(Taken from http://wp.me/pguv1-5qr)
如何做作家 3/3/2011 關麗珊
【太陽】久不久就收到讀者來電郵，有些附上作品，表示想做作家，問我怎樣入行。曾寫了多遍，我不會回覆這類電郵，不看讀者創作的。再寫一遍，你要問，代表你不適合創作行業。
由小學開始，我的作文就是全班最高分，聽過無數讚賞，大家對讚賞實在不必太上心。
讀完夜校中六，看報紙廣告找到編輯工作，入行後，除投稿外，還直接跟行家說可找我寫稿，託賴有不少好介紹。
經同行介紹，有位副刊主編前輩先用我一篇稿，然後約稿，更推薦我到報館做編輯，人前人後讚我是奇才。別人誇讚自是善意，切勿飄飄然，若我真是奇才，早已拿了諾貝爾文學獎吧！
回饋前輩的最好方法是扶掖後輩，編過多本新人選，要做的都做了，還有人想入行的話，請以自己的方法嘗試。
世上有愛才的人，也有相反的，我聽過的批評並不少，更加感謝遇過那麼多好人。別埋怨被別人的批評打沉，或讓別人的誇獎讚壞，我們不應容易受人影響的。
我認為別人的讚賞和批評並不重要，重要的是自己寫好文章，編好負責版面。我不怕懷才不遇，只怕才華不足。
看完這篇文，若你明白，別問我如何做作家。若你不明，更加不要問我。
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
應罪加一等
(這篇文章取自 http://wp.me/pguv1-5s6. 「應罪加一等」這原則也能應用在教會裏。)
明知故犯 23/11/2004 關麗珊
【明報】假設兩個騙子以相同手法行騙，一個少年，一個警察，理論上罪行一樣，判刑一樣。然而後者知法犯法，以警察身分行騙的話，更出賣苦主對警察的信任，應罪加一等。
沒有人要求作家完美，每個人都有缺點。然而若作家滿紙仁義道德，實際是《笑傲江湖》中不擇手段的「君子劍」岳不群﹔讀者應否只看作品，不必理會作家品格呢﹖
十年文革浩劫，令中國作家和學者改變了。有些作家為保尊嚴或不想出賣別人而自殺，像老舍投湖﹔有些承受苦難，如陳寅恪和吳宓﹔有些像錢鍾書和楊絳沉默……然而這類文人品格日漸絕跡，近年有新進作家指摘前輩在文革沉默，卻不見他們有作為。
文學是精緻文化，崩潰以後，市井之徒更不必奢言道德，為賺錢製造和銷售假酒假藥假食品……假貨毒死人是他人的事，自己賺錢最重要。
學者和作家應憑良心說真話，要是社會精英多是岳不群和左冷禪，忙於排除異己爭名奪利，怎可能要求販夫走卒顧己及人，賣真貨、講商德﹖
如果有最後審判，作家跟農民同樣騙人的話，前者應罪加一等。
明知故犯 23/11/2004 關麗珊
【明報】假設兩個騙子以相同手法行騙，一個少年，一個警察，理論上罪行一樣，判刑一樣。然而後者知法犯法，以警察身分行騙的話，更出賣苦主對警察的信任，應罪加一等。
沒有人要求作家完美，每個人都有缺點。然而若作家滿紙仁義道德，實際是《笑傲江湖》中不擇手段的「君子劍」岳不群﹔讀者應否只看作品，不必理會作家品格呢﹖
十年文革浩劫，令中國作家和學者改變了。有些作家為保尊嚴或不想出賣別人而自殺，像老舍投湖﹔有些承受苦難，如陳寅恪和吳宓﹔有些像錢鍾書和楊絳沉默……然而這類文人品格日漸絕跡，近年有新進作家指摘前輩在文革沉默，卻不見他們有作為。
文學是精緻文化，崩潰以後，市井之徒更不必奢言道德，為賺錢製造和銷售假酒假藥假食品……假貨毒死人是他人的事，自己賺錢最重要。
學者和作家應憑良心說真話，要是社會精英多是岳不群和左冷禪，忙於排除異己爭名奪利，怎可能要求販夫走卒顧己及人，賣真貨、講商德﹖
如果有最後審判，作家跟農民同樣騙人的話，前者應罪加一等。
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The Theological Past
To look forward with wisdom, we ought to look backward with humility. Someone said that a leader is one step ahead of his people. That one step is crucial. As a leader, I want to think ahead of those who are surrounding me. I want to be able to foresee what is ahead of us so that we can make necessary adjustments and preparation here and now. For me, to look ahead of others is to first study with those who have gone before us. Whatever is happening here and now had already happened in the past. In the history of the church, those who have gone before us had already faced similar issues and dealt with them with the same Truth. We gain wisdom from the previous generations. In other words, the theological present is the continuation of the theological past. The theological past gives us a sense of direction in the present.
Richard Lints, Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, said:
“Part of the task of constructing a theological vision entails the exploration of times when a vital theological guided the heart and mind of the church. In saying this, I am not advocating a search for a golden past. I simply think we will do well to try to learn from those who have gone before us. To be successful, the attempt will have to be grounded in humility—humility to recognize and to learn from our own historical limitations and from the wisdom of the church in ages past.”[1]
Our theological vision is thin and weightless if we fail to look backward. The past offers us a theological framework to construct our theological vision in the present.
[1] The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999), pp. 139-140.
Calvin, Scripture, Church
I have been reading and studying Calvin for a while. From a pastoral perspective, I am amazed by Calvin’s pastoral endeavor towards the church. How could someone preach so many sermons, write so many commentaries (except the Book of Daniel and Revelation), and write a book like Institutes to prepare future leaders in theology? Especially, there was no such thing as type-writer or computer? Against the Roman Catholic Church, Calvin downplayed the authority of the church and held the formal principle of the Reformation in high esteem.
“Here we have a classic statement of what is technically called the ‘formal principle’ of the Reformation: that the Bible alone is the norm and criterion for thought and life. Calvin’s own theological work was carried out in loyalty to this principle. The man who labored to interpret the Scriptures in commentary and preaching to his contemporaries regarded himself as ruled by this everliving voice of God.”[1]
The way Calvin preached and wrote commentaries proved the fact that he followed this reformed principle strictly and wholeheartedly.
For Calvin, salvation came not from the authority of the church, but from the authority of Scripture. All believers rested on the authority of Scripture, not the church.
