I have been reflecting on what has happened to me within the last three months. When I graduated from Boston University School of Theology on 16 May 2010 with Master of Divinity, I was awarded with cum laude. I started my internship as a chaplain on 1 June 2010 at Massachusetts General Hospital, one of U.S. top five hospitals. I was about to proceed on to a second master theological degree program at Boston College, the largest Catholic academic theological institution in U.S., with a substantial tuition scholarship on 7 Sep 2010. I thought I was right on track to be an academic theological scholar. All these changed radically on 26 Jul 2010, when my general physician told me that I had been diagnosed with a kidney cancer. Further testing revealed the size and spread of my tumour and confirmed my cancer to be in stage four. I went through emotional rollercoaster with my wife and my immediate family members in those few weeks. Suddenly, life was not as orderly as I would like it to be. I am no longer in control of my own life (as if I was really in control at all even before the diagnosis). Now, I cannot imagine how future is like and I am living in the great unknown. If the surgery or the chemotherapy is not a success, my lifespan will be severely curtailed. However, even if the surgery is successful, and my chemotherapy shrunk all detectable tumours, I will be living in the shadow of recurrent cancer from now on. I no longer have the courage to venture overseas again for theological education. It is too great a risk to take for a cancerous person (or should I use the word "patient"?) like me. Will there be any church who would want me as their minister? I simply do not have an answer. Now, I am learning to give thanks when I woke up each day, grateful to be still alive, grateful to be in the presence of my immediate family members. I am learning to relay totally on God and God's community once again. I am not in control, God is.
I used to be in parish ministry teaching adult Sunday school, preaching in the pulpit or facilitating Bible study in the last fifteen months before I returned back to Singapore. I used to be a chaplain intern providing pastoral care for my patients for about ten weeks during my CPE. Suddenly, the rug was pulled out from under my feet. I am struggling to stand up again, trying to discover my new identity and my new role. I have become the receiving end of pastoral care while still being sensitive to the needs of others. If I can still call my reaching out to others a ministry, it will be a mutual ministry to each other. Just three weeks ago after I came back from Boston, I was waiting for my bus at Jurong Point bus interchange, I witnessed an Indian lady rebuking two foreign workers who blocked her way in the queue. She scolded them saying "Hello! How can others go in when you are blocking the way?" The two workers moved obediently to join the gap in the queue, and the lady continued "Use your common sense lah! Other people also want to queue up, right?" I stood there laughing to myself as I was put in touch with the familiar Singlish and Singaporeans' mannerism once again, and I knew distinctly that this is my home. If God has intervened in my theological education in such a way and is calling me back to ministry in Singapore indirectly, this is the group of people whom God would be calling me to minister to. Yes, ministering to my fellow Singaporeans. As to how and in what way, I do not yet know at this moment, but in the process of crafting this message, I could see how I am trying to minister in a different way. How?
When I heard our Prime Minister's National Day Rally Speech on 29 Aug 2010, his speech consists of measures to boost the economy and productivity, to control property prices, to streamline the education system further; justifies the needs for foreign talents and foreign workers, ways to control influx of foreign workers. In his showcase of Singaporeans' productivity, SembCorp and Keppel are highlighted as the two companies who provided solutions to the BP's oil spill in the Mexican Gulf. This is a phenomenal achievement coming from a small island-state like S'pore, and I do feel proud to be a Singaporean. The rally speech also celebrates the success of hosting the first Youth Olympic Game in spite of spending three times the budget. The decrease of birthrate was briefly mentioned. In short, this is a message celebrating S'pore achievements and inspiring hopes for the future of S'pore. The speech has been carefully crafted, and similarly, in the parish context, I do often hear messages and read carefully crafted newsletters and bulletins celebrating a ministry's success or someone's achievements, and inspiration to continue trusting in God and to point out evidences of God's blessing in the church. This mentality is similarly replicated in individual's setting (This seems to emulate Confucius' model of cascading virtues from the rulers down to the commoners). I have heard a lot of praises and thanksgiving to God because one has been promoted, or one's child has entered an elite stream or school, or one has been blessed materially, etc. (I am not saying one ought not to give thanks. It is only right to give thanks to God). One's failing or the ministry's lack of breakthrough is quickly glossed over or totally avoided in conversation, in newsletter or in the pulpit. Being brought up in such culture, I found it hard for me as a chaplain to empathize with my patients initially and I was quick to move beyond my patient's lack of strength and to lacquer layers of superficial assurance such as "Don't worry, you will make it." Some patients may appreciate it, but some will not. When my supervisor at my chaplain internship site observed me one day, she pointed this out to me, and we discussed my behaviour together. I realized how my upbringing conditioned me to actually avoid talking about pain, suffering, failures, and vulnerabilities.
When I reflected biblically, I could easily recall Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane; Jesus' cry on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"; Peter's own denial of Jesus; the disciples' failure when Jesus was arrested; Paul's confession of taking part in the killing of Stephen and persecution of other Christians; the disciple John's bad temper; Abraham's cowardice when being confronted by Pharaoh and later by King Abimelech over Sarah; Moses' failure to enter the promised land; Joshua's incompetency in preparing the next generation of leaders; David's adultery, etc. The pain, suffering, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities of biblical figures are endless, and a strong reason why the biblical authors did not omit these out is to show us how God encounters authentic people and works with our pain, suffering, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. In other words, fellowship will be more authentic if we dare to speak of our own foolishness, and to confess our own ignorance. On a deeper level, within a safe and guarded space, if our pain and our vulnerabilities could be shared and contained, one's journey with a fellow sojourner-in-Christ would be even more authentic. However such sharing has to be done within a mature context to ensure one's vulnerabilities will not be abused by others and for further ministry to take place. Our journey in-Christ calls us not only to celebrate our lives together, but to also honour the authenticity of each individual as being made in God's image and to walk together as God's called community on earth.
I could have stopped at the first paragraph asking for prayer support, but I continued on to reveal my own vulnerability in the hope of showing that Christ's body does consist of broken members who gather not only to celebrate our lives together but also to minister to each other through our own brokenness.
May the LORD our God, whose body was broken for us and whose blood was spilled for us, be with you.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
The decision to disclose my critical illness
Ever since the month of May, I have not updated my blog. As what a person writes is an outflow with who he/she is, I believe what I write from this point forth has been decisively colored by the diagnosis and treatment of my critical illness. It is therefore at this point that I decide to disclose my critical illness on my blog for few purposes:
1) My verbalization of my inner journey will lend a voice to others in the same predicament;
2) To update my friends about my current medical condition;
3) As an outlet to air my fear, frustration, joy, thankfulness, feelings and thoughts in the span of the limited time I have.
Having said all these, to be able to write on my blog again require courage and energy which I am slowly picking up.
1) My verbalization of my inner journey will lend a voice to others in the same predicament;
2) To update my friends about my current medical condition;
3) As an outlet to air my fear, frustration, joy, thankfulness, feelings and thoughts in the span of the limited time I have.
Having said all these, to be able to write on my blog again require courage and energy which I am slowly picking up.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Am I constructing an idol?
During the last one week, I was reading Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, borrowed from the Boston Public Library. It was a really good read. In the book, Karen Armstrong raises a valid question of constructing an idol. Previously, I thought money or friends or spouse or kids could be an idol if it or he/she takes precedent over God. Armstrong points out that by confining God within our framework, we could similarly be constructing an idol.
This brings to my mind the Westminster Shorter Catechism,
Q4: What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
There are traditionally two ways to describe God. The first is perhaps univocal way. By comparing what we know about a person and compare that similarity with God. That is to say, this person is wise, but God is infinitely wiser. This person is good. God is the absolute goodness.
The second way is the equivocal way, i.e. to disavow the similarity. That is to say there is nothing we know on earth that is comparable to God, which means we can only say what God is not. For e.g. God is not a liar. God is not this. Thomas Aquinas adopts this line of thought and goes further saying that our language about God is analogical. Since God is not this, we can say that God is like something. For e.g. God is strong like a rock, but God is not a rock. God oversees us like a shepherd taking care of his flock, but God is not that shepherd.
(There is a third way, which is not so well-known, called mysticism. This approach believes that since God is beyond our ability to describe, we can only experience God. Some called this the apophatic tradition. This approach has generally been shunned by the mainstream tradition, but I believe this approach should be carefully guided and not discounted in one's tradition.)
Here comes the idol part. When we relate to God, do I mistake God to be whom I project Him to be? Is God an infinite projection of what I think goodness is? Is God an infinite projection of what I think love is? Am I making an idol? Yes and No. First, I recognize that the concept of infinite is really beyond human's capacity to phantom and understand. When I say infinite, I am acknowledging my finiteness and ability to articulate what is beyond me. This is a qualifier. Yet, if I try to imagine God within my perception of goodness, then I seriously think I am making an idol. Similarly, if I imagine God is like a father, God is not "the father". God could be a mother, a friend, is a Spirit, and all these are unlike how I relate to a human being. When I say God is like "...", I must not mistake God to be that "...", and confine God in that role or else I am also making an idol.
To be even more strict about constructing of idol, I may not be entitled to say "God exists". Why? The word "exist" is to presuppose a being or something that is present in time-space dimension. Can I say God is a being? If you adhere to the univocal approach, you will probably say yes. But if you prefer the equivocal approach, you might probably say no. Next is the question of existence. If the God whom I believe in transcends time-space dimension, how can I say "God exists"? Is God even a Being the way I understand what is a being? The sentence "God exists" is very problematic because the God whom we come to know through God's revelation is beyond our vocabulary and categories. To say "God exists" is confining "God" into categories.
Going back to the Westminster Catechism answer, I can see the response is trying to point me to what God is, i.e. "a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." I understand the Westminster confession and catechism were compiled in the 17th century, a time when the theology was becoming more rationalistic and orthodoxy was the rule of the day. But anytime I allow the Westminster's response to be my static description of God, I have just constructed an idol. The concept of eternal is beyond me because I live in a temporal time-space dimension. Unchangeable is more like a Greek concept of the First Principle, and less like a flesh-incarnated-God. So, this description does have limitation. "wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" are attributes affirming the characteristics of God, which serves to elicit trust and faith in this God, but are by no means constraining God into each category. I realize that sometimes, when I attempt to put up a defense for God, I may actually be putting up a defense for an idol. For e.g. if God is wise and good, why does He allow the disaster to happen? I may have to say "I don't know". But one thing is know is that I can do something for the afflicted in the world. I can act. God speaks through my action. My action affirms what I believe about God.
