Love is ...

Swimming Back to Trout River by Linda Rui Feng is a novel that is set against the backdrop of the Chinese cultural revolution. It tells the story of the struggles of a Chinese couple in their marriage, in their own culture, and also in the American culture. I enjoyed the novel. It is easy to read although at certain points, I got lost with some of the characters but it also wasn't hard to get back on track. I like stories that have some historical cultural background details and they make the story come to life!

There are two quotes from the book that made me pause, ponder, and appreciate. The first one is "To love someone is to figure out how to tell yourself their story." To be able to tell someone's story, one has to know their story well before one can "connect the dots" of their life and to tell their story well. It is really the biblical injunction that love is patient, love is kind, etc. in 1 Cor. 13. One can only develop patience, kindness, etc. by knowing the other person well so one may be able to understand what triggers the other person to act the way they do. Instead of reacting towards what the other says or does, one can go beyond their surface behaviors and continue to engage with them. And often times, that is still not enough but one needs the empowerment by the Holy Spirit to love as Christ does. 

I would even extend the quote to read "To love someone is to figure out how to tell them your story." Love rejoices in truth, even truth of exposing oneself to another. Often times, it is not easy to be vulnerable to expose oneself so the other person can truly know us and love us.

The second quote I like from the book is "Love is a wound that closes and opens, all our lives". Often times, it is easy to dwell more on the open wounds than closed (but not fully healed) wounds between two people. Unfortunately, these wounds will open and close all our lives. Love that endures these opening, closing, re-opening, and re-closing of these wounds and learn from them will surely strengthen the bond between two people. But this kind of love is hard to sustain. We will most likely fail at times and hurt the ones that we love most. This is why the Eucharist is such a powerful reminder that Christ has overcome all our shortcomings! Only He can redeem and perfect our love for others!

Turn The Other Cheek

What I find very interesting about the movie Everything Everywhere All at Once is that there are so many biblical messages in it. Of course, some of the languages and images are not quite suitable for a general audience, but culturally speaking, if we can only see beyond the surface, the underlying messages can be so relevant to our world!

One of the messages I appreciate much from the movie is on how one ought to respond in face of evil. The Scripture is very clear on this ... turn the other cheek, love your enemies (Matt. 5:38-44), do good to those who hate you (Luke 6:27-36). But how does it really get lived out? What do you do when you are in a high conflict divorce situation? What does one do when you witness your family being tortured? Do these verses only apply when evil is done to oneself but not on others? The movie gives me an insight on how to interpret these biblical passages especially in the fight scene towards the end of the movie

when Evelyn was fighting Dierdre at the stairway. Evelyn was probably wrestling with Waymond's earlier advice to stop fighting and be kind to one another, but what does it mean when Dierdre was about to hit her with a deadly blow from? With one foot, Evelyn blocks the blow and, in the next moment, she follows up with the amazing quote to remind Dierdre that she is not unlovable. 

I don't think we are called to be a doormat that in the presence of imminent danger to our lives, we are to simply standby and just passively take the blow. At the least we need to defend ourselves to preserve the dignity that God has given us our physical body. The word "resist" in Matt. 5:38 is problematic. The word is in aorist infinitive tense. This means the word is often translated in the past tense so definitely should not be translated as "do not keep on resisting". However, it can denote something that will be accomplished in the future. (See ref.) How does one not resist the evil one even in the form of basic self defence? I think the practical answer is that the immediate reaction to defend is always going to be there but what follows is even more important. There is no innate fibre that is not going to react against violence done to us or to others especially close to us. We will always fight, resist, and even retaliate. But once that initial reaction of resistance is over, we need to think about how to turn evil into good and help others to do the same. That's what Evelyn eventually did in that fight scene ... helping Dierdre to "get good with our feet" no longer for violence, even defence, but for playing piano, turn fights into hugs, bullets into googly eyes, bomb into perfume, etc. The process is not simple but it does take creativity and imagination. There is always something to love even in the face of evil. We will no longer need to resist, and can even help our enemies to turn to good.

What is right?

