Why? Why both the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition? Does it not seem plainly clear that one source - the Holy Scripture alone - is sufficient in matters of faith and morals? Why the need for Tradition? Is Tradition not merely, after all, man-made? Are the Holy Scriptures not the only word from God that has been bequeathed to us for our salvation?

Prima facie - on the face of it - this argument seems right.

But as history has pointed out unambiguously...

...theology that is not in service to "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) will, in time, turn against the faith once delivered to the saints.

Ideas that are not held accountable to "the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) will, in time, become the enemy of that truth.

For the same reason, the sola scriptura principle, as we know from sad experience, is "so protean and subject to variation that it results either in gutting the tradition or in creating new traditions around which further schisms are formed".

Hence the non-negotiable necessity for both Scripture and Tradition, both mirroring each other. Scripture constitutes the teachings of the Holy Apostles transmitted through documentation, and Tradition constitutes the teachings of the Holy Apostles transmitted orally; both preserved by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

[ A reflection of my reading from Richard John Neuhaus, Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth, p.58. ]

Posted by SK at 9:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

These past decades has seen an uprising in dissent from the Christian academia – particularly Catholic institutions. Well, okay, that’s not exactly true – dissent has always been present in the academia throughout the history of the Church.

But it has become a rather critical moment for the existence and sustenance of such Catholic academic institutions. Academicians in such institutions claim that when dissent is prohibited and freedom of intellectual inquiry is curtailed, it places the institutions at a great disadvantage in terms of their academic competence and competitiveness. This would consequently affect student intake and funding. Thus, the eventual existence of entire academic institutions is jeapordised.

It does not of course mean that variances from official ecclesiastical positions are not inherently present in Protestant-based academic institutions. It is just that in such circles, there has never been a Magisterium to speak of, hence no censure and no licensing of religious teachers. If an academic scholar was dismissed in a more confessional Protestant setting, he would probably not have a problem finding another tenured position in a less confessional environment. But this is not the case with the Catholic setting, wherein teachers imparting knowledge pertaining to faith and morals are licensed by the Vatican to teach. Where their teachings clearly do not echo the Church Magisterium and such dissent bears considerable gravitational consequence, their licences are revoked.

The Vatican has been vigilant in silencing such dissent, an exercise which some claim is in part a successfully imposed exercise because of Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and who sits on the Chair of the Apostle Peter as Pope Benedict XVI today. The likes of Hans Küng, Charles E. Curran and Leonardo Boff have tasted, in no small measure, the medicinal treatment of Ratzinger’s inquisition.

So is disproportionate dissent to be permitted? If not, how would the Church be able to sustain the relevant existence of such academic institutions subject to curial inquiry?

In the final analysis, it really is a matter of priority of relevance. It is not an issue of relevance per se, but rather, deciding on what priorities are relevant for the consideration of the Church as the guardian of truth.

The rationale of the Church for such a jealous guardianship over the teachings pertaining to faith and morals stems from the understanding that faith informs reason, and not vice versa. Reason can never be the arbiter of truth, and neither can it exist apart from the truth claims of the faith.

Whilst the idea of the kerygmatic prerogative of the Church may come across as condescending to academic inquirers, Christian academia is called to retain its memory that our epistemological advancements begin with the point of divine revelation rather than vain human ability or capacity. On this point, the Church cannot allow for the Christian academia to gravitate towards that which has now become a thoroughly secular endeavour – and a highly exalted one at that.

Hence, the bidding abides for Christian thinkers to think, feel, and act with the Church. For those without a Magisterium, be thankful that you're liberated to liberalise – but remember that what you say is not necessarily good for the eternal glory of the Church.

Posted by SK at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Would it sound overly triumphant if I advanced the claim that I’m now experiencing what seems to be the most enjoyable stage of my theological journey so far?

I’m learning new forms of theological articulation, discovering new categories and deciphering how my existing scheme fits into the ever-expanding matrix, and in the process, witnessing an influx of new categories that I’d previously never even heard of before. And yes, I’m thinking to myself, “Which part of the planet have I been stuck in before this?”

It seems as though I have just entered a whole new world of discovery. At the same time, it’s not a world entirely unfamiliar to me. There are things that strongly resonate with what I’ve known before, so the sense of continuity resounds. But more than that, there are also things that are really mind-blowing in the light of the paradigm from which I have emerged.

Now it seems like the paradigm I have recently emerged from is at least thirty years backward. It was a world wherein people articulated things as if those were entirely brand new discoveries, when it had actually escaped their realisation that others had already spoken about those very things for decades and have now moved far beyond that.

Oh the folly of thinking that we already know all there is to know. The folly of thinking that our little fossilised little frameworks already contain all there is to know, and the ignorant insecurity of protectionism reflected in the way we guard our fragile little schemas.

But you know, inasmuch as it might sound judgemental to say this, the reality is that some people will always remain where they are. They will always remain happy being in static intellectual existence; they remain happy there because that’s where they get to persist in their delusions of already having known all there is to be known.

Posted by SK at 4:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

For theology to be a spiritual discipline, it must be a kenotic exercise.

Some segments of the Church - some Christians - are inclined to think that theology is a matter of opinion, that one is entitled to the right of private judgement in matters of faith and morals. All this is undertaken in the name of relevance, academic enquiry, and the virtue of freedom.

Freedom, there is. But freedom presents the obligation for the pursuit of truth, not opinion. And truth - be it in propositional or relation form - must correspond to the aggregated experience of the faith community's encounters with the Lord of the Church throughout human history.

Theology is an exercise that requires the kenotic, self-emptying exercise of thinking and feeling with the Church. Inasmuch as the kerygma of the Church may at times be difficult to reconcile with our experiences and opinions, she is nevertheless a Church that has been given the Holy Spirit Who guides her and preserves her in all truth.

Mother Church never errs. Not because her people are infallible, but because the Spirit Who animates her is infallible. That some people in the Church have throughout the course of history failed to live up to her doctrinal and moral standards does not in any way mean the Church has failed. She is, after all, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Already, I can hear voices muttering "I beg to differ" and "I disagree" from a distance. For as long as we are stuck in the rut of the "pick-and-choose" Christianity, we remain far from God's purpose of giving us the gift of the Church. He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother.

Fides quaerens intellectum.

Posted by SK at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

So the general election of Malaysia is over, and the Cabinet has been appointed.

There you have it, the people you have chosen now sit in the offices to which they have been appointed.

After this political tsunami, what's next? Tricia Yeoh, Director for Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS), expresses her hopeful observation that

...Malaysians are now pointed in the direction of democratisation, an equitable society, social justice, principled governance (over and above race-based politics), public accountability, and freedom of expression.

How may Christian individuals in Malaysia participate in this struggle?

What might be some appropriate theological responses to these issues confronting Malaysia?

