期紀念耶穌的誕生與受洗(Epiphany)，受死與復活(Pascha)，圣靈降臨 (Pentecost)，是要提醒恩典是上帝主動給予我們，我們只能領受恩典并回應。主顯節節期(40 days of Advent), 四旬節 (40 days of Lenten), 五旬節 (50 days extending Easter celebration through the Day of Pentecost)，都是我們透過上帝所創造的時間，空間，及上帝所給于我們豐盛恩典來回應上帝的方式。上帝是主動者，我們是被動的主動來回應上帝。

4.2）節期所顯示來之于上帝的恩典是要宣稱基督還會再來，并印證圣靈在教會中的運行。教會的不同節期是種宣告(proclamation)及感恩(thanksgiving)。

4.3）主顯節節期 (Advent) 同時是感恩基督這份禮物也提醒我們要盼望他的再來。我們現在活在過去所發生的事件與將來所會完成的之間，就是 already but not yet 的概念。過去所發生的事件復合了我們與上帝的關系，同時圣靈在我們當中運行，上帝也與我們一同并行，至到基督的再來。



參考資料：James F. White, Introduction to Christian Worship, 3rd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000)

Good Preaching according to William C. Placher

I am a fan of William C. Placher, a Reformed theologian. Recently, he wrote a book The Triune God: An Essay in Postliberal Theology, and I came across few paragraphs where he described what good preaching is. Below is an extraction:

Good preaching involves helping a particular congregation think of how the biblical stories illumine the patterns of the world. So the prophet Nathan (a good preacher indeed) told King David nothing he did not already know about his betrayal of Uriah, but by putting David's life into the context of a story he enabled David to recognize the reality of his sin. Struggling at once with the text and with the world in which the congregation lives, the preacher attempts to show that that world fits into the biblical patterns and to deal with puzzling elements of both text and world. But for some listeners (on dark days, even for some preachers) the pattern does not fit. This is why we pray for "illumination" before the reading of Scripture: in the realization that only the inner testimony of the Spirit can enable us to see things in the pattern God intends.

Martin Luther King Jr. insisted that the arc of history is very long, but it bends toward justice. He did not, I am fairly sure, reach this conclusion simply by reflection on his own life experience or on the history of African Americans in the United States. The evidence there would have been ambiguous at best. Rather, he considered the biblical stories, in which darkness never closes out hope, exile is followed by return, and crucifixion by resurrection. Looking in the light of those stories at the history in which he was so important a participant, he could discern in that history a pattern like that in the biblical stories—a pattern he could not have seen without the illumination of the biblical texts.

On a much smaller scale, ordinary preachers sometimes face a tough task in a funeral sermon. Sometimes one can speak of accomplishments, and of family and friends who will treasure the deceased's memory. But suppose the old woman lived poor and died poor, had no family, alienated those who tried to help her as she suffered the bitterness of what may have been the onset of Alzheimer's. Those who would have remembered her kinder self preceded her in death. What comfort is there to speak at the end of such a life—unless somehow her life fits into a larger story that embodies God's will, and in which nothing that is good is ever lost. But, if one starts with that story, then the values of her life emerge, and imposing a Christian pattern does not seem to be a distortion. The resulting sermon might indeed be more authentically Christian than one devoted to praising worldly accomplishment.

-By William Placher, The Triune God: An Essay in Postliberal Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), pp.107-8.

羅馬書 3:27- 4:17 因信稱義

這是我在大波士頓臺灣長老基督教會11月1日2009年第二次證道的大綱

羅馬書 3:27- 4:17    題目：因信稱義（二）

證道大綱

3:27a沒有可跨的	4:1-2亞伯拉罕不能夸口
3:27b-28因為是因信稱義，不是靠行為稱義	4:3-8因為他是因信稱義，不是靠行為
3:29-30猶大人（受割禮）與外邦人（沒受割禮）因為信，歸屬同一位上帝	4:9-17 猶大人（受割禮）與外邦人（沒受割禮）因為信，所以都是亞伯拉罕的子孫

1) 讓我們來翻開圣經使徒行傳15:1-2.