“For Calvin, the church is primarily a visible community…Calvin followed Augustine and distinguished ‘belief in the church’ from ‘believing the church.’ He argued that the latter correctly showed the church to be the means for salvation, while the former attributes salvation to the church and not to God. It was in this context that Calvin first used the expression ‘visible church’ in a positive sense; he described the church as the ‘mother’ of the faithful through whom one has rebirth and salvation.”[2]
However, Calvin looked at the church as the mother of all believers as well as school to nurture and sustain believers. For Calvin, it was disastrous for believers to leave the church, for she, as mother of believers, conceived them in her womb, gave them birth, nourished them at her breast, and kept them under her care and guidance.[3] Calvin’s theology was not defined by the church, but never apart from the church.
Discipleship Letters 25-26
Discipleship Letter 25 August 31, 2008
“Growth—and indeed life—means moving to criticism: a new awareness of self in conflict, of others in dishonest interestedness, of God in enmity” [Walter Brueggemann, The Psalms and the Life of Faith. Edited by Patrick D. Miller (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), p. 25].
Spiritual formation cannot happen without a particular context. Disciples live on earth and are bounded by space and time.
We grow in context. We experience divine goodness and guidance in context. We question Him in the same context. God is not a Greek god who is beyond our grasp. Rather, the biblical God is the God of Event. He reveals himself in historical events. He rescued his people from Egypt. He also sent them into exile due to their rebellion and disobedience. Spiritual formation occurs in between.
We grow in relationship. We grow when a relationship goes well. We grow even more when it doesn’t. When things don’t go well, we turn inward, realizing that we are very limited—things are beyond our grasp. Such realization is important for spiritual formation because controlling is the opposite of letting go, which is the key element in spiritual formation.
Whatever context we’re in, pray to God earnestly, and deal with Him directly. “Prayer cannot be thought, but must be spoken” (p. 33).
We grow in speech toward God.
--Discipleship Letter 26 January 25, 2009
Discipleship is the process of becoming Christlike. Imitation of Christ is always the essence of discipleship. As a church, if we fail to become Christlike, we fail to function as a church. As an individual, if we fail to become Christlike, we fail to live as a disciple.
To become Christlike is to grow in all areas of life. There is no pick-and-choose Christianity. Jesus said, “You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings” (Jn. 8:31). It can also mean that if we don’t keep his teachings, we are not His disciples. Jesus’ own teachings should always keep us in check. We believe, but do we obey? Partial obedience? Or total surrender?
“So even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered” (Heb. 5:8). We imitate Christ and become Christlike. For us, what are “the things” that we need to suffer with Him? God has His own way to deal with His people. He doesn’t deal with the things that we’re willing to give up. He always aims at “the things” that we are unwilling to give up, for that’s where we learn obedience, saying “Yet I want your will, not mine” (Mk. 14:36). “Your will, not mine” is a simple saying, yet it’s an indicator for spiritual growth. From time to time, when we keep saying Yes to “the things”, we’re practicing another saying, “My will, not yours,” which shows spiritual recession.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Discipleship Letters 23-24
Discipleship Letter 23 August 17, 2008
“I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow” (1 Cor. 3:6-7).
Paul was a prominent disciple of Jesus, and he had a right understanding of discipleship.
Paul “planted the seed…”: This is evangelism. Paul shared the Good News with people. He didn’t know who would or wouldn’t accept the Gospel. He just simply told the Good News about Jesus because he had a desire to be obedient to Jesus’ command, a love for the lost, and a love for God.
Apollos “watered it…”: This is discipleship. A seed won’t grow without nourishment. Apollos nurtured new converts to grow toward maturity in Christ. Christian growth is a long process. The seed grows or does not grow; it’s out of our control. But we have to plow and fertilize the soil so that the seed may grow easily.
“but God made it grow…”: No one can take any credit for the spiritual growth of others. The growth of God’s kingdom in one’s heart does not depend on us at all. God Himself ensures the growth in His time.
What kind of attitude should we have then? “We are not worthy of praise. We are servants who have simply done our duty” (Lk. 17:10).
--Discipleship Letter 24 August 24, 2008
Discipleship is a double ministry: pastoral and prophetic.
Discipleship is a pastoral ministry. When a discipler dedicates his time to walk alongside with disciples, he’s already participated in pastoral work—dealing “gently with those who are slow to believe biblical truth and who fail to attain biblical standards” (John Stott, The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor (Downers Grove: IVP, p. 103). Pastoral care must be present in a discipling process, for it is a vital element for disciples to feel safe and grow in their own pace. “As apostles of Christ we certainly had a right to make some demands of you, but we were as gentle among you as a mother feeding and caring for her own children” (1 Thess. 2:7).
Discipleship is a prophetic ministry. It is a prophetic ministry because discipleship puts an emphasis on teaching new disciples to obey what Christ had commanded us (Matt. 28:20). A discipler bears witness to the biblical truth and its ethical standards. Not only does he bear witness to it, but also live up to it. So do disciples. Whenever the discipler teaches the disciples to live up to God’s Word, it is a prophetic ministry, for it challenges their priority and interests. By nature, no one wants to be challenged. But the nature of discipleship is prophetic.
Double ministry points us to healthy ministry.
Peterson on KJV
(This article is written by Kyle Strobel and taken from http://wp.me/paeZJ-16f)
In light of the 400th anniversary of the King James, I thought it would be fruitful to bring up an interesting argument that Eugene Peterson makes in his book Eat This Book. Furthermore, Ben Myers has recently put up a blog post about his love for the King James so I thought this would stand as an interesting contrast. Myers provides something of a personal apologetic I first heard when I was in an undergraduate Bible class – that there is just something special about the King James. I never used the King James so I was intrigued by this line of logic. The person in my class talked about how the language of the King James was sufficiently “high” for the Bible, and how that language helped to push the Bible into a more spiritual register (my language, not his). In light of this argument, I would like to note some of Eugene Peterson’s reasons for thinking that the King James Version, for these very reasons, is an inadequate translation (I should note that I don’t have this book with me and I read it a year ago, so I will only outline the broad contours of his argument).
The first thing to note about Eugene Peterson’s argument is that he denies what tend to be two assumed premises. First, that the King James was written in an older form of English which was used in everyday conversation. Rather, Peterson argues, the language of the King James was never conversational in any age. It was, even in its own day, an attempt to spiritualize language to a higher order fitting for the Bible. As ink marked the page it was, at it were, “arcane,” or, better, “foreign.”
