2. Find an organic life within the church institution(s).
The problem is real - for many of our church institutions, there is hardly an organic life within. The people go through the religious notions and prescribed rituals, and then dive right back into their own private lives as if their faith and life were two separate issues all together. But remember, the church is the church. Nothing can take away the role relegated to the church of being the necessary means to bring you towards the eventual and full partaking of Christ’s nature. This means that you’re obligated to continue partaking in the life of the church institution. But it also means that you have to somehow find an organic life within the said institution.

One main difficulty the Protestant Christian has to grapple with is which church institution I’m referring to here. Because in reality, we’re talking about many fragmented institutions which often disagree with one another, not one universal institution. Unfortunately, this is part of the irony which has emerged from 600 years of protesting against… erm, I understand what we were protesting about, but what are we protesting about now?

So here’s the thing: If you were a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Christian, the organic community in which you participated would also belong to the one institution, because the entire Roman Catholic Church is one, and the Orthodox Church also sees itself as one based on a universal theological agreement on the Tradition of the church. But as a Protestant Christian, it would be difficult to have any one particular institution contain the organic body for the simple reason that we are legion (in authority structures and in theological positions)! Imagine, what if your organic community – people who journeyed with you in spiritual intimacy – consisted of a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Lutheran, and a Pentecostal? Which institution would you expect to contain this organic community? To have one institution contain it would mean the exclusion of the other three.

So for the Protestant Christian, I’d suggest that you find spiritual friends who can journey with you in a deep intimacy in the environment of an organic community, but not seek an organic community solely found within one institution. The people in your organic community may come from various institutions, and that’s okay. But as they commit themselves to a life within your organic community, they must also be deeply committed to a participation in the life of their respective institutions. As soon as the organic community begins to think that it can exist apart from the institution(s), it has theologically invalidated itself within the scheme of the Kingdom. If you stand outside the institution, you stand outside the body of Christ. There is no Christianity outside the church in its institutional form, for she is the body of Christ enfleshed, which contains both the visible structure and the invisible organic dimension. If this fact seems over-emphasised, it is only because it cannot be emphasised enough.

Posted by SK at 1:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

So, here I stand, having survived years of churchlife within the Protestant tradition and having suffered multiple ulcers every time I “go to church”. But how did I survive church, find resuscitation for my faith, and keep on being a part of the institutional church? This is what I hope to share here, together with some theological points of concern which must be taken into account in such decisions we make along our journey.

1. Remain fiercely loyal to the institutional church.
Now, no matter how horrible the church institution looks like, remember that she is nevertheless the church belonging to and constituting a part of the Christ. He died for her, and he will return for her. Yes, not all who are within the institution are truly a part of that body, because many of these may not have appropriated their faith despite having received the means to do so. But yet, everyone who is a part of the body must always be found within the institution. Don’t go thinking that one can be Christian outside the church institution; it’s like saying “I can call myself ‘Sherman Kuek’ without identifying myself as a part of the ‘Kuek’ family”. It’s ridiculous.

Why is it so important that one who is truly a part of the body of Christ must be found within the church institution? Because the Christian church in ages past and present has been given the authority to i) dispense the sacraments which are necessary for the impartation of God’s grace to propel us further towards increasingly partaking in the nature of Christ (without this, there is no “salvation” to talk about), and ii) distinguish the right beliefs from the wrong, and to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy (a nicer word for “heresy”). These are things that cannot be replaced by an “organic church”, if there is even such a thing.

One may ask, “Where is all this mentioned in the bible?” The bible is a historical piece of document containing information about the life of God’s people up to the first-century church - that’s where it stops. But inasmuch as the bible is a documentation about the people of God, the people of God herself – the church – is dynamic and growing in her wisdom. In other words, the bible belongs to the church, the church does not belong to the bible. Hence, there are subsequent developments in the church’s self-understanding throughout the centuries that are not contained in the bible, but which do not contradict the bible. Rather, these developments are a further extension of the church’s self-understanding from biblical times. In fact, it was the institutional church that prescribed the bible as its authority. So asking “where is all this mentioned in the bible” is in fact an attestation that you subscribe to the authority of the institutional church.

Another reason that one who is truly a part of the body of Christ must be found within the church institution is this: the organic dimension of the church is organic, for goodness’ sakes. It is unshaped and dynamic and, like water, difficult to define unless there is a container which contains it. And the church institution is precisely that visible container which contains the organic dimension of the church. So we cannot go speaking of the two as if they are separate entities - this form of dualism is a heresy. To have an organic dimension of the church outside of the church institution (if that’s even possible) is only as good as having spilt water on the ground that cannot be recollected – it eventually dries up!

So the very first thing to note, in our journey of recovering a Christianity which is true to our faith, is that no authentic Christianity can exist apart from the church institution. One cannot claim to be a Christian outside of the church institution any more than a scientist can claim to be a scientist who remains unrecognised by the scientific community or a self-professed journalist whose news reports no press wants to publish. You may say, “Well, as long as God accepts me, that’s fine by me”, but you can never know for sure, can you? Because God speaks through his Body, the church. The fact that this church has lost its organic dimension and mostly retained only its institutional dimension is besides the point.

No doubt, the church might have screwed up and hurt you, disappointed you, abused you, flogged you, or abandoned you. Nothing warrants your finding a “churchless Christianity”, for there is no Christianity apart from the Body of Jesus Christ enfleshed. So for now, I leave you with the advice of my spiritual father:

As long as a church confesses the catholic faith even though catholicity is blurred at the margins, I cannot abandon the church into which I was baptised.

Of course, this does not mitigate the pain you face and the problem you might have identified pertaining to life in the institutional church. But it suffices to say for now that the prerogative is not yours (or anybody's) to think you can find a Christianity apart from the church.

More to come...

Posted by SK at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

There’s a lot of talk among middle-class young adults from the urban contexts regarding their disillusionment with church. Some are disillusioned because they’ve been hurt by the church. Others are disillusioned because the church isn’t providing what they need. Yet others are disappointed because they find that the church isn’t focusing on things that matter, e.g. environmental concerns and socio-political concerns.

Their responses are varied. Some continue being a part of the church institution whilst finding alternative sources of spiritual and emotional support from beyond the institution (or platforms beyond the institution that stand for the causes relevant to their concern). Others, upon having found such alternatives, stop going to church. Yet others dump the idea of having a commitment to the church institution all together and stop wanting to be involved in any visible form of churchlife, thinking that there’s a form of Christianity that still renders one Christian despite his/her absence from the institution. And together with these responses of course comes a plethora of different justifications. It’s a trend that’s picking up significantly especially in the West; and our urban young in Asia who’re disillusioned with church are happily influenced by this trend, consuming and even propagating videos and books on a “churchless Christianity”.

I feel a need to respond to my observation of this phenomenon. But first off, I want to acknowledge that if you’re a Roman Catholic Christian or an Eastern Orthodox Christian, the seeming conceptual detachment of the church institution from the church as an organic body must sound entirely awkward at best, and heretic at worst, for you. And you are right. It’s a Protestant “heresy” that undermines the importance of the very institution to which Christ has bequeathed the authority for the dispensation of the sacraments necessary for our journey of salvation, the very institution which also should contain the organic life of the church. It is therefore common for a Protestant Christian to think that the true Christian life can be lived beyond the church institution. And of course, by virtue of our being Protestant (a confederation of churches which sometimes disagree with one another rather than a single entity with a universal authoritative mind), the problem of “institution” also begs the question: which institution? So as a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian, if you find us largely messed up in our understanding of church and our identities as people rooted in a historical faith (or not), by golly, you’re right.