In prophet Elijah's encounter with Yahweh in 1 Ki 19:11-13, he expects Yahweh to appear in the fire, or thunder or lightning, or earthquake, i.e. the usual expectation of encounter with God (theophany) through powerful encounter of forces of nature. But God finally encounters Elijah in moments of silence. For me, that is an idol-shattering experience. An idol need not be the golden calf that the Israelites built below Mt. Sinai (Ex. 32). That idol-shattering experience changed Elijah.
As I put down Armstrong's The Case for God, I started to reflect upon the idol(s) I may have constructed. Though I hold a conviction of what God is, my conviction must not be an obstacle for how God continues to act in the history of humankind, and how God speaks to each and everyone of us. I vividly recalled that towards the end of his life, Thomas Aquinas had a vision of God, and it was so overwhelming that he refused to write anymore. He said "I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm). The greatest medieval theologian in the Latin West had such a transformative experience that he couldn't write anymore about God, and that humbles me when I attempt to articulate about God for fear that I may be constructing an idol.
This brings to my mind the Westminster Shorter Catechism,
Q4: What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
There are traditionally two ways to describe God. The first is perhaps univocal way. By comparing what we know about a person and compare that similarity with God. That is to say, this person is wise, but God is infinitely wiser. This person is good. God is the absolute goodness.
The second way is the equivocal way, i.e. to disavow the similarity. That is to say there is nothing we know on earth that is comparable to God, which means we can only say what God is not. For e.g. God is not a liar. God is not this. Thomas Aquinas adopts this line of thought and goes further saying that our language about God is analogical. Since God is not this, we can say that God is like something. For e.g. God is strong like a rock, but God is not a rock. God oversees us like a shepherd taking care of his flock, but God is not that shepherd.
(There is a third way, which is not so well-known, called mysticism. This approach believes that since God is beyond our ability to describe, we can only experience God. Some called this the apophatic tradition. This approach has generally been shunned by the mainstream tradition, but I believe this approach should be carefully guided and not discounted in one's tradition.)
Here comes the idol part. When we relate to God, do I mistake God to be whom I project Him to be? Is God an infinite projection of what I think goodness is? Is God an infinite projection of what I think love is? Am I making an idol? Yes and No. First, I recognize that the concept of infinite is really beyond human's capacity to phantom and understand. When I say infinite, I am acknowledging my finiteness and ability to articulate what is beyond me. This is a qualifier. Yet, if I try to imagine God within my perception of goodness, then I seriously think I am making an idol. Similarly, if I imagine God is like a father, God is not "the father". God could be a mother, a friend, is a Spirit, and all these are unlike how I relate to a human being. When I say God is like "...", I must not mistake God to be that "...", and confine God in that role or else I am also making an idol.
To be even more strict about constructing of idol, I may not be entitled to say "God exists". Why? The word "exist" is to presuppose a being or something that is present in time-space dimension. Can I say God is a being? If you adhere to the univocal approach, you will probably say yes. But if you prefer the equivocal approach, you might probably say no. Next is the question of existence. If the God whom I believe in transcends time-space dimension, how can I say "God exists"? Is God even a Being the way I understand what is a being? The sentence "God exists" is very problematic because the God whom we come to know through God's revelation is beyond our vocabulary and categories. To say "God exists" is confining "God" into categories.
Going back to the Westminster Catechism answer, I can see the response is trying to point me to what God is, i.e. "a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." I understand the Westminster confession and catechism were compiled in the 17th century, a time when the theology was becoming more rationalistic and orthodoxy was the rule of the day. But anytime I allow the Westminster's response to be my static description of God, I have just constructed an idol. The concept of eternal is beyond me because I live in a temporal time-space dimension. Unchangeable is more like a Greek concept of the First Principle, and less like a flesh-incarnated-God. So, this description does have limitation. "wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" are attributes affirming the characteristics of God, which serves to elicit trust and faith in this God, but are by no means constraining God into each category. I realize that sometimes, when I attempt to put up a defense for God, I may actually be putting up a defense for an idol. For e.g. if God is wise and good, why does He allow the disaster to happen? I may have to say "I don't know". But one thing is know is that I can do something for the afflicted in the world. I can act. God speaks through my action. My action affirms what I believe about God.
In prophet Elijah's encounter with Yahweh in 1 Ki 19:11-13, he expects Yahweh to appear in the fire, or thunder or lightning, or earthquake, i.e. the usual expectation of encounter with God (theophany) through powerful encounter of forces of nature. But God finally encounters Elijah in moments of silence. For me, that is an idol-shattering experience. An idol need not be the golden calf that the Israelites built below Mt. Sinai (Ex. 32). That idol-shattering experience changed Elijah.
As I put down Armstrong's The Case for God, I started to reflect upon the idol(s) I may have constructed. Though I hold a conviction of what God is, my conviction must not be an obstacle for how God continues to act in the history of humankind, and how God speaks to each and everyone of us. I vividly recalled that towards the end of his life, Thomas Aquinas had a vision of God, and it was so overwhelming that he refused to write anymore. He said "I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm). The greatest medieval theologian in the Latin West had such a transformative experience that he couldn't write anymore about God, and that humbles me when I attempt to articulate about God for fear that I may be constructing an idol.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
What does it mean to be a great person?
As I come closer to the end of my MDiv journey at Boston University School of Theology, many thoughts come to my mind. One of them is the question of what it means to be a great person.
I embarked on my theological journey with the intense desire of seeking the betterment of humanity, to embody God's presence in the world. Indeed, as I studied in the last few semesters, I have read works by St. Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and John Calvin the reformers, John Wesley, Karl Marx, Karl Barth, Emile Durkheim, MLK, Peter Berger, Catherine Keller, John Cobb, John Berthrong, etc. These past and present authors have been my teachers, and there were points in time when I was inspired to be like them. But when I entered parish ministry, I was confronted by limitations and continual needs to feed people spiritually. And gradually, whatever dreams I held were dimly erased as my conversation partners dwindled. I began to ask myself the same question again, "what does it mean to be a great person?"
In the past, I had thought that to be a great person, you have to be someone high in the hierarchy, you have to have a larger sphere of influence. In the parish ministry, a great person would be someone like Rick Warren (author of Purpose driven life and church), or Kong Hee (pastor of one of the largest churches in SG) or Rev. Stephen Tong (most well-known Reformed evangelist in Southeast Asia). But I was wrong too! The more I read, the more I served in parish setting, and the more I reflected, the more I believed that to be a great person is simply to be ME.
This new insight is significant as I finally understand that there is only one Bill Gates, one Lee Kuan Yew, one John Calvin, one Karl Barth, and one Swee-Leong. There is only one person who could be husband of my wife, the son of my parents, the brother of my sisters, the uncle of my niece and nephew, the grandson of my grandmother, the teacher of my students, the student-intern of my church, the chaplain-intern of the department, friend of my beloved friends, etc. Only I can play that role that no one else can. Why should I measure myself against the benchmarks of others?