I have always been fascinated by the question: What is the right thing to do? Who or what defines "rightness"? How can we know? Is there a "rightness" for all situations? Of course, there is a huge area of study concerning ethics but practically speaking, what does it mean to do the right thing in our day to day existence? 

Ian Provan wrote a book titled Seeking What is Right - The Old Testament and the Good Life. In biblical faith, Ian writes, "good" means "being like God in character and action"; its synonym is "holy". Doing what is right is often tied to our desire to a good life. However, when we think of "good", we imagine material wealth, physical health, justice and peace, etc. But that is not the biblical view of a good life. Life is also too complicated and unpredictable that doing the right thing often has little or no correlation even with a secular worldview of a good life here on earth. As Christians, we must hold on to the promises that there will be blessings and rewards, but for here and now, we may need to adjust our expectations!

The movie Everything Everywhere All at Once offers another perspective of what being right means. "Right is a small box invented by people who are afraid." When we are so concerned about doing the right thing, we can feel like being squeezed into a small box or walking on eggshells. We all have our own "Jobu Tupaki" although sometimes we can't even name it properly! (When Evelyn in the movie eventually can name it properly, she can then fight it!) We can let rules and let the "should" voices in our head dictate our lives. This can be taxing because doing rightly often involves struggles, assertions of our rights, and fights which are some of the running motifs in the movie and perhaps why Michelle was chosen to show off her Kung Fu skills!

But how long can one endure in our struggles and fights? In the movie, one can jump from one universe to another to acquire the best skills to keep fighting. But like Alpha Waymond, it is exhausting and he eventually dies! So, what is a better strategy? "I just talked to her." We fight because we are scared and confused. "When I choose to see the good side of things, I'm not being naïve. It is strategic and necessary", says CEO Waymond. Perhaps sometimes we need to look at the good side of things even in the face of evil. The movie does not tell us how to live rightly. The Scripture provides a much more comprehensive answer although the movie speaks powerfully about the futility of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, about being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, returning good for evil, etc.

Isaiah 11:6-9

I can't wait for the day that Isaiah has prophesied many years ago will finally come!  I love this painting by Reubens and Brueghe (1615).  The title of the painting is Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man. It depicts the state of affairs just before the original sin (when Eve was giving the fruit to Adam).  It is a taste of what is yet to come.  Come Emmanuel!  


⁶ The wolf will live with the lamb,
   the leopard will lie down with the goat,
   the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
   and a little child will lead them.
⁷ The cow will feed with the bear,
   their young will lie down together,
   and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
⁸ The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
   and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s
   nest.
⁹ They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy
   mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD
   as the waters cover the sea.

Thinking in Tongues

James Smith spoke at Regent College tonight on his new book, Thinking in Tongues, which just came out this Monday.  James is a Pentecostal and a philosopher so I was naturally drawn to his talk when I read the description of his talk "Pentecostal contributions to Christian philosophy".  What excites me most about his work is that he provides a framework for me to understand Pentecostalism, and perhaps really embracing it.  Up to this point in my life, having been attending Pentecostal churches for almost 10 years, everything I hear and experience seem to be just great ideas with not much of an anchor.  Without an anchor, and when questions and doubts kick in, it is easy to throw the baby out with the bath water.  How can I really know that the Pentecostal way of approaching God is sound?  How can I trust what the Pentecostal hears from the Lord is indeed God's word?  How do healing, experiences, spontaneity, Charismatic worship, etc. fit in with Christian doctrines?  Well James unpacks the elements of the Pentecostal practices in light of ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, language, science, and philosophy of religion.  He does this by developing a "program of philosophy" that is autonomous and true to Pentecostal commitments, and at the same time rich enough for thoughtful and deep engagement with philosophical questions. Suddenly, Pentecostalism is not just a bunch of great ideas floating in the air, nor simply ecstatic emotional experiences, but grounded in a paradigm of inquiry that allows much further and deeper discussions of important questions that are relevant to not just Pentecostals, but for all Christians.

More on this after I read the book!

