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.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Friday, September 04, 2009
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:
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.
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:
Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 56.
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.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
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.
[2] Howard Thurman, Jesus and the Disinherited (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976, 1996), 50-51.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Background of Chinese American churches
This article draws heavily from a sociologist Russell Jeung's Faithful Generations: Race and New Asian American Churches in tracing the development of Chinese American churches. I would further suggest that Jeung's observation of Confucian virtues being found predominantly across Chinese American churches is also true of the Chinese churches in Singapore, and perhaps in Malaysia as well.
Among the first group of students who arrived in the America to study in 1847, one of them, Yung Wing went on to establish the Chinese Educational Mission in the America in 1854 after graduating from Yale University. This mission oversaw 120 students from China who were then educated in the U.S., and some of these students eventually founded the Chinese Christian Home Mission in 1878, to transplant Christianity in their homeland.[1]
Both the Presbyterians and the Methodists set up schools to educate the Chinese immigrants along the Pacific Coast and these efforts resulted in 2 percent of the Chinese population who converted to Christianity by 1910. In the early stage of immigration, the Chinese immigrants had established clans based on their familial tie or geographic origin, and Christianity was an alternative social network not defined by clans or districts. As an alternative social association, some of the Chinese churches had to provide social services such as temporary lodging and to assist those who were departing back to China.[2] This reinforced the Chinese and Christian identities.
The rise of nation-state such as the Sun-Yat Sen’s Republican Revolution of 1911 in China provided avenues for the Chinese American Christians to envision a new China that would embody the democracy system and Christian values. However, with the Communist takeover of China in 1949, and American Cold-War anti-communist policy, the Chinese American Christians gradually came to understand their Chinese heritage in terms of cultural identity, instead of a political one. As the Chinese male laborers’ immigration declines due to the Chinese Exclusion Act imposed since 1882, the female church leadership has shifted their focus to providing better family opportunities in Chinatowns and transmitting ethnic culture.[3] The second generation Chinese Christians were trained culturally to retain their cultural identity and were raised in the education system in the American society.
There was an emergence of evangelical Chinese American churches and fellowships in the 1960s. The urge for family-centered values fits in well with the evangelicals appeal for Bible-centered teaching. Eventually the number of Chinese evangelical congregations outnumbered those in the mainline denomination. The fundamentalist churches among the Chinese Americans also thrive in this period as it was a decade that witnessed the increasing rate of divorce and decadence of American culture. The drive for autonomy from outside control provided the impetus for some Chinese American churches to become independent. However, the emphasis on evangelism; the cultural fit between Confucianism and conservative Christianity; and relative autonomy among the evangelical churches, encourage the growth of evangelical Chinese American churches in the 1960s till today.
This may be why Confucian virtues such as “family harmony, obligation to the group, and a strong work ethic geared toward education and career”[4] are predominantly found among Chinese American churches. Sociologist Russell Jeung further suggests that the motivation for Chinese American Christians to participate in group activities stems from “a sense of familial responsibility and obligation,” and the success of any festival in the church is a reflection of “people’s willingness to sacrifice for the group as a whole.”[5] This illustrates the intricate relationship between one’s ethnic culture and religion.
Footnotes:
[1] Russell Jeung, Faithful Generations: Race and New Asian American Churches (NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005), 18.
[2] Ibid., 22.
[3] Ibid., 23.
[4] Ibid., 33.
[5] Ibid., 36-7.
Among the first group of students who arrived in the America to study in 1847, one of them, Yung Wing went on to establish the Chinese Educational Mission in the America in 1854 after graduating from Yale University. This mission oversaw 120 students from China who were then educated in the U.S., and some of these students eventually founded the Chinese Christian Home Mission in 1878, to transplant Christianity in their homeland.[1]
Both the Presbyterians and the Methodists set up schools to educate the Chinese immigrants along the Pacific Coast and these efforts resulted in 2 percent of the Chinese population who converted to Christianity by 1910. In the early stage of immigration, the Chinese immigrants had established clans based on their familial tie or geographic origin, and Christianity was an alternative social network not defined by clans or districts. As an alternative social association, some of the Chinese churches had to provide social services such as temporary lodging and to assist those who were departing back to China.[2] This reinforced the Chinese and Christian identities.
The rise of nation-state such as the Sun-Yat Sen’s Republican Revolution of 1911 in China provided avenues for the Chinese American Christians to envision a new China that would embody the democracy system and Christian values. However, with the Communist takeover of China in 1949, and American Cold-War anti-communist policy, the Chinese American Christians gradually came to understand their Chinese heritage in terms of cultural identity, instead of a political one. As the Chinese male laborers’ immigration declines due to the Chinese Exclusion Act imposed since 1882, the female church leadership has shifted their focus to providing better family opportunities in Chinatowns and transmitting ethnic culture.[3] The second generation Chinese Christians were trained culturally to retain their cultural identity and were raised in the education system in the American society.
There was an emergence of evangelical Chinese American churches and fellowships in the 1960s. The urge for family-centered values fits in well with the evangelicals appeal for Bible-centered teaching. Eventually the number of Chinese evangelical congregations outnumbered those in the mainline denomination. The fundamentalist churches among the Chinese Americans also thrive in this period as it was a decade that witnessed the increasing rate of divorce and decadence of American culture. The drive for autonomy from outside control provided the impetus for some Chinese American churches to become independent. However, the emphasis on evangelism; the cultural fit between Confucianism and conservative Christianity; and relative autonomy among the evangelical churches, encourage the growth of evangelical Chinese American churches in the 1960s till today.
