Reflecting on the sovereignty of God in the wake of the cyclone in Myanmar and quake in China

I have been following the news about the quake in China (May 12, 2008). In fact, I was there in Dujiangyan, one of the quake zones, eight years ago with my friends. I could feel the pain, anguish and torment that the victims are going through, and it was really heart-wrenching. I was totally touched when I saw Premier Wen Jiabao said (in Mandarin) "Don't cry, we stand together" on CCTV4 website. One of my closer friends from China shared that she has been having nightmares about the earthquake, and has been asking why these innocent people are going through so much, esp. the school children trapped in collapsed buildings. She also remarked that most of the government buildings are still standing, and many believe that the contractors who built the school buildings compromised on their quality.

This scene and the other that took place in Myanmar (May 01, 2008) led me to question why did God allow the innocent victims to die. At least 100,000 in Myanmar, and at least 50,000 in Si Chuan. As I kept on pondering, I have to ask why did God give Adam and Eve the free will to choose from the tree of knowledge in the first place. The choice of Adam and Eve implicates the subsequent humankind in their act of sin. Did the cyclone and quake happen as a result of Adam and Eve choice to disobey God? I am inclined to think so. (Rom 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned")

The rest of the humankind are implicated in the sins of just a few persons? Yes. The sloppy work of contractors have resulted in the collapse of some buildings. The misuse of land have resulted in floods of great multitude. The emission of CO2 in a few developed countries have resulted in the global warming. But at the same time, the rescue efforts of thousands of rescue teams could control the damage. The efforts of the UN, Red Cross and other humanitarian groups saved the lives of the remaining survivors. Whatever rescue effort that can be done, it could only control or minimize the damage done.

In other words, the negative effects of one single act affects a much more multitude of humanity, and it takes much more than one positive act to counteract the damage. I think that is the situation we are in. But are we alone? No. By sacrificing His Son on the cross for all of us, and by His resurrection, God is showing us that this battle can be won. Jesus Christ's incarnation and resurrection shows that God is standing in solidarity with our suffering. By our free will, the whole of humanity is complicit in the act of sins. But by Jesus' death, all of us are given the chance to turn the tide against the dark force (which is within each and everyone of us). By the death of God's only Son, we have the assurance to continue to hope, and to hold out light in the darkness. For the love of God, we continue to exercise our free will to bring others into the same hope. God cries with us, suffers with us, and marches to victory with all of us.

The question for me now is not so much "why did this happen," but rather, "what can I do now to share my hope with others?" I could think of a few: pray for the afflicted victims, for those still trapped in the rubbles; pray for better infrastructure to be built; comfort those whom we know are affected; contribute financially through World Vision or other organizations; as a church we could hold prayer service for China and Myanmar, and donate imperishable food and clothing to related organization.

Why did God allow this to happen? I don't have the answer. I can only faintly try to glimpse an insight in the fall of Adam and Eve, and being more confident that whatever tragedies we are witnessing now will come to an end. In the meanwhile, each and everyone of us must respond as an ambassador of Christ (that's why we are called Christians).

If one thinks that God allowed these disaster to happen so that the rest of us could ponder about our meaning of life, then I would echo Karl Marx's protest:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. (Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right by Karl Marx) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

Any message which encourages Christians to find comfort in Jesus Christ without engaging the disaster and the traumas of the victims is a form of opium! Any types of message which numbs me to the plight of the afflicted ones is offering a false reality divorced from the tragedy. The struggling and sufferings of the victims are real and intense. The tragedy that strikes China (and the same for Myanmar) calls for all Christians to stand in solidarity with their plight. It calls for Christians to take the initiative to identify with what victims are going through. I pray that their pain would be our pain. May their memory and traumas be part of the memory and traumas of the whole human race, of which we are a part of.

God's sovereignty is not manifested directly in the disaster, it is manifested through the activeness (not passiveness) of Christians' responses to the disaster. We MUST respond. (For my case, I have been praying regularly for them and following the news on this tragedy, crying together with the victims, donating money directly to the victims. I am currently initiating a prayer meeting, with Tim Leary- staff worker from Inter-Varsity, for the Chinese students whom we know.)


