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

An attempt to share the faith in contemporary setting

I am writing this short article as an attempt to relate the Christian faith to the non-Christians in the contemporary setting. As such, I will be tapping on some scenes in Spiderman 3, some concepts from the book "The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian" by Brian D. McLaren and using a non-conventional approach to convey the Christian faith. There are two main themes below: reconciliation with God and to partake in God's big story. I am not sure what kind of impact the content below will create, so I will appreciate it if you could feedback to me. Any other form of sharing is also welcomed.

------------------------------------------------

In Spiderman 3, I am most impressed by Harry Osborn, who sacrifices his life to save Peter Parker from the fatal attack of Eddie Brock Jr. I am also touched by the need of Macko, the Sandman, to seek forgiveness from Peter Parker before he can really forgive himself for killing his uncle, Ben Parker many years ago. This reminds me of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross two thousand years ago in order to reconcile us back to God our Creator and Redeemer. In Spiderman 3, it is in the sacrificial death of Harry Osborn that Peter Parker is fully reconciled back to his good old friend. Similarly, in the history between God and human, it is the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ that reconciles us back to God. But, what is it that we have done which require reconciliation and why would such reconciliation demands a sacrificial death of Jesus Christ? How do our individuals' life story interweave with God?

In the beginning when God created the world, everything was good. Human beings who are made in the image of God are the climax in the creation story. In the story told by the Jews to their descendants, they recount how chaos and disorder enter the world through human representatives, Adam and Eve. What Adam and Eve had done was to alienate themselves away from God, to alienate themselves from each other and from their own selves. When we alienate ourselves from our Creator, we start to disregard the boundary and limitation set by the Creator and we believe in our supreme authority to do anything that we want. Concurrently, we alienate ourselves from others and we treat them as an object instead of human being made in the pristine image of God. On top of that, we even alienate from our very selves and this becomes an inner turmoil and conflict within us. How many times do we seek our self-actualization at the expense our own conscience, at our own convenience to the extent that we know what is right and yet did not fulfil it?

If your own child or someone who you love becomes more selfish and committed dishonourable act, naturally you will feel hurt and pain. The pain and hurt are more intensive if he whom you trust so much turns against you. Whenever we refuse to accept the invitation to be reconciled back to God; whenever we inflict agony and suffering in any form onto another human being; whenever we know what is good and yet refuse to partake in it, we cause pain and hurt to God our heavenly Father. God wants to have a relationship with us, but we are too stubborn to turn to Him. We keep inflicting pains and damages to Him by going against His utmost good will for us. We alienate ourselves from Him, from one another and from our very own self; we destroy His creation by betraying ourselves, by exploiting other people and the environment. Instead of entering into a personal relationship with the rest of the creations, we objectify them and capitalize them for our own benefits. This nature is inherent in all of us!

How can we say sorry to someone whom we have caused hurt and agony? By apologizing profusely, by buying gifts and cards to appease the person’s hurt and anger or by some acts that seek to convince her that we are truly repentant and would sincerely want to be reconciled back. But how about seeking the forgiveness of God? As God is the wholly Other, or the transcendent Being who is beyond our imagination and our capacity to comprehend and the essential ground of our own being and existence, we can only seek forgiveness on His own terms and not ours! We know that we are not able to pay the penalties for the wrongs that we have perpetrated against Him and that Jesus Christ took on the penalties on Himself for all of us, on the cross two thousand years ago. It is only in Jesus Christ that the righteousness of God and the love of God are fully met. It is only on this condition laid down by God and there is no other! It is through and in Jesus Christ that God is able to forgive our trespasses and to be reconciled back to Him and to know Him as whom He has revealed Himself to be. It is similar to someone, for e.g. my wife, whom I want to know more about. I don’t want to know her through another person; I want to know her personally. But if I don’t even have a personal relationship with her in the first place, how could I know her personally? It is the same with God. If we don’t have a personal relationship with Him, how can we know Him personally? We could hear about Him through other Christians’ description of Him, we could know about Him intellectually by studying all the intellectual arguments about Him, but we won’t have a personal relationship with Him. To know Him personally, we must be reconciled back to Him through Jesus Christ and to know Him as He has revealed Himself to us through the Bible and through His creation.

All of us have a story, a story of our own lives. This universe has a story too. The universe is called out from nothing to something. The creator of this time, space universe whom we called God weave a big story for us to partake in. It is a story that is gradually unfolding. When we pass out of this time dimension, it is not the end of our existence. God retains the memory of everyone at every moment. The past is never lost, it is all remembered, all kept in God's memory. There is a point in the future when the composite of ourselves through our whole lifetime are all gathered together in God's presence, consummated, summed up, and gathered in the mind and heart of God. All the momentary members of our life story, the 'me' of a second ago, the 'me' now, the 'me' that I will be in a second – all these members will be remembered, reunited, in God's memory. The universe that God unleashed at the beginning has run free across the field of time, and it arrives at God in the future. Everything comes home, where everything good and beautiful and true belongs. (Adapted from The Story we find ourselves in).

