[文摘] « The Future of Theological Ethics », Studies in Christian Ethics, May 2012; 25 (2)

Source: http://sce.sagepub.com/content/current

This issue of SCE journal has some excellent contributions. See Below with my comments.  這期基督教倫理學期刊（2012年五月號）太讚了，內容幾乎全是圍繞著當前的劍橋後自由學派展開，值得導介一番。

Christian Public Reasoning in the United Kingdom: Apologetic, Casuistical, and Rhetorically Discriminate

1. Nigel Biggar, Christ Church, Oxford OX1 1DP, UK Email:nigel.biggar@chch.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

Since the 1960s Christian ethics in Britain has become stronger, more theological, and more Protestant, so that its moral intelligence is now much more fully informed by the full range of theological premises. In the future, however, Christian ethics needs to make up certain recent losses: to re-engage with moral philosophy, in order to rebut the glib dismissal of religious ethics by popularising atheists; to read less philosophy and more history, in order to become plausible to public policy-makers; and to revive the model of interdisciplinary work, in order both to understand the matter which it would interpret morally and to inject Christian analyses and judgements into the bloodstream of public discourse.

• 對當代英語學界神學思想史和倫理學研究具有先知開創地位的 Biggar 為本期提供了一個宏觀的開場和學術掌故。這是本領域舊雨新知必讀的一篇論文。

Reasoning from out of Particularity: Possibilities for Conversation in Theological Ethics*

1. Daniel H. Weiss, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9BS, UK Email: dhw27@cam.ac.uk

Abstract

Frequently, theological particularity can hinder attempts at inter-religious conversations in theological ethics, as each tradition’s reasoning is inextricably bound up with core doctrinal elements not shared by other traditions. I argue, however, that elements of particularity can facilitate conversation when emphasis is placed on movements of ethical reasoning between particular statements within each tradition. By examining the classical rabbinic practice of verbal forewarning in capital cases, I show that although the starting point and ending point of an instance of theological reasoning may be ‘exclusivistic’, the relationship between those points can serve as the basis for comparison and dialogue.

• 寫這篇的 Weiss 就是他家大老 David Ford 的打手。根本論述是 Scriptural reasoning 的那一套而沒有突破。這篇論文的貢獻在於掃盲，而對英倫系統的後自由神學的進展沒有幫助。

Evolutionary Theory and Theological Ethics

1. John Hare, Yale Divinity School, 409 Prospect Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA Email: john.hare@yale.edu

Abstract

This paper is about the problematic interface between evolutionary scientists’ talk about ethics and current work in philosophy and theology. The paper proceeds by taking four main figures from four different disciplines. The four disciplines are neurophysiology, cognitive psychology, primatology and game theory, and the four figures are Joshua Greene, Mark Hauser, Frans de Waal and Ken Binmore. The paper relates the views of each of these figures to recent work in philosophical and theological ethics.

• Hare 提供的是當前很重要的一塊拼圖，意即從哲學上主流的無神論自然哲學系統（偏唯物論的實用主義）來協調神學倫理學的地位。畢竟沒有這一塊，神學就不可能在哲學邏輯上完全沿展開而成為在學術和社會上都站得住腳的公共神學，而難免只是信徒自己抱殘守缺的吶喊。

Response to John Hare

1. Sarah Coakley, Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS, UK Email: sc545@cam.ac.uk

Abstract

John Hare’s paper successfully exposes philosophical naïvéties and reductive pretensions in the evolutionary research he surveys. But he fails to clarify how ‘God’, on a view such as Dominic Johnson’s, could not be seen merely as a dispensable projection of ‘primitive’ societies, and thus how his own continuing commitment to a Kantian ethic might need to be bolstered by a concomitant form of ‘natural theology’ attentive to evolutionary dynamics.