What sort of spirituality can Malaysian Christians embrace in the light of these realitise?

Topic:
Blessings Amidst Blunders... A Contextual Liberation Theology for Malaysia

Resident Instructor:
Revd Dr Jojo Fung, SJ

Invited Speaker:
Sherman Kuek

Venue:
Sacred Heart Cathedral,
Taman Sri Tebrau,
Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Date/Time:
22 April (Tuesday) @ 8 pm

Posted by SK at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There seem to exist multiple categories of theology, and people are often confounded by these categories. To explicate the meanings of some of these important fields of theological specialisation, I have adapted the following information from What Theology Is by Aidan Nichols, OP. Together with that, I have done some minor additions which I find useful:

What is faith based on?
This is fundamental theology.

Fundamental theology helps one to help other people keep the faith, by removing difficulties they may have about believing. It also helps one to convert others to the faith, by suggesting considerations relevant to the truth of Catholic Christianity.

How has it come down to us in history?
This is historical theology.

Historical theology helps one to discern the impression which Jesus Christ made upon those who first met him (the New Testament), the situation he lived in (the Old Testament) and the way his image and teaching have been preserved and presented in the Church (the history of doctrine). In these ways, historical theology enables one to put over the faith in a way that is concrete, circumstantial and historically correct.

How is its content a unity?
This is systematic theology.

Systematic theology helps one to show people how the faith hangs together, how it all makes a satisfying design which is an inspiration to live by.

How does it sound when articulated in the language and culture of particular communities?
This is contextual theology.

Contextual theology helps one to explain the faith in a culturally relevant way to particular groups of people. These groups may consist of clusters of peoples reflecting similar races, languages, nationalities, genders, etc.

What does it imply for living?
This is moral theology.

Moral theology is useful in showing people how they might be growing personally in relation to God and their neighbour.

What does it imply for the rest of what we know?
This may be termed practical theology.

Practical theology shows them the relevance of their religion to their professional work or private concerns, to their general knowledge or the social situation.

Posted by SK at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Many Christians seem almost entirely unsure about the role of the Church in the political arena.

Some Christians, on the one hand, seem to relegate the role of political partisanship to the Church, as if it was the responsibility of the Church to sway people either towards or away from particular political inclinations and parties.

Some other Christians, on the other hand, seem to think there is no role at all for the Church in politics and that she should maintain a posture of absolute silence on anything within the domain of the secular state.

One must remember, the ultimate concerns of the Church of Jesus Christ are not of this world although they find their temporal embodiment in the present circumstances of this world. The Church, beyond elections, democracy and government (all of which are legitimate mechanisms for the regulation of the temporal world), finds her prophetic calling in the upholding of peace and justice in the world, for these deal with the higher and eternal values of the Christ who established His Church in the world.

Elections, democracy and government are therefore – in the eyes of the Church – nothing more (and nothing less) than instruments for the promotion of peace and justice. She of herself is to be a non-partisan, non-political entity.

The Church’s task as the visible Kingdom of God in the world is to articulate and proclaim its concern for justice and peace, and to strive towards upholding it. This task at times involves the expression of support for specific causes that coincidentally favour particular political positions and organisations; but these are merely coincidental, for the Church’s other articulations of peace and justice may very well coincidentally condemn the causes of those very same political positions and organisations her previous articulations seemed to endorse.

It is therefore not the particularities of any one political entity’s positions the Church seeks to endorse or illegitimise, but rather, the causes and values for which these particularities stand. Christians should therefore make no mistake about it. If the Church’s expression of support seems to endorse the cause of any political entity, it is entirely coincidental. Likewise, if her expression of condemnation impinges upon the cause of any political entity, it is also not the political entity itself, but rather, the cause she seeks to condemn.

Therefore, the position of the Church is neither one of utter indifference nor political partisanship. Her position is one of justice and peace, this being a position that coincidentally presents profound implications for the express stances of political entities.

Having understood that, the individual Christian is then called to vote for the cause of justice and peace, and not in accordance with the law of partisanship. The Church together with her leadership are also to refrain from telling people, “Vote for…” or “Do not vote for…”; this is not her calling. Her calling is to execute and sustain the consciousness of people in matters of justice and peace, to be the righteous voice of Christ in a partisan political world.

Of Himself, Christ is neither government nor opposition, Labour nor Conservative, Democratic nor Republican. Christ is Christ.

Posted by SK at 6:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

For some, the the study of the Church Fathers is simply a dispassionate field of study which they call the Patristics. It's a science, a method upon which much historical criticism must be applied. It's a fascinating field of study, but nothing more. Even if something was to be got from the study of the Church Fathers, it is to be done with utmost selectivity.

For some others, the Church Fathers are not even worth paying attention to. In fact, the Christian era prior to the sixteenth century constituted religious corruption at its apex. Nothing is worth remembering about it. Everything prior to the sixteenth century constituted abominable corruption, abhorring abuse, crusading zealousness and everything else other than true Christianity. The age of the Church Fathers was just not as enlightened as it should have been... until the sixteenth century came.

This is where I beg to differ and have chosen an entirely different direction. I believe that no Christian can study theology with adequate honesty whilst choosing to study Scriptures and yet disregarding the Church Fathers as people who were the earliest passers down of paradosis (tradition). It is unfortunate that they should have been regarded as those who were merely trying to figure out what the Christian faith was all about and were gravely mistaken about much of the faith (unlike us, who know better).

I believe we are the ones who are lost in our search upon conceding to the folly of truncating Christian theology into something that begins in purity only from the sixteenth century. In thinking that searching the Scriptures for ourselves would help us derive infallible interpretations for our readings, we have discarded the readings of the Fathers of the Church who lived learning to interpret Scriptures the way Jesus had taught the Apostles.

No theologian who has studied the Church Fathers with utter seriousness can disregard that the Christian way of life for many today is much, much less than what it should be. People have come to assimilate into their life systems the bits and pieces of the Christian way of life that fascinate them, whilst disregarding the others. And their interpretations of the Scriptures do not rebuke or correct them anymore because the Church Fathers have been silenced; so hermeneutics in all shapes, sizes, and theological inclinations is free for the taking.

Without paying due regard to the Church Fathers, there cannot be a concrete embodiment of tradition. And without a concrete embodiment of tradition, they cannot point to anything except some concepts and texts whose interpretation is anybody's guess. But they'd just go ahead and think that their right to private interpretation is infallible anyway.

A faith claiming to have infallible Scriptures but not possessing infallible interpretations for those infallible Scriptures: that's the faith by which many live today. To each his own.

Posted by SK at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is literally the first time a mention of Wayne Grudem makes me smile.