This may be why Confucian virtues such as “family harmony, obligation to the group, and a strong work ethic geared toward education and career”[4] are predominantly found among Chinese American churches. Sociologist Russell Jeung further suggests that the motivation for Chinese American Christians to participate in group activities stems from “a sense of familial responsibility and obligation,” and the success of any festival in the church is a reflection of “people’s willingness to sacrifice for the group as a whole.”[5] This illustrates the intricate relationship between one’s ethnic culture and religion.
Footnotes:
[1] Russell Jeung, Faithful Generations: Race and New Asian American Churches (NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005), 18.
[2] Ibid., 22.
[3] Ibid., 23.
[4] Ibid., 33.
[5] Ibid., 36-7.
A very brief history of Chinese Americans
I did a small research on the history of Chinese Americans during my winter semester 2009. I will attempt to encapsulate a very brief history of Chinese Americans in three paragraphs.
Ever since the Chinese immigrants have arrived on the shore of the America, they have been adapting to a whole new environment. The first group of Chinese to arrive in 1847 was students.[1] But the larger waves that arrived subsequently were unskilled laborers drawn by news of gold and the economic boom in California. In the first two decades of Chinese immigration, there were about 60,000 Chinese, among whom 50,000 were in California according to the census taken in 1870.[2]
The next decade witnessed the population increased to over 100,000 with 95 percent in the far western states.[3] The presence of the Chinese laborers drove down average wages, and they were in direct competition with unskilled laborers from the dominant white Americans. These fueled an anti-Chinese sentiment and social injustice against the Chinese immigrants. A sociologist Harry Kitano notes that “Chinese were often defenseless targets for all kinds of violence, ranging from casual abuse on city streets to mass murder.”[4]
Though the Burlingame Treaty with China in 1868 gave the Chinese immigrants certain leverage, the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882 barred the immigration of Chinese laborers for the subsequent decades. This was gradually repealed starting in 1943, and it was not until 1965 with the Immigration Act that finally abolished the quota for Chinese immigrants. The effect was immediately felt as the numbers of Asian Americans soared from 1.5 million in 1970 to 7.9 million in 1990.[5] According to Census 2000, Asian Americans now comprise 4.2% of the U.S. population or 11.9 million out of the 281 million Americans.[6]
Footnotes:
[1] Russell Jeung, Faithful Generations: Race and New Asian American Churches (NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005), 18.
[2] Harry H.L. Kitano and Roger Daniels, Asian Americans: Emerging Minorities, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001), 23.
[3] Ibid., 24.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Jeung, Faithful Generations, 44.
[6] Peter Y. Hong, “Asian Americans Show Large Population Growth,” Los Angeles Times, Mar04, 2002, http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/04/local/me-census4 (Accessed Jan18, 2009)
Ever since the Chinese immigrants have arrived on the shore of the America, they have been adapting to a whole new environment. The first group of Chinese to arrive in 1847 was students.[1] But the larger waves that arrived subsequently were unskilled laborers drawn by news of gold and the economic boom in California. In the first two decades of Chinese immigration, there were about 60,000 Chinese, among whom 50,000 were in California according to the census taken in 1870.[2]
The next decade witnessed the population increased to over 100,000 with 95 percent in the far western states.[3] The presence of the Chinese laborers drove down average wages, and they were in direct competition with unskilled laborers from the dominant white Americans. These fueled an anti-Chinese sentiment and social injustice against the Chinese immigrants. A sociologist Harry Kitano notes that “Chinese were often defenseless targets for all kinds of violence, ranging from casual abuse on city streets to mass murder.”[4]
Though the Burlingame Treaty with China in 1868 gave the Chinese immigrants certain leverage, the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882 barred the immigration of Chinese laborers for the subsequent decades. This was gradually repealed starting in 1943, and it was not until 1965 with the Immigration Act that finally abolished the quota for Chinese immigrants. The effect was immediately felt as the numbers of Asian Americans soared from 1.5 million in 1970 to 7.9 million in 1990.[5] According to Census 2000, Asian Americans now comprise 4.2% of the U.S. population or 11.9 million out of the 281 million Americans.[6]
Footnotes:
[1] Russell Jeung, Faithful Generations: Race and New Asian American Churches (NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005), 18.
[2] Harry H.L. Kitano and Roger Daniels, Asian Americans: Emerging Minorities, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001), 23.
[3] Ibid., 24.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Jeung, Faithful Generations, 44.
[6] Peter Y. Hong, “Asian Americans Show Large Population Growth,” Los Angeles Times, Mar04, 2002, http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/04/local/me-census4 (Accessed Jan18, 2009)
6月7日在恩泽中心的分享
This is the sharing I gave during my visit back at my home church in Singapore on 7th June 2009.
