Right Texts, Wrong Prayers? On the Prayers at the Inauguaration

Tags

Franklin Graham's prayer, inauguration prayer, Rabbi Marvin Hier's prayer, Trump inauguration

Well, well, well, the day we’ve all anticipated has finally arrived. As expected, as one of my non-Christian friends remarked, it has turned into a church service. As expected, there’s plenty to ponder in the ceremony. I’m only going to ponder on the thin slice of that event, the scriptural quotation of the rabbi Marvin Hier and the Christian leader Franklin Graham. The reason why I pick on these two isn’t because I hate them. Far from it. I love them enough to provide some corrections to their scriptural quotation to save them from divine wrath. I’m only half kidding. My concern of course is the claim by many evangelicals that Trump could be the “most Christian” of all presidents. If he’s the most Christian, at least he should surround himself with people who know the sacred scripture of the faith. Apparently, the evidence points the opposite direction.

Rabbi Hier quoted from Psalm 137. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion…” If you prefer the musical version, here’s one by Boney M. The problem is this. Jewish refugees and exiles wrote the psalm when they were captured by the Babylonians. Trump has already made it very clear that he doesn’t want any “illegal immigrants”, those who seek asylum in the US. His followers by and large are anti-refugees, especially those refugees from Muslim war-torn countries. For the rabbi to pray the prayer of the refugees is an insult to the suffering of his own people. The Psalm also calls a curse upon those who created the refugee crisis (and that goes for both sides of the political divide).

It ends with these harrowing imprecations,

“Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.”

Are we really ready for that prayer? Are we ready to call that curse upon anyone who caused those crisis (including our own foreign policy makers)? PERHAPS, the rabbi inadvertently prayed this prayer appropriately for this occasion. Who knows? What irony!

Then comes Franklin Graham. He quotes from 1 Timothy 2.1-6, “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.”

Now, there’s nothing wrong with praying for kings and those in authority. I believe in that as a Christian. However, I think Graham has failed to notice that the context for that prayer is for a church service. In 1 Timothy 2.8, the author wrote, “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.” The raised hands were the gesture of prayer in first-century church services. Did Graham notice that he really isn’t in a church service? By conducting himself in this way, he gives the impression that the inauguration is a church service. He may think that it’s quite a great marketing (i.e. evangelism) for the church, but I assure every reader that all my unbeliever friends are outright turned off by this pseudo-church service. Evangelical Christianity has mastered the art of lousy marketing. 

Well, as is fitting for this day, I’m going to add my own quote. I saw this quote from my buddy Doug Jantz. When Israel conducted its first unofficial election back in the time of David, they elected to have Saul to be their king, and that election turned out to be a disaster. This is most fitting for evangelicals who put their trust in politicians (on both sides, but especially those who say that Trump is God’s man), kings and king makers. Listen to the prophet Samuel from 1 Samuel 8.10-12, 18.

“Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots…And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day’.”

Let that sink in!

 

“If Any of You Are Without Sin …”: Trump and Evangelical Illiteracy

Tags

adulterous woman, Donald Trump, evangelical support of Trump, James Dobson, John 7.53-8.11, Trump lewd comments

“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw stone …”
John 8.7 (NIV)

Today, I’m going to comment on a classically misunderstood verse that isn’t even covered in Right Texts, Wrong Meanings. I normally don’t comment on John 7.53-8.11 as this passage seems to be a late addition, but its frequent quotation has forced me to comment on it. A Christian leader no less than James Dobson says, “I do not condone nor defend Donald Trump’s terrible comments made 11 years ago. They are indefensible and awful. I’m sure there are other misdeeds in his past, although as Jesus said, ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,’ I am, however, more concerned about America’s future than Donald Trump’s past. I wonder about how Bill Clinton’s language stands up in private.” This post will show how Dobson’s quotation of John 8.7 is a complete travesty of biblical hermeneutics and literacy.

The story of John 8 is simple. A woman was caught in the act of adultery, most likely in the heat of copulation, and the Pharisees wanted to stone her to death. Jesus asked whether anyone was without sin. Everyone left, and no one condemned her. Dobson and his fan base of course take this as a perfect analogy to Trump’s sexual transgressions. However, the analogy is completely misplaced in the following ways.