If I am fully present as a human being for the others, am I not embodying God's presence in the world? If I continue to embody symbol of hope for others, am I not fostering good will in the history of humanity? If I can answer an emphatic YES to both questions, I am already right on the path of being a great person. To be a great person is simply to be ME and not any others, and to be conscious that I am living in the history of humankind with God as the author of this history. I may not be remembered on the page of history in the same way like Mother Teresa or Karl Rahner is being remembered, and I may not even be remembered by my ex-students, my congregation members, and friends one day, but what matters most is that I am being remembered by God. To know God, and to be known by God, and to be a human being in relating to others in whatever role I am called to be is to be a great person.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
活出福音
林前15：3-11
15:3 我當日所領受又傳給你們的、第一、就是基督照聖經所說、為我們的罪死了．
15:4 而且埋葬了．又照聖經所說、第三天復活了．
15:5 並且顯給磯法看．然後顯給十二使徒看．
15:6 後來一時顯給五百多弟兄看、其中一大半到如今還在、卻也有已經睡了的．
15:7 以後顯給雅各看．再顯給眾使徒看．
15:8 末了也顯給我看．我如同未到產期而生的人一般。
15:9 我原是使徒中最小的、不配稱為使徒、因為我從前逼迫 神的教會。
15:10 然而我今日成了何等人、是蒙 神的恩才成的．並且他所賜我的恩、不是徒然的．我比眾使徒格外勞苦．這原不是我、乃是 神的恩與我同在。
15:11 不拘是我是眾使徒、我們如此傳、你們也如此信了。
15:4 而且埋葬了．又照聖經所說、第三天復活了．
15:5 並且顯給磯法看．然後顯給十二使徒看．
15:6 後來一時顯給五百多弟兄看、其中一大半到如今還在、卻也有已經睡了的．
15:7 以後顯給雅各看．再顯給眾使徒看．
15:8 末了也顯給我看．我如同未到產期而生的人一般。
15:9 我原是使徒中最小的、不配稱為使徒、因為我從前逼迫 神的教會。
15:10 然而我今日成了何等人、是蒙 神的恩才成的．並且他所賜我的恩、不是徒然的．我比眾使徒格外勞苦．這原不是我、乃是 神的恩與我同在。
15:11 不拘是我是眾使徒、我們如此傳、你們也如此信了。
引言
我們生活在一個多元化的社會，這多元化的社會有許多的宗教信仰任你選購。如果你已習慣常常被商業廣告轟炸，你無疑疑問地會看到許多的產品在爭取你的關注力，如：Apple iPhone, RiM Blackberry, HTC Droid, T-mobile Sidekick, 等等。那些最能吸引你的可能只需要點幾下滑鼠就買到了。你看到的，你所想要的，馬上可以擁有。但是有些事項不是馬上就能看到的。不能看到的，你會想要嗎？在眾多信仰中，只有基督教堅持相信有一人的為我們死在十字架上，也已經復活了，這人我們稱為耶穌基督。然而，這事件已經發生在遙遠的過去了，是我們所不能看到或觸摸得到的。我們今天也沒有目睹耶穌基督站在我們身邊，但我們卻相信他的復活。這是否是一種超級奇蹟？我們如何在這個多元化的社會為我們所堅信的做見證？我相信保羅寫給哥林多教會的書信特別對我們的生活見證有所幫助。今天，我們將中哥林多前書15章來了解本書信如何能應用在我們的生活。
Move 1: 背景
關于哥林多城
哥林多位於伯羅奔尼撒半島（Peloponnesus peninsular）和希臘大陸(Greece mainland) 之間的狹窄地峽，俯瞰通往大陸的要道。在使徒保羅的日子，該城的人口約有40萬，僅次於當時的羅馬、亞歷山大和敘利亞的安提阿。哥林多東臨愛琴海(Aegean Sea)，西面向亞得里亞海(Adrian Sea)。哥林多是亞該亞行省(Achaia)的首府，連同它兩個港口在商業上居於極重要的位置。因為哥林多是個繁忙的港口，有許多不同種類的人都會在這城市居留，這城市也因此相當的復雜。哥林多城物質雖繁榮，道德卻極其墮落，他們的居民邪惡荒淫算是臭名遠播。他們當地舉行衆多的異教儀式。虽然如此，哥林多也是希臘的學術中心。
(參 http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/%E5%93%A5%E6%9E%97%E5%A4%9A%E5%89%8D%E6%9B%B8）
哥林多教會
在保羅的第二次的宣教旅程中，在哥林多逗留了18個月，建立了哥林多教会。當時可能有150到200多信徒在哥林多教会。保罗的书信里提到：
4:14 我寫這話、不是叫你們羞愧、乃是警戒你們、好像我所親愛的兒女一樣。
4:15 你們學基督的、師傅雖有一萬、為父的卻是不多、因我在基督耶穌裏用福音生了你們。
4:16 所以我求你們效法我。
可见，對于哥林多的信徒，保羅的愛是何等深摯！同时，哥林多教会也出现不少问题，其中包括了教會紛爭，道德混亂，婚姻問題，祭偶像之物，教會崇拜，屬靈恩賜。因此不少教会领袖在探讨教会问题时，都会以哥林多书信做参考。今天，我们没时间一章一章的来看。但我希望我们能掌握保罗在这封书信的神学思想中心，来帮助我们在面对日常生活中勇敢地活出我们的见证。
Move 2 ：說明
哥林多城市是一個多元化的社會，也是希腊的學術中心。众多人對死亡后的命運持有懷疑的态度。哥林多教會的一些信徒也不例外。他们当中有人不信基督的復活。在保羅的回復里，他并沒有問哥林多教會為什麼不相信基督的復活，而是把基督的復活當做一個事實。我再說一遍，保羅把基督的復活當作一個事實。這復活不是靈魂上的復活，在希臘語被稱為"pneumatikoi"的復活。保羅說的復活是耶穌肉體的復活。耶穌也曾顯現在他門徒當中。其中是哥林多教會所熟悉的彼得，雅各和保羅本人。為了增加基督復活的可信度，保羅還另外提到500名證人，一些還活著的也能印證復活的事實。當哥林多信徒把這封書信念給其他信徒時，聽者將毫無疑問地能肯定基督的復活。保羅同時也認為舊約聖經也在指向基督的受難與復活。保羅冒著生命危險，把這福音積極的傳給羅馬帝國的外邦人。保羅在傳福音上是一個忠實的仆人。
所以，當保羅聲稱自己比任何使徒更加努力地工作時，保羅是不是要炫耀自己。相反的，保羅認為他在眾使徒當中是最不配的。保羅在用誇張的方式來強調上帝的恩典如何在他身上被彰顯。保羅本是在一位最有名的拉比之下培養出來的。他原本可以有一個出色的職業生涯，成為另一位有權威的拉比，并成立自己的學校，招收自己的學生，但他放棄了這一切。他曾經迫害基督的教會，也唯有上帝奇妙的恩典可以改變他。他的改變是如此驚人，他放棄解讀律法教授的職位，還為了信基督的緣故而遭受逼迫。由此可見，當保羅經歷了上帝奇妙的恩典，他經歷了改變，成為上帝的同工。他的人生故事就與上帝為人類所寫的故事鏈接在一起。他生命的故事就有了不同的層面(his life story takes on a different dimension)。保羅的生命從此成為上帝大圖畫中的其中一部，保羅也一同與上帝編寫人類的歷史。
Move3 ：應用
其實我們就像保羅一樣，不配得享上帝的恩典。然而，當我們被上帝的恩典觸摸的那一刻，上帝的靈就在我們心里動工，幫助我們接納基督為我們的死與他的復活。基督的死與復活就在我們的意識形態里，影響我們的日常生活(Christ's death and resurrection becomes part of our consciousness and influences how we live)。雖然保羅沒有親眼目睹耶穌身體上的復活，保羅卻經歷基督為他而死和復活。同樣的，我們能經歷基督為我們死，也已經復活的事實，因為上帝的靈已經我們心中為我們印證了。透過基督的死與復活，我們都在經歷改變。雖然我們可能沒有像保羅有如此特殊的經歷，但是我們每天都在經歷逐步的改變。約翰衛斯理用另一個稱呼說這是"成聖的過程"(process of sanctification)。
基督的死與復活的福音自使徒們開始從一代傳一代到我們這代。現在，我們被呼召傳承這使命，而且我們如何傳承這使命必須與我們如何活出這使命息息相關。我們沒有保羅所那指的500名證人。彼得，保羅與雅各也不再我們當中了。唯有我們生命的改變能在其他人當中印證這福音。讓我用一個例子來解釋這印證的方式。
以前我在新加坡武裝部隊服兵役的時候，我是一位無線電信號兵。我需要鑒別我所收到的電信是否可靠，所以需要給發送者一組代碼。若發送者所回復的代碼符合我代碼字的組合，那我可以肯定他所發的信號來之一位友好單位，我就能傳遞他的信號到到另一個部隊。鑒別信號的真偽關乎我單位的生存，所以非常重要。同樣的，當我們生活與福音相稱時，我們就在這社會印證了基督的受難與復活，別人也透過我們的生活鑒別這福音的可信度。福音透過我們的生活改變我們現實的本體(reality)。這新的現實本體成為一通門，讓非信徒能鑒別福音的真偽。我相信上帝的恩典是無法抗拒的(irresistible grace)，一旦我們被上帝的恩典所感動，我們就回應這福音，并印證了福音的真實性，就這樣我們產生了一種嶄新的現實本體(new reality)。假若這社會說："人只有利用的價值"，我們要說："你到我們這里來一同與我們享有基督的愛。"假若這社會說："你餓死了是你的事"，我們要說："你到我們這里來一同與我們享有愛延。"這就是新的現實本體。
當上帝無法抗拒的恩典臨到我們時，我們回應并一同產生新的現實本體。換句話說，當我們透過生命回應福音時，我們就印證了這福音的可信度，我們也在與上帝一同編寫上帝給人類的故事，上帝也把看我們視為祂的同工。這是莫大的福份啊！
結論
親愛的弟兄姐妹，我們都一同領受上帝的恩典。我們要感謝那些持守信仰的先輩們，一代一代的把福音傳給我們。我要邀請你來用你的生命印證福音，就像保羅一樣，勇敢地把福音活出來。我邀請你成為上帝的同工，一同參與上帝為人類編寫的故事。我相信當人類歷史結束時，我們回頭一看整個人類歷史，我們將看見我們是如何參與上帝的大故事里，我們將看到我們每一位基督徒是如何在這歷史中扮演上帝所呼召我們的角色。我們將看到自己的生活色彩是如何地使整幅圖畫更精彩，更扣人心弦。那時，我們將看到上帝的大榮光，并會全體跪拜在上帝的面前頌贊"榮耀，榮耀，榮耀"一直到永遠。
（大波士頓臺灣長老會的第六次證道。四月11日2010年。）
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Jesus' tears and the Haiti earthquake
Prologue
On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude quake hit Haiti, just 10 miles west of Porte-au-Prince. There were 3 million people in need of emergency aid after major earthquake. The major quake sent 33 aftershocks ranging in magnitude from 4.2 to 5.9. As Haiti has poor construction work, a lot of buildings collapsed and increased the death toll further. 200,000 people are estimated dead, and 3 million more are affected. Haiti is one of poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 80% of the 9 million residents living in poverty. You can imagine the nightmares and horrors that the Haitians have to live through. Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian writer and political activist, said that,
On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude quake hit Haiti, just 10 miles west of Porte-au-Prince. There were 3 million people in need of emergency aid after major earthquake. The major quake sent 33 aftershocks ranging in magnitude from 4.2 to 5.9. As Haiti has poor construction work, a lot of buildings collapsed and increased the death toll further. 200,000 people are estimated dead, and 3 million more are affected. Haiti is one of poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 80% of the 9 million residents living in poverty. You can imagine the nightmares and horrors that the Haitians have to live through. Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian writer and political activist, said that,
In this kind of natural disaster, it is almost always the poorest who suffer the most -- those who have the least to lose are often those who lose the most. Life is always hard for poor people -- living on the edge is insecure and full of risk. Natural disasters make it worse. Yet even in normal times, poverty is hidden and not reported by the media. In times of disaster, there continues to be little coverage of the excessive impact on the poor.[1]
Not too long ago, Typhoon Morakot hit Taiwan leaving at least 461 people killed, 192 people missing, and 46 injured, and one village buried. How should we Christians view natural disaster? How should we respond? In this afternoon, I hope to draw upon a passage from Lazarus’ resurrection as we reflect together.
Jesus the Resurrection and the Life
Jn 11:17 When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, some two miles away, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them about their brother. 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary stayed at home. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.”
The Gospel of John was written in the midst of fierce theological debate in the early Jewish-Christian community, and with aim of convincing the readers that Jesus was the Messiah. “Whereas Mark begins with the baptism of Jesus, and Matthew and Luke with the birth of Jesus, John begins ‘at the beginning,’ before the creation.”[2] The gospel of John portrays Jesus as the Logos incarnate and the author is the witness. The author shows Jesus Christ as being thoroughly human, with Jesus’ first miracle during the wedding at Cana in Galilee and his last miracle, which is the resurrection of Lazarus, at Bethany near Jerusalem. Jesus participates in the joy of human celebration, and weeps at the loss of a dear friend. Let us look in details at the resurrection of Lazarus. Prior to Jesus’ arrival at Bethany, he had received a message that Lazarus was ill, and he remarked “This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” He intentionally delayed his arrival and he told his disciples “For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe” (Jn 11:15). These implied that Jesus knew what was going to happen, and he allowed Lazarus to die. Upon his arrival at Bethany, we are told that Lazarus has been in the tomb for four days, and many Jews had come to comfort the sisters. Martha receives Jesus before Mary, and this opens up a conversation between Martha and Jesus. Martha expresses hope that her brother would not have to die if Jesus had arrived earlier. We have to pay careful attention to Jesus’ following reply as that is the key to this narrative.