What is your own response as a Christian?

May 22, 2008

What is my mission?

As I am now having my summer break, I could afford the time and space to re-think about my mission in life. I shall pen down what comes to my mind during my moment of reflection.

I believe the American and British missionaries who were sent to Asia in the last two centuries also imported their views of what it meant to be a church or Christians. We have inherited what they had passed down to us in Asia. I shall identify the three/four phases of church development (I avoid the word "church growth" in case some identify it as numerical growth), and how I understand my mission to be related to these developments. You will understand why I am not sure whether it is three or four phases of church development.

1st PHASE
During the 1st phase of church planting, I believe the emphasis is on evangelism, discipleship training, spiritual growth. This will probably take 2-3 generations for the church to develop a tradition deeply ingrained in these essential disciplines. I could identify Paul's and Peter's epistles to be written for these purposes. The basic elements of Christian faith would be elucidated and indoctrinated by then. Most missionaries sent to Asia imparted the model of church as understood in the 1st phase.

2nd PHASE
In the 2nd phase of church development, I am suggesting that there has to be engagement of Christianity with the culture and philosophy. I find traces of such attempt in Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. There were attempts to explain Christian faith to the prevalent culture, as well as new origin way of interpreting the Christian faith as illustrated by Origen. One could almost see how the early apologists would identify Christianity as the true religion, and the true worship of God.

3rd PHASE
By the 3rd phase, there would be synthesizing of Christian thought with philosophy, proliferation of Christian literature, and initiation of new theological movement or representative of a school of thought, as evinced by Augustine of Hippo. Christian theology by then would be able to dialogue with other academic disciplines on the same platform. This was the approach of Cappadocian Fathers when they developed a mature form of the concept of Trinity. I would say that in this phase, theology would be the handmaiden of science and reason, and there are full engagement of theology and other academic disciplines. In this regard, the contemporary theologians, T.F. Torrance (who just passed away this year) and John Polkinghorne are exemplars of leading the engagement of Christian theology with contemporary science. There are many theologians in the US and Europe who could be identified in this phase, such as Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Alvin Plantinga, Hans Küng, Gustavo Gutiérrez, etc. You could identify the different models or system of thoughts that are developed specifically for dialogue and engagement. Those at the high end of 3rd phase spawn a totally new school of thought such that they represent a movement itself.

How about theologians like J.I.Packer, John Stott, and Alister McGrath? I am not sure whether they represent a league in the 3rd phase. I would rather say that they are more in the high end of the 2nd phase and lower end of 3rd phase. They have exposited cogent evangelical theology, and made it relevant to us by engaging in many critical issues. They have contributed so much to the evangelical cause that the evangelicals could proudly identify what it meant to be an evangelical because of them. But I would hesitate to say that they have generated a new system of thoughts that clearly distinguished itself as an innovation or remarkably different from the previous generations. They did distinguish themselves as radically different from the fundamentalists though.

I also identify Alister McGrath as making the transition into the middle range of the 3rd phase. He had been re-packaging theology to make it comprehensible to the current generation in the past two decades, and he is also making a clear attempt to engage the scientific enterprise. However, his most recent A Scientific Theology (2001-3) may represent a distinctive approach to science and theology. I think he is currently the most promising evangelical theologian who will leave a significant landmark in our time.

4th PHASE
This phase could be identified in the development of the Western culture, so I am not sure whether it should be considered as the 4th phase of church development. The Christian faith is identical to the prevalent culture. This process was initiated by the Roman Emperor Constantine (A.D. 280-337) after he reunited the East and West Roman Empire. He tolerated Christianity officially. But it was Theodosius I (A.D.347- 379) who officiated the synthesizing of Christianity into the culture. In the medieval era, to be an European is to be a Christian. Religion and state started to be separated after the Thirty Years' war (1618-1648) in Europe, and in the face of increasing secularization. I think Max Weber's Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism and Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy captured this secularization process well. Karl Barth reacted violently to identifying Christian faith with the culture (i.e. the 4th phase).