Now, having said all that, I’ve never been anything other than Protestant. To be exact, I’ve belonged to the “evangelical” faith all throughout my faith journey (now, I didn’t overtly say that I’m evangelical, did I? I just said I belong to that tradition… mark the difference, pretty please, because I’m increasingly discovering within my own tradition lots of teachings and practices that would’ve been seriously condemned as heresy in the Patristic era).

Posted by SK at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

"Love and say it with your life."

Posted by SK at 3:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

There are very few Christian materials on marriage today that can be deemed trustworthy. Little advice is based on adequate theological reflection in accordance with what the church believes about the nature of God and his Kingdom, whilst more are written and published by authors who apply psychological theories derived from a narcissistic and individualistic world, and who thereafter give these theories a religious face and call them “Christian”. That’s what we, the Christians, are feeding on.

These things we read have come to fuel our understanding of marriage and family. As a result of that, many Christian communities congratulate themselves on their focus on marriage and family through their worship services, their weekend conferences on “rekindling the fire of marriage” and the like, and through their other church activities. Meanwhile, many of the young adults who are yet single, just keep longing to eventually find that spouse who will share that experience of a “fired up” marriage with them so as not to feel left out. That’s what our Christianised notions of secular romanticism has done to our church, besides various other factors affecting our views on marriage and family.

I recently discovered a theologically refreshing and mind-blowing writing on marriage and family (ironically, in a book that isn’t new to me). Unlike other books specially focused on marriage, this book writes about marriage and family within the context of the sacraments of the church, because the author comes from a tradition in which marriage is a sacrament (and for good reason too). The book is For the Life of the World written by Alexander Schmemann, and published in 2004 by St Vladimir’s Seminary Press in New York. Here are some excerpts which jump out at me in polemic response to the “popular” rendition of Christian marriage and family:

…How is marriage related to the Kingdom which is to come? How is it related to the cross, the death and the resurrection of Christ? What, in other words, makes it a sacrament?

Even to raise these questions seems impossible within the whole “modern” approach to marriage, and this includes, often enough, the “Christian” approach. In the numberless “manuals of marital happiness”, in the alarming trend to make the minister a specialist in clinical sexology, in all cozy definitions of a Christian family which approve a moderate use of sex (which can be an “enriching experience”) and emphasize responsibility, savings, and Sunday School – in all this there is, indeed, no room for sacrament. We do not even remember today that marriage is, as everything else in “this world”, a fallen and distorted marriage, and that it needs not to be blessed and “solemnized” – after a rehearsal and with the help of the photographer - but restored. This restoration, furthermore is in Christ… this restoration infinitely transcends the idea of the “Christian family,” and gives marriage cosmic and universal dimensions.

As long as we visualise marriage as the concern of those alone who are being married, as something that happens to them and not to the whole Church, and, therefore, to the world itself, we shall never understand the truly sacramental meaning of marriage… family in itself, can be a demonic distortion of love…

A marriage which does not constantly crucify its own selfishness and self-sufficiency, which does not “die to itself” that it may point beyond itself, is not a Christian marriage. The real sin of marriage today is not adultery or lack of “adjustment” or “mental cruelty”. It is the idolization of the family itself, the refusal to understand marriage as directed toward the Kingdom of God… In a Christian marriage, in fact, three are married; and the united loyalty of the two toward the third, who is God, keeps the two in an active unity with each other as well as with God.

Posted by SK at 4:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The Kingdom of God is like a crowd and a panel of judges with sneering faces - when they’re faced with a humble, unassuming, quiet man lacking in confidence wanting to sing opera - becoming suddenly stunned and convicted of the wrongness of their pre-judgements when that unimpressive plain commoner starts singing and his voice begins to shine like a thousand stars in the skies; and suddenly that man is known by his name, just the way he’s always needed to be known.

Paul Potts in the Audition, the Semi-Finals, and then the Finals

The Kingdom of God is like a fragile little girl who, with her voice, captivates the heart of her listeners and draws them into her song without even trying. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a crowd who legitimises the place of a little girl and recognises her equal personhood in the scheme of an adult world. “Let the little children come to me, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.”

Posted by SK at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

7. An Afterword from My Participation in AMCU IV
Many Christians from my own tradition have an issue with ecumenism at both the levels of inter-faith dialogue and intra-faith dialogue. I am, however, unrepentantly and unapologetically ecumenical in my outlook. I thoroughly believe that it is possible for one to be ecumenical without having to compromise one’s position on the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Ecumenism is not about the disregard of our theological differences to a level of the lowest common denominator. For true unity to be achieved, it has to be attained within an environment where our differences are highlighted, honoured, and talked about.

Some people have an issue with how generous I’ve chosen to become in my embrace of the theological positions of other Christian traditions. I believe I have good reason for this. Firstly, I happen to believe (like a number of other evangelical thinkers) that my tradition has failed to examine itself critically and to reinvent itself. What was once a tradition arising from the Reformation now itself needs an internal reformation. And the last thing we need is another split from Mother Church. If anything, I believe that our own theological and spiritual deficit can find recovery only if we start paying some attention to the articulations of Mother Church before the Reformation occurred. Indeed, some say that this isn’t possible because there are corruptions in the pre-Reformation church (heck, anything pre-Reformation to them is heretic and corrupted); and this leads me to the second point: it’s appalling how we readily and conveniently compare other peoples’ worst with our best and thereafter engage in self-congratulatory affirmations, when all along our worst may have been worse than other peoples’ worst. And so, what I believe to be a healthy ecumenical spirit is to learn from the best of others and allow the worst of others to remind us of how grave our own worst is without first judging those others.

Ecumenism is very much an ecclesiological problem. And this, if I may say so, is the precise spot at which the Protestant Church finds its gravest weakness. Where in other traditions apart from the Protestant tradition do we find people saying “The church next door is more happening than ours, I think I’m going to go join them”, or “The worship and the sermons at the megachurch in town is more inspiring than ours, I think I’ll leave this church for that one”? It shows that we, the Protestant Christians, are rather unaware of what it means to be the church. It’s very telling of the state of our ecclesiology - if there is even one. And I think we would be deceiving ourselves to think that the solution to this can be found within our own tradition. If it’s worth finding a solution, one has to embrace an ecumenical outlook and be self-critical towards one’s own tradition.

Posted by SK at 1:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

6. The Joint Statement
The nett result of the four-day seminar was the issuance of a joint statement issued by the three participating bodies, which will be disseminated to the relevant parties.

The Fourth seminar of the Asian Movement for Christian Unity (AMCU IV) was held on 11 to 14 June 2007 at the Archdiocesan Pastoral Centre of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 24 participants, representing the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA), the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC), and the Evangelical Fellowship of Asia (EFA), took part. Earlier AMCU seminars (Hong Kong, 1995; Bali, 1997; Chiang Mai, 2001) were jointly sponsored and organized by CCA and FABC. The participation by representatives of EFA in AMCU IV was the result of discussions carried out at the Asian chapter of the Global Christian Forum in Bangkok on 21-23 September 2006.