[ HT to David Bish ]

Why this man is thematic, he’s charismatic, he’s systematic,
Why he’s Wayne Grudem! (Wayne Grudem)
He did not author Scripture but provides a clearer picture - Oh Yeah!
(Keep reading whoa keep reading)
Wayne may not be Jesus but he writes mean exegesis - Oh Yeah!
(I’ll buy a copy, I’ll kill to buy a copy)
You put it on the floor and it props open your door,
Or if you need to sit- you can climb on top of it - With Wayne Grudem
Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go
Go Wayne Grudem with your intellectual writing style,
(Wayne Grudem go Wayne Grudem)
Go Wayne Grudem you make hard doctrines less of a trial
(Wayne Grudem go Wayne Grudem)
You are extreme, but God’s supreme, oh Wayne Grudem
Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go
(There are) many heresies which we now clearly see - Oh yeah!
(oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
Despite him being bald, hundred-thousand copies sold - Oh yeah!
(oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
His six appendices leave you praying on your knees.
Although he’s not inerrant he’s a heresy deterrent - Wayne Grudem
Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go
Go Wayne Grudem with your intellectual writing style,
(Wayne Grudem go Wayne Grudem)
Go Wayne Grudem you make hard doctrines less of a trial
(Wayne Grudem go Wayne Grudem)
You are extreme, but God’s supreme, oh Wayne Grudem
Go Wayne Grudem with your intellectual writing style,
(Wayne Grudem go Wayne Grudem)
Go Wayne Grudem you make hard doctrines less of a trial
(Wayne Grudem go Wayne Grudem)
You are extreme, but God’s supreme, oh Wayne Grudem
Grudem, grudem, grudem, grudem
Grudem, grudem, grudem, grudem yeah!

Posted by SK at 6:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The notion that this life is no more than a preparation for a life beyond, is a theory of a refusal to live, and a religious fraud. It is inconsistent with the living God, who is "a lover of life".

Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God, p.50.

Posted by SK at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by SK at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I've just ripped the following post wholesale from Pearlie's blog. It's so well-written, I've nothing to add to it. Thanks, Pearlie.

We visited a different denomination church today - the Petaling Jaya Evangelical Free Church. It was a new experience.

The order of service was almost the same except for the Holy Communion and Parish Notice happening right after Praise and Worship and before the sermon. There were no bulletins to refer to and I wasn't used not knowing what's going to happen next.

The church set up was different, i.e. not the traditional set up: it does not have a cross or an altar. The language used was also different: the sanctuary is called an auditorium and the pastor spoke about invoking Jesus in our lives. I didn't realise but now that I checked the bible and the word invoke is used in translation. I am just not used to it though. For me, when the word invoke is used, it carries the picture and flavour of calling upon the powers of magic. I don't know - I may have a wrong conception over this in the first place.

I can now tell how "traditional" I am when it comes to these things. I think I should feel more at ease in an Anglican or Orthodox church.

Eversince Rev Gan Meng Tee - who used to be our pastor, now serving the Lord in Melbourne, Australia - introduced me to church architecture a few years ago, I became quite intrigued by it. I have since learnt that a church should have an apse, altar, sanctuary, chancel, transept, pulpit, lectern, nave and narthex. Not all would agree with me I am sure, but there are theological reasons why old churches and cathedrals are built the way they do. I believe that traiditional church architeture has its theological background and practical purposes as well, which in my opinion should be preferred compared to the modern fan-style auditorium set up.

Apse: the rounded alcove behind the altar. This is where the cross is place and where our worship should centre, i.e. upon God. Churches which do not have a cross at the front believes that with God being omnipresent, it does not matter where we direct our worship to. Moreover, some of them believe that by having a cross hung at the front may encourage idolatry. To me, the cross is a symbol of God's love and sacrifice for us. At any moment in my service that I am selfishly aware and conscious of myself, I look to the cross to remind myself that I am not my own.

Altar: the ceremonial table at which the Eucharist or Holy Communion is celebrated. In the Methodist churches however, the altar is where the collection is placed as an offering to God, in line with the OT sacrifices and offerings, while the Holy Communion cup and bread is placed on another table in front of the altar at the chancel. These items are holy, separated for the Lord's use. It is not that they are powerful or "magical" so to speak, but they are set aside for the Lord's use only and for no other purposes. There are those who abuse the tables and the communion railings.

Sanctuary: the front part of the church from which the service is conducted, as distinct from the nave, where the congregation sits. In the more modern traditional churches however, the term ‘sanctuary’ is often used to mean both chancel and nave because the two are not architecturally distinct.

Chancel: the front part of the church from where the service is conducted, as distinct from the nave. The chancel is usually an elevated platform, usually three steps up from the nave. There are churches where the pastors would not allow anything other than teaching and preaching, leading hymns and songs to be held in the chancel. In some churches, the chancel is usually called the stage, which I felt it should not. The worship of God should not be reduced to a show or presentation or entertainment. After all, a stage is where presentations are staged.

Transept: back then, they had require an increased space near the chancel to accommodate the large numbers of clergy, choirs, or members of religious orders. The result was a space between the chancel and the nave that extends beyond the side walls, giving the church a cruciform floorplan, i.e. the shape of a cross viewed from above. The center of the transept is called the crossing, the area connecting the nave to the chancel. The ushers act as priests of God, bringing in the offering of the people, crossing over from the nave to the chancel to be placed on the altar.

Pulpit: in the more traditional churches, there are two speaker’s stands in the front of the church. The one on the left, as viewed by the congregation is called the pulpit. It is used by clergy to read the gospel and preach the sermon. It is placed in at the side because the focus and centre of worship is still God, hence, where the apse and the altar are placed. Once I was worship leading standing in the center of the chancel. The pastor had to advise us against it and since then we were more aware of it. In the modern auditorium churches, the clergy and laity would usually take centerstage, and in most instances, there is no pulpit. The preacher would use a cordless mic and move about as he speaks.

Lectern: the stand on the right from which readings or parish notices are given. The word lectern comes from the Latin word meaning ‘to read,’ because the lectern primarily functions as a reading stand. It is used by lay people to read the scripture lessons, to lead the congregation in prayer, and to make announcements. The differentiation is given because of the importance of the word of God to the people that the pulpit has to be separated from the other readings and announcements.

Nave: the main body of the church, where the congregation sits and gathers for worship, as opposed to the front part of the church from which the service is led.

Narthex: the historic term for what might otherwise be called the foyer or entry way of the church.

With all these, I felt that church architecture plays an important role in worship and service. It is also practical for the purpose of Holy Communion and coming forward to be prayed for. It requires us to physically go to God and not sit where we are and let God come to us, particularly during the Holy Communion. It is the coming together of the body of Christ, communing and remembering Jesus who gave us his body and his blood for our salvation.

Posted by SK at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Alwyn is wise to foresee questions regarding RoH, which he advanced through email.

