The book of Amos is speaking to me

Among the books in the Bible, I think the books of the prophets are largely foreign to me. In my School of Theology, I took a class in the Hebrew Bible. The impact upon us by Dr. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr from the book of Amos is profound. I will write briefly about what I have learnt from the book and how it is applicable to my life.

The year was about 750 B.C.E. The Northern Israelite kingdom with the capital in Samaria was at her height of economic prosperity and political stability. The superpower nation Assyria had destroyed Northern Kingdom's most threatening enemy, Syria. King Jeroboam II extended his frontiers and built up a lucrative trade which created a powerful merchant class in Samaria. However, the wealth was not evenly distributed among the people. The peasant class who formed the backbone of the Northern Kingdom's economy was neglected completely. Corruption was becoming rampant and justice was not upheld in the society. The irony is that the people of the Northern Kingdom were deeply religious. They gave more than the required offerings, observed the required festivals and looked forward to the coming of the LORD. But how could this be?

Amos, a fig farmer ten miles from Jerusalem, was called by God to the Northern Kingdom. In those days, there were two kinds of prophets: the central prophet, who exercised influence from the centre of the society and religious system; the peripheral prophet, who exercised influence from the fringe of the system. Amos is a peripheral prophet, called to challenge the structural injustice prevalent in the Northern Kingdom. Amos' oracle starts with a great Lion's roar which heralds the judgment to follow. God severely condemned those in positions of power and influence and yet were ill-treating the poor and defenseless:

… because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals—they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of the way; father and son go in to the same girl, so that my holy name is profaned; (2:6b-7, NASB)
For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins—you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and push aside the needy in the gate. (5:12)

Our God is not just concerned with our relationship with Him, He is also concerned about how we govern the world He created and how we relate to people who are made in His image. Our relationship with God is not just about us. It is also about how we are relating with others, who are also His creation, which truly reflects God as our LORD, shepherd, best friend and savior.
The Israelites then had their elaborate sacrificial system and stipulated festivals, yet their religious life was wholly unacceptable to God:

I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (5:21-25, NASB)

The Israelites believed God was blessing them through economic prosperity and political stability and will bless them further by their offerings and worship. But their hearts were far from seeking and accomplishing the will of God. They failed to live out their relationship with Him and to embody His presence in the world by exercising social justice and righteousness. They were complicit in the practice of structural evil and ignored God's desire for them as a holy nation and people.
We may have elaborate worship, numerous Bible study, generous in our offerings and appear to be very religious. But when we are not seeking to live the will of God in our lives, our religious outlook is a total sham. When we confess Jesus Christ as our LORD, we are acknowledging Him as the LORD of all aspects of our life. If Jesus Christ is not the LORD of all, then he is certainly the LORD of none at all.

As we look forward to the coming of Jesus Christ again, we bear similarity with the Israelites who looked forward to the coming of the LORD in 750 B.C.E. They believed that the day when the LORD comes, it will be the day when their enemies are vanquished, their peace and security secured for eternity. Imagine their shock when they heard this from Amos:

Alas for you who desire the day of the Lord! Why do you want the day of the Lord?It is darkness, not light; as if someone fled from a lion, and was met by a bear; or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall, and was bitten by a snake.Is not the day of the Lord darkness, not light, and gloom with no brightness in it? (5:18-20, NASB)

The day of the LORD is not the day of the Israelites' salvation, but their judgment! Isn't this strikingly similar to Jesus' judgment in Matt 5:21-23? The book of Amos is not meant for the Israelites nation in the past, but is a book that continues to speak to us today. The warning Amos is issuing to us is relevant to how we may continue to walk upright in the eyes of our LORD.

The Japanese elder who believes in full-time theological education

One of my classmates is a Japanese elder of a Presbyterian Church. Though he is about 28 years my senior, he believes in theological education and acts on his conviction. He is Mikio Miyagi, an Economics major graduate from University of the Ryukyu, one of the national universities in Japan.
He had been in business world after graduation in 1971 till 1999. His deployment as a Traffic manager and purchaser in Mitsubishi Caterpillar Ltd, a joint venture company between Mitsubishi and Caterpillar Corporation, gave him many opportunities to work overseas. His annual salary easily exceeds that of a school principal in Singapore. In September 1999, he entered full-time church ministry as a Director of Administration of Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Koza Church of Japan Presbytery.