The theme of AMCU IV was “Our Common Witness in Contemporary Asia” and focused on the importance of Christians of all Churches and Christian communities to be united in responding to the social, political, and religious realities of Asia today. The participants shared their personal faith journeys and then examined the possibilities of joint Christian witness of faith in the context of the social challenges of injustice and discrimination and in the milieu of Asia’s religious and cultural plurality.

The participants agreed that Christian commitment must lead the Christian Churches in Asia to take a prophetic stand against any form of discrimination, such as that of caste, class, race, and gender, as being incompatible with the teaching of the Gospel. God’s message to humankind, as enunciated by the prophets and expressed in God’s word in Jesus Christ, affirms the equal human dignity of all people and condemns as sinful those human attitudes and deeds that oppress and discriminate among persons.

The common witness that Christians are called to make against patterns of oppression includes self-examination and self-criticism to become more aware of the ways in which sinful structures have also become engrained in the life of Christian communities in Asia. To be credible, Christians must oppose injustice and exploitation, not only when the victims are themselves Christian, but also in those instances where those who suffer discrimination are the followers of other religions or of no religion, and in cases where the perpetrators of injustice are fellow Christians. Christian witness, based on the Gospel imperative of loving service to others, must focus on the needs of the most vulnerable such as victims of natural calamities, oppressive regimes, and all forms of degradation of human life and should confront problems like global warming and other environmental concerns.

Faced with the multiplicity of religions in contemporary Asia, the participants of AMCU IV sought to define some elements of common Christian witness. Faith in Jesus Christ must be proclaimed in full respect for the beliefs and practices of others. Witness to Christian faith should never be carried out by putting down or denigrating the faith of others. Genuine Christian witness understands faith in Christ to be liberation from patterns of human sinfulness and which arises from a free and joyful response to God’s grace.

In the light of the various challenges facing the churches, the participants call upon the component bodies (CCA, FABC, and EFA) to address together the following concerns. One challenge is that of forming Christian youth in a commitment to build Christian unity. A second challenge is that of making our parish communities and pastors to be focal points for deeper involvement in the search for full visible Christian unity.

The three bodies can concretely promote Christian unity by getting to know one another better through mutual discussions and invitations to assemblies and plenary sessions, by engaging in joint projects such as the Asia Conference of Theological Students (ACTS) and the Congress of Asian Theologians (CATS), and by undertaking joint actions such as summer camps for Christian unity for young people. Mutual cooperation and activities at national and local levels are also to be strongly encouraged.

The participants expect to hold the next seminar for the Asian Movement for Christian Unity (AMCU V) in the middle of 2009.

Christian Conference of Asia
Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences
Evangelical Fellowship of Asia

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
14 June 2007

Posted by SK at 3:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

5. The Paper I Presented (continued)

II. Suffering - the Most Distinct Challenge to Christianity in Asia
The church in Asia may interact with the challenge of suffering at three levels of engagements. The first level involves literary engagement through which the church writes about those various expressions of this reality, providing descriptions, analyses and theological responses towards them. The second level of engagement involves grassroots activism through which the church takes proactive measures to participate in the suffering of the people, and (where possible) attempting to contribute towards the alleviation of such suffering. The third level involves structural activism through which one seeks to effect systemic changes in socio-political structures.

Level One: Literary Engagement. Much writing has been done from within Asia in the last 50 years. A wealth of contextual writings has emerged from East Asia, South Asia, and South East Asia. But this endeavour still leaves much to be explored. For example, much of the contextual theological writings in Myanmar has been preoccupied with a particular social struggle, i.e. the role of women in society, and rightly so. But little has been written on the economic struggle of the people, i.e. poverty, which is by far the most rampant expression of the people’s suffering there.

Beyond that, many of these Asian writings also need to find a deeper sense of resonance from within the Great Tradition. Whilst it is right that most of these writings are spurred by their socio-political contexts, there is a wealth of articulations from the Great Tradition (referring to the synergistic contributions of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism) which contains wisdom for these socio-political realities. An example of this is the rhetorics of John Chrysostom, the fourth century Bishop of Constantinople, in regard to the alleviation of poverty.

Furthermore, at this point of time, most of the Asian writings find their circulations within academic theological circles and have yet to infiltrate the level of grassroots Christians. The possible problem may be that of the language employed in these writings, which does not reflect the linguistic expression of the populace. It is perhaps important that the thinkers within the Asian church express their observations and theological responses in the language of the people (popular language).

There is also a sense in which we need to re-examine much of the theology we have received from our colonial missionaries. Whilst we appreciate the beauty of the gospel we have received from them, Christianity has come to Asia together with a seemingly inseparable Western cultural and theological expression. There is something of Protestant evangelical eschatology, for example, which contributes to our Asian Christian indifference towards socio-political realities. The dualism in which our faith is entrenched has likely given rise to this phenomenon of indifference towards social affairs in the present scheme of things. This calls for a re-examination, and if necessary, a revision of our eschatology in a way that is truer to the tradition of the church catholic.

Level Two: Grassroots Activism. Grassroots activism is an arena of social action which has yet to find the wide support of the Asian church authorities. Many organisations participating in the suffering of the people in Asia are either non-religious NGOs or Western mission agencies. There is little, if any, orchestrated grassroots activism at the ecclesiastical levels.

Perhaps the Asian church’s most apparent concerted effort was rendered observable in her response towards the catastrophe of the Asian Tsunami which occurred on 26 December 2004, one of the deadliest disasters in modern history. The earthquake and resulting tsunami affected many countries in Southeast Asia and beyond, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, the Maldives, Somalia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Seychelles and others, causing some 300,000 deaths. This event witnessed an orchestration of joint efforts and various local churches coming together to contribute to the restoration of demolished cities like Banda Aceh. Donations were sent through various organisations and voluntary relief workers from the local churches were also sent in batches.

However, the kind of help described above is sporadic in nature; hardly anyone from within the Asian church is now heard expressing concern for the forgotten effects of the tsunami. At the heart of the matter is a need for locally inspired and orchestrated efforts within the Asian church to participate in a redemptive work among the peoples of Asia in various concrete ways. These efforts should not merely be sporadic and ad hoc, but rather, sustained over a long-period of time. And more than that, sustained efforts should be orchestrated at an ecumenical level, for it is within such an ethos that power in unity can truly project the heart of the Christian gospel in concretely visible ways.

Level Three: Structural Activism. The Protestant tradition in Asia has perhaps not been entirely well-known for attempting to influence changes in political structures. Rather, much of such attempts has been attributed more to Roman Catholic endeavours, although this awareness is now becoming increasingly apparent in Protestant circles as well. Structural activism is commonly associated with the Liberation Theology movement, which refers to a family of theologies that treat the plight of the socially oppressed as a point of departure for their theology and praxis. Liberation theologies within Asia are sometimes held suspect by political entities because of the perceived employment of Marxist rhetorics in their constructions.