有幾個人、從猶太下來、教訓弟兄們說、你們若不按摩西的規條受割禮、不能得救。保羅巴拿巴與他們大大的分爭辯論、眾門徒就定規、叫保羅巴拿巴和本會中幾個人、為所辯論的、上耶路撒冷去、見使徒和長老。

這展開了教會第一個大公會議的序幕。這大公會議在耶路撒冷。最后做出的判決如下，15:28-29

因為聖靈和我們、定意不將別的重擔放在你們身上．惟有幾件事是不可少的、 就是禁戒祭偶像的物、和血、並勒死的牲畜、和姦淫．這幾件你們若能自己禁戒不犯、就好了．願你們平安。

這大公會議發生在保羅第一次佈道行程之后。在保羅的第二次佈道行程，寫了帖撒羅尼迦前書。里頭記載一般猶太人對外邦人的看法4:3-5

神的旨意就是要你們成為聖潔、遠避淫行．要你們各人曉得怎樣用聖潔尊貴、守著自己的身體. 不放縱私慾的邪情、像那不認識　神的外邦人．

所以當你對比猶太人與外邦人，猶太人的道德標準是比較高的。



2) 先解釋猶太人對律法的了解。根據改革宗家加爾文的解釋，律可以分為三種類型：道德的律，禮儀的律，及民法的律。

第一種類型道德的律可透過十戒來代表。前四條誡命的對象是上帝，后六戒的對象是人。加爾文認為前四條誡命奠定了道德的基礎。唯有對上帝有正確的敬畏與敬拜才能導致對上帝的義有正確的認識。當有人與上帝產生了正確的關系，人才能與鄰舍相處。所以，后六戒是建立在前四戒的基礎上。

第二種律是禮儀的律，這包括了要獻什么祭，要行割禮，要吃什么才能保持圣潔。加爾文認為禮儀的律在耶穌基督的到來就被廢掉了。耶路撒冷的大公會議也已經肯定了外邦人不需守禮儀的律， 除了祭偶像的物、和血、並勒死的牲畜。

第三種律是民法的律，這包括了有關土地，經濟，與審判犯人的律法，如第七年要赦債。這律跟地方及時代息息相關。所以，我們該維持民法的精神，如要照顧我們當中的窮人，要為無辜受害者伸冤。加爾文也認為民法是要限制人民進行非法勾當來破壞社會的次序與平安。

所以，基督徒今天要守哪個律呀？道德的律是建立在人與上帝和好的關系上， 所以我們要活出道德的律。禮儀的律已在耶穌基督的身上完成，所以我們不被禮儀所捆綁。至于民法的律，我們要實踐民法的精神，以致社會能享有和平與次序。



3) 交代了律法之后，我們來看保羅對因信稱義的教導。上個星期，陳約翰牧師向我們解釋若有人在一條誡命失足，就是犯了所有的誡命了（雅各2:10）。所以沒有一個人能靠著律法或行為稱義。若人不能因自己的行為稱義，那么沒有一個人可以夸耀什么。

以弗所書2:8-9你們得救是本乎恩、也因著信、這並不是出於自己、乃是　神所賜的。也不是出於行為、免得有人自誇。

連我們的信也是上帝所賜。既然人能被稱義是透過上帝所賜的信心，外邦人根本不需要借著行割禮被稱義。外邦人乃是透過上帝所賜的信心被稱義，那么外邦人與猶太人都歸屬同一位上帝。



4) 到了第四章，保羅就要針對猶太人對亞伯拉罕的了解。這牽涉到為什么猶太人認為外邦人若是要認識上帝，要過過圣潔的生活，就需要行割禮。行割禮究竟是什么時候開始的？創世記17:9-11.

神又對亞伯拉罕說、你和你的後裔必世世代代遵守我的約。你們所有的男子、都要受割禮、這就是我與你、並你的後裔所立的約、是你們所當遵守的。 你們都要受割禮．這是我與你們立約的證據。

至此之后，敬虔的猶太人都有行割禮，特別是亡國歸回之后，更強調要行割禮。不行割禮就不能被稱義。亞伯拉罕是信心之父。他被上帝稱為義人，但許多猶太人認為是因為亞伯拉罕行割禮，所以是個義人。保羅本身是個跟隨耶穌基督的法利賽人。他深深體會到耶穌基督的死與復活已經否定人能透過行律法才能在上帝的眼中被稱義，他也知道根本不可能。所以我們要回到亞伯拉罕是什么時候被稱義的。是行割禮之前還是之后？剛才兒童說故事里，創世紀15:6 記載