Danger of Duplicity

I was just thinking how dangerous it is for Christians to pay only lip service in the confession of their faith. If we say we believe in Christ, but continue to live in sins without any remorse or conviction of our sins, we are basically believing in a God that we create ourselves. It will be a God that is totally different from the God in the Scripture. It will be a God of our imagination, and thus it will be a God who has no power, a God who cannot save. There is really no assurance of our salvation since this God is not real.

Is the world getting better or worse?

For Christians, the answer has to be positive one. The reason is that the Bible gives us a vision of what it is going to be like in the future, and if the future looks bright, there must be a progression towards it. It doesn't make sense to become progressively worse and then all of a sudden, everything turns around. The good news is that the future does indeed look bright, very, very bright.

Revelation is undoubtedly the place to go to in the Bible if we want to find out about what is in store for us in the future. Darrel Johnson notices that there are seven things that are missing in Revelation 21: no sea (i.e. no chaos), no tear, no coward / liar, no temple (the whole city is the temple), no sun or moon because God dwells in the city, no closed gate because this city is not a jail and there is no need to separate one from another, and no more curse. But there are seven things we find in this glorious future: God shall dwell among us, glory, creatureness / things / trees/ river / material where all things are redeemed, people (all God's peoples), creativity where all things are new, life where access to the tree of life is restored, and face of God which we shall all see.

We need to keep these visions in mind. This is our hope, our destiny, our future. The world is getting better, even though it is marred by small setbacks from time to time. There is good that is happening in politics, education, family, society, culture, technology, etc. There are obvious negatives in every facet of life, but if we can train ourselves to see God working through, redeeming all of creation, we can live with hope, certainty, and a new sense of engagement to participate with what God is doing in creating this bright future that He promises.

Missional Church

Everyone of us is called to be missional because God is missional. God is a sending God, and He is a sent God. And because God has united Himself with the Church, we are called to be missional. But the word can have many meanings to many people. Ross Hastings differentiated the words mission and missions. "Mission" is used to describe the sending God, it focuses on the "sentness" of the church, of God, and the people of God. "Missions" is reserved for witnessing to the unreached people. Most of what has been happening in North America, according to Ross, is not mission, may be some missions, but mostly cross-cultural partnerships where we can share our resources in third world countries.

A missional church is one that covers all three notions: mission, missions, and cross-cultural partnerships. It recognizes that our God is a God for humanity, loves humanity, a sent God who also sent His Son and His Spirit to us, and He is sending the church into the world. Thus it is both incarnational and pneumatic .. fully aware that God cares for the creation, people's vocation and location, and engages with the people, and fully sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

A missional church thus takes the great commission seriously. It also takes the great commandment seriously. And it takes the great creation and cultural mandate seriously. The last one comes from Genesis 2 .. that God regards all of His creation is good, indeed very good. And so we should too! But what does it mean to be a missional church in the 21st century? How can our churches take creation seriously? How can we begin to care for people as a whole being rather than just their soul?

Hans Urs von Balthasar

After mulling over chapter 6 from Balthasar's book Love Alone is Credible for almost two days, I think I finally have a faint idea of what Balthasar is getting at. From a casual reading of the chapter, it seems like any chapter extolling the love of Christ and His obedience to the Father for dying on the cross. But once I dug deeper into Bathasar's lifetime work on aesthetic theology (or theological aesthetic), I begin to see that he is trying to establish a theology in light of the beauty of God. It is not a theology of aesthetic where one tries to understand the nature of God in beauty. Instead, Bathasar's work is thoroughly theological and his goal is to integrate the beauty in our apologetics and understanding of God so others may be drawn to Him. We are to see the beauty of the Lord in all of life. He notes that "beauty catches men off guard. Men are powerless against it. It enraptures them" (Pearson, 2008). For Balthasar, beauty is the way to correctly interpret God's love, not through historical or scientific approaches.

The book Love Alone is Credible combines the theme of beauty in theology and divine love together. The Absolute Love of God, the beauty of God's love is indeed credible. But credible for what? For our salvation, for our understanding of God, our devotion to Him, for everything!