In highlighting some examples on how structural activism in the form of liberation theologies has affected the life of the Asian church, allow me to cite some examples from Singapore. In the 1970s, Christian students at the local universities in Singapore activated, among themselves, action for the cause of social justice despite their awareness of the impending dangers of doing so. They sought to support the cause of the working class in their struggle against poverty, injustice in income distribution, and political oppression. The state was being criticised as utilitarian and meritocratic such that materialism and selfishness had become ingrained in the psyche of the people, whilst the interests of the underprivileged continued to be ignored. English language classes were conducted for Chinese-educated industrial workers and used as a platform for arousing their awareness towards the need for social justice. By this point, suppression by the authorities had infiltrated the student movement efforts. Spies were sent into student groups, leaders were questioned by the internal security branch, and foreign workers who were deemed threats to social stability were deported. In 1976, a Parliamentary directive was issued for the student union of the University of Singapore to be directly accountable to the education minister.

On 21 May 1987, sixteen young professionals in Singapore were detained for allegedly having been involved in a Marxist conspiracy; a second arrest brought the figure to twenty two persons. The alleged leader was a prominent participant in several Catholic Church groups including the Justice and Peace Commission, Vincent Cheng. This event was deemed to be connected to the prior student movement in that the government claimed that Tan Wah Piow, the student leader from the 1970s and who was now based in London, was the mastermind of the conspiracy. The activists were said to have infiltrated the community with Marxist ideas through bible study classes, religious group meetings, and religious publications (much of which, in the opinion of the government, had little to do with religion). An aggregate of twenty two Singaporeans were eventually arrested consisting of human rights lawyers, church activists, and theatre producers. In August 1987, in allusion to this event during the National Day message, Lee Kuan Yew heightened the public’s awareness of the necessity of avoiding the intertwining of religion and politics. The role of religious communities in Singapore, he added, was confined to the practice of charity and community services. Religious clergy were warned to “take of [their] clerical robes before [they took] on anything economic or political”.

In December 1987, the Christian Conference of Asia (at that time based in Singapore) was expelled from Singapore upon having been charged with several accusations, one of which was the insertion of articles on liberation theology in their monthly publication. Later on, Lee Kuan Yew specifically emphasised that the ideas of liberation theology should not be allowed to translate into action in Singapore.

These examples are cited to highlight the reality of structural activism – it entails a high price, a cost to be borne by the Christian community within a nation. It is perhaps this reality that intimidates the Christian community, thereby causing the church in Asia to pander to a state of political passivism. At the most critical moments, official statements are issued by the church and circulated with little or no impact upon the structural realities of the societal government. This has been most apparent in Malaysia in the recent case of Azlina Jailani, a Muslim girl who became Christian at the age of 26 and subsequently changed her name to Lina Joy. In 1999, she managed to change her name in her identity card, but her religion remained stated as Islam. In a majority verdict delivered on 30 May 2007, the Federal Court rejected her appeal for the religious status to be changed. The various ecclesiastical authorities of the church in Malaysia have issued statements in response to this verdict which is deemed to have violated the right of religious freedom of the Malaysian people. But that is as far as the church can go, for to further engage in structural activism would entail a cost perhaps beyond that which we are ready to face.

III. Concluding Remarks - The Suffering Church
The church in Asia does not – and cannot – exist in an illusive Christendom which has never constituted a part of her historical reality, functioning as if she were the centre of reference for the regulation of the Asian society. She exists amidst a plethora of social realities, much of which brings deep suffering to the Asian people. And to these realities, she must respond.

This response needs to be well thought through, well executed, and expressed in a spirit of unity with the church catholic in Asia. This must be how we pray with the rest of the saints – in ages past, in the present, and in time to come – “Your Kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. Then truly will the gospel be a gospel for the Asian people and the Christ of the church be truly understood as the liberator of the suffering people of Asia.

Could it be that we in Asia are called to be the suffering church?

Posted by SK at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

5. The Paper I Presented
My paper has been published on the Union of Catholic Asian News as follows:

ASIA UCAN Document - 'Living Our Faith in Asia's Social Context'
KUALA LUMPUR (UCAN) - Christians in Asia should not be surprised that part of their calling is to suffer, says Sherman YL Kuek, an adjunct lecturer in systematic and contextual theology at Seminari Theoloji Malaysia.

Kuek shared this insight in a paper he presented on behalf of the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) during the fourth seminar of the Asian Movement for Christian Unity (AMCU IV), held June 12-14 in Kuala Lumpur.

Besides the CCA, the Evangelical Fellowship of Asia (EFA) and the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conference (FABC) also took part in AMCU IV.

Kuek's main interests are contextual theological methodologies and the recovery of the "Great Tradition" in the theological thought of the Christian community. He also promotes ecumenism in his travels to speak with Christians of various backgrounds and traditions. He says this helps him to reflect on faith, life, and culture in a profoundly theological and yet simple way.

Besides those involvements, he is currently writing a doctoral thesis on contextual theology with Trinity Theological College in Singapore, and he regularly adds new material to his own blog (www.ShermanKuek.net).

The full text of Kuek's paper at AMCU IV follows:

LIVING OUR FAITH IN ASIA’S SOCIAL CONTEXT
Sherman YL Kuek, OSL

[A brief paper presented on behalf of the Christian Conference of Asia at the fourth seminar of the Asian Movement for Christian Unity held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 11 to 14 June 2007]

I. Suffering - the Most Distinct Social Attribute of Asia
Asia is probably the most difficult area of the world to make generalisations about. It is fraught with a series of diverse realities which the Christian church has to constantly grapple with. 1) Asia experiences economic diversity. The polarity of this economic diversity is incredibly broad, ranging from the poverty of Bangladesh (one of the poorest nations in the world) to the wealth of Japan (one of the economically most affluent nations in the world). The majority of the economies are linked to those of the developed world, particularly the West, in a relationship of dependence. 2) Asia experiences political diversity, for within it we find socialist regimes, monarchies and liberal parliamentary democracies. One important trait of Asian politics (which frequently remains little understood by Western political entities) is that the masses of Asia are generally excluded from the decision-making process of society. 3) Asia experiences cultural and religious diversity. Religion is indelibly entrenched within the life and history of Asia. Asia constitutes the homeland of the great religions of the world - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Other religions such as Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism and various less prominent religions also find their birth in Asia.

In attempting a more detail delineation of these various diversities within the social context of Asia, one finds a most distinct attribute of Asia’s social context - suffering. Suffering is inescapably innate within each of the Asian social dimensions identified above. 1) Asia experiences economic suffering. More than 85 percent of Asians are said to be suffering from poverty and oppression of some kind. Within the economic arena, the gap between the rich and the poor is ever escalating rather than decreasing. 2) Asia experiences political suffering. Countries such as North Korea, South Korea, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia have all experienced suffering in the form of wars. Japan has constituted both a source of suffering (particular through the World War II) and a recipient of suffering (for example, through the loss of two major cities from being wiped out by atomic weapons during the World War II). 3) Asia experiences religious suffering. Countless Christians in Asia, for example, are suffering for their faith. In China, underground seminaries train their pastors methods of withstanding persecution in the event that they get arrested. In Muslim-dominated countries, evangelism and conversion are deemed punishable by execution. In such countries, non-Muslims (or dhimis, to apply the traditional designation) are accorded nothing more than a mere second-class status.

(To be continued...)