I've attempted to reply these questions, although my reply is not officially representative of the RoH Team's position. Given the ethos of these beautiful people with me on the team, however, I'm quite sure they'd be rather happy with my approach in tackling these answers. So here's my reply:

1. What sets RoH apart from, say, Friends In Conversation/Emergent and Agora?

Agora is a local church-based effort to engage society from a rather explicitly Reformed perspective. It is an admirable effort although thoroughly Western and unapologetically Evangelical in its approach (but they certainly believe in apologetics, haha).

Friends in Conversation was exactly what it spells - a conversation - as is Emergent. And out of that conversation was birthed a shared dream by a small group of thinkers to rise beyond Western categories in its response towards societal realities in Malaysia.

One main difference between Agora's approach and RoH's approach is the language used. I think Agora would be quite happy to rest with high-sounding theological language, whereas ROH will represent an express effort to articulate in the language of the people.

Also, Agora uses already pre-established Western theological categories in responding to societal realities, whereas RoH seeks to not do that.

Finally, Agora has, in a way engaged much of the social-scientific arena; but RoH is attempting to do that much more seriously by engaging the wisdom of sisters like Tricia, Veron, and Rachel in our theological interactions.

By the way, may I add, it's of no coincidence that they are sisters, not brothers - the demographics of the team has been very carefully configured.

2. What is your doctrinal statement (if any)?

There is no necessity for a doctrinal statement in this effort, because we are constructing theologies as Malaysian Christians, not Protestant or Roman Catholic (which are in themselves Western realities).

The one thing that has brought us together and which holds us together is our being Malaysian and Christian. As Malaysian Christians, there must be things we can articulate in common without splitting hairs on our Western historical realities and their resulting positions.

But this does not mean we are planning to evade all the differences we may have. RoH represents an ecumenical effort. In an ecumenical effort, there is an implicit understanding that no single individual is expected to compromise his doctrinal positions as we all enter into an effort in a spirit of dialogue. But yet, there is also an implicit understanding of humility in our dialogue, which means that our position is open to constructive challenge and positive shifts.

One most crucial attitude in this effort is that of listening to the other with open hearts before we respond with discontention towards anything we're unfamiliar with.

3. What is your view of the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics?

We have vast differences. But far more similarities than differences.

Within the Great Tradition, there is a common stream, a very broad stream, that runs throughout Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism. That alone provides us with ample space to move together in like-heartedness and single-mindedness in this effort.

The issues of the papacy or the veneration of the saints are too far removed from the realities of Malaysian society for us to even want to discuss at this point of time. Issues like Islam Hadhari, the Federal Constitution as opposed to Syariah Law, the poor and marginalised in our nation, children at risk, the Orang Asli, besides others, are things we hold closer to our hearts as Malaysian Christians.

Besides, we have Protestants (like me) who hold the Holy Father in higher regard than most Protestant bishops we know, and who are very happy to practise iconography (which includes something of the veneration of the saints).

What I'm saying is that we are Christians who are willing to cross over. Recently, Veron (one of the RoH Team members) kindly conceded to come over to [the seminary I teach in] to share what it means to her that she's Catholic and ecumenical in her faith. Something extremely beautiful was birthed from that conversation.

The spirit in which we are working together in RoH is rather idealistic, admittedly. We are trying to embody an eschatological oneness which probably has yet to truly exist in our various ecclesiastical contexts; but it is only because the Roh who is orchestrating this effort is the eschatological Spirit of God himself... and we're foolish enough to flow along.

Posted by SK at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This is the day. The 50th Anniversary of Malaysia marks the official launching of R.O.H, an effort recently inaugurated for the purpose of writing local theologies for the Malaysian context.

A MANIFESTO FOR A REVOLUTION OF HOPE (R.O.H)

Roh is a Malay word which means “spirit” and yet phonetically sounds like ruach, the Hebrew word for God’s Creative Spirit hovering over the world, and through the Incarnation is now in us, amongst us and through the Resurrection is all in all.

1. BACKGROUND
We live in a world that is being dominated by neo-liberal globalisation which has at the same time imperialised the rest of the world, including erasing national boundaries and local traditional cultures. Now, a timely moment has arisen (kairos) when the Kin-dom movement summons the emergence of a countercultural movement of believers in religion. This calls for Christian believers, especially intellectuals (in the sense of critical thinkers with professional and academic qualifications) to band together and think more concertedly within our Malaysian context so that we may imagine more globally while we act more locally. This comes in the light of the Asian understanding of knowledge and the local cultural wisdom of our people in Asia-Malaysia, not to mention the untold sufferings inflicted on the marginal communities in our midst (the many poor of the various religions and cultures).

To begin the ripple effect of a countercultural movement, a sizable group of Christian activists-strategists needs to come together on a platform that enables theological reflection (emergent contextual theologies). This is to encourage a critical interface between faith (religion) and society, fostering a rich interaction between theology and the social sciences with the clear goal of analysing pertinent issues affecting our nation/society. And thereafter, these thinkers need to articulate a theological response so that critical thinking Christians are guided (as a church emerging) in their lives. Such a theological response would have a societal impact on public policies, mindsets, worldviews and values of fellow Malaysians in their workplaces and neighbourhood.

Such critical analyses and theological responses must be “translatable” into effective and concrete efforts that command the attention of diverse stakeholders in our nation. “Stakeholders” here refers to the government with its multiple ministries and other agencies in civil society; so that together we move our nation forward in a manner that is Kin-dom-centred. This is aimed towards the greater good of all in Malaysia, especially the marginal communities.[1]

Such interdisciplinary, intercultural and inter-religious efforts can be seen as our cooperation with God in transforming our nation into the “playground” where Malaysia becomes a more harmonious society wherein all in Malaysia begin to live more and more as equal disciples and equal persons before God.

Ultimately, R.O.H’s hallmark is its sensitivity to the voice of the Spirit and its capacity to be the dynamism, the sap, the force within that sustains an emergent Malaysia. Out of R.O.H, there emerges too a host of theologies borne of a Gospel Faith that speaks together with the social sciences so that the Church emerging is seen and heard to be speaking into the joys and sorrows of fellow Malaysians and the wider society.

2. RESPONSE
a. Level-One Response (The Core Team)
The team devoted to this effort we call R.O.H comprises six people. Our primary goal in the configuration of this team is to reflect an adequate representation of both genders, both the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions, and both the social-scientific and theological disciplines in interaction with each other. We have come to participate in this effort propelled by various collective motivations and reasons:

• Integrating local spiritualities into our understanding;
• Learning from people working with real socio-political issues to feed into theology;
• Finding like-minded people to write together and form theologies together (writing theology can be a lonely journey);
• Tying in faith and life together;
• Translating words into action on the ground, ensuring people at the grassroots level are defended;
• Western-driven theology that has caused us to think about the need for an Asian-driven theology, a local contextual theology;
• Disillusionment with Western-centric theology;
• Growth into self-identity;
• Creating a tradition for the future generations.