    亞伯蘭信耶和華、耶和華就以此為他的義。

這是在他行割禮之前，不是之后。亞伯拉罕因為信上帝，就因此被稱義。這觀念承托了保羅的神學思想。亞伯拉罕既然在割禮之前就已經被稱義，那么他也是外邦人的父親了。猶太人是亞伯拉罕的子孫，所以繼承了行割禮的禮儀。這樣看來，亞伯拉罕確實是外邦人也是猶太人的父了。



5) 那么律法還有什么用處呢？保羅在4:15 說道

因為律法是惹動忿怒的。那裏沒有律法、那裏就沒有過犯。

律法彰顯了上帝的屬性，更加顯示出我們的不足。若要與上帝合好，這只能純粹靠著上帝的恩典。這恩典不是我們賺取的，乃是透過上帝所賜給我們的信心來接受耶穌基督為我們中保。對于律法的功用，加爾文列下了三項：

1. 領我們歸向耶穌。因為律法就像面鏡子，顯示出我們的不足，促使我們懷抱上帝的恩典。
   
2. 律法限制了人類的邪惡與泛濫，使社會能有條有理。這對不信上帝的人來說，是種恩典。
   
3. 主要功用是要成為我們的導師，引導我們認識上帝的旨意，加深我們追隨上帝的意念。
   

所以，律法是有積極的功用的，并不是完全廢掉。剛才，我也解釋了我們要活在道德的律，并實踐民法的律。這些律，也是在指向上帝。當我們要守律法是，我們更加會認識自己的不足，而奔向上帝的恩典。這恩典是上帝透過耶穌基督所給予我們的，以致我們能透過耶穌基督能與上帝有和好的關系，能被曾為亞伯拉罕的后裔。



6）今天，我們在這里的每一位信徒，都是亞伯拉罕的子孫。上帝在創世紀15已經應許他的后裔將如群星那樣多。如今，這應許已經落實了。我們就是亞伯拉罕的后裔。所以，我們不是靠行為稱義。我在神學院讀到有關教會歷史時，認識到原來以前有些來之歐洲的宣教士到了非洲土族的部落，看到部落的人不穿衣也不穿褲，吃飯時也不用餐具。當部落的一些人信主后，這些宣教士要求信徒一定要穿衣褲，不然就不是基督徒。因為這件事，信徒與非信徒之間起了很大的沖突。這些宣教士的教導已經違背了因信稱義的原則。今天，我們是否也是這樣？要求別人一定要這樣做，不然就不是基督徒？我們是否把我們的文化標注加在別人身上，然后再奉主的名說這樣才是基督徒？我們是否在違背因信稱義的原則？

若我們都是因信稱義，那確實是上帝的恩典，我們沒這么可跨的。上帝也透過耶利米先知說 "我要將我的律法放在他們裏面、寫在他們心上．我要作他們的　神、他們要作我的子民。"(耶31:33b) 律法的有很積極的功用。沒有律法，我們就不知道什么叫恩典。我們既領受了上帝極大的恩典，我們該回應我們上帝呢？今天是長執改選日。領受呼召的弟兄姐妹，你們會如何回應這莫大的恩典呢？我們在日常生活中如何回應恩典呢？

今天也是万圣节 (All Saints' Day)，是万圣节前夕(Hallowe'en) 的來源。万圣节提醒我們所信的上帝是活人的上帝，不是死人的上帝 (馬可 12:33)。亞伯拉罕的上帝，以撒的上帝、雅各的上帝，也是我們的上帝。那些已故的圣徒今天還活著，活在哪里呢？有人說是陰間，也有人說是一個不是我們知道的地方。我比較傾向麦拉伦 (Brian McLaren) 所說的，他們都活在上帝的記憶里，在新天新地時會與我們會面。

愿我們每一天的生活都是活在上帝的恩典中，因為信，我們能稱義，但愿我們也回應這浩大的恩。愿上帝祝福你們。

In what sense is the HDB flat like the kingdom of God?