The nature of sexual sins is different. In the woman’s case, she was having consensual adulterous sex. While adultery is wrong, it was at least consensual. When Donald Trump says, “I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful ― I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait… And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy…You can do anything…” Trump just described sexual assault in a few short and lewd sentencet. To many, this happened more than 10 years ago, but sexual assault is the same crime 10 years, 20 years or even 100 years ago. The women gave no consent. Many would find this to be a locker room talk of macho male fantasy. The problem is, Trump has also had allegations launched against him on sexual assault, on peeping at naked underaged Miss Teen USA pageant contestants, and even one pending rape case of a 13 year old girl Katie Johnson. The pattern has never been consensual, locker room fantasy or otherwise. So, please stop analogizing the sin of the adulterous woman with that of Trump. The usage of John 8.7 is immoral!

The problem is never the allegation of sin. Some who look at Trump’s situation are saying that perhaps we should be more forgiving and not judge a man’s words so harshly. In other words, we must silence the critics using religious language. When we look at the story of John 8, Jesus never denied that fact that the woman was sinful. In fact, the language he used in John 8.11 “Neither do I condemn you” is highly legal. Jesus didn’t really pronounce forgiveness per se. He only spared her life. The real person she needed to ask forgiveness should be her husband, but the Bible doesn’t really talk about that. Many want to dismiss Trump’s talk as just locker room stuff, but the locker room stuff appears to be confession of a rape culture that shouldn’t exist in any room, locker room or otherwise. Forgiveness? How about Trump ask forgiveness from those women he groped, but no, he didn’t do that! We don’t have the right or authority to forgive Trump. We aren’t rape victims or victims of sexual harassment. The easy dismissal of a serial behavior from a future leader of the US by Christians makes mockery of all Christian ethics. This easy forgiveness is the reason why sexual abuse is so prevalent in conservative Christian circles (whether Protestant or Catholic). Jesus took sin seriously by using legal language. So should Christians. The usage of John 8.7 mocks the very God on whom this faith is found.

The power relationships between the adulterous woman and Trump are different. Remember the context of the adulterous woman. The Pharisees wanted to stone her. When I read a story like this, I always wonder where the man who committed the crime was. The absence of the adulterous man shows that she was used as a tool to test Jesus. The Pharisees here weren’t after real justice. They merely wanted to force Jesus’ hand in condemning her to death. She was a helpless victim caught in the power game of a society of unequal power between men and women. Trump is far from the status of the powerless. In fact, he’s one of the most powerful men whose accountants and lawyers are capable to help him avoid taxation while he makes millions. We should fix the tax code that enables him to do that. He also acts in a powerful role in the harassment of many women. I know someone’s going to inevitably bring up Bill Clinton. If Clinton harassed women or committed adultery, he’s also wrong, but we’re ONLY talking Trump because evangelicals aren’t using John 8 to defend Clinton at the moment. The status between the adulterous woman and Trump are as far as heaven is from hell. While she was just trying to escape with her life. She wasn’t trying to be the king of Israel.  Trump is going for the most powerful position in the free world. The usage of John 8.7 misunderstands both the worlds of Jesus and of Trump.

The situations of the woman’s and Trump are completely different. We must notice that Jesus was quite serious about the adulterous woman’s sin. He never denied it. At the same time, after he dismissed her, he didn’t come out to say that she’s now serving as the paragon of purity. No, Jesus wouldn’t say that. Trump however flippantly dismisses his own moral downfall, and then turns around and says, ” He’s ready to take on one of the most powerful political positions in the world. He isn’t going away like the adulterous woman. While he uses words of repentance, he doesn’t bear the fruits of repentance. In fact, Trump claims, “I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do.” How can we trust a man who says one thing but does another? Apparently, Trump’s evangelical supporters are asking us to do exactly that. This sort of ethical suicide is what gives evangelicals a bad name. Again, I’m not saying that Hillary is all that honest, but the evangelicals aren’t using John 8 to support her now, are they? In fact, they really want to stone her. The usage of John 8.7 is a double standard that has plagued evangelicals for ages that has now made the entire movement a running joke.

