becoming

We will go to Hong Kong for a 3-week vacation. Thus blogging will be less frequent.

My good friend Anson on the idolatry of the glamorous church.

I had this experience just the previous weekend, when a few brothers and sisters from my church attended a wedding ceremony at another church. Many of them expressed a deep appreciation of the beauty of the church building, while to me, without denying the aesthetics beauty of it, I’m much more concern about the rotten theology and worldview of the church (ie. the people) itself.

On deeper thought, isn’t that the dichotomy we always found ourselves in? Either we look at the building at awe and assume the people likewise, or we look at the people and than negate the apparent beauty which the building conveys. A church building is just a space. Whether outsiders know what is really going on among those worshiping inside it, a church building can still arouse certain emotion just by entering it. There is no right or wrong here. Just impulses and responses. We just can’t link the aesthetics beauty of a building (or lack of) to the people, and/or g/God that they worship, and vice versa.

And on the theology side, I think we have a strong tendency to resurrect the Temple Theology back into our times — a physical building that symbolizes and signifies the presence of God. I have a problem with that. Like Anson, I am not against aesthetics; but if I understand the NT correctly, Jesus had, time and time again, fought against such an idea. The presence of God is not to be found in a building with a physical address attached to it; it is to be found in the person Jesus Christ. Jesus gathered his disciples not around the Temple in Jerusalem, he gathered them around himself.

There is a lot more to be said, like the way we think certain place in a church (building) is more scared than others (I was brought up not to eat or drink in the so-called “Sanctuary”). This is not a comment based purely on tidiness, there is something deeply theological behind it. Paul Stevens of Regent wrote some good (and to some, controversial) reflections on this.

One more thing, Anson mentioned “a trend in the postmodern church falling into the lure of glamor, vulnerable to its deception”, but I thought it is the other way around. Mega-churches and the prosperity gospel go almost hand in hand on this — both however, are very “modern” phenomena. The church that are more sensitive to the postmodern culture, tends to focus less on the building and more on its mission. I have yet to visit Mars Hill in Michigan, but from what I gathered so far their church building, even though it is a renovated old shopping mall and can seat a little less than 4000, it is really not that impressive or glamorous, compare to these.

[Related: What’s in a building?]

N.B. In protest, I reject the temptation to get an image with this post that depicts glamour.

Evangelical faith inevitably leads to faithful interpretation of the Bible in the light of conversion, including the Spirit’s regeneration of people. That inevitably gives rise to doctrines. But doctrines are not the center; they are intended to be ministerial (serving as servants) rather than magisterial (serving as masters). In other words, doctrines serve people rather than vice versa. Doctrines express a Christian community’s consensus about right interpretation of the Bible in the light of experience; they go wrong when they are enshrines as unquestionable authorities that enslave people’s minds and forbid all doubt or questioning.

Religionless evangelicalism will have doctrines, but it will approach them differently — with a different attitude that holds them lightly and keeps them open to reconsideration and revision. Secularity would enter this picture if some culture like “modernity” or “postmodernity” were allowed to become a major source or norm of Christian doctrine, but as long as Word of God is what gives rise to doctrine and norms, there is no hint of secularism.

Roger Olson, How to be Evangelical without being Conservative, p.113.

很有意思的一段話。Olson在書中不斷重申的，正是福音派這樣的本質：拒絕基要主義中的保守派（Religious Right）那樣一成不變：教義成為不能疑問的權威（背後的假設是自己的詮釋與聖經的內容等同）；另一方面，亦拒絕走自由派的路線，選擇擁抱世界而不再回到聖經（也不是單回到「我以為」的聖經詮釋）確立規範：聖經既沒有了指導性的權威，甚至在相當的程況下，連參考的價值也沒有了。