He could have continued on in his career but his burden and vision for the church's ministry compelled him to make a choice. As he continued to serve in the ministry, he realized the needs for further education and this time, in theology. He prayed for a long period of time and together with his wife, made a few trips to the US to decide on a suitable seminary. In 2006, he visited Boston University School of Theology. After a series of discussion with the Admissions Office, he finally decided on this school to pursue Master of Theological Studies degree program full-time.

Below are photos we took together with Mikio and his wife, Taeko, last month. You will notice how much weight I have gained since we left S'pore. We were at his house for lunch on Dec20, 2007 and were treated to a special tea ceremony prepared by Taeko, his wife. We had an enjoyable time interacting together. When he showed Meifeng (Vivian) and me his PowerPoint slides about his church, we could read some of the Chinese characters in the Japanese script. We have more in common than I thought. We have been assisting each other in our common class and share a fellowship bought by the blood of Jesus Christ across national borders. His three children are now grown-ups and I am witnessing how God blesses his household.

I am inspired and continue to be motivated by his conviction and his determination to pursue a full-time theological education. For those of you who have pondered a theological education, whether full-time or part-time, this is a living testimony to encourage you to pursue your conviction.

Karen Lebacqz’s argument for human embryonic stem cell research

Among the theologians and religious ethicists I surveyed on their views of human embryonic stem cell research, I found Karen Lebacqz's argument to be very unique and outstanding. Let's hear what she has to say...

Bibliography:

Lebacqz, Karen. "Stem Cell Ethics: Lessons from Context." In Stem Cell Research: New Frontiers in Science and Ethics, edited by Nancy E. Snow, 85-99. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2003.

It is estimated that there are over one million early embryos (blastocysts) leftover worldwide from in vitro fertilization¹. Usually, these embryos which are not implanted will be frozen. It is commonly agreed among IVF practitioners that after seven years in a frozen state, they are no longer "living."² If the embryos that are used in stem cell research are from "surplus" embryos that will not be implanted and are therefore consigned to death, one might argue that it is more respectful of the value of their life to continue that life in new form by turning those embryos into stem cells rather than simply throwing them in an incinerator³. Indeed, in her paper "Stem Cell Ethics"⁴, Karen Lebacqz, Robert Gordon Sproul Professor of Theological Ethics at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, asserts that there is no reason why stem cell research should be opposed if IVF with its concomitant creation and destruction of embryos is accepted. She further suggests that unless IVF is either rejected completely or revised very substantially, it is inconsistent to accept IVF but refuse stem cell research. She builds her argument further in her article by examining two ethical principles.

First, she questions what it means to treat people with respect. While we generally think that it is not respectful to kill a person, there are circumstances where it is more respectful to do so. An example is a person caught in a burning building with no chance of escape. She suggests that it is more respectful for us to shoot the person than to let the person be burnt to death. Where there is no autonomy or no sentience, and the person's destiny is death under any circumstances, then direct killing is morally justified.

Second, she questions the issue of moral integrity. She cites an example of a twin who had to be separated or else both would die. She is convinced that to sit back and watch both twins die when one could be saved is a selfish act. It is like an actor who is more concerned with keeping his hands clean than saving the lives of others and this is a lack of moral integrity.

Based on these two principles, she puts forth the idea that since blastocyst has no sentience or autonomy and is destined to death, direct killing may be morally countenanced. Failure to do so may reflect moral squeamishness about our own innocence or complicity in evil⁵. Hence, destruction of blastocysts for stem cell research is morally permissible. However, she reminds us that her proposal is in the context that IVF is generally accepted by the public. She remarks that it is worse to permit IVF than to permit human embryonic stem cell (hES) research.

Endnotes:
1. Rose M. Morgan, The Genetics Revolution: History, Fears and Future of a Life-Altering Science (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 137.
2. Karen Lebacqz, "Stem Cell Ethics: Lessons from Context," in Stem Cell Research: New Frontiers in Science and Ethics, ed. Nancy E. Snow (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2003), 90.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 91.
5. Ibid., 96.

Survey of religious bodies’ view concerning human embryonic stem cell research in the US

I wrote a paper on the ethical issues in Stem Cell research for my Science & Religion class. During my literature survey, I was amazed to discover a plethora of voices concerning human embryonic stem cell research. I hope to share the following section so that you have an idea of how diversified we could be on the same issue, irregardless of our religious inclination.

