Sunday, December 25, 2011

Alternative Culture: Singapore's train problems and the limits of man

 
City Airport Train, Vienna, Austria 2011

Triple train trouble!
In December 2011, Singapore (my country) suffered three major train (a.k.a. MRT [Mass Rapid Transit]) disruptions. As these incidents were consider the worst malfunctions in the 24-year history of the MRT, many have called the CEO to step down.

Having studied in London for the past 4 years, I was initially quite surprised by such demands. If the CEO had to step down everytime there was a line malfunction, then the CEO of the London Underground (London's train services) must have stepped down many times. However one of my friends pointed out that the MRT have often touted itself as being the best, so such incidents was considered a slap to the face to its reputation. Furthermore as many as 125,000 people were affected by one of the disruptions, making it a major accident.

So should the CEO stepped down?

If you're looking for a political analysis of the situation, you're viewing the wrong blog. I'm just humbly here to give a theological view of the event, and that will be the purpose of this post.

I'm here not to criticise the MRT management or the engineers. In fact Singaporean engineers are one of the best in the world. During my time at Imperial College, the students who topped every engineering course I could think of (Electrical, Mechanical, Material, Chemical and Aeronautical) were Singaporeans. In additional to that, I would go on record to say that travelling on the Singapore train/subway/metropolitan is very reliable.

The limits of man
But it's a strange situation isn't it? Despite possessing some of the best engineers in the world, the MRT was shown to be prone to breakdowns. But this isn't the first time man's pride was shamed, isn't it? We were once told somethings were unsinkable, and others would last for a thousand years. And this (series of MRT malfunctions) is in the field of engineering, one of the most highly disciplined fields in academia.

And it's not just in the issue of engineering that man struggles with. We struggle with health, self-worth, justice, poverty, morality, artistic expression and so many other things. And often we tend to elate man's ability to solve everything. If we even struggle to solve for these issues, then what about the issue of salvation, our eternal destinies?

[I am not saying we shouldn't work on these fields, but I'm merely highlighting man's limitation in these areas.]

The ultimate struggle
And here's the ultimate struggle for Christians--we either tend to be religious, or irreligious (Keller, 2007). To be religious, is to look within ourselves-- our acts, achievements, behaviours and morality for justification before God. Then the religious would look to the others and condemned the others for not following the traditions they do.

To be irreligious is also another great temptation-- it is to deny there is a problem with the world and us, and therefore do not see a need for accounting before God.

Both the religious and irreligious can be dangerous forms of self-centredness. Chesterton (1908) used the analogy of images of Buddhist saints to illustrate this well-- that we close our eyes to the world and look within ourselves for satisfaction.

What about Jesus?
Just as a Roman centurion looked to Jesus for his servant's healing and a father looked to Jesus for his son's exorcism, we must look to Jesus (and not ourselves) as our source of justification. As the Reformer Luther (1520) wrote that it was by "impiety and incredulity of heart" that mankind became deserving of "condemnation". In being religious or irreligious, a man makes himself "as an idol in his own heart".

So how do we save ourselves?
You can't!-- that's the point! That's why we can be grateful for Christmas. If we could do everything on our own, God didn't have to come down. So take heart, my Christian friends. There's grace! The salvation issue is not about what we can do for God (being religious), or how we redefine God (being irreligious). It's not about how much faith we have in Jesus either. It's about whether we trust Him in the first place.