As I was preparing for Bible study on the gospel of Mark in my internship church, I tried to juxtapose with the lessons I learned in my class on Aristotle. I saw grounds for cross-fertilization in explaining  the kingdom of God. This article is a crystallization of my thought process as I seek to compare the similarities between HDB flat and the kingdom of God. I hope to use a contemporary setting familiar to all of us so that we could look afresh on what the kingdom of God is like (or unlike).

Preface: When I say "the kingdom of God is like"…. I am drawing an analogy. Analogy has its limitations and is not to be taken as "the kingdom of God is equal to…" The following analogies assume that you are still paying for HDB loan, and may not be applicable if you are already debt-free.

1. When we purchase our HDB flat or any apartment, we have to make a down payment of 10% to 20% before the flat is potentially ours. So, when we work, our CPF goes towards our monthly installment. Before we finish our installment, the flat is potentially ours as it can be re-possessed by the bank if we default on our monthly installment and we could not re-negotiate on the loan package. The kingdom of God is like our HDB flat in the sense that Jesus Christ has made a down payment for us by His death and resurrection. The kingdom of God is only fully here when Jesus Christ returns. So, from now till his return, we work to actualize the kingdom of God in our midst. However, the point of departure is that we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to actualize the kingdom of God.

2. Christ's return is just like the end of our installment. When Jesus Christ returns, we would see the full actualization of God's kingdom, just like at the end of our monthly installment, our HDB flat is fully ours. The difference is that you can finish your installment in your lifetime, but we do not know when Jesus Christ will return.

3. The kingdom of God embodies God's presence just like our flat embodies our presence. The way we renovate the house, the way we place our furniture, and how we use the space in our house are an extension of ourselves in space. The kingdom of God manifests God's presence. The whole of God's creation is a theatre of God's glory. God puts us in His creation so that we could work hand-in-hand with Him to manifest His glory. It is just like how we would like to work hand-in-hand with our family members to make our HDB flat habitable, such that we may even take pride in our house. Doesn't that speak to the way we should govern the earth? Shouldn't we recycle our used materials so that our non-renewable resources can last longer? Shouldn't we invest in more renewable energies and build sustainable community and economies so that God may take pride by entrusting His creation to our care?

4. Dick Lee once sang that Singapore has a trinity: the father, the son, and the holy Goh. Though it is a crude joke, it does illustrate the intimacy of the three figures. I see another concept of trinity in our immediate environment. We live in three spheres during our waking hours: within our family, within our company or institution, and within our church. Though only the first can be tied to HDB flat, the fact that we exist in a community illustrates that we need the nourishment of different (or three-tiered) communities to sustain us. Without these different forms of nourishment, we would not be able to last long in our life, and there goes our HDB flat. This is just like the kingdom of God. The Holy Spirit empowers us which is only possible due to Jesus Christ's down payment for us, and by faith in Him, we are reconciled back to God, and to work for the actualization of the kingdom of God.

5. Where is the kingdom of God? It is not here nor there, it is within us (Luke 17:21). It is only when the kingdom of God is within us that we can finally see that we are already living within the kingdom of God. We are called to actualize it by seeking God's kingdom actively (i.e. we are to seek His will). It is just like when we live in our HDB flat, we can no longer say "where is it?". It is here, but not yet.


I just finished writing this article within the last one hour, and didn't have time to examine it critically. Please give me feedback, if any. Thanks.

Theology from Western, white context

As I continued reading Soong-Chan Rah's The Next Evangelism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity, I echo what he said about doing theology from Western, white context. I recall two classes I had.


The first was on Theory and Method of Comparative Religion. I had to write a final research paper of which 25% was on definition of religion. Most of the reference books I could find defined religion mainly from American/European, theistic perspective. It was upon encounter with Buddhism that the definition started to shift from reference to a Being to a transcendent reality. But if that is the case, how about Confucianism? Is it a religion? How about Chinese folk religion where you have a mixture of Daoism, Buddhism and Confucianism? Is it a religion or three religions? If it is a religion, would that alter the definition of religion? If it is three religions, what kind of borrowing took place that could synthesize the three systems to co-exist side by side for a practitioner, and which works well for centuries? In the end, I stick to a definition characterized by sacred practices or rituals that produce long, lasting effects on civilization. At the moment, I am still open to a better definition.