• 目前在公共神學上，將哲學沿展到極限的成果，將能得到一種有神論，也就是Kant 自然神論、實踐理性，和神導進化論的三點一線。可是Coakley 在這指出，這個工程在純哲學上還做得不到位（至少在Hare所整理出的四大論述中是如此）。因著 Coakley 本於正統基督教神學的立場，她會認為純哲學系統下來為神學的公共性制訂疆界，會仍無法脫離當初自由神學Feuerbach把「神學」搞成「人學」的困境。

The Future of Theological Ethics

1. Raymond Geuss, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CE3 9DA, UK.

Abstract

The traditional discipline of apologetics contained an important insight about the necessity for Christians to address non-Christians about their practices and beliefs; however, in the modern world apologetics needs to be refocused to include not just non-Christians who have specific theoretical objections of Christianity, but also the large number of those who are simply indifferent to religious issues.

• Geuss 一直是我極為欣賞的哲學家，屬於當前英語學界少數極為精通歐陸脈絡的一流學者。他在這非常精闢地指出，向來走在神學倫理學之前的護教學也必須跟著轉型，它不能光只跟那些反對宗教的人對話（也就是 negative apologetics，防禦性的「消極護教學」），更需要在這個時代使那些根本就不關心宗教的人正視宗教（上帝）存在的價值和必要性（也就是 positive apologetics，進攻性的「積極護教學」）。由他來說出這句話，比 Alvin Plantinga 還更為鏗鏘有力。

The Future of Theological Ethics

1. Oliver O’Donovan, New College, Edinburgh EH1 2LX, UK Email:oliver.odonovan@ed.ac.uk

Abstract

Ethics is distinguished as a field of study within the realm of organised knowledge which interprets moral experience. Christian ethics assumes this interpretation into the hermeneutic framework of Christian theology in relation to a hope for the renewal and recovery of human agency. Its theme is moral thinking in general, which it understands within the framework of faith. It is dependent on philosophical ethics, but presumes and aims at more. The concepts handled by theological ethics include analytic categories coined to describe the operations of moral thought itself, concepts that name qualities and performances of universal importance, and concepts belonging both to dogmatics and ethics, e.g. ‘sin’. It is concerned to describe the ‘architecture’ of life in the Spirit: World, the framework of meaning, Self, the agent, Time, the immediate future open to action. It resists pressure for theoretical economy in favour of unipolar theories. Its tasks include critical engagement with issues of policy or practice in wider discussion, engagement with particular moral dilemmas, the exploration of special fields, such as bioethics, marriage, economics, critical conceptual interaction with philosophy, interaction with biblical exegesis, exposition of texts from the tradition of theological ethics, and comparative intertraditional enquiry.

• 屬於保守脈絡的 O’Donovan 這篇沒有什麼洞見，只是掃盲。

A Metaphysical Kant: A Theological Lingua Franca?

1. Christopher Insole, Department of Theology and Religion, University of Durham, Abbey House, Palace Green, Durham DH1 3RS, UK Email:christopher.insole@durham.ac.uk

Abstract

I track a strand of intellectualist theology, running from Kant’s pre-critical into his critical work, whereby the divine will is constrained in its creative activity by the divine understanding. I suggest that Kant’s intellectualist theology continues to do important work in his mature conception of transcendental idealism, transcendental freedom and autonomy. I consider briefly how this might impact upon theological ethics, particularly in relation to the conflict between Kantian secularists and religious believers. I conclude by asking whether Kant’s intellectualist theology—with its Platonic strands—opens up possibilities for inter-faith dialogue.

• 這是一個目前卡住英倫系統的後自由神學極為關鍵的課題，也就是「Kant 自然神學究竟需要做出什麼幅度的修正，才有可能成為（跨宗教）公共神學的基礎」。這篇文章大致來說，Insole 明顯對 Kant 系統有所偏袒，太信心也太樂觀了。我認為可以指出的包含三個修改議程：第一點，是從（Kant）超驗唯心論到（Barth, Merleau-Ponty, Wittgenstein）批判實在論的距離。第二點是把上帝當成義務論基礎的「上帝身份」問題。第三點是把上帝當成義務論基礎的「義務論」內容問題。

The Future of Theological Ethics: Response to Christopher Insole

1. Robert Gibbs, Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, 170 St George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5R 2M8, Canada Email: robert.gibbs@utoronto.ca

Abstract

I shift the focus from questions of rational theology to questions of law and interrogate the nature of ethics from the perspective of Jewish philosophy. The key critical issues for criticising Kant’s philosophy will be the separation of ethics and law and the reduction of the sollen of morality to a kind of necessity. Nonetheless, I suggest that Jewish thinkers will follow Kant in thinking about God first from the perspective of practical philosophy.