When we are reconciled back to God; when we continue to seek our self-actualization within the web of personal relationships with God and with His creation; when we continue to partake in the big story God has for us; then, when we meet Him face to face one day, I could image Him to say:

"Well done! You have lived well! You helped the story advance toward my creative dreams. You fed the hungry, clothed the naked, welcomed in the lonely, visited the prisoners, shared your bread with the poor. Wherever you went, you contributed love and peace, generosity and truth, courage and sacrifice, self-control and justice, faithfulness and kindness. You enriched the story, enhanced its beauty and drama and nobility. You have become someone good and beautiful and true. Your unique, creative contributions will never be forgotten, and even the smallest act of kindness will be eternally celebrated, rewarded. After naming and forgiving and forgetting your many faults and failures, I see so much substance to your character, so much to cherish, so much of value, and it will now be set free, given a new beginning in my new creation. You have an eternal place in my story! You have been harvested from this creation, and now you will enter into the joy of the new creation!" (Adapted from The Story we find ourselves in).

Would you want to know more about the Christian faith? Would you like to be reconciled back to God? Would you yearn to partake in the big story God has weaved for all of us?

Which Jesus Christ do you believe in?

Many a times, I have asked myself how I should live a life that is worthy to be called 'Christ-like'. I have gotten different answers over the past few years. When I attended a seminar on 'Teaching with Styles' by Walk Thru the Bible ministry, Jesus was cast in the light of a great teacher with many teaching styles to be emulated by us. When I had an evangelistic bible study on John 5 where Jesus had an encounter with the Samaritan woman, Jesus was cast in the light of a great apologist who not only understood the woman's deep spiritual needs but handled her question well. In some churches, there are sermons that encouraged Christians to own private properties and to generate higher incomes as such were the economic background of the early supporters of Jesus' ministry.

In books like In His Steps by Charles M. Sheldon, readers are invited to ponder upon the question of what Jesus would do in a given situation and this gave rise to 'What would Jesus do?' movement. In the history of the church, Jesus had been used as a rally point for the crusaders to redeem the 'holy land' that Jesus stepped on. In the middle of 19^th century China, Hong Xiu Quan claimed that he was the second son of God, the younger brother to Jesus, on earth with a mission to found a new kingdom. This gave him the divine basis to inspire the Taiping Revolution, which crumpled eventually. A century later, the idea of Jesus the liberator of the oppressed was used heavily in the liberation theology to support the establishment of base communities in Latin America. In the last century, Albert Schweitzer popularized the quest for the historical Jesus, followed by Rudolf Bultmann in the recent century and the Jesus Seminar in the last two decades who advocated a deconstructed Jesus. In short, I realized that Jesus could be cast in whatever light we desire, so long as we have sufficient verses from the Bible to support ourselves. How are we then to imitate Jesus Christ if we are not sure which Jesus is historical and depicted in the light of who He truly is? Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity concludes that God is nothing else than man: he is, so to speak, the outward projection of man's inward nature¹.

What then bothers me is: Are we casting Jesus in our own image? Are we projecting Jesus from our social-economic and metaphysical background?

I have been able to take comfort in books for layman like The Jesus I never knew by Philip Yancey which emphasizes on the Jewishness of Jesus Christ, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel which uncovers empirical evidences for the crucified and resurrected Christ. As I come in touch with more literature, it dawned upon me that history could never be written objectively. It is always written by the victors, by someone who wants the readers to believe in his cause. This explains why the history book in the secondary school of Japan is different from that of Singapore in talking about the same world war.

In John 20:31 "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." The gospels have been written to convince the readers of the life, deeds and claims of Jesus Christ as perceived by the witnesses and preachers in the 1^st century. We who are living in the 21^st century cannot relive the historical events and have to accept what is written at face value. But we can validate the claims from verifiable evidences that we could gather. Just like a person who has not seen Confucius can only ascertain what Confucius has said and done from what has been recorded in the past and other forms of evidences to affirm the validity of it.
However, this approach has its metaphysical assumption. How do we believe in the resurrection, the healing of the disabled, the walking on water, the feeding of thousands based on few pieces of breads and fishes and other types of miracles as recorded in the gospels? This will depend whether we adopt as closed-ended universe or open-ended universe. In a closed-ended universe, we do not accept the existence of a transcendent God who can act in our system, whereas it is the reverse for an open-ended universe. For more argument about this issue, one would benefit by referring to C.S. Lewis' Miracles.

Graudally, I discovered that even if one is intellectually convinced in what the gospels said about Jesus, one may not come to accept Jesus Christ as her savior. This made me appreciate what Paul said in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." It is ultimately the faith from God which convinces a person of the reality of sin, of her need for Jesus Christ and for her to experience the authenticity of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible. It is then a myth that the Bible should be read objectively! The Bible is never meant to be read objectively, it is written that we may believe in Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing we may have life in his name (Jn 20:31) and for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2Ti 3:16-17).

Michael Polanyi, a physical chemist and a philosopher of science, wrote in his Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy that knowing is personal. He believes that all observation of the universe is personal, and is influenced by individual biases, human error, and the limits of the observer's knowledge. No human observer can remove humanity from the observation (and to formulate theories as though this were possible leads to conclusions that are absurd because they overlook the existence and influence of humanity and the scientist's biases)². In John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, he affirmed that Scripture must be confirmed by the witness of the Spirit.
As such, I have reached the verdict that first and foremost, a person must possess faith (which is a gift from God) in order to believe in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible. This would then be the paradigm through which we interpret our empirical evidence to support the case for Christ and we continually affirm our faith by our experience in life and within the community (or the church and fellowship) that God has placed us in.