Jesus reassures Martha that her brother will rise again, and Martha assumes that Jesus is referring to the last day or the resurrection at the end of time. To emphasize what he is implying, Jesus adds that “I am the resurrection and the life (v.25a),” and explains “Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die (v.25b-26a).” What does he mean by that? First we know that Jesus is responding to Martha’s misconception that her brother will only rise at the end of time. Second, we also know that Jesus is referring to the present. He is saying that eternal life begins now, and those who believe in Jesus Christ already have life that transcends death. “Jesus shares completely in God’s ability to give life (5:21-29). As the resurrection and the life, Jesus defeats the power of death in the future (v.25b) and in the present (v.26a).”[3] He then invites Martha to confess her belief, and she declares “Yes” and going beyond the affirmative, adds “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming in to the world (v.27).” This proclamation is normative in the confession of the gospel of John (cf. 20:31). What did Martha do after her confession?
Jesus Weeps
Jn 11: 28 When she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary, and told her privately, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” 29 And when she heard it, she got up quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31 The Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary get up quickly and go out. They followed her because they thought that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34 He said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus began to weep. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”
Martha informs Mary about Jesus’ arrival. Unlike Philip who relayed his belief in Jesus as the Messiah when he told Nathanael about Jesus (v1:43-45), Martha does not. However, Mary’s response is prompt upon hearing the Jesus’ arrival. Similarly, she expresses belief that her brother would not have died had Jesus arrived earlier. She is the same Mary who had anointed Jesus’ feet, and in this scene, she falls at Jesus’ feet. There has been a lot of argument on how verse 33b should be translated. NRSV translates this verse Jesus as “greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved,” NIV renders it as “deeply moved in spirit and troubled,” while Chinese Union Version has it as “心里悲叹、又甚忧愁” (he lamented, and was in deep sadness)。There is an intense emotion displayed here, and such intense emotion is usually either an expression of indignation or anger. “Is Jesus angry at death, angry at people’s lack of faith, grieving with or for his friends, or responding to the immediate prospect of his own death?”[4] I am inclined to a New Testament scholar, Moody Smith’s view that
Jesus evidently participates in the mourning and sadness over Lazarus’ death. The flat statement that Jesus wept (v.35) would confirm this. Nothing is said about Jesus’ irritation because of the Jews’ unbelief, or about their forcing his hand by putting him into the position of having to perform a miracle that as a self-revelation would lead immediately to his death.[5]
Jesus began to weep. This is perhaps the shortest verse in the whole gospel. The fact Jesus wept illustrates that Jesus shares the sadness of his friends and their neighbors. Jesus understands the grief of his friends and mourners, and he himself loved Lazarus, his friend and his disciple. The rest of the mourners witnessed the love of Jesus for his disciples, and Jesus loved his disciples till his death (v.13:2). Jesus requests Mary to show him where Lazarus’ tomb is. His love for Lazarus prompts him to action, and such love is not just a state of mind.
Jesus Raises Lazarus to Life
Jn 11:38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
Martha’s response to the opening of the tomb shows that Lazarus is really dead. Jesus utters a proclamation that expresses his confidence in the firm relationship between him and His Father. At his command, Lazarus emerges from the tomb, still wrapped in grave cloth. Lazarus’ resurrection testifies Jesus as the Lord of life and of his intimacy with God the Father. Jesus shows the Jews an even greater miracle than preventing the person’s death. He brought the dead back alive.
What does this narrative tell us about the Haiti earthquake? We do not know why the earthquake strike Haiti, though God knows the earthquake would take place, just like Jesus knew that Lazarus would die, God grieves when 200,000 Haitians died and many more displaced. God loves the Haitians just like God loves us, and when God’s people grieved and wept, God wept with us. Jesus is the resurrection and life, though Jesus may not be physically here to resurrect the dead Haitians, those who believe in Him continues to have an unbroken relationship with Him. Jesus does continue to offer hope and light to everyone who is alive today, and Jesus’ promise does not start after one’s death, but in the immediate now. We do not know why tragedies happen, but we know that God suffers with us, God enters into our grief, and God bears the brunt of suffering on the cross. God is intimate with pain and suffering, and when one suffers, she does not suffer alone but suffers with the One who is intimate with pain and suffering.
What are we expected to do as people of God? We know that Jesus’ love prompts Jesus to respond to Lazarus’ death, and Jesus also said in Matt 25:40 “just as you did to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me,” we are similarly called to respond. Let’s look at Lazarus’ response after his resurrection.
The Plot to Kill Lazarus
12:9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.
After his resurrection, Lazarus was bearing testimony for Jesus, and led many people to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. This incurred the wrath and fear of religious leaders to such an extent that Lazarus’ life was threatened. I believe this is how one testifies about Jesus, by living out our faith. I am not saying that we are to seek death intentionally, but we are called to be Jesus’ faithful followers. Though we cannot bring a person back to life, we are called to offer hope and called to stand in solidarity with people who are suffering. We are called to testify to the hope we have in Christ Jesus. Though we undergo a physical death, we believe in an eternal life with God through Christ which begins now, and in the resurrection to come. This is how God’s love is manifested for us, Christ died for us while we are still sinners (Rom 5:8). God’s love moves us to action. Though we may not be physically in Haiti to assist the people in need, we could:
1) Follow the news on Haiti earthquake so that we know how to continue praying for them;
2) Text "HAITI" to "90999" and a donation of $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross to help with relief efforts, charged to your cell phone bill;
2) Text "HAITI" to "90999" and a donation of $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross to help with relief efforts, charged to your cell phone bill;
3) Donate financially online through Presbyterian Disaster Assistance on PCUSA website http://www.pcusa.org/pda/
There are many other means we could respond. We who are loved by God, who are called into relationship with God, are also called to testify the hope we have in Christ. Like Lazarus who experienced Christ’s radical grace, let us also acknowledge the radical grace we receive from God and manifest it in our life. Let us join our hearts in prayer:
We pray for Haiti
God of compassion
please watch over the people of Haiti,
and weave out of these terrible happenings
wonders of goodness and grace.
Surround those who have been affected by tragedy
with a sense of your present love,
and hold them in faith.
Though they are lost in grief,
may they find you and be comforted.
Guide us as a church
to find ways of providing assistance
that heal wounds and provide hope.
Help us to remember that when one of your children suffers
we all suffer;
through Jesus Christ who was dead, but lives
and rules this world with you. Amen.
Prayer by Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the 218th General Assembly (2008), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); and Linda Valentine, Executive Director, General Assembly Mission Council, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
[1] Jim Wallis, Sojourners, http://blog.sojo.net/2010/01/14/god-is-suffering-with-those-who-are-suffering-in-haiti/ (accessed Jan23, 2010).
[2] R. Alan Culpepper, The gospel and letters of John (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 16.
[3] The Gospel according to John, The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (Nashville, TN: 2003), 1931.
[4] Culpepper, The gospel and letters of John, 188.
[5] D. Moody Smith, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: John (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999), 224.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Imperfect people, imperfect church
Theme: Imperfect people, imperfect church
Prologue
While I was in a conversation with my old friend in Singapore, and we have known each other for twenty years, he asked me what I am studying at Boston. When I told him divinity, he said that this subject must be very sacred, and only meant for those holy people, and the church is also meant for holy people. I immediately corrected him that the church is not for holy people, but for people with problems. Indeed, the more I thought about it, the more I believe that the church is only meant for people with problems. I had once asked people coming to church for reasons why they are coming. The responses I gathered are scattered, some said that they came here to find life partner. Some said that they came here because there is free lunch. Some came here because they want to worship God. There are plenty of reasons. Saint Augustine of Hippo once said that church is the hospital for sinners and this is in accord with Matthew 9:12-13 where Jesus replied to the Pharisees saying “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick…I have come to call not the righteous but the sinner.” Let us turn to passages in the Scripture where this theme is more evident.
Jesus Chooses the Twelve Apostles
Lk 6:12 Now during those days he went out to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God. 13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Now, Jesus has to choose from among his followers who responded to his teachings, twelve who will be sent out for his missions. He has to choose carefully, and he spends a whole night in prayer. But why does Jesus need to spend the whole night in prayer? What would he be praying for?
Let’s take a look at each apostle. Peter was the first one in the group and to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, but would also disown Jesus three times during Jesus’ trial. Peter’s brother Andrew was a fisherman and he accepted John the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus. He was the one who told Peter about Jesus. May we be like Andrew. James and his brother John asked Jesus for places of honor in his kingdom, and wanted to call fire down to destroy a Samaritan village. That is why James and John were called Sons of Thunder. Philip questioned Jesus how he would feed the five thousand. Bartholomew also known as Nathanael initially rejected Jesus because Jesus was from Nazareth. Matthew also known as the tax collector was despised among the Jews and was considered a sinner. Thomas refused to believe in Jesus resurrection till he could touch and see Jesus. James son of Alpaeus is relatively unknown. Simon the Zealot was a party member who used violence to justify their political means. Judas son of James once asked Jesus why he would reveal himself to his followers and not to the world. Judas Iscariot eventually betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.
Now as you look at the twelve apostles, would you like anyone of them to be your closest friend, or your leader? I don’t think so, yet, Jesus chose these twelve, and almost all have flaws in their character that we would not consider them appropriate for leadership role. So why did Jesus choose these twelve people? My most immediate response is that these twelve apostles represent us. Our flaws can be found among the twelve. In times of intense pressure, we may forfeit biblical principles for immediate benefits just like Peter did. In times of frustration, we may wish the death of our antagonist just like James and John did. In times of surmounting doubts, we may ask God to manifest Godself before us so that we could believe, just like Thomas did. When confronted with almost impossible task, we may question God how it could be done, just like Philip did. I could easily identify myself with the flaws of the twelve apostles. I think that would be why Jesus spent such a long time praying on a mountain. Jesus knows the flaws of his chosen apostles, yet he trusts that these flaws do not spell the end of his mission. He entrusted his life mission to these twelve after he died and resurrected. He has chosen to love these twelve, made himself vulnerable, and despite their weaknesses, he continued to love them till the end of his life. However, this is not an easy task. I do not know the amount of pain, frustrations, and fear that Jesus might go through before choosing the twelve, but I know that Jesus spent a long time in prayer with God before he emerged with a firm trust in God’s will. I also know that this is the way God works with us. God calls us into relationship with Him, God redeems us from our bondage to sins, God works with imperfect people like us, and God made Godself vulnerable by choosing fallible people like us. Church is made up of people called by God, and also people with plenty of flaws. Church is a hospital for sinners not for saints. This is true even for the early churches during the time of the apostles. We will take a look at an infamous church, the Corinthian church. Corinth was a capital of Achaia (present-day Greece), a busy sea port, and converging point for trade routes. It was a prosperous city that was also home to more than a dozen pagan temples. Apostle Paul had built a church in Corinth and the Corinthian letters gave us good insight to the problems in the church.
