1/2 gospel = good advice

Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). The kingdom of God is the central message of his teaching. Repentance of sin and putting one’s trust in Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah are the two criteria to enter into the kingdom of God. Repentance and trust are two sides of the same coin. We cannot just talk about repentance (turning away from sin) apart from trust (turning to Jesus), or vice versa. Often time, we want people to believe Jesus so bad that we un/intentionally share the good news without telling gospel receivers to repent from sins before trusting Jesus. We want people to be saved so bad that we do not offer them a saving message. Can people get to know Jesus truly without showing any remorse for their iniquities? Can people have a new direction if they do not make a U-turn from their (wrong) directions? How often gospel communicators merely tell gospel receivers to believe and stop there. How often we only share half of the truth, but it is not the gospel truth.

The good news is called the good news because it is also a bad news. It is a bad news in the sense that it demands repentance—a radical change of mind that leads to proper behavior. The good news is made of the messages of salvation and judgment. We are saved when we repent and believe; we are judged when we do not repent and believe (Jn. 3:16-18). Is it considered a success to have ten or twenty people to believe without emphasizing the fact that Jesus died for their sins? Is it a failure to have one person or no one to repent and believe? Are we looking for a churchly statistic? Or a heavenly statistic? Are we satisfied with certain numbers instead of caring for the eternity of others? We often talk about evangelizing people in the mission field, but we often neglect the church as a mission field in which it is filled with many believing “Christians.” Didn’t Paul refer to the church at Corinth as God’s field (1 Cor. 3:9)? In order for this field to produce a harvest, Paul planted the seed. Apollos watered it. God made it grow (1 Cor. 3:6). Planting and watering are human acts; growing is a divine act. In 1 Cor. 3, Paul does not speak like an evangelist. Rather, he talks like a pastor. As John Stott said, “We think of Paul as an evangelist, a missionary, a church-planter. But here he thinks of himself as a pastor, resolved above all else to lead his converts into Christian maturity.” [Basic Christian Leadership: Biblical Models of Church, Gospel and Ministry (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 82.] The art of pastoring a local church is a great missional act.

Do not tell me that people tend to walk away from the gospel because we mention repentance of sins. Do not tell me that people do not want to be told that they need to change. Do not tell me that as long as they believe Jesus, they are saved. A saving faith requires total allegiance with Jesus in and through whom our sins are confronted and convicted, and a new orientation of life is presented to us. Do not tell me to water down the good news as a therapeutic message in which we only preach “peace, peace, peace.” There is no peace without forgiveness of sins.

We often share the ½ news because our gospel message is human-centered, not cross-centered. We give what people want and, unfortunately, we think Jesus wants it too. If people do not want to hear the good news, we give them good advice. But no one is truly saved by hearing and accepting good advice. Good advice makes us feel good; the good news makes us look bad.

In The Crucified God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), Jürgen Moltmann writes:

Thus dehumanized man, who must exalt himself, because he cannot ensure himself as he is, in practice uses these religious insights only in the interest of his own self-deification. As a result, they do not help him to achieve humanity, but only give greater force to his inhumanity. The knowledge of the cross is the knowledge of God in the suffering cased to him by dehumanized man, that is, in the contrary of everything which dehumanized man seeks and tries to attain as the deity in him. Consequently, this knowledge does not confirm him as what he is, but destroys him. It destroys the god, miserable in his pride, which we would like to be, and restores to us our abandoned and despised humanity (p. 71).

Good advice keeps maximizing the dehumanized women and men who know no God but their own pride. However, the good news destroys the gods of people so that they can be restored. We preach the good news that is also a bad news. Evangelization of the church ought to be constantly confronted and refuted by the cross, for “the cross is the test of everything which deserves to be called Christian” (The Crucified God, p. 7).

詩篇與禱告

我習慣每天早上讀五篇詩篇作為靈修的開始。今早讀到詩篇139，有點領悟。詩人對上帝有一份很深刻的認識；他亦知道上帝很認識他。「你也深知我一切所行」（139：3下）。這是一種關係性的認識。這種認識表達上帝與人立約的恩情，不是「起你底，叫你知衰」。律法叫人知罪；恩情叫人悔罪。在這份上帝立約的恩典下，人重新厘定自己的位置和使命。這是每位信徒本位的事奉。

 