And we can. That's why I can joyfully and truthfully declare "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Reference

Chesterton, G.K. (1908) Orthodoxy

Keller, T.J. (2007) The Reason For God

Luther, M. (1520) Freedom of a Christian

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Theology 1.0: The Reformation in England and Scotland-- a tale of two Reformations

[Author's note: The following post is dedicated to Dishon, who is interested in what happened to England during the Reformation]

Leeds Castle, UK, September 2011

Pre-Reformation Britain
Robert Grosseteste
England and Scotland, although not the most powerful countries at those times has a unique relationship with the Reformation. For instance, long before Luther came up with his understanding of justification, there was Robert Grosseteste. Grosseteste was appointed the Bishop of Lincoln in 1235. He believed that clergy should place more importance in preaching than giving Mass, and that preaching should be done in English (so that the commoners would understand), rather than Latin (as all Roman Catholics priests would). He was also famous for speaking against the pope on several issues, including the appointments of non-English speaking clergy in England, and the paying of the crusades.
The exhumation and burning of Wycliffe's bones.

John Wycliffe
Then there was also John Wycliffe, who was a preacher in Oxford. During his time, the Roman Catholic church appointed two popes (see my Reformation post for details). He then began to identify the Bible as the source of spiritual authority (rather than the pope). Having ideas which were contrary to orthodox Roman Catholic beliefs (such as rejecting papal authority), he soon irked the English authorities enough to force him to retire. After retiring, he started a secret project to translate the Latin Bible into English. He passed away in 1384, thankfully before the Roman Catholic Council of Constance deemed him a heretic. They exhumed his body, burned his bones and scattered his ashes.

Yet his legacy lived-- his works would inspire the Czech Jan Hus, and later the Reformer Martin Luther.

Patrick Hamilton
Born in Glasgow, Patrick Hamilton was appointed an abbot and received his education at the University of Paris. Paris was where Hamilton would encounter the works of the Reformer Martin Luther. Returning to Scotland, he began to preach, and soon was tried as a heretic and burned in 1528. Despite his high connections, Hamilton was willing to die for his beliefs (he agreed to be tried knowing the likely consequence). This raised the profile of Protestantism in Scotland, as many commoners wondered why this new theology was that one was so ready to be killed for it.

Thomas Bliney
Educated in Cambridge,  Thomas Bliney had a personal struggle with sin, but came  an understanding of salvation via faith in Jesus Christ with the passage of 1 Timothy 1:15 of the Erasmus's translation of the New Testament. Just as Erasmus's work inspired the Reformation in Germany with Martin Luther and Switzerland with Ulrich Zwingli, Bliney began to preach against saints and relics veneration, and against pilgrimages to holy places. However, Bliney was no Lutheran-- he upheld the authority of the pope and the sacrifice of Mass. Nevertheless, he was still burned for his views in 1531.

William Tyndale
As Luther's works began to flood into England (despite a ban), a linguist named William Tyndale started translating the Bible into English. Inspired by Erasmus's translation of the New Testament, Tyndale decided to sail for the German town of Worms (where Martin Luther had been tried years ago) to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. His translation of the New Testament, together with his work, Parable of the Wicked Mammon (which argued for salvation by faith alone) was smuggled back to England. Followers of the late Wycliffe treated the works as a godsend; the English bishops on the other hand were not so keen.

Tyndale had translated 'do penance' in the Latin Bible as 'repent' in the English, 'charity' as 'love' and 'priest' as 'senior'. What was once viewed as an external sacrament, was now a call for the inward change of the heart. Tyndale had translated a good portion of the Old Testament before the wrath of the Roman Catholics caught up with him. About 16,000 copies of his translations had been smuggled into England. Executed in 1535, his famous last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes!".

The Reformation in England-- the monarchs
Henry VIII
The king that Tyndale was talking about was Henry VIII. Ironically, he was the one who kick start the Reformation in England.
King Henry VIII

King Henry VIII was a deeply religious king-- he would serve Mass to his priests and attend Mass thrice a day. Passionately Roman Catholic, he opposed the Reformer Martin Luther's view with his work, A Defense of the Seven Sacraments (written by several ghost writers). For his zeal, the pope award him with the title, Defender of the Faith. It was highly unlikely that this king would be favourable to the Reformation.

