Kong Beng adalah penatua gereja dan pekerja sepenuh masa dengan sebuah gereja di Subang Jaya. Beliau juga merupakan pengarah OHMSI.
Tahun depan akan menjadi suku abad semenjak saya menghadiri satu temuramah dengan panel penemuramah Komisioner Polis yang menanyakan saya satu soalan. Mereka bertanyakan pendapat saya tentang Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Dasar yang diperkenalkan sejak 1971 dengan matlamat untuk membasmi kemiskinan dalam masyarakat Malaysia.
Saya berterus terang dengan pendapat saya. Saya berkata bahawa saya menyokong polisi tersebut dengan objektif-objektif yang tertulis dan implementasi dasar tersebut masih tidak dilaksanakan dengan memuaskan.
Saya memberikan mereka beberapa contoh tentang implementasi dasar tersebut berikutan pengalaman saya dengan professor saya di USM. Kami juga berbual tentang perkara-perkara lain sebelum temuramah berakhir. Beberapa minggu kemudian, saya dipanggil untuk temuramah pengambilan jawatan dan kemudiannya meneruma surat untuk saya melaporkan diri ke Pulapol (Pusat Latihan Polis) untuk berkhidmat dengan Polis DiRaja Malaysia.
Setelah berakhirnya insiden rusuhan kaum 1969 di Kuala Lumpur, kerajaan pada masa itu memperkenalkan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) dengan serampang dua mata untuk “membasmi kemiskinan tanpa mengira kaum” dan “penstrukturan masyarakat untuk menghapuskan identiti kaum dengan kegiatan ekonomi”. Penggubal dasar tersebut berpendapat bahawa perpaduan nasional boleh dicapai apabila ketidakpuashatian antara kaum atas perbezaan sosioekonomi dapat dikurangkan.
Pelaksanaan DEB termasuklah Rancangan Rangka Perspektif Pertama (First Outline Perspective Plan) dari 1971–1990 dengan tujuan mengurangkan kemiskinan daripada 49% di Semenanjung Malaysia pada 1970 kepada 16% pada 1990. Hasilnya, walaupun kadar kemiskinan di semenanjung pada 1990 adalah 17%, kadar nasional adalah lebih tinggi sedikit. Melalui DEB, banyak yang telah dicapai. Tetapi banyak lagi yang boleh dicapai.
Saya berpendapat bahawa DEB telah membantu negara melalui matlamatnya tetapi dalam pelaksanaannya kita mendapati ianya dilaksanaan dengan sedikit berat sebelah antara kaum, seolah-olah hanya satu kelompok masyarakat sahaja yang miskin dan memerlukan bantuan. I
Baru-baru ini ada suara-suara yang dibangkitkan untuk menghapuskan dasar ini. Saya tidak bersetuju dengan pendapat tersebut. Saya masih percaya bahawa DEB dengan aspirasi murninya adalah untuk rakyat Malaysia yang miskin. Ini adalah untuk membantu mereka untuk berjaya meningkatkan taraf hidup setaraf dengan masyarakat umum, jika diberi sumber kewangan dan peluang untuk berbuat demikian.
Mungkin saya dipengaruhi oleh pengalaman sempit saya. Saya telah merasai kesan negatif DEB tetapi saya juga telah melihat kesan positifnya. Pada tahun pertama saya di kampus universiti, teman sebilik saya yang berasal dari Kedah datang daripada keluarga petani miskin yang setentunya tidak mampu menghantar beliau melanjutkan pelajaran sekiranya tiada DEB.
Pada akhir 1980, saya diberi penghormatan untuk melayan masyarakat Orang Asli dan saya mendapati bahawa DEB tidak membantu masyarakat tersebut. Sekiranya DEB tidak menjangkau orang-orang Asli pada akhir 80an, maka DEB juga mungkin tidak menjangkau majoriti penduduk miskin di kawasan bandar dan juga di Sabah dan Sarawak.
Saya percaya bahawa kita semua perlulah terus menyokong kedua-dua matlamat DEB dan memperbaik pelaksanaan dasar tersebut supaya yang miskin boleh dibantu dan masyarakat Malaysia boleh distrukturkan dengan jayanya tanpa dominasi mana-mana etnik dalam ekonomi negara, tetapi setiap kaum menyumbang kepada kesejahteraan segenap rakyat Malaysia.
Selamat Hari Kemerdekaan ke-50 kepada semua yang menyambut pembentukan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan Selamat Hari Malaysia pada 16 September apabila kita menyambut ulangtahun ke-44 pembentukan Persekutuan Malaysia dengan saudara kita di Sabah dan Sarawak.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Hospitality
"As sad as I am about the state of my hospitality department, I don't think it's just me. For our society as a whole, hospitality seems to be a relic from another era, gone the way of Tupperware parties and June Cleaver. We're busy, for one thing, and this hospitality business takes time. Sure, there are many more shortcuts to food preparation these days, but there's no such thing as drive-thru hospitality. And if I'm perfectly honest, face-to-face hospitality can be downright intimidating. I feel vulnerable when I let people see the dust bunnies in the corner of my living room, when I let them taste my attempt at dinner, and perhaps most of all, when I let them into a part of myself.
So why bother? I have a backlog of excuses to cover every day plus leap year, and I could get over the disappointment of failing to carry on a generational trait. But what I can't shrug off so easily is the thread of hospitality woven throughout the Gospels—especially in Jesus' life. I'm astonished at how many times Jesus gave his important theological messages not from a pulpit or at the temple or in a scholarly tome, but at a supper table. Sure, there were occasions when he preached at religious venues (Mark 1:21-22) or gave sermons to the masses (Matthew 5). But the bulk of his ministry seemed to take place in intimate dinner settings, in the homes of friends. He kicked off his first miracle at a wedding reception (John 2), he went to dinner at Zacchaeus's house (Luke 19), and he ate with a bunch of Matthew's friends (Matthew 9). Of all the things he was accused of, one of the recurring complaints was the company he kept for dinner (Mark 2:16).
Even on Jesus' last night, when you'd think he might be ironing out some last-minute theological issues with his followers about eschatology or predestination, he chose instead to have dinner with his friends (Matthew 26:17-30). And even as they were eating, he reminded them this Last Supper wasn't really the end—there would be an eternal dinner party to look forward to someday (verse 29).
Of all the pictures Jesus could have painted to explain heaven, he chose the intimacy and joy of a communal table. It should be no wonder, then, that there's something sacred about inviting people into our homes for a meal. It's hard to pinpoint the connection that takes place over the passing of casseroles and the lingering over dessert and coffee, but that interaction just might be every bit as "spiritual" as reading a commentary or spending an extra twenty minutes in quiet time. In some mysterious way, the dinner table serves as a catalyst for an everyday miracle, a tangible expression of grace.
So when my favorite excuses pop up for rationalizing away hospitality (I'm too busy, I'm not my grandmother, I'm not sure people really want to come, I'm afraid it will be awkward), perhaps I need to be reminded that my role model in this hospitality gig isn't Martha Stewart; it's Jesus. Hospitality isn't really about the physical interactions around the table with food and flatware settings (although those things certainly have their place). On a deeper level, it's more about the spiritual transactions that occur within the context of a shared home and a common meal. By this I don't necessarily mean evangelism, although that may be part of it. More than that, I want the people who cross the threshold of my home to experience a taste of Christ before they leave: a word of encouragement, a listening grace, the warmth of acceptance, an attempt at unconditional love." -- The Theology of Huckleberry Pie
So why bother? I have a backlog of excuses to cover every day plus leap year, and I could get over the disappointment of failing to carry on a generational trait. But what I can't shrug off so easily is the thread of hospitality woven throughout the Gospels—especially in Jesus' life. I'm astonished at how many times Jesus gave his important theological messages not from a pulpit or at the temple or in a scholarly tome, but at a supper table. Sure, there were occasions when he preached at religious venues (Mark 1:21-22) or gave sermons to the masses (Matthew 5). But the bulk of his ministry seemed to take place in intimate dinner settings, in the homes of friends. He kicked off his first miracle at a wedding reception (John 2), he went to dinner at Zacchaeus's house (Luke 19), and he ate with a bunch of Matthew's friends (Matthew 9). Of all the things he was accused of, one of the recurring complaints was the company he kept for dinner (Mark 2:16).
Even on Jesus' last night, when you'd think he might be ironing out some last-minute theological issues with his followers about eschatology or predestination, he chose instead to have dinner with his friends (Matthew 26:17-30). And even as they were eating, he reminded them this Last Supper wasn't really the end—there would be an eternal dinner party to look forward to someday (verse 29).
Of all the pictures Jesus could have painted to explain heaven, he chose the intimacy and joy of a communal table. It should be no wonder, then, that there's something sacred about inviting people into our homes for a meal. It's hard to pinpoint the connection that takes place over the passing of casseroles and the lingering over dessert and coffee, but that interaction just might be every bit as "spiritual" as reading a commentary or spending an extra twenty minutes in quiet time. In some mysterious way, the dinner table serves as a catalyst for an everyday miracle, a tangible expression of grace.