But if we were to accept that Jesus Christ is indeed the son of God and that we believe that it is through Him that we are reconciled back to God and have eternal life and it is in Him that we can grow fully in His image, how do we assess the validity of Jesus as being the liberator of the oppressed? Or Jesus as being the miracle worker?

We must be faithful to the testimony of the Scripture and the history of the Church in our proclamation of Jesus Christ. A faithful hermeneutics calls for the Scripture as illumined by the Holy Spirit to be the guide to lead us to an understanding of Jesus Christ. It is foolish if one was to ignore the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedon Creed which form the basis for us to comprehend Jesus Christ as both fully man and fully God, as one of the Trinity and in the encountering of the different heresies in the 1^st few centuries. Yet the application of the Scripture may yield different outcome in different context and in different community but all these demand that one should be trained in the exegesis of the text before one should commence teaching others about the same text.

In trying to concretize how I can imitate Jesus Christ, I would want to follow in His footsteps in identifying with the needs of others. To use Paul Tillich's term, Jesus Christ was able to participate in the existence of other beings. To further expand on this point, I shall extract from Paul Tillich's Communicating the Christian Message: A Question to Christian Ministers and Teachers.

But the Divine Being is not a being beside others. It is the power of being conquering non-being. It is eternity conquering temporality. It is grace conquering sin. It is ultimate reality conquering doubt. From the point of view of the New Being it is the ground of being, and therefore the creator of the New Being. And out of this ground we can get the courage to affirm being, even in a state of doubt, even in anxiety and despair. The New Being includes a new approach to God which is possible even to those who are under the despair of doubt and don't know the way out.

Not only is Jesus Christ the New Being, he identifies with the whole of the fallen humankind. In another extract, this time by
Huston Smith's The World's Religions:

How is the boundary of the self to be defined? Not, certainly, by the amount of physical space our bodies occupy, the amount of water we displace in the bathtub. It makes more sense to gauge our being by the size of our spirits, the range of reality with which they identify. A man who identifies with his family, finding his joys in theirs, would have that much reality; a woman who could identify with humankind would be that much, greater. By this criterion people who could identify with being as a whole would be unlimited.

By this measure, Jesus Christ has no boundary of the self and he has sacrificed Himself for the whole of humankind. This is a strong reminder for me to learn how to empathize with others and for me to learn to participate in the existence of other beings.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Andreas_Feuerbach
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

Elegance inscribed in the law of nature

Recently, I came across an article that describes how our nature seems to exhibit sheer beauty in the elegance of some physics equations and I can't help but to recall the one of the Psalms: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." (Ps 19:1-2) The article which I am including below traces the development of an equation in modern physics and how it leads one to be amazed at God's creation if we presuppose that the world is created by Him. Of course, an atheist or agnostic with different presupposition may be inclined to think that it is all co-incidence and using the framework by David Hume, he would say that all these are orders imposed by our minds on the nature. But that would be another issue that would be addressed in another posting. In the meanwhile, may you enjoy reading the article below.

8Apr2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The remarkable advances made in spectroscopy (the branch of science concerned with the investigation and measurement of spectra produced when matter interacts with or emits electromagnetic radiation) during the nineteenth century allowed the spectrum of the sun to he examined for the first time, with results which proved to be of foundational importance. The presence of a hitherto unknown yellow line in that spectrum, without any known terrestrial parallel, led to the discovery of helium. Over the period 1859–60, the frequencies of a series of four lines observed in the solar spectrum were measured with what, for those days, was amazing accuracy – roughly one part in ten thousand (Angstrom 1868). The precision of these measurements of the visible line spectrum of atomic hydrogen led to the development of a new science: "spectral numerology" (Pais 1991, 142). This was an attempt to account for the relationship of the observed spectral lines with some fundamental mathematical equation.

The breakthrough, when it came, was simple and elegant. Working only on the basis of the four frequencies reported by Angstrom, J. J. Balmer found that he could exactly reproduce the frequencies by means of the following formula:
v = R (1/b² – 1/a²)
where R is a constant now known as the "Rydberg constant" (3.29163 x 10¹⁵), b = 2, and a = 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. It must be stressed that this was an exact fit, not an approximation! Balmer (who was then a teacher in a Basle high school) mentioned his observations to the professor of physics at the University of Basle. By this time (1885), 12 more frequencies had been established, although this was unknown to Balmer. On learning of them from his colleague, Balmer found that they could all be fitted into his equation – again, exactly – without any difficulty, by setting a = 2 and b = 5, 6, ... 15, and 16. In fact, Balmer's formula allows an entire series of spectral lines to be predicted (one of which is now known by his name), as follows:
b = 1, a = 2, 3 . . . Lyman series (ultraviolet)
b = 2, a = 3, 4 ... Balmer series (visible)
b = 3, a = 4, 5 ... Paschen series (infrared)
b = 4, a = 5, 6 . . . Brackett series (far infrared)
b = 5, a = 6, 7 . . . Pfund series (far infrared)
b = 6, a = 7, 8 ... Humphreys series (far infrared)

The sheer beauty of the equation – matched, it has to be said, by experimental evidence, both retrodictive (i.e., accounting for something which was already known) and predictive....