I believe the most mature form of Christian development is to be identified with the 3rd phase. I am not sure whether to identify the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 3rd or 4th phase. Perhaps my categories are too simplistic to place them neatly into my system.


The first church was set up in S'pore in the 19th century (the first Presbyterian church started in 1856). It has been almost 150 years. A number of English churches are in the 2nd phase, and most Chinese churches are still in the 1st phase (I am not sure whether it is because the Chinese church started half a century later than the English church) . Most of the theological studies in Boston University School of Theology assumed a theological setting in the 3rd phase. For e.g. "Theologies of Dialogue" by Prof John Berthrong takes up the challenge of engaging Christianity in dialogue with other world religions. "Christian Social Ethics" by Prof John Hart examines how we could possibly respond to complicating social issues from Christian perspectives.

I am trying to break into the 2nd phase, and I could identify some Christians or theologians in Asia who are now in the 2nd phase, like Rev Stephen Tong （唐崇荣牧师) and Rev Kang Lai Chang (康来昌牧师）. Eventually, I hope to be equipped as a theologian-pastor, to train the laity, and hopefully theological students to take up challenges in the 2nd phase, and to transit into the 3rd phase. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I want to be like Rev Stephen Tong or Rev Kang. I am saying that I recognize my mission to be educating the current and the next generations to take up the challenges in the 2nd phase and to transit into 3rd phase. But is that who God is calling me to be? I am not absolutely sure, and I am still praying about it.

I may not live long enough to witness the Christians in Asia moving on to the 3rd phase, but I am keen to explore how Christians could engage the Chinese culture, such as Confucian ethics, worship and rite, Buddhism, Taoism, Falungong, and if possible, how could one be an authentic Christian in a Communist country, etc. If you have similar insights, please do feel free to write in to me.

How about you? What's your mission in life?

May22, 2008

My updates for Spring 2008

This semester (Spr'08) has not been easy for me, as there were much more writing of academic papers. Other than knowing how to write better papers, there are few important decisions I made, and some important lessons that I learned in this semester.


1) I have switched from my Master of Theological Studies (MTS) program to Master of Divinity (MDiv) program.This means that I will be seeking ordination track under Presbyterian Church (USA). On top of the original MTS curriculum, I will be taking classes in Greek and Hebrew languages, Pastoral Care & Counseling, Worship, Preaching, Social Science perspective on church, and Field Education. Which means, it will be two more years before I graduate. There are many reasons why I decided to switch program.

One of them is because of an urgent need for the laity to be exposed to essential theological issue. Theology must speak to the laity as well as to the theological students. I hope that I could train the laity in theology one day. I also realize that theology has a life of its own. In undertaking this subject, I enter into dialogues rooted in history, philosophy, and the Bible. Theological studies have challenged me time and again to conform to new insights, or have given me new sets of lenses to look at humanity, and the world at large.

The other reason is more pragmatic. I am currently supporting myself financially in this theological education. However, there are more financial supports from my school for MDiv students. And if I could be confirmed as an ordination candidate by the local Presbyterian church (which is next March), they will also provide some subsidies for my tuition fee.


2) Ever since Feb'08, my wife has been working as temp staff in a financial company, and later in my university. The working culture here is different from what she was exposed to back in S'pore, and it is a different form of cultural exposure for her. We thank God for this experience, and for supplying our material needs.


3) From my study on Augustine's Confessions, I understand how he reconciled Neo-Platonic thoughts in his Christian framework. For Augustine, the Absolute Good is also the personal God (watch out for this same identification in C.S. Lewis' writings). There was a shift in the mediaveal period, especially the re-discovery of Aristotle, as represented in Thomas Aquinas. The Enlightenment climax with Immanuel Kant, who shattered the congenial marriage of theology and philosophy. Schleiermacher, the father of modern theology, responded by shifting the emphasis to "religious experience."

I thank God for the wonderful experience of being able to trace the development of theology from philosophical perspective. This solved my question: "What exactly happened to theology from Augustine to the eve of Reformation, and immediately after Reformation to now?" I had been deeply troubled by this qus as the theologians I was exposed to in S'pore were only Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley.

