satu lagi sherman!

hi sk,

I am not comfortable 'labeling' people or students as wondering, good, or maverick. It is too simplistic a schema and I do not think it is useful.

What the faculty thinks of them may reflect more on the faculty than of the students.

After studying their biographies for many years, I do not think Augustine, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and Bonhoeffer are really any more special than many of us. They will fit into all the categories of wondering, good and maverick students.

It just happened that they are at the right place in the right time and made the right choices and followed through their choices.

Hi Dr Tang,

Thanks for your comment. I need to clarify something before I move on to respond to your observation:

I don't think I'm observing seminary students from the vantage point of a faculty member in any way. Firstly, I'm just an adjunct lecturer in the present seminary in which I teach; and secondly, I mentioned (in this post) having been in a seminary environment for almost eight years (out of which I was a student most of the time - I began teaching only just over a year ago). In other words, I'm stating my observation more as a fellow student than as a faculty member.

I have no absolute idea what the fulltime faculty think of the students at the present seminary wherein I teach, and it's not a point of concern for me, because I'm not specifically referring to this seminary in particular.

Now, for the issue itself. In mentioning Augustine, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and Bonhoeffer, I'm in no way trying to describe them as more or less spiritual than many of us. Within the context of this post, I think it's reasonably clear that I'm referring to their willingness to stake their own reputations (and even their lives) for their convictions. And I'm saying that the system through which future ministers are put through now is affirming the passive and submissive students more than the questioning ones who might be willing to stake themselves for a desired change in the church.

It's quite crucial, I feel, for us to exercise caution in our hermeneutics of any such writings. A hermeneutic of suspicion might lead us to read more into what the writer isn't saying and miss out on what he is in fact saying. So the point of this post is not to stereotype. If I have not mentioned any race, gender, culture, nationality, or background of any type in this post, it's deliberately because I do not intend to stereotype or label - this isn't the intention of this post. Admittedly, the categorisation exercise in this post has been rather simplistic, as you've observed. But I think it is rather sufficient for the purpose of bringing across my point when read within the context of what I'm trying to say.

Thanks!

Sherman,

I just wanted to say that I found your blog about a month ago through a friend and find it quite refreshing. A lot of the same ideas have been going through my own head and it's exciting to see other people on the same thought line.

Also, I'd like to come visit your church sometime. I live in South Korea (originally I'm from the US, but am working at an International School here)...but this Christmas holiday I'm going to be in Malaysia for about 2 weeks hopefully. We have a boarding conference in Penang in which I'm attending.

Anyway, just wanted to say blessings and keep the thought-provoking posts.

Thanks,

Mike

hi sk,

Thanks for responding to my comments. You are right in your comment on the hermeneutic part. "A hermeneutic of suspicion" works both ways. It may also leads you to read more that I am actually saying or not saying in my comment.

Yes, I did get the point of your post which is that the system through which future ministers are put through now is affirming the passive and submissive students more than the questioning ones who might be willing to stake themselves for a desired change in the church. I agree totally with you on that point from my observation of our theological education institutions.

However, it leads to two further thoughts of my own;

(1) How do we know the passive and submissive students may not be the earth shakers in their own time? Hence my referring to those Christian names you have mentioned. Many of those you mentioned will be classified as passive and submissive students.

(2)Being interested in contextual theology, isn't being passive and submissive part of ur Asian heritage? Will changing our education/training strategy so that we produce more 'maverick' akin to missionaries making African converts wear Western clothes? (yes, I'm being provocative here :)

Hi Dr Tang,

Thanks for the clarification. I'd have thought that your concern was more with my categorisation than with the issue I was trying to point out. It's much easier to discuss once we get the fog out of the way.

On your first point, yes, I'd go so far to concede that there's no absolute certainty that none of these students will arise to become earth shakers in their time. There's no telling, huh? But do consider the following realities: 1)What do we observe about most pastors who're already in the field today, who have gone through this system? 2)A social-scientific way of evaluation has found that most pastors in training are characterised as "compliant", and that's perhaps what makes pastoral ministry a viable vocation for them in the present scheme of things (yes, this may be a simplistic "label" or categorisation, but no less an indication).

On the second issue, I'm not sure many sociologists would agree that being passive and submissive is a part of the Asian heritage. But I'm willing to cut some slack here to say that the Hindu worldview (with a kind of fatalism) and the Confucius worldview (with its emphasis on societal order) do presribe, in a sense, a kind of passivistic and submissive behavioural pattern. But most of our local seminarians aren't purely Asian in their worldview anymore, and we can't pretend as if they are. They've been exposed to critical ideas about culture, society, politics, education, etc. Many of them are themselves university graduates, trained in the Western-type Cartesian system of thought. In many areas of their lives, they're not conformists (and are actually cultivating rather worrying sub-cultures that defy the authority systems of society - but that's another story). And yet, when it comes to issues of being capitalists for change in the ecclesiastical context, they suddenly become entirely Asian in their outlook...?