Posted by SK at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

4. Some Personal Observations of People at AMCU IV
The people were interesting. They came from various nations, Asian and Western. India was rather over-represented, strangely. Thus, at times, what was supposed to be an Asian discussion became a sole discussion on the Indian context. Having said that, I have some concrete comments on my observations of these friends I met at AMCU IV, most of whom I’d met for the first time (and hopefully not the last).

a. On the “Thereness” of the People. One observation that struck me about many of the Roman Catholic archbishops, bishops and priests, as well as the Orthodox monk and priest who were present at this seminar, was how “unbusy” they were. They didn’t look like they were in a rush to move around or entertain phone calls on their mobile phones. They seemed truly present, unlike many other Protestant gatherings I’ve attended wherein I met ministers who were physically present but seemed very anxious to leave because of family- or ministry-related issues. This latter observation can sometimes be true of me too. But these ministers I met at the AMCU IV seminar and some other ecumenical meetings, they were there. And their physical, emotional, and mental presence was very telling.

They were so present and so accessible that I even had an opportunity to have an engaging conversation, personally, with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur. Over lunch, he asked me, "What is the position of the Protestant Church in Malaysia on interfaith dialogue?" Answering honestly was at best a painful necessity. I simply had to say, "Honestly, I don't think we have a unified position on this (or on anything else, for that matter). Even if we did, it wouldn't be visible at the lower levels of our ecclesiastical hierarchies. And for some, interfaith engagements is about 'converting them all'!"

b. On Their Concern for Christian Unity. There was a stark absence of representation from Protestant denominational leadership. Daniel rants here about this rather embarassing situation wherein the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church sent their highest level ecclesiastical leaders, whereas small fries like us had to represent the Protestant Church where our denominational leaders were nowhere to be seen. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox concern for such matters as Christian unity (or disunity) has made a deep impression on me. And it somewhat alarms me that the same cannot be said about the stream of Christianity to which I belong.

It is strange how our Protestant denomination leaders don't seem to see anything promising in the spirit of ecumenism. Okay, they may be concerned about it - but I've not yet seen it thus far. Yet I deem it too crucial an issue to be dismissed, perhaps because of how it has impacted me so deeply. My ecumenical journey has very much affected the way I have come to view things and express my spirituality. Just one simple example of this is the whole arena of dialogue. Dialogue takes place at two levels: i) with people of other Christian traditions, and ii) with people of other faith traditions.

My dialogue with people of other Christian traditions has created an awareness within myself of the poverty of the spirituality I've lived with all these years. My eyes have been opened to many things I previously didn't even know I didn't know. It prompts me of the urgency of growing beyond myself towards a more holistic appreciation of the Christian faith - not just my own tradition, but the Great Tradition comprising of the synergistic contributions of all the traditions.

My dialogue with people of other faith traditions provokes an awareness within me of what Pope John Paul II called "the scandal of a divided Christianity". It prompts me of the urgency for a visible unity within the church of Jesus Christ. And it reminds me that I constitute a part of this sad disunity.

c. On the Representation of the Delegation. By and large, the representation at the seminar was still Western-dominated. Even if the delegation was Asian in ethnic representation, the theology and the worldview was very Western by virtue of the delegates' theological training in the Western context.

Also, there were only two representations from the Oriental Orthodox Church amidst over 25 voices; this was unfortunate. As a result of the under-representation of the Orthodox voice, the dominant assumption was still one of ethical and virtuous qualities rather than an ontological one (which is fundamentally the underlying concern of Orthodoxy). In other words, for the Western-minded Roman Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals, the bigger issue pertained to doing, i.e. what we do and how we do it. The Orthodox people, on the contrary, see being as the more pertinent issue, i.e. who we are and whose we are.

Posted by SK at 6:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

3. Some Personal Reflections from Discussions at AMCU IV
Much was discussed during the AMCU IV seminar. Here are some personal reflections I emerged with throughout the discussions. I shared some of these thoughts with the participants during the discussions too.

a. On Life Stories. It was nice to hear the life stories of prominent ecclesiastical leaders - priests, bishops, archbishops, metropolitans - being told from their own verbal testimonies. Listening to how their life experiences had eventually led them to where they stand today in their faith journeys and ecclesiastical statures. Their life stories strip them of the coldness of their titles and the grandeur of their attires.

This reminds me that anything perceived from a distance - including other religious convictions - breeds and perpetuates suspicion and hostility. But when personalities are attached to these convictions, layers of bias are shed. In Martin Buber's language, the endeavour to know "the other" opens windows to a true(r) knowing of "the Other".

b. On Listening. Now more than ever, I'm convinced of the importance of listening. We are often quick to argue and present our case and points of argument, but much of what others have to say in a dialogue is deemed irrelevant, or at best, boring. Basically, only what we have to say is deemed necessary. When others share their stories, we walk away from potential boredom without realising what we are missing.

We lose out because we drown in our own spiritual poverty. We lose out because we remain dull and deaf to the world's cry for a visible embodiment of humility. We lose out because we remain blind to the need for more listeners in a world which has a story - many stories - to tell, in a world which is itself a story.

I'm not talking about agreeing. I'm talking about listening. When will we learn that there is a difference between agreeing and listening? How authentic and genuine (and legitimate) are our disagreements if these disagreements are based on our not having first listened? For many Christians, there is something about listening that intimidates them; that perhaps if they listened, they would be obliged to agree. But that isn't the point of listening.

c. On the Church's Indifference. When a church does not engage in the issues arising from her own socio-political contexts, the church becomes a stranger in her own country. It is not an issue of doctrines and orthodoxy of beliefs; it is an issue of contributing to the life of a suffering community. If she fails to walk this journey, she becomes a stranger to her own community.

Posted by SK at 9:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

2. Memorable Quotes from AMCU IV
The following are some very memorable things I heard being mentioned at the seminar which I never want to forget:

"Our categories are never enough for the work of the Spirit."

Professor Francis X. D'Sa, S.J.,
Germany/India

"My faith experience has been characterised by the question of how to be a friend to anybody... it is the atmosphere of trust and intimacy that brings out the best in others. For me, friendship is the bottomline... The human in each of us is very, very important."

Archbishop Fernando Capalla,
Archbishop of Davao, Philippines
The Roman Catholic Church

"People of other faiths are not objects of our care and concern. They are mutual subjects on a journey towards God."

Archbishop Murphy Pakiam,
Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
The Roman Catholic Church

"I think the right-wing Evangelicals have fallen prey to capitalism. Sometimes they behave as if capitalism is God itself... as if God was a capitalist. God is not a capitalist; he's not even a trade unionist!"

The Revd Richard Howell,
General Secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India and
Vice-Chairman of the World Evangelical Association

"Truth claims are a matter of belief. Outside the world of belief, they don't make sense."

Professor Francis X. D'Sa, S.J.,
Germany/India

Posted by SK at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have just returned from this three-day event held at the Archdiocesan Pastoral Centre in Kuala Lumpur. Over the next few days, I will be posting up a series of blog entries containing background information of the movement, my observations and reflections, reports of the proceedings of this event, official statements, and a paper which I presented there.