Hence in the first part of Chapter 6 of the book, Love as Revelation, Balthasar focuses on the love of Christ, his self-surrender for His friends, for the many, for all. His love for us on the cross is not coerced, blindly following God's command, but is due to an obedience for God born out of love. The love is also a trinitarian love from God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, as this love is poured into our hearts.

In the second part of this chapter, Balthasar focuses further on love as the motivating factor for Christ death on the cross. Whereas other theologians may emphasize on the judgment of God, the spiritual transaction between heaven and hell, and the propitiation of God through Christ death, (and these are all important!!), Balthasar focuses on the "fiery abyss of divine love". He points out that the covenants of the Old Testament can be easily withdrawn, by man or by God. But Christ's death signifies that even though God can reject humanity, in the end, he will save us, because of His infinite and absolute love.

Balthasar then moves on to caution us that it is natural for man to abuse this kind of love, but once we truly consider the infinite love of God, this love awakens fear in us. We are entrusted with a hope, so our love may soar, and we will hope for the salvation of all men.

Aesthetic theology is thus a theology grounded in God's beauty especially manifested in Christ's love. It is a love that is credible, a love that is potent, a love that can save us, a love that will motivate us to love the world.

Reference:

urs Von Balthasar, Hans. (2008). Love Alone is Credible. Cambridge:Eerdmans.

Pearson, Chris. (March 19, 2008). Von Balthasar, an Aesthetic Theologian.

How does Leadership for Christians look like in 21st Century?

We often hear from the pulpit how important it is for fathers to act as role models for our children so they can grow up to be strong leaders for tomorrow. While this may be true, and logically sound, it is interesting to read that "Those who study leadership tell us that the lack of a strong father figure is a commonplace in the backgrounds of great leaders" (Lewis, 200). These great leaders include William Wilberforce, Shaftsbury, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, Charles Simeon and William Carey, to name a few. Could it be the lack of father figure caused these men to over-compensate by becoming the powerful leader that they were?

Reference:

Lewis, Don. (September, 2000). "The Moses of these Israelites ... Courtier of Pharoah" Wilberforce and Shaftesbury as Evangelical Lay Leaders. Crux, XXXVI.

Is the Reformation Necessary?

Protestants claim that justification is by faith only and Christians are certain of their eternal destiny by their faith in the works of Jesus Christ on the cross, and His resurrection. But what kind of certainty is this? Do Protestants really have that certainty and simple trust that are founded purely upon Bible passages such as Romans 10:9 or Titus 3:5-7, or does it take a significant amount of will power to have that certainty that they blindly assume to have? The Catholic view, on the other hand, is that one needs to tremble before God, that the life of a Christian is nurtured by fear and eventual judgement. Through regular confessions, careful observations of the Eucharist, and following a strict order, the Roman Catholics seem to be have a narrower but clearer sense on how to live a devout life than the Protestants.  At least they don't seem to have a problem with the interpretation of the Bible.

The reformation has also been viewed as a tragedy because of the fragmentation of the Church.  Surely there have been gains in both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.  The former can point to the catechetical teaching, the strong expositional preaching, the long tradition and richness of hymnody in the worship service, and liturgical imagination.  The latter can point to the personal devotion (which can lead to individualism), the centrality of the Word, the cessation of corruption in the Roman Catholic church, and the explosive growth through mass evangelism.

"Catholic theologians and artists tend to emphasize the presence of God in the world, while the classic works of Protestant theologians tend to emphasize the absence of God from the world. The Catholic writers stress the nearness of God to His creation, the Protestant writers the distance between God and His creation; the Protestants emphasize the risk of superstition and idolatry, the Catholics the dangers of a creation in which God is only marginally present. Or, to put the matter in different terms, Catholics tend to accentuate the immanence of God, Protestants the transcendence of God."

But according to Hans Boersma, the greatest loss of the reformation is the sense of sacramental ontology, not just the sacraments, .. that the former integration of the world is now divided into natural and the supernatural.  That is, whereas all things, whether natural or artificial, were supposed to draw us to God as means of God's grace, after the reformation, we compartmentalize what is of God and what is not.  That's also why we also compartmentalize our faith ... Sunday is for God, the rest of the week is for the world.  