Introduction
Several religious bodies have teachings in place regarding the moral status of human embryos, but they have not formally applied them to early embryos at approximately five days after fertilization. Since the question of whether to allow the destruction of early embryos in stem cell research is a major bone of contention among religious bodies, many consider it necessary to develop and present their positions regarding the moral legitimacy of this research in the public square.¹

1.1 Religious bodies who disapprove hES cell research
The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Southern Baptist, hold that from conception onward the embryo should be treated as a living human being. They rule out embryonic stem cell research as they believe that the early embryo has the moral status of a human being. In his statement to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), Roman Catholic layman Edmund Pellegrino explains:

"In the Roman Catholic view, human life is a continuum from the one-cell stage to death. At every stage, human life has dignity and merits protection. Upon conception, the biological and ontological individuality of a human being is established."²

1.2 Religious bodies who believe in limited-day use of human embryos
The Anglican-Episcopal tradition has developed the view that the early embryo does not have the capacity to become a distinct individual with the potential to develop into a human being until the fourteenth-day point when the primitive streak, the precursor of the spinal cord, develops and the embryo can no longer split into several individuals.³
Within the Jewish tradition, the generally accepted belief is that the embryo is owed protection after 40 days of gestation. In his testimony before NBAC, Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler states that

"There are two prerequisites for the moral status of the embryo as a human being: implantation and 40 days of gestational development. The proposition that humanhood begins at zygote formation, even in vitro, is without basis in biblical moral theology."⁴

Whereas for many Islamic scholars, they maintain that human embryos take on human life at 120 days after conception. As Abdulaziz Sachedina testifies,

"It is correct to suggest that a majority of the Sunni and Shi'ite jurists will have little problem in endorsing ethically regulated research on the stem cells that promises potential therapeutic value."⁵

1.3 Religious bodies who accept hES cell research
In a resolution of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of 2001, it states:

"We believe, as do most authorities that have addressed the issue, that human embryos do have the potential of personhood, and as such they deserve respect. That respect must be shown by requiring that the interests or goals to be accomplished by using human embryos be compelling and unreachable by other means….Prohibition of the derivation of stem cells from embryos would elevate the showing of respect to human embryos above that of helping persons whose pain and suffering might be alleviated. Embryos resulting from infertility treatment to be used for such research must be limited to those embryos that do not have a chance of growing into personhood because the woman has decided to discontinue further treatments and they are not available for donation to another woman for personal or medical reasons, or because a donor is not available."⁶

Other than the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which accepts human embryonic stem research provided the embryos are surplus from the infertility treatment, the United Methodist Church subscribes to similar view. In his address to the UN Mission Ambassadors on the cloning concerns, Jim Winkler, an official of the United Methodist Church, states that

"The Church supports embryonic stem cell research using embryos leftover from In-vitro fertilization procedures, but NOT that research including cloning."⁷

1.4 Non-religious bodies who echo religious sentiments
Other individuals who are deeply committed to a religious tradition have also elected not to present the specific beliefs of their tradition in their public testimony. Instead they have appealed to generally held values. Gilbert Meilaender, whose roots are in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, did not seek to convince his audience by presenting specific scriptural or theological grounds for his position against embryonic stem cell research in his statement before NBAC. Instead, he sought to discuss the issue in terms that resonate with both Protestant and secular thought, such as the need to protect the weakest members of the community, what it means to be a person with a history, and the dangers of making ourselves the objects of our own technological manipulations. ⁸

1.5 Summary of religious views
In short, religious bodies, their representatives, and individuals who adhere to specific religious traditions have various responses to human embryonic stem (hES) cell research. Some have set forth the distinctive resources of their faith, such as their sacred writings and theological teachings. Others have elected not only to explain how their religious writings and teachings have affected their beliefs about the morality of embryonic stem cell research, but also to introduce other considerations. Still others have referred exclusively to secular justifications that coincide with their religious visions and that resonate with those who do not share their religious convictions.⁹ Generally, the views among the Christian religious bodies can be broadly categorized into three sections: (i) those who are opposed to hES cells research; (ii) those who limit the use of embryos up to fourteenth-day; (iii) those who accept the use of surplus embryos from infertility treatment.