The R.O.H Team consists of the following personnel:

Tricia Yeoh Su-Wern
BBusComm Econometrics and Marketing (Monash, Malaysia);
MSc in Research Methods in Psychology (Warwick, UK).

Tricia is currently Senior Research Analyst at the Centre for Public Policy Studies, at which she engages in national socio-economic issues through research, analysis and fostering policy dialogue. This covers a wide range of issues, dealing for example, with inter-faith dialogue and economic policies. Her work involves interacting closely with the country's socio-political environment. She hopes to work constructively toward a matured and united Malaysia, and envisions faith and vocation as one, as we seek common goals and platforms in the long-term nation-building process.

Veronica Anne Retnam
BSc in Resource Economics (UPM, Malaysia);
MEd in Educational Psychology (Cardiff, Wales).

Veronica started off with working with out-of-school youth and was then responsible for the formation of Catholic undergraduates in Malaysia. Then for nearly 18 years she was an economics lecturer at UiTM (previously Institut Technologi MARA). Her concerns are about reaching out effectively to poor communities and working with them in empowering partnerships. Her interest is also developmental psychology with a focus on research for policy change. She is currently starting off with training and development for low income communities through her own business enterprise.

Rachel Samuel
BSocSc in Development Studies (USM, Malaysia);
MSocSc in Development Studies (USM, Malaysia);
PhD candidate in Management (USM, Malaysia).

Rachel worked with the Consumers Association of Penang for three years on issues pertaining to the rural sector and health and safety issues. She took up the Bukit Merah people's case against the radioactive company and worked closely with them throughout the period of their legal struggle. She has also worked among drug dependents (women and HIV carriers) and been involved with the AIDS Hotline, the Community Clinic and the One Stop Crisis Centre. Rachel co-authored Women and Drugs, Domestic Violence in Penang, and Shame, Secrecy and Silence: A Study on Rape. She is currently involved with Women In Action in Melaka, Education and Research Association in Kuala Lumpur, the Melaka-Johor Office of Human Development, and the Counselling Ministry of the Melaka-Johor Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jojo M. Fung, SJ
MA in Theology (LST, Manila);
MA in Social Anthropology (London, UK);
STL (Berkeley);
Doctorate in Contextual Theology (CTU, Chicago).

The Reverend Father Jojo Fung is an ordained priest in the Society of Jesus, an order of the Roman Catholic Church. He is the Director of the Campus Ministry, the Orang Asli Ministry, and the Ministry of Eumenism and Interreligious Dialogue in the Diocese of Melaka-Johore. He is also the Coordinator of I.N.T.R.Asia and Co-editor of the Arrupe Papers. Father Jojo is a prolific writer on issues pertaining to the gospel as it relates to local contextual issues.

Sivin Kit
BTh (STM, Malaysia);
MTheo candidate (SEAGST).

The Reverend Sivin Kit is a minister of the Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore (LCMS) and pastor of Bangsar Lutheran Church. Sivin is primarily concerned about ecclesiastical interactions with local social-political realities and desires to see the emergence of more contextual responses towards these realities. He brings with him a wealth of pastoral and missional perspectives in contribution to this conversation so as to ensure that our constructions are based on realistic observations.

Sherman Y.L. Kuek, OSL
BSc Management (Bradford, UK);
MDiv (Trinity, Singapore);
DTh candidate in Contextual Theology (Trinity, Singapore).

Sherman is an Adjunct Lecturer in Systematic and Contextual Theology at Seminari Theoloji Malaysia. His primary areas of interest are contextual theological methodologies and the recovery of the Great Tradition in the theological thought of the Christian community. It is therefore natural that Sherman also has a concern for ecumenics. He is presently completing his doctoral thesis on a theological critique of modernity in Asia.

The direction of the R.O.H. Team is guided by several individual Patrons who have kindly agreed to endorse our effort and be our guiding wisdom:

Revd Dr Hwa Yung
Bishop, Methodist Church of Malaysia

Among his various other involvements besides being Bishop of the Methodist Church in Malaysia, Bishop Hwa Yung is the Honorary Secretary of the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) and the Chairman of the STM Council. On the international scene Bishop Hwa Yung is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies (OCMS), Oxford; the Vice-Chairman of the Asian Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (ALCWE); a member of the Executive Committee of the World Methodist Council and an Executive Committee Member of the International Association of Mission Studies (IAMS).

Rt Revd Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing, SJ
Roman Catholic Bishop of Melaka-Johor
The Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur

Besides having been the Bishop of the Melaka-Johor Diocese since May 2003, Bishop Paul is the Chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) and the Vice-Chairman of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism & Taoism (MCCBCHST).

Revd Dr Simon Chan
Ernest Lau Professor of Systematic Theology,
Trinity Theological College Singapore

Dr Simon Chan is a renowned Asian theologian. He is the author of Liturgical Theology; Spiritual Theology: A Systematic Study of the Christian Life; Man and Sin; and Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition. He is also an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God in Singapore.

b. Level-Two Response (Friends)
The effort also seeks to be a platform for the coming together of other like-minded Christians in Malaysia to share in the dream together. It will simultaneously create a voice for other scattered Christians who in their individual capacities have begun to, or desire to, make a change in Malaysian society. This is akin to causing minute but significant ripples.

Therefore, the next layer of involvement in this R.O.H effort consists of others who may be equally interested in this initiative and committed to its cause. We seek to draw upon their experiences and resources, and will endeavour to receive their contributions seriously, through personal conversations, writings, and organised gatherings. Where appropriate, their concerns will find their way into our constructive efforts.

3. OUR COMMITMENTS
a. Our Commitment to the Neighbourology Principle
The neighbourology principle expresses the deepest motivation for our contextual engagements with the local contexts. It is important to begin with how we see people in our nation firstly as neighbours, and what this involves. Authentic love for the neighbour involves a “kin-dom” mentality (based on an idea of “kinship”, which is very consistent with the Asian paradigm of societal life).

Two crucial features of the neighbourology principle are:

• that we must ensure our ultimate goal is for the long term. Critiques although necessary will be driven purely for the sake of achieving desirable results for the nation in the long run. Loving the country necessitates honest criticism at times. And we critique the country because we believe she is worth critiquing.

  
  

• the objective of building bridges. This involves healing wounds between different races, religions and any other factors that have since divided the Malaysian society.
  

b. Our Linguistic Commitment to the Target Audience
While we intend for our audience to be largely urban and educated in nature, this necessitates an inclusivity of experiences from the bottom up, including the marginalised and grassroot communities. Formal English will be used but care will be given to ensure it is not necessarily academic or technical to ensure laymen comprehension.