Whatever one thinks of Hillary (and I’m really not a fan), we can’t dismiss the fact that the failure of evangelical leadership in this election boils down to a kind of dire biblical illiteracy that has infiltrated its ranks. Perhaps, if they REALLY read their Bibles instead of messing about with powerful political people (on all sides), they’d do better as a moral authority. Until then, they’ve become a moral joke.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault. The interpreter is!

Obligation to What? Christian Approach to the Political Process

Tags

Hong Kong election, presidential debate

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ…”

Galatians 1.3 (NIV)

I’ve been writing sections of a book discussing Paul and his political views. I can’t help seeing the relevance to both the US (my home) and Hong Kong (where I often work).

At home, the evangelicals have finally stood behind Donald Trump out of their fear and disdain for Hillary. I’m going to lay aside whether Hillary is a fit candidate or not and discuss purely the many evangelical Christian responses. The typical response I see on social media has a very simple logic that goes something like this. You’re obligated to vote for Trump if you’re a true Christian because the alternative is evil. The logic speaks to a popular utilitarian mentality. It’s basically saying that since we live in a flawed system, we have to choose a route that “works for us.” In this alternate universe of evangelicalism, obligation is either to a candidate or a political process.

The ten seats of the Hong Kong legislative election is also part of the political discussion. These ten seats are for the Christian leaders and they’re essentially picked by drawing lot. Many are clamoring for those seats from the large denominations. Some would go as far as saying that participation in this fraud democracy is at least better than not participating. Again, the obligation is for self-serving utilitarian reasons.

When Paul spoke of Jesus as the Lord, he placed all believers under the obligation to Jesus. By making the candidate or the political process the thing to which we feel obligated, we have essentially made them our gods. In Paul’s world, “obligation” is something people owed to a superior overlord. The ultimate obligation of a believer isn’t to a human being or a process. What if none of this works?

There’s a real possibility that our best effort will fall flat. It’s happened in history repeatedly. What then? I’d say that in our case, we have replaced our integrity and faithfulness with utilitarianism, our self interest, our agenda and our heroes. Obligating ourselves to candidates who blatantly hold anti-Christian values isn’t faithful. Obligating ourselves to a political lie that pretends to be a democratically elected process is even less faithful. If we strip away all our utilitarianism, our self interest, our agenda and even the heroes we worship (be it Trump, Hillary or Bernie), what do we have left? I don’t think we will have integrity and faithfulness left. When we replace God with a process or an idol, we’re in a dangerous place. So what if we succeed? Without integrity and faithfulness, our success is nothing other than rubbish.

Lately, in many church circles, there’s been a call for a new kind of Reformation. In fact, I just saw this morning someone was talking about that in HK. Before we can reform anything, perhaps we need to reform ourselves, our lost conscience and our idolatry. When it comes to politics, Christians tend to put their hope in politicians and the political process rather than God. Perhaps that’s our biggest problem at the present time. The only person we’re obligated to is Jesus Christ. Otherwise, “Jesus is Lord” is a mere cliche.

Rescuing Daniel from His Hijackers: On Christian Participation in a Corrupt Political System

“…But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food …” Daniel 1.8

Recent discussions on occupying the seats of the HK fraudulent election heats up again in the theological circles. Soon or later, someone will appeal to Daniel to justify Christian participation in politics. I’m not against participation, but the appeal to Daniel ought to be much more cautious than a rhetorical tactic. The appeal to Daniel (and many other biblical characters) is a popular tact to justify Christian involvement in politics, even in corrupt political systems.

Usually the argument goes something like this. Daniel is the typology of Christian participation in a corrupt political system. If Daniel can do it, why can’t I? Now, I’m no expert on HK politics, as I follow it as an amateur. However, I do know a thing or two about the Bible. Having spoken in Baltimore last year on the first half of Daniel and last weekend on the second half of Daniel, I think I ought to reflect on the appeal to Daniel in the HK election or any Christian participation in politics. I’ll only look at Daniel as a character in the book of Daniel. Anyone who wants to argue about authorship can go read some commentaries on Daniel. What exactly about Daniel that allows us to appeal to him as a typology for Christian participation in politics? Let me name just two criteria to make the matter simple.