What has caused this de-emphasis on sacramental ontology?  Promotion of human power (especially of the pope and the Church) under Pope Gregory, the separation of Eucharist and the Church, discovery of nature through human reason as opposed to observance of the natural law, emphasis of Scripture over tradition or Church authority, rejection of the human nature and that supernatural grace is needed for salvation.

Geocentric and Heliocentric Models

Plato and Aristotle both believed in geocentric model - earth is the center of the universe. Ptolemy was the first one to give a detailed account of this model where the earth did not move, and half the stars were above the horizon and half were below, and all the stars (sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, etc.) move around the earth, and were equidistant from it. In 1953, Copernican posited that instead of the earth, the sun was at the center of the universe. He was soon joined by Galileo and Kepler. What I found interesting are:

1. The stars that looked equidistant from the earth, as Ptolemy believed, are actually a lot farther than he could have imagined. Because the shapes of the constellations did not change and seemed to be at the fixed position over the course of the year, he concluded that the earth could not have moved. But in reality, the earth moves and the stars are so much farther beyond our comprehension, (hence we are so much smaller in Ptolemy's estimation of the size of the cosmos). No wonder Pascal exclaimed: “When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space I fill, and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of space of which I am ignorant, and which knows me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather than there, why now rather than then?”


2. Having the earth at the center of the universe was not considered a privileged position in ancient times. The earth was considered to be "heavy" and it was the cosmic sump where the "universe's filth and ephemera collect". Having realized that the earth is not at the center of the universe actually elevates us to the position that we are no longer "excluded from the dance of the stars" as Galileo pointed out. So it is with us that sometimes we may have thought that being at the center of the universe is a privileged position, but it also carries its weight and filth that we may not realize!

Church History

Prior to 1500, the church age first underwent sever persecution within and without, under the hands of Nero, Diocletian, Galerius, until the time of Constantine when he became the first Christian emperor in 306 AD and transformed the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium to Constantinople, and remained the capital of the Byzantine empire for the next 1000 years. Although it was a time of convergence, the period after 1500 has been a time of fragmentation. There was religious division, the Thirty Years' War between the Protestant and the Catholic Church, religious diversity with many voices of confessions that needed to be clarified and defended, doctrinal retrenchment that made use of inductive and deductive principles to articulate demoninational doctrines and positions, and the emergence of rationality so there could be some common ground in the midst of the conflicts from different groups.

The Modern period soon followed the Enlightenment period, where there were a number of cultural reform movements in literature, politics, and society. With the aid of technology, the world experienced great economical diversification and mechanization in mass production. Unfortunately, as we are now in the Post-modern period, there is a great sense of discontentment, hopelessness, and narcissism.

What will be next chapter of the church age? Some believe that attention will shift significantly from Europe and America (as churches become more and more secularized) to the developing countries where Asia and Africa are increasingly sending more missionaries abroad each year. Our churches in North America have become less and less relevant to the world they find themselves in. Perhaps we are desperate in need of some foreign aid.

Music and the Church

The study of the evolution of music throughout the church history reveals a number of interesting facts about the changing Christian attitudes, church power and structure, theology, etc. As an example, in 1500's, only monks were involved in singing (or more like chanting) as a service to God. The chants were in Latin, and they were sung from memory. Everyone sang in unison, and if one made a mistake, he had to apologize to the other monks and to God. Everyone else was excluded in participation. Then soon, music was introduced, and the monks could not read music, so that further reduced the number of participants. It was Luther who believed that everyone should sing, and so he created a smaller repertoire of music and used the vernacular of the day in the music. But most people still did not know how to sing, so he had the children taught at school first, and have them stationed at different parts of the church to "lead" the adults. We can identify with congregational singing nowadays as we understand that we are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and we all have a duty to offer the sacrifice of praise to God.

