One Race, Two Views?

On Sunday, the Star runs a rather interesting article on the Chinese community in Malaysia. Essentially, the article highlights that there are two distinct groups of Chinese community in Malaysia. The first group, called G1, comprises Chinese who "subscribe to the concept of the three pillars (Chinese Media, Chinese Schools and Chinese Organisations) for the simple reason that they make up 85-90% of the 6.5 million Chinese in the country. The remaining 10-15% are, for want of a better term, referred to as the English-speaking group (G2). The G2 encompasses those who are not Chinese-educated; they speak English and include a large number of Christians, the peranakan and also those who are part of the Lions and Rotary Clubs set."


It is interesting to note that according to this report, Chinese Chritians in Malaysia belong to the so-called G-2 group, a group that are labelled "as “bananas,” meaning they are yellow outside (Chinese), but white inside (pro-Western culture). Or, as the Hokkiens would put it a little more explicitly, the G2 folk “chiak ang moh sai” (have eaten too much Western s**t). There's no denying that the G2 are more open to Western ideas and ideals.

"Their ideas of governance, democracy, role of the media and even elections are influenced by the West, namely Britain and the United States. They like to say these are universal ideals even though half the world does not subscribe to the way the Americans and British think,” said Fui K. Soong, director of Insap, a political think tank affiliated to MCA.

In addition, the articles reports that "the G2 are issue-oriented. They are influenced by issues and their votes swing from one election to another. They are mostly middle-class, articulate and prone to take issues to the press and in recent years into the Internet...The Chinese, it is often said, are quite inscrutable about their politics but not this group. They are not afraid to air their political views or who they will vote for.

“They are so articulate about their grievances that people think, ‘oh dear, the entire Chinese community is upset’.But actually, their views reflect mainly those in this English-speaking group,” said Soong.

The G2 have been the most critical of the ruling party in recent years.

The Christians in the G2 are particularly concerned about the issue of Islamic state. According to Soong, the survival of the common law and the secular state is very important to this group because it guarantees their modern lifestyle and for the Christians, the freedom to practise their faith.

“Their fears about the Islamic State is very real and emotional because they see it as a threat to Christianity. The fear comes from deep in the gut,” she said.

Read the rest of the article here.



It is rather interesting that Chinese Christians are labelled as such in the article. There is no denying that many Chinese believers in the Klang Valley belong to the group called G-2 in the article. It is even more interesting to note that Christians are particularly interested in the issue of Islamisation because of their concern for "their modern lifestyles...and the freedom to practise their faith." Islamisation is seen as "a threat to Christianity."

I could not help but to think whether Chinese Christians in Malaysia are only known as champions of freedom to practise Christianity and not freedom of religion in Malaysia? Are we only concerned about our "modern lifestyles" and conveniently turn our eyes away from the needs of the marginalised and those on the lower strata of society? Are we really blind? Are we really a group of selfish people who only care for ourselves?

On a personal note - what about me? To which group do I belong as a Chinese Christian in Malaysia? I am not sure whether I belong to G-1 or G-2. I grew up in the category of G-1 (well, at least Chinese educated) but now I think I belong to G-2 (I speak, dream and think in English, not Chinese. I read English newspaper instead of Chinese. I teach in English, and not Chinese, in the seminary. I worship in an English, not Chinese, speaking church). Perhaps a new category needs to be created, the G-3, to describe me. Or, perhaps I'm just simply confused - a result of theological education? Hmmm...

God, You Are The Only Audience

I have been feeling a bit uneasy about this for some time now. Every once in a while in my visits to various churches for my speaking engagements or in my own church, I would hear this phrase being uttered from the worship leader, "God, you are the only audience in this sanctuary as we worship you."

I am not sure how or when this understanding of God and our worship began to creep into the church. If God is reduced to the only audience in our worship services, then who are we? Who are the worship leader together with his/her team of musicians and back up singers? Are we simply actors/performers on stage trying to earn God's applause and approval? What about the preacher? What about the congregation?