So when my favorite excuses pop up for rationalizing away hospitality (I'm too busy, I'm not my grandmother, I'm not sure people really want to come, I'm afraid it will be awkward), perhaps I need to be reminded that my role model in this hospitality gig isn't Martha Stewart; it's Jesus. Hospitality isn't really about the physical interactions around the table with food and flatware settings (although those things certainly have their place). On a deeper level, it's more about the spiritual transactions that occur within the context of a shared home and a common meal. By this I don't necessarily mean evangelism, although that may be part of it. More than that, I want the people who cross the threshold of my home to experience a taste of Christ before they leave: a word of encouragement, a listening grace, the warmth of acceptance, an attempt at unconditional love." -- The Theology of Huckleberry Pie
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
One Race Two Set of Views
An interesting article in the Star.
These are bits and pieces of the article, especially on the G2 group, which I believe most of my readers belong to.
These are bits and pieces of the article, especially on the G2 group, which I believe most of my readers belong to.
............................
According to Sim, who is also deputy chairman of the MCA think-tank Insap, anyone who wishes to understand the Chinese social and political sentiment has to first understand the Chinese who subscribe to the concept of the three pillars (G1) for the simple reason that they make up 85-90% of the 6.5 million Chinese in the country. The remaining 10-15% are, for want of a better term, referred to as the English-speaking group (G2).
The G2 encompasses those who are not Chinese-educated; they speak English and include a large number of Christians, the peranakan and also those who are part of the Lions and Rotary Clubs set.
People often talk about the Chinese as though they are one homogenous entity but they are not,” said Soong.
But the G2 who send their children to Chinese schools do so for largely pragmatic reasons. They think these schools offer a better standard of teaching and that it is useful to learn an additional language. Besides, the G2 are more likely to read English and Malay papers than Chinese papers and their social life and networking do not revolve around the traditional Chinese associations.
“Their ideas of governance, democracy, role of the media and even elections are influenced by the West, namely Britain and the United States. They like to say these are universal ideals even though half the world does not subscribe to the way the Americans and British think,” said Soong.
Soong said the G2 are issue-oriented. They are influenced by issues and their votes swing from one election to another. They are mostly middle-class, articulate and prone to take issues to the press and in recent years into the Internet.
The Chinese, it is often said, are quite inscrutable about their politics but not this group. They are not afraid to air their political views or who they will vote for.
“They are so articulate about their grievances that people think, ‘oh dear, the entire Chinese community is upset’. But actually, their views reflect mainly those in this English-speaking group,” said Soong.
The Christians in the G2 are particularly concerned about the issue of Islamic state. The survival of the common law and the secular state is very important to this group because it guarantees their modern lifestyle and for the Christians, the freedom to practise their faith.
“Their fears about the Islamic State is very real and emotional because they see it as a threat to Christianity. The fear comes from deep in the gut,” she said.
According to Sim, who is also deputy chairman of the MCA think-tank Insap, anyone who wishes to understand the Chinese social and political sentiment has to first understand the Chinese who subscribe to the concept of the three pillars (G1) for the simple reason that they make up 85-90% of the 6.5 million Chinese in the country. The remaining 10-15% are, for want of a better term, referred to as the English-speaking group (G2).
The G2 encompasses those who are not Chinese-educated; they speak English and include a large number of Christians, the peranakan and also those who are part of the Lions and Rotary Clubs set.
People often talk about the Chinese as though they are one homogenous entity but they are not,” said Soong.
But the G2 who send their children to Chinese schools do so for largely pragmatic reasons. They think these schools offer a better standard of teaching and that it is useful to learn an additional language. Besides, the G2 are more likely to read English and Malay papers than Chinese papers and their social life and networking do not revolve around the traditional Chinese associations.
“Their ideas of governance, democracy, role of the media and even elections are influenced by the West, namely Britain and the United States. They like to say these are universal ideals even though half the world does not subscribe to the way the Americans and British think,” said Soong.
Soong said the G2 are issue-oriented. They are influenced by issues and their votes swing from one election to another. They are mostly middle-class, articulate and prone to take issues to the press and in recent years into the Internet.
The Chinese, it is often said, are quite inscrutable about their politics but not this group. They are not afraid to air their political views or who they will vote for.
“They are so articulate about their grievances that people think, ‘oh dear, the entire Chinese community is upset’. But actually, their views reflect mainly those in this English-speaking group,” said Soong.
The Christians in the G2 are particularly concerned about the issue of Islamic state. The survival of the common law and the secular state is very important to this group because it guarantees their modern lifestyle and for the Christians, the freedom to practise their faith.
“Their fears about the Islamic State is very real and emotional because they see it as a threat to Christianity. The fear comes from deep in the gut,” she said.
...................................
Questions to ponder
How different is G1 from G2 despite of their socio-political differences?
Is the description of G2, "they speak English and include a large number of Christians, the peranakan and also those who are part of the Lions and Rotary Clubs set" a gross generalisation?
Is G2 influenced by Western ideals more than G1? What ideals do G1 suscribe to?
Do the concerns of G2 irrelevant to the wider Chinese population? How can we champion issues of importance and making them relevant to the wider Chinese community?
Should the fear of an Islamic state driven by economic reasons rather than ideological?
Do we really fear having a theocratic state?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Terpujilah Allah
"TUHAN telah melakukan perkara besar kepada kita, maka kita bersukacita." (Mazmur 126:3)
Terpujilah Allah, hikmat-Nya besar;
begitu kasih-Nya 'tuk dunia cemar,
sehingga dib'rilah Puteranya Kudus
mengangkat manusia serta menebus.
Ref:
Pujilah, pujilah! Buatlah dunia,
bergemar, bergemar mendengar suara-Nya.
Datang pada Allah m'lalui Putra-Nya,
b'ri puji pada-Nya sebab hikmat-Nya
Dan darah Anak-Nyalah yang menebus
mereka yang yakin 'kan janji kudus;
dosanya betapapun juga keji,
dihapus oleh-Nya, dibasuh bersih.
Tiada terukur besar hikmat-Nya;
Penuhlah hatiku sebab Anak-Nya.
Dan amatlah k'lak hati kita senang,
melihat Sang Kristus di sorga cerlang.
-- Fanny Crosby
Terpujilah Allah, hikmat-Nya besar;
begitu kasih-Nya 'tuk dunia cemar,
sehingga dib'rilah Puteranya Kudus
mengangkat manusia serta menebus.
Ref:
Pujilah, pujilah! Buatlah dunia,
bergemar, bergemar mendengar suara-Nya.
Datang pada Allah m'lalui Putra-Nya,
b'ri puji pada-Nya sebab hikmat-Nya
Dan darah Anak-Nyalah yang menebus
mereka yang yakin 'kan janji kudus;
dosanya betapapun juga keji,
dihapus oleh-Nya, dibasuh bersih.
Tiada terukur besar hikmat-Nya;
Penuhlah hatiku sebab Anak-Nya.
Dan amatlah k'lak hati kita senang,
melihat Sang Kristus di sorga cerlang.
-- Fanny Crosby
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Was Jesus Political?
A fellow online friend who is seminary lecturer spoke in an event "Was Jesus Political?" last Friday. Was quite an interactive event with attendance of 300. Check that out.
"In antiquity, according to Aristotle, politics is understood in the broad sense in which the objective is to realise the idea of a good life of a community within a city. On the other hand, politics can also be understood in the narrow sense as an art of gaining and maintaining power. I prefer to engage my reflection on the political Jesus in the broad sense. I use political to mean relating to public, state, or civil affairs. As such by “political” I do not mean that Jesus was thinking in terms of forming political parties or launching a revolt against Rome or Jerusalem. By “political” I propose to reconsider the historical Jesus as someone who has a mission to the nation of Israel in calling her to repentance in light of the coming judgment of God." -- Kar Yong
Another friend, Steven wrote a wonderful piece "The Tension of Religious Pluralism1 Post September 11: In Search for a Model for Dialogue between Christianity and Islam in Malaysia", speaking of his thoughts and experiences in interfaith dialogue in a Malaysian context. In search for a workable relationship between Christianity and Islam in Malaysia, he proposes that Malaysians can model "peace among religions" which may lead to "peace among nations".