Endnotes:
1. Cynthia B. Cohen, "Religion, Public Reason, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research," in Handbook of Bioethics and Religion, ed. David E. Guinn (Madison Avenue, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 131.
2. Edmund D. Pellegrino, "Testimony," in Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. 3. Religious Perspectives (Rockville, Md.: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2000), F3-5
3. Cynthia B. Cohen, "The Moral Status of Early Embryos and New Genetic Interventions," in A Christian Response to the New Genetics, ed. David H. Smith and Cynthia B. Cohen (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 105-30; Report of a Working Party on Human Fertilisation and Embryology of the Board of Social Responsibility, Church of England, Personal Origins, 2nd rev. ed. (London: Church House Publishing, 1996), 32-45.
4. Moshe Dovid Tendler, "Stem Cell Research and Therapy: A Judeo-Biblical Perspective," in Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. 3, Religious Perspectives (Rockville, Md.: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2000), H3-4.
5. Abdulaziz Sachedina, "Islamic Perspectives on Research with Human Embryonic Stem Cells," in Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. 3, Religious Perspectives (Rockville, Md.: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2000), G3-6.
6. General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA), "Overture 01-50. On Adopting a Resolution Enunciating Ethical Guidelines for Fetal Tissue and Stem Cell Research—From the Presbytery of Baltimore," at http://www.pcusa.org/ga213/business/OVT0150.htm (accessed December 08, 2007).
7. Jim Winkler, "Winkler addresses Cloning concerns to UN Mission Ambassadors," November 19, 2004, at http://www.umc-gbcs.org (accessed December 08, 2007).
8. Cohen, "Religion, Public Reason, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research," 133.
9. Ibid., 134-5.

Bibliography:
Cohen, Cynthia B. "Religion, Public Reason, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research." In Handbook of Bioethics and Religion, edited by David E. Guinn, 129-142. Madison Avenue, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Basics of Stem Cells

The person who is instrumental for my study in stem cells is Dr Olga V. Naidenko, a PhD holder in immunology from the UCLA Molecular Biology Institute. She was my instructor in Science Literacy class in Boston University School of Theology in Fall'07. Without her guidance and motivation, I would not be able to sustain my interest in the class as I had almost no biological and organic chemistry backgrounds; it also took some time for me to accustom her Russian accent. Not only did she ground me in the basics of organic chemistry and the issues in the origin of life; with her support, I acquired the basic terminology and concept in stem cell research. With that background, I could present the technical aspects of stem cell research to my classmates and move on to explore the ethical issues involved in another class. I dedicate this page to Dr Olga.

Many types of stem cells exist in the human body. All stem cells have the capacity to replicate, to self-renew and to differentiate in order to produce specific body parts. Stem cells can be classified into four broad types based on their origin, viz. stem cells from embryos; stem cells from the fetus; stem cells from the umbilical cord; and stem cells from the adult¹. All these stem cells have different capacities to differentiate and these capacities are generally classified as totipotent, pluripotent and multipotent.Totipotent cell is capable of forming every type of body cell. Each totipotent cell may replicate, differentiate and become a human being. Pluripotent stem cells can develop into any three major tissue types: endoderm (interior gut lining), mesoderm (muscle, bone, blood) and ectoderm (epidermal tissues and nervous system). Pluripotent stem cells can eventually specialize in any bodily tissue, but they cannot themselves develop into a human being. Multipotent stem cells are tissue-specific stem cells committed to making blood, muscle, nerve, bone of other tissues².Most of the controversies surrounding stem cell research are focused on pluripotent cells. In order for us to understand the issue, we have to trace the development of a fertilized egg.1.2 Early development of a fertilized egg
Fertilization of an oocyte (unfertilized egg) by a sperm results in a one-cell zygote (fertilized egg), which begins to divide without any increase in size (Figure 1). By 3-4 days after fertilization, cell division results in a compact ball of 16-32 cells known as a morula. By 5-6 days, a blastocyst is formed consisting of a sphere of about 200-250 cells. The sphere is made up of an outer layer of cells (the trophectoderm), a fluid-filled cavity (the blastocoel), and a cluster of cells in the interior (the inner cell mass). The cells of the inner cell mass will give rise to the embryonic disk and ultimately the fetus, but not the placenta, which arises from the trophectoderm³. Among these three different types of cells, only the inner cell mass are pluripotent as they would develop and form all the parts of the human body.