弟兄姐妹们平安。
我姓许，名瑞龙，曾经与理事长老们及牧师在以前的理事会里一起同工。当时的恩泽中心还在文礼。我目前在美国波士顿大学就读道学硕士，将步入第三年，我也是附属波士顿长老会的神学生。今天我主要是要与大家分享两方面的感恩事项，虽然我还有许多方面可以分享，但时间有限。
首先，我先分享在学业方面的感恩事项。我一向来都是读数理科。当时我刚踏入神学系，并且周围的许多同学都有宗教系的背景，再加上我的老师们都毕业于美国的顶尖大学或神学院，他们对神学生的学术水平有一定的要求。在这样的环境读书，对我来说是一个很大的挑战。但是就在这样的环境里，我才体会到原来新加坡有良好的教育水平，以致我能够比较快地融入新的学习环境，并有机会免费修改来自韩国及日本的同学的文章。这要感谢上帝透过新加坡教育制度给予我的装备。我也要感谢我能在学校并我所属的教会里有机会接触当代的神学思想。因为福音在华人教会的时间不长，我盼望上帝兴起更多华人基督徒全时间攻读神学，并有更多华人教会投资资源在神学教育，提高华人教会的神学水平。福音是应当影响我们生活的各个层面，包括人际关系，工作领域，甚至整个社会及我们如何治理整个大地。这就能更好的反映出我们信仰宣言“我信上帝，全能的父，创造天地的主。”
第二方面的分享是关于上帝如何透过不同管道供应我与美凤的经济资源。我们本来有稳定的收入，住在裕廊西的一间五房式组屋。到了波士顿的第一晚，我们住进了YWCA的一个小房间，只有两张单人床和一张桌子。厕所是在外面的走廊，厨房在住宿底层，我们的亲属及朋友却在世界的另一端，再加上我的神学教育还是完全自费的。当时，我差点哭了出来，因为这样的环境与我之前在新加坡的对比实在太大了。后来，因着我的神学院给予我的奖学金，波士顿长老会中会与教会的协助，弟兄姐妹们的爱心奉献与祷告上的支持，而且美凤又能做短期工作，我们才能继续步入第三年。我们也深深体会主祷文里的“我们日用的饮食，今日赐给我们”。
你们不要以为我信心很大。其实，我是个小信的人。虽然我深深地经历上帝的带领，但有些时侯我不晓得上帝是否会继续供应。所以，请你们继续代祷。请纪念我们在今年8月后，能找到适合的地方住，并且明年能继续在神学院深造。也请你们纪念美凤的父亲。她的父亲身体欠佳。
最后，我期望这摆在桌上的十字架能彰显在我们的生命里，不只是在垂直方面与上帝有永恒的关系，但也延伸致人际关系层面，让我们活出像耶稣基督一样“爱神爱人”的生命。愿上帝祝福你们。我把时间交回给主席。
弟兄姐妹们平安。
我姓许，名瑞龙，曾经与理事长老们及牧师在以前的理事会里一起同工。当时的恩泽中心还在文礼。我目前在美国波士顿大学就读道学硕士，将步入第三年，我也是附属波士顿长老会的神学生。今天我主要是要与大家分享两方面的感恩事项，虽然我还有许多方面可以分享，但时间有限。
首先，我先分享在学业方面的感恩事项。我一向来都是读数理科。当时我刚踏入神学系，并且周围的许多同学都有宗教系的背景，再加上我的老师们都毕业于美国的顶尖大学或神学院，他们对神学生的学术水平有一定的要求。在这样的环境读书，对我来说是一个很大的挑战。但是就在这样的环境里，我才体会到原来新加坡有良好的教育水平，以致我能够比较快地融入新的学习环境，并有机会免费修改来自韩国及日本的同学的文章。这要感谢上帝透过新加坡教育制度给予我的装备。我也要感谢我能在学校并我所属的教会里有机会接触当代的神学思想。因为福音在华人教会的时间不长，我盼望上帝兴起更多华人基督徒全时间攻读神学，并有更多华人教会投资资源在神学教育，提高华人教会的神学水平。福音是应当影响我们生活的各个层面，包括人际关系，工作领域，甚至整个社会及我们如何治理整个大地。这就能更好的反映出我们信仰宣言“我信上帝，全能的父，创造天地的主。”
第二方面的分享是关于上帝如何透过不同管道供应我与美凤的经济资源。我们本来有稳定的收入，住在裕廊西的一间五房式组屋。到了波士顿的第一晚，我们住进了YWCA的一个小房间，只有两张单人床和一张桌子。厕所是在外面的走廊，厨房在住宿底层，我们的亲属及朋友却在世界的另一端，再加上我的神学教育还是完全自费的。当时，我差点哭了出来，因为这样的环境与我之前在新加坡的对比实在太大了。后来，因着我的神学院给予我的奖学金，波士顿长老会中会与教会的协助，弟兄姐妹们的爱心奉献与祷告上的支持，而且美凤又能做短期工作，我们才能继续步入第三年。我们也深深体会主祷文里的“我们日用的饮食，今日赐给我们”。
你们不要以为我信心很大。其实，我是个小信的人。虽然我深深地经历上帝的带领，但有些时侯我不晓得上帝是否会继续供应。所以，请你们继续代祷。请纪念我们在今年8月后，能找到适合的地方住，并且明年能继续在神学院深造。也请你们纪念美凤的父亲。她的父亲身体欠佳。
最后，我期望这摆在桌上的十字架能彰显在我们的生命里，不只是在垂直方面与上帝有永恒的关系，但也延伸致人际关系层面，让我们活出像耶稣基督一样“爱神爱人”的生命。愿上帝祝福你们。我把时间交回给主席。
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Why I switched from 2-yr MTS to 3-yr specialized MDiv program
I started off doing a 2-yr Master of Theological Studies (MTS) degree. Why did I switch to 3-yr Master of Divinity (MDiv) degree that is also available in Singapore? Isn't that a waste? Has my initial intention to study something related to science, and other religion shifted? Does my intention to seek ordination in America means that I intend to stay in America for good? These are the questions that some of my friends asked me when I was back in Singapore. I intend to write an article to explain it.