"there is no peace among nations without peace among the religions, there is no peace among the religion without dialogue between the religions, there can be no dialogue between the religions without serious research into the foundations of the religions." -- Hans Küng
"In antiquity, according to Aristotle, politics is understood in the broad sense in which the objective is to realise the idea of a good life of a community within a city. On the other hand, politics can also be understood in the narrow sense as an art of gaining and maintaining power. I prefer to engage my reflection on the political Jesus in the broad sense. I use political to mean relating to public, state, or civil affairs. As such by “political” I do not mean that Jesus was thinking in terms of forming political parties or launching a revolt against Rome or Jerusalem. By “political” I propose to reconsider the historical Jesus as someone who has a mission to the nation of Israel in calling her to repentance in light of the coming judgment of God." -- Kar Yong
Another friend, Steven wrote a wonderful piece "The Tension of Religious Pluralism1 Post September 11: In Search for a Model for Dialogue between Christianity and Islam in Malaysia", speaking of his thoughts and experiences in interfaith dialogue in a Malaysian context. In search for a workable relationship between Christianity and Islam in Malaysia, he proposes that Malaysians can model "peace among religions" which may lead to "peace among nations".
"there is no peace among nations without peace among the religions, there is no peace among the religion without dialogue between the religions, there can be no dialogue between the religions without serious research into the foundations of the religions." -- Hans Küng
Thursday, September 13, 2007
What does merdeka mean to you?
Hearing about stories of the brutality and the oppression by the colonialists during the pre-independence era can be heart-wrenching. Norhayati Kaprawi added (adaption mine),
"However as an activist, it is sad to think that although the fear of colonialist may no longer be there, fear nevertheless remains.
Fear that draconian laws are used againsts us, fear for the fate of the future generations if narrow divisive ideologies continues to be imposed unchecked.
Fear that if our leaders and fellow citizens do not deeply desire a country that's inclusive, compassionate, tolerant and respectful of each other's rights and dignity, then we give room to those who are exclusivist, intolerant and do not wish to uphold the Constitution, and who completely disregard human rights to determine the future of Malaysia.
"However as an activist, it is sad to think that although the fear of colonialist may no longer be there, fear nevertheless remains.
Fear that draconian laws are used againsts us, fear for the fate of the future generations if narrow divisive ideologies continues to be imposed unchecked.
Fear that if our leaders and fellow citizens do not deeply desire a country that's inclusive, compassionate, tolerant and respectful of each other's rights and dignity, then we give room to those who are exclusivist, intolerant and do not wish to uphold the Constitution, and who completely disregard human rights to determine the future of Malaysia.
So to be merdeka is to be free from fear"
Monday, September 10, 2007
Prayer for the Last Quarter of MBChB 2
Lord,
May your wisdom be my embrace.
May your presence be my comfort.
May your strengh be my vigour.
May your suffering be my sustenance.
May your love be my compassion.
May your joy be my source of outflowing love.
Amen
May your wisdom be my embrace.
May your presence be my comfort.
May your strengh be my vigour.
May your suffering be my sustenance.
May your love be my compassion.
May your joy be my source of outflowing love.
Amen
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Theological Propositions about Missional Community
1. God not an advocate for community, God is a community
The Trinity is a loving community of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since human beings are created in the image of the Trinitarian God, we having an aching and longing to belong to someone, cliques, a land, organizations, ideologies or community. Our search for belonging, purpose and significance in life can be found in communities of Christ, living together for a greater purpose for God's Kingdom.
Christian community is a Christ-centred, loving community that celebrates and accepts individuals for who they are, their strength and their weaknesses. The christian faith and the gospel message is best lived and portrayed in a community
2. Our God is Incarnational
Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. Instead he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross. Then God gave Christ the highest place and honored his name above all others. (Phi 2:6-9)
The Word became a human being and lived here with us. We saw his true glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. From him all the kindness and all the truth of God have come down to us. (Joh 1:14)
The story of God becoming man is ridiculous to some. Jesus is the not only a perfect example of incarnation, He is the incarnation, the living Word. It inspired many missionaries to leave their home country, culture, wealth, career and education to become nothing, and moved into a new people. As Christ lived out incarnationally, so do we live incarnationally in our world. The debates of the doctrine of Christ incarnation in the early councils becomes practical and contextual when we actually live out what we believe.
It is the same for my flatmate, Mel as well. Despite living nearby in Mount Eden with her family not having to pay a single cent for her living, she chose to work more than 20 hours on minimum wage per week (plus study and church commitments) so that she can afford to flat out in this missional flatting in the inner city and experience what it is like to be paid meagrely (as experienced by the poor and the migrants).
She abandoned her suburban white Kiwi-comfort, paying almost $200 per week to live in a small apartment with full of international neighbours speaking all-sorts of weird sounding english, sharing life and friendship with people she’s reaching out to. Its beyond getting out of her comfort zone, its actually bursting her comfort bubble.
3. Our God is Missional
God is actively involved in human history in creation, the fall, the redemption by Christ and the second coming, and a creation of a New Heaven and New Earth. The church, which consists of Christ-followers, is bride of Christ and the heroin of the dramatic plan and act of God.
The Cultural Mandate, "Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it.." (Gen 1:22), the Great Commandment 'loving God and loving neighbours wholeheartedly (Lk 10:27)', and the Great Commission, making, baptizing and teaching disciples (Mt 28:18-20)' when taken literally (or metaphorically?) require obedience.
The Trinity is a loving community of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since human beings are created in the image of the Trinitarian God, we having an aching and longing to belong to someone, cliques, a land, organizations, ideologies or community. Our search for belonging, purpose and significance in life can be found in communities of Christ, living together for a greater purpose for God's Kingdom.
Christian community is a Christ-centred, loving community that celebrates and accepts individuals for who they are, their strength and their weaknesses. The christian faith and the gospel message is best lived and portrayed in a community
2. Our God is Incarnational
Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. Instead he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross. Then God gave Christ the highest place and honored his name above all others. (Phi 2:6-9)
The Word became a human being and lived here with us. We saw his true glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. From him all the kindness and all the truth of God have come down to us. (Joh 1:14)
The story of God becoming man is ridiculous to some. Jesus is the not only a perfect example of incarnation, He is the incarnation, the living Word. It inspired many missionaries to leave their home country, culture, wealth, career and education to become nothing, and moved into a new people. As Christ lived out incarnationally, so do we live incarnationally in our world. The debates of the doctrine of Christ incarnation in the early councils becomes practical and contextual when we actually live out what we believe.
It is the same for my flatmate, Mel as well. Despite living nearby in Mount Eden with her family not having to pay a single cent for her living, she chose to work more than 20 hours on minimum wage per week (plus study and church commitments) so that she can afford to flat out in this missional flatting in the inner city and experience what it is like to be paid meagrely (as experienced by the poor and the migrants).
She abandoned her suburban white Kiwi-comfort, paying almost $200 per week to live in a small apartment with full of international neighbours speaking all-sorts of weird sounding english, sharing life and friendship with people she’s reaching out to. Its beyond getting out of her comfort zone, its actually bursting her comfort bubble.
3. Our God is Missional
God is actively involved in human history in creation, the fall, the redemption by Christ and the second coming, and a creation of a New Heaven and New Earth. The church, which consists of Christ-followers, is bride of Christ and the heroin of the dramatic plan and act of God.
The Cultural Mandate, "Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it.." (Gen 1:22), the Great Commandment 'loving God and loving neighbours wholeheartedly (Lk 10:27)', and the Great Commission, making, baptizing and teaching disciples (Mt 28:18-20)' when taken literally (or metaphorically?) require obedience.
Friday, September 07, 2007
A Mighty Fortress is Our God
A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.
Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God's own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.
And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.
That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God's truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.
Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott (1531), Martin Luther
(This translation by Frederic Hedge, 1853)
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.
Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God's own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.
And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.
That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God's truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.
Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott (1531), Martin Luther
(This translation by Frederic Hedge, 1853)
Satire of Anti-Intellectualism
Struggling with Intellectual Masturbation
Most men struggle at some time in their lives with intellectual thoughts. Contrary to popular perception, even women can become ensnared by intelligent thinking. We all go through that phase where we suddenly discover we have brains and we can think! From there we can be tempted to entertain all kinds of philosophical questions, and some even begin to think seriously about exegetical issues.
First, let me say, it is normal to have a brain and to want to think intellectual thoughts. God gave us a brain. The danger is when we start thinking for ourselves and using that intellectual power to seriously consider big questions about life and God, or (worse) when we start applying that intellect to our study of the Bible. So here's some advice for anyone struggling with this.
1. Don't be on your own with the TV. You know what it's like -- you're flicking channels late at night and on Discovery is some documentary or other. You justify it to yourself, saying you're just naturally curious, but pretty soon you are having rational thoughts from which you just can't get away.
2. Try to avoid walking through parts of town where you might have to pass bookstores or libraries. I remember as a teenager the lure of commentaries and concordances. Walking home from work or school, try a route that takes you past a fundamentalist church instead, even if it takes five minutes longer. It's worth it!
3. Have a block on all junk mail in your e-mail account. I have lost track of the number of young men I have counselled who were first drawn into these practices by an innocent-looking e-mail inviting them to subscribe to a theology forum or visit a website containing 'reviews' and 'articles' by 'scholars'.