• Gibbs 的回應集中在我前面所提出的義務論問題。直接以 Kant 為公共神學基礎的後果，將產生主體「能動性」和「意志」被「單元化」的問題，下場不若是：倫理被教條／律法化，人類服從上帝的「倫理行動」淪為機器人服從主人命令的機械行為，以及「實踐理性」被化約為如同計算機科學一樣的生冷數學公式。

Concluding Remarks

1. Christopher Insole, Department of Theology and Religion, University of Durham, Abbey House, Palace Green, Durham DH1 3RS, UK Eamil:christopher.insole@durham.ac.uk

Abstract

I suggest some ways in which a certain type of ‘post-foundationalism’ has had a deleterious effect in theological ethics. Much ‘post-foundationalism’ is in truth still foundationalism, albeit less reflective and more permissive, leading to a balkanised plethora of foundationalist systems. Although Wittgenstein is critical of foundationalism, it is by applying Wittgensteinian insights that we are able to avoid some of the reductive and unipolar thinking that has characterised some recent theological discussion.

• Insole 這篇也是必讀的。不少走 Barth、Lindbeck 路線的後自由教會和神學院都走向了一種「非基礎主義」的真理觀。如果站在教會合一的大公基礎上，那這表面上是沒問題的。但如果再加入與猶太教、伊斯蘭教，到佛教或無神論之間不同親近度的關係，就會明顯發現原先「非基礎主義」提供的層次仍然遠遠不夠厚實和細膩（也就是仍有化約主義的毛病）。因而從歐陸批判理論的角度看這裡必須輔以 Habermas，而從分析哲學而言所需要的解鈴人正是 Wittgenstein。Insole 正是從 Wittgenstein的脈絡出發，把批判實在論這塊拼圖補上。
• 只是個人未必會完全同意 Insole 的結論：為免基督救恩的獨特性褪色，我仍然強調「後基礎主義」（post-foundationalism）是比「新基礎主義」（neo-foundationalism）更值得在神學上堅持的立場。

[文摘] 史學泰斗何炳棣的學思典範

Source Link: http://news.cnyes.com/Content/20120609/KFKWTR6O27KEM.shtml?c=sh_stock and Wikipedia

史學大師何炳棣生前縱使恃才傲物、難以親近，且政治立場一度反覆，但學術貢獻與學思歷程實有其堪為典範之處。

1. 何炳棣從小設計的道路是考清華為出國；博士攻讀西洋史為的是畢業後研究中國史。很少見到人生規劃那麼長遠並且堅持的人。

首先是通過廣泛的閱讀與師友們的討論，盡力了解國際上哪幾位近現代史家代表研究的世界最高水平。緊接著博士後全部投入國史研究時必要跳出的「漢學」圈子，以西方史最高水平為尺度，並以自己國史研究的部分心得打進西方歷史及社會科學方面第一流刊物。他對學術研究熱忱，數十年如一日。據說他在臨終前，仍於病榻中校閱其有關老子研究論文。

2. 何炳棣認為，治學不可被似有創意而數據不足的社會科學理論所迷惑，必須從大量多種史料的考訂、詮釋、控制入手，並指出堅實的史料根據乃為史家養命之源。

1952年以〈英國土地問題與土地政策1870-1914〉獲得博士學位後，何炳棣正式轉入中國史研究。何炳棣認為，治史當兼重社會科學，但在歷史領域內，應先攻讀西洋史，目的是攫取西方史學方法和觀點的長處，然後再分析綜合國史上的大課題。他自言，西洋史的訓練，讓他一看到問題，就進行中、西比較，應用到不同的工具，就得出與前人、時人不同的論點。撰寫 〈The Ladder of Success in Imperial China〉時，何炳棣遍檢北美各大圖書館所藏近四千種方志。中研院對何炳棣的評價是：「治學眼光非比尋常，對中國歷史文化關注廣闊，氣象浩瀚；解釋屢創新意，撼動學界」。