Second, based on the Greek language of the New Testament, the King James fails to provide a proper translation of the language that the apostles used to convey the gospel. It was, in fact, common language that was invoked for the New Testament and not a higher-level spiritual grammar. To make this point, Peterson highlights two arguments used leading up to the King James translation to explain why there were Greek words used in the NT that did not occur in other Greek manuscripts. I don’t recall the number of words, but there was a large chunk of key terms that hadn’t been found in any other ancient Greek text. From this problem arose two views: First, that the words were transliterations from the Hebrew, and second, that the terms were a special language given by God for use in his Bible. Peterson argues that these two arguments were both proven false when archeologists discovered the words on papyri found in garbage dumps. The terms were not found in other manuscripts because they are not the kinds of words people save for posterity. They are the kinds of terms used only for the mundane like laundry lists - not theological or philosophical treatises – so the argument goes.
Based on this line of reasoning, the King James bought into a certain view of the language used in the New Testament that latter textual work has shown to be inadequate. This is why, Peterson explains, he translated the Bible into “American.” I find this argument to be pretty fascinating. Any thoughts?
In light of the 400th anniversary of the King James, I thought it would be fruitful to bring up an interesting argument that Eugene Peterson makes in his book Eat This Book. Furthermore, Ben Myers has recently put up a blog post about his love for the King James so I thought this would stand as an interesting contrast. Myers provides something of a personal apologetic I first heard when I was in an undergraduate Bible class – that there is just something special about the King James. I never used the King James so I was intrigued by this line of logic. The person in my class talked about how the language of the King James was sufficiently “high” for the Bible, and how that language helped to push the Bible into a more spiritual register (my language, not his). In light of this argument, I would like to note some of Eugene Peterson’s reasons for thinking that the King James Version, for these very reasons, is an inadequate translation (I should note that I don’t have this book with me and I read it a year ago, so I will only outline the broad contours of his argument).
The first thing to note about Eugene Peterson’s argument is that he denies what tend to be two assumed premises. First, that the King James was written in an older form of English which was used in everyday conversation. Rather, Peterson argues, the language of the King James was never conversational in any age. It was, even in its own day, an attempt to spiritualize language to a higher order fitting for the Bible. As ink marked the page it was, at it were, “arcane,” or, better, “foreign.”
Second, based on the Greek language of the New Testament, the King James fails to provide a proper translation of the language that the apostles used to convey the gospel. It was, in fact, common language that was invoked for the New Testament and not a higher-level spiritual grammar. To make this point, Peterson highlights two arguments used leading up to the King James translation to explain why there were Greek words used in the NT that did not occur in other Greek manuscripts. I don’t recall the number of words, but there was a large chunk of key terms that hadn’t been found in any other ancient Greek text. From this problem arose two views: First, that the words were transliterations from the Hebrew, and second, that the terms were a special language given by God for use in his Bible. Peterson argues that these two arguments were both proven false when archeologists discovered the words on papyri found in garbage dumps. The terms were not found in other manuscripts because they are not the kinds of words people save for posterity. They are the kinds of terms used only for the mundane like laundry lists - not theological or philosophical treatises – so the argument goes.
Based on this line of reasoning, the King James bought into a certain view of the language used in the New Testament that latter textual work has shown to be inadequate. This is why, Peterson explains, he translated the Bible into “American.” I find this argument to be pretty fascinating. Any thoughts?
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
A Child, A Vulture
Here is a very, very sad picture. It was taken by Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Kevin Carter, who committed suicide 3 months after the picture was taken. It shows a Sudanese child crawling towards a United Nations food camp while being stalked by a vulture who is just waiting for him/her to die. It is a powerful photographic reminder that there are many inequities in the world and there are tremendous needs that are not being addressed. I think it also puts life in perspective in our consumer driven culture that is obsessed with having the latest and greatest toys. Although we will "always have the poor with us" (John 12:8) this does not mean that we should not do what we can to alleviate their suffering and change the religious, social and political structures that perpetuate this kind of unacceptable situation.
(Taken from http://redeemingthetime.blogspot.com/2011/05/same-world-another-place.html#links)
The Outside God
In his book God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Eerdmans, 1994), David F. Wells asks a question “Can the church survive the modern world and the worldliness that it brings?” His argument is that in order for the church to survive, the church must recover the reality and character of God. What we need to recover is not God the Immanent, but God the transcendent. Wells is very against the inside god whom Christians tend to manipulate and turn him into their personal/privatized god. This god is no longer the biblical God. The reality and character of God, as Wells proposes, is the outside God and his holiness.
The God whom we believe and follow is the biblical God “who was there before the first foundations of the modern world were laid and who will be there long after it has self-destructed or been overwhelmed” (p. 120). He is “the stranger in our world” (p. 137). He is the outside God who challenges and confronts us. His challenge and confrontation, however, are out of his divine love towards us. We understand his love in light of his holiness in relation to human sinfulness. Unless the church places the biblical emphasis of the holy God in its rightful place, she loses its distinctive identity and function in the life of Christians and in the wider society. Without the holiness of God, the church is flat. Without the holiness of God, sin is not confronted, and it is freely subjected to one’s moral preference. Sin loses its seriousness. When the outside God is marginalized and privatized as our insider god, grace becomes cheap grace. We only receive his grace, but fail to respond to it with sacrificial thankfulness, for the inside god is our idol, which, only satisfies us, never demands from us.
“You must be holy because I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16; Lev. 11:44).
An excerpt:
“Without the holiness of God, sin has no meaning and grace has no point, for it is God’s holiness that gives to the one its definition and to the other its greatness. Without the holiness of God, sin is merely human failure but not failure before God, in relation to God. it is failure without the standard by which we know it to have fallen short. It is failure without the presumption of guilt, failure without retribution, failure without any serious moral meaning. And without the holiness of God, grace is no longer grace because it does not arise from the dark clouds of judgment that obscured the cross and exacted the damnation of the Son in our place. Furthermore, without holiness, grace loses its meaning as grace, a free gift of the God who, despite his holiness and because of his holiness, has reconciled sinners to himself in the death of his Son. And without holiness, faith is but a confidence in the benevolence of life, or perhaps merely confidence in ourselves. Sin, grace, and faith are emptied of any but a passing meaning if they are served from their roots in the holiness of God” (pp. 144-145).
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Courage to Be Protestant
Here is a simple rule to keep in mind: When David F. Wells writes a book, buy it with no hesitation. I bought his book The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-Lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Eerdmans, 2008) two days ago. It’s his fifth book to analyze how the church has been attacked and corrupted by Postmodernism (outside) and new forms of liberalism (inside) and what the Church should do in order to let God be God over the Church. If you want to know why the church has been losing her distinctive role and prophetic function in society, Well’s book can definitely offer you a critique. An excerpt:
“Evangelicalism had two flaws that have been there from the beginning in its post-World War II phase. The first flaw is that evangelicalism has an inclination to allow its biblical core to shrink. In parts of the evangelical world today, it has shrunk so much that virtually nothing remains. This was so initially because evangelism has been a populist movement that owes much of its temper to democratic impulses. When it also became a marketing phenomenon, further emptying-out happened.”