If worship is a celebration of God's magnificence and majesty, and it is giving glory and honour due him, can God be the audience?

Perhaps this is just another way of saying that the worship team would like to give their best to God...perhaps I am just a little bit too sensitive on the use of this kind of terminology (sign of getting old?). I am not sure.

SBL Annual Meeting Programme Book

The 2007 SBL and AAR Annual Meeting Programme Handbook has just arrived in the mail today. Had a good time browsing through all the different and interesting programme units and meeting abstracts. Not to mention the showcase of the latest publications by various academic publishers. Flipping through the programme book makes me really wish I could make it to SBL Annual Meeting in San Diego this year.

Sometimes, this is the slight disadvantage of teaching in a seminary in the Two-Thirds world where tight operating budget would mean that it is almost impossible to sponsor a faculty member travelling to conferences in the Western world. Like in this instance, the cost for attending SBL Annual Meeting would be prohibitive.

I wish there could be greater awareness among churches of the importance of such conferences not only for faculty members but also for research students. While I was a doctoral student at the University of Wales, the Department of Theology and Religious Studies awarded me with very generous grant that included travelling and accommodation expenses that made it possible for me to read my papers at the SBL International Meeting held in Singapore and Edinburgh in 2005 and 2006 respectively. The opportunities to present aspects of my research have provided me not only invaluable exposure but also constructive feedback and encouragement from senior scholars for my work. The tremendous help that I received from reading the papers helped me further sharpened my argument in my thesis. I hope that our current research students in STM would also have this kind of opportunity and exposure that would help them not only in their research but also their professional career development in the future.

Anyway, I am looking forward to SBL International Meeting in Auckland in 2008. Hopefully my papers would be accepted and I would make my way there. At least it is closer to home compared to San Diego and Vienna (which I missed).

Position: Tutor in Biblical Studies at SEITE

Tutor in Biblical Studies

SEITE requires a full-time Tutor to join the existing ecumenical staff team, to be based in either Medway or central London.

We are a regional provider of ministerial formation and theological education. We have 129 students registered for this year, including 90 Ministerial Students.

The person appointed will:

• Lead the delivery and development of Biblical Studies teaching at the Institute
• Share with staff colleagues responsibility for supervising Ministerial Students from the Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran Churches
• Make a distinctive contribution to the development of the Institute.

Salary and benefits in accordance with the Lichfield scale.

Further details and Application Forms from:

The Administrator,
SEITE,
Sun Pier House,
Medway Street,
Chatham, ME4 4HF
Tel: 01634 846683
Email: administrator@seite.co.uk

Website:http://www.seite.co.uk/

Closing date for applications: October 1st 2007

Nationhood: A Kairos Publication

The latest issue of Kairos Publication, Understanding the Modern World Through the Christian Eyes, is now available. The focus of this issue is on "Nationhood" in conjunction with the recent celebration of Malaysia's 50th year of independence from the British rule.

Interesting articles that make this issue a worthwhile collection include:

• Redefining Success for the Nation by Steve Wong
• Building National Unity in Poor Urban Communities by Kon Onn Sein
• Historical Insights into the Problem of Race Relations in Malaysia by Tan Kang San
• Life in the Service by Wong Ming Yook
• Religious Freedom after 50 Years of Independence by Lim Heng Seng
• Working Together for the Common Good by Wong Kim Kong
• Negaraku: My Country, My King, My God by Bob Teoh
• Redefining Patriotism: Why I Don’t Feel Like Celebrating by Wong Siew Li
• A Christian Social Vision for Nation Building by Ng Kam Weng
• Commentary: Tanah Air Ku! by Low Chai Hok
• Stories from Borneo: Building Bridges: Empty Tins, Woks & Firewood by Sylvia Webb

STM Tuesday Morning Chapel

After our Tuesday morning chapel, Dr Ezra Kok, our Principal, and I were talking about my public lecture in the Inaugural Dialogue of OHMSI. Since there is a slot available in next week's chapel, Ezra suggested that we do a "political" reading of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).