Divisions in the Church
1Co. 1:10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. 12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Paul addresses the Corinth Christians as being called to be sanctified in Christ Jesus. After affirming his relationship with the Corinth Christians, he immediately jumps into the issue of divisions among them. Though they have been baptized in Christ, they are split over the authority of Paul, Apollos- an Alexandrian Jew (Acts 18:24), and Cephas- i.e. Peter. In their culture,
Paul declares such loyalty as idolatrous. The rhetorical questions Paul asked are meant to be an emphatic “NO!” Paul is appealing the Corinthians to follow the Messiah and not his servants. Idolizing teachers or ‘charismatic’ speakers who seek the loyalty of ‘their’ members has always been divisive and disastrous for the Christian community. This appeal is based on the Christ Jesus whom they invoked for salvation (1:2). This appeal applies to all of us today.
Though apostles Paul, Peter and Apollos are not with us today, and we do not encounter the split over which of them is more authoritative, but we do have contemporary issues such as which translated version of the Bible is the purest, whether women can be ordained as minister, which worship language should be used, etc. which are causing churches to quarrel and split. The question I want to ask all of us to think about is this “Do we possess the truth?” I ask again “Do we possess the truth?” I am going to answer with an emphatic “NO!” I say that again “NO, we do not possess the truth.” It is TRUTH that possesses us. Let me repeat “It is TRUTH that possesses us, not us who possess the truth.” Do you see the difference here? To claim that we possess the truth is a form of idolatry. God is the embodiment of truth and cannot be possessed. God lays claim on us, God possesses us, and we are in the process of knowing more about God within the community, through God’s Word, and by cooperating with the Holy Spirit. We are finite creatures in the process of trying to comprehend the infinite mystery that has been partially revealed to us, thus our doctrines are fallible, or in the process of being reformed. When you substitute your doctrine in place of God and claim infallibility, that is idolatry.
Despite the fact that we are imperfect people and our knowledge about God is fallible, we know for sure that we are redeemed through the same blood of Christ Jesus, we are reconciled back to the same God through Christ Jesus, and we are filled with the same Holy Spirit, and we have experienced the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. These would be sufficient ground to embark our journey as pilgrims together. God is with us, and God has been revealed in stages. Since the day of the Pentecost, God’s Spirit has been poured out upon us.
The Coming of the Holy Spirit
Ac 2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.
The outpouring of God’s Spirit among God’s people is a continuation of the story that God has for us. The Spirit that enabled the early believers to speak in the tongues of other non-believers who came to Jerusalem for Passover is within us. Apart Jesus Christ who has reconciled us, the working of the Holy Spirit warms our heart to respond to God’s calling, the same Spirit enables us to recognize the voices of God in the Scripture, and the image of God in each other. The same Spirit is also at work among us to help us transcend our differences, and molds us for different functions in the church so that we could build the one body of Christ together.
Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we continue to exercise trust in God’s faithfulness, we continue to trust that God is with us, God is working among us through God’s Spirit. Look at Peter, though he denied Jesus three times, he repented, became one of the church’s pillars and eventually martyred for the sake of the gospel. James, son of Zebedee, asked to drink the cup that Jesus drank and became a martyr for Christ. John, also son of Zebedee, became of a church leader, took care of Jesus’ mother after Jesus’ death and wrote the Gospel of John and few other books in the Christian Scripture. Andrew went on to become a fisher of people for Christ. Philip eventually saw the Father through Christ. The doubting Thomas was reputed to carry the gospel to India, and founded the tradition of Mar Thomas Church which remains in India today. Paul the apostle who wrote the most number of books in the Christian Scripture called himself the worst of sinners in his epistle to Timothy (1 Tim 1:15-16).
Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we trust that God will work within us and through us when we continue to be open to God’s calling and leading. When we continue to be faithful to God’s calling, we will be able to testify as one body of Christ. In 1933, when Germany created their national church, they asked all German Christians to recognize the limit of the spiritual domain and to fully cooperate with their chancellor, i.e. Adolf Hitler. A group of German Christians retaliated. This group established the Constitutional Evangelical Church of Germany and insisted that “their unity could only come from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit.” (Jack Rogers, Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions, Louisville. KY: Westminster John Knox Press: 1985, 1991. p. 188). They drafted the Barmen Declaration in 1934 that denounces illegitimate tyranny and proclaims the lordship of Jesus Christ. They recognize only reliance on the lordship of Jesus Christ that gives them strength to be faithful to the Word of God. Fallible people? Yes. Imperfect church? Yes. But together as one community of people called by God, and through God’s Spirit and Word, we can choose to be faithful in our calling, and stand together as one body of Christ.
Final exhortation
Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we continue to hold on to God’s promise. We share our joys and tears, gifts and fellowship together, believing this is how we ought to share lives together. Whether we are elders, deacons, preachers, Bible study leaders, choir members, ushers, people in-charge of preparing fellowship lunch, or worshipers not holding any responsibilities on Sunday, we are all called into one body of Christ. Let us pursue our calling together. It is by sharing our lives together that we can continue to testify the work of God among us; that we can continue to find the moral strength to stand against any form of idolatry; that we can continue to be a voice for God in the world torn by strife, violence, and injustice; that we can continue to bear faithful testimony in family and in our working place. May we worship God in truth and in spirit, may the Word of God be faithfully preached and heard, and may the Holy Communion continue to remind us of God’s grace and faithfulness. Amen.
Prologue
While I was in a conversation with my old friend in Singapore, and we have known each other for twenty years, he asked me what I am studying at Boston. When I told him divinity, he said that this subject must be very sacred, and only meant for those holy people, and the church is also meant for holy people. I immediately corrected him that the church is not for holy people, but for people with problems. Indeed, the more I thought about it, the more I believe that the church is only meant for people with problems. I had once asked people coming to church for reasons why they are coming. The responses I gathered are scattered, some said that they came here to find life partner. Some said that they came here because there is free lunch. Some came here because they want to worship God. There are plenty of reasons. Saint Augustine of Hippo once said that church is the hospital for sinners and this is in accord with Matthew 9:12-13 where Jesus replied to the Pharisees saying “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick…I have come to call not the righteous but the sinner.” Let us turn to passages in the Scripture where this theme is more evident.
Jesus Chooses the Twelve Apostles
Lk 6:12 Now during those days he went out to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God. 13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Now, Jesus has to choose from among his followers who responded to his teachings, twelve who will be sent out for his missions. He has to choose carefully, and he spends a whole night in prayer. But why does Jesus need to spend the whole night in prayer? What would he be praying for?
Let’s take a look at each apostle. Peter was the first one in the group and to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, but would also disown Jesus three times during Jesus’ trial. Peter’s brother Andrew was a fisherman and he accepted John the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus. He was the one who told Peter about Jesus. May we be like Andrew. James and his brother John asked Jesus for places of honor in his kingdom, and wanted to call fire down to destroy a Samaritan village. That is why James and John were called Sons of Thunder. Philip questioned Jesus how he would feed the five thousand. Bartholomew also known as Nathanael initially rejected Jesus because Jesus was from Nazareth. Matthew also known as the tax collector was despised among the Jews and was considered a sinner. Thomas refused to believe in Jesus resurrection till he could touch and see Jesus. James son of Alpaeus is relatively unknown. Simon the Zealot was a party member who used violence to justify their political means. Judas son of James once asked Jesus why he would reveal himself to his followers and not to the world. Judas Iscariot eventually betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.
Now as you look at the twelve apostles, would you like anyone of them to be your closest friend, or your leader? I don’t think so, yet, Jesus chose these twelve, and almost all have flaws in their character that we would not consider them appropriate for leadership role. So why did Jesus choose these twelve people? My most immediate response is that these twelve apostles represent us. Our flaws can be found among the twelve. In times of intense pressure, we may forfeit biblical principles for immediate benefits just like Peter did. In times of frustration, we may wish the death of our antagonist just like James and John did. In times of surmounting doubts, we may ask God to manifest Godself before us so that we could believe, just like Thomas did. When confronted with almost impossible task, we may question God how it could be done, just like Philip did. I could easily identify myself with the flaws of the twelve apostles. I think that would be why Jesus spent such a long time praying on a mountain. Jesus knows the flaws of his chosen apostles, yet he trusts that these flaws do not spell the end of his mission. He entrusted his life mission to these twelve after he died and resurrected. He has chosen to love these twelve, made himself vulnerable, and despite their weaknesses, he continued to love them till the end of his life. However, this is not an easy task. I do not know the amount of pain, frustrations, and fear that Jesus might go through before choosing the twelve, but I know that Jesus spent a long time in prayer with God before he emerged with a firm trust in God’s will. I also know that this is the way God works with us. God calls us into relationship with Him, God redeems us from our bondage to sins, God works with imperfect people like us, and God made Godself vulnerable by choosing fallible people like us. Church is made up of people called by God, and also people with plenty of flaws. Church is a hospital for sinners not for saints. This is true even for the early churches during the time of the apostles. We will take a look at an infamous church, the Corinthian church. Corinth was a capital of Achaia (present-day Greece), a busy sea port, and converging point for trade routes. It was a prosperous city that was also home to more than a dozen pagan temples. Apostle Paul had built a church in Corinth and the Corinthian letters gave us good insight to the problems in the church.