1. Background of the AMCU
The beginning of the Asian Movement for Christian Unity (AMCU) can be traced to 1993 when the two Christian bodies in Asia – the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) and the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) – decided to set up the Asian Ecumenical Committee (AEC) to carry out joint programs, foster ecumenical relations at the national and local levels, and conscientize Christians of all churches to the importance of making visible the unity in Christ that already exists. Both bodies approved the setting up of such a committee at their respective assemblies in 1995 (FABC Plenary Assembly in Manila and CCA General Assembly in Colombo). The AEC therefore became a structure for implementing proposals to share information, cooperate on social issues and provide ecumenical formation.

In 1994, AMCU was conceived by the two bodies with the goal of promoting Christian unity by bringing together leaders, theologians, and ecumenical officers of the churches to study problems connected with Christian unity and to find ways to promote unity, at local, national and continental levels among Christ’s disciples in Asia.

The first AMCU seminar was held in 1996 in Hong Kong on the theme, “Making Visible Our Unity in Christ.” This was aimed at studying the theology of ecumenism, sharing vision of Christian unity, and building on what unites while overcoming what divides – all from their respective perspectives. That consultation led to a common search for practical ways to work for Christian unity in Asia and to planning a wide range of programs aimed at fostering Christian unity.

As part of their reflections on ecumenism, they have identified some obstacles to Christian unity in Asia, i.e. a long history of mutual indifference, prejudice, hostility, inadequate understanding of ecumenism, failure of the ecumenical movement to reach the grassroots, lack of structures to carry out initiatives, and unresolved doctrinal, moral and disciplinary issues.

The second AMCU seminar was held in Bali, Indonesia in 1998 with focus on “Ecumenical Teams and Ecumenical Formation.” It was aimed at preparing ecumenical teams who would give ecumenical formation course at local and national levels.

The third AMCU seminar was held in Chiang Mai, Thailand in 2001 on the theme, “Giving Shape to a New Ecumenical Vision.” The theme echoed the desire of both bodies to enter into a process of prayer and discussion to explore the possibilities of new ecumenical structures and associations for promoting Christian unity.

The fourth AMCU seminar has just been concluded on 14 June 2007. The long gap between the third seminar and the fourth seminar is mainly due to the holding of the General and Plenary Assemblies of CCA and FABC, respectively, in 2005. Nevertheless, through these years, both CCA and FABC bodies have nurtured their relationship of cooperation by jointly holding some programs or through reciprocal invitations to their own programs.

Even as the two bodies, CCA and FABC, continue to work on their visible unity in Christ that they affirm, they have also been concerned about other Christian bodies with whom they do not have formal relations as yet. CCA and FABC have on their own made attempts to reach out to Evangelical and Pentecostal churches in Asia.

The Global Christian Forum (GCF) that was held in Hong Kong in May 2004 was one avenue in which representatives of member churches from CCA and FABC as well as Evangelical and Pentecostal churches met together. In that gathering, the three regional bodies (CCA, FABC and the Evangelical Fellowship of Asia or EFA) were given the responsibility of doing a follow-up in the region. Thus, the GCF in Asia was held in September 2006 in Bangkok, Thailand on the theme, “Affirming Our One Savior in Common Witness,” bringing together representatives from the three bodies.

One of the results of the GCF in Asia was for AMCU IV to be opened to EFA. Hence, this was an interesting development that the fourth seminar of the Asian Movement for Christian Unity had included Evangelical and Pentecostal churches under the Evangelical Fellowship of Asia.

The theme “Our Common Witness in Contemporary Asia” echoed the theme of the GCF in Asia (“Affirming Our One Savior in Common Witness”) while being conscious of our grounding in our regional context in Asia where we are called to witness to our one Saviour. Our context presents to us challenging realities in socio-economic, religious-spiritual and political-cultural dimensions. All these call for our response as Christians in Asia.

AMCU IV was well-represented. The meeting consisted of some 25 people. Representing the FABC were bishops, archbishops and Jesuit priests. Representing the CCA were their fulltime officials, an Oriental Orthodox monk and an Oriental Orthodox celibate priest, as well as academic theologians (this lucky guy managed to find his way in as well). Representing the EFA were just two of their officials, but it was a good start indeed.

Posted by SK at 11:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

You can know that people are going through the notions of a religious form when they listen to a sermon but do not expect the sermon to challenge them to any action; when all they expect is a sermon that is informative - and if entertaining, it’s a bonus - but does not propel one to re-examine his worldview and underlying motives for certain behaviour patterns he exhibits; when all people want is a sermon to bring them just a little bit farther in their journey but not require a reconfiguration of their lives.

Perhaps the thought of having to reconfigure our lives and being told that we’ve not really been living the Christian life as it was meant to be are rather repulsive messages to receive. Even if we know this to be true, it still upsets us when the implications of such sermons are driven home.

Of course, it’s true that some preachers are, by way of their personalities, plainly brash and naturally harsh even when the occasion doesn’t call for it. Such preachers need to be told that the point of the issue has been taken well, but that the medium was inappropriately matched with the message. If people are “offended” by a sermon, it has to be the essence of the message itself which has caused the offence, not the personality of the preacher.

It really does take guts for a preacher to verbally identify the things in life that are but shouldn’t be, and the things in life that aren’t but should be. And half the time, as he speaks these messages, the messages judge him too. I remember a wise guide once telling me and my bunch of friends (all newly trained homileticians) some years ago, “I find that if you try to practise what you preach, you’ll be in trouble, because you’re bound to fail. I make it a point to preach what I’m already practising.” In other words, don’t compel people to do things you’re not yourself willing to do, and don’t obligate people to live the way you’re not already living. These are some guidelines a young preacher would do well to observe.

But never lose sight of the purpose of a sermon. I was told by my seminary lecturer from the first day of my studies in the seminary: “The purpose of your sermon must be to disturb the comfortable and to comfort the disturbed. Your sermon must obligate people to respond or react, to either love or hate what they hear, and to respond in accordance with that which they love or hate.” And the lecturer went on to say, “Otherwise, don’t bother to preach.”

Posted by SK at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Obey, not because you fear making a mistake for which you cannot bear to be responsible.

Obey, not because you think the opinions and instructions of the one above you in authority are worthy of your following.

Obey, not because you trust in the greater wisdom of the teacher above you.

Obey, not because the prospects of your future depend on your subservience.

Obey, because you love.

"Love and obedience are travelling companions. Obedience is, therefore, to be seen in relational terms, for true obedience springs from love."

Posted by SK at 2:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The following is an article from the CHRISTIAN VISION PROJECT of Christianity Today.

Simon Chan may be the world's most liturgically minded Pentecostal. The Earnest Lau professor of systematic theology at Trinity Theological College in Singapore is both a scholar of Pentecostalism and a leader in the Assemblies of God, but his recent books, Spiritual Theology and Liturgical Theology, engage with wider and older Christian traditions as well. Worship, Chan believes, is not just a function of the church, but the church's very reason for being. Our big question for 2007 focuses on global mission: What must we learn, and unlearn, to be agents of God's mission in the world? Christian Vision Project editorial director Andy Crouch interviewed Chan while Chan was a visiting scholar at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, to find out whether fully joining God's mission may require that we unlearn some of our assumptions about mission itself.

You have written a great deal about liturgical theology, but missional theology seems more popular these days.

I think that missional theology is a very positive development. But some missional theology has not gone far enough. It hasn't asked, What is the mission of the Trinity? And the answer to that question is communion. Ultimately, all things are to be brought back into communion with the triune God. Communion is the ultimate end, not mission.