My initial reason for choosing a 2-yr MTS degree was because I wanted to do only academic theology, and my aim was to teach at a seminary one day. I did not see myself serving in a church setting, after having served in my church actively from 1995 till 2007. One of the main reasons is because my conviction demands me to engage the society, other academic disciplines such as science and philosophy, and I don't see how this can be fulfilled at the church level.
During my 1st semester at Boston Uni School of Theology (BUSTH), I wanted to try out whether I was suitable for theological studies. If my grade shows that theological studies is not my cup of tea after all, then I will pack up at the end of my 2-yr program and it will be just as what a Chinese Singaporean minister said to me "出国去泡泡两年也好" (immerse overseas for 2-yr is also good) before I left Singapore in 2007. In my first semester studies, I felt as if I was like a fish swimming in a water (this is a metaphorical statement). I found theological studies to be my natural habitat and I enjoyed it much more than when I did my engineering studies, even though I had a tough beginning. It took me some time to get used to academic mode of writing, and I had to work harder than other students who already had academic background in religious studies.
When I entered my 2nd semester, I took philosophical introduction to theology as my 1st theology class. I discovered that theology has a life of "its" own. To take up a calling in theology means that I be committed not only to the academic institution, but also to the faith community. I gradually saw the vision of theology reaching out to the church as well as the seminary as being the platform to educate clergy, and theology itself as the discipline to dialogue with other disciplines.
The churches in Boston also gave me new paradigm in envisioning mission of a church. A church is not just taking up the mandate of sharing the gospel by sending out mission trip, holding mission rally, and conducting Sunday school, but it is much more than that. I have seen churches educating the laity to address social issue on a legitimate platform and within a social sphere, and it is part of what it means to love God and to love others as ourselves. I have seen churches exploring care for the whole earth as it is our mandate to care for God's creation. I have seen churches looking at after-death issues and discussing with the retirees the options available for managing household, body parts and organs, will, trustees after they are gone, and this is what it means when everyone is part of Christ's body. If all these are what it means to be a church of Christ, then I definitely want to be a part of it not just as a laity but as a minister.
I then discussed with my academic advisor the implication of switching to a 3-yr MDiv program. Even if I do not proceed beyond the MDiv, at least I could still educate the laity and be a minister to them. I eventually petitioned to switch over to 3-yr specialized MDiv program during my 2nd semester. My school has the flexibility of allowing us to carry the credits over when switching program. I also realized that Reformed faith (perhaps due to its influence in Southeast Asia) is part of my identity, and has thus began my inquiry process in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Now, I would like to compare the difference in the curriculum after I have switched over. I would like to highlight that I am pursuing a specialized MDiv with concentration in Theology, Philosophy and Ethics, not a general MDiv, due to my needs. In the comparison below, I have given the name of the professor teaching the class and where. If it says "from Princeton Uni", it means this instructor comes from Princeton Uni and teaches at my school then. If it says "at Andover-Newton", it means I took the class at Andover-Newton. Unless otherwise stated, a class is usually 4-credit hour. The BOLDED classes are those not offered by TTC or SBC in S'pore. Those marked with asterisk are classes I have to take after I switched to 3-yr specialized MDiv. By the way, I am going into my 5th semester.
1st semester (Fall 2007)
1. Hebrew Bible I (by Dr. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr)
2. Church History I: Survey (by Dr. Christopher B. Brown)
3. Science Literacy (by Dr. Olga V. Naidenko)
4. Science and Religion (by Dr. Nathaniel Barrett)
2nd semester (Spring 2008)
1. Christian Social Ethics (by Dr. John Hart)
2. The History of Christian Theology in Philosophical Perspective (by Dr. Garth Green)
3. Sociology of Religion (by Dr. Lynn Davidman from Brown University)
4. History and Methods of Comparative Religion (seminar format by Dr. Catherine Cornille at Boston College)
5. German Reading for Graduate Students (non-credit class by Ursula Mangoubi, a German instructor at Boston University College of Arts & Sciences)
3rd semester (Fall 2008)
*1. Intro to Christian Worship (by Dr. Karen B. Westerfield Tucker)
2. Theology II: Contemporary Christian Theology (by Dr. Shelly Rambo)
*3. New Testament Greek I (by Dr. James Christopher Walters)
*4. Social Science Perspectives on Church and the world (by Dr. Nancy Ammerman)
5. Theological and Economic Ethics of Globalization (by Dr. Nimi Wariboko at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary)
4th semester (Spring 2009)
1. Race and American Christianity (Briallen Hopper, PhD candidate from Princeton University)
2. Intro to New Testament (by Dr. Jennifer Knust)
*3. New Testament Greek II (by Dr. Jennifer Knust)
4. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam (by Dr. Mark Heim at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary)
Summer Term 2009
*1. Elementary Biblical Hebrew I & II (by Keith Stone, PhD candidate, at Harvard Divinity School)
5th semester (tentative, Fall 2009)
1. History of Western Ethics and Social Philosophy (seminar format)
2. Theologies of Dialogue
*3. Presbyterian Polity
*4. Field Education I
*5. Hebrew Reading and Exegesis I (2 credit hr)
6th semester (tentative, Spring 2010)
*1. Pastoral Care and Counseling
*2. Intro to Preaching
*3. Field Education II
4. Chinese Philosophy OR Contemporary Theological Systems (undecided which one to take yet)
As you can see, my curriculum is such that 2-yr MTS + * classes = 3-yr specialized MDiv. Regarding whether I have changed the nature of my focus, YES and NO. Yes, in the sense that I am now envisioning theology as permeating the laity level, not just the academia. No, in the sense that I am still seeking to engage culture, other religions, issues related to globalization, and science, which is the original intention why I chose to study at BUSTH.