Divisions in the Church
1Co. 1:10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. 12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Paul addresses the Corinth Christians as being called to be sanctified in Christ Jesus. After affirming his relationship with the Corinth Christians, he immediately jumps into the issue of divisions among them. Though they have been baptized in Christ, they are split over the authority of Paul, Apollos- an Alexandrian Jew (Acts 18:24), and Cephas- i.e. Peter. In their culture,
the pupils or ‘disciples’ of a secular teacher had to give exclusive loyalty to him. Traditionally they would engage in quarrels with rival pupils over the merits of their mentors who were also by tradition jealous of each other. Corinthians who were converted and baptized through the ministry of Paul, Apollos and Peter also perceived themselves in this secular way as their exclusive followers and likewise engaged in quarrels over the merits of Christian teachers. (D.A. Carson and Donald Guthrie, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, electronic ed. of the 4th ed., 1 Co 1:10)
Paul declares such loyalty as idolatrous. The rhetorical questions Paul asked are meant to be an emphatic “NO!” Paul is appealing the Corinthians to follow the Messiah and not his servants. Idolizing teachers or ‘charismatic’ speakers who seek the loyalty of ‘their’ members has always been divisive and disastrous for the Christian community. This appeal is based on the Christ Jesus whom they invoked for salvation (1:2). This appeal applies to all of us today.
Though apostles Paul, Peter and Apollos are not with us today, and we do not encounter the split over which of them is more authoritative, but we do have contemporary issues such as which translated version of the Bible is the purest, whether women can be ordained as minister, which worship language should be used, etc. which are causing churches to quarrel and split. The question I want to ask all of us to think about is this “Do we possess the truth?” I ask again “Do we possess the truth?” I am going to answer with an emphatic “NO!” I say that again “NO, we do not possess the truth.” It is TRUTH that possesses us. Let me repeat “It is TRUTH that possesses us, not us who possess the truth.” Do you see the difference here? To claim that we possess the truth is a form of idolatry. God is the embodiment of truth and cannot be possessed. God lays claim on us, God possesses us, and we are in the process of knowing more about God within the community, through God’s Word, and by cooperating with the Holy Spirit. We are finite creatures in the process of trying to comprehend the infinite mystery that has been partially revealed to us, thus our doctrines are fallible, or in the process of being reformed. When you substitute your doctrine in place of God and claim infallibility, that is idolatry.
Despite the fact that we are imperfect people and our knowledge about God is fallible, we know for sure that we are redeemed through the same blood of Christ Jesus, we are reconciled back to the same God through Christ Jesus, and we are filled with the same Holy Spirit, and we have experienced the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. These would be sufficient ground to embark our journey as pilgrims together. God is with us, and God has been revealed in stages. Since the day of the Pentecost, God’s Spirit has been poured out upon us.
The Coming of the Holy Spirit
Ac 2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.
The outpouring of God’s Spirit among God’s people is a continuation of the story that God has for us. The Spirit that enabled the early believers to speak in the tongues of other non-believers who came to Jerusalem for Passover is within us. Apart Jesus Christ who has reconciled us, the working of the Holy Spirit warms our heart to respond to God’s calling, the same Spirit enables us to recognize the voices of God in the Scripture, and the image of God in each other. The same Spirit is also at work among us to help us transcend our differences, and molds us for different functions in the church so that we could build the one body of Christ together.
Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we continue to exercise trust in God’s faithfulness, we continue to trust that God is with us, God is working among us through God’s Spirit. Look at Peter, though he denied Jesus three times, he repented, became one of the church’s pillars and eventually martyred for the sake of the gospel. James, son of Zebedee, asked to drink the cup that Jesus drank and became a martyr for Christ. John, also son of Zebedee, became of a church leader, took care of Jesus’ mother after Jesus’ death and wrote the Gospel of John and few other books in the Christian Scripture. Andrew went on to become a fisher of people for Christ. Philip eventually saw the Father through Christ. The doubting Thomas was reputed to carry the gospel to India, and founded the tradition of Mar Thomas Church which remains in India today. Paul the apostle who wrote the most number of books in the Christian Scripture called himself the worst of sinners in his epistle to Timothy (1 Tim 1:15-16).
Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we trust that God will work within us and through us when we continue to be open to God’s calling and leading. When we continue to be faithful to God’s calling, we will be able to testify as one body of Christ. In 1933, when Germany created their national church, they asked all German Christians to recognize the limit of the spiritual domain and to fully cooperate with their chancellor, i.e. Adolf Hitler. A group of German Christians retaliated. This group established the Constitutional Evangelical Church of Germany and insisted that “their unity could only come from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit.” (Jack Rogers, Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions, Louisville. KY: Westminster John Knox Press: 1985, 1991. p. 188). They drafted the Barmen Declaration in 1934 that denounces illegitimate tyranny and proclaims the lordship of Jesus Christ. They recognize only reliance on the lordship of Jesus Christ that gives them strength to be faithful to the Word of God. Fallible people? Yes. Imperfect church? Yes. But together as one community of people called by God, and through God’s Spirit and Word, we can choose to be faithful in our calling, and stand together as one body of Christ.
Final exhortation
Precisely because we are fallible and imperfect, we continue to hold on to God’s promise. We share our joys and tears, gifts and fellowship together, believing this is how we ought to share lives together. Whether we are elders, deacons, preachers, Bible study leaders, choir members, ushers, people in-charge of preparing fellowship lunch, or worshipers not holding any responsibilities on Sunday, we are all called into one body of Christ. Let us pursue our calling together. It is by sharing our lives together that we can continue to testify the work of God among us; that we can continue to find the moral strength to stand against any form of idolatry; that we can continue to be a voice for God in the world torn by strife, violence, and injustice; that we can continue to bear faithful testimony in family and in our working place. May we worship God in truth and in spirit, may the Word of God be faithfully preached and heard, and may the Holy Communion continue to remind us of God’s grace and faithfulness. Amen.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
圣誕節的源由
這是我在大波士頓臺灣基督長老教會 , 成人主日學1月3日2010年 所呈現的內容。
許多人在歡慶圣誕節的期間會知道圣誕節源于基督教。但是，圣經并沒記載圣誕節是在何時，只記載耶穌誕生在馬槽里，并有牧羊人看顧羊群。 "In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night." (Lk 2:8 NRSV); "在伯利恒的郊外，有一群牧人在夜間看守羊群。" (路2:8, 新譯本) 既然有牧羊人在看顧羊群, 曾么會是在中東的冬天呢？所以，我們需要追索歷史，了解圣誕節到原由。
（一）第三世纪末的教會所紀念的節期
最早的教會文件記錄，在第三世纪末，初期教會已在守以下的節期:
1.1）复活節 (Pascha)
1.2）聖灵降临節 (Pentecost)
1.3）主顯節 (Epiphany)
2.1）于公元后354年的一份羅馬文件顯示當時在羅馬的教會于公元后336年已定12月25日為耶穌的誕生日。
2.2）為什么是12月25日？有可能是基督徒嘗試取代非信徒在同一天歡慶"不被击败的太陽" (Unconquered Sun) 節日，就是白天在冬至后開始延長。
2.3）圣誕節逐渐地取代主顯節的地位。
（三）40天預備主顯節(Advent)
3.1）西班牙的一個会议会于公元后380年定：12月17日至1月6日（21天）沒有人可在教會中缺席。
3.2）高盧 Gaul (位于今天的法國與比利時) 的教會在五世紀實行40日預備主顯節。
3.3）羅馬教會最后定28日預備圣誕節。初期教會有四個比較有影響力的中心：羅馬 (Rome)，君士坦丁堡（今天的伊斯坦布爾）(Constantinople, i.e. Istanbul)，安提阿 (Antioch)，亞歷山太城(Alexandria)。亞歷山太城地位于埃及，在七世紀歸于回教版圖。安提阿隨后也在七世紀成為回教的帝國。羅馬與君士坦丁堡正式在公元后1054年斷絕關系。君士坦丁堡的東正教的勢力逐渐地轉向基輔(烏克蘭共和國首都)(Kiev, capital of Ukraine), 而后來的改革宗運動發自西歐羅馬天主教的地區。所以源于西歐的新教也普遍稱為基督教 (Protestant churches) 大多數后來都紀念圣誕節(12月25日)。但是要記得的是圣誕節是40天預備主顯節的其中一天。
（四）主顯節節期的意義