Theological and Economic Ethics of Globalization was the second class. In giving a definition of globalization, the professor narrowed it down to the distribution of production mode from America to overseas. I immediately proposed a different perspective "If globalization were characterized by the exchange of goods and services between countries, and which results in flow of information and culture across continents, shouldn't globalization begin long ago along the silk road, with active trade between China and the Middle East way before America existed?" Well, if we were to go back to the common notion of what is globalization, of course my professor would be right, because most people assume globalization from Western, white perspective. It is something like the concept of GMT. Where is GMT 0? In Britain. The rest of the world has to take reference from Britain in setting their time zone. The time zone was set in place when Britain was the world superpower. Similarly, why is it that only US registered website does not have extra suffix in their internet address? For e.g. the Google homepage in US is http://www.google.com; but in Singapore, it is http://www.google.com.sg. The answer is the same as the previous one.


I would like to quote three paragraphs from Rah's The Next Evangelism which express my sentiment as I learn to do theology in US context:

Because theology emerging from a Western, white context is considered normative, it places non-Western theology in an inferior position and elevates Western theology as the standard by which all other theological frameworks and points of view are measured. This bias stifles the theological dialogue between the various cultures. "Attendant assumptions of a racial hierarchy that assumes the intellectual and moral, superiority of the Caucasians, has hampered our understanding of the text by unnecessarily eliminating possible avenues of study."[30] We end up with a Western, white captivity of theology. Western theology becomes the form that is closest to God. "It is a pretentious illusion that there is something pure and objective about the way theology has been done in the Western church, as if it were handed down directly by the Almighty to the theologians of the correct methodology."[31]


This marginalization of non-Western theology is reflective of Edward Said's description of "orientalism." Said examines Western perceptions of the Orient (in Said's case, he focuses on Arabic and Middle-Eastern cultures when referring to the Orient) and reveals how the exoticizing of "oriental" culture allows Western culture to create a sense of otherness for these cultures. "Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient—dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism is a Western style for dominating, structuring, and having authority over the Orient."[32]


Creating "the other" allowed Western culture to express its power over non-Western cultures. Inferiority is inferred when a culture or people are categorized as "the other." "European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even an underground self."[33] In the same way that Western culture diminishes non-Western culture through the creation of an "otherness," Western Christianity diminishes non-Western expressions of Christian theology and ecclesiology with the creation of "otherness."

Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 78-9.


[30] Peter T. Nash, Reading Race, Reading the Bible (Minneapolic: Fortress, 2003), p.58.
[31] Ibid., pp. 25, 26.
[32] Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1978), p. 3.
[33] Ibid.

Measuring “success” in the typical American church

As I was reading Soong-Chan Rah's The Next Evangelism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity, I came across a section where he reflects on how typical America churches will probably measure success. An excellent piece of reflection:

Over the last decade or so, I have had the opportunity to travel to different cities throughout the United States on various preaching and teaching engagements. My travels allow me the opportunity to see the wide range of expressions found in the evangelical church in different regions of America. I make it a point to ask someone from the host church or institution to tell me about the successful churches in the area. Without fail, I will be directed toward the church with the largest attendance in the region. A typical answer will be: "You've got to visit ______ Church. They draw over ten thousand worshipers."


How do we measure "success" in the typical American church - by the standards of Scripture or by the standards of the American consumer value system? Typically, we will see the success of churches ' measured by the numerical size of the church and the financial health of the church (oftentimes reflected in the condition and appearance of the church building). In more colloquial language, we focus on the ABCs of church success: Attendance, Buildings and Cash. Or even more directly, the three Bs of church success: Building, Bucks and Butts. The church holds the same materialistic values held by American society. We measure success in the church with standards as worldly as the most secular Fortune 500 company. Churches are no more than businesses (albeit nonprofit ones) with the bottom line being the number of attendees or the size of the church budget. American evangelicalism is held captive to the materialistic and consumeristic values of American society.