何先生亦不贊同青年史家在入門階段即進入思想史的工作，何先生指出：「如果自青年即專攻思想史，一生對史料的類型及範疇可能都缺乏至少必要的了解，以致長期的研究寫作都空懸於政治、社會、經濟制度之上而不能著地。」

3. 他向華東師範大學人文學院的師生和海外中國學研究中心學者發表了題為《華夏人文主義的淵源、特徵及意義》的學術演講。他引仰韶文化等考古資料以及中國古文獻，認為華夏人文主義起源於中原和華北的農村經濟。華夏人文主義的特徵是祖先崇拜和宗法制度，以人文取代神文，關懷人文關懷現實，關懷生命延續而又推己及彼，這是華夏人文主義中非常了不起的、高尚的美德。華夏人文主義的奠基人是周公和孔子。他主張，在未來的21世紀，弘揚華夏人文主義傳統將大有裨於世界性難題的解決，也是現代化中國文明建設所不可忽視的。

4. 何炳棣和哈佛有過幾次不快的交往，一次，有次在和友人談到哈佛最近五年聘請的經濟學人才不及芝大和哥大，旁邊的舒茲先生（George Shultz，後出任美國國務卿）插話道：「但哈佛的優點是知錯必改，一旦醒悟，他們會不惜工本羅掘相關方面的杰出人才。」何炳棣聽了這番話，大為震動。後言及此事時，他說道：如此深刻、客觀、平衡、睿智的話我終身難忘。有一顆包容的心才會有平和的態度，對他人的短處喋喋不休反而暴露了自身的狹隘和苛刻。

5.何炳棣無疑是學貫中西名滿天下的大學者，但是正如何兆武在《上學記》裡描述的那樣，這樣一個從小就立志成著名學者的人物，其目標性太強的學術生涯和日常生活，卻也往往容易引起那些散淡人生的學人的某種不屑甚至不滿。不過不管對於何炳棣的個人人格如何評價，他的代表性作品《明清以降的人口及其相關問題》等卻是學術界公認的權威著作。何炳棣經常引用美國海外漢學研究的權威和創始人、哈佛大學歷史學教授費正清的一句話：「中國要有五六個何炳棣的話，西方就沒有人敢對中國史胡說八道了。」何炳棣說這當然有點誇張了，「但是他們西方第一流的記者、學者錯誤都很多，我要有『三分隨便』，早就可以打他們了。但是，在中國歷史方面，能寫過我的人很少了。我學英語，沒有技巧，全部是用功學出來的。在清華大學時，天沒亮就到草地上去背。」

6. 觀其書閱其人，何炳棣的學術生涯幾乎無懈可擊，令人羨慕，卻絕不是輕鬆悠閑的。出乎意料而又不難理解的是，何先生多用軍事術語來描述其學術上的努力，如「打進第一流期刊」、「打進第一流學府」、「打出漢學藩籬」、「打進社會科學園地」等等。學者的戰鬥是一個人的戰鬥，輝煌的背後是寂寞、忍耐、甚至憤郁，何先生喜歡用的一個詞是「孤軍作戰」，但他所收獲的，卻屬於全部炎黃子孫。中華復興賴學術，戰鬥正未有窮期，何先生的回憶錄召喚著更多的人來繼續這場「一個人的戰鬥」。

李敖曾讚賞何炳棣道：

今早起來，讀尊作〈華北原始土地耕作方式：科學、訓詁互證示例〉，讀後讚嘆，深覺體大思精，此乃真正「大歷史」，余英時、許倬雲、黃仁宇之流鬼畫符耳，縱張光直、李惠林、Keightley、Pearson等「游耕制」者之「大歷史」，在尊作面前，亦灰頭土臉矣，佩服之至！佩服之至！（其實張光直等如肯認真從古代氣候學上探討，即該早知「黃土」之肥矣。）至於尊〈從愛的起源和性質初測《紅樓夢》在世界文學史上應有的地位〉，越界淵博，自更令丁邦新之流傻眼矣。

Graham Ward on the destructive effect of the Internet

Source: Graham Ward, ‘Theology and Postmodernism: Is It All Over? », Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol.80, no.2, June 2012, 466-484

I used to be a heavy online game addict (and is still somewhat heavily addicted to the Internet). The decision of quitting online game for me is made out of a period of rational deliberation. After that I have always tried to organize these thoughts and share them with others, as a way to help people out.