I'm inclined to think that Asian history has shown not an absence of revolutionary figures, but a record replete with revolutionary figures who have shown alternative ways of revolution to stand firm in their position on certain convictions. A revolution does not necessarily require critical verbal articulations and physical violence. The incarnational way of "being the change we seek" (in the words of Ghandi) is very Asian. Even so, it would take a miracle to see a Christian Ghandi emerge from among my fellow seminarians. Me included.

Couldn't it be more an issue of conviction than culture?

Fascinating dialogue! Sorry I cannot contribute more than to say that I enjoy a conversation where social science, theology, anthropology, and education integrate to inform the development of spiritual/theological leadership. Perhaps another time when I have less deadlines to pursue.

LOVE the Gandhi quote -- reference, please!!

Hi sk,

Instead of an either/or (rather Cartesian) could we not settle for either/or/both (very Asian) concerning conviction and culture/i>?

On your response to my first issue,yes, there is no absolute certainty how any of them will turn out. However, I always caution myself in studying seminarians because they are such a self-selected group.(here I must qualify myself as more people are coming in as a second career after years in the outside world. These mature seminarians, IMHO is a different group altogether). I am sure you are aware that the MBTI and other personality profiles of most local seminarians (excluding the mature group I have mentioned) are quite similar. That may be a response to (2). By nature they are "followers" rather than "innovators".

However to (1), what are we measuring or evaluating? I am sure you will agree that we should use a different standard of measurement on their performance as they are at the grassroots and doing practical theology, as compared with those at the academia. Again, as in (1), the self selected group cannot help but being themselves as evidenced by the "realities" that we see all around us.

As for the second issue, I am not really convinced that Western educated Chinese have really left behind their Asian mentality (personal mastery,mental models,systems thinking). They may think they are Cartesians, and be more outspoken, aggressive and pushy, but I am not sure how deep this "Western" mindset goes. Even their Western-ness may be their Asian 'passive-submissive'mode in a new disguise. Could it be the reason why we have so few Chinese at the cutting edge of theology and medicine, but more are in the more settled areas?

What produce revolutionaries? Conviction, culture, courage, self-sacrificial (with a bit of Messiah complex thrown in), and stupidity.

Hey jb,

I'm not entirely sure which piece of literature to quote this from, but Ghandi is reputed to have said, "Be the change you seek in the world".

Beautiful. If only it wasn't so tough, haha.

Hi Dr Tang,

Yes, I do think that the there's something about the pastoral vocation (or at least the way it's perceived) that attracts the more compliant people. And I wonder what some factors may be for the thinkers and potential revolutionaries of society to either avoid the pastoral ministry all together or embark on it only as a second career.

On the second point about the Asian mindset in a Western guise, your observation is well taken. And if this is indeed true, then the present revolutionary inclinations we see in certain areas of their lives and the lack of the same inclination in their ministerial vocation betrays a certain worrying dislocation... which begs the same question again, why?

Is it that the seminary system now is producing people who're insufficiently "self-sacrifial (with some of that Messiah-complex) and stupid" as you say? Or am I just seeing a problem that isn't there?

Hey Mike! Sorry I've just only noticed your comment posted way up there! Thanks for dropping by!

Penang is way north of Malaysia, but shoot me an email nearer to the time you'll be in Malaysia, and maybe we can work something out!

I've just received an email from a friend in Singapore, responding to some of our interactions here. I'm posting his comments here whilst maintaining his anonymity (since I'm doing it without his express permission, hehe). But I do think his comments are worth thinking about:

1. If the pastoral vocation does attract the more compliant among us. Why do we see so much in-fighting and disagreements in the church? Or is compliant taken to mean something else. I am not too sure about what it is like among the older folk in church. However, among the youth, i would suspect it is a mixture of apathy, lack of serious contemplation with regards to the church and their faith, and a pervasive culture of "dont rock the boat" in the church.

2. From what I understand, it is a mistake to assume that there is an "Asian" type of culture, given the fact that the term "Asian" encompasses many, many different peoples and races. What is "Asian" culture?

3. Culture is not stagnant, it changes over time. It almost seems like there is some nostalgia at play here. Like a wanting to hold on to some idealistic "Asian" culture. At least on the part of Dr Tang.

4.Even if we were to talk about Chinese culture. Are we really passive, submissive and compliant? What about tiananmen square? I would suspect that even in Chinese culture there are many who will not fit into the mould of passive-submissive, with personal mastery and all that. In fact i would think that there are those in Western cultures that will have these same factors, of personal mastery or passive-submissive. Are there really that few Chinese at the forefront of theology and medicine or the sciences? What are the "settled" areas? Might it be due to the fact of lack of opportunity? I will argue that as we see more and more Chinese receive greater education, it is very likely to see Chinese at the forefront of every field. Just think of the number of Chinese scientists working in America and around the world.