Because the Malaysian church has a long way to be exposed to such local contextual theologies, we will be targeting the church primarily and only at a later stage speak to society at large. In other words, our primary concern relates to what it means to be “the church in the world”.

In regard to our use of language for the communication of our theological constructions, we will make it a point to employ the language of social scientists and other relevant disciplines in the midst of our theological articulations. This is to ensure that our articulations are not found dislocated from a proactive interaction with the language of other disciplines. Yet, our articulations should also reflect the language of the intended audience as afore described. Whilst social-scientific and theological jargon may be an inevitable, the employment of such jargon has to be unpacked and written in a manner understood by our readers.

c. Our Commitment to Holistic Reflections
We are not in favour of our articulations constituting knee-jerk reactions towards unexpected occurrences in the life of the nation. Much of the Christian community’s statements and positions on socio-political issues in Malaysia is reactionary in nature. These statements and positions are issued only upon an urgent need to do so, and are seldom undertaken with sufficient theological reflection given to the purpose. It is hoped that we will provide holistic reflections upon local Malaysian issues, as opposed to the mere knee-jerk reactions in response to perceived external threats.

d. Our Commitment to Basic Governing Principles
There are generally five key principles that the group considers essential in governing our local theological constructions:

• Socio-Political Context. This will include crucial issues which will be identified in our subsequent meetings to develop a proper contextual framework for our theological reflections. It is important that this framework must include a concern for marginal communities.

  
  

• Social-Scientific Disciplines. Our theologies will be dislocated from reality if we do not seriously engage the findings and analyses of the social-scientific disciplines in our society. The role of the social-scientific thinkers in our team is therefore crucial.

  
  

• Local Cultural Wisdom. The cultural paradigmatic realities of the society in which our theology is entrenched must be accounted for in our theological constructions. This is also known as the principle of inculturation, wherein local epistemologies are taken seriously.

  
  

• Christian Tradition. The approach we are taking herein is an ecumenical one. Our joint concern is for the wellbeing of our neighbours, our nation, and not the disagreement on our respective distinctives. In fact, in deep appreciation of how our distinctive traditions may contribute positively to this conversation, we take the guiding voice of the Great Tradition as a non-negotiable in our constructions.

  
  

• The Gospel. This principle is not necessarily separate from the fourth, but accentuates a point of importance. Our theology must come to terms with the heart of the gospel, which essentially speaks of the ultimate and full establishment of God’s reign in the world.
  

e. Our Commitment to Various Levels of Socio-political Involvement
There are three possible levels of socio-political involvement by the Christian community: i) writing, ii) helping immediate needs (e.g., helping the poor and alleviating immediate suffering), and iii) effecting structural change. Historically, Christians in the Protestant Malaysian Church have been active within the first layer but little else has been done in either of the other two. It is noted that the situation is not very far different for the Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia.

The objectives and strategies of R.O.H. will be in attempting to achieve all layers of socio-political involvement. This however is an incremental and dynamic cultivation and change, as the process is subject to growth and alterations in time.

f. Our Commitment to the Dissemination of Our Ideas
We are committed to the dissemination of our social scientific analyses together with the accompanying theological constructions in various forms of publications. This may involve web publications, books and monographs, journal articles, and sporadic articles in newsletter.

In time to come, there is also a great possibility that we may organise events involving relatively small clusters of young thinkers who share in our concerns and who would be keen to participate in conversations pertaining to these concerns.

The R.O.H. Team
31 August 2007
Malaysia’s 50th Anniversary

Endnotes
[1] These marginal communities include the poor, the Orang Asli, women, persons with disabilities, plantation and factory workers, migrants and refugees, and children at risk, among others.

Log onto the R.O.H Malaysia Blog. Click here.

Posted by SK at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What you see above is a silhoutte... a reflection of things to come.

It's something Malaysia has needed, and which some Malaysians have been waiting for. For years.

The mystery will be revealed in its fullness this coming National Day (31 August).

Watch out.

Posted by SK at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So here we are, standing at the crossroads, having to decide how we desire to move on as a part of the very fractured Body of Christ.

Surely, what I have shared in response to these questions threatens the status quo of church life. It brings much inconvenience, for it obligates us to deconstruct much of things we have taken for granted for decade upon decade.

Amidst the imperfection of my articulations, whether these words are merely received as the troublesome voice of dissent emanating from a disgruntled Christian or as a prophetic voice in the wilderness depends largely on the spirit of the hearer.

From where I stand, it is my conviction that church life, along with our idea of spirituality, need to be radically deconstructed and reconstructed; not so much that we will be relevant to the times, but that we will be relevant to the coming of the Kingdom.

Too much of our idea of spirituality and the Christian life has been focused on living our lives in the present; this leads us to settle with contentment for sub-standard expressions of who we are as Christians. Perhaps it is time to live a future-oriented (eschatological) life.

But yes, it is just too troublesome. Looking too much like Christ may just get you expelled from the church… it has happened before.

But throughout the ages, we see that the Spirit of God keeps raising people who're foolish enough to think that living the eschatological life is a possibility in the present moment. Every time the church is too fixated on her temporal existence, the Spirit raises from within her a number of people who refuse to resign themselves to this senseless preoccupation with temporality.

Posted by SK at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

What do you think would be the greatest challenge to integrate spiritual formation into the life of the church?

The greatest challenge would probably be to convince many pastors and church leaders that what they are doing in/for the church now is not spiritual formation. It is just doing, not so much a cultivation of being.

The only people who can effectively bring about some kind of deep change in the way church life takes place now are the pastors and leaders, but they are also the people who are the most difficult to convince in this respect. Many have been so used to a specific idea of what constitutes "formation", they find it hard to see a different perspective.

In other words, most pastors and church leaders actually think they are already doing it. And the idea of re-examining their present paradigm of formation makes them rather resistant.

Whilst acknowledging that they have done the best they could under the paradigm in which they have been raised in the church/ministry, we need to find ways of modeling something different for them that they might realise that many of us might have missed the point of what it means to be the church.

Posted by SK at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

If there are no boundaries and limitations, what would you most like to see happen or emerge or take place in the area of spiritual formation?

Firstly, I would most like to see the abolishment of spiritual formation as a distinct aspect of theological training at the seminary.

I would like to see an integration of the formation process through which a minister-in-formation undergoes. I don’t think the way in which spiritual formation is emphasised in the seminary today does justice to the concept of spiritual formation itself.

I think it is very unfortunate that in the scheme of things at the moment, there are the biblical scholars, the theologians, the historians, and the spirituality gurus. As a result, we even have spiritual formation gurus who are unable to impart their ideas of spiritual formation with strong theological undergirdings, because they themselves studied spiritual formation apart and distinct from theology.

If formation is to be seen as holistic, then its embodiment has to be holistic. All of our lives - our studies, our prayer, our worship, our communion, our relationships, our vocations - are various dimensions of a holistic spiritual formation.