Sounds like a good idea! So we agreed that we would do a dialogue for the following week's Tuesday morning chapel message, with both of us taking different political perspective respectively in reading the text.

It would be interesting to see how we engage the text in a different and fresh perspective governed by different hermeneutical approaches and what the response from seminary community would be. Wish us luck!

Cartoon credit: www.reverendfun.com

Was Jesus Political? A New Testament Perspective - 3

This is the 3rd and final installment of the full text of my lecture given at the OHMSI Inaugural Dialogue on September 15, 2007. Click here for Part 1 and Part 2 of the lecture.

4) The Implications for the Church Today

In the beginning of this paper, I have raised two questions.
1) Does Jesus exhibit any political awareness in his earthly ministry?
2) Do the multitude perceive the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus to be political?

After our brief consideration, we can only come to a conclusion that both Jesus and the multitude understood him as political, not in the narrow sense of gaining and maintaining powers in party politics, but in the broad sense of ensuring the good life of the community. This involves making decisions affecting social groups in terms of ethical values and priorities; proper and just economic allocation and distribution of resources; calling the political and religious establishments to integrity and transparency by exposing their inner corruption and abuse of power; and ultimately calling Israel to live as a people of God in light of God’s covenantal faithfulness, failing which, the dreadful judgement and the wrath of God would await them. Notice that all of these are carried out in the public square and not in the private sphere of religion.

What does this mean for the church today? As believers, Jesus not only summons us to a radically exclusive commitment and wholehearted devotion to him but also challenges us as a body of Christ to be the alternative assembly for the society. In this respect, the church is also political. This means that the church does not and cannot exist in isolation from the community that God has placed her.

Admitedly, in this paper, I will raise more questions rather than providing answers. Therefore, the questions for us are these: If we believe that if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation, could the church therefore be a social unit that undercuts even our biological and familial relations, demonstrating that the rule and reign of God does not belong to the distant future but is indeed a present reality in our midst where forgiveness, love and acceptance are our boundary markers and badges of identity? In this respect, would it be great that we as Christ-followers are known to our society by our practices – that we care about the environment; speak out against injustice, abuse of power and corruption; reach out to the poor and marginalized; investing our scarce resources to the training, educating and equipping the people of God rather than channelling them to build bigger and more expensive multi-million Ringgit facilities? Could greater Christian initiatives toward deeper racial reconciliation be appreciated in the church? Would the church be known as tranforming agents for our community and society? Would the church be known by her unity rather than disunity?

Can the church refuse the acceptance of the stand that privatises faith? Is the church willing to pay the price in seeking out and protecting those facing injustice and without a voice? Is the church courageous enough to call rulers away from tyranny and oppression towards embracing the Jubilee values of justice and mercy and principles of public servanthood and accountability?

Perhaps this is a good time to reflect on our role as a church, and it could not be more significant that we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of Operasi Lalang next month. Where was the church when Operasi Lalang was mounted? Have we not learned our lessons? Or do we continue to choose to remain silent, disengage ourselves and retreat to our comfortable cocoon, deceiving ourselves that all that we need to do is pray and wait impatiently for the second coming of our Lord?

To conclude: How can we impact and influence the community that God has placed us? Taking the cue from the Parable of the Good Samaritan, have we in anyway defined who is our neighbour? Have we reduced others in the world as classifiable commodities by drawing distinctions between persons, deciding who is, and who is not, our neighbour? What are some of the factors that would discourage us to “go and do likewise” today? Perhaps it time we are reminded that we cannot define our neighbour. We can only be a neighbour. To be effective salt and light for the Lord, we need, first of all, to be a neighbour. Perhaps it is time we rethink whether the church of Jesus Christ today exist for the city or the city exist for the church? Does the church exist for the believers or the believers exist for the church?