By March 6, 1913, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr realized the significance of what Balmer had uncovered (Pais 1991, 143–55). On the basis of a quantum mechanical interpretation of the hydrogen atom, Bohr was able to derive Balmer's formula in two manners. For the first time, it became clear that Balmer's formula corresponded to aspects of the fundamental structure of the hydrogen atom.

The discovery opened the way to rapid development. Once more, the concept of "beauty" played an important part. During the period 1925–6, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger were both working on ways of describing atomic events (Pais 1991, 267–89), especially in the light of the work of Louis de Broglie. Their younger colleague Paul Dirac describes their different approaches as follows (Dirac 1963, 46–7):

Heisenberg worked keeping close to the experimental evidence about spectra .. . Schrodinger worked from a more mathematical point of view, trying to find a beautiful theory for describing atomic events . . . He was able to extend de Broglie's ideas and to get a very beautiful equation, known as Schrodinger's wave equation, for describing atomic processes. Schrodinger got this equation by pure thought, looking for some beautiful generalization of de Broglie's ideas, and not by keeping close to the experimental development of the subject in the way Heisenberg did.

The differences in approach are highly significant. Heisenberg worked outwards from the experimental evidence; Schrodinger sought an elegant theory which would then account for that evidence. The two, as it proved, converged. The quest for beauty and the quest for truth met at a common point. This point is clearly hinted at in Heisenberg's reflections on his work (Heisenberg 1971, 59, 68):

I had the feeling that, through the surface of atomic phenomena, I was looking at a strangely beautiful interior, and felt almost giddy at the thought that I now had to probe this wealth of mathematical structures nature had so generously spread out before me . . . If nature leads to mathematical forms of great simplicity and beauty – coherent systems of hypotheses, axioms, etc...we cannot help thinking that they are "true," that they reveal genuine features of beauty.

The general drift of this analysis will be clear. A strong doctrine of creation (such as that associated with Christianity) leads to the expectation of a fundamental convergence of truth and beauty in the investigation and explanation of the world, precisely on account of the grounding of that world in the nature of God. The correlation in question is not arbitrary or accidental, but corresponds to the reflection of the nature of the creator in the ordering and regularity of creation.

Extracted from:
Alister E. McGrath, The Foundations of Dialogue in Science & Religion, Blackwell, 1998, pp. 77-79

父母与孩子之间的沟通

以下是我在30/12/2006， 恩泽长老会中心的功课加油站-结业礼，与60多位家长们所分享的信息内容。

父母与孩子之间的沟通

1）引言


2）父母的沟通方式

例子：你吃饱了吗？/你冲凉了吗？/你功课做完了吗？

你认为孩子会怎样回答？


3）孩子的沟通方式

例子：我能不能买脚踏车？/我明天能不能跟朋友出去？

你认为父母会怎样回答？


观察：
我们假设孩子最关心的是学业，饮食，零用钱够用。所以我们问孩子的问题都环绕在这些课题。

父母很少认识孩子的内心世界，孩子也很少接触父母的内心世界。我们都是以我们的假设来与孩子对话。父母与孩子不能沟通，会带来很多的误会及伤害。当孩子很难与我们沟通时，我们都认为问题出在孩子身上。孩子却认为问题出在我们身上。


4）孩子的自信心

在孩子的成长过程中，他们的自信心会建立在学业，朋友及父母的肯定。

- 孩子会在学业的成绩上肯定自己的价值。学业好，就有更多的推动力，自己的形象与学业成绩挂钩。

- 另一个建立自信心的管道是透过朋友的肯定。朋友是孩子生活中很重要的一环。

- 父母在这三项管道中，是最重要的一环。孩子自幼就从父母的言语举止中得到自我肯定。假若孩子与父母很难沟通，孩子就无法从父母那里得到肯定与得到心灵的健康成长。


5）加强孩子的自信心

表达你对他的肯定
基本要表达的是：“父母很爱你，不管你学业好不好，不管你懂不懂事，父母都一样爱你。不会因为你学业不好而少爱你一点。不会因为你不懂事而少爱你一点。因为你是我的孩子，我对你的爱是没有附带任何条件。”


- 若学业好，也很懂事/听话
比较容易被你肯定，也比较容易对他说：“父母爱你。”
但是千万不要贬低他的自信心。好像拿他的成绩跟比较好的人相比。

- 若学业不好，但很懂事/听话
如果你是以学业来肯定他的价值，你就很难向他说：“父母还是很爱你。”他就会从朋友那里肯定他的价值。学业不好有很多因素。最大的因素是读书方法不对。在这方面，父母需要跟学校老师一起关心孩子，也可能透过其他老师帮助这孩子。但是父母要继续给于支持与鼓励。


- 若学业好，但不是很懂事/听话
如果你是以学业来肯定他的价值，你可能会纵容他。你比较会透过物质的方式来肯定你对他的爱。这会带来错误的价值观。

学业尽责本来就是应该的。学业好本身就会有很大的满足感。但如果他却很叛逆，很可能是因为得不到父母的爱，需要你对他的肯定。不是透过物质上对他的肯定，而是在你所付出的时间上及你的沟通方式。


- 若学业不好，也不是很懂事/听话
最头痛。他的自信心很低。若你还不肯定他的价值，他最可能从朋友那里肯定他的价值。他若在这状况，他最需要你对他的肯定，他在这时刻最需要你的爱。因为他在寻找自己的到底价值在哪里。