4.1）透過教會節期紀念耶穌的誕生與受洗(Epiphany)，受死與復活(Pascha)，圣靈降臨 (Pentecost)，是要提醒恩典是上帝主動給予我們，我們只能領受恩典并回應。主顯節節期(40 days of Advent), 四旬節 (40 days of Lenten), 五旬節 (50 days extending Easter celebration through the Day of Pentecost)，都是我們透過上帝所創造的時間，空間，及上帝所給于我們豐盛恩典來回應上帝的方式。上帝是主動者，我們是被動的主動來回應上帝。
4.2）節期所顯示來之于上帝的恩典是要宣稱基督還會再來，并印證圣靈在教會中的運行。教會的不同節期是種宣告(proclamation)及感恩(thanksgiving)。
4.3）主顯節節期 (Advent) 同時是感恩基督這份禮物也提醒我們要盼望他的再來。我們現在活在過去所發生的事件與將來所會完成的之間，就是 already but not yet 的概念。過去所發生的事件復合了我們與上帝的關系，同時圣靈在我們當中運行，上帝也與我們一同并行，至到基督的再來。
參考資料：James F. White, Introduction to Christian Worship, 3rd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000)
許多人在歡慶圣誕節的期間會知道圣誕節源于基督教。但是，圣經并沒記載圣誕節是在何時，只記載耶穌誕生在馬槽里，并有牧羊人看顧羊群。 "In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night." (Lk 2:8 NRSV); "在伯利恒的郊外，有一群牧人在夜間看守羊群。" (路2:8, 新譯本) 既然有牧羊人在看顧羊群, 曾么會是在中東的冬天呢？所以，我們需要追索歷史，了解圣誕節到原由。
（一）第三世纪末的教會所紀念的節期
最早的教會文件記錄，在第三世纪末，初期教會已在守以下的節期:
1.1）复活節 (Pascha)
1.2）聖灵降临節 (Pentecost)
1.3）主顯節 (Epiphany)
1.3.1）1月 6 日
1.3.2）紀念耶穌誕生
1.3.3）也有另一派認為主顯節是紀念耶穌受洗
1.3.4）無論如何，我們知道主顯節是在1月 6 日，為了紀念上帝透過耶穌向世人顯現 。
1.3.5）為什么是在1月 6 日？我們只能猜測。耶穌既然是在猶太人的逾越節 (Passover) 受死，有人主張瑪利亞應該也是在33/34年的同時被圣靈感孕。所以，耶穌應該是在1月誕身。
（二）主顯節怎樣演變成圣誕節? 2.1）于公元后354年的一份羅馬文件顯示當時在羅馬的教會于公元后336年已定12月25日為耶穌的誕生日。
2.2）為什么是12月25日？有可能是基督徒嘗試取代非信徒在同一天歡慶"不被击败的太陽" (Unconquered Sun) 節日，就是白天在冬至后開始延長。
2.3）圣誕節逐渐地取代主顯節的地位。
（三）40天預備主顯節(Advent)
3.1）西班牙的一個会议会于公元后380年定：12月17日至1月6日（21天）沒有人可在教會中缺席。
3.2）高盧 Gaul (位于今天的法國與比利時) 的教會在五世紀實行40日預備主顯節。
3.3）羅馬教會最后定28日預備圣誕節。初期教會有四個比較有影響力的中心：羅馬 (Rome)，君士坦丁堡（今天的伊斯坦布爾）(Constantinople, i.e. Istanbul)，安提阿 (Antioch)，亞歷山太城(Alexandria)。亞歷山太城地位于埃及，在七世紀歸于回教版圖。安提阿隨后也在七世紀成為回教的帝國。羅馬與君士坦丁堡正式在公元后1054年斷絕關系。君士坦丁堡的東正教的勢力逐渐地轉向基輔(烏克蘭共和國首都)(Kiev, capital of Ukraine), 而后來的改革宗運動發自西歐羅馬天主教的地區。所以源于西歐的新教也普遍稱為基督教 (Protestant churches) 大多數后來都紀念圣誕節(12月25日)。但是要記得的是圣誕節是40天預備主顯節的其中一天。
（四）主顯節節期的意義
4.1）透過教會節期紀念耶穌的誕生與受洗(Epiphany)，受死與復活(Pascha)，圣靈降臨 (Pentecost)，是要提醒恩典是上帝主動給予我們，我們只能領受恩典并回應。主顯節節期(40 days of Advent), 四旬節 (40 days of Lenten), 五旬節 (50 days extending Easter celebration through the Day of Pentecost)，都是我們透過上帝所創造的時間，空間，及上帝所給于我們豐盛恩典來回應上帝的方式。上帝是主動者，我們是被動的主動來回應上帝。
4.2）節期所顯示來之于上帝的恩典是要宣稱基督還會再來，并印證圣靈在教會中的運行。教會的不同節期是種宣告(proclamation)及感恩(thanksgiving)。
4.3）主顯節節期 (Advent) 同時是感恩基督這份禮物也提醒我們要盼望他的再來。我們現在活在過去所發生的事件與將來所會完成的之間，就是 already but not yet 的概念。過去所發生的事件復合了我們與上帝的關系，同時圣靈在我們當中運行，上帝也與我們一同并行，至到基督的再來。
參考資料：James F. White, Introduction to Christian Worship, 3rd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000)
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Good Preaching according to William C. Placher
I am a fan of William C. Placher, a Reformed theologian. Recently, he wrote a book The Triune God: An Essay in Postliberal Theology, and I came across few paragraphs where he described what good preaching is. Below is an extraction:
Good preaching involves helping a particular congregation think of how the biblical stories illumine the patterns of the world. So the prophet Nathan (a good preacher indeed) told King David nothing he did not already know about his betrayal of Uriah, but by putting David's life into the context of a story he enabled David to recognize the reality of his sin. Struggling at once with the text and with the world in which the congregation lives, the preacher attempts to show that that world fits into the biblical patterns and to deal with puzzling elements of both text and world. But for some listeners (on dark days, even for some preachers) the pattern does not fit. This is why we pray for "illumination" before the reading of Scripture: in the realization that only the inner testimony of the Spirit can enable us to see things in the pattern God intends.
Martin Luther King Jr. insisted that the arc of history is very long, but it bends toward justice. He did not, I am fairly sure, reach this conclusion simply by reflection on his own life experience or on the history of African Americans in the United States. The evidence there would have been ambiguous at best. Rather, he considered the biblical stories, in which darkness never closes out hope, exile is followed by return, and crucifixion by resurrection. Looking in the light of those stories at the history in which he was so important a participant, he could discern in that history a pattern like that in the biblical stories—a pattern he could not have seen without the illumination of the biblical texts.
On a much smaller scale, ordinary preachers sometimes face a tough task in a funeral sermon. Sometimes one can speak of accomplishments, and of family and friends who will treasure the deceased's memory. But suppose the old woman lived poor and died poor, had no family, alienated those who tried to help her as she suffered the bitterness of what may have been the onset of Alzheimer's. Those who would have remembered her kinder self preceded her in death. What comfort is there to speak at the end of such a life—unless somehow her life fits into a larger story that embodies God's will, and in which nothing that is good is ever lost. But, if one starts with that story, then the values of her life emerge, and imposing a Christian pattern does not seem to be a distortion. The resulting sermon might indeed be more authentically Christian than one devoted to praising worldly accomplishment.
-By William Placher, The Triune God: An Essay in Postliberal Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), pp.107-8.
Good preaching involves helping a particular congregation think of how the biblical stories illumine the patterns of the world. So the prophet Nathan (a good preacher indeed) told King David nothing he did not already know about his betrayal of Uriah, but by putting David's life into the context of a story he enabled David to recognize the reality of his sin. Struggling at once with the text and with the world in which the congregation lives, the preacher attempts to show that that world fits into the biblical patterns and to deal with puzzling elements of both text and world. But for some listeners (on dark days, even for some preachers) the pattern does not fit. This is why we pray for "illumination" before the reading of Scripture: in the realization that only the inner testimony of the Spirit can enable us to see things in the pattern God intends.
Martin Luther King Jr. insisted that the arc of history is very long, but it bends toward justice. He did not, I am fairly sure, reach this conclusion simply by reflection on his own life experience or on the history of African Americans in the United States. The evidence there would have been ambiguous at best. Rather, he considered the biblical stories, in which darkness never closes out hope, exile is followed by return, and crucifixion by resurrection. Looking in the light of those stories at the history in which he was so important a participant, he could discern in that history a pattern like that in the biblical stories—a pattern he could not have seen without the illumination of the biblical texts.
On a much smaller scale, ordinary preachers sometimes face a tough task in a funeral sermon. Sometimes one can speak of accomplishments, and of family and friends who will treasure the deceased's memory. But suppose the old woman lived poor and died poor, had no family, alienated those who tried to help her as she suffered the bitterness of what may have been the onset of Alzheimer's. Those who would have remembered her kinder self preceded her in death. What comfort is there to speak at the end of such a life—unless somehow her life fits into a larger story that embodies God's will, and in which nothing that is good is ever lost. But, if one starts with that story, then the values of her life emerge, and imposing a Christian pattern does not seem to be a distortion. The resulting sermon might indeed be more authentically Christian than one devoted to praising worldly accomplishment.
-By William Placher, The Triune God: An Essay in Postliberal Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), pp.107-8.
羅馬書 3:27- 4:17 因信稱義
這是我在大波士頓臺灣長老基督教會11月1日2009年第二次證道的大綱
羅馬書 3:27- 4:17 題目：因信稱義（二）
證道大綱
1) 讓我們來翻開圣經使徒行傳15:1-2.
2) 先解釋猶太人對律法的了解。根據改革宗家加爾文的解釋，律可以分為三種類型：道德的律，禮儀的律，及民法的律。
第一種類型道德的律可透過十戒來代表。前四條誡命的對象是上帝，后六戒的對象是人。加爾文認為前四條誡命奠定了道德的基礎。唯有對上帝有正確的敬畏與敬拜才能導致對上帝的義有正確的認識。當有人與上帝產生了正確的關系，人才能與鄰舍相處。所以，后六戒是建立在前四戒的基礎上。
第二種律是禮儀的律，這包括了要獻什么祭，要行割禮，要吃什么才能保持圣潔。加爾文認為禮儀的律在耶穌基督的到來就被廢掉了。耶路撒冷的大公會議也已經肯定了外邦人不需守禮儀的律， 除了祭偶像的物、和血、並勒死的牲畜。
第三種律是民法的律，這包括了有關土地，經濟，與審判犯人的律法，如第七年要赦債。這律跟地方及時代息息相關。所以，我們該維持民法的精神，如要照顧我們當中的窮人，要為無辜受害者伸冤。加爾文也認為民法是要限制人民進行非法勾當來破壞社會的次序與平安。
所以，基督徒今天要守哪個律呀？道德的律是建立在人與上帝和好的關系上， 所以我們要活出道德的律。禮儀的律已在耶穌基督的身上完成，所以我們不被禮儀所捆綁。至于民法的律，我們要實踐民法的精神，以致社會能享有和平與次序。
3) 交代了律法之后，我們來看保羅對因信稱義的教導。上個星期，陳約翰牧師向我們解釋若有人在一條誡命失足，就是犯了所有的誡命了（雅各2:10）。所以沒有一個人能靠著律法或行為稱義。若人不能因自己的行為稱義，那么沒有一個人可以夸耀什么。
4) 到了第四章，保羅就要針對猶太人對亞伯拉罕的了解。這牽涉到為什么猶太人認為外邦人若是要認識上帝，要過過圣潔的生活，就需要行割禮。行割禮究竟是什么時候開始的？創世記17:9-11.