In the 2012 June edition of the AAR journal, Graham Ward’s article on [the perpetuation of] postmodernity caught my eye. To be honest, this is not a particularly well-written piece, for he flapdoodles a lot in those philosophical jargons (from Habermas to Taylor to Jameson to Hegel to Zizek to Marx to Lacan to Lyotard to Badiou and Agamben and his radical orthodoxy folks) while his thought-flow remained somewhat high in the air (which I am not surprised at all, because this is an AAR journal and the entire AAR is currently under Kwok Pui-Lan’s direction).

However, I am intrigued by Ward’s analysis of the Internet, whereby the postmodern diverging and dissolute  trends, characterized by the perennial dialectics of communication and consumption, have finally found a common instrument of representation (p.470). Specifically, he applies what Zizek termed the ‘plague of fantasies’ (Slavoj Zizek, The Plague of Fantasies, London, 2009) to describe the atavistic and surrogate forms of living of postmodern human being on the virtual reality.

• Atavistic: appearance of a trait belonging to a distant ancestor that has been dormant in recent generations. Atavistic feelings or behaviour seem to be very primitive, like the feelings or behaviour of our earliest ancestors
• surrogate: A figure of authority who takes the place of the father or mother in a person’s unconscious or emotional life.

Apparently, not every type of internet use can be described as an atavistic and surrogate form of living. This form of living is most intensified in online games (MMORPG).

In contrast to conventional technological « tools » (like an axe, a scissor, a computer, or a car), which is subject to our active use and is intimately associated with us like an ‘extension of our  body’, the online game/virtual reality has a highly alienating and technocratic tendency than anything Karl Marx could identify at his time because it is oppressive, life-denying, and sensuous (p.473).

According to Ward,

1. It is oppressive because we  are handing ourselves over to be colonized by the server’s control, the programmer’s imagination, and to both their ideologies and pathologies. To understand this point, simply recall how the online games are designed: the fantasy world is controlled by their programmers, and we players have no power in changing (or not following) the rules. We players are buying into a tyranny whereby the game manager can twist the rule, create an unbeatable monster, or revamp the virtual monetary system anytime. We could also only play for the finite goals and value systems they put into the game (for example, an online game I played before had no fair-trading system.).

   
   

2. It is life-denying because our virtual participation is vicarious: abstracted from the activity in the world that feeds our relationships with others, our sense of dependency and responsibility.Certainly this is not true to all kinds of internet activity. For example, my use of google+, facebook, academia.edu, goodreads, linkedin, and so on, is highly connected with my real life relationships with others.    It is not abstracted from my learning activity and my social concerns.But by contrast, the online game (again, I am specifically referring to the MMOPRGs) creates a nexus of identity and sense of belongings on its own. You are your avatar, and you build relationships there through your avatar with others in their avatars. This kinds of virtual participation leads to a sense of dependency and responsibility parallel to that of real life. Positively speaking, it could be an excellent training ground for youth and teenagers to practice their communication skills and virtues of mutual trust, honesty, cooperation, leadership, prudence, and so on. I know some MMORPGs are designed particularly well for serving such tasks (WoW & Second Life).
   
   However, the real problem lies in its « disconnection in over-connection »: by over-connecting and committing ourselves to such virtual reality, the game is no longer for just training or demonstrative purposes; it replaces our real life by disconnecting us from out real life dealings and accountability. We could care these friends more than our significant others, and fulling the tasks for the check points more than our jobs in real life.
   
   
   (The same can be said for sports games. Sports are perfect instruments to practice the virtues I mentioned above, especially for teenagers who are most suitable for « learning from plays ». But over-committing oneself in them would be a misplacement of one’s life priorities and could ruin one’s real life. The Internet is much more addictive and entertaining, so its potential disastrous effect needs to be considered with greater care.)
3. It is a profound alienation because its oppression and life-denial is continually pack up by its sensual attraction and displaced by the aesthetic pleasures of being entertained. This point easily connects to most online gamers, as you see every avatar is sexy and unrealistically sexual. The equipment are dreamy, monsters are awesome and powerful, and scenery are magnificent and wonderful. It drags us deeper by feeding our desire with what things in reality can rarely offer to us.
   To a certain degree the world of silver screen and the Hollywood culture are also doing similar disservice to our generation.