--- THE END ---


For other perspectives on and response to the dialogue, please see:

1) OHMSI Inaugural Launch - Was Jesus Political? - Sivin Kit (check out the video for the opening and closing part of the event)

2) "Was Jesus political"? - Pearlie

3) Oriental Hearts & Mind Study Institute - Johnny Ong

4) How Was Jesus 'Political'? - Dave Chong

5) How Was Jesus 'Political'? - The Agora

6) Yesterday at OMHSI (sic) forum, "Was Jesus Political?" - Steven Sim

7) Was Jesus Political? - Tricia

Was Jesus Political? A New Testament Perspective - 2

This is the second installment of the full text of my lecture for the Inaugural Dialogue organised by OHMSI. The first part can be found here.

1) The Self-Understanding of Jesus and his Mission
One does not need to go far to consider what others believe to be the political significance of Jesus life and ministry. Because of time, let’s limit our discussion to the birth narrative. Reading Mary’s Song in Luke 1:46-55 would have heightened our awareness just how political his mother thinks the birth of his son would be:

“He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever.” (Luke 1:51-55)

While many of us are accustomed to spiritualising Mary’s song, when we read it in close context, it is nothing short of being very political. Not only will humility be exalted above pride, the rulers will be deposed, the hungry fed and the rich turned away. The outpouring of God’s mercy on the poor and those who fear him will no doubt bring significant change in the social order in which reversal of status is anticipated. As such, the mission of Jesus is seen in light of what is prophesied by Amos and the other prophets in the Hebrew bible – his birth is going to bring about the anticipated social justice.

Further political evidence surrounding the birth narratives of Jesus is also too strong to be ignored. For example:

• the significance of Bethlehem as the city of David (Luke 2:4; cf. Matt 2:1, 5-6);


• the angels’ proclamation of “peace on the earth among whom he is well pleased” to the shepherd (Luke 2:8-14) – this undermine the pax romana – peace is now from God and not Rome;


• Herod’s fear and the massacre of the infants in Bethlehem ensuring no rival competitor for the throne of Israel could possibly survive (Matt 2:1-16);


• the expectations of both Simeon (Luke 2: 25-35) and Anna (Luke 2: 36-38) that underscore the political significance of the coming of the Messiah, particularly in the appointment of Jesus “for the fall and rising of many in Israel.” (Luke 2:34).
  

We have seen how the multitude perceived the political significance of Jesus. What about Jesus himself? Time only permits us to look at one particular synagogue incident in Luke 4:16-21 where Jesus read the scripture from the Isaianic scroll.

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” (Luke 4:18-20)

In reading Isaiah 61:1-2, Jesus understood himself as fulfilling Isaiah’s vision of an eschatological jubilee year. The proclamation of Jubilee is itself a political declaration. Properly observed, it would severely limit the concentration of power and wealth by the rich. Isaiah’s vision anticipates a new world order where God’s justice is administered; wrong will be made right; the injustices which lead to oppression and captivity will be reversed; and God’s people would receive the full measure of his blessings. Proclaiming “liberty to the captives” and “to set at liberty those who are oppressed” could mean nothing more than liberation from Israel’s enemies – Rome. And Jesus publicly announced the inauguration of this new age “today” (Luke 4:21), and not in a distant future.

2) The Message of Jesus
Jesus began his ministry with these words: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15). One cannot help but to be impressed at the precise vocabulary carefully chosen from the political realm. It hardly needs to be argued that “kingdom” is a political terminology. What is less prominent for many of us is that the “gospel” is also political. Originally, gospel refers to the kind of report or important public announcement highlighted by the Roman government deserving attention and celebration when it is received. But with the ministry of Jesus, the gospel is no longer good news of the deeds and works of Rome, but it is now the retelling and re-enacting of the works of God climaxed in the story of Jesus. God has now finally acted in and through Christ.