即使是个很叛逆的孩子，他也会认为叛逆是对的。帮助他认识他的叛逆对你也对周围爱他的人造成伤害。千万不要硬碰硬。（一个有关叛逆学生的分享。他是如何被感动。）叛逆的孩子最需要爱，而且很多例子都显示叛逆是个过渡期。孩子到一个阶段会开始明白懂事。


基本要表达的是：“父母很爱你，不管你学业好不好，不管你懂不懂事，父母都一样爱你。不会因为你学业不好而少爱你一点。不会因为你不懂事而少爱你一点。因为你是我的孩子，我对你的爱是没有附带任何条件。”


6）愿意尝试改变沟通方式吗？
听了以上的分享，不知你会如何改变你对孩子的沟通方式？你是否愿意每一个星期，不管工作多忙，都要花时间与孩子坐下来谈谈。不再以“你吃饱了吗？/你冲凉了吗？/你功课做完了吗？”来敷衍关心的表达。你是否愿意去了解他今天的生活怎么样。你是否愿意跟孩子一起做下来一起看电视，一起讨论电视内容，内心世界是什么；他也能知道你在想什么，内心世界是什么。又或者，愿意跟孩子一起出去？不是孩子陪你去你要去的地方，而是你们一起去你们要去的地方，一起享受在一起的时间。

我要请你们现在花几分钟时间想想你过去是如何与孩子沟通。现在我希望你把你心中的对孩子的感言写下来。或许你从来没对你的孩子说过：“妈妈很爱你，你是知道的。”或许你从来没对你的孩子说过：“不管你学业好不好，妈妈都不会少爱你一点。” 或许你从来没对你的孩子说过：“爸爸很少花时间陪你。但是你知道我是非常在乎你的。” 或许你心中还有其他感触是你想让你孩子知道的，请你们把它写下来。圣诞节刚过去。不知你给孩子什么样的礼物。新的一年将到来。过两天就是新的一年了。把你心中的感言写下来，当成一份新年礼物送给你的孩子。


总结
自己的个人经历。

A seminar on 'Gospel of Judas' on 30th Sept 06

I attended the ‘Gospel of Judas’ seminar which took place on 30th Sept 06 in Orchard Rd Presbyterian Church by Dr Wu2 Rong2 Tu2 and I had gleaned quite a number of valuable insights from it. I would like to take this opportunity to share about what I have learnt and my afterthought. During the seminar, Dr Wu introduced us to the basic concept of Gnosticism. From there, he showed us how the Gospel of Judas was fabricated within a Gnostic framework and how the Gnostic views the snake in the Garden of Eden, Eve, Cain, Saul, Korah and his followers, Sodomites and finally Judas. Below is a very brief introduction to Gnosticism which I found somewhere.

Gnosticism, as its name implies (derived from the Greek gnosis, "knowledge"), was a system that promised salvation by knowledge. God, said the Gnostics, was too great and too holy to have created the material world with all of its baseness and corruption. The Gnostics held that from the supreme Deity had proceeded a series of successive emanations, each one a little inferior to the one from which it sprang, until finally the last of these emanations, or "aeons," as they were called, created the world.

Matter was thus equated with evil. If man wished to obtain salvation, he could do so by renouncing the material world and seeking the invisible world. Two contradictory ethical conclusions arose from the argument. The first was asceticism, which contended that since the body was material, it was evil, and should therefore be kept under strict control. Its appetites should be curbed and its impulses should be disregarded and suppressed. The other conclusion was drawn from the assumption that the spirit was real and the body was unreal. If the body were only temporary, its acts were inconsequential. Full gratification of its desires would thus have no effect on the ultimate salvation of the spirit, which alone would survive. (Taken from New Testament Survey, by Merrill C. Tenney, Eerdmans, 1999)

As such, those who rebelled against God in the Old Testament who created the world were actually rebelling against the evil aeons, not the Supreme Deity. The Supreme Deity cannot be known and these rebels have been interpreted in this framework as heroes. Even Judas who freed Jesus from his encased body has been re-cast as a hero, not the condemned betrayer as portrayed in the traditional gospels.

Especially valuable in the seminar is Dr Wu’s sharing on how we Christians should react to the Gospel of Judas. Dr Wu narrated to us on how the New Testament took shape during the 1st four centuries and he emphasized that it was not decided by an individual and within one generation. This is to debunk the National Geographic’s version of Bishop Irenaeus (c. 130–202) who is portrayed as the person who single-handedly determined the canon of the New Testament. This is also the case in Da Vinci’s Code’s depiction of Emperor Constantine who lived in the year 272-337.

Dr Wu also emphasized the need for Christians to be educated in the teachings on the doctrines of God, creation, Christology, salvation and on being equipped in apologetics so as to be able to respond to current issues and to be able to decipher the pre-supposition of various topics related to the faith such as the Gospel of Judas and not to look at the surface only. He summarized by highlighting to us the truth about Judas Iscariot and the nature of the Gospel of Judas. Lastly, he concluded by exhorting all Christians to be consistent and thorough in reading our Bible.