“Second, and alongside this, evangelicalism’s inherently para nature asserted itself that it increasingly became parachurch to the point where the local church, in biblical terms, became increasingly irrelevant. Once these things began to happen, I believe, evangelicalism was on its way to decline.” (p. 210)
The first point is about Christian historic doctrines being de-centered and lost in the church. Christian doctrines no longer offer direction and set moral boundaries for Christians. The second point is about the church being marginalized by para-Christian organizations. Christians no longer think within the church, but apart from the church.
Discipleship Letters 21-22
Discipleship Letter 21 August 3, 2008
“Faith possessed must become faith expressed if God’s purpose for each believer is to be realized. Faith can be known. But unless it is observed, can it be real?” [Milfred Minatrea, Shaped by God’s Heart: The Passion and Practices of Missional Churches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004), p. 53).
Churchgoers possess faith, but they don’t express their faith, for they think that faith possessed is the end of discipling process.
Disciples possess faith and express it, for they understand that faith possessed is just the means to the end, which is faith expressed.
Jesus said, “If you love me, obey my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). We say, “We love Jesus.” We don’t talk about loving him. We express that love in obedience.
Jesus commands us to “wash each other’s feet” just as He has washed our feet (Jn. 13:14). As disciples, are we willing to “wash each other’s feet”? What it means is that are we willing to serve? Are we flexible in adjusting our lifestyles to adapt to church ministry and to carry out various responsibilities?
Just faith possessed? Or also faith expressed! You know it, and people can see it.
--Discipleship Letter 22 August 10, 2008
Disciples are saved by grace as well as grow with grace.
“Grace has much to do with how we live…The way of grace is a pathway of change. It is a pathway of change that leads us to depths of character, integrity, joy, and true friendship with God” [James C. Wilhoit, Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), p. 79.].
The path of discipleship is the pathway of grace. In a discipling process, we become more and more like Christ and reflect his glory (2 Cor. 3:18). The becoming becomes possible because of His grace. Grace is not only limited to being a Christian—saved by grace through faith. Grace is also available in becoming a devoted Christian—saved for his glory.
If the goal of discipleship is to grow toward maturity in Christ, grace must be the indispensable element that leads us to that goal. Who dares to say that I am what I am today because of my endeavor? Paul said, “But whatever I am now, it is all because God poured out his special favor on me” (1 Cor. 15:10a). Paul doesn’t stop here. He continues, “…and not without results. For I have worked harder than all the other apostles, yet it was not I but God who was working through me by his grace” (15:10b).
Disciples work harder not to attain his grace but because of his grace.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Discipleship Letters 19-20
Discipleship Letter 19 July 20, 2008
“Millions of Christians don’t live like Christians—and that’s partially because they don’t know what they believe and therefore cannot apply appropriate scriptural values to their lives” [Greg Ogden, Transforming Discipleship: Making Disciples a Few at a Time (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), p. 38.].
Millions of “Christians” don’t live like Christians because they don’t want to, and they don’t care. It is absolutely not because of their limited knowledge of Christianity. No need to waste time on them. Millions of Christians don’t live like Christians because they don’t know much about what they believe and how they should live.
If the above statement is true, it implies that the church fails to do her job. Jesus said make disciples of all nations…through going, baptizing, and teaching (Matt. 28:19-20). This command is always a challenge to us. Whenever we realize we aren’t making disciples solidly, yet slowly, we must pause and think about what goes wrong. This command is a challenge especially to veteran Christians who are selfish about their time and energy to make disciples solidly, yet slowly. One day Jesus will ask you a question, “How many disciples did you make?” You’d say, “Well, I went to Sunday worship regularly and did tithe faithfully.” You know, the question is, “How many disciples did you make?”
As a church, this is our noble task—to teach the truth, to invest time in each other, and to assist one another to apply the truth. Discipleship requires time and sacrifice. Discipleship is against instant gratification.
--Discipleship Letter 20 July 27, 2008
Disciples have listening ears. Jesus said, “Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand!” (Mk. 4:9).
Churchgoers have ears, but they don’t have a pair of obedient ears. They hear eagerly, yet obey selectively. In the Bible, hearing usually carries the connotation of obedience—he who has ears, let him hear and obey. Someone said, “Selective obedience is not obedience at all. It is merely convenience.” Why? Because selectivity yields to our sinful nature. We choose to “obey” what is convenient in our lives, and yet disobey whatever causes inconvenience. Churchgoers have a convenient lifestyle, for they don’t listen with total submission to the lordship of the Lord.
Disciples have ears and listen well. Disciples do not possess all the knowledge of the truth. Yet, they obey and practice what they have already known without selectivity. They put their faith into practice without selectivity because they know that God doesn’t delight in their sins. There is time when disciples fail to live up to the standard of Christian living. But they rarely think it is okay to do so. They understand that God deals with their sins in the wider context of love, and the last thing they want to do is to abuse that love.
Discipleship and selectivity do not go well together!
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Preaching and Biblical Literacy
The centrality of preaching in the evangelical church must be emphasized. When I talk about preaching, I don’t mean topical preaching that fails to educate the congregation to understand the passage in its biblical context. The sermon must come from exegesis and exposition of the text. In other words, expository preaching is what the church needs in our time. In our culture where the adjectives “instant” and “fast-food” dominate people’s mindset, including Christians, topical preaching seems more appealing, and expository preaching seems boring. Expository preaching deals with the text itself: its syntax, its structure, its historical-cultural-sociological background, etc…Then, we draw implications from the text and apply them into the life of the congregation. There is a process to move from the biblical world to the contemporary world.
Modern listeners are too instant gratified that they have no patience to wait and be engaged in the process. Rather, topical sermon targets the needs of the audience. It applies and speaks to their experiences immediately. From time to time, we pay the price: the church becomes biblical illiterate. The church suffers from living out “biblical” application with no biblical foundation. A house without a strong base can provide protection for a while. But sooner or later, it will crumble. “Are we surprised, then, that the evangelical church in the West is stumbling, that its biblical ignorance is growing and its worldliness is increasing? If the truth of Scripture is not being preached, biblical illiteracy is the outcome.”[1]
[1] David F. Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 233.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Calvin's Reformed Preaching
Calvin’s preaching is first and foremost theological. John H. Leith said, “Calvin understood preaching to be the will of God for his church…Preaching is rooted in the will and intention of God. The preacher, Calvin dared to say, was the mouth of God. God does not wish to be heard but by the voice of his ministers.”[1] The preacher preaches the Word of God as if God himself spoke in person in front of the congregation. That’s why the reformers emphasized the importance of the proclamation of the Word.