When we measure success by Western values, we create heroes out of those who succeed by Western culture's standards over and above the standards of Scripture. The pastor that fulfills an American definition of success becomes a leader in the evangelical community. If you pastor a megachurch or have authored a New York Times bestseller, then you now have the capacity and wisdom to save entire nations and continents. If you are successful in the United States in developing and marketing your church, then your ideas are applicable in nearly every setting. If you can make it here, then you'll make it anywhere.

Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 56.

Entertaining doubts in the journey of faith

I have been asked whether I have encountered doubts about faith in my theological journey. My immediate answer is "YES", of course. But the more pertinent question is how one should handle doubts. I would like to begin with a common understanding about God by quoting from Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (William B. Eerdmans, 2004), 24.

When God is revealed, God remains God and does not become a possession at our disposal. Whatever may be the case in other forms of knowledge, in the knowledge of God given in revelation, God does not become a prisoner of our categories and concepts. God remains free, ever mystery, ever "hidden." The paradoxical theme of God as revealed yet hidden is rooted in the scriptural witness and is basic to a Christian doctrine of revelation. 

Now I can work on my understanding on how to handle doubts in my faith journey, not just in my theological education.

First of all, God is totally different from us, God transcends us, is beyond our understanding. The only way for us to know God is through God's revelation, or only when God revealed Godself to us. Otherwise, God is really a total mystery as explained by Migliore.

Second, God's revelation is commonly understood as being recorded in the Bible, and God's creation (i.e. nature). However, creation can only point to a probable creator. God's act in history can only be accessed by faith through written testimony. So, from the Bible, we can say that God is our Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer, because we believe in what God has revealed in human's history, particularly in Jesus Christ, and we continue to believe what God is doing now and what God will accomplish in time.

Third, as humans tend to conceptualize knowledge and data, we tend to confine our understanding of God within a framework. So, in a sense, we tend to box God in, as pointed out by Migliore. It is important to be conscious that we have this tendency and to be reminded that whenever God encounters us in new ways, our framework must change in order to accommodate this new revelation or experience. If we hold on to the old framework, it will be like old wineskin holding new wine. And what would happen when the new wine expands? The old wineskin burst (from Matt 9:17, Mk 2:22, Lk 5:37). This is when people staring losing their faith, because they are still holding on to their old framework in accommodating new understanding of God, and their old framework can on longer accommodate it. Moses, Peter, Paul are exemplars of letting God's new revelation alter their paradigm of who God is, and continually open to being shaped. Moses' encounter with God in the burning bush which led to his bold encounter with Pharaoh; Peter's confession of Jesus as Lord and his subsequent denial, and eventually to his loss of life for the gospel; Paul a Pharisee and persecutor of Christian faith, and in his encounter of Jesus Christ which led to his conversion and to his mission and martyrdom; are all examples of letting go of old paradigm to let new one emerge, and be open to the shaping of one's paradigm in his interaction with God.

An excellent fictional story between a pastor and a science teacher on transforming one's framework in order to accommodate new understanding of God would be Brian D. McLaren's The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian.

Fourth, prior to my theological education, I have more doubts about my faith, and I don't have people whom I can turn to, except for one or two. Now, there are more structured space to explore different concept, to envision one's faith in different framework (if you emphasis on praxis, you will probably be more aligned with liberation theology), to engage in dialogue with different authors of the past (such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc.) and present (some of whom are my professors), so there is much room for growth and progression. Though there are many questions which are still unanswered, at least I know I am growing in faith because I am still learning to seek answers, to re-configure some of my existing concepts, and I have experienced first-hand God's providence.

Lastly, I would like to end with a paragraph from Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding, p.3.

Christian faith is at bottom trust in and obedience to the free and gracious God made known in Jesus Christ. Christian theology is this same faith in the mode of asking questions and struggling to find at least provisional answers to these questions. Authentic faith is no sedative for world-weary souls, no satchel full of ready answers to the deepest questions of life. Instead, faith in God revealed in Jesus Christ sets an inquiry in motion, fights the inclination to accept things as they are, and continually calls in question unexamined assumptions about God, our world, and ourselves. Consequently, Christian faith has nothing in common with indifference to the search for truth, or fear of it, or the arrogant claim to possess it fully. True faith must be distinguished from fideism. Fideism says there comes a point where we must stop asking questions and must simply believe; faith keeps on seeking and asking.