1.3.1 Human embryonic stem cells
As early as 1994, Ariff Bongso, a researcher of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) program in National University of Singapore, first described isolation and culture of cells of the inner cell mass of human blastocysts⁵. Techniques for deriving and culturing stable human embryonic stem (hES) cell lines were first reported by James Thomson, an associate veterinarian in the University of Wisconsin's Regional Primate Research Center, in 1998⁶. Their techniques of isolating the hES cells have since become the standard in most stem cell research labs. First, spare fertilized eggs (embryos), which themselves are totipotent stem cells, are taken from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. They are next cultured to the blastocyst stage. The trophectoderm is then removed in order to extract the ICM. The ICM are separated before placing them on a feeder tray and cultured. These separated cells known as the hES cells divide and reproduce themselves. Each hES cell is pluripotent, capable of making any bodily tissue.Other than the surplus embryos from IVF clinics, there are other ways to obtain hES cells in vitro. There are embryos created in vitro specifically for stem cell research. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is another source of stem cells. In SCNT, the nucleus from the oocyte is removed. The oocyte without the nucleus is called the enucleated human oocyte. Adult donor cells are extracted and de-differentiated in cell culture before fusing it with the enucleated oocyte. This forms an embryo with the DNA of the donor intact. If grown to full term, it would produce a clone and the classic example is Dolly the sheep. This process is known as reproductive cloning. However, in most cases, the embryo would be cultivated till blastocyst stage before being terminated and this is known as therapeutic cloning.1.3.2 Adult Stem Cells
Perhaps the least controversial method for producing stem cell is by cultivating adult stems cells. Adult stem cells are obtained from adult body and they can be derived in very small quantity from any one person. The most familiar example is extracting hematopoietic stem cells from bone marrow. Once these are removed from human body, they are cultured in tissue culture flasks, with addition of appropriate liquid nutrient medium.1.3.3 Human Embryonic Germ Cells
Last but not least is another method developed by John Gearhart, a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in 1998. His procedure involves drawing human embryonic germ cells (hEG cells) from fetal gonadal tissue. These cells, when taken from an aborted fetus at about five to eight week stage, resemble in nearly all respects the pluripotent stem cells⁷. It is not yet clear whether or not hES cells are identical to hEG. Both are pluripotent and appear to be equivalent in function. Yet, it may be discovered that different alleles appear in different hES, because hES cells could be imprinted by either the male or female source. The blastocyst stage of embryogenesis is a stage that avoids the gender imprint. What is not yet known is whether original gender imprint will matter. For the foreseeable future the two types of stem cells will be treated the same⁸.1.3.4 Summary of sources of stem cellsTo summarize, stem cells may be derived from:(i) Surplus embryos from IVF;(ii) Embryos created specifically for research;(iii) Somatic cell nuclear transfer;(iv) Adult stem cells;(v) Aborted fetus at about five to eight week stage.
1.3 Sources of Stem Cells

Figure 1: Preimplantation development⁴

1.1 Classification of stem cells

Ariff Bongso, Eng Hin Lee. "Stem Cells: Their Definition, Classification and Sources." In Stem Cells: From Bench to Bedside, edited by Eng Hin Lee, Ariff Bongso, 1-13. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2005.

Peters, Ted. Science, Theology, and Ethics. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003.

Endnotes:
1. Ariff Bongso and Eng Hin Lee," Stem Cells: Their Definition, Classification and Sources," in Stem Cells: From Bench to Bedside, ed. Ariff Bongso and Eng Hin Lee (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2005), 3.
2. Ted Peters, Science, Theology, and Ethics (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003), 179.
3. Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, National Research Council, Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, 29-30. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11278.html
4. Ibid, 30.
5. Bongso, A., Fong, C. Y., Ng, S. C., and Ratnam, S.,"Isolation and culture of inner cell mass cells from human blastocysts,"in Human Reproduction, 1994, 9:2110-2117.
6. Thomson, J. A., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S. S., Waknitz, M. A., Swiergiel, J. J., Marshall, V. S., and Jones, J. M., "Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts," in Science, 1998, 282:1145-1147.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 180.