這是「非宗教性」的福音派，當走的「中庸之道」。

收開書，真的有條路！先前經過「心臟衰竭」一役，上週尾又從老細手中，多收一本。

洋洋接近400頁的教牧神學，放在我枱上，給我的原因是：

「我可能買的時候，click多o左本自己都唔知…」

嘩！黃牧，

掂呀！

感謝的人生

歌羅西書3:12-17

不錯，保羅挑戰當時整個羅馬帝國的運作方式，但他的方式卻是出奇地和我們想象的方法截然不同！他的起步點是先告訴你，耶穌是誰？

而這點正正是我們必須留心的。當想到對抗生活中的轄制力量，我們不會自然的想到要將注意力集中在「耶穌是誰」之上。但對保羅來說，就是這個方法。而事實上，這是唯一的方法。當我們真正了解耶穌究竟是誰，它能夠改變我們怎樣看待這個世界、並我們的生活方式。我們會發現原來我們被神邀請加入一個完全不同的故事之中，對抗著這世界無所不用其極的希望引你進入的那另一個故事。

你要知道，如果我要將這篇感恩節的講章，變為向你們，為教會擴堂所作的呼籲；又或者是很快就到的Operation Christmas Child聖誕鞋盒的捐助，又或者是呼籲你為明年的差傳預算、教會的整體預算而奉獻，是很容易的。但不是啊！這不是我的意思…

講道錄音：

[audio:sermons/colossians/Col_3_12-17.mp3]

延伸閱讀：

1. 當然，要說帝國、權勢、歌羅西書，不能不看的是Brian Walsh 和Sylvia Keesmaat 的Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire。
2. ThanksLiving 一詞是從Wright的小書Following Jesus, p.21 而來（那正是討論歌羅西書的一章）。

(偷偷取自Kan的作品)

那個下午，叫我最快樂的事，在我們當中還有一個被邀請來參與的重要人物。雖然Jason和他們的家人並未認識神，但是他們都願意在神面前見證Jason和Peggy向神、向對方作出的承諾。若要婚姻穩固的話，我相信這位重要人物，這位愛我們的神，也需要在往後的日子繼續參與在你們這個新家庭中。

愛我們的神能夠塑造我們成為一個識得怎樣去愛的人。因為我們知道祂是叫人和好的神，祂也會幫助夫妻之間能彼此的諒解，甚至在需要的時候，彼此饒恕、和好。神就好似一支強力的膠水一樣，能穩固關係，甚至修補裂痕。

Peggy和Jason，你們相信不但在一個美麗的禮堂行禮是重要的，更加相信這是一個很嚴肅，在神面前作的一個一生的承諾。我深信，當你們願意親近神的時候，神就能夠將你們拉得更近。

願神賜福與你們。

Home desktop’s harddrive was toasted last night! Just like that! Not even a proper goodbye! It will take a while for me to restore the system (I am also crossing my fingers that my Seagate backup drive is working properly!).

The best way to reach me for the next few days (at least before I head back to HK) will be by the ancient old method —

The device they call “phone”.

I just couldn’t stop laughing when I read this:

I-touch同時還具有繁、簡中文手寫輸入能，方便各年齡段的基督徒使用。不僅如此，在有Wi-fi網路的情況下，它還可直接進入Youtube，免費下載、播放相關視頻資訊。除此以外，它還具有天氣預報、日曆、計算器、記事本等豐富的能，可謂是基督徒個人靈修、生活與工作的好幫手。

現在磐石福音書房為回應全美10月12日的牧師節發起了「愛牧行動」，鼓勵教會購買I-touch產品作為獻給牧者的精美愛心禮物，同時書房還配有精品禮盒與購書優惠券，歡迎各教會來電查詢。

I can’t help but wonder, “Wow, who would have fall for THAT?”

And for the record — I am a pastor, and I don’t need a iTouch. In fact, if you buy me one, I will use it for anything except those mentioned above. And I will be so busy playing with my new toy, that I will have even less time reading my bible, meditating God’s words, doing visitation, planning my sermon… etc.

Oh, isn’t it suppose to help me on those? Oops…