The kingdom represents the long awaited hope that Yahweh would one day save his people by fulfilling his covenant promises toward them, bringing both vindication and restoration to Israel by defeating her enemies. By proclaiming the fulfilment of this expectation publicly is itself a very political move of Jesus.

What about the teaching of Jesus? How would others perceive the teaching of Jesus? One of the most common teaching methods of Jesus is parables. We have only time to consider one – the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). In this parable, a lawyer approached Jesus with this question: “Who is my neighbour?” Jesus told the parable that is highly political in nature. The best species of the Jewish people – the priest and Levite, representing the law and temple, did nothing to help another fellow Jew in the ditch. This would be totally unacceptable. The only person that came to his rescue is a pariah of the Jewish society – a Samaritan. This Samaritan demonstrated his godly compassion (as reflected in the Greek word, splagcni,zomai in Luke 10:33 – it is very unfortunate that NIV misses the nuance by translating this word simply as “took pity”) on the wounded Jew by helping him and bandaging his wound, and going the extra mile in ensuring that he was taken care off until he recuperated completely. At the climax of the story, Jesus asked the lawyer, “Who is a neighbour to the wounded Jew?” and exhorted him to “go and do likewise.”

In this parable, Jesus overturned the question of the lawyer and replaced it with one that is more fundamental. If the issue is about love of neighbour, the question one should be asking is that of how one is to express that love and compassion, not to whom it should be expressed. Could there be more subversive instructions with greater political overtones in this parable? This parable crosses the divide between culture, race and creed. It talks about unjust crime, racial discrimination, hatred, exploitation and prejudices. It even impeaches the religious leaders who are turning a blind eye and are unwilling to do anything about these problems. The national and ethnic loyalties are abandoned. The Samaritan is no longer the enemy, but a neighbour. Therefore, the ethics of the kingdom challenges one to reconsider one’s relationship with others. To ask the question, “Who is my neighbour?” (10:29) is grossly mistaken because in effect, one is asking “Who is not my neighbour?” Once we can define who our neighbour is, we are also in effect defining who our neighbour is not.

3) The Activities of Jesus
In what ways do the activities of Jesus inform us of their political significance? One thing without doubt, Jesus did things that got him into trouble and caused controversy. Consider the following activities:

• his preference to participate in table fellowship with the most unlikely group of people – sinners and tax collectors - instead of the pious, holy and respectable figures of his days (e.g., Luke 15:1-2);

• his decision to do things on Sabbath that were considered sacrilegious by others – such as healing and performing miracles (e.g., Mark 3:1-5);


• his choice of allowing the untouchables prostitutes to anoint him (e.g., Luke 7:36-50);


• his act of over turning the tables of the corrupted money changer in the temple courts during a Jewish sacred festival (e.g., Luke 19:45-46);


• his harsh criticism of the ruling authorities by calling Herod a fox (Luke 13:32).

In addition, the choosing of the Twelve disciples is also a highly symbolic act that could not have been understood other than in light of the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel and the end-time reconstitution of Israel. The miracles that Jesus performed and the acts of exorcisms are collectively pointers to the present reality of the kingdom of God. Finally, the ministry of Jesus is not only limited to the Jews as well. He also chose to reach out to the Samaritans and Gentiles, groups of people considered outcast by the pure-blooded Jews.

All these acts of Jesus simply point to one thing: they are not merely acts of mercy or compassion. They are prophetic symbolic acts. Jesus clearly knows what he was doing and what others would say when they saw him performing these acts. They revealed Jesus as one with a specific mission to the nation of Israel. It is no wonder that the religious establishment had him crucified as a criminal – a death befitting a person charged with sedition and for causing political uprising.

To be continued.....The final part, Part 3: The Implications for the Church Today.

Was Jesus Political? A New Testament Perspective - 1

The OHMSI Inaugural Dialogue was held on September 15, 2007, with more than 300 people filling the newly completed church hall of Petaling Jaya Gospel Hall, Jalan Gasing, Petaling Jaya. Apart from the two speakers (of which I was one) and five commentators who spoke on the topic, there were also interesting and lively comments from the floor. I guess the only regret that we had was that time was simply too short for further discussion and clarification.