MY AFTERTHOUGHT
Gnosticism posits spiritual knowledge as a pre-requisite to salvation and this spiritual knowledge cannot be attained by anyone but only by someone with high spiritual insights. Built into this system are cascaded layers of angels to account for the creation of material world which is deemed as evil. Spiritual and material are to be viewed as good and evil separately. This system of thought when weaved with some terms borrowed from Christianity caused sufficient confusion to warrant the need to respond to them in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, 1 John, the prologue of the Gospel of John, the Pastoral Epistles, Jude and 2 Peter by the various apostles. Those who were condemned by God in the Bible could be re-interpreted to be commendable heroes in the framework of the Gnosticism.

In our world today, we must know what we believe in and to present and defend our faith within our sphere of influence, be it as a form of living testimony in our own life or be it in the ethical conduct that governs our decision making process within our working area. If possible, it should include the arena of human thoughts which constitute the various branches of specialized knowledge such as philosophy, science, ethics, other religions, politics, etc. which have direct impact on how we should live. If our faith is unworthy of our time and effort, we do not need to stand up for what we believe in. But if our faith is indeed true, we must know and stand up for what we believe in and be willing to invest time, money and effort in it, just like what Jesus said in Matt 13:45-46 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” Without the martyrs who died for what they believe in, we would not inherit the faith that has been passed down to us today since the 1st century. We must take our faith seriously.

In-Christ,
Arthur Koh

Taken from the Gospel of Judas
THE DISCIPLES BECOME ANGRY
Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.”

JESUS TEACHES JUDAS ABOUT COSMOLOGY: THE SPIRIT AND THE SELF-GENERATED
“A great angel, the enlightened divine Self-Generated, emerged from the cloud. Because of him, four other angels came into being from another cloud, and they became attendants for the angelic Self-Generated.

THE CREATION OF HUMANITY
“Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and after the image.’ They fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, who is called, in the cloud, Zoe.

JESUS SPEAKS OF THOSE WHO ARE BAPTIZED, AND JUDAS’S BETRAYAL
“But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.

The limitations of commonly used analogies in describing the Trinity

I have come across the concept of Trinity and the issue of how to interpret it during the Youth Fellowship in my church lately. Upon some reflections and a little bit of read up, I am penning down my thoughts on commonly used analogies I have come across so far for describing the relationship of Trinity and the limitations of each analogy.

We may define the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.
From Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (IVP, 1994), pp. 226


The confusion comes when we attempt to use the word ‘essence’ and ‘persons’ in describing the Trinity when we are not exactly sure what the words are referring to. We most commonly say God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are of the same essence （同样本质） but they are different persons （不同位格） to simplify our explanations. These two terms are embedded with meanings that we should clarify before using.


1st, the word ‘essence’ is derived from Greek word ‘ousia’. The concept of essence derives from Greek philosophy. In Plato’s Republic, he gave an example of the horse. If we have a brown horse, a black horse, a white horse, they are three different horses but what makes us recognize them as a horse? He alludes to the world of Form where the material being gets their imprint from. There is then such a thing calls ‘horseness’ which these three horses share. This ‘horseness’ is the essence they share. What happens if one of the horses loses one leg? Does the horse cease to be a horse? No. The horse still participates in the Form ‘horseness’ or has the essence of the horse. Another example we could use is the table. There are different kinds of tables, but what makes us recognize the tables as tables? According to Plato’s theory, these tables share the essence of ‘tableness’. If they come in different colour or shapes or sizes or even if one of them has three legs, they are still tables because they participates in the Form of ‘tableness’ Hence, when we say that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, we mean they share a single Divine.


2nd, the word ‘persons’ is derived from Greek word ‘hypostasis’. Its basic meaning is "that which stands beneath". It was used by, for instance, by Aristotle and the Neoplatonists, to speak of the objective reality (as opposed to outer form or illusion) of a thing, its inner reality. With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostasis is usually understood with a meaning akin to the Greek word ‘prosopon’, which is translated into Latin as persona and then into English as person. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons. (Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(religion)



Before describing the commonly used analogies, I would like to point out that as our God transcends our dimensions, whatever analogies we use will have their own limitations. But we should know why we are using these analogies and also point out the limitations when using them.

1) The analogy of water existing in three states. Just as water can exist in three states, so God can exist as three different persons.
Fact: Below 0 degrees, water exists in one state: solid state of matter. At 0 degrees, the ice melts and water will exist in two states: liquid and solid. Between 0 to 100 degrees, the water is a liquid state. At 100 degrees, water starts to convert into steam and water will exist at two states: liquid and gas, until all the water is fully converted to steam.
Limitation of the analogy: Water exists in only one state, unless it is at triple point (i.e. at 0.01 °C and at partial pressure of 611.73 pascals) where water vapour, liquid and solid exist at the same time. However our God exists as three different persons eternally.


2) The analogy of one Bible but many different types of bibles. Just as there is one God, but existing in three different persons eternally, the analogy of the Bible will overcome the limitation of the maximum number of the existence of states of water at any one time.
Fact: There are different translations of the Bible in different languages, in different versions and based on different original manuscripts.
Limitation of the analogy: The number of translations and versions based on the original manuscript exceeded three. Even if we talked about different manuscripts which are of the same essence, we will not be able to use the analogy of manuscripts as three different forms. The same applies for the analogy of bibles.