Surely, every seminary would laud my lament and claim to have the kind of holistic emphasis I am speaking of here. But yet, at the end of each semester, it is the academic result slip that speaks the loudest of the seminary’s preoccupation and priority.

Secondly, I would like to see a deliberate effort to shift our paradigm of spiritual formation at the level of the local church.

We need to see, in a very real and concrete way, the role of the church as the depository of the mysteries of God. These mysteries of God propel every individual within the church in his/her journey of growing “into Christ”, and the individual therefore cannot exist apart from the church and must keep existing as a part of this Body into which he/she has been baptised.

In other words, the church must start taking up its role as the centre of spiritual formation for every believer by forming the personhood of every Christian within it, not just organising activities and inviting people to participate.

Together with that, each individual must also be taught to cultivate an awareness that he/she is also a part of the mysteries of God within the church. Each individual in the community is a very crucial part of the spiritual formation of other individuals in the church, for he/she is an agent of grace within the scheme of the Kingdom.

This is why believers have to share together in a common life, for in so doing, they are embracing one another as divine mysteries of God and mutual agents of grace for one another’s journey “into Christ”.

Posted by SK at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What would you consider to be the greatest gap in terms of spiritual formation for your church?

For your pastors? For church leaders? For youths?

This will be mostly a reiteration of something I have shared earlier.

I consider the greatest gap in terms of spiritual formation for my church to be our understanding of what it means to be the church and what it means to be followers of Jesus in the world.

Most, if not all, of the Christians in my local church see the church as a place to express their spirituality and a place to express their devotion towards God. In other words, every good Christian goes to church, attends the services, the cell groups, the bible studies, and the family camps. The even better Christians attend prayer meetings and the extra conferences and seminars organised by the church.

Beyond that, there is little or no understanding of how the church has been given the mysteries of God that she may cause each individual to further grow “into Christ”.

There is little or no understanding of what it means to be the people of God beyond all our programmes and activities; we attend these things because we genuinely want to be “good Christians”, not because we see how they help us grow “into Christ” (nor do these things necessarily help us attain that goal, in the first place!) But we just keep cooperating anyway, because “good Christians” do not question.

Posted by SK at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

As a pastor, teacher, counselor, etc, what is your vision for the Malaysian church?

My vision for the Malaysian church is to be mature enough to see beyond the matrix in which she is stuck at the moment. She is paralysed by a colonial past and cannot seem to get over the colonial form of Christianity she has inherited.

I feel that the Malaysian church should be mature enough in her faith journey to start questioning many presuppositions previously taken to be a priori. Much of what the Malaysian church believes and practises is utterly disconnected from the local cultural wisdom of the Malaysian society. She is very much an alien in her own nation.

Even today, at the 50th celebration of our nationhood, the Malaysian church is still being imperialised by the Western culture, both high and low cultures. It may not be so much the fault of the West as it is our own, for we are often drowned in our own insecurity.

For example, two national bodies responsible for bringing together a significant segment of the Malaysian churches recently implemented a programme transplanted from a Western evangelistic association. Many of these methods transplanted from the West, although not wrong in themselves, are often utterly insensitive to local worldviews and cultures.

And yet, such national ecclesiastical bodies are not yet mature enough to examine such programmes critically and theologically. For any national ecclesiastical body to seemingly assume that an evangelistic effort can be transplanted universally (what more from the West to Asia) without a sense of cultural sensitivity speaks of an insensitivity of the church towards her own nation. More fundamentally, it speaks of a lack of theological understanding on the part of the ecclesiastical leaders of what it means to be the church of Jesus Christ in Malaysia.

Ecclesiastically, I am merely an active member of the local church holding no position on the organisational hierarchy. But my vision for the Malaysian church is simply that she matures and develops a strong ecclesiology (a strong understanding of what it means that she is the church in Malaysia).

Posted by SK at 12:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

What are the three greatest needs of your church? How relevant is spiritual formation in addressing these needs?

In my observation, the three greatest needs of my church are as follows:

i) cultivating followers of Jesus who understand the message of the Kingdom and who are adamantly desiring to embody that message in their lives;

ii) cultivating a theological understanding of the church as a “Kingdomic community” and actively attempting to express this idea of community in concrete ways; and

iii) cultivating leaders who see themselves as more than administrators, organisers and decision-makers; who see themselves as spiritual guides of the community.

I do not think there is any form of concrete theological reflection or a deliberate consciousness for an undertaking of any sort of spiritual formation at this point of its life journey.

Like most other Protestant churches I observe, my church is most of the time majoring on how to do church rather than seeking to understand how to be church. No doubt, it is one of the best of the Protestant churches I have ever been a part of (I mean this sincerely); but there is still much for us to learn in terms of understanding that our task is more of cultivating Christians who will be rather than Christians who will merely do. But for that to happen, we need a strong theology of the church.

In other words, I am saying that the spiritual formation of my local church is not effective in addressing the said needs. In fact, the notion of spiritual formation might not even be a part of the consciousness of the local church. It often seems like we do what we do because “these are things every good church must do”.

If we had a proper theological understanding of the nature of the church, a new consciousness would emerge, shifting our preoccupation from what we need to do to who we need to be; or in fact, who we already are.

Posted by SK at 3:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you had a free hand to run a church with no boundaries, how would spiritual formation look like at its best integrated form?

If I had a free hand to run a church with no boundaries, spiritual formation would take place in small communities of believers. However, I must quality this with my strong reservation regarding the contemporary cell group movement which tends to mechanise church life and regulate communal involvement for the express purpose of numerical growth in the church - this goes entirely against my most basic idea for the being of the church itself.

I like the name given by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur to these small communities – basic ecclesial communities (BEC), although I do not know enough about this structure to discern if it is entirely coherent with my idea of spiritual formation.

In my understanding, each small community should have a spiritual formator within it to regulate the common life of the said community. This spiritual formator has to be someone wise in understanding life and faith, not necessarily someone who has had formal credentials or theological degrees, but someone who possesses deep spiritual wisdom. He/She becomes the guide for every life within the said small community.

The believers within each community, with the guidance of this spiritual formator, share in a common life. They spend time with one another daily, redefine the boundaries of their families and their private space, share a common commitment to Kingdom life, and together seek to deepen their understanding and praxis of the perichoretic life of the Triune God with one another.

Within these communities, each individual embraces the values of simplicity, obedience and purity. As communities of faith, they together share in the values of relationality, mutuality, grace, offering, and missionality. All these values are tied in with the principle of sacramentality and are to be defined theologically. Whilst these values may sound abstract, the outworking of these values must be concretely observable in the common life of each community.