Zwingli, who was the most musical of the reformers, felt that music was a distraction. To him, only the word was sufficient. The Council of Trent was similar in its view on music, where no instrument and no complex music are preferred but only chant. Others used music as a display of power. St. Mark's cathedral, in Venice, was such an example, with elaborate choirs and architectural structure. Just as music was a source of conflict among Christians in the past, so it is also in the present. What is interesting to me is a new sense of awareness of how knowledge can be a distraction in our worship. It seems that with a greater knowledge of music, there is also a greater tendency to be distracted by the technicality of how the music is played, the interpretation of the music in the service, the appropriateness of the particular music chosen, etc. Perhaps there is a reason why music should not be played in church service! But then, the same argument also applies to the preaching of the Word of God. Could this be the reason for the desert fathers?

Arthur Burk on Tithing

Arthur Burk brings up a number of interesting observations on tithing in one of his teaching CDs. He raises some good questions on how we come to tithe regularly on Sunday, who do we tithe to, and how the tithes should be used, etc. He challenges us to examine the Biblical models of tithing and to find creative ways in our own tithing within our own culture.

Arthur accurately points out that in 1 Cor. 16:1-2, the collection is for a gift to Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8,9), and not so much about a church tradition of collecting tithe regularly on "the first day of the week". Many tend to believe this is a model for churches to collect tithes regularly every Sunday. Arthur calls this a "mythology", and that there is no direct or indirect teaching in the Bible on how to give to the local church on an ongoing basis.

I tend to agree with Arthur on this. However, we should never read the Scripture and adopt blindly what has been done or not done in Biblical times to our day and age. Just because the Bible has no direct formula for giving to the church / God on a regular basis does not mean that we should abandon any routine or structure that has been put in place, and has been effective in church administration. Perhaps in our culture, it serves the church and the congregation better to have a regular weekly collection ... but perhaps not. I believe what Arthur really wants us to do is to examine whether we truly understand what tithes are for. So he continues ....

In 1 Cor. 9, the focus is on the sacrifice of Paul and his willingness to give up his rights he could have expected from the Corinthians. It is a picture of a leader who does not want to impose any extra burden on his people. Arthur again is correct that there is no mandatory requirement of the Corinthians to pay for Paul's ministry, even though this is his right, or applying to today's setting, for the congregation to pay for the church's ministries / pastor salaries, etc.

In Mal. 3:10, I agree with Arthur in his observation of the erroneous interpretation by many pastors in promising financial blessings that will follow if one were to tithe. Although no pastor will explicitly mention financial blessings, the problem is that blessings, in many other forms, even through suffering, are rarely mentioned, if at all! It is so true that in reality, as Arthur mentions, many sincere, obedient believers who tithe and yet see no difference, absolutely no benefits in their financial situations. "Tithing is not a one step cure for financial problems."

The most interesting part of Arthur's teaching for me is the observation he makes from Deut 12:17, and 14:22-29. Here tithes are for the giver ... mostly! In fact, 2/3 of the tithes goes back to the giver and 1/3 of the tithes goes to aliens, fatherless, and widows. Unlike Arthur, I am not so much interested in the allocation of the tithes and their uses but on the principles behind. In these two passages, the phrase "eat ... in the presence of the LORD your God" is repeated 3 times. It seems that tithes serve as an instrument for God's people to be in God's presence through the meals, so that they may revere Him and to rejoice in His goodness. This is surely quite different from how we understand what tithing is supposed to be! It is not for the salary of the priests, or the building, etc.

So what does it mean for us Christians nowadays? Our culture is so different from that of biblical times, and we need to reflect on what has been said above. We have nice church buildings, we have numerous programs and ministries, we have pastors and staff, etc., and none of these can exist without a system of management for the congregation to help maintain it. Christ died for the Church and whether she is effective or not in her ministries is not a deciding factor on whether we should support our local church or not. So even though there does not seem to be a model of regular collection in the Bible, we want to follow Christ's example to care and love the Church.