This background also helps me to appreciate my Sociology of Religion class better.


4) I have also learned more about my own identity here. I am very appreciative of Singapore's education system as it prepared me well to use English as the medium for communication. I have been editing papers for a number of Koreans and a Japanese. Though I am not perfect in my English, I think I am able to express myself adequately to be understood well in writing, in discussion, and in normal conversation. This is a cause of envy among the other international students from Asia, but I salute them for their perseverance.

I also have the opportunity to work together in a team with Koreans and Japanese. I realized that S'pore working culture is closer to Japan's than to Korea's.

I had always assumed that my 1st language should be my native language (which is the assumption of most Americans). I was mistaken. To be more precise, my 1st language is English, but my native language is Mandarin. As I have been educated in English, English is my 1st language; but my mother tongue, Mandarin is the language I have been using since birth. I am not a Chinese, but a Singaporean Chinese. The way I think and speak are rooted in the culture that I grew up in, and it is different from the native Chinese (either from China or Taiwan). Now, the word "Singaporean" holds much more meaning for me.


5) As I got to know more Africans (particularly from Congo, Zimbabwe, Niagara) in my school, I discovered that the modern history of Africans (the same as for many other countries) was shaped by the Western powers. The boundaries of many African countries have been drawn on the table of Western countries after the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Many tragedies or ethic conflicts in Africa today are the result of misplacement of tribes by the Western nations. There are so many sad stories about how their current politics are being manipulated by foreign powers. The Africans need more prayer support. At the same time, I believe the Africans are the most effective agents to talk about reconciliation and peace in the world, as they have to go through much turmoil in order to achieve peace and stability.


6) Lastly, I have been actively involved in Bible study for graduate international students, under the Graduate Christian Fellowship (GCF is part of Inter-Varsity ministry). Most of the participants are from China or Taiwan. My bilingual ability has been an asset to the group as I could translate some of the unfamiliar terms to Chinese.

I will continue to play an active role in this Bible study with a very dedicated full-time staff worker (by the name of Tim Leary) from Inter-Varsity. I thank God for giving me the opportunity to serve together with him. I pray that eventually, some of our friends will accept Christ, even though they may face intense pressure back home. I pray for God to guide us to understand what it means to be a Christian in a Communist country or Chinese culture, and to have the courage to live out our callings.


May21, 2008

Below is a picture of 1Cor 13:13, taken at my school.

Experience of a “miracle” in my final papers

I experienced a "miracle" in my Spr'08 semester, and I have decided to pen it down just in case I forget about it in future.

I had to submit a Sociology of Religion final paper, and Theology final paper two weeks ago. The original submission date for sociology paper was three days before theology paper. But our professor rescheduled the date such that it was three days after theology paper.

As I was writing on Schleiermacher, who responded to Immanuel Kant, for my theology paper, I had to read in-depth about his "feeling or intuition of the infinite." It was after writing on Schleiermacher that I could appreciate Peter Berger in my sociology paper. Berger suggests that the nature of religion is a "human projection, grounded in specific infrastructures of human history,"[1] and therefore sociology is a study of this projected reality.

At first, I had no idea of where Berger was coming from. It was so hard to swallow his proposed definition. But after writing my theology paper, I re-read Berger's idea, and bingo! I could see the light of his interpretation. I realized that Berger's idea is post-Kantian, and a dim reflection of Schleiermacher's response.

Berger is right! As the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, God is a necessary postulate for morality for Kant. But Schleiermacher rejects this postulate of God for morality. Instead, he claims that all of us have this experience of the infinite. This momentary intuition or feeling (German: Gefühl) , not to be confused with sensation, is the basis on which we can speak of the essence of religion. Based on this experience, we construct a religion that correlates with how we perceive and interpret this infinite. As such, religion is indeed a human construct. Now, I know where Berger is coming from.

If my sociology prof did not reschedule our submission date, I think I will never get to appreciate Peter Berger when writing my sociology paper. I thank God for this "miracle."

May20,2008

[1] Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of a Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1990/1967), 180.