The first appealing criteria about Daniel’s participation is intelligence. In order to navigate that system, Daniel had intelligence in abundance. The Bible says that he was without physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand and qualified to serve in the king’s palace (Dan. 1.4). What that meant was that he was an obvious genius and a physical specimen. He was near perfect. The Babylonians had superiority over Israel in every sense back in those days, whether in culture or military might. For the Babylonians to recognize these qualities, Daniel and his friends must have been quite outstanding, not just in an ordinary sense but in the sense of even greater than their superior captors. Yet, they didn’t stop at being intelligent. In a society where illiteracy was high, their mere ability to read literature set them apart from fellow Israelites, but they had further education to be informed by the language and literature of Babylon (Dan. 1.4). Thus, they had both nature and nurture on their side. What did learning the language and literature of Babylon do? The learning enabled Daniel and his friends to administer properly in their future leadership roles in serving the king. As far as whether we have people in the theological circle that would resemble Daniel’s education and intelligence, I’m not qualified to judge. Now, if we look at the situation in HK theological circles and those involved in the debate, there aren’t many who have had real government experience other than my colleague Dr. Freeman Huen. Whether you agree with him or not (certainly, he and I can disagree on some fine points for sure), he has walked the walk. For the most part, as far as I know, the rest are just like Donald Trump talking about longevity in business success or marriage. It’s mostly just fantastic balderdash and a good mix of hot humid air. I’m not talking about elitism here. I’m talking about competence.

The second appealing trait about Daniel’s participation is integrity. Daniel continued to take great risks even as he was serving the king. In fact, he would be safer not to serve the king and be an ordinary captive. We often notice the heroic exploits and piety of Daniel, but his prophetic office is where we can clearly see integrity. In Dan. 4, Daniel was forced to interpret a dream that was unfavorable to the king. In fact, it was a message of doom against the dignity of the king. In the Ancient Near East, the king’s honor was something a nation preserved. It was a supreme crime to offend the king’s honor. Daniel could’ve sugar-coated the interpretation about the king’s demise in Dan. 4, but he didn’t. He spoke plainly against the king without knowing what the final outcome would be. He even told the king he would eat grass. Next time you think you’re Daniel, ask yourself whether you have the courage to tell Xi Jingping to eat grass! Report back! As if that wasn’t courageous enough, we mustn’t fail to notice that roughly half of Daniel (Dan 7-12) was devoted to pronouncing doom against the Medo-Persian Empire where Daniel also served its kings. That fact alone shows that Daniel was a man who wasn’t afraid to speak the truth without having to measure the consequences of his prophecy. It’s already quite evident in HK politics that MANY “Christian politicians” haven’t only failed their duties but further succeeding in sugar-coating the lies from Beijing. Their participation is the very opposite of Daniel’s. They were eager to please the government or to participate in the governmental power structure. Their record is mostly abysmal, highlighted by the dire failure of Donald Tsang, a self-proclaimed Catholic. The theological circle is no different really. I’ve even heard a former principal of a major seminary who supported the pro-China speed rail spending (while the money could be spent on bettering the quality of life for the poor) previously now speaking on the destruction of crosses on mainland churches and blaming the churches for not dialoguing with government. How does any of this demonstrate the integrity of Daniel? If anything, these sad examples are the poverty in integrity. In the administration of Xi Jinping, Daniel would be imprisoned, tortured and put to death. In short, we don’t have people who have enough integrity to speak the truth forcefully without worrying about 1) personal interests 2) institutional interests (i.e., “mission” to China, especially to China’s wealthy and powerful elite). No, I can safely say that we don’t have a Daniel who’s qualified to serve the king now. Intelligence without integrity can do more harm than good.

Part of our job as church leaders, theologians and biblical scholars is to help the church and society where we are, but if we can’t fulfill that task, at least don’t hurt the people. So, before you dare to appeal to Daniel’s example, ask yourself whether you’re the kind of person like Daniel. I dare say that there aren’t too many people even in the history of humankind that’s like Daniel, let alone the corrupt circle of HK politics (and church denominations). The worst case scenario is the US. Here in the US, we have every candidate claiming piety towards the Christian God more than the next. I’m not against Christian involvement in politics (a successful example would be Abraham Kuyper), but I’m against the careless appeal to the Bible even when the appeal clearly doesn’t respect the text, culture and message of the Bible. Before you hijack the Bible for your own ambition or publicity, go read your Bible first!