The most potent problem that King Henry VIII was being without a son. He had just went through a war of succession (War of the Roses), and having a son was essential for political stability. His wife, Catherine of Aragon underwent a series of miscarriages, only one baby (Mary I) survived passed infanthood. Interpreting this as punishment for marrying his brother's widow(Leviticus 20:21), Henry VIII sought to annul his marriage and find a new wife. He sough papal favour (with Pope Clement VII) to do so.

But there were two problems-- firstly, Catherine of Aragon insisited that her marriage with Henry VIII's brother was never consummated, so her marriage with Henry VIII was legitimate. Secondly, Catherine of Aragon's nephew was Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V had sacked Rome once and imprisoned Pope Clement VII. There was no way the pope was going to irk the wrath of Charles V again.

But the king was determined. He assembled an army of scholars to prove that his case was right, and that the pope had no authority over him. They did one better-- they showed that the church in England was planted earlier than the church of Rome, and thus the church of England was independent of the church of Rome.

Armed with this reasoning, King Henry VIII made laws to favour to reflect the increasing independence of the church of England, annulled his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, appointed Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the church of England) and married Anne Boleyn. The separation between the churches of England and Rome was complete in 1534, where the English Act of Supremacy declared the King of England, the supreme head of the church of England.

However, his marriage with Anne Boleyn failed to produce a male heir, and rumors that she was having an affair spread. So she was executed and King Henry VIII married Jane Seymour. She was his favourite wife as she bore him his only son (Edward VI). However, she died from complications in childbirth.

Although Henry VIII had a son, he wanted more to secure his succession. With the suggestion of his chief minister Thomas Cromwell (not to be mistaken for Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell; who ruled England a century later), he married Anne of Cleves, but was so repulsed by her that he never consummated the marriage. Cromwell paid with his head, and the marriage was soon annulled.

He then married Catherine Howard, but she was caught being unfaithful, so she was executed. He finally married Catherine Parr, but it was a childless marriage. King Henry VIII died, leaving Edward VI to succeed him.

Summary of Henry VIII's marriages
One thing to be noted is that King Henry was no Protestant (despite his break with the Roman Catholic Church). Although he had appointed a Protestant Archbishop (Thomas Cranmer), a Protestant Chief Minister (Thomas Cromwell), and married Protestant wifes (only Catherine of Aragon and Catherine Howard were Roman Catholic), all King Henry VIII was interested in was to deny the pope's supremacy in England. In other words, he did not want a Roman Catholic England or a Protestant England, he wanted an English Catholic England (the difficulty is deciding what was Roman to be rid of, and what was Catholic to be retained).  For instance, in a single day he burned three Protestants for heresy and hanged three Roman Catholics for treason.

Nevertheless, he appointed Protestants in key positions (who pushed their Protestant agendas). Egged on by Thomas Cromwell, he stripped the Roman Catholics monasteries of their land (which he sold for funds).

Furthermore, having used the Bible for his case for his first annulment, it was hard for the king to limit the authority of Scripture. He decreed that every church should have at least one Bible. Soon private Bible-reading became a popular hobby (even the illiterate started to learn how to read, to be in touch with the Word of God), and common folk started challenging priests on their theological ideas. Although King Henry VIII was not really Protestant, he had unleashed the Reformation in England.

Edward VI
In 1547, Edward VI was nine, and succeeded his father as king. Due to his youth, his uncle, Edward Seymour ruled in his stead as Lord Protector. Seymour and the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer worked to acclimatised England to the Reformation. Only preaching in English was allowed, images of saints were removed from churches and chantries were dissolved (as they encouraged praying for people in purgatory).
King Edward VI
The Reformists in the English government were adamant is ensuring that the move from Roman Catholic theology was a slow reform, rather than rapid revolution. For instance, the 1549 English Book of Common Prayer procedure for Mass included the words "The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given to thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life". Both Reformists and Catholics could attend Mass with clear conscience.