As to the question of whether we should use our tithes solely for the local church, I tend to agree with Arthur that blindly writing a cheque every week surely misses the point. Tithing to expect God to bless us more, even not in financial terms, is another big bad message from the pulpit! If we use our tithe so that we can truly be priests to the world (Exo. 19:5,6), and be agents of redemption of this world, then to me, it doesn't really matter whether this is done through the giving to the church, or for charities, or for a dinner with our neighbors (whether they are saved or not), or a book (secular or not) for ourselves that encourages us to greater intimacy with God and thus service to the world, etc. I hope this captures the essence of what Arthur is trying to say about the creative use of our tithes!

Arthur's website can be accessed here.

Constructive Evangelism

Constructive learning has been in vogue, especially in science education, for the last little while now. According to this view, meaningful learning requires the learner to be active in creating and modifying their knowledge structures, or preconceived ideas, rather than passively absorbing new information. The keyword is active. That's why most students and teachers do not find lectures particularly useful unless students are allowed to process the "inconsistencies" between what they know and what they hear. I find this insight in learning is especially useful in our evangelical outreach efforts. Christians like to preach. We are good at telling our stories, the four spiritual laws, etc. But for a non-believer, there is probably little they can connect with.

Thomas Cahill, in his book The Gifts of the Jews, (see my earlier post), describes Abraham's encounter with God in first hearing, then seeing, then questioning God, is an excellent example of constructive learning. In the process of creating and modifying his preconceived ideas of God actively, his understanding of Yahweh deepens.

Christians may do well to do likewise in our evangelism. We should provide opportunities for our non-believers opportunities to interact with the living God. Surely our stories, our message, our tracts, etc. do play a vital role in evangelism. But perhaps we should also encourage our non-believing friends to consider how God is actually active in their lives, and through God's dealings in reality rather than just theoretical or theological discussions, they may be able to reconstruct their new conception of who God really is. This I call Constructive Evangelism.

The Gift of the Jews

I enjoyed thoroughly this book by Thomas Cahill. There are so many areas of the Jewish tradition that we, as Westerners, are absolutely unfamiliar with that this book serves to shed much light in understanding the Bible. Cahill's insight into human nature, coupled with his familiarity with the ancient religions, history and culture, make this a valuable companion of the Bible. I will only highlight three points that Cahill makes that really strike me.

1. Nothing so quickly provokes the urge to sin as an extended meditation on virtue (p 148). Cahill is referring to how our human nature is actually so different from our virtuous / religious front. He quotes John Henry Newman: "It is religion itself which we all by nature dislike, not the excess merely." The Ten Commandments, which many associate with religion, or religious activities, or even God, basically show us how much we do not want to follow them, or any rules or regulations for that matter, and the more we are forced to obey these commandments, the more we want to rebel. That's exactly what the Israelites did with the golden calf and the orgies that follow as rules after rules were dumped upon them. No wonder we need a change of heart, a fresh realization that walking with God is more than just following a bunch of rules!

2. If you have more than you need, you are a thief, for what you "own" is stolen from those who do not have enough (p 214). This really strikes me hard ... Isaiah and Jeremiah, among others, speak about the injustice that have been done to other fellow beings. It is so easy to dismiss their prophetic voice because we hardly think that we have been unjust to those around us. But it is true that in this world's economy, if one gains anything, someone else must have lost something. And if I own more than I really need, I essentially have stolen from someone else!

3. It is no longer possible to believe that every word of the Bible was inspired by God (p 245). There are actually lots of examples that can be quoted ... such as the low value attached to woman in the Bible, the command to kill each other in the golden calf incident (Exo. 32:27) after God explicitly stated that Thou shall not kill, the mass carnages that proliferate many parts of the Bible. But Cahill does admit that the experience on which this story is based is inspired - that the evolution of Jewish consciousness, taking place as it did over so many centuries, was animated and kept warm by the breadth of God. We must be careful how we read the Bible!