Bibliography:

A very brief overview of Karl Barth’s theology

Below is an extract of my paper which I submitted for my Church History Survey's class. I wrote a short biography on Karl Barth and the following extract is a very brief summary of his theology. I have used mainly:

1. Stanley Grez and Roger Olson's 20^th Century Theology: God and the Word in a Transitional Age; and
2. Benjamin Leslie's "Karl Barth" in A New Handbook of Christian Theologians, edited by Donald Musser and Joseph Price

as my references in the following. Endnotes are in accordance with Chicago manual of style.

THEOLOGICAL METHOD
The theology of Karl Barth may best be understood as an extended response to the nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Protestant liberalism. Borrowing the language of Sφren Kierkegaard, Barth spoke of the "infinite qualitative distinction" between God and the human being.¹ God is the one who is "wholly other," and if one is to know anything of God, it will not be found by gazing into the world of human experience. Barth summarized his own position by declaring, "The possibility of knowledge of God's Word lies in God's Word and nowhere else."² The only way we are to know this God is in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and nowhere else. When asked how one knows that this is true, Barth responded, "Proof of faith consists in the proclamation of faith. The proof of knowledge of the Word consists in confessing it."³

1. PROMINENT THEOLOGICAL MOTIF
1.1 GOD'S WORD AND THE BIBLE
For Barth the only source of Christian theology is God's Word. He argued that this Word consists of three forms. The first form is Jesus Christ and the entire history of God's acts leading up to and surrounding his life, death and resurrection; the second form is the Scripture which is the privileged witness to divine revelation; the third form is the church's proclamation of the gospel.⁴ Barth views the latter two forms as God's Word only in an instrumental sense. The Bible is not statically God's Word, but they become God's Word when God uses them to reveal Jesus Christ.
Liberals had accused him of elevating the Bible to a special position free from historical critical inquiry; on the other hand, conservatives attacked Barth's subordination of Scripture to a nonpropositional event of revelation and his explicit denial of its inerrancy.⁵

1.2 CHRISTOCENTRIC AND TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY
For Barth, Jesus Christ is the only reliable path to genuine knowledge of God, since only Jesus is fully and decisively the self-revelation of God. Hence, every juncture of theology has to be understood in the light of God's act in Jesus Christ. This Christocentric structure provides the coherence and unity that makes Barth's massive theology a system.⁶
Barth understood the doctrine of the Trinity to be "what basically distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God as Christian, and therefore what already distinguishes the Christian concept of revelation as Christian, in contrast to all other possible doctrines of God or concepts of revelation."⁷

1.3 GOD AS "HE WHO LOVES IN FREEDOM"
Barth advocated that God's love and freedom must be equally emphasized and balanced in order to do justice to the God of Jesus Christ. God's love is his freely chosen creation of fellowship between human beings and himself in Jesus Christ. This is revealed above all is in His gracious identification with sinful humanity in the cross of Jesus Christ. Barth went on to exegete the freedom of this love. He emphasized that God would still be love even if he did not choose to love the world. God has perfect love and fellowship within himself-in his triune life- before and apart from his love for and fellowship with the world.⁸ Even though God is absolute in relation to the world, Barth believed that the desire and decision for union with creatures in Jesus Christ is the ground and basis of the creation of the world itself. This led Barth to recognize that "God created the world for no other reason than to enter into covenant fellowship with it in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ."⁹

1.4 DOCTRINE OF ELECTION
According to Barth, Jesus Christ is the one elect and reprobate man, all other humans being are included in and represented by him.¹⁰ Thus, predestination means that from eternity God decided to acquit humanity at great cost to himself.¹¹ Therefore Jesus Christ is the only truly rejected person and that all humans are elected in him. People may try to live a godless life in rejection of God, but "their desire and undertaking were nullified by God before the world began…What is laid up for man is eternal life in fellowship with God."¹² Some accused Barth of universalism but Barth refused to give a straight answer to this accusation.