As I said countless times, the problem isn’t the biblical text. The problem comes from foolish interpreters.

 

 

Trumping Two Corinthians: Right Text, Wrong Outrage

Tags

2 Corinthians 3.17, Donald Trump at Liberty

The Donald made the news again. Surprise! This time he made news in Liberty University. The report happily states that a Liberty University student corrected Trump when he claimed, “We’re going to protect Christianity. I can say that. I don’t have to be politically correct. Two Corinthians, 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame … is that the one you like?”  There’re plenty in blog sphere and in the audience who so gladly and smugly note that it’s “SECOND” Corinthians not “TWO” Corinthians. After all, there’re more than TWO Corinthians. They were may Corinthians in Corinth.

 

The pitiful thing about this episode is not so much about what Trump said because we’ve come to expect outrage. I’m not even shocked to learn that another conservative Christian college has chosen to align itself to the most extreme right of the political spectrum. I’ve come to expect it. I’m even less shocked that he was giving a speech on Martin Luther King Jr. Day when many respectable educational institutions take the day off while Liberty conducts classes. Liberty, after all, has never been about “political correctness” anyway. What I find most pitiful is that a college that’s supposed to teach about the Bible has students who only focus on the “Two versus Second” instead of Trump’s clear misquotation of 2 Corinthians 3.17, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom.” (NET)

 

The verse has nothing to do with freedom. Paul was talking about the glory of the new ministry in Christ in light of the ministry by Moses. He was involved in this ministry and the freedom he was talking about was regarding the freedom from Torah-observation among gentile converts to his gospel (3.3, 6, 7, 9). It is possibly Paul’s reformulation of Exodus 34.34 with a similar formula of “Now the Lord … ” Unless Trump was arguing about how gentiles fit into God’s greater plan for Israel or how Paul used certain phrases of the Hebrew Bible to express  his ideas, he shouldn’t be quoting anything from that section of the Bible. While we can’t expect any of Trump’s quotes to be accurate, I’m shocked that no one at Liberty caught this and made it an issue. I suppose if Trump’s agenda fit the political leaning of the college, all’s forgiven. What would be worse however is if people who were taught in that college, a bible-teaching college, can’t even understand that Trump was misquoting scripture. That degree of ignorance is what allowed politicians from both sides to snow well-intentioned believers in the church.

 

 

Right text, wrong meaning, anyone? As a result, we reap the consequence of mistaking the petty for the main issue by majoring in the minor. If we don’t go for political correctness, can we at least go for scriptural correctness? Then again, if we have arrived at scriptural correctness, we may have to change our ways of thinking and our behavior. We wouldn’t want that now, would we?

 

By the way, in England, where I studied for my PhD in the New Testament, they call it “Two Corinthians”. Just saying …

The Good Samaritan: A Conversation with Short Stories by Jesus

Tags

immigration reform, Luke 10, The Good Samaritan

In US immigration reform as well as the controversial Chinese policy in Hong Kong in allowing mainlanders to flood the already overcrowded city, many would find the story in Luke 10 to be a reflection point, but what kind of reflection can result?

 

In A-J. Levine’s second chapter on the Good Samaritan, she talks about the impossibly upside down world of Jesus. In a discussion about the lawyer, she suggests that the lawyer in Jesus’ world would be considered a good guy. He was, in fact, a cultural gatekeeper who would prevent the Jews from sliding into gentile assimilation. Yet, Luke’s portrait was consistently negative.

 

Levine then points out the importance of the main issue Jesus was dealing with “How do you read it?” in looking at the question of eternal life and the Torah. The assumption of the privileged position of the lawyer who could read as opposed to the largely illiterate population comes in sharp focus in this story. In many ways, Levine agrees with Jesus on the importance of loving in view of the Jewish law.

 

In this book, Levine brings out many excellent points. The following are the ones I strongly agree with. First, she sees the victim as any person. Certainly, Jesus didn’t focus on the ethnicity, even though the victim looked most likely to be Jewish. Second, she denies that ritual purity is the issue with the religious characters. She’s totally right because they were getting off works, so to speak. They weren’t heading towards Jerusalem. Why did they have to worry about the man being dead? Third, and most significantly, she cites Martin Luther King Jr.’s interpretation of the two religious leaders being afraid of what would happen to them as they traveled on the dangerous road. The Samaritan however thought in reverse, “What would happen to this man if I don’t stop?” This is a most reasonable interpretation based on the geography and the Torah stipulation of love.