每次讀這篇詩篇，我必定會問一個問題：「點解有19-22節？」人越大，對人性越多了解。人不會是全善，亦不會是全惡。基督教的屬靈觀亦如是。我們喜歡將生命和事情二分化：不是全有，便是全無。我愛神，就不犯罪。我犯罪，就不愛神。在詩篇139中，我看到一個真正認識上帝的人，同時是一個認識自己情緒和認清何人和事支配他情緒的人。我相信這是盧雲（Henri Nouwen）提及的 inner movement。

若詩篇139停在第18節，是否更美？我們講見證希不經常停在這裏嗎？我未曾聽到一個見證說：「我跟上帝關係很深，每天跟祂有計傾。但我依然覺得某人極討厭。感謝上帝，祂有說不盡的恩賜。」我們常常有意無意美化基督徒的經驗，不提和不處理某人的存在。詩人禱告說：「神啊，你必要殺戮惡人；所以，你們好流人血的，離開我去吧！」（19節）這些所謂惡人頂撞神，詩人與他們為敵，甚至恨惡他們（20-22節）。詩人表達的屬靈觀不是逆來順受，一未歌頌神。他是有所為，有所不為的。他沒有美化眼前的惡人，反而，這些惡人成為他禱告的內容。

「你的作為奇妙，這是我心深知道的」和「我切切地恨惡他們」同時出現在禱告中，或許我們的信仰不容許，但詩篇的神學正正反映我們信仰的狹窄和壞鬼。

 

但詩人不是站在一個超然的位置作出這禱告，他站在歷史中，自覺有很多的限制，矛盾和敗壞。他禱告說：「神啊，求你鑒察我，知道我的心思，試煉我，知道我的意念，看在我裏面有甚麼惡行沒有，引導我走永生的道路」（23-24節）。一個真正認識神的人，同時是一個認識自己的人，當他説「神啊，我切切地恨惡他們」的時候，他亦自我批判和反省：「神啊，求你鑒察我。。。」

Fero

In discussion with the meaning of relationship, Clark Moustakas, one of the leading experts on humanistic and clinical psychology, has a good insight on the term relate:

The term relate is paradoxical. It comes from the Latin word refero. Suffer is derived from a similar Latin root, suffero. Thus, they share a common base, fero, “to bear,” to carry,” “to put up with.” In every genuine relationship, to achieve ultimate meaning, we must submit to it, undergo it, endure it, suffer with it. We must return again and again to its nature and its unfolding patterns, carry something of it with us. We must grapple with the intimacies of relationship, must surrender to its up and downs, and live with its burdens and stresses. [Being-In, Being-For, Being-With (Northvale: Jason Aronson Inc., 1995), p. 70.]

To relate is to suffer; to suffer is to bear, to carry, or to put up with. If we do not want to put up with the problems of others, we are not relating. We relate with no commitment or a sense of detachment or live in isolation because we are afraid of suffering. As a consequence, we stop following. Jesus suffers because he carries the burden of humanity. In other words, we are called to put up with it. “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master” (Matt. 10:24 ESV). In relating, we are following. To avoid suffering, we are not following.

I have pastoral ministry in my mind as I am writing this. To serve in the church is to put up with the church. To relate to the church can be a burden and cause stress. As I was reading Ephesians the other day, I meditated upon the role of the church in God’s overall plan: “So that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places….to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Eph. 3:10, 21 ESV, emphasis mine). The visible Christ made the invisible God visible. The mystery of God is now made known through the body of Christ. The church does have a strategic, mediatorial role in God’s plan. How do I relate to the church? How do I follow Christ as a churchman?

Moltmann, Wilderness, Wildness, Newness

In Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making (Marshall, 1987), Richard Bauckham wrote in the “Preface”:

I first read Theology of Hope in April 1973, and I remember that first reading as one of the most exciting theological experiences of my life. I do not know many times I have reread it since, in the course of teaching Moltmann’s theology and in preparing this book, but it has proved, along with Moltmann’s later work, a source of constant stimulation and inspiration for my own theological thinking. For this reason, as well as because of the blindingly obvious fact that this book would not exist without his massive contribution to contemporary theology, I owe Jürgen Moltmann himself a very considerable debt of gratitude, greater than prefaces usually record.

I don’t fully understand Jürgen Moltmann’s theology in a lot of ways. But his theology does energize me to think theologically and creatively and look forward to what is yet to come with anticipation and possibility. Moltmann says, “It is through faith that man finds the path of true life, but it is only hope that keeps him on that path” [Theology of Hope (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), p. 20]. How true this statement has been since I read it the first time in the midst of my searching for direction in ministry. It is such hope that has kept me believing and searching for new possibilities in the providential care of God. He who began the good work will bring it on to completion (Phil. 1:6). My calling is bracketed by the beginning and end of God.