If I am to organize a forum with a special topic on the Internet culture, these are the lines I am going to trace and explicate for the parents and the youth- with my personal testimony, for sure.

[省思] The courage of Chai Ling… was it induced by a dose of spiritual opium?

Referral Link: http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=16407303&category_guid=vice&category=daily

‘I Forgive Them’: On the 23rd Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989

By Chai Ling (Founder of All Girls Allowed)

Two decades ago, the Chinese government’s crackdown in Tiananmen Square left hundreds of my fellow students dead. Since then a new generation has grown up in China, and many of them are kept in the dark about what happened on this day in China’s history.

To me it seems like just yesterday. I began that day with great hope and anticipation for a new China, but it ended as a day of unspeakable sorrow. Now, 23 years have passed. Many things have changed: people grew older, and some key Communist Party leaders from 1989 have passed away. But many people — whether they say this openly or not — know that this chapter of China’s history has not closed yet.

How will this chapter be written? How will the story end? The world still watches China with great interest, as the recent cases of Chen Guangcheng and Bo Xilai proved. For the past 23 years, I too, have tried to understand the meaning of Tiananmen. I vividly recall that last hour: standing at Tiananmen Square, watching in disbelief as a disaster unfolded around us.

As I was writing A Heart for Freedom, I finally understood. There could only be two futures for China: an outcome of continued fear, or a destiny that opens the door to true freedom — and forgiveness.

In the Hebrew scriptures, King David’s son Absalom rebelled and took the throne from his own father by force. Even in the face of this betrayal, David forgave his son. He told his generals that they should show mercy if they overcame the rebel army and captured the wayward son: « For my sake, deal gently with young Absalom. » (2 Samuel 18) But when Absalom was found alone and vulnerable, the generals chose to ignore David and kill Absalom — thus continuing the pattern of violence.

I know that those responsible for oppression in China will also find themselves vulnerable one day, just like Absalom did. And so the question stands: When that day comes, will China continue with a pattern of harsh retribution, or a will it begin a path of grace, mercy and compassion?

You may wonder how China’s seemingly immovable leadership will ever be vulnerable. The answer is: it is human, it has always been vulnerable, and it is more vulnerable now than ever before.

There is little true security in China, even for leaders. Power, money and military or police forces can give a few people temporary wealth and stability, but these things cannot provide lasting security.

In 1989, the number two leader Zhao Ziyang lost all his power and freedom for disagreeing with Deng Xiaoping’s decision to use force against students at Tiananmen. Later, so did a strong hardliner who initially supported the move: former Beijing mayor Chen Xitong was sentenced to 16 years in jail. And now Bo Xilai has fallen from grace. These leaders may have looked invincible from the outside, but they lost everything. As Chen Xitong confessed recently in a Chinese interview, « In all those high level political battles, each side is trying to outdo the other side by being more cunning, more malicious, and more brutal. »

The system in China suppresses humanity and compassion. It imprisoned and persecuted Chen Guangcheng, a blind attorney, for advocating on behalf of 130,000 women who underwent forced abortions and forced sterilizations. The climate of fear and self-preservation can affect all levels of society. A woman named Mei Shunping testified last month that two of the five forced abortions she suffered in China came after her co-workers reported her pregnancies to officials. Last fall, over a dozen people walked right past a dying toddler after she was run over by a van in a street.

This is the atmosphere that we students wanted to see end at Tiananmen. It is painful for me to remember what happened on that June 4th, 1989, when I witnessed the death of a dream. I still mourn for what « could have been. » And for a long time, I battled bitterness and anger whenever I thought of the leaders who chose to take a path of destruction that day.

But then I was confronted with the example of Jesus. He loved women, children, the poor and the oppressed in a way that was radically countercultural — and he called me to do the same.