4. Be accountable. If you are feeling a strong desire to think through a given topic (eg. a doctrine) sensibly and rationally (first thing in the morning and last thing at night are the most common times), talk to someone. Have them recite prooftexts to you. 1 Corinthians 2 is the most helpful.
5. Don't let yourself be exposed to material of a scholarly nature. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just one quick look at a Bible commentary won't hurt, or that a peek at a book by a liberal will be harmless. Often it just becomes a stepping stone onto other, far worse material that may draw on tradition, philosophy and, at times, common sense. It may begin with a seemingly inoccuous trip to a secular bookstore, but it rarely ends there.
You may experience nocturnal 'intellectualisms'. You may awake in the morning to find you have unwittingly had thoughts of a theological or even philosophical nature during the night. This is a normal occurrence, and ought not to be feared. Alas, we are part of a fallen world where these things happen.
For parents who suspect their children may be involved in intellectual activity, do not panic. It is a normal part of growing up. They may discover at a young age that their intellect can be stimulated through the use of books and the like. They may try to engage friends in mutual debate or conversation. I still remember my natural fatherly concern on finding my six-year-old son playing "Doctors and Professors" with the girl nextdoor -- by the grace of God I interrupted their game just as they were about to examine each other's presuppositions.
Speak lovingly, yet sternly, to your child, and let them know that God loves them no matter what, but that all thinking and intellectual reflection outside the God-ordained context of a loving Sunday School is wrong, no matter what form it may take. Explain to them compassionately and clearly where such thinking might lead (i.e. eternal punishment). Lastly, if you love your child, spare not the rod. If after your persistent counsel he is still not being wooed by the calm, grace-filled influences of the Holy Spirit, give him a damned good thrashing.
Share it to others who are struggling.
-- post linked from here
Most men struggle at some time in their lives with intellectual thoughts. Contrary to popular perception, even women can become ensnared by intelligent thinking. We all go through that phase where we suddenly discover we have brains and we can think! From there we can be tempted to entertain all kinds of philosophical questions, and some even begin to think seriously about exegetical issues.
First, let me say, it is normal to have a brain and to want to think intellectual thoughts. God gave us a brain. The danger is when we start thinking for ourselves and using that intellectual power to seriously consider big questions about life and God, or (worse) when we start applying that intellect to our study of the Bible. So here's some advice for anyone struggling with this.
1. Don't be on your own with the TV. You know what it's like -- you're flicking channels late at night and on Discovery is some documentary or other. You justify it to yourself, saying you're just naturally curious, but pretty soon you are having rational thoughts from which you just can't get away.
2. Try to avoid walking through parts of town where you might have to pass bookstores or libraries. I remember as a teenager the lure of commentaries and concordances. Walking home from work or school, try a route that takes you past a fundamentalist church instead, even if it takes five minutes longer. It's worth it!
3. Have a block on all junk mail in your e-mail account. I have lost track of the number of young men I have counselled who were first drawn into these practices by an innocent-looking e-mail inviting them to subscribe to a theology forum or visit a website containing 'reviews' and 'articles' by 'scholars'.
4. Be accountable. If you are feeling a strong desire to think through a given topic (eg. a doctrine) sensibly and rationally (first thing in the morning and last thing at night are the most common times), talk to someone. Have them recite prooftexts to you. 1 Corinthians 2 is the most helpful.
5. Don't let yourself be exposed to material of a scholarly nature. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just one quick look at a Bible commentary won't hurt, or that a peek at a book by a liberal will be harmless. Often it just becomes a stepping stone onto other, far worse material that may draw on tradition, philosophy and, at times, common sense. It may begin with a seemingly inoccuous trip to a secular bookstore, but it rarely ends there.
You may experience nocturnal 'intellectualisms'. You may awake in the morning to find you have unwittingly had thoughts of a theological or even philosophical nature during the night. This is a normal occurrence, and ought not to be feared. Alas, we are part of a fallen world where these things happen.
For parents who suspect their children may be involved in intellectual activity, do not panic. It is a normal part of growing up. They may discover at a young age that their intellect can be stimulated through the use of books and the like. They may try to engage friends in mutual debate or conversation. I still remember my natural fatherly concern on finding my six-year-old son playing "Doctors and Professors" with the girl nextdoor -- by the grace of God I interrupted their game just as they were about to examine each other's presuppositions.
Speak lovingly, yet sternly, to your child, and let them know that God loves them no matter what, but that all thinking and intellectual reflection outside the God-ordained context of a loving Sunday School is wrong, no matter what form it may take. Explain to them compassionately and clearly where such thinking might lead (i.e. eternal punishment). Lastly, if you love your child, spare not the rod. If after your persistent counsel he is still not being wooed by the calm, grace-filled influences of the Holy Spirit, give him a damned good thrashing.
Share it to others who are struggling.
-- post linked from here
Thursday, September 06, 2007
A New Kind of Friars
"Missionary statesman Ralph Winter breaks nearly all of human history into “supercenturies,” suggesting that the church experiences unprecedented growth about every four hundred years. Gaining his inspiration from Kenneth Scott Latourette’s A History of Christianity, Winter sees five critical renaissances in the two thousand years since Jesus lived, died and rose again:
• the Classical Renaissance (A.D. 400)
• the Carolingian Renaissance (A.D. 800)
• the Medieval Renaissance (A.D. 1200)
• the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (A.D. 1600)
• the Evangelical Renaissance, which Winter believes is beginning in our time
This two-thousand-year-old pattern has been powered mainly by youth. In each period, radically motivated men and women moved to the fringe and pressed the church into the social and geographic edges. In the first renaissance it was the Celtic and Augustinian monks, in the second it was the Benedictine and Nestorian monks, in the third the Franciscans and Dominicans, and in the fourth the Jesuits, Moravians and Anabaptists. What we are seeing today, with the emergence of the new friars, is a continuation of this pattern of mission orders—devotional communities that are high on ministry to the outcasts.
The historic orders share a number of things in common. To make a fair comparison of those movements to the emerging movement, we must look beyond practices I consider ascetic extremes—things like submerging oneself in an icy stream upon encountering a lustful thought or self-flagellation (though I have no doubt the new friars might practice those things if they
proved helpful in growing more intimate with Christ or successful in their mission). Instead we must ask ourselves, what are the essential ingredients that make these orders unique and set them apart from the ordinary practices of the faith?
Incarnational.
First and foremost, these orders were incarnational. They sought not simply to bring
the gospel to the lost or oppressed from the outside, as if by remote control, but to be
the gospel by becoming part of the communities of dispossessed they sought to serve. They took their cues from God, who, rather than saving humanity by asking us to become like him, chose instead to become like us. The incarnation of God in the man Jesus Christ served as the foundational missiology and modus operandi of the old orders. When the Jesuits donned the garb of Confucius scholars or the Moravians considered the possibility of selling themselves into slavery in Jamaica, they were only following in the footsteps of their Master.
Devotional.
Second, these orders were radically devotional. In the Augustinian order, correcting a brother who was sinning and in denial was an act of compassion... Each order was organized around a set of spiritual commitments, or a “rule,” to govern their walk with Jesus, with one another and with the community of lost, poor or broken souls into which they had grafted themselves. They vowed themselves to principles of holiness and purity that went beyond the common practices of the faith, then held each other to these ideals quite rigidly.
Communal.
Third, these orders were communal, living together and sharing many of those things that they held privately before joining the order. These men and women moved into a community of mostly strangers and lived as a family. They committed themselves to one another out of love. The Rule of St. Clare, for the female Franciscans, speaks of the communal commitment in this way: “If a mother loves and cherishes her child according to the flesh, how much more diligently should a sister love and cherish her sister according to the Spirit.” The abbess of the convent was to be attentive to her sisters as a good mother is to her daughters, and let her take care especially to provide for them according to the needs of each one out of the alms that the Lord shall give. Let her also be so kind and available that they may safely reveal their needs and confidently have recourse to her at any hour, as they see fit both for themselves and their sisters.
Missional.
Fourth, the historic orders were missional—at least the ones that went to communities on the geographic fringe. These were communities on the move, responsible for stretching the borders of the church into the dark corners of Europe. Celtic monks, for instance, were known to board a small boat, raise the sail and pray that God would direct their vessel to some barbarian tribe where the gospel had not been heard. The cloistered (or inward) and the missional (or outward) forces in these various monastic communities were often held in tension, some emphasizing
one over the other. Likewise today we find both cloistered and missional communities cropping up. The New Monasticism, as it is being called, often consists of households of Christian men and women planted in dying innercity communities within their home country, attempting to live the Christian ideal among their neighbors, drawing the lost, poor and broken to themselves.
They resemble more the cloistered order. The new friars, on the other hand, have something of the spirit of mission-driven monks and nuns in them, leaving their mother country and moving to those parts of the world where little is known about Jesus.
Marginal.