Feel free to email me to engage in more in-depth dialogue. I may not have all the answers, but at least we may explore some territories and allow our faith to ground our understanding while continuing to keep on seeking and asking together, this is faith seeking understanding.

A faithful witness in the changing world

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

My Hebrew translation is made possible by the sponsorship of Committee on Preparation for Ministry at Presbytery of Boston, Church of the Covenant, and Taiwan Presbyterian Church of Greater Boston in my Summer Language Program at Harvard Divinity School.

My Approach

In the article below, I am adopting an Observation-Interpretation-Application (OIA) style which I acquired during my college days in Chinese Varsity Christian Fellowship at National University of Singapore. I am also inclined to a canonical approach in reading the Scripture even though I have made use of biblical criticism material.

INTRODUCTION

In the midst of our economic downturn, what hope can we cling onto? Is my world crumbling because of the imminent retrenchment? How is my self-esteem rooted in God's promise? In this article, I will explore the proclamation of the Chronicler, a similar claim exerted by the writer of 1 Peter, and a translated quote from Karl Barth, as I reflect the implications for us today.

TEXT and ANALYSIS

17 Now when David settled in his house, David said to the prophet Nathan, "I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant of the Lord is under a tent." 2 Nathan said to David, "Do all that you have in mind, for God is with you." 3 But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying: 4 Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord: You shall not build me a house to live in…. Moreover I declare to you that the Lord will build you a house. 11 When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. (NRSV 1 Ch 17:1-4; 10b-12, bolded mine)

1 Chronicles is written around 430 B.C.E. to the returned exiles. Judah has fallen to Babylon in 587 B.C.E., and their Temple destroyed. The first group of exiles returned to Jerusalem about fifty years later to start rebuilding the Temple. In 445 B.C.E., Nehemiah returned to Judah to rebuild Jerusalem's city walls. How would the returned exiles view themselves as they are supposed to be the people chosen by their sovereign LORD God? They have been conquered, their Temple has been destroyed, and their kingdom has dissolved.

The author of the 1 Chronicles has an ardent task of narrating the covenant their LORD God made with their race. They are the Jews, the elected race, and the magnificent Solomon Temple is the dwelling place of their LORD. The story of how the LORD God elected them and established covenant with them must be recounted from one generation to the next. In the selected narrative above, the event took place after King David subdued his enemies, brought the ark back to Jerusalem, and had united the northern and southern tribes. It was a grand achievement, in spite of the fact that he was the youngest son of Jesse, and a shepherd from Bethlehem. In verse 1, it says that King David settled in his house, the root word in Biblical Hebrew is bayit meaning dwelling place. In this context, it is King David's dwelling place or translated simply as palace. In verse 4, the Chronicler uses the same root word, bayit, but this time it is not palace, it is the temple of God. The latter half of verse 10 uses the same root word, bayit, again. This time, it is neither palace nor temple of God, but a dynasty! To summarize, it means that King David is in his dwelling place, and he wants to build a temple for God. But God doesn't want him to build the temple, but insists David's son to be the one building it. On top of that, God wants to build an everlasting covenant with David and his descendants. The covenant God wants to make with him and his descendants is beyond all possible imaginations, and this is an everlasting covenant!!! This covenant remains unbroken for the returned exiles. Their LORD God is not only powerful, but is in solidarity with them.

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? (Ps 8:3-4, NRSV)

The returned exiles will no doubt recall the Davidic Psalm 8. Their LORD God cares for them even though they have been subdued by the world super-power, Babylonians, and by 430 B.C.E., the Persians have taken over as their overlord. The returned exiles and their descendants need to hear the message of the unbroken covenant their LORD God made with them, and that God the Almighty Powerful One who creates the universe still cares for them.