Does it mean that since I am pursuing ordination in Presbyterian Church (USA), I will stay in the U.S.? I have explained that if church means more than just preaching the gospel, then I definitely want to be part of it, and if possible as a minister. I may not be able to commit full-time if I am given the opportunity to teach at a seminary setting. I am still searching where God is calling both my wife and me to. It might be Singapore, U.S. or other parts of the world, I am not sure. Our desire is to be close to our family members, and I foresee myself ministering in a multi-racial and multi-religious context.
Do not hesitate to email me if you have any question. I will be most glad to answer them.
My initial reason for choosing a 2-yr MTS degree was because I wanted to do only academic theology, and my aim was to teach at a seminary one day. I did not see myself serving in a church setting, after having served in my church actively from 1995 till 2007. One of the main reasons is because my conviction demands me to engage the society, other academic disciplines such as science and philosophy, and I don't see how this can be fulfilled at the church level.
During my 1st semester at Boston Uni School of Theology (BUSTH), I wanted to try out whether I was suitable for theological studies. If my grade shows that theological studies is not my cup of tea after all, then I will pack up at the end of my 2-yr program and it will be just as what a Chinese Singaporean minister said to me "出国去泡泡两年也好" (immerse overseas for 2-yr is also good) before I left Singapore in 2007. In my first semester studies, I felt as if I was like a fish swimming in a water (this is a metaphorical statement). I found theological studies to be my natural habitat and I enjoyed it much more than when I did my engineering studies, even though I had a tough beginning. It took me some time to get used to academic mode of writing, and I had to work harder than other students who already had academic background in religious studies.
When I entered my 2nd semester, I took philosophical introduction to theology as my 1st theology class. I discovered that theology has a life of "its" own. To take up a calling in theology means that I be committed not only to the academic institution, but also to the faith community. I gradually saw the vision of theology reaching out to the church as well as the seminary as being the platform to educate clergy, and theology itself as the discipline to dialogue with other disciplines.
The churches in Boston also gave me new paradigm in envisioning mission of a church. A church is not just taking up the mandate of sharing the gospel by sending out mission trip, holding mission rally, and conducting Sunday school, but it is much more than that. I have seen churches educating the laity to address social issue on a legitimate platform and within a social sphere, and it is part of what it means to love God and to love others as ourselves. I have seen churches exploring care for the whole earth as it is our mandate to care for God's creation. I have seen churches looking at after-death issues and discussing with the retirees the options available for managing household, body parts and organs, will, trustees after they are gone, and this is what it means when everyone is part of Christ's body. If all these are what it means to be a church of Christ, then I definitely want to be a part of it not just as a laity but as a minister.
I then discussed with my academic advisor the implication of switching to a 3-yr MDiv program. Even if I do not proceed beyond the MDiv, at least I could still educate the laity and be a minister to them. I eventually petitioned to switch over to 3-yr specialized MDiv program during my 2nd semester. My school has the flexibility of allowing us to carry the credits over when switching program. I also realized that Reformed faith (perhaps due to its influence in Southeast Asia) is part of my identity, and has thus began my inquiry process in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Now, I would like to compare the difference in the curriculum after I have switched over. I would like to highlight that I am pursuing a specialized MDiv with concentration in Theology, Philosophy and Ethics, not a general MDiv, due to my needs. In the comparison below, I have given the name of the professor teaching the class and where. If it says "from Princeton Uni", it means this instructor comes from Princeton Uni and teaches at my school then. If it says "at Andover-Newton", it means I took the class at Andover-Newton. Unless otherwise stated, a class is usually 4-credit hour. The BOLDED classes are those not offered by TTC or SBC in S'pore. Those marked with asterisk are classes I have to take after I switched to 3-yr specialized MDiv. By the way, I am going into my 5th semester.
1st semester (Fall 2007)
1. Hebrew Bible I (by Dr. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr)
2. Church History I: Survey (by Dr. Christopher B. Brown)
3. Science Literacy (by Dr. Olga V. Naidenko)
4. Science and Religion (by Dr. Nathaniel Barrett)
2nd semester (Spring 2008)
1. Christian Social Ethics (by Dr. John Hart)
2. The History of Christian Theology in Philosophical Perspective (by Dr. Garth Green)
3. Sociology of Religion (by Dr. Lynn Davidman from Brown University)
4. History and Methods of Comparative Religion (seminar format by Dr. Catherine Cornille at Boston College)
5. German Reading for Graduate Students (non-credit class by Ursula Mangoubi, a German instructor at Boston University College of Arts & Sciences)
3rd semester (Fall 2008)
*1. Intro to Christian Worship (by Dr. Karen B. Westerfield Tucker)
2. Theology II: Contemporary Christian Theology (by Dr. Shelly Rambo)
*3. New Testament Greek I (by Dr. James Christopher Walters)
*4. Social Science Perspectives on Church and the world (by Dr. Nancy Ammerman)
5. Theological and Economic Ethics of Globalization (by Dr. Nimi Wariboko at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary)
4th semester (Spring 2009)
1. Race and American Christianity (Briallen Hopper, PhD candidate from Princeton University)
2. Intro to New Testament (by Dr. Jennifer Knust)
*3. New Testament Greek II (by Dr. Jennifer Knust)
4. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam (by Dr. Mark Heim at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary)
Summer Term 2009
*1. Elementary Biblical Hebrew I & II (by Keith Stone, PhD candidate, at Harvard Divinity School)
5th semester (tentative, Fall 2009)
1. History of Western Ethics and Social Philosophy (seminar format)
2. Theologies of Dialogue
*3. Presbyterian Polity
*4. Field Education I
*5. Hebrew Reading and Exegesis I (2 credit hr)
6th semester (tentative, Spring 2010)
*1. Pastoral Care and Counseling
*2. Intro to Preaching
*3. Field Education II
4. Chinese Philosophy OR Contemporary Theological Systems (undecided which one to take yet)
As you can see, my curriculum is such that 2-yr MTS + * classes = 3-yr specialized MDiv. Regarding whether I have changed the nature of my focus, YES and NO. Yes, in the sense that I am now envisioning theology as permeating the laity level, not just the academia. No, in the sense that I am still seeking to engage culture, other religions, issues related to globalization, and science, which is the original intention why I chose to study at BUSTH.