Finally, these movements were marginal. This is true in two respects: they were on the fringe of the mainstream church; and they sought to plant themselves among people who existed on the edges of society. Almost all of the movements discussed in The New Friars have been born
out of a reaction to spiritual flabbiness in the broader church and a tendency to assimilate into a corrupt, power-hungry world. The movements were started by people possessed of a holy discontent—discontent with a church who had succumbed to the very self-absorption it was commissioned to combat. These men and women found it necessary to hold themselves to a
higher standard from what had become traditional church life in order to pursue something more idyllic. The vita apostolica it was sometimes called— the apostolic life.
In the process of pursuing a different kind of spiritual life, they often found company with those who were trapped outside the systems that kept the powerful powerful and the rich rich. They positioned themselves alongside social lepers, economic slaves and political malcontents on the world’s margins, and often found themselves on the margins of the church as a result. Nestorians, for example, were considered heretics by what was at the time mainstream Christianity for emphasizing the human attributes of Christ as distinct from his divine attributes. They were pushed out of the Western stream of the church and established friendships with the enemies of the Roman Empire. They served among the Persian shahs and Mongol khans and were often on the other side of political conflicts in which the church of the West was caught up. To this day the Nestorian movement is mostly unknown to the mainstream church.
Martin Luther is credited with saying, “The church may be a whore, but she’s my mother.” Despite the fact that these movements were set apart from the local expressions of church, and even sometimes at odds with it, they loved and served the majority church community. Church historian Adolf Harnack says,
It was always the monks who saved the Church when sinking, emancipated her when becoming enslaved to the world, defended her when assailed. These it was that kindled hearts that were growing cold, bridled refractory spirits, recovered for the church alienated nations. I predict that the emerging movement to the world’s poor, powered by new friars, will also bring renewal to the global church of the twenty-first century.
I predict that the emerging movement to the world’s poor, powered by new friars, will also bring renewal to the global church of the twenty-first century...
...To begin, however, we must go to the world’s fringe, where the modern lepers, slaves and outcasts are attracting these new friars just as they did the historic mission-driven nuns and monks. From these dark and seemingly Godforsaken corners of our world, the church’s renaissance has almost always sprouted, as if God was hiding there, waiting for a few of his people to join him in the unveiling of a fresh renaissance. So it is in the slum communities
of our megacities that we will start, asking ourselves how in the world so many people have gotten trapped into such desperate circumstances, and how God might be calling his people to respond."
-- excerpt from "The New Friars" by Scott A. Bessenecker
• the Classical Renaissance (A.D. 400)
• the Carolingian Renaissance (A.D. 800)
• the Medieval Renaissance (A.D. 1200)
• the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (A.D. 1600)
• the Evangelical Renaissance, which Winter believes is beginning in our time
This two-thousand-year-old pattern has been powered mainly by youth. In each period, radically motivated men and women moved to the fringe and pressed the church into the social and geographic edges. In the first renaissance it was the Celtic and Augustinian monks, in the second it was the Benedictine and Nestorian monks, in the third the Franciscans and Dominicans, and in the fourth the Jesuits, Moravians and Anabaptists. What we are seeing today, with the emergence of the new friars, is a continuation of this pattern of mission orders—devotional communities that are high on ministry to the outcasts.
The historic orders share a number of things in common. To make a fair comparison of those movements to the emerging movement, we must look beyond practices I consider ascetic extremes—things like submerging oneself in an icy stream upon encountering a lustful thought or self-flagellation (though I have no doubt the new friars might practice those things if they
proved helpful in growing more intimate with Christ or successful in their mission). Instead we must ask ourselves, what are the essential ingredients that make these orders unique and set them apart from the ordinary practices of the faith?
Incarnational.
First and foremost, these orders were incarnational. They sought not simply to bring
the gospel to the lost or oppressed from the outside, as if by remote control, but to be
the gospel by becoming part of the communities of dispossessed they sought to serve. They took their cues from God, who, rather than saving humanity by asking us to become like him, chose instead to become like us. The incarnation of God in the man Jesus Christ served as the foundational missiology and modus operandi of the old orders. When the Jesuits donned the garb of Confucius scholars or the Moravians considered the possibility of selling themselves into slavery in Jamaica, they were only following in the footsteps of their Master.
Devotional.
Second, these orders were radically devotional. In the Augustinian order, correcting a brother who was sinning and in denial was an act of compassion... Each order was organized around a set of spiritual commitments, or a “rule,” to govern their walk with Jesus, with one another and with the community of lost, poor or broken souls into which they had grafted themselves. They vowed themselves to principles of holiness and purity that went beyond the common practices of the faith, then held each other to these ideals quite rigidly.
Communal.
Third, these orders were communal, living together and sharing many of those things that they held privately before joining the order. These men and women moved into a community of mostly strangers and lived as a family. They committed themselves to one another out of love. The Rule of St. Clare, for the female Franciscans, speaks of the communal commitment in this way: “If a mother loves and cherishes her child according to the flesh, how much more diligently should a sister love and cherish her sister according to the Spirit.” The abbess of the convent was to be attentive to her sisters as a good mother is to her daughters, and let her take care especially to provide for them according to the needs of each one out of the alms that the Lord shall give. Let her also be so kind and available that they may safely reveal their needs and confidently have recourse to her at any hour, as they see fit both for themselves and their sisters.
Missional.
Fourth, the historic orders were missional—at least the ones that went to communities on the geographic fringe. These were communities on the move, responsible for stretching the borders of the church into the dark corners of Europe. Celtic monks, for instance, were known to board a small boat, raise the sail and pray that God would direct their vessel to some barbarian tribe where the gospel had not been heard. The cloistered (or inward) and the missional (or outward) forces in these various monastic communities were often held in tension, some emphasizing
one over the other. Likewise today we find both cloistered and missional communities cropping up. The New Monasticism, as it is being called, often consists of households of Christian men and women planted in dying innercity communities within their home country, attempting to live the Christian ideal among their neighbors, drawing the lost, poor and broken to themselves.
They resemble more the cloistered order. The new friars, on the other hand, have something of the spirit of mission-driven monks and nuns in them, leaving their mother country and moving to those parts of the world where little is known about Jesus.
Marginal.
Finally, these movements were marginal. This is true in two respects: they were on the fringe of the mainstream church; and they sought to plant themselves among people who existed on the edges of society. Almost all of the movements discussed in The New Friars have been born
out of a reaction to spiritual flabbiness in the broader church and a tendency to assimilate into a corrupt, power-hungry world. The movements were started by people possessed of a holy discontent—discontent with a church who had succumbed to the very self-absorption it was commissioned to combat. These men and women found it necessary to hold themselves to a
higher standard from what had become traditional church life in order to pursue something more idyllic. The vita apostolica it was sometimes called— the apostolic life.
In the process of pursuing a different kind of spiritual life, they often found company with those who were trapped outside the systems that kept the powerful powerful and the rich rich. They positioned themselves alongside social lepers, economic slaves and political malcontents on the world’s margins, and often found themselves on the margins of the church as a result. Nestorians, for example, were considered heretics by what was at the time mainstream Christianity for emphasizing the human attributes of Christ as distinct from his divine attributes. They were pushed out of the Western stream of the church and established friendships with the enemies of the Roman Empire. They served among the Persian shahs and Mongol khans and were often on the other side of political conflicts in which the church of the West was caught up. To this day the Nestorian movement is mostly unknown to the mainstream church.
Martin Luther is credited with saying, “The church may be a whore, but she’s my mother.” Despite the fact that these movements were set apart from the local expressions of church, and even sometimes at odds with it, they loved and served the majority church community. Church historian Adolf Harnack says,
It was always the monks who saved the Church when sinking, emancipated her when becoming enslaved to the world, defended her when assailed. These it was that kindled hearts that were growing cold, bridled refractory spirits, recovered for the church alienated nations. I predict that the emerging movement to the world’s poor, powered by new friars, will also bring renewal to the global church of the twenty-first century.
I predict that the emerging movement to the world’s poor, powered by new friars, will also bring renewal to the global church of the twenty-first century...
...To begin, however, we must go to the world’s fringe, where the modern lepers, slaves and outcasts are attracting these new friars just as they did the historic mission-driven nuns and monks. From these dark and seemingly Godforsaken corners of our world, the church’s renaissance has almost always sprouted, as if God was hiding there, waiting for a few of his people to join him in the unveiling of a fresh renaissance. So it is in the slum communities
of our megacities that we will start, asking ourselves how in the world so many people have gotten trapped into such desperate circumstances, and how God might be calling his people to respond."
-- excerpt from "The New Friars" by Scott A. Bessenecker
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Remonking the Church?
A good piece from CT.
John R.W. Stott, the elder statesman of British evangelicalism, has stated recently that if he were young and beginning his Christian discipleship over, he would establish a kind of evangelical monastic order. Joining it would be men vowed to celibacy, poverty, and peaceableness.