If we see communion as central to the life of the church, we are going to have an important place for mission. And this is reflected in the ancient fourfold structure of worship: gathering, proclaiming the Word, celebrating the Eucharist, and going out into the world. The last, of course, is mission. But mission takes its place within a larger structure. It is this sense of communion that the evangelical world especially needs. Communion is not just introspection or fellowship among ourselves. It involves, ultimately, seeing God and seeing the heart of God as well, which is his love for the world.

In many services today, the dismissal into the world is quite perfunctory. But if you go to an Orthodox service, you'll be amazed at the elaborate way in which the end of the service is conducted. It's not just a word of dismissal—there are whole prayers and litanies that prepare us to go back out into the world.

If liturgical worship is such a good preparation for mission, why are Pentecostalism and evangelicalism, which hardly follow the ancient structure of worship, growing so fast?

In the modern age, the free churches are evangelistically successful, but in the broader history of mission that hasn't always been true. Europe was evangelized in the early centuries by missionaries who were certainly not free-church evangelicals. And think of the spread of the Orthodox Church from Russia to northern Africa.

In Singapore, we keep very close statistics about the growth of the Assemblies of God, which is currently the second-largest Protestant denomination in the country. We are good at evangelizing, bringing people in, but we have also noticed that many of those people that we have brought into our churches would over time go to more traditional churches and seeker-friendly megachurches. Our net growth isn't really that much, but in terms of bringing people in, yes, we have significant numbers of people being brought into the church for the first time. It may be that in God's providence he is using free churches, Pentecostals, and charismatics to reach out to the world, but I still believe that his aim is to embrace them all within the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Surely part of Pentecostalism's success is its ability to adapt rapidly in a technological culture.

Pentecostals are definitely very adaptable. They are quick to seize upon new opportunities for the sake of the gospel. They make use of the technologies of the times. There is a certain habit of mind that enables them to readily leave behind things that don't work and to move on to things that they think will work. Whereas the liturgy creates a different habit of mind, a habit of stability. This has its strengths and weaknesses, just as the Pentecostal mindset has its strengths and weaknesses. But in my view, in the modern world especially, the danger of a short memory far outweighs the danger of not being willing to change.

Many people would say the opposite: For the church to succeed in its mission, it needs to be ready to change.

But is that true in the long run? Coming from a Pentecostal background, I'm more sensitive to the dangers that a church is exposed to when it forgets its history.

What is the place of new communication technologies in worship and mission?

I believe that if we have a clear, coherent ecclesiology, if we know what it is to be the church, then technology will have its proper place. It's when we lack a clear understanding of our own identity and are driven by a pragmatic understanding of the church and its mission that technology becomes a threat to the life of the church. For too long, evangelicals have been driven by a rather shallow understanding of the church. We tend to see the church as a kind of pragmatic organization to fulfill certain tasks. And of course, if the church is viewed in this way, then we use technology very uncritically as long as those tasks are done.

This is especially important when it comes to the ultimate meaning of communion. Technology has created what we call virtual reality. It can give you a sense of intimacy. But whether it is real intimacy or not is quite another matter. I think this is where the Christian understanding of community enables us to look beyond what modern technology can offer, because the Christian understanding of real communion is embodied communion. Communion means bodily presence. That's at the heart of our incarnational theology, God coming to us in person; it's the meaning of the resurrection of the body. So no matter what virtual reality technology can create, it will never be an adequate substitute for communion.

But a high-definition video screen seems to bring us much closer to the preacher. Does that sense of intimacy happen in liturgical worship?

The traditional liturgy doesn't exist primarily to foster interpersonal relationships. It operates on a very different paradigm. In the liturgy we are, in a very real sense, objectively recognizing God for who he is. And in the midst of proclaiming who God is, we encounter God. At the end of the day, we may not be particularly drawn toward individuals, but in a good liturgy, we are drawn to God. We recognize him for who he is.

What can liturgical traditions learn from the charismatic and Pentecostal stream?

I think they need to be willing to recognize that God can and often does surprise us. We cannot control God. The Pentecostal willingness to change things at the spur of the moment may not be a bad thing at times! Liturgical churches need to be open to what Jonathan Edwards called "the surprising works of God."

What do we need to learn and unlearn about making disciples?

We need to rediscover this ancient word, catechism. In a way, it is very straightforward. Its purpose is to help people become the body of Christ and be incorporated into the church. And I don't think that the modern church can improve very much on what has already been given: the creeds, the great commandments, the Lord's Prayer. Those are the basic things that help the church develop its identity as the church of Jesus Christ. We can certainly add other training programs, but I think the catechism should be central to any training of disciples.

Now, the traditional approach was rote learning, asking questions and memorizing the responses. That may not be the most useful approach now, although it's surprising how some of those things we learn by rote stick at the back of our minds for a lifetime. But there are many other things that need to be addressed as the church enters into new contexts. The basic content of the catechism needs to address contextual issues.

For example, in some parts of the world, in the course of catechetical instruction, when we come to the Christian's renunciation of the world and of idolatry, that can quite literally mean that you have to give up your fetishes and idols. It's not metaphorical. Similarly, exorcism, which is still practiced in a liturgical way in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches when people are being prepared for baptism, may be much more than just a ritual in some parts of the world. People who are involved in black magic and the like actually have to renounce these things and have demons cast out of them.

In our context in Singapore, the act of baptism is seen even by non-Christians as the most critical moment of a person's life. Traditional Chinese do not mind their children going to church. In fact, they'll say, well, the church can teach you good things—but don't get baptized. Because the moment you get baptized, you burn your bridge with traditional religion. They understand baptism better than some of our evangelical Christians!

I'm an advisor to a local Assemblies of God church, and I know some of the people in our church who have been in our church for years, who have even taken up leadership positions in the church but who are not baptized.

What does the Asian church have to contribute to our understanding of discipleship and mission?

I believe the traditional Asian family structure, with its emphasis on extended family and authority within the family, could be very helpful to the Western church and its tendency to atomize the Christian community into autonomous individuals. Western people have great difficulty understanding that a hierarchical structure is not necessarily opposed to individual freedom. They tend to think of hierarchy as an arrangement of domination. But that is not the way we see it in Asia.

Likewise, in our more traditional cultures, the value attached to marriage helps us in instructing people in the importance of baptism. When you go through that process, there's a profound and permanent change of relationship and status. But in the context where marriage is a kind of convenient arrangement, it's very difficult to teach sacramental theology. So in a way, I can see why free churches in the West talk a lot about the church and leave out the sacraments.

Can't modernity be described as a loss of sacramentality? There's nothing particularly special about the world, and we can remake it as we will.

That's right. But I think in many traditional societies outside the West, the sense of the sacred is still strong. It is beginning to give way as modernity comes in, especially in urban places. But in many other contexts, the sacred is still there. I think that provides a good point of contact for linking them with the Christian faith. This is one of the reasons why Christianity has a special appeal among what we might call tribal societies, where there is still a strong sense of the sacramental universe.

What does the church need to learn and unlearn about mission in your cultural setting?