Does it mean that since I am pursuing ordination in Presbyterian Church (USA), I will stay in the U.S.? I have explained that if church means more than just preaching the gospel, then I definitely want to be part of it, and if possible as a minister. I may not be able to commit full-time if I am given the opportunity to teach at a seminary setting. I am still searching where God is calling both my wife and me to. It might be Singapore, U.S. or other parts of the world, I am not sure. Our desire is to be close to our family members, and I foresee myself ministering in a multi-racial and multi-religious context.
Do not hesitate to email me if you have any question. I will be most glad to answer them.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Why I study at Boston Uni School of Theology
The purpose of this article is to inform those interested in my theological studies about why I have chosen to study at Boston University School of Theology.
I come from Singapore Chinese Presbyterian background, and I am aware that most theological students from the Chinese Presbyterian churches usually prefer Singapore Bible College (SBC). Not many would opt for Trinity Theological College (TTC), let alone overseas theological education. It is almost unheard of to choose overseas non-evangelical or non-conservative theological seminary for their first theological degree. Shouldn't the first theological degree be anchored in an evangelical setting or school with "sound" reputation? So, what makes me choose Boston University School of Theology, a school that is strongly affiliated with liberal theology?
The sense of calling to pursue theological education can be traced back to as far as 1996. I was at ORPC (Mandarin congregation) Joy Fellowship Bible camp. The intensity of studying Bible left me thirst for more. I wanted to know more about the Bible, and the Christian faith. It was in the same Bible camp that Jun Hao, a to-be SBC student who suggested to me to explore full-time theological education. When I entered NUS in 1996, I joined the Chinese Varsity Christian Fellowship (CVCF). I met a lot of brothers and sisters from other denominations, and we were exposed to theology, church history, street evangelism, mission trips, evangelistic rally, Bible studies, Bible camps, did a lot of planning, and co-ordination work. I remembered there was once when I was still in my first year, I had a chance to join my seniors for a dinner at Suntec City. After the dinner, we launched into debate about predestination and I had so much fun. Our discussion did not stop until someone reminded us that we might miss the last MRT train. During my 4th year, I had a chance to engage a Roman Catholic student lay leader in a debate about the primacy of the Bible. I discovered that church tradition does conditioned how we interpret our Bible. So, we had to end the discussion as we could not even agree on a common ground to start off with. In that same year, I was also exposed to some Muslims' criticism on Christianity in NUS. I was able to engage some of them online, and I detected a sense of foreign militant literature flowing into S'pore. What would happen if our argument does not take into account the fragility of our social fabric? I remembered reminding the debaters about racial harmony in S'pore, and if they do not value such harmony, dialogue for mutual understanding is pointless. All these exposure molded me, and I grown so much within these four years. However, the framework that I acquired and issues I came into touch with made me quite an odd-fit in the church setting after I graduated.
In the year 1999, I made a bold step in responding to an altar call during the mission rally （宣教大会） at ORPC (Mandarin). At that point, I was certain that I will be pursuing full-time theological education in the near future. When I got to know my wife in 2000, one of the first few questions I asked her when she was my girlfriend then was whether she would still accept me if I were to pursue theological studies one day, and she said "yes". Since the year 2000, I have also prepared my parents (particularly my mother) psychologically, who are still non-believers even today, that I might be pursuing theological studies one day.
My staple diet used to be books by Alister McGrath, J.I. Packer, Norman Geisler, John Stott, Peter Kreeft, James Sire, etc. which are mostly evangelical authors and attended many sermons by Rev. Stephen Tong, while I was in my uni days. The year when I graduated, I was exposed to Hans Kung's On Being a Christian. Oh boy! This book changed me forever. In the span of 700+ pages, he discusses Marxism, secular humanism, other prominent philosophers, world religions, and argued favorably for Christianity. Hans Kung spent considerable effort to make me doubt that Jesus is the resurrected Christ, and then took me through the next few chapters to convince me that Jesus is indeed the resurrected Christ and this resurrection event forms the crux of a Christian identity. Christian humanism is a fuller version of being human than secular humanism. Being a Christian vastly surpasses being a Marxist. He doesn't say that other world religions are insufficient, he gave reasons why he chose Christianity. This book literally shook my previous foundation and re-constructed my Christian faith. I was gradually open to studying in non-evangelical school by then.