He also forgave the very people who ridiculed him and nailed him to a cross: « Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. » (Luke 24:34)

And again, he called me to do the same. (read more)

Chai Ling: forgiveness is not forgetfulness

For those who did not know, Chai Ling is the Chinese expatriate (currently residing in Washington DC) who is renowned for her leadership and involvement in the Tiananmen Square incident 23 years ago. After exiling to the USA, she became a believer of Jesus Christ, which consequently dramatic transformative effect in her personality. Jesus Christ has has purportedly set her free from her hatred (against the Chinese government) and guilt (for the death of her compatriots/companions).

However, her public self-disclosure of such an attitude has provoked the Chinese people and the media. On the one hand, her speech is diametrically against the grain of those 180,000 demonstrators just rallied in Hong Kong at the night of June 4th, which is about undoing the injustice. On the other hand, the fact that she just forfeited her accountability to those dead demanded on her part -in plain conscience- sounds obnoxious to those who expect her to fulfill her part in bringing justice to the victims/martyrs.

To be honest, I I sense that I am on the same page with Chai Ling. As my life is honed by God and as I genuinely take Christianity inside of my heart, I no longer consider poverty, failure, and celibacy a curse or something unbearable. I totally understand how and why she is encouraged and impelled to say these by the sort of gospel she receives.

The Apostle Paul in Romans 12:19 says, ‘Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: « It is mine to avenge; I will repay, » says the Lord.’

And King David instructs us in Psalms 37:1, « Do not fret because of those who are evil or be envious of those who do wrong. »

Again and again, the Bible plainly discourages any kind of negative attitude that was somehow paradoxically the uniting theme among the 180,000 demonstrators rallied in HK. In addition, the Bible also discourages any association with earthly power as a means to achieve justice, because otherwise we just won’t have genuine peace- either externally or internally.

As a reward of our Christian faith, I am granted inner peace that frees me from resentment, anxiety, and jealousy, as Chai Ling’s inner peace frees her from hatred and guilt.  Common to both of our spiritual pilgrimage is a phase of conversion called ‘inner healing’ that is supposed to take away our negative feelings and hurt in exchange for a sense of tranquility in our heart.

However, there is no denial that genuine peace could by no means be divorced from the pursuit of justice. Justice requires concrete actions to attain and maintain.

The real challenge for Christians (Chai Ling and me) is to be no less radical in our insistence for social justice while being less committed/passionate in matters of the world. For the more I can endure hunger, poverty, pain, loneliness, and failure, naturally, the less I tend to feel compassionate to those who suffer from shortages of food, wealth, medical care, and want of upward social mobility. My faith has alleviate my negative feelings about these things. And as I see no need of bothering myself so such and striving so hard to get myself rid of these « miserable » condition (since I no longer feel ‘miserable’ being as such, and now my motivation of life is to imitate the mind of Christ, instead of ‘getting fed, getting rich, getting well, or getting successful), I naturally feel less urged to identify myself with these [leftist and materialist] causes.

It boils now to this: Can we still be for the world as much once we feel that we are only in the world but are not of the world?

Karl Marx has a reason to think that we are victimized by spiritual-opium overdose, if the cure which the Christian belief brings to us is through making us more insensitive/numb to pain.

However, this should not be the case and is never the case for Jesus, Son of God and Founder of Christianity, who, according to the Epistle of Hebrews, is perfectly capable of empathizing with us precisely because He also suffered and endured. His passion drives His Passion as he acts out to redeem us with His life- not just praying for us.

Divine impassivity is a big doctrinal lie, a foreign (Greek) notion to the revelation of the Christian scripture, and our modelling after God should not be built upon such a lie.

Back to Chai Ling, we might say that since she prays for external peace, her faith is far from inactivity. But if this means that the divine justice she longs for has to be brought out by others committing their lives and getting their hands dirty, then she is really closer to Anabaptists than she is to Jesus.

In this sense, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is closer to the example of Jesus- he is willing to get his hands dirty, but such a willingness is driven by compassion- for people’s lives, rather than hatred- against the Nazis.

As Mirosalv Volf correctly says, reconciliation could never be achieved without the repentance and a degree of justice being done.

Thus, it is one thing to say that we are ready to forgive (ourselves as well as the offenders), but quite the other to say that genuine reconciliation could take place in this way. Reconciliation requires forgiveness on the victim’s part, repentance on the offender’s part, and justice on the external structural level.