3) The analogy of three-in-one coffee. This analogy overcomes the limitations of the number of states water can exist at any one time. Three-in-one coffee has only one essence but is made of three ingredients.
Fact: Three-in-one coffee is made up of three different ingredients: Coffee beans, sugar and cream. These three are of different essences. If we compare coffee beans between different brands, then at least we are comparing things of the same essence.
Limitation of the analogy: The Trinity though consists of three persons; they have only one essence, not three essences.


4) The analogy of a person playing the role of father, son, husband in a household. This analogy uses the three different roles played by the same person in relationship with different people. This can be contrasted to the same God playing three different roles.
Fact: The father, son, husband are the roles of one person.
Limitation of the analogy: The Trinity consists of three persons not one person and there are personal interactions among the members of the Trinity.

Are we then to stop using these analogies? In my personal opinion, I don’t think so, provided we explain why we use this particular analogy and also highlight the limitations of the analogy. Take heart as we listen to what a well-known theologian Louis Berkhof (1873 - 1957) says about Trinity:

"The Trinity is a mystery ... man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of manifestation, but unintelligible in its essential nature.... The real difficulty lies in the relation in which the persons in the Godhead stand to the divine essence and to one another; and this is a difficulty which the Church cannot remove, but only try to reduce to its proper proportion by a proper definition of terms. It has never tried to explain the mystery of the Trinity but only sought to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner that the errors which endangered it were warded off." (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 89)


"It is especially when we reflect on the relation of the three persons to the divine essence that all analogies fail us and we become deeply conscious of the fact that the Trinity is a mystery far beyond our comprehension. It is the incomprehensible glory of the Godhead." (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 88)


For more information on Trinity, you may want to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity.

Learning to Forgive

Prologue

For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. –Bible, Matthew 6:14-15

"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? – Bible, Matthew 5:43-47

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. – Bible, Matthew 18:21-22¹

古之欲明明德于天下者；先治其国；欲治其国者，先齐其家；欲齐其家者，先修其身; 欲修其身者，先正其心；欲正其心者，先诚其意；欲诚其意者，先致其知，致知在格物。《礼记·大学》²

After watching the show “I Not Stupid, Too” (小孩不笨2), it is undeniable that director Jack Neo has delivered a strong message that giving praises should form part of our good habit and he has brought out the impact in the lives of some teenagers who were not being ever appreciated before by their parents. Giving praises is indeed a challenge for most of us in Asia. At the same time, I think an important element that was not being mentioned explicitly in the film is the element of forgiveness.

Gradually, we are already being made aware of the needs to praise others in the past few years. How about our willingness to forgive one another? In this article, I am looking at how the essence of forgiveness can gradually be instilled our society from the point of a teacher. Some people say that it is undeniable that the society is a much better place to live in if we can forgive one another and this is only feasible theoretically. Precisely. This is why I am embarking on the challenge to live it out practically.

The first place that I would to start is to look at the form of bitterness that arises from not being able to forgive one another, followed by some suggestions on how this could be realized in our society as a whole.

How many a times have we hold grudges against our colleagues, friends, teachers, parents, husband or wife? It the grudges we hold against each other that marred the relationship with each other. It the grudges within the child’s heart that holds him back from embracing the full love of a parent; the grudges that are engraved in a pupil’s heart that prevent him from accepting his teachers and peers in a positive light; the grudges that are waiting to be released and yet still tightly clung onto the fringes of our memory that prevent us from receiving the joy within the bond of friendship. How many a times have our grudges become the root of our bitterness and eventually hatred? Is it not the person who harbors the bitterness more prone to anger and to mental torture? The worst form of bitterness is not from the person who is the object of hatred, but from the person who harbors the hatred. For those entangled in a broken or ensnared relationship, it is always the desire of both to want the opposite party to say “I am in the wrong and I have realized my mistake. Please forgive me. I will amend my mistake”. It is in waiting for this form of sweet victory that can never be materialized that leads one to fathom all forms of aggressions, just to bring the other party to the brink of destruction and to tear down the dignity of the others.

We must learn to let go of this form of bitterness by learning to forgive others first, even before they have even acknowledged their mistakes or even before they have asked for our forgiveness. If none of us takes the initiative to forgive the other, we will forever be entwined in the web of resentfulness. It is only when one has experienced being forgiven that one is empowered to forgive the others. For the Christians, the most intimate and intense experience of being forgiven may come from God the father. But for the non-Christians, it may from another person who is magnanimous and mature enough to forgive the others. Whichever case it may be, we have the capacity and power to forgive the others. The only matter is whether we are willing to. It is a matter of willingness only.

Some people may consider it to be suicidal as the forgiving person will always be on the losing end. There are a few situations we must look at when we learn to forgive.

(1) Did the other party transgress our moral values? If he has, then we ought to point out that the committed act is against our values and remind him not to repeat it in our presence. But if the committed act involves a loss of property, then restitution should be part of the proper step to reconciliation. Restitution serves to restore our property, but the act of forgiveness is the willingness to release the opposite party from the burden of guilt and remorse from the committed act and the willingness to release ourselves from the hurt or any sense of resentment that might have resulted from this form of transgression.

(2) Did the other person violate the taboo in our society? If he has, then it could be our responsibility to educate the person of the social norm that is deemed as acceptable in our society in accompaniment to the act of forgiveness on our part.