In 2005, I encountered a serious faith crisis. It was mainly an intellectual barrier to the Christian faith. Since I have started reading survey of philosophical ideas from Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy, James Sire's The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, Colin Brown's Philosophy and the Christian Faith: A Historical Sketch from the Middle Ages to the Present Day, Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, Gunnar Skirbekk and Nils Gilje's A History of Western Thought: From ancient Greece to the twentieth century, to Keith Ward's God: A Guide For the Perplexed, I gradually came to acknowledge that the framework I have acquired as an evangelical Christian in a Chinese Christian church setting is inadequate for me to relate philosophy to theology, particular when I have read something about Immanuel Kant's philosophy. I had difficulties "talking" to God who cannot be properly accessed by my five senses. As such "God" cannot be verified nor falsified. Am I then talking to my own imagination reinforced within the reality of a congregation? I couldn't find anyone in my church whom I could discuss with. It was at this point that I turned to Tan Loe Joo, a graduate of Regent College and staffworker at Fellowship of Evangelical Students (Chinese Work). He turned my attention to the need for prior faith. I spent a few days mediating on this. When I read Milliard Erickson's Systematic Theology(2nd ed.), his chapters on "What is Theology?" and "Theology and Philosophy" liberated me to move beyond this impasse, and to once more claim the Christian faith as my own. By then, I firmly believed that philosophy class should be part of my theological curriculum.
In 2006, Vinoth Ramachandra's Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatry & Christian Mission opened my eyes to social issues that were never discussed in my uni days or in my church. Ramachandra did an analysis of the nature of science and the tendency to adopt a reductionist method in reducing the world within scientific framework. By then, I believe theology must explore how faith can be integrated and articulated within a larger society if God is indeed the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of the world, and not just my own private creator, redeemer, and sustainer.
By 2006, I started looking for a curriculum that would equip me to engage culture, other religions, issues of globalization, and science. Only a few schools offer science & religion, philosophy, on top of the usual theology, church history, NT & OT classes, and ethics classes, and they are located overseas. I started asking around and sent email to overseas schools. One of the professors, Kirk Wegter-McNelly, at Boston University School of Theology (BUSTH) replied me, and affirmed that BUSTH would be the right school for me. I was eventually accepted by Regent College (RC) in Vancouver, Canada and BUSTH in Boston, US, by early 2007. I was in a dilemma over which to choose. Both offer cross-disciplinary classes. J.I. Packer is at RC, and RC has a strong evangelical base. BUSTH offers more scholarship, and is part of Boston Theological Institute (BTI) which means I can take classes from other theological schools like Boston College, Harvard Divinity School, etc. who are part of BTI. BUSTH also offers J2 visa for my wife, which means that she would be able to work legally in Boston. When one of RC founders, James M. Houston, was in S'pore for RC alumni gathering in Mar 2007, I had a chance to ask him which institution would be more suitable for me. To my surprise, he told me that BUSTH would be a better choice for me. My choice was clear by then. If you are reading this article, please also read my article "Why I switched from 2-yr MTS to 3-yr MDiv" for the curriculum offered in BUSTH, so that you will have a better understanding why I chose BUSTH.
Having narrated briefly about why I chose BUSTH, I would also like to feedback that the church where I came from did nothing much to prepare possible theological student for theological pursue except for meeting church-sponsored missionaries during the same year and the following year. From the day I expressed my conviction in 1999 publicly, till the day I left for my theological education in 2007, there was no guidance on how to source for theological school based on my needs; or studies to examine the nature of calling and the adjustment one might make, particularly for the family members; or dispatching ceremony as if theological education was my own private endeavor. I am very sorry to burp this out as I believe that constructive criticism is necessary for healthy church growth. So, for the potential or current theological students who feel neglected by your own church, you are not alone. I pray that when I am done with my theological education one day, I will be able to educate the laity and to explore the nature of the church and her mission in a multi-racial and multi-religious context.
I come from Singapore Chinese Presbyterian background, and I am aware that most theological students from the Chinese Presbyterian churches usually prefer Singapore Bible College (SBC). Not many would opt for Trinity Theological College (TTC), let alone overseas theological education. It is almost unheard of to choose overseas non-evangelical or non-conservative theological seminary for their first theological degree. Shouldn't the first theological degree be anchored in an evangelical setting or school with "sound" reputation? So, what makes me choose Boston University School of Theology, a school that is strongly affiliated with liberal theology?
The sense of calling to pursue theological education can be traced back to as far as 1996. I was at ORPC (Mandarin congregation) Joy Fellowship Bible camp. The intensity of studying Bible left me thirst for more. I wanted to know more about the Bible, and the Christian faith. It was in the same Bible camp that Jun Hao, a to-be SBC student who suggested to me to explore full-time theological education. When I entered NUS in 1996, I joined the Chinese Varsity Christian Fellowship (CVCF). I met a lot of brothers and sisters from other denominations, and we were exposed to theology, church history, street evangelism, mission trips, evangelistic rally, Bible studies, Bible camps, did a lot of planning, and co-ordination work. I remembered there was once when I was still in my first year, I had a chance to join my seniors for a dinner at Suntec City. After the dinner, we launched into debate about predestination and I had so much fun. Our discussion did not stop until someone reminded us that we might miss the last MRT train. During my 4th year, I had a chance to engage a Roman Catholic student lay leader in a debate about the primacy of the Bible. I discovered that church tradition does conditioned how we interpret our Bible. So, we had to end the discussion as we could not even agree on a common ground to start off with. In that same year, I was also exposed to some Muslims' criticism on Christianity in NUS. I was able to engage some of them online, and I detected a sense of foreign militant literature flowing into S'pore. What would happen if our argument does not take into account the fragility of our social fabric? I remembered reminding the debaters about racial harmony in S'pore, and if they do not value such harmony, dialogue for mutual understanding is pointless. All these exposure molded me, and I grown so much within these four years. However, the framework that I acquired and issues I came into touch with made me quite an odd-fit in the church setting after I graduated.