Moltmann’s theology excites me to a great extent because he helps me see God in a new way. Nowadays, there is no excitement in Christian discipleship because there is no excitement in knowing God, for God is a domesticated deity, who could be anything but surprise. In our Christian thinking, there is no newness in God. Isaiah’s theology almost disappears in our theological vision: “See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland” (43:19) How desperate we are in need of Isaiah’s sense of newness in pursuing Christian theology.

There is no clear path in the wilderness because wilderness almost sounds like wildness. Wilderness is a wild place that can no way be tamed. The good news is that when Jesus was with the wild animals in the wilderness and being tempted by Satan, the angels were ministering to him (Mk. 1:12-13). The word “ministering” (Gk. dihko,noun) is in the imperfect tense, suggesting that the angels were ministering or serving Jesus in the whole process.[1] The angels showed up during the forty days and forty nights. From the beginning to the end, Jesus was not alone. The angels were with him in the midst of the wild beasts. As James Edwards writes, “The way of the Son of God has the Father’s blessing, and even in his trials by the archenemy Jesus is sustained by the Father’s celestial attendants.”[2]

---

[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 541.

[2] James Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: Apollos, 2002), p. 42.

活在被擄的人中

開始閱讀以西結書，一本我不太熟識和不太願意讀的舊約經卷。由信主到現在，整本聖經讀過很多篇，但有些書卷就是沒有印象，以西結書是其中一卷。整卷書很長，看似沒有嚴緊的結構，有種雜亂無章的感覺。當然，這是個人觀感。

以西結是被擄時期的先知，活在被擄的以色列民中間。在巴比倫的異域，如何走下去？如何信下去？這不純是個人的迷失和混亂，而是整個民族，甚至時代，被這被擄事件顛覆過來。甚麼神是全知、全能、全愛也被顛覆過來。以西結活在這班人當中，他得見神的異象（結1：1-3）在人群中，他觀看：他見到這班人信仰的混沌。他同時見到神的駕入。以西結沒有忽視信仰歷史的真實面，但不會被它完全呑滅，已至看不見信仰超越的一面。

神對這班被擄的以色列民控訴，以西結傳遞這些信息。在失望和迷失的人中，是否應該傳講安慰的信息？是否應該鼓勵他們很快便能返回耶路撒冷？在這班被擄的人中，以西結應該相當「黑人憎」。反過來說，受歡迎的，往往不會是先知吧。「平安，平安」的信息，往往是假先知傳的。以西結活在不平安的人中傳講不平安的信息。我不相信他是個很平安的人，因他看不到面前的人和環境反映神自己將要來臨的平安。這個終末遠景迫使以西結注目現在，改變現况和嘗試帶來當下的更新。

差不多十年

開始在印城一間華人教會粵語堂參與事奉。由神學院讀書，實習，畢業，到牧會工場事奉，一直沒有機會正式參與以粵語為主的事工。用粵語（我的母語）表達自己，教導聖經，不需再理會英語發音或口音的問題，亦不需再擔心哪裏有些英文生字不懂。故此，少了一份自覺，多了一點自信。由自覺到自信，差不多十年的時間。

人生不是，亦不會太長，但上帝要我們學習的功課往往不會在短時間內完成。我不太清楚這是祂做事的一貫方式，或是，在人生中，人只需學好幾樣功課，所以，祂就用一段頗長頗短的時間來訓練人。

想到耶利米的事奉，二十三年來，從早到晩叫以色列人悔改，當然沒有人回應 (耶25：1-7）。他不是第一天宣講便知道未來的二十三年也會是這樣。若是，我相信他一早便放棄。這二十三年來，他沒有放棄，只因他忠於一日的宣講。縱然今日失望，他亦自勉：「一天的難處，一天當便夠了。明天或會更好。」起床，耶利米重復昨日的工作，期盼明日的改變。就是這樣，他做了二十三年。二十三年的事奉，偉大嗎？刻苦嗎？我不認為耶利米自覺偉大，沒有人聽他，他如何自覺偉大。他渺小，但忠於當下的今日。忠誠地活在當下，就是這樣，上帝使耶利米慢慢成為堅城、鐵柱、銅牆（耶 1：18）。

耶利米宣講的道，改變了誰？南國猶大一樣在主前587年滅亡。改變了宣講的人。神的道與講道人有著千絲萬縷的關係。有限的人詮釋無限的道，用楊牧谷的講法，是人在這詮釋的過程中不斷與恩典相遇。是的，因着恩典，人才能作有限的詮釋。