Unfortunately, when Asian churches start to be involved in cross-cultural mission, especially churches in the more affluent societies like Korea and Singapore, many of them seem to repeat the mistakes of earlier missionaries. For example, after Cambodia opened up to the rest of the world, mission groups, many originating in Asia, rushed in. There are countless mission groups working in Cambodia. But they simply perpetuate the denominationalism that they so strenuously condemned in their own countries. So we haven't quite learned our lesson.

Asian Christians, too, can come with the same colonial mentality that Westerners once did, thinking that we've got all the answers because we have the money.

It's kind of reassuring as a Westerner to know we're not the only ones who make these mistakes.

At the same time, there's a lot to be thankful for. Many Asian churches are devoting huge amounts of money to the mission field. I was telling a colleague here at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary yesterday that some megachurches have mission budgets that are bigger than the budget of Trinity Theological College! And they are using that to go and preach the gospel. We can be thankful for that. But at the same time, we need to look at mission in the longer term and engage in things that are going to bear lasting fruit. There are still many parts of Asia, especially tribal regions, where the Bible is not available in the local language. I believe that the key to long-term mission success is to place the Bible in the hands of people in their local language. But this kind of work requires years and years of commitment. And I'm afraid that many of our churches are just not patient. They want to get things done quickly. They want to have results. They want statistics to show.

I suppose translation is just one aspect of contextualization, and it takes a long time to get it right.

Exactly. You need to have people who are willing to live in the place for a long period of time to do translation well. It can't be done quickly without doing harm to the very culture that you're seeking to serve.

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today.

Posted by SK at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Editor's Note: The following post has been blatantly ripped from Dan's blog. It's something I've always felt but never really bothered to say. So since he's said it so eloquently, here it is...

Sunday afternoon. It was the moment that many had been eagerly anticipating since the start of the service – the benediction. Like a swarm of buzzing bees, the youths rushed to the nearby chicken rice stall to gratify their grumbling stomachs. After managing to find seats around an empty table – the table was not exactly empty as it was filled with used glasses and plates which were left by previous customers – David and Samuel took out their handphones to exchange the latest mp3 files with one another using Bluetooth technology. Sitting opposite them were two veteran private investigators, Sharon and Hazel, who started examining the validity of the latest gossips circulating in school the moment they sat down. Next to Hazel was the young and quiet Brenda, whose presence could be easily overlooked if one was not observant enough. There she was, at her usual self, waiting quietly for the food to be served.

Just as the food arrived on the table, the observant Sharon immediately stretched out her right fist, with her thumb facing forward. Brenda, who knew the tradition well, yet was not brave enough to take the first move, followed the same action. Hazel, David and Samuel then stretched out their thumbs as well, almost doing it at the same time. In the end, the group decided that Samuel was the loser, therefore was forfeited to say grace for the food. “Why me again?!” protested Samuel. “Who asked you to be so slow! Next time faster a bit lah!” Sharon replied with a cheeky smile. Reluctantly, Samuel started praying for the food while the rest picked up their forks and spoons to prepare for the battle…

I do not know who started this game and I do not know how widespread this game has become. But if table grace has been relegated to a form of punishment of a game, it simply means that the “players” are not genuinely interested or sincere to participate in the table grace. Nevertheless, the game itself is not to be blamed, it simply reflects the apathetic attitude of people towards table grace. Even without the game, it is quite common that someone has to be appointed to say grace for the food. How often do we see someone volunteering to pray for the food (if so, it is often done out of frustration due to the lack of response from the rest)?

Other than that, when someone prays a lengthier-than-usual prayer before the meal, the rest naturally become restless and impatient, grumbling in their hearts about the inconsideration and insensitivity of the person. On the contrary, if a person prays an extremely short prayer, in spite of the minority raising their eyebrows over the sincerity of the prayer, most would be more than happy that the prayer is over and eating can begin. Yet, if table grace is such a torturous act that is disliked by many, then why are we still embracing it? Has table grace become a fossilised tradition that has to be conducted simply as a licence to eat, regardless of the sincerity of the people involved?

If that is true, then we have lost the beauty of table grace. Table grace is a ritual where the participants of the ritual partake the food with a heart of genuine thanksgiving, remembering and giving thanks to the One who provides the food. Nevertheless, ultimately what matters most is not that one is able to conduct table grace faithfully at each meal. Rather, it is for one to remain constantly in a posture of thanksgiving towards the One who provides not only food, but everything.

Posted by SK at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is such a cliché to say that life is fragile, we never know how long or how short our life journeys will last. But it’s no longer a cliché when it proves true, and death befalls someone you know, someone you love, or someone you’re used to having around you. The powerlessness of the cliché then becomes a dark cloud that surrounds your soul, an unspoken weariness that hangs over your consciousness.

It’s good to think about death every once in a while, especially when one is entrenched in an ethos which is preoccupied with the obsession to live this earthly life for as long as possible (and to even cheat death, if possible).

Death brings a sudden silence; a silence which those who are alive never really care to cultivate. This is perhaps why the sudden silence emerges when death befalls, because the momentousness of life abruptly ceases and the spirit within us is shocked from the inertia of speed and sound. Cultivation of silence as a habit of the heart is a good preparation for death.

Death can be a form of healing for those who find life unbearingly painful. This is not to say that the prerogative of life and death belongs to the person himself, but rather, that God’s “administering” of physical death to a person can be seen as a way of providing relief. Of course, such healing brings pain to those alive. But at times, the pain felt by those who are ill is so excruciating that even at death, those alive heave a sigh of relief at the release which the ill person experiences in death.

It might seem strange that death be articulated in such positive overtones. But aren’t we the ones who have cheated death, literally, since we belong to the One who has trampled down death by death? Death may get the better of us, but we will get the best out of death.

Posted by SK at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For a friend whom I've known from a time long ago, for whom even daylight feels like night. I'm remembering you in my ever-continual whispers. I feel deeply for what you're going through. And so I pray:

Be present, O merciful God,
and protect us through the silent hours of this night;
So that we, who are wearied by the changes and chances of this fleeting world,
may repose upon your eternal changelessness;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Leonine Sacramentary, 6th century

Posted by SK at 1:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is strange how theology (particularly Western theology) has a methodology which drives us to ask more and more questions and, in the process, leads us to sometimes be so speculative in our relentless endeavours to derive satisfactory answers to our questions.

Many people have set out to study theology with a hope that they would attain answers to questions they have had about life and faith, and perhaps in the process drawing some sharply clear boundaries between the black and the white regions of life. To their horror, their study of theology has led them to being confronted by more questions than ever, and to the further erosion of the clear boundaries between black and white which has become a source of their spiritual security.

This leads them to despair. It is such a difficult place to be in, knowing that there are more things in life we do not know of than things explainable. The confrontation of a question with ten more others like it reflects an obvious reality that life is bigger than we think. And certainly, God is bigger than we think - no sooner than you try fitting him into neat categories, his nature defies you in the face.

If anything, theology must lead us to a posture of prayer. In fact, in Eastern Orthodoxy, theology is not even the things we say about God - theology is the things we say to God. In saying things about God, we are at best talking about theology, and that is not theology itself.

In the final analysis though, whatever our definition of theology is, it must do one thing - it must lead us to the humbling confession and the awesome depth of appreciation that God is who he is, and that we are because he is.

Posted by SK at 8:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)