(3) Did the other party violate the law? If he has, then he has committed a crime against the law. He should be rectified according to the penalty specified by the law that he has broken. Serving the sentence as deemed necessary by the law is one thing; learning to forgive the person is another thing. The person who serves his sentence is repaying back the damage done to one’s property (or even life) according to the demand of the law. The law does not specify the victim or the plaintiff to forgive the accused. It is however within the capacity of the plaintiff to forgive the accused. As stated in Scenario (1) above, the act of willingness actually liberates from parties from being entangled in a relationship marked with acrimony.

(4) The last scenario is when we have offended the other party and in the wake of his response, he has inflicted an act of aggression whether verbally or physically against us. It will demand more courage on our part to forgive him for the aggression against us and even willing to allow him to point out our mistake and even more radical for us to take the initiative to apologize for the hurt that we have inflicted on him. However, we must remember that two wrongs do not make an act right. It is only when one party takes the initiative to forgive first, and then the other party will be empowered to forgive. Instead of asking ‘Why should I take the initiative?’, asking ‘Why shouldn’t I take the initiative?’ is more constructive.

In all scenarios above, I am advocating that we must take the initiative to forgive. We forgive so that we could be liberated from the bitterness and hatred that arise from the anger and hurt that might have resulted from the infringement of our dignity and pride. The necessary step of reconciliation will be different in different scenario as well as the level of forgiveness demanded of us.

Learning to forgive one another can be realized at different levels in our society. At the first level, the teachers as role model for the pupils under them must learn how to forgive their pupils for the unintentional and intentional hurt that were inflicted upon them. Any acts of violation against school rules and regulations by the pupils should be swiftly dealt with. But on a personal level, the teacher must learn to forgive the pupils for the wrongs they have done. This leads me to recall a scene in another Jack Neo’s movie “One More Chance”（三个好人）. One of the ex-convicts said, during one of the job interviews, that the law has sentenced them to jail for a term. Their term would only last for the stated years and they will be released. But it is the society who has condemned them forever. They are never given a chance to repent.

The teachers must also learn to forgive at another level, which is between their colleagues and superiors. Even for colleague who has not been professional in his work. It is one issue to forgive him and a separate issue for justice to be sought. These two are to be handled separately. We are always in the power to forgive others. For someone to feedback on another’s unprofessional ethics, a more senior officer would be able to convey a more convincing message. Those in authority have the jurisdiction to act upon and to rectify any unjust condition existing in the working environment. They should and they must, or else it is hard for those working in an unprofessional working environment to thrive and to contribute to the well-being of the pupils under them. But on an individual’s level, we must learn to have the capacity to forgive.

At the second level, the teenagers and children in school will be learning to look upon their teachers as the role model. When they are continually experiencing the power of forgiveness from the teachers, they become conscious of it and will be empowered to take the initiative to forgive others. They need to inculcate the habit of forgiving others and to experience the power of forgiveness. They can feel it explicitly by asking them to reflect upon the difference they have experienced in their lives. This is to make them conscious that the act of forgiveness is within their capacity and power and to let the pupils experience the joy in life when liberated from the burden of bitterness and anger resulting from not being able to forgive oneself and the others.

At the third level, the parents should be involved in the chain of learning to forgive and to experience being forgiven. This is something akin to the final session of Dr Ernest Wong’s Super-Teen Programme³. The parents had experienced the liberating power of forgiving their own child when the child admitted his mistakes and asked them for forgiveness. I cannot describe how powerful it is and the impact it created during the moment when someone like our own child asked us for forgiveness and locking each other in embrace at that moment. The atmosphere was setup in such a way that the child was bestowed with the courage and sensibility to want to ask for forgiveness. I believe that the once one has that experience, it can continuously be replicated in one’s life and form part of one’s habits. Similarly, the parents need to learn how to forgive their own parents and their family members, especially their spouses. The power of forgiveness is therefore manifested within the own family members and the effect can be so enduring that even those outside the family circle can experience it.

At the highest level, the teachers, the pupils, the immediate parents and family members will influence the society at large with the power of forgiveness and this might become a conscious movement. How it is to influence the society will all depend on whether one is willing to will one’s will to forgive the others. It has to start from an individual before it can influence the family unit followed by the society and the country.

Footnotes

1) In this context Jesus is not saying that seventy-seven times is the upper limit, nor that the forgiveness is so unqualified it vitiates the discipline and procedural steps just taught. Rather he teaches that forgiveness of fellow members in his community of "little ones" cannot possibly be limited by frequency or quantity

- NIV Bible Expositor’s Commentary

2) 古代那些要想在天下弘扬光明正大品德的人，先要治理好自己的国家；要想治理好自己的国家，先要管理好自已的家庭和家族；要想管理好自己的家庭和家族，先要修养自身的品性；要想修养自身的品性；先要端正自己的心思；要想端正自己的心思，先要使自己的意念真诚；要想使自己的意念真诚，先要使自己获得知识；获得知识的途径在于认识、研究万事万物。

- 四书五经。现代版/夏于金主编。新潮出版社，2000年3月

3) In 1985, Dr Ernest Wong founded the Super-Teen™ Programme, the first accelerated learning, personal development and leadership training programme for students. Over the last 20 years, the programme has transformed more than 100,000 ordinary students in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, China and Indonesia into super students. In 1988, Dr Wong became the first Asian to receive the prestigious Golden Apple Award by the Foundation of Self Esteem, USA for his contributions towards excellence in education.