Some have requested for the text of my lecture, and I promised that I will post it in my blog. However, let me just say that in my lecture, I have avoided interacting with various scholars and the wider issues because of the limited time (I was allocated 15 minutes) and for other reasons that I have mentioned elsewhere in my earlier post.

For those who wish that I could have interacted with New Testament scholars including John Dominic Crossan, Richard Horsley, Scot McKnight, Wolfgang Stegemann, Gerd Theissen, N. T. Wright, John Howard Yoder, and others, I hope that your patience will be rewarded as I am already in the process of expanding my lecture to include further interaction with these scholars. I hope to have it published in a peer-reviewed/academic journal in the very near future. In the meantime, your critical comments for my lecture is welcome.

FULL TEXT:

OHMSI Inaugural Dialogue:
“Was Jesus Political?” A New Testament Perspective
By Dr Lim Kar Yong
Lecturer in New Testament Studies
Seminari Theoloji Malaysia

Introduction

I recall reading an influential evangelical pastor affirming that the church should not engage in political action. For this pastor, the mission, energy and investment of the church is not to clean up the evils of society but to evangelise society. Unfortunately, this also characterises the position of the majority in our own shores. It is unfortunate that when the studies of Jesus are carried out within the confessional setting in the church, it is often accomplished though our theological framework. “Standard” understanding of Jesus is that he is the Son of God who died on the cross for the salvation of humanity. It is also often assumed that the Gospels and other scriptural writings are solely religious in nature. While this theological approach to the study of Jesus is no doubt true to our orthodox confession, this approach regrettably presents a one-sided perspective of Jesus – one that I am tempted to describe as a domestication of a “spiritual Jesus.” It is a Jesus that is, in the words of Scot McKnight, “described exclusively…in the category of a spiritual master, (and) as one who was primarily concerned with the inner religious life and its disciplines for the individual.”

This morning, I hope to reconsider our understanding of Jesus. Drawing from the contribution of the Historical Jesus research and the recent rise in the interest of social-scientific approach to the New Testament, we hope to reflect on this question, “Was Jesus political?” Or, in other words, is there a place in our faith for a “political” Jesus instead of merely a “spiritual” Jesus?

Before we proceed, perhaps it is good to clarify what I mean by the term, “politics.” In antiquity, according to Aristotle, politics is understood in the broad sense in which the objective is to realise the idea of a good life of a community within a city. On the other hand, politics can also be understood in the narrow sense as an art of gaining and maintaining power. I prefer to engage my reflection on the political Jesus in the broad sense. I use political to mean relating to public, state, or civil affairs. As such by “political” I do not mean that Jesus was thinking in terms of forming political parties or launching a revolt against Rome or Jerusalem. By “political” I propose to reconsider the historical Jesus as someone who has a mission to the nation of Israel in calling her to repentance in light of the coming judgment of God.

So the two questions I would like to consider are:
1) How much awareness does Jesus exhibit in his self-understanding of his mission to Israel as being political?
2) How would the multitudes perceive Jesus to be political through his teachings and activities?

Because of the limited time, I propose to consider briefly three aspects of the life and ministry of Jesus in light of the above two questions:
1. The self-understanding of Jesus and his mission
2. The message of Jesus
3. The activities of Jesus

To be continued.....

Part 2 - The self-understanding of Jesus and his mission; the message of Jesus; and the activities of Jesus.

Part 3 - The implication for the church today

Freebie - Electronic Books worth US$25!

My colleague, the Rabbi, has highlighted that Zondervan Software is now offering a free download of Pradis 6.0 as well as electronic books worth up to US$25.00.

Follow this link for further information on how to claim this freebie. But please do it quick as offer expires September 17, 2007.

I have just downloaded the New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology for free! You will be amazed how far you can go with US$25.00!!