The Tension between Church and Culture
"In this milieu individual Christians, and the church as a collective body, cannot easily maintain their distinctive identity as a people killed and raised with Christ (Rom. 6:4‑10). The dominant ethos is all pervasive, able to assume milder, less offensive forms for those who will not embrace it with its mask off. So if the church dislikes coarse "worldly" celebrities, let it create its own celebrities. If it is cautious about the worldly mania for numbers (stocks sold on Wall Street), let it develop its own mania for numbers (souls saved by the megachurch).
Thus the church must not only recognize its plight, it must imagine new and truer ways to address that plight. It is in this context that we issue a formal call for remonasticization in the church."
Defining Remonasticization
"The remonasticization we would support would not be as tightly defined as traditional monasticism. It would not, for example, mean the stereotypical cluster of people retiring to desert solitude. Rather, it would look to the biblical antecedents for a select group of holy persons set apart to call all persons to holiness, such as the Old Testament Nazirites, Israel's witness as a light to all nations, and Jesus' calling of disciples to train and teach with the goal of drawing all Israel to the same discipleship. And, of course, there is the church itself which is supposed to be no more than it hopes the world will someday be. In this context, remonasticization might take several forms, all oriented toward service in and to the world."
Objections to Remonasticization
"The main objections to remonasticization are clear and serious, but, we believe, surmountable. One major objection is that, if taken too seriously, remonasticization will render the church ineffective in the world. It is irresistible to reply that if the church is effective now, ineffectiveness must be impossible to achieve. But a more sober response is that the objective is to be distinctive, not distant. The church has nothing to offer the world if it loses the distinctiveness bestowed on it by its genuine living under the gospel.
A second objection is that remonasticization will lead to spiritual pride and snobbery, to an obsession with personal purity at the expense of being responsible in the world. This, too, is a serious objection. But remonasticization as we understand it has as its aim witness to Christ rather than personal purity. "Remonks," if you will, intend centrally to point beyond themselves, not draw attention to themselves."
What Disciplines Do We Pressingly Need?
First, they must learn and then teach others how to live our world into line with that of the Bible....Yet it is far easier to read our world and our ways into the Bible than to truly understand the Bible and gradually live our world into congruence with its world... How much harder it is, then, for suburban Christians who often move to a new city—and so a new church—every two years. Increasingly divided doctrinally and in our social and political visions, we evangelicals desperately need some among us who will patiently and enduringly attend together to Scripture, then begin to show us ways to live more faithfully to its story.
John R.W. Stott, the elder statesman of British evangelicalism, has stated recently that if he were young and beginning his Christian discipleship over, he would establish a kind of evangelical monastic order. Joining it would be men vowed to celibacy, poverty, and peaceableness.The Tension between Church and Culture
"In this milieu individual Christians, and the church as a collective body, cannot easily maintain their distinctive identity as a people killed and raised with Christ (Rom. 6:4‑10). The dominant ethos is all pervasive, able to assume milder, less offensive forms for those who will not embrace it with its mask off. So if the church dislikes coarse "worldly" celebrities, let it create its own celebrities. If it is cautious about the worldly mania for numbers (stocks sold on Wall Street), let it develop its own mania for numbers (souls saved by the megachurch).
Thus the church must not only recognize its plight, it must imagine new and truer ways to address that plight. It is in this context that we issue a formal call for remonasticization in the church."
Defining Remonasticization
"The remonasticization we would support would not be as tightly defined as traditional monasticism. It would not, for example, mean the stereotypical cluster of people retiring to desert solitude. Rather, it would look to the biblical antecedents for a select group of holy persons set apart to call all persons to holiness, such as the Old Testament Nazirites, Israel's witness as a light to all nations, and Jesus' calling of disciples to train and teach with the goal of drawing all Israel to the same discipleship. And, of course, there is the church itself which is supposed to be no more than it hopes the world will someday be. In this context, remonasticization might take several forms, all oriented toward service in and to the world."
Objections to Remonasticization
"The main objections to remonasticization are clear and serious, but, we believe, surmountable. One major objection is that, if taken too seriously, remonasticization will render the church ineffective in the world. It is irresistible to reply that if the church is effective now, ineffectiveness must be impossible to achieve. But a more sober response is that the objective is to be distinctive, not distant. The church has nothing to offer the world if it loses the distinctiveness bestowed on it by its genuine living under the gospel.
A second objection is that remonasticization will lead to spiritual pride and snobbery, to an obsession with personal purity at the expense of being responsible in the world. This, too, is a serious objection. But remonasticization as we understand it has as its aim witness to Christ rather than personal purity. "Remonks," if you will, intend centrally to point beyond themselves, not draw attention to themselves."
What Disciplines Do We Pressingly Need?
First, they must learn and then teach others how to live our world into line with that of the Bible....Yet it is far easier to read our world and our ways into the Bible than to truly understand the Bible and gradually live our world into congruence with its world... How much harder it is, then, for suburban Christians who often move to a new city—and so a new church—every two years. Increasingly divided doctrinally and in our social and political visions, we evangelicals desperately need some among us who will patiently and enduringly attend together to Scripture, then begin to show us ways to live more faithfully to its story.
Second, remonks must recover the life of prayer. The pace of our society, with its intense and demanding variety of endeavors and diversions, disallows a life patiently and steadily centered on the one thing that really matters—the worship of God. Quiet times and morning devotions are simply added items on overcrowded agendas. We suspect a life of prayer will mean radically abandoning the busyness and fragmentariness of contemporary life. Once again we need communities that will model and point the way to this bold abandonment. Given the deep importance of freneticism and variety to the current ethos, genuinely living into prayer may be the church's most subversive act.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Penyebaran Fitnah
Firman Allah dalam Al-Quran bermaksud: “Wahai orang yang beriman, jika datang kepada kamu seorang fasik membawa sesuatu berita, maka selidik (untuk menentukan) kebenarannya, supaya kamu tidak menimpakan sesuatu kaum dengan perkara tidak diingini, dengan sebab kejahilan kamu (mengenainya) sehingga menyebabkan kamu menyesali perkara yang kamu lakukan.” (Surah al-Hujurat, ayat 6)
Monday, September 03, 2007
He Is No Fool
by Scott Wesley Brown
I've lost track of all the Sundays the offering plate's gone by
And as I gave my hard earned dollars I felt free to keep my life.
I talk about commitment and the need to count the cost
But the words of a martyr show me
I don't really know His cross.
For he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep
To gain what he cannot lose.
Yes, he is no fool who lays his own life down:
I must make this the path I choose.
Obedience and servant-hood are traits I've rarely shown
And the fellowship of His sufferings is a joy I've barely known.
There are riches in surrendering that can't be gained for free;
God will share all heaven's wonders
But the price He asks is me.
For he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep
To gain what he cannot lose.
Yes, he is no fool who lays his own life down:
I must make this the path I choose.
I've lost track of all the Sundays the offering plate's gone by
And as I gave my hard earned dollars I felt free to keep my life.
I talk about commitment and the need to count the cost
But the words of a martyr show me
I don't really know His cross.
For he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep
To gain what he cannot lose.
Yes, he is no fool who lays his own life down:
I must make this the path I choose.
Obedience and servant-hood are traits I've rarely shown
And the fellowship of His sufferings is a joy I've barely known.
There are riches in surrendering that can't be gained for free;
God will share all heaven's wonders
But the price He asks is me.
For he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep
To gain what he cannot lose.
Yes, he is no fool who lays his own life down:
I must make this the path I choose.
Please Don't Send Me to Africa
by Scott Wesley Brown
O Lord I'm your willing servant
You know that I have been for years
I'm here in this pew every Sunday and Wednesday
I've stained it with many a tear
I've given you years of my service
I've always given my best
And I've never asked you for anything much
So Lord I deserve this request
Chorus:
Please don't send me to Africa
I don't think I've got what it takes
I'm just a man, I'm not a tarzan
Don't like lions, or rivers, or snakes
I'll serve you here in suburbia
In my comfortable middle class life
But please don't send me out in the bush
Where the natives are restless at night
I'll see that the money is gathered
I'll see that the money is sent
I'll wash and stack the communion cups
I'll tithe 11 percent
I'll volunteer for the nursery
I'll go on the youth retreat
I'll usher, I'll deacon, I'll go door to door
Just let me keep warming this seat
O Lord I'm your willing servant
You know that I have been for years
I'm here in this pew every Sunday and Wednesday
I've stained it with many a tear
I've given you years of my service
I've always given my best
And I've never asked you for anything much
So Lord I deserve this request
Chorus:
Please don't send me to Africa
I don't think I've got what it takes
I'm just a man, I'm not a tarzan
Don't like lions, or rivers, or snakes
I'll serve you here in suburbia
In my comfortable middle class life
But please don't send me out in the bush
Where the natives are restless at night
I'll see that the money is gathered
I'll see that the money is sent
I'll wash and stack the communion cups
I'll tithe 11 percent
I'll volunteer for the nursery
I'll go on the youth retreat
I'll usher, I'll deacon, I'll go door to door
Just let me keep warming this seat
Sunday, September 02, 2007
More on Shane Clairborne
"I believe that the great tragedy of the church is not that rich Christians do not care about the poor, but that they do not know the poor. Yet if we are called to live the new community for which Christ was crucified, we cannot remain strangers to one another. Jesus demands that we live in a very different way.