2. SUMMARY
Barth's theological method is robust in its total reliance on revelation. Barth designed his theological enterprise to be independent from philosophical system or cultural, intellectual fads. He denounced the Nazism as a form of idolatry based on his understanding of the Scripture. Employing Christocentric approach in his theological method, Barth constructed a consistent and massive theological system that earns him the title of a theological giant. His interpretation and emphasis of the function of theology effected a number of significant changes to the theological landscape, including a renewed interest among theologians in the role of preaching, a desire to move beyond the historical-critical method to more theologically fruitful ways of reading Scripture, a recovery of the relevance of the doctrine of sin and a healthy suspicion of cultural ideology's subversion of the theological task.¹³
However, Barth's theological method has been subjected to a flow of heavy criticism. He was accused of leading theology beyond autonomy into isolation by refusing to subject the truth of revelation to every kind of rational justification. His methodology does not illustrate how theology can form intelligible bridges with other disciplines or with common human experience, and cast the Christian belief as esoteric to the outsiders.¹⁴ The second common criticism is the alleged Christomonism in his theological method. This is most prominent in his doctrine of election; if Jesus Christ is both the subject and object of predestination, where are God the Father and human beings in this scheme? Barth consistent method of deriving all theological truth from what can be said about Jesus Christ would appear to deprive human existence and all of culture and creation of what might be called theological dignity. ¹⁵
Nevertheless, in looking back at the church history, Barth's theology must be given significant credit for recovering the transcendence of God in the twentieth century and for exerting enormous influence among the theologians in the subsequent generation.


ENDNOTES
1. Benjamin Leslie. "Karl Barth" in A New Handbook of Christian Theologians, edited by Donald Musser and Joseph Price (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 52.
2. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1975), 222.
3. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II/2, The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1, trans. G. W. Bromiley et al.(Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1975), 191-92.
4. Stanley Grez and Roger Olson. 20^th Century Theology: God and the Word in a Transitional Age. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 71.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid, 72.
7. Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, 301.
8. Barth, Church Dogmatics II/1, The Doctrine of God, Part 1, trans. T.H.L. Parker et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), 275.
9. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 1, trans G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 50.
10. Grez, 20^th Century Theology, 74.
11. Barth, Church Dogmatics II/2, 167.
12. Ibid., 319.
13. Leslie. "Karl Barth", 58.
14. Grez, 20^th Century Theology, 75.
15. Leslie, "Karl Barth", 58.

Experiencing the God who speaks of pain and suffering

I am now at the threshold of experiencing God in a different way. In the past, I had associated God mainly with His Almightiness and omnipotence. It is only recently that I have read and experience the God who speaks the language of pain and suffering. I am only starting to discover that our God is intimate with our pain and suffering and yet I do not have sufficient inner resources to articulate this understanding as well as the courage to live my conviction of the relationship with this God.

Matt 16:24-25 "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it."

There are few times in the books of gospel (twice in Matt, once in Mk and twice in Luke) when Jesus commands his followers to take up their cross and follow Him and this command comes with a price tag- whoever wants to save their life will lose it. What does it mean to "carry the cross daily"?

For me now, it means to step into the pain and suffering of others and to share others' agony and despair together for the sake of God. This is to deliberately pray for others, to offer hope and encouragement for others, to share with others what I have, to cry together with those who are suffering. It is in the midst of pain and suffering that we will encounter God together. Every encounter with a human being is a window of opportunity when God is speaking to us. When we only know how to busk in the light of joy and celebration with others, we could only know the God who bestows blessings. But to learn to take on the burden of pain and suffering of others is an avenue to see another face of God through the door that can only be opened by the key of agony and affliction.

There have been times and again when I shrunk back from circumstances to share others' pain by sitting and praying together with them. I pray for the courage to take up such future opportunity that God has opened for me. It is very rare for me to experience God this way in Singapore as we are so blessed materially and sheltered from the harsh reality inherent in the political, financial and the disrupted ecosystems in many parts of the world. I also pray for increased capacity to take in others' pain, to be an avenue where God continue to speak to me and others through this shared experience and to be able to relate to God with new vocabularies.

09Jan2008

A short message for my readers

It has been about 6 months since I last updated my blog. The more I study in Boston University School of Theology, the more inadequate I feel when I want to publish my thoughts on my blog. Because, whatever I am going to post on my blog would be incomplete work, waiting to be researched further. But, I have to make a choice.

Either I wait until I have done some research before putting up my thoughts or I put up first and wait for the opportunity to read up further. If I choose the first, some other forms of reflections might slip past me before I could even read upon it. These momentarily reflections may never return again. If I choose the second, I could put down my thoughts in words faster but I might be considered irresponsible. So, what I could do is to notify my readers that it is incomplete.

So, my dear readers, please bear in mind that my post from this point onward is a crystallization of my floating thoughts, unless I tell you otherwise.

Thanks for taking the time to read. Do leave any comments at your convenience.

08 Jan 2008