亞伯蘭信耶和華、耶和華就以此為他的義。
這是在他行割禮之前，不是之后。亞伯拉罕因為信上帝，就因此被稱義。這觀念承托了保羅的神學思想。亞伯拉罕既然在割禮之前就已經被稱義，那么他也是外邦人的父親了。猶太人是亞伯拉罕的子孫，所以繼承了行割禮的禮儀。這樣看來，亞伯拉罕確實是外邦人也是猶太人的父了。
5) 那么律法還有什么用處呢？保羅在4:15 說道
因為律法是惹動忿怒的。那裏沒有律法、那裏就沒有過犯。
律法彰顯了上帝的屬性，更加顯示出我們的不足。若要與上帝合好，這只能純粹靠著上帝的恩典。這恩典不是我們賺取的，乃是透過上帝所賜給我們的信心來接受耶穌基督為我們中保。對于律法的功用，加爾文列下了三項：
6）今天，我們在這里的每一位信徒，都是亞伯拉罕的子孫。上帝在創世紀15已經應許他的后裔將如群星那樣多。如今，這應許已經落實了。我們就是亞伯拉罕的后裔。所以，我們不是靠行為稱義。我在神學院讀到有關教會歷史時，認識到原來以前有些來之歐洲的宣教士到了非洲土族的部落，看到部落的人不穿衣也不穿褲，吃飯時也不用餐具。當部落的一些人信主后，這些宣教士要求信徒一定要穿衣褲，不然就不是基督徒。因為這件事，信徒與非信徒之間起了很大的沖突。這些宣教士的教導已經違背了因信稱義的原則。今天，我們是否也是這樣？要求別人一定要這樣做，不然就不是基督徒？我們是否把我們的文化標注加在別人身上，然后再奉主的名說這樣才是基督徒？我們是否在違背因信稱義的原則？
若我們都是因信稱義，那確實是上帝的恩典，我們沒這么可跨的。上帝也透過耶利米先知說 "我要將我的律法放在他們裏面、寫在他們心上．我要作他們的 神、他們要作我的子民。"(耶31:33b) 律法的有很積極的功用。沒有律法，我們就不知道什么叫恩典。我們既領受了上帝極大的恩典，我們該回應我們上帝呢？今天是長執改選日。領受呼召的弟兄姐妹，你們會如何回應這莫大的恩典呢？我們在日常生活中如何回應恩典呢？
今天也是万圣节 (All Saints' Day)，是万圣节前夕(Hallowe'en) 的來源。万圣节提醒我們所信的上帝是活人的上帝，不是死人的上帝 (馬可 12:33)。亞伯拉罕的上帝，以撒的上帝、雅各的上帝，也是我們的上帝。那些已故的圣徒今天還活著，活在哪里呢？有人說是陰間，也有人說是一個不是我們知道的地方。我比較傾向麦拉伦 (Brian McLaren) 所說的，他們都活在上帝的記憶里，在新天新地時會與我們會面。
愿我們每一天的生活都是活在上帝的恩典中，因為信，我們能稱義，但愿我們也回應這浩大的恩。愿上帝祝福你們。
羅馬書 3:27- 4:17 題目：因信稱義（二）
證道大綱
| 3:27a沒有可跨的 | 4:1-2亞伯拉罕不能夸口 |
| 3:27b-28因為是因信稱義，不是靠行為稱義 | 4:3-8因為他是因信稱義，不是靠行為 |
| 3:29-30猶大人（受割禮）與外邦人（沒受割禮）因為信，歸屬同一位上帝 | 4:9-17 猶大人（受割禮）與外邦人（沒受割禮）因為信，所以都是亞伯拉罕的子孫 |
1) 讓我們來翻開圣經使徒行傳15:1-2.
有幾個人、從猶太下來、教訓弟兄們說、你們若不按摩西的規條受割禮、不能得救。保羅巴拿巴與他們大大的分爭辯論、眾門徒就定規、叫保羅巴拿巴和本會中幾個人、為所辯論的、上耶路撒冷去、見使徒和長老。
這展開了教會第一個大公會議的序幕。這大公會議在耶路撒冷。最后做出的判決如下，15:28-29因為聖靈和我們、定意不將別的重擔放在你們身上．惟有幾件事是不可少的、 就是禁戒祭偶像的物、和血、並勒死的牲畜、和姦淫．這幾件你們若能自己禁戒不犯、就好了．願你們平安。
這大公會議發生在保羅第一次佈道行程之后。在保羅的第二次佈道行程，寫了帖撒羅尼迦前書。里頭記載一般猶太人對外邦人的看法4:3-5神的旨意就是要你們成為聖潔、遠避淫行．要你們各人曉得怎樣用聖潔尊貴、守著自己的身體. 不放縱私慾的邪情、像那不認識 神的外邦人．
所以當你對比猶太人與外邦人，猶太人的道德標準是比較高的。2) 先解釋猶太人對律法的了解。根據改革宗家加爾文的解釋，律可以分為三種類型：道德的律，禮儀的律，及民法的律。
第一種類型道德的律可透過十戒來代表。前四條誡命的對象是上帝，后六戒的對象是人。加爾文認為前四條誡命奠定了道德的基礎。唯有對上帝有正確的敬畏與敬拜才能導致對上帝的義有正確的認識。當有人與上帝產生了正確的關系，人才能與鄰舍相處。所以，后六戒是建立在前四戒的基礎上。
第二種律是禮儀的律，這包括了要獻什么祭，要行割禮，要吃什么才能保持圣潔。加爾文認為禮儀的律在耶穌基督的到來就被廢掉了。耶路撒冷的大公會議也已經肯定了外邦人不需守禮儀的律， 除了祭偶像的物、和血、並勒死的牲畜。
第三種律是民法的律，這包括了有關土地，經濟，與審判犯人的律法，如第七年要赦債。這律跟地方及時代息息相關。所以，我們該維持民法的精神，如要照顧我們當中的窮人，要為無辜受害者伸冤。加爾文也認為民法是要限制人民進行非法勾當來破壞社會的次序與平安。
所以，基督徒今天要守哪個律呀？道德的律是建立在人與上帝和好的關系上， 所以我們要活出道德的律。禮儀的律已在耶穌基督的身上完成，所以我們不被禮儀所捆綁。至于民法的律，我們要實踐民法的精神，以致社會能享有和平與次序。
3) 交代了律法之后，我們來看保羅對因信稱義的教導。上個星期，陳約翰牧師向我們解釋若有人在一條誡命失足，就是犯了所有的誡命了（雅各2:10）。所以沒有一個人能靠著律法或行為稱義。若人不能因自己的行為稱義，那么沒有一個人可以夸耀什么。
以弗所書2:8-9你們得救是本乎恩、也因著信、這並不是出於自己、乃是 神所賜的。也不是出於行為、免得有人自誇。
連我們的信也是上帝所賜。既然人能被稱義是透過上帝所賜的信心，外邦人根本不需要借著行割禮被稱義。外邦人乃是透過上帝所賜的信心被稱義，那么外邦人與猶太人都歸屬同一位上帝。4) 到了第四章，保羅就要針對猶太人對亞伯拉罕的了解。這牽涉到為什么猶太人認為外邦人若是要認識上帝，要過過圣潔的生活，就需要行割禮。行割禮究竟是什么時候開始的？創世記17:9-11.
神又對亞伯拉罕說、你和你的後裔必世世代代遵守我的約。你們所有的男子、都要受割禮、這就是我與你、並你的後裔所立的約、是你們所當遵守的。 你們都要受割禮．這是我與你們立約的證據。
至此之后，敬虔的猶太人都有行割禮，特別是亡國歸回之后，更強調要行割禮。不行割禮就不能被稱義。亞伯拉罕是信心之父。他被上帝稱為義人，但許多猶太人認為是因為亞伯拉罕行割禮，所以是個義人。保羅本身是個跟隨耶穌基督的法利賽人。他深深體會到耶穌基督的死與復活已經否定人能透過行律法才能在上帝的眼中被稱義，他也知道根本不可能。所以我們要回到亞伯拉罕是什么時候被稱義的。是行割禮之前還是之后？剛才兒童說故事里，創世紀15:6 記載亞伯蘭信耶和華、耶和華就以此為他的義。
這是在他行割禮之前，不是之后。亞伯拉罕因為信上帝，就因此被稱義。這觀念承托了保羅的神學思想。亞伯拉罕既然在割禮之前就已經被稱義，那么他也是外邦人的父親了。猶太人是亞伯拉罕的子孫，所以繼承了行割禮的禮儀。這樣看來，亞伯拉罕確實是外邦人也是猶太人的父了。
5) 那么律法還有什么用處呢？保羅在4:15 說道
因為律法是惹動忿怒的。那裏沒有律法、那裏就沒有過犯。
律法彰顯了上帝的屬性，更加顯示出我們的不足。若要與上帝合好，這只能純粹靠著上帝的恩典。這恩典不是我們賺取的，乃是透過上帝所賜給我們的信心來接受耶穌基督為我們中保。對于律法的功用，加爾文列下了三項：
- 領我們歸向耶穌。因為律法就像面鏡子，顯示出我們的不足，促使我們懷抱上帝的恩典。
- 律法限制了人類的邪惡與泛濫，使社會能有條有理。這對不信上帝的人來說，是種恩典。
- 主要功用是要成為我們的導師，引導我們認識上帝的旨意，加深我們追隨上帝的意念。
6）今天，我們在這里的每一位信徒，都是亞伯拉罕的子孫。上帝在創世紀15已經應許他的后裔將如群星那樣多。如今，這應許已經落實了。我們就是亞伯拉罕的后裔。所以，我們不是靠行為稱義。我在神學院讀到有關教會歷史時，認識到原來以前有些來之歐洲的宣教士到了非洲土族的部落，看到部落的人不穿衣也不穿褲，吃飯時也不用餐具。當部落的一些人信主后，這些宣教士要求信徒一定要穿衣褲，不然就不是基督徒。因為這件事，信徒與非信徒之間起了很大的沖突。這些宣教士的教導已經違背了因信稱義的原則。今天，我們是否也是這樣？要求別人一定要這樣做，不然就不是基督徒？我們是否把我們的文化標注加在別人身上，然后再奉主的名說這樣才是基督徒？我們是否在違背因信稱義的原則？
若我們都是因信稱義，那確實是上帝的恩典，我們沒這么可跨的。上帝也透過耶利米先知說 "我要將我的律法放在他們裏面、寫在他們心上．我要作他們的 神、他們要作我的子民。"(耶31:33b) 律法的有很積極的功用。沒有律法，我們就不知道什么叫恩典。我們既領受了上帝極大的恩典，我們該回應我們上帝呢？今天是長執改選日。領受呼召的弟兄姐妹，你們會如何回應這莫大的恩典呢？我們在日常生活中如何回應恩典呢？
今天也是万圣节 (All Saints' Day)，是万圣节前夕(Hallowe'en) 的來源。万圣节提醒我們所信的上帝是活人的上帝，不是死人的上帝 (馬可 12:33)。亞伯拉罕的上帝，以撒的上帝、雅各的上帝，也是我們的上帝。那些已故的圣徒今天還活著，活在哪里呢？有人說是陰間，也有人說是一個不是我們知道的地方。我比較傾向麦拉伦 (Brian McLaren) 所說的，他們都活在上帝的記憶里，在新天新地時會與我們會面。
愿我們每一天的生活都是活在上帝的恩典中，因為信，我們能稱義，但愿我們也回應這浩大的恩。愿上帝祝福你們。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)