 

The significance of the Samaritan’s ethnicity deserves mention, and Levine surely focuses on that ethnicity. I think she’s right to see the radical nature of seeing someone who’s very much the despised enemy of Israel being the good person in the parable. I agree with her assessment. The Samaritan wasn’t “good”. He’s despised. Here’s where I disagree with her. At the beginning of her chapter, she writes that the whole story isn’t answering “Who’s my neighbor?” Now, I believe Jesus did answer the question using the ethnicity of the Samaritan to do so. I’ve given my readers a key to interpret this story anew. I hope this conversation with Levine helps stimulate further reflection on not only the neighbor being the Samaritan, but also the question of “Who’s my neighbor?”

When Praying the “Our Father” Becomes Subversive

Tags

China our mother

 

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters … yes, even their own life … such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14.26

 

This week, a  matter more urgent than reading A-J. Levine’s book deserves my attention.  China’s influence in Hong Kong continues as one prestigious school begins to teach its very young children that “China is my mother”.  This has caused great alarm simply because the said school is a Catholic school.  St. Cyprian of Carthage, the great martyr in 258 AD famously said, “You cannot have God for your Father unless you have the church for your Mother.”   Lest anyone thinks that only Roman Catholics think in this way, even no less a Reformer than John Calvin had indicated a general agreement with this statement.

 

Let me put aside my Christian faith and make comments about this phenomenon and the potential harm it will do to the entire Chinese culture.  Many with colonial phobia in China had already denounced that Christianity is a white man’s religion that will harm the family due to a misreading of verses like Luke 14.26.  This is idiotically dishonest because in both Old and New Testaments, there’re also commands to honor parents.  What Jesus said in exaggerative metaphors, China had already turned the metaphor into a reality in recent history.  What is infinitely more harmful than the perceived harm Christianity is doing to the Chinese family is the communist attempt to replace the family with its dangerous family metaphors that result in literal destruction of the family.  By saying that the mother is the country, we have a semblance of prioritization of the government over our biological family.  As a result, many children had put parents to death in the Cultural Revolution.  This is a historically undeniable fact.  This present ethos seeks to continue its destruction of one of the base virtues of Chinese culture, filial piety.  Let’s look at this in broader cultural history of the world in my harsh critique of this dangerous movement. In recent memory, how often were Germans encouraged to see Germany as the fatherland?  The blind patriotism turned into fascism in many of the cases.  How about even a more recent memory of abusive HK police with their batons being compared to “a kind mother” by pro-China HK police chief, drawing the ire of most sensible Hong Kong citizens?   Even to an unbeliever, these dangerous ideas are worth denouncing.

 

Let’s now turn our attention to a more faith-based critique of this situation.  This attempt is a dire affront both to biblical and historic Christianity (and here, I include Roman Catholic Christianity that would reach back to the tradition of the fathers). If God is the Father and the Church is the Mother, where does China fit in?  Nowhere!  No government fits in there, however just the government may be.  Whenever the state takes on the metaphorical role of the parent in history, things usually don’t go well.  For a Christian, such metaphors are an affront to our faith because we don’t serve Caesar; we serve God.  Our metaphorical Mother is the Church from which we draw our birth, gospel and nourishment.  What’s the Church’s voice in this?  Nowhere!  It’s time for all church leaders to speak up, instead of seeing the opposition as just one of the opinions among the many opinions in the Body of Christ.  Anyone who says that there’re many options to how we respond to such matters is lying to us.  Neither the Bible nor the church tradition would allow us more options other than an active denouncement.  Leaders who aren’t ready to weigh in on similar matters aren’t ready to lead.  If we are the people of God, we must live like the people of God.

 

At the end, I leave you this subversive prayer as our Lord has taught us to remind us of what kind of people we are.

 

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
  your kingdom come,
  your will be done,
  on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from the evil one… amen.