Preaching “is not simply the preacher’s discourse about Christ...Rather, as Bayer summaries, ‘the preached Word that comes to us by word of mouth is Jesus Christ himself now present with us.’”[2] Calvin said, “The preaching of the heavenly doctrine has been enjoined upon the pastors…But as he did not entrust the ancient folk or angels but raised up teachers from the earth truly to perform the angelic office, so also today it is his will to teach us through human means.”[3] Human ministers have been entrusted with “the preaching of the heavenly doctrine.”
For the reformers, preaching the Word was teaching, but it was more than that. The reformed preachers preached as if God spoke to the congregation here and now. Human ministers were God’s accommodated means of grace to reach down to the congregation. Preaching the Word was a holy encountering.
Nowadays, the pulpit is often turned into a place where preachers talk, share, and teach. Preaching, for the reformers, was a life-and-death matter, for “the Word not only describes salvation, but also conveys it.”[4]
[1] John H. Leith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Proclamation of the Word and Its Significance for Today,” in John Calvin and the Church: A Prism of Reform. Edited by Timothy George (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990), p. 210.
[2] Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), p. 47.
[3] Institutes, 4.1.5.
[4] Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, p. 48.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Calvin's Double Knowledge
John Calvin begins his theology with the knowledge of God and of self. It’s Calvin’s “double knowledge” in relationship. It is in a relationship where the Self finds a place in God’s goodness and benevolence. For Calvin, God’s goodness and benevolence is always towards us. The God as he is to us compels us to say Amen to him. As sinners we turn to him with confession, repentance, and praise. Calvin’s “double knowledge” of God and of self is not therapeutic in nature: heal me, comfort me, and fill me. “Calvin understood this knowledge of the self to be moral in nature rather than psychological, however, and held that its import was soteriological rather than therapeutic. To know one’s self in truth was to know one’s need for God’s redemption.”[1]
For Calvin, God is not defined by our religious experience. Rather, we interpret and re-interpret our religious experience according to the Scriptures revealed to us. The former is self-centered approach to Christianity; the latter, God-centered and Scripture-based. True knowledge of God and of self comes not from the inside (our experience), but from the outside (the centrality of God and the revelation of the Scriptures).
[1] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 103n.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Calvin's Institutes
The first edition of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion had been published in 1536. The first edition had only six chapters. Over the years, Calvin kept revising the Institutes as time went by. In 1559, five years before Calvin died, the final form of the Institutes had been published. It had eighty chapters. In twenty-three years, on the one hand, Calvin worked as a pastor to participate in the life of a congregation. On the other hand, Calvin educated the congregation to think doctrinally and act ethically as a theologian. The fact that the Institutes had been expanded from six chapters to eighty chapters did not happen out of an ivory tower or out of Calvin’s theological speculation. Rather, it happened out of the exercise of his pastoral office.
Ford Lewis Battles said,
“Calvin claimed a double pastoral intent for the Institutes: (1) to introduce neophytes to the study of the Scriptures; (2) to justify the French evangelicals before a hostile government and…to hearten these evangelicals in their effort to lead a Christian life under harsh circumstances.”[1]
Calvin developed his theology while he was developing the congregation as a pastor. Calvin’s theological development, in other words, was driven by his pastoral concern. One of the reasons why he developed the doctrine of predestination later in the Institutes was to assure the salvation of believers under harsh circumstances. Believers doubted the love of God and their own salvation. Calvin assured them with God’s sovereign election. It was out of Calvin’s pastoral intent that the controversy of the doctrine of predestination was given birth.
Bruce Gordon said,
“The 1559 Institutes was a masterpiece of organization and clarity, despite Calvin’s serious illness. His goal in this work is to present a comprehensive account of doctrine in a clear, brief and persuasive manner. This doctrine, he maintains, is what the true Church has always taught. His purpose is to explain the teachings of the Church in the right order so that the faithful might understand. This does not replace scripture, but is intended to act as a guide to key topics to be founded in the Bible…The purpose is to bring people to God. And the constant revising of the Institutes reflects Calvin’s continuing struggle to find a better way of educating and edifying.”[2]
Monday, May 9, 2011
The Game Is Only Half Over
I preached this sermon on 12.30.2007. In the year of 2007, I had preached the Gospel of Mark from the beginning to the end. Out of the four gospels, I like Mark’s gospel the most. It is just my personal preference. I preached on the story of Jesus based on Mark’s theological perspective because I wanted to introduce the story of Jesus in a biblical way so that the congregation could be educated and grounded in the biblical tradition. I did that because I believed that, at the time, the congregation as a whole was a shallow congregation in terms of its spirituality, ministry, and knowledge. I did what I had to do as a pastor. Whether or not it was successful to educate the congregation, it was beyond my control. I believe that the Bible is more concerned about faithfulness, not fruitfulness.
Scripture: Mark 14:53-72
Topic: A faithful witness fails and grows in the context of grace.
Brief Outline:
A Peter: the unfaithful witness I (Mk. 14:53-54)
B Jesus: the faithful witness (Mk. 14:55-65)
a False charges I (vv. 55-59)
b Jesus’ self-revelation (vv. 60-62)
a’ False charges II (vv. 63-65)
A’ Peter: the unfaithful witness II (Mk. 14:66-72)
When we come to a story like this, we have to be gracious. We have to be gracious to Peter’s failure. After all, he was the only disciple left in the scene, the one who followed Christ all the way, but kept a distance from him. When we read a story like this, we have to be gracious because we can identify with the character in the story. Peter disowned Jesus in the story. I am sure that this incident became his scar. He carried along with him: wherever he went, whenever he preached, and whatever he said, he carried it along with him. Because of the scar, he saw things differently. He knew God differently. He dealt with people differently. He experienced the power of the gospel differently.
This passage is Mark’s another sandwich technique. The central portion is the focal point of the passage. The faithful witness of Christ sets a sharp contrast with Peter’s unfaithfulness. Witness is the key word for this passage. It occurs seven times (“witness” or “testimony”, vv. 55-56, 59; “to testify falsely”, vv. 56-57; to testify against, v. 60; a witness, v. 63).