I recently surveyed people who said they were "strong followers of Jesus." Over 80 percent agreed with the statement, "Jesus spent much time with the poor." Yet only 1 percent said that they themselves spent time with the poor. We believe we are following the God of the poor — yet we never truly encounter the poor."
"Over the years I have come to see how charity fits into — and legitimizes — our system of wealth and poverty. Charity assures that the rich will feel good while the poor will remain with us. It is important that the poor remain with us, because our capitalist system hinges on it. Without someone on the bottom, there is no American dream and no hope for upward mobility.
Charity also functions to keep the wealthy sane. Tithes, tax-exempt donations, and short-term mission trips, while they accomplish some good, also function as outlets that allow wealthy Christians to pay off their consciences while avoiding a revolution of lifestyle. People do their time in a social program or distribute food and clothes through organizations which take their excess. That way, they never actually have to face the poor and give their clothes, their food, their beds. Wealthy Christians never actually have to be with poor people, with Christ in disguise.
If charity did not provide these carefully sanctioned outlets, Christians might be forced to live the reckless Gospel of Jesus by abandoning the stuff of earth. Instead, thanks to charity, we can live out a comfortable, privatized discipleship.
But when we get to heaven and are separated into sheep and goats (Matt. 25), I don't believe Jesus is going to say, "When I was hungry, you gave a check to the United Way and they fed me" or "When I was naked, you donated to the Salvation Army and they clothed me." Jesus is not seeking distant acts of charity. He is seeking concrete actions: "You fed me, … you visited me, … you welcomed me in, ... you clothed me.…"
"If we are content with discipleship that ends merely with generosity, we still serve money. Generosity is a beautiful response, but we should not confuse it with love. Generosity is merely what is expected; what is required is to return that which has been stolen. God did not create some of us rich and others of us poor.
Basil the Great, writing in the fourth century, put it this way: "When someone strips a man of his clothes, we call him a thief. And one who might clothe the naked and does not — should not he be given the same name? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat in your wardrobe belongs to the naked; the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute." Or, in the words of Dorothy Day, "If you have two coats, one of them belongs to the poor." Should we not, then, return our stolen goods with humility, like a child returning a stolen candy bar to the grocery store clerk? Should we not cry out, in the words of St. Vincent de Paul: "May the poor man forgive me the bread I give him"?
Often wealthy folks ask me what they can do for the simple way. I could ask them for a few thousand dollars, but that would be too easy for both of us. Instead, I ask them to come visit. Writing a check makes us feel good and can fool us into thinking that we have loved the poor. But seeing the squat houses and tent cities and hungry children will wreck our lives. We will never again be the same."
"I believe the church has forgotten its identity. The church is not an institution, a meeting, or a building. It is not something we go to. The church is something we are — an organism, not an organization.
Instead of living out this alternative vision, the church has been content to be a broker between the rich and the poor. Both those trapped in poverty and those trapped in riches view the church as a distribution center, a place where the poor come to get stuff and the rich come to dump stuff. No radical new community is formed.
In this model, both go away satisfied (the rich feel good, the poor get fed) — but neither goes away transformed. They do not join together to discover a new way of living.
In ministering in this way, the church has adopted the model of many of our nonprofit organizations. Functionally, many nonprofits act as brokers between the rich and the poor. They facilitate the exchange of goods and services, putting plenty of professionals in the middle to guarantee that the rich do not have to face the poor and that power does not shift. Rich and poor are kept in separate worlds. Charity does not feed fundamental change."
"Many beautiful Christians working for social change in a range of movements believe we can bring about fundamental change by using power benevolently rather than reworking the power equation. We see ourselves as the good guys who will use our influence for justice — and perhaps, in these terms, we succeed in getting our candidate on the ballot or elected. But the Christ we follow has a different, harder path--one of downward mobility, of struggling to become the least, of joining those at the bottom.
Several years ago, I was at a meeting where a new movement to end poverty was announced. I looked around. The only poor people in sight were the handful of people I had come with. Launching a movement to end poverty without poor people in critical roles is like launching a civil rights movement without Black people, or a feminist movement without women. As long as the poor are not present and intricately involved in the process, ending poverty will remain an intellectual, political concept. It will not convert us.
The church needs to stop talking about ending the pain of the poor and instead join the poor. All around us, the poor are crying out. They can no longer be silenced. Wherever that outcry is heard, the church must be present."
"Jesus reminds us that it is easy to love people who are just like us: "Even idolators do that" (Matt. 5:47). We are called to love those who hate us. Love those who create poverty, and love those who are trapped in it. See in each of them yourself — the same blood and tears We are all capable of the same evil, and we have potential for the same good. As one believer said, "In the oppressed I recognize my own face, and in the hands of the oppressor I recognize my own hands." From addicts I learn of my addiction, and from the saints I learn of my holiness.
The God of love and the love of God know no bounds. The unending love of Jesus teaches revolutionaries to love police officers, anarchists to love politicians, vegetarians to love meat eaters, peacemakers to love soldiers. This is the love that makes us the church.
Ultimately, only this radical love of Jesus can end the poverty-wealth dichotomy. When the rich meet the poor, together they will end wealth. When the poor meet the rich, together they will end poverty.
People do not get crucified for charity. People are crucified for living out a love that disrupts the social order, that calls forth a new world. People are not crucified for helping poor people. People are crucified for joining them."
I recently surveyed people who said they were "strong followers of Jesus." Over 80 percent agreed with the statement, "Jesus spent much time with the poor." Yet only 1 percent said that they themselves spent time with the poor. We believe we are following the God of the poor — yet we never truly encounter the poor."
"Over the years I have come to see how charity fits into — and legitimizes — our system of wealth and poverty. Charity assures that the rich will feel good while the poor will remain with us. It is important that the poor remain with us, because our capitalist system hinges on it. Without someone on the bottom, there is no American dream and no hope for upward mobility.
Charity also functions to keep the wealthy sane. Tithes, tax-exempt donations, and short-term mission trips, while they accomplish some good, also function as outlets that allow wealthy Christians to pay off their consciences while avoiding a revolution of lifestyle. People do their time in a social program or distribute food and clothes through organizations which take their excess. That way, they never actually have to face the poor and give their clothes, their food, their beds. Wealthy Christians never actually have to be with poor people, with Christ in disguise.
If charity did not provide these carefully sanctioned outlets, Christians might be forced to live the reckless Gospel of Jesus by abandoning the stuff of earth. Instead, thanks to charity, we can live out a comfortable, privatized discipleship.
But when we get to heaven and are separated into sheep and goats (Matt. 25), I don't believe Jesus is going to say, "When I was hungry, you gave a check to the United Way and they fed me" or "When I was naked, you donated to the Salvation Army and they clothed me." Jesus is not seeking distant acts of charity. He is seeking concrete actions: "You fed me, … you visited me, … you welcomed me in, ... you clothed me.…"
"If we are content with discipleship that ends merely with generosity, we still serve money. Generosity is a beautiful response, but we should not confuse it with love. Generosity is merely what is expected; what is required is to return that which has been stolen. God did not create some of us rich and others of us poor.
Basil the Great, writing in the fourth century, put it this way: "When someone strips a man of his clothes, we call him a thief. And one who might clothe the naked and does not — should not he be given the same name? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat in your wardrobe belongs to the naked; the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute." Or, in the words of Dorothy Day, "If you have two coats, one of them belongs to the poor." Should we not, then, return our stolen goods with humility, like a child returning a stolen candy bar to the grocery store clerk? Should we not cry out, in the words of St. Vincent de Paul: "May the poor man forgive me the bread I give him"?
Often wealthy folks ask me what they can do for the simple way. I could ask them for a few thousand dollars, but that would be too easy for both of us. Instead, I ask them to come visit. Writing a check makes us feel good and can fool us into thinking that we have loved the poor. But seeing the squat houses and tent cities and hungry children will wreck our lives. We will never again be the same."
"I believe the church has forgotten its identity. The church is not an institution, a meeting, or a building. It is not something we go to. The church is something we are — an organism, not an organization.
Instead of living out this alternative vision, the church has been content to be a broker between the rich and the poor. Both those trapped in poverty and those trapped in riches view the church as a distribution center, a place where the poor come to get stuff and the rich come to dump stuff. No radical new community is formed.