 

 

The Cheap Mask of Good Works and Conversion: Mark Wahlberg and Other Badly Behaved Celebs

Tags

Luke 19.1-10, Mark Wahlberg, Mark Wahlberg's pardon, Zacchaeus

Luke 19:1-10New International Version (NIV)

Zacchaeus the Tax Collector

19 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. ² A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. ³ He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. ⁴ So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

⁵ When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” ⁶ So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

⁷ All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

⁸ But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

⁹ Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. ¹⁰ For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Recently, Mark Wahlberg, the famous actor, has asked for a pardon for a hate crime he committed years ago as a kid. I enjoy a lot of Wahlberg’s movies, and unlike many who really dislike his action, I’m not about to boycott all his movies, but his case does bring up some interesting ethical problem.

 

Reaction comes from the extreme of either saying that Walberg doesn’t deserve any pardon or he deserves a second chance. Then, there’re the reactions in between. According to Wahlberg in this article, he said that he has paid back society by doing good deeds like charities. Mary Belmonte, the white teacher who brought the students to the neighborhood beach that day, sees things differently. “I believe in forgiveness,” she said. “He was just a young kid — a punk — in the mean streets of Boston. He didn’t do it specifically because he was a bad kid. He was just a follower doing what the other kids were doing.”  Yet, one of his victims called for no pardon. Walberg used to chase her and her friends, pelted them with rocks and called them racist names. Some might question her for drudging up the past. Why not let bygone be bygone?

 

The answer is very simple. Good works do not always bring reconciliation. With every sin or crime against real victims, unless the perpetrator reaches out and makes reparation to victims, good works can’t hide past sin and they certainly do not redeem the sinner. Wahlberg and his supporters do not understand this simple truth.

 

According to the Asian American man who lost his eye in the racist attack, he has pardoned Walberg and he is to be commended for his generosity, but he also states that Wahlberg has never reached out to him. People like Belmonte, a WHITE teacher, do not help by saying that Wahlberg deserves forgiveness.  Says who?  Belmonte is WHITE; she’s never experienced a racist crime from another white man like Wahlberg.  To be honest, with people like Belmonte who just don’t get it, they’re allowing Wahlberg to dance around the issue. They’ve never earned the right to forgive because they’ve  never been a victim of Wahlberg.  If Wahlberg wants good will, perhaps taking financial steps to make reparation to his victims is the best way to earn some good will. Start with, “I’m sorry for your eye. Here’s a few million dollars from my stash of several other millions.”

 

Christians who behaved badly in their formerly lives also often hide behind their conversion, as if God’s grace is somehow a justification for their past wrong. I’ve seen this with some HK officials whose questionable ethics only match their zeal for “evangelism”, supposed after being reformed and of course not making any reparation towards their own mess. Some 70% of present and past HK high officials claim to be Christians according to one article.  Some of them even organize prayer events on the Day of Global Prayer with a heavily pro-government coloring.  One particular gentleman has been known to use questionable tactics to carry out more questionable government policies while always kissing up to China’s oppressive government.  The same gentleman who has studied for his diploma at Oxford while “seeking God’s will”  and who was a huge advocate for the oppressive government is now an “evangelist” who will spend his time “praying” for the government.  I would laugh if I thought he was telling a joke, but he wasn’t.  Perhaps he needs to pray over his own sins first and then make reparation by advocating for greater justice and less oppression.  Some abstract pie-in-the-sky prayer is not what we need because we’re living in the real world with real victims. If a Christian is truly justified, s/he then ought to understand that justification is based on a sense of justice. The justified should value justice more, not less. Free grace is not cheap grace. A changed life doesn’t equal to reparation. Neither does it necessarily bring real reconciliation.

 

So, pardon (excuse the pun) my cynicism (aka realism) on cheap grace and dirty pardons. My haters will call me a Pelagian or a heretic who doesn’t believe in the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith.  Someone ought to take a page out of Zacchaeus’ playbook in trying to define salvation based on that the way Jesus did.  Reparation is necessary to demonstrate a changed life.  Talk is cheap.  Pretentious good works to ease the uneasy conscience is cheaper.

When we DENY the problem, we BECOME the problem

Tags

Galatians 3.28

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  Galatians 3.28 NIV

 

“According to Galatians 3.28, race is not the problem because our identity is in Christ now,” proclaims a white pastor.