In Mk. 14:55, “The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus…” The Sanhedrin was the supreme Jewish religious and political council in Jerusalem in the time of the New Testament. It was composed of 71 members. In the first century, the chief priests were the key figures in the Sanhedrin. Trials could only be held in the hours of daylight. In Mk. 14:53, the night meeting was probably to be considered a preliminary hearing in the high priest’s palace. They were looking for “witnesses who would testify against Jesus…” They tried to find evidence against him, but they did not find any (Mk. 14:55). Many testified falsely, they did not agree (Mk. 14:56). Again, they said, “I heard him saying that ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.’” (Mk. 14:57-59) Yet, they did not agree.
We see that there is another false charge against Christ after Jesus said, “I am.” (Mk. 14:63-64) Then, the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we need any more witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death…
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exod. 20:16). Did the chief priests know the Ten Commandments? Of course! Did they know that what they were doing was against the law? When they disliked him, they bypassed the law, which became irrelevant to them.
False witnessing is very powerful. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” This is the thing they were doing to Jesus. “Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer?” (Mk. 14:60) Are you not going to clarify any misunderstanding? Are you not going to respond to this false accusation? In response to false witnesses, Jesus “remained silent and gave no answer” (Mk. 14:61). One of the characteristics of Jesus’ ministry is that he was quiet. He didn’t serve God with a loud voice, and he didn’t get a lot of attention in ministry. He did it quietly. In Matthew’s gospel, Matthew quoted from Isaiah, saying, “He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets” (Matt. 12:19). This is Jesus in ministry, even in time of persecution.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One” (Mk. 14:61b)? In response to false witnesses, he remained silent. But in response to his true identity, he responded. “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mk. 14:62; see Exod. 3:14; Dan. 7:13; Ps. 110:1).
Do you claim to be the Messiah? Yes, “I am.” There is nothing for him to hide. Due to his self-revelation, he was not condemned by false witnesses, but by his own witness. He was a faithful witness. He is still our faithful witness, for he carried his identity as the Son of God and the Son of Man at all time and in all places. There was a time for him to be silent. There was a time for him to speak up, especially his identity is on the line.
The story is told of a German king, King Henry III, in the 11th century. He got tired of court life and the pressures of being a king. He applied to a monastery and was accepted. The head of the monastery said to King Henry III, “Your Majesty, do you understand that the pledge here is one of obedience? That will be hard because you have been a king.” Henry replied, “I understand. The rest of my life I will be obedient to you, as Christ leads you.” “Then I will tell you what to do…Go back to your throne and serve faithfully in the place where God has placed you.” When King Henry III died, a statement was written, “The King learned to rule by being obedient.”
Like King Henry, we too often tire of our role and responsibility. Like King Henry, we too need to be reminded that God has placed each of us in a particular place or situation to practice faithfulness.
Be it as a mother, accountant, a technique, a worker, a student, or whatever, God expects us to be faithful where he has placed us. God expects us to live up to our identity as God’s children. How many of your co-workers know that you are a Christian? How many people in school know that you are a Christian? And you live up to the identity? Jesus is a faithful witness, for he lived up to his identity as the Son of God and the Son of Man. And he ruled among us by being obedient. I teach the Bible every week. I like to read it. I like to read books related to this book. But, if you see me not doing what I teach or I never try to walk the Walk, you should let me know. I am supposed to lead by being obedient. All Christian leaders are supposed to lead by being obedient to the Word of God.
Christ’s faithful witness sets a sharp contrast with Peter’s unfaithful witness. You can tell in the beginning. Before Peter actually denied Christ verbally, there was an action of denial. “They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of…” (Mk. 14:53-54). He kept a distance from Jesus. “While Peter was below in the courtyard…” (Mk. 14:66) He moved further away from Jesus.
A.W. Tozer said, “No sin is private. It may be secret but it is not private.” One sin will lead to another. When we see a Christian stop believing in Christ or having lost his interest in Christ, or they fail to hold on to Christian faith, there is a process. Perhaps we think it is okay not to pray for the lunch today, especially a lot of people are around us. Or it’s okay not to read the Bible and let God’s word remind us of how we should live as Christians today. We are unfaithful to one thing. We will then be unfaithful to another. In 2007, is there anything in your life that keeps you from him? If we don’t fix it or let God change it, it will lead us further away from him next year.
Mark’s sandwich technique makes you think about faithful and unfaithful witness. Christ lived up to his identity; Peter failed to live up to his identity. One of the servant girls asked him three times about his identity, he denied him three times. Look at Mk. 14:72. After the rooster crowed the second time, “Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him…broke down and wept.” He was sorry for what he did. Jesus’ own words pointed out his shortcoming. He felt horrible. He broke down. He cried. He cried because he hit the bottom. He was the worst sinner of all. Before then, Peter knew he was a sinner. Here and now, he experienced its guilt and shame. He hit the bottom, but that was also a new beginning for him.
Jesus said to him, “Simon, Simon. Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you. Simon, that your faith should not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen you brothers” (Lk. 22:31-32).
Peter’s life was a mixture of faithfulness and failure. Perhaps, less faithfulness and more failure. Our lives are mingled with these two as well: Less faithfulness and more failure. Peter was able to turn back because Christ prayed for him that his faith should not fail. He failed in the context of grace. In the context of the law, we understand the meaning of grace. We fall short according to the law, but we are restored and embraced in the context of grace. In the context of law, we move from faithlessness to no faith. In the context of grace, we move from faithlessness to faithfulness.
On New Year’s Day, 1929, Georgia Tech played UCLA in the Rose Bowl. In that game a UCLA player named Roy
Since that strange play happened in the 1st half, everyone watching the game was asking the same question: “What will Coach Price do with Roy in the second half?” All the players went into the dressing room, and sat down on the benches and the floor, except Roy
A coach usually has a lot to say during halftime. But, not this time. Everyone sat down silently. After a while, the timekeeper came in and announced that there were only 3 minutes till the second half. Coach Price looked at the team and said, “Men, the same team that played the first half will start the second half.” The players got up and started out—all but Roy. The Coach looked back and called to him again; still he didn’t move. Coach Price walked to where he sat and said to him, “Didn’t you hear me? The same team that played the first half will start the second half.” Roy looked up, cried, and said to the coach, “I can’t do it to save my life. I’ve ruined you. I’ve ruined the University of California. I’ve ruined myself. I couldn’t face that crowd in the stadium to save my life.” Then Coach Price put his hand on Roy
We can imagine that Jesus said to Peter, “The game is only half over.” To all of us, he says the same phrase over and over again.