How does the passage above speaks to us today? Even though we are not Jews, but through Jesus Christ, we have been adopted as God's own people.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Pe 2:9-10, NRSV)

Christians are entitled to echo a similar response attributed to King David in Psalm 8 because God has given Godself to us through Jesus Christ. The author of 1 Peter exerts the claim that is familiar to the Jews, and this claim is built on Jesus Christ, the living stone. Because of the work of Jesus Christ, we are God's children through Him. This is not due to any of our effort, and can never be achieved based on our effort. It is wholly due to God's initiative, not our own! God's covenant with us stretches to eternity, and ultimately defines who we are. What we can do and are capable of doing is of a very finite magnitude, even if one were able to set up a monument similar to Solomon's magnificent temple (bayit). Just like God taking the initiative in establishing an eternal dynasty (bayit) with David, God takes the initiative in building an eternal relationship with us. Instead of grounding our self-identity in material possession, status, and power, it is grounded within the covenant which God has actively wrought with us. Karl Barth points out in his Church Dogmatics, Volume III, 1, Creation and Covenant

It is striking, but incontestable, that in his description of the grace of God in this final and supreme act of creation, the biblical witness makes no reference at all to the peculiar intellectual and moral talents and possibilities of man, to his reason and its determination and exercise. It is not in something which distinguishes him from the beasts, but in that which formally he has in common with them, viz. that God has created him male and female, that he is this being in differentiation and relationship, and therefore in natural fellowship with God. [1]

God is the active covenant maker, and we are the passive recipient. Yet in our passivity, we seek to respond actively based on our relationship with God. Our relationship with God defines the essence of who we are, and our active response is the extension of our essence. Material possession, status, and power must not be the benchmark which we measure ourselves, though it is a daily temptation to do so. What distinguishes us from other created beings is being made in God's image, and having a relationship with the Creator. For those who are rooted in a relationship with God, the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer, we are called to a daily thanksgiving, and to witness our relationship with God and with one another (as we believe in the communion of the saints) in the wider world.

REFLECTION

Today, we need to hear the message that God has an eternal relationship with us; God has initiated a covenant with us; and God is with us from the beginning of human history till today even in the midst of this economic downturn, and is still speaking to us even though we may have lost our dignity due to retrenchment. We are called to witness this relationship that defined who we are essentially, and this in turn frames how we relate to others, and how we govern God’s creation. It is not an easy task to be a faithful witness, but we can respond with courage and love from the depth of who we are called to be by stretching out our hands to steady the step that we can take together, as one community of saints who are in an eternal relationship with God. Look around us, is there any brother or sister in need of help? Are these brother and sister a separate entity from us or are we one people of God? Are we strangers who happened to worship in the same building on a Sunday morning or are we co-priest who pray to the same God, and who partake in the same communion? Do we formulate policy that discriminates against other race and gender or do we perceive ourselves as one holy nation sharing a common reference point that makes social justice possible? As part of God’s called community, we help one another and learn to accept assistance from others in our daily journey of witnessing who we are and in our daily journey of proclaiming our self-identity through our actions.

As God is the Creator whom we owe our existence, and God does not forsake us by taking the initiative in calling us into an eternal relationship with Him, our self-identity is based on our fellowship with God, not on our wealth nor status nor power nor other created being. Neither of these can gain God's favor, nor satisfy our deep longing for the spiritual. We are made to find rest in God, and to be fully satisfied in God. Material object is part of God’s creation, and we are called to be God's faithful steward , and not to be enslaved by what is finite. We are called to a vocation, and we have a special place in the society because of our calling. Promise of wealth, power and status is not our master and neither must it hold power over us. No matter where we are, what vocation we are called to, we are priceless and worthy because we are God’s child, and called into a relationship with God bought at the price of Christ. Precisely because each of us is a child of God, we are free to be who God called us to be. Howard Thurman says it well, "The awareness of being a child of God tends to stablize the ego and results in a new courage, fearlessness and power ... A man's conviction that he is God's child automatically tends to shift the basis of his relationship with all his fellows." [2]

As we continue in the journey of being a faithful witness, may we be conscious of being a child of God, and be a beacon of light to those around us. Let us witness the goodness of God, the sovereignty of God, and the presence of God in our midst. I pray that one day, all of us, including our friends, may join us in unison and praise “Adonai (Yahweh), our LORD, how majestic is your name on all the earth!” (Ps 8:9, my translation from Biblical Hebrew). Amen.

Footnotes:

[1] Karl Barth, The Digital Karl Barth Library, http://solomon.dkbl.alexanderstreet.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/dkbl/getobject.pl?c.877:1.barth (Accessed, Aug 25, 2009).

[2] Howard Thurman, Jesus and the Disinherited (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976, 1996), 50-51.