In this model, both go away satisfied (the rich feel good, the poor get fed) — but neither goes away transformed. They do not join together to discover a new way of living.
In ministering in this way, the church has adopted the model of many of our nonprofit organizations. Functionally, many nonprofits act as brokers between the rich and the poor. They facilitate the exchange of goods and services, putting plenty of professionals in the middle to guarantee that the rich do not have to face the poor and that power does not shift. Rich and poor are kept in separate worlds. Charity does not feed fundamental change."
"Many beautiful Christians working for social change in a range of movements believe we can bring about fundamental change by using power benevolently rather than reworking the power equation. We see ourselves as the good guys who will use our influence for justice — and perhaps, in these terms, we succeed in getting our candidate on the ballot or elected. But the Christ we follow has a different, harder path--one of downward mobility, of struggling to become the least, of joining those at the bottom.
Several years ago, I was at a meeting where a new movement to end poverty was announced. I looked around. The only poor people in sight were the handful of people I had come with. Launching a movement to end poverty without poor people in critical roles is like launching a civil rights movement without Black people, or a feminist movement without women. As long as the poor are not present and intricately involved in the process, ending poverty will remain an intellectual, political concept. It will not convert us.
The church needs to stop talking about ending the pain of the poor and instead join the poor. All around us, the poor are crying out. They can no longer be silenced. Wherever that outcry is heard, the church must be present."
"Jesus reminds us that it is easy to love people who are just like us: "Even idolators do that" (Matt. 5:47). We are called to love those who hate us. Love those who create poverty, and love those who are trapped in it. See in each of them yourself — the same blood and tears We are all capable of the same evil, and we have potential for the same good. As one believer said, "In the oppressed I recognize my own face, and in the hands of the oppressor I recognize my own hands." From addicts I learn of my addiction, and from the saints I learn of my holiness.
The God of love and the love of God know no bounds. The unending love of Jesus teaches revolutionaries to love police officers, anarchists to love politicians, vegetarians to love meat eaters, peacemakers to love soldiers. This is the love that makes us the church.
Ultimately, only this radical love of Jesus can end the poverty-wealth dichotomy. When the rich meet the poor, together they will end wealth. When the poor meet the rich, together they will end poverty.
People do not get crucified for charity. People are crucified for living out a love that disrupts the social order, that calls forth a new world. People are not crucified for helping poor people. People are crucified for joining them."
Pop Revolutions
JON: In our latest issue of The Other Journal, we focus on "Pop Revolutions." You’ve talked about being wary of revolutions that are commodified within a consumer-capitalist system. How do you discern that—encouraging a revolution while we live in a culture that wants to commodify revolutions?
SHANE: It’s very tricky. There’s a great book by Herbert Marcuse called One Dimensional Man.6 It talks about how the dominant culture and pattern is able to absorb anything and that revolutions have become a sort of appendage. And so when you have thousands and thousands of protestors that show up to the Republican Convention, it only shows the power of the Republican Conventions, especially in the newsstands.
I always think that it won’t be long before you can buy gas-masks for protests that are made by Lockheed-Martin, so that everything is able to find it’s place and to be consumed and marketed within the larger culture. You know, the picture of the rebel sells. The picture of Che Guevara on the front of a coffee-cup.
But I think that it’s one of those things where you have to be wise as a serpent, innocent as a dove. For instance, there was one article about us in the New York Times that they called "Rebels With a Cross," and so we’ve had that kind of a danger for ourselves. And we’ve had Time Magazine, ABC Nightline, all these sleek people that want to do stories.
We’re very careful about that—we discern it together and rarely do we do much of that anymore with all the hype. We’re careful that we tell the story ourselves. Usually the story that they want is about this privileged group of people who have moved into a poor neighborhood and are doing all this great work for the neighborhood. And that can be very disempowering to our neighbors who have lived and survived and who are caring for each other. So we just have to be careful about that.
I think we’ve learned a lot from watching other groups, like Emergent.7 One of my critiques of Emergent would be that it’s become incredibly narcissistic, and so you just end up talking about talking. It’s one thing to say, "Life happens when we sit around a bar and talk theology." It’s another thing to sit at a bar and talk about sitting at a bar talking about theology. You know? And so you can end up really sucking the life out of a movement.
This is why I’m not too excited to do conferences and workshops on New Monasticism or the Movement, or things like that. Wendell Berry wrote a great article called "In Distrust of Movements" where he kind of gets at that;8 he warns not to fall in love with some big vision but to pay attention to the ingredients of it, like life together.
Bonhoeffer says it really well: "If we’re in love with our vision of community, we’ll destroy it, but if we really love the people around us, we’ll create community." That’s been really important.
I’ve seen that in church growth movement, where you can really rip the congregation apart trying to build your seven-point strategy for church growth. Or within a progressive activist community, people can just tear each other apart with their "vision for a better world" and can be very, very aggressive and judgmental and hurtful to each other. I have seen the faces that this takes everywhere.
I wrote an article on our website in reaction to some of that. It’s called "The Marketable Revolution," and it talks about the dangers of that.9 It’s a temptation of Jesus to be culturally relevant. Most of the people I really admire within the Church’s history have actually called into question everything that was relevant in the culture and also many of the really ugly things that Christianity developed in the quest to be relevant to the culture.
SHANE: It’s very tricky. There’s a great book by Herbert Marcuse called One Dimensional Man.6 It talks about how the dominant culture and pattern is able to absorb anything and that revolutions have become a sort of appendage. And so when you have thousands and thousands of protestors that show up to the Republican Convention, it only shows the power of the Republican Conventions, especially in the newsstands.
I always think that it won’t be long before you can buy gas-masks for protests that are made by Lockheed-Martin, so that everything is able to find it’s place and to be consumed and marketed within the larger culture. You know, the picture of the rebel sells. The picture of Che Guevara on the front of a coffee-cup.
But I think that it’s one of those things where you have to be wise as a serpent, innocent as a dove. For instance, there was one article about us in the New York Times that they called "Rebels With a Cross," and so we’ve had that kind of a danger for ourselves. And we’ve had Time Magazine, ABC Nightline, all these sleek people that want to do stories.
We’re very careful about that—we discern it together and rarely do we do much of that anymore with all the hype. We’re careful that we tell the story ourselves. Usually the story that they want is about this privileged group of people who have moved into a poor neighborhood and are doing all this great work for the neighborhood. And that can be very disempowering to our neighbors who have lived and survived and who are caring for each other. So we just have to be careful about that.
I think we’ve learned a lot from watching other groups, like Emergent.7 One of my critiques of Emergent would be that it’s become incredibly narcissistic, and so you just end up talking about talking. It’s one thing to say, "Life happens when we sit around a bar and talk theology." It’s another thing to sit at a bar and talk about sitting at a bar talking about theology. You know? And so you can end up really sucking the life out of a movement.
This is why I’m not too excited to do conferences and workshops on New Monasticism or the Movement, or things like that. Wendell Berry wrote a great article called "In Distrust of Movements" where he kind of gets at that;8 he warns not to fall in love with some big vision but to pay attention to the ingredients of it, like life together.
Bonhoeffer says it really well: "If we’re in love with our vision of community, we’ll destroy it, but if we really love the people around us, we’ll create community." That’s been really important.
I’ve seen that in church growth movement, where you can really rip the congregation apart trying to build your seven-point strategy for church growth. Or within a progressive activist community, people can just tear each other apart with their "vision for a better world" and can be very, very aggressive and judgmental and hurtful to each other. I have seen the faces that this takes everywhere.
I wrote an article on our website in reaction to some of that. It’s called "The Marketable Revolution," and it talks about the dangers of that.9 It’s a temptation of Jesus to be culturally relevant. Most of the people I really admire within the Church’s history have actually called into question everything that was relevant in the culture and also many of the really ugly things that Christianity developed in the quest to be relevant to the culture.
True Humanity
All Christianity has to give, and all it needs to give, is the myth of the human Jesus. It is the story of Jesus the Jew, a human being, the incarnate son of the man: imperfect but still exemplary, a victim of the Powers yet still victorious, crushed only to rise again, in solidarity with all who are ground to dust under the jackboots of the mighty, healer of those under the power of death, lover of all who are rejected and marginalized, forgiver, liberator, exposer of the regnant cancer called "civilization"—that Jesus, the one the Powers killed and whom death could not vanquish. Jesus' is the simple story of a person who gambled his last drop of devotion on the reality of God and the coming of God's new world. In the process, he lived out, in his flesh and blood, the archetype of the son of the man, the Child of the Human One, Sophia's Child, the New Being, the Sisterchild—call it what you will—as the intimation of what that new humanity might entail. In doing so, he not only incarnated God, he changed the way people experienced God. In short, the gift of Christianity to the world, as the Hindu Gandhi saw with such lucidity, is not Christianity, but Jesus, revealer and catalyst of our true humanity. -- Walter Wink
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