We are about to enter into a new year, or a new phase of life. We need to know that we Christians grow in the context of grace. Life is not easy. It is filled with temptation and uncertainty. But Christ is always our faithful witness. Even we are unfaithful, he is always faithful, for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:14). In the year, you may stumble and fail. You are responsible! Don’t blame on Satan, people, or environment. No one is responsible for your life. People can keep you accountable, but not responsible. In 2008, we start off with Rev. 2:5 together—“Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first.”
Remember the three steps: Remember, Repent, and Do. They all happen in the context of grace. In the later years of Peter, he became humble because of his failure (the scars). Failure should humble us, for we grow in the context of grace. Before you make any commitment or resolution, I hope that you remember that Christian discipleship is possible because we fail and grow in the context of grace.
Discipleship Letters 17-18
Discipleship Letter 17 June 29, 2008
Matthew 3:8—“Prove by the way you live that you have really turned from your sins and turned to God.”
There is a difference between faith and saving faith. James points out this problem a long time ago. He said, “Do you still think it’s enough just to believe that there is one God? Well, even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror! Fool! When will you ever learn that faith that does not result in good deeds is useless?” (2:19-20) This is not a saving faith, for it doesn’t lead to good works. “Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire” (Matt. 3:10b). As Christ’s’ disciples, what kind of faith do you have? Any outward expression of that faith? Don’t talk about your “faith”. Prove it by the way you live. Prove that you have truly turned away from sins and turned to the living God who is merciful and yet holy.
Jesus said, “You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings” (Jn. 8:31). In the church, there are many true disciples because they know about his teachings and obey. There are also many fake disciples, for they know about his teachings and don’t care.
False spirituality is that disciples don’t care about his teachings, but at the same time they expect God to bless them. If you don’t care, why does God care?
--Discipleship Letter 18 July 13, 2008
“To think Christianly, with wisdom and insight, clarity and purpose, demands a Christian mind. But such a mind does not simply appear at conversion. Like our souls, it must be developed” [James E. White, Serious Times: Making Your Life Matter in an Urgent Day (Downers Grove
As disciples, we must love the Lord with our Christian minds. We must find our own ways to develop a “holy habit” to govern our minds. Not only do we read the Scriptures, but also Christian literature through which we are able to learn from others in the past as well as the present.
Do you remember what Paul said to Timothy? “When you come, be sure to bring the coat I left with Carpus at Troas
Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God…with all your mind…” (Mk. 12:30). We love the Lord with our hearts and hands. We also love the Lord with our heads. If disciples follow Christ with their heads, hearts, and hands, wholistic Christian growth will follow.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Why Bookstores Matter
(This article is written by Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and taken from http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/02/17/the-marketplace-of-ideas-why-bookstores-matter/)
The Marketplace of Ideas — Why Bookstores Matter
“Book stores are going away.” That is the conclusion reached by Mike Shatzkin, chief executive of Idea Logical Co., a consulting firm based in New York. Shatzkin offered his ominous prediction to The Wall Street Journal as that paper was reporting on the expected bankruptcy filing by Borders, one of the nation’s largest book store chains.
That Chapter 11 filing came Wednesday, along with the announcement that the chain is closing about 200 stores — approximately 30 percent of Borders locations.
The decline and fall of Borders will be studied for years to come. The chain’s management bears considerable responsibility for the crisis. They opened far too many locations, allowed many of their most important stores to grow old and unattractive, and reduced their inventory of titles. Beyond all that, the firm managed to miss out on the digital revolution, a branded e-reader, and the explosion of online book sales.
But even the best-managed book stores are in trouble. The emergence of Amazon as a vast, online book-selling machine with discounted prices and the sudden popularity of electronic readers and digital books have already changed the book business from top to bottom — and the revolution has hardly started.
Shatzkin offers a blunt assessment of the future: “I think that there will be a 50% reduction in bricks-and-mortar shelf space for books within five years, and 90% within 10 years.”
Seth Godin, a business writer, told the Journal that the travail of Borders is, as the paper reports, “the penultimate step in the demise of bookstores in general.”
The general wisdom seems to be that the bookstore will go the way of the record store and the video rental outlet. The bookstore may have been an important cultural asset in years past, many argue, but it has little place in a world of e-readers, online sales, and mega retailers like WalMart that deep-discount bestsellers.
Some go further and suggest that the demise of the bookstore is a signal of the demise of the book itself, at least as a printed product with pages between covers. That dystopian prophecy is almost surely overblown, but the book’s survival in printed form does depend, to a considerable extent, upon the survival of bookstores.
The reason for this is simple. Printed books are physical objects that cry out to be handled even before they are read. The physicality of the book is important to the experience of the book itself. The arrangement and order of the words is supreme, but the appearance of the book and the feel of the book in the hand are also part of the reading experience.
Furthermore, the experience of handling the book is revealing in other important ways. The cover and front matter of books tell us something. We are informed by the “blurbs” on the cover and by the reputation of the publisher. We can open the book and thumb through its pages, checking the table of contents, the index, the preface, and the dedication.
Mark Coker, chief executive of Smashwords Inc., an e-book company, told the Journal that when the physical space on the shelves of bookstores disappears, “it’s gone forever.” He added: “If you remove books from our towns and villages and malls, there will be less opportunity for the serendipitous discovery of books. And that will make it tougher to sell books.”
The loss of the bookstore will mean more than lost opportunities to sell books, however. For the last two centuries and more, bookstores and bookstalls have been centers for the dissemination of culture and ideas. The merging of the bookstore and the coffee shop brought two complementary cultural spaces together. Books are about ideas, and bookstores offer a rare context for meeting other people interested in ideas.
Being in a bookstore helps me to think. I find that my mind makes connections between authors and books and ideas as I walk along the shelves and look at the tables. When I get a case of writer’s block, I head for a bookstore. The experience of walking among the books is curative.
I learn a great deal just by being in a good bookstore — and often even in a bad one. I have learned much by visiting a Maoist bookstore in Berkeley, Jewish bookstores in Brooklyn, the old Communist Party bookstore in central London, Muslim bookstores in Berlin, and the eccentric book shops of the Left Bank in Paris. I know cities by their bookstores. To visit Oxford, England without a trip to Blackwell’s is unforgivable — as is a visit to Oxford, Mississippi without a visit to Square Books.
You can learn a very great deal about a college or university by its bookstore and by the bookstores in its neighborhood. A walk through the Gothic Bookstore at Duke or the Seminary Co-op Bookstore at the University of Chicago is a walk through a feast of learning. The excellent bookstore on our campus is a vital part of our academic program and the learning experience. If the college you visit has a bookstore filled with t-shirts rather than books, find another college.