Posted by SK at 7:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

What is your favourite quote that best describes your idea of spiritual formation? (continued)

b. The Martial Arts Apprentice
One day, a young man who desired to learn a supreme form of martial arts heard there was a martial arts master in a high mountain. He made his way there to beg to be an apprentice, that he too might one day become a martial arts maestro.

As he approached the martial arts master, he was already feeling rather downhearted because the master did not seem very keen in teaching him the art. But it did seem that the master was keen on trying him out first, so the master said, “All right, you begin by mopping the floor using two pieces of cloth. You squat down and use both your hands to mop the floor. Make sure you’re done by the end of the day.” So the young man thinks to himself, “I didn’t come here for this. But I think he’s testing me, so I’ll just do it, and then tomorrow he’ll accept me as his apprentice.” So he completes his task for the day.

To his horror, early the next morning, the master tells him, “Do again what you did yesterday”! He begins to get furious, but tells him he has to persevere if he wants to gain the trust of the master. But as time goes by, this task of mopping the floor drags on for two weeks, then three weeks, then up to months! And worse still, at a later stage, while the disciple was mopping the floor, the master would just walk by and give him a kick in his stomach. At times, he would use a stick to hit the disciple’s back. And he would fall over with such great pain. Even at night while the disciple was sleeping, the master would just sneak into the room and kick him hard. Ouch!

Eventually, the disciple realises he has to watch out and avoid kicks and beatings from the master. So as he mops the floor, and even as he sleeps at night, he finds himself being very alert so that when the master comes, he can avoid those kicks and beatings.

One day, he loses his patience at the master’s abuse. And tells the master, “Okay, enough is enough! When are you going to teach me some real martial arts?” The master replies, “You’ve been learning every day since the day you came. And everything I have to impart, you already know. You now know the secret of this art – it’s alertness, and you’ve mastered it. Now you can go.”

Posted by SK at 12:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What is your favourite quote that best describes your idea of spiritual formation?

I do not have a favourite quote, but I do have two favourite stories I use to describe my idea of spiritual formation. These are not original stories, but are nevertheless reflective of certain fundamental dimensions of spiritual formation.

Also, these stories are true of how learning actually used to take place in pre-industrialised societies and reflect a missing dimension of our Christian heritage that we have lost in discipleship and formation.

a. The Violin Maker
Stradivarius was a legendary violin maker from Italy in the 18th century. He made violins like no other man in existence. His violins produced sounds which flickered, constantly trembled, and moved like candlelight. There are about 600 Stradivarius violins in the world today, and one can fetch a price of as high as a USD 200,000. And despite the way in which technology has grown by leaps and bounds, nobody has truly figured out what makes Stradivarius violins sound the way they do.

How did a master violin maker like Stradivarius or any other violin maker teach an apprentice to make violins? Did he conduct classes twice a week for two hours each session? Or did he offer a certificate programme for this? It’s simple. He would bring the apprentice to live with him, day and night watching him make violins.

Apparently, a great violin that produces the best music can only be made from certain kinds of wood. These woods are from trees that have survived a cold season at a certain time period. So the master violin maker would take the apprentice up to the mountains of Switzerland to find wood there. The master violin maker would test the wood by touching, feeling and smelling the wood, to judge whether the wood would be suitable for the construction of a good violin. His apprentice would just be following him and observing him for many years. One day, on one such trip, the master violin maker would pass the wood, piece by piece, to the apprentice to ask the apprentice to gauge if it was good or bad wood. The apprentice would begin by guessing wrongly, for he does not truly know what constitutes a piece of good or bad wood – and neither does the master have the words to describe the criteria!

But the apprentice just keeps imitating the master’s actions – touching, feeling and smelling the wood. Some years later, he’s able to do what his master does, and he knows what is good wood and what is bad wood – without necessarily having the words to describe the criteria! But he has mastered the art by slowly imitating the master and is able to eventually construct high quality violins instinctively, which even highly technologised machines cannot do.

Editor's Note: The second story will be posted up in the next post.

Posted by SK at 3:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

What is your favorite book/s that best describes your idea of spiritual formation?

My answer to this question will not sound very characteristic of me, but my favourite book which I think best describes my idea of spiritual formation is the bible, especially the Gospels, and then the book of Acts.

It is in the Gospels that we see (in “real time”) how spiritual formation takes place through the sharing of the common life between Jesus and his disciples. It is also in the Gospels that we see the idea of the perichoretic life being best reflected through the life of Jesus and his companions. Jesus lived as a parable before his companions, being the perfect model of the perichoretic life, that they might imitate him in all dimensions of their lives.

In the book of Acts, we see how the followers of Jesus continued the legacy he had left behind for them. They kept on sharing in the common life and learning what it meant to live a life based on the perichoretic nature of God. We see how they met daily in the homes and how they shared everything they had with one another, no one claiming their possessions to be their own. They were doing the dance of life together. Christ was no longer present, but yet, still present in a very real way through his Spirit in their midst.

It seems to me that spiritual formation is often discussed as a very abstract concept. At best, it is cultivated through a series of “programmes” and “disciplines” seminary students or church members are put through. At worst, it is imposed as a set of legalistic requirements which has to be met in order to graduate from seminary.

But scripture imparts the idea of spiritual formation in a very different way. It imparts the ideal through the narration of a beautiful story and the passing down of a legacy from one generation to another. From the Gospels and the book of Acts, we can see that spiritual formation is about helping people to find their places in the Story of God, and in the process of finding their places, coming to understand who they are themselves.

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

What is your favourite scriptural passage that best represents your idea of spiritual formation?

My favourite passage is John 1:35-39. These two men were disciples of John the Baptist and were present with him one morning when Jesus passed by. John recognises him as the one sent by God to be the Saviour and says, "Look, the Lamb of God". John's insight led these disciples to leave him and follow this person so wholly acknowledged by their trusted master as more than just a prophet enlightened by God.

At that point, Jesus noticed these two at a distance, hesitating in wonder at the thought of approaching someone so significantly acknowledged by their master. The Lord turns and presents them with a leading question, which was also an implicit invitation for them to draw closer and engage with him directly. "What are you looking for?", he asks. His reassuring disposition helps them to express their interest in getting to know him. "Rabbi, where are you staying?", they inquired. "Come and see", Jesus said in return. They then accompanied the Lord to his dwelling and spent the rest of the day with him. That encounter changed their lives.

In this passage, John the Baptist is the spiritual formator who points the attention of his followers to Jesus and paves the way for them to follow the Christ. It is the role of the spiritual formator to create opportunities for people to follow Jesus and to “spend the day” with him, so that these successive encounters might change their lives.

The spiritual formator creates an environment that cultivates an awareness of the heart, so that when Christ “passes by”, he and his companions notice that passing by. Thereafter, he releases his companions to follow this Christ as the formator witnesses to his significance as the one worthy of being followed.

An even more sacramental approach to this would be for the spiritual formator to see himsel