As we can see from the gospels, Jesus’ forgiveness of the tax collector Zacchaeus is only the first step to set his relation right with God, but his reconciliation with God and the whole world did not take place until his true repentance led to corresponding actions (sharing his wealth and repaying fourfold for those unjustified gains).

We Christians all enjoy the soft and loving gospel, and it is a temptation:

• we forgive ourselves and everyone (but we are not fixing it with concrete, in-person, measures);
• we pray for those who suffer (but we do not feel compelled to fight for them as we cannot identify with their ‘un-Christian’ and overly ‘materialist’ causes);
• we pray for those offenders (but we are not as committed in taking their wicked claws/power off as if God could not make this happen without human collaboration on our part).

These are all good. Nonetheless, the gospel is more than these. If we have not grappled with the controversial gospel of Jesus, we probably have not gotten our Christian faith right.

Controversial gospel and spiritual sensitivity, hum? Indeed. Let’s remember, God in Jesus Christ never loses His spiritual sensitivity. He is by no means of incapable of identifying with our groaning and mundane causes (all the while he could never be subdued to it). He feeds the hungry, heals the wounded, liberates the oppressed, and vindicates the wronged. There is also no compromise to structural evil in the cause of Jesus Christ.

Our imitation of Christ is far from the real deal, if we cannot « rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who. » (Romans 12:15)

Specifically, Chai Ling might not need to become the ‘queen’ over the HK crowded who rallied under the Tiananmen cause. As a follower of Christ, she should not.

However, she must not let her speech discourage such causes: justice and vindication. A step further for we Christians after attaining inner peace must lead us to act more resolutely and [com]passionately for the broken souls of the world.

That is the one extra mile we need to walk with our Lord and with the world.

[文摘] Live and Learn: Louis Menand on two reasons why we have college

Referral Link: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/06/06/110606crat_atlarge_menand#ixzz1x9CVIruA

Beside training in professional (technical) skills, according to Louis Menand there are two major roles that higher education plays: meritocratic (Theory 1) and democratic (Theory 2).

Theory 1 goes like this:

In any group of people, picking out the most intelligent person is a difficult and has to be complicated. It is not like to determine who is the fastest or the strongest or even the best-looking, for intelligence involves many attributes that is more than just I.Q. An intelligent person is open-minded, an outside-the-box thinker, an effective communicator, is prudent, self-critical, consistent, and so on. These are not qualities readily subject to measurement.

Society needs a mechanism for sorting out its more intelligent members from its less intelligent ones so that it can funnel them into careers that maximize their talents and get the most out of its human resources.

College is essentially a four-year intelligence test.  Students have to demonstrate intellectual ability over time and across  a sufficiently multifaceted and fine-grained procedure and disciplines.

If they’re sloppy or inflexible or obnoxious—no matter how smart they might be in the I.Q. sense—those negatives will get picked up in their grades. Student are also sorted out according to their aptitude and strength. It separates the math types from the poetry types.  Professional schools (such as medical, law, engineer, and divinity) and employers can trust as a measure of intellectual capacity and productive potential. It’s important, therefore, that everyone is taking more or less the same test.

Theory 2 is what we call the socialization (civil education) or humanization (holistic education):

In a society that encourages its members to pursue the career paths that promise the greatest personal or financial rewards, people will, given a choice, learn only what they need to know for success. They will have no incentive to acquire the knowledge and skills important for life as an informed citizen, or as a reflective and culturally literate human being. College exposes future citizens to material that enlightens and empowers them, whatever careers they end up choosing.

In performing this function, college also socializes. It takes people with disparate backgrounds and beliefs and brings them into line with mainstream norms of reason and taste. Independence of mind is tolerated in college, and even honored, but students have to master the accepted ways of doing things before they are permitted to deviate. Ideally, we want everyone to go to college, because college gets everyone on the same page. It’s a way of producing a society of like-minded grownups.

In the U.S., the élite private colleges like Harvard and Yale used to be committed only to holistic education (theory 2). They inherit the Greek and British tradition of training noble and knowledgeable human beings.
The situation, however, had to change with the emergence of public state colleges and rising needs of the developing society…. (read more)

Related Articles:

• 大學之道(四)
• 大學之道(三)