 

My friend visited this church. This is what he noticed. The church is packed full of white folks. Now, I’m not saying that isn’t a good thing, but with the change in our society, we ought to ask why our Sunday morning is still the most segregated time of the week. When we read and study Paul’s mission and Jesus’ Great Commission, we see the clear command to make all people disciples of Jesus. “All” means all, not white, not blacks, not brown, not yellow and not red.

 

 

When quoting Galatians 3.28 in this colorblind perspective, we must equally say that gender inequality is not the problem or that social status is no longer a problem. But gender inequality and social inequality ARE problems! In fact, slavery was alive and well when Paul wrote those words and had continued to be so for many centuries after, even in the US today (where human trafficking and sexual slavery still concerns us). The logic simply doesn’t hold water. Paul’s message doesn’t deny the problems of race, gender and social class. Rather, the church ought to consider such issues within its own mission in how to adapt and help these problems to go away (e.g. Paul did it with not forcing gentiles to circumcise or follow food laws). In fact, the church should be much more sensitive towards race, gender and social class than society so that there’s true equality within its community life. This requires a brand new way of doing ministry that considers all these factors. What would be the consequence of misreading Galatians 3.28?

 

 

The consequence of misreading results in the very opposite of Paul envisioned for the church. Ironically, the same pastor who proclaimed this misreading is in a predominately white church with very few Asians and two blacks. Of course, race is not a problem because there’s hardly any minority there to CREATE that problem. Yet, race IS a problem because the practically lily-white demographic of his church hardly reflects the changes in his neighborhood. I don’t want to blame the entire problem on the pastor, but surely, he has to shoulder part of the blame when he preaches this sort of misreading of Paul. So, let’s be careful when we say that our faith has negated real world problem because that negation is often a mere denial. The louder we deny, the greater is the problem. WE may be the problem.

An Advent of Love? Reflection on the 140 + dead in Pakistan

Tags

Christian response to Pakistani bombing, Christian response to torture, Pakistani bombing

“I urge, the, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone …” 1 Timothy 2.1 (NIV)

 

As we approach Advent, tragedies occur all over the world.  Sydney saw its rare hostage crisis where one of my friends’ colleague lost her life. Equally tragic is the death of 141 people, mostly children, in Pakistan after the Talibans launched a revenge attack against a school.  Meanwhile, debates still continue among Christians on whether torture is a legitimate practice against enemies.  As I look around, people give different reactions through social media and newspaper op ed columns.  I notice something peculiar.

 

I notice that while Christians will continue to justify torture as a valid method against enemies, there’s some call for prayer for people in Australia.  However, there’s little to no call for prayer for the families of the dead in Pakistan.  While we construct logically sophisticated justification (even from scripture) on why we can torture, many of us Christians don’t even care to pray for these Pakistani victims.  Why?

 

I can think of thousands of reasons, but I bet one glaring reason is the way we western Christians think of the world.  Sydney, Australia, a city that deserves our prayer, is western enough.  After all, the Aussies are “better” allies than the Pakistanis.  So we pray for them but not the Pakistanis.  The Pakistanis belong to the “other”. In fact, aren’t all Pakistanis Muslims and if so (I’m not saying that they are), aren’t they are political enemies?  If their children die, they can go straight to hell where our enemies belong.  This simplistic and warped worldview has colored our priorities to the degree that it has affected the way we pray and the way we worship.  While we shout in favor of separation of church and state, our politics continue to cloud our judgment and more importantly, our spirituality.

 

In our response towards crisis and in our prayer life, we demonstrate the kind of value we hold.  Actually, many may come up with thousands of verses to justify this and that, but some verses like the one I quoted above is straightforward as part of the Christian worship. If you don’t believe it and can read Chinese, go read my three works on the Pastoral Letters.  If you don’t believe me, go read some commentaries on 1 Timothy.  In this case, our worldview causes us to make disgusting, xenophobic and worst of all, anti-Christian choices, right in our worship. This begs the question whether our ethics matches the kind of God we worship. This is an important concept to contemplate during Advent or any other time. Do we even worship the same God the author of 1 Timothy worshipped or do we worship some other version of God?  Before we can heal the world, perhaps we need healing first.