The rise and spread of the Christian bookstore has helped to fuel the explosion in Christian publishing. But, as with secular booksellers, much of the space in Christian bookstores these days seems given over to kitsch rather than to books. For many Christians, the local Christian bookstore is a lifeline to learning and growth.
Many of my most fruitful and important evangelistic conversations have occurred in bookstores. I frequent a few particular bookstores just because I know that a promising conversation about the Gospel might well happen.
I buy a frightful number of books from Amazon and other online booksellers. The ease of ordering and the convenience of home delivery are extraordinarily helpful. I have enjoyed the rise of the mega chains like Borders and Barnes & Noble. While these chains have faced criticism for pushing smaller stores out of business, they brought huge inventories that drew customers for good reason. I love the small independent bookstores, and I do considerable business with independent stores in Louisville precisely because I consider them to be important community assets.
My Kindle and iPad are filled with digital books, and the e-book will be one of the dominant book forms and formats of the future. When I need an e-book, a push of a button makes it happen. Who wouldn’t welcome that development? But the e-book is not the same as a physical book, and both the digital and the printed book have their own charms.
Mike Shatzkin thinks the handwriting is already on the wall — “Book stores are going away.” He may be right, but I hold out hope that he is not. If he is, it is far more than bookstores that we will lose.
The Marketplace of Ideas — Why Bookstores Matter
“Book stores are going away.” That is the conclusion reached by Mike Shatzkin, chief executive of Idea Logical Co., a consulting firm based in New York. Shatzkin offered his ominous prediction to The Wall Street Journal as that paper was reporting on the expected bankruptcy filing by Borders, one of the nation’s largest book store chains.
That Chapter 11 filing came Wednesday, along with the announcement that the chain is closing about 200 stores — approximately 30 percent of Borders locations.
The decline and fall of Borders will be studied for years to come. The chain’s management bears considerable responsibility for the crisis. They opened far too many locations, allowed many of their most important stores to grow old and unattractive, and reduced their inventory of titles. Beyond all that, the firm managed to miss out on the digital revolution, a branded e-reader, and the explosion of online book sales.
But even the best-managed book stores are in trouble. The emergence of Amazon as a vast, online book-selling machine with discounted prices and the sudden popularity of electronic readers and digital books have already changed the book business from top to bottom — and the revolution has hardly started.
Shatzkin offers a blunt assessment of the future: “I think that there will be a 50% reduction in bricks-and-mortar shelf space for books within five years, and 90% within 10 years.”
Seth Godin, a business writer, told the Journal that the travail of Borders is, as the paper reports, “the penultimate step in the demise of bookstores in general.”
The general wisdom seems to be that the bookstore will go the way of the record store and the video rental outlet. The bookstore may have been an important cultural asset in years past, many argue, but it has little place in a world of e-readers, online sales, and mega retailers like WalMart that deep-discount bestsellers.
Some go further and suggest that the demise of the bookstore is a signal of the demise of the book itself, at least as a printed product with pages between covers. That dystopian prophecy is almost surely overblown, but the book’s survival in printed form does depend, to a considerable extent, upon the survival of bookstores.
The reason for this is simple. Printed books are physical objects that cry out to be handled even before they are read. The physicality of the book is important to the experience of the book itself. The arrangement and order of the words is supreme, but the appearance of the book and the feel of the book in the hand are also part of the reading experience.
Furthermore, the experience of handling the book is revealing in other important ways. The cover and front matter of books tell us something. We are informed by the “blurbs” on the cover and by the reputation of the publisher. We can open the book and thumb through its pages, checking the table of contents, the index, the preface, and the dedication.
Mark Coker, chief executive of Smashwords Inc., an e-book company, told the Journal that when the physical space on the shelves of bookstores disappears, “it’s gone forever.” He added: “If you remove books from our towns and villages and malls, there will be less opportunity for the serendipitous discovery of books. And that will make it tougher to sell books.”
The loss of the bookstore will mean more than lost opportunities to sell books, however. For the last two centuries and more, bookstores and bookstalls have been centers for the dissemination of culture and ideas. The merging of the bookstore and the coffee shop brought two complementary cultural spaces together. Books are about ideas, and bookstores offer a rare context for meeting other people interested in ideas.
Being in a bookstore helps me to think. I find that my mind makes connections between authors and books and ideas as I walk along the shelves and look at the tables. When I get a case of writer’s block, I head for a bookstore. The experience of walking among the books is curative.
I learn a great deal just by being in a good bookstore — and often even in a bad one. I have learned much by visiting a Maoist bookstore in Berkeley, Jewish bookstores in Brooklyn, the old Communist Party bookstore in central London, Muslim bookstores in Berlin, and the eccentric book shops of the Left Bank in Paris. I know cities by their bookstores. To visit Oxford, England without a trip to Blackwell’s is unforgivable — as is a visit to Oxford, Mississippi without a visit to Square Books.
You can learn a very great deal about a college or university by its bookstore and by the bookstores in its neighborhood. A walk through the Gothic Bookstore at Duke or the Seminary Co-op Bookstore at the University of Chicago is a walk through a feast of learning. The excellent bookstore on our campus is a vital part of our academic program and the learning experience. If the college you visit has a bookstore filled with t-shirts rather than books, find another college.
The rise and spread of the Christian bookstore has helped to fuel the explosion in Christian publishing. But, as with secular booksellers, much of the space in Christian bookstores these days seems given over to kitsch rather than to books. For many Christians, the local Christian bookstore is a lifeline to learning and growth.
Many of my most fruitful and important evangelistic conversations have occurred in bookstores. I frequent a few particular bookstores just because I know that a promising conversation about the Gospel might well happen.
I buy a frightful number of books from Amazon and other online booksellers. The ease of ordering and the convenience of home delivery are extraordinarily helpful. I have enjoyed the rise of the mega chains like Borders and Barnes & Noble. While these chains have faced criticism for pushing smaller stores out of business, they brought huge inventories that drew customers for good reason. I love the small independent bookstores, and I do considerable business with independent stores in Louisville precisely because I consider them to be important community assets.
My Kindle and iPad are filled with digital books, and the e-book will be one of the dominant book forms and formats of the future. When I need an e-book, a push of a button makes it happen. Who wouldn’t welcome that development? But the e-book is not the same as a physical book, and both the digital and the printed book have their own charms.
Mike Shatzkin thinks the handwriting is already on the wall — “Book stores are going away.” He may be right, but I hold out hope that he is not. If he is, it is far more than bookstores that we will lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)