Lakeland Revival

There has been quite a bit of controversial debate about the Lakeland Revival, whether it is real or not, scam or genuine, fact or fiction, God or Satan at work? The latest ABC Nightline report adds more fuel to the fire (accessible from YouTube) further raising the suspicion that Todd Bentley, the key figure in this entire episode, is but a snake oil peddler. There is really no easy answer to this controversy since we can neither say yea or nay of what God is really doing in these meetings, and neither can we say yea or nay whether Todd's motives and character are of sterling quality. We simply do not know and we should never judge anything just by their appearance. So some would say we should look at the fruit. Surely, some seem to be healed and some are not. But there are also some who receive blessings that are beyond the physical although, at the same time, some also come away from the meetings disappointed and disillusioned. Again, we cannot and do not know the whole truth simply by looking at these "external" fruits because God may continue to minister to them well beyond the meetings.

Those in Todd's camp should be careful of their extravagant claims. Although mentioned at times, it should be stated clearly and repeatedly that God may heal and God may not heal as most may expect in these services. It is devastating to give false hope to those who suffer. There is also no need to claim God's healing only when it is physically manifested. We should never "trap" God in a corner that He must heal. Healing does not need to be physical, even though it is sensational, and this is where a lot of the criticisms are made, and justly so. And healing does not mean it is always a sign of blessing. We tend to forget that suffering can be a blessing but our culture does not want to accept that. Bottom line is that those who claim God is performing the healing miracles should be careful of not reducing God to a genie in that He will always do the same for everyone, and those who claim Todd is fake should be careful of what God can accomplish even through him. Oh how we need to learn to be humble and esteem one another rather than tearing down each other.

The Shack

I have not been so moved by a fiction until I recently read this book by William Young. No wonder Eugene Peterson said that " ... This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!". I was immediately captured by the story line in the beginning, but right after that, I thought that this book may degenerate into just a book on Christian doctrines disguised within a story. I wasn't really looking forward to that since if I had wanted doctrines, I could easily turn to one of my reference books and get a good download. I did not need a story devoted to illustrating some Christian doctrines. But the book surprised me! It moved me beyong my wildest imaginations. I started the book on Thursday afternoon, and on Friday morning, I could not resist from finishing it. So before I got to work, I had to stop by a Starbucks to finish it. As I was almost to the end of the book, I just could not stop sobbing and my nose started to run. Yes, it was that good!

Anyway, the book does contain Christian doctrines, but it is packaged in such a way that it combines a story and doctrines to show how the Holy Trinity ministers to the characters in the story. It is extra-biblical but consistent with biblical principles and doctrines. I like how the book leaves it open whether it is really fiction or factual, or a bit of both. I would not be surprised that most of it is factual. I believe the way William describes how the Holy Trinity works is consistent with my beliefs on how the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit work in my life and in the lives of others. It is not a complete story but it surely gives a good glimpse of our triune God!

Themes in the Bible

When reading the Bible and when I ponder over decisions I need to make, I find it helpful to keep in mind these two major themes in the Bible: God's cosmic plan for the world, and His uncanny strategy to achieve this.

God's cosmic plan is to build a holy nation and a royal priesthood. This is found in Exo. 19:2-6, Isa. 61:6, 1 Peter 2:9, Rev. 1:6. God's plan to achieve this is through the suffering servant, prophesied in Isaiah 52 and fulfilled in the life of Jesus, and to be co-participated by Christians all over the world. It is through the bearing of each other's burden (Gal 5:1), enduring of hardships that come our way (2 Tim. 4:5), and through a life of denying ourselves and servanthood like Jesus, that we are to become priests and a holy nation for God, bringing humankind to God and revealing God's glory to the world.

Unfortunately, Israel in the Old Testament did not get this. They expected a mighty warrior like David to bring deliverance. That did not happen. They misinterpreted the promise in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 on how God will establish His Kingdom. Their hope then turned to the Maccabees and Bar-Kochba with their revolts during the inter-testament time. That did not last either. So when Jesus came, that was a real shocker. Are we Christians any different? Do we wish that some mighty deliverer will come to take us out of all our pains and sufferings, curse those who are against us, and vindicate us? God will eventually wipe all our tears (Rev. 21:4) but, in the meantime, we are called to take up our cross (Matt. 16:24) on earth just like Jesus. It is through partaking of Jesus' suffering that we can only begin to redeem this world. It's daunting to think how this really looks like in our daily living, and how we make our decisions in any matters!