In the year 1999, I made a bold step in responding to an altar call during the mission rally （宣教大会） at ORPC (Mandarin). At that point, I was certain that I will be pursuing full-time theological education in the near future. When I got to know my wife in 2000, one of the first few questions I asked her when she was my girlfriend then was whether she would still accept me if I were to pursue theological studies one day, and she said "yes". Since the year 2000, I have also prepared my parents (particularly my mother) psychologically, who are still non-believers even today, that I might be pursuing theological studies one day.
My staple diet used to be books by Alister McGrath, J.I. Packer, Norman Geisler, John Stott, Peter Kreeft, James Sire, etc. which are mostly evangelical authors and attended many sermons by Rev. Stephen Tong, while I was in my uni days. The year when I graduated, I was exposed to Hans Kung's On Being a Christian. Oh boy! This book changed me forever. In the span of 700+ pages, he discusses Marxism, secular humanism, other prominent philosophers, world religions, and argued favorably for Christianity. Hans Kung spent considerable effort to make me doubt that Jesus is the resurrected Christ, and then took me through the next few chapters to convince me that Jesus is indeed the resurrected Christ and this resurrection event forms the crux of a Christian identity. Christian humanism is a fuller version of being human than secular humanism. Being a Christian vastly surpasses being a Marxist. He doesn't say that other world religions are insufficient, he gave reasons why he chose Christianity. This book literally shook my previous foundation and re-constructed my Christian faith. I was gradually open to studying in non-evangelical school by then.
In 2005, I encountered a serious faith crisis. It was mainly an intellectual barrier to the Christian faith. Since I have started reading survey of philosophical ideas from Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy, James Sire's The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, Colin Brown's Philosophy and the Christian Faith: A Historical Sketch from the Middle Ages to the Present Day, Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, Gunnar Skirbekk and Nils Gilje's A History of Western Thought: From ancient Greece to the twentieth century, to Keith Ward's God: A Guide For the Perplexed, I gradually came to acknowledge that the framework I have acquired as an evangelical Christian in a Chinese Christian church setting is inadequate for me to relate philosophy to theology, particular when I have read something about Immanuel Kant's philosophy. I had difficulties "talking" to God who cannot be properly accessed by my five senses. As such "God" cannot be verified nor falsified. Am I then talking to my own imagination reinforced within the reality of a congregation? I couldn't find anyone in my church whom I could discuss with. It was at this point that I turned to Tan Loe Joo, a graduate of Regent College and staffworker at Fellowship of Evangelical Students (Chinese Work). He turned my attention to the need for prior faith. I spent a few days mediating on this. When I read Milliard Erickson's Systematic Theology(2nd ed.), his chapters on "What is Theology?" and "Theology and Philosophy" liberated me to move beyond this impasse, and to once more claim the Christian faith as my own. By then, I firmly believed that philosophy class should be part of my theological curriculum.
In 2006, Vinoth Ramachandra's Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatry & Christian Mission opened my eyes to social issues that were never discussed in my uni days or in my church. Ramachandra did an analysis of the nature of science and the tendency to adopt a reductionist method in reducing the world within scientific framework. By then, I believe theology must explore how faith can be integrated and articulated within a larger society if God is indeed the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of the world, and not just my own private creator, redeemer, and sustainer.
By 2006, I started looking for a curriculum that would equip me to engage culture, other religions, issues of globalization, and science. Only a few schools offer science & religion, philosophy, on top of the usual theology, church history, NT & OT classes, and ethics classes, and they are located overseas. I started asking around and sent email to overseas schools. One of the professors, Kirk Wegter-McNelly, at Boston University School of Theology (BUSTH) replied me, and affirmed that BUSTH would be the right school for me. I was eventually accepted by Regent College (RC) in Vancouver, Canada and BUSTH in Boston, US, by early 2007. I was in a dilemma over which to choose. Both offer cross-disciplinary classes. J.I. Packer is at RC, and RC has a strong evangelical base. BUSTH offers more scholarship, and is part of Boston Theological Institute (BTI) which means I can take classes from other theological schools like Boston College, Harvard Divinity School, etc. who are part of BTI. BUSTH also offers J2 visa for my wife, which means that she would be able to work legally in Boston. When one of RC founders, James M. Houston, was in S'pore for RC alumni gathering in Mar 2007, I had a chance to ask him which institution would be more suitable for me. To my surprise, he told me that BUSTH would be a better choice for me. My choice was clear by then. If you are reading this article, please also read my article "Why I switched from 2-yr MTS to 3-yr MDiv" for the curriculum offered in BUSTH, so that you will have a better understanding why I chose BUSTH.
Having narrated briefly about why I chose BUSTH, I would also like to feedback that the church where I came from did nothing much to prepare possible theological student for theological pursue except for meeting church-sponsored missionaries during the same year and the following year. From the day I expressed my conviction in 1999 publicly, till the day I left for my theological education in 2007, there was no guidance on how to source for theological school based on my needs; or studies to examine the nature of calling and the adjustment one might make, particularly for the family members; or dispatching ceremony as if theological education was my own private endeavor. I am very sorry to burp this out as I believe that constructive criticism is necessary for healthy church growth. So, for the potential or current theological students who feel neglected by your own church, you are not alone. I pray that when I am done with my theological education one day, I will be able to educate the laity and to explore the nature of the church and her mission in a multi-racial and multi-religious context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