However, Edward VI died at the age of 15 in 1553. John Dudley, who had succeeded Edward Seymour as Lord Protector panicked-- he knew the person in line was the strongly Catholic Mary (Edward VI's half-sister). He appointed Lady Jane Grey (Mary's cousin) to be the next queen, but to no avail. The people were more interested in the monarchy than religion. Mary gained support and dispatched Lady Grey to be executed. The Protestants supported Mary, unaware of how harshly she would treat them.

Mary I
Daughter of Catherine of Aragon (Henry VIII's first wife), Mary had been declared illegitimate when her father broke with the church of Rome. To Queen Mary, the Reformation was not only promoting a heresy, but the source of all her troubles.

Swiftly, Queen Mary instilled Roman Catholic policies. Cardinal Pole replaced Thomas Crammer as Archbishop of Cantebury. Married clegry were separated from their wives. Bibles were removed from churches. At first, the English people generally happy to accomodate.

To wipe out twenty years of history was going to difficult. For one, forcing landowners to return their land to the monastrieswas unpopular. Secondly, the people had already read the Bible, so they had doubts about Roman Catholic teachings. Thirdly, her choice of potential spouse was the future King Phillip II of Spain, a traditional enemy of the English.

Mary's policies soon became brutal-- she burnt popular Protestant preachers and figures like Hugh Latimer (Bishop of Worcester), Nicholas Ridley (Bishop of London) and Thomas Cranmer  (ex-Archbishop of Cantebury). Watching the brave martyrs die had the undesired effect for Mary-- the populace were moved by the courage of the martyrs (although Cranmer renounced Protestantism initially under torture, he took back back renouncement before his execution). Hundreds of Protestants were killed during Bloody Mary's reign.

Mary passed away from stomach cancer in 1558, without an heir, allowing her sister, Elizabeth to take the throne.

Elizabeth I
The famed Queen Elizabeth I regarded her reign as God's work-- after all, she survived Bloody Mary's policies. And Elizabeth I had to be Protestant-- her mother was the reason why the England broke from Rome, and Rome did not recognise Elizabeth I's reign as legitimate.

Knowing there were many different Protestant factions in England, as the head of the Church of England, she kept to a very English Protestantism. She wanted England to be a united, moderate Protestant nation. Everyone had to go church, whether they agreed with the theology behind it or not. Catholics did not need to take Communion if they did not want to, but just had to attend church. Elizabeth was concerned that foreign Catholic nations might invade if she was too Protestant.

Not that it helped-- in 1570, the Pope encouraged English Roman Catholics to rise up against their Queen. Now being a Catholic was dangerous-- Elizabeth I had tolerated them, now they were seen as traitors. The Catholics of Europe saw England as a sole Protestant nation to be brought down-- if England fell, the spirit of the Reformation would die.

The Catholic's hope was in Elizabeth I's Catholic cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots. If Elizabeth was assassinated, she would be the next queen. But this Mary was neither popular in Scotland, nor with Elizabeth I. Under arrest in England, Mary was soon suspected of treason and executed. Mary's son, James was being brought up by Protestants. The English Protestant line seemed secured, even if Elizabeth remained virgin (and hence childless).

In 1588, the Catholics had enough. Under the pretext of making England Catholic, King Philip II lauched the Spanish Armada against England. With the help of bad weather, the English navy defeated Spain. Elizabeth I saw this as God's blessing on a Protestant nation. She continued her Protestant moderation.

The old Roman Catholic ways slowly died out in England-- the only Bible the people knew was English, the only church they attended was Protestant and the only Protestant theology was taught. This secured Protestantism in England.


The Reformation in Scotland-- the people
 John Knox
While King Henry VIII of England was having marriage problems with the Roman Catholic Church, King James V of Scotland had no problems with Rome. He was already the head of the Church of Scotland, and there was no benefit for James V to break with Rome.
John Knox
In 1542, James V passed away, and Mary, Queen of Scots was next in line. However, she was still an infant, and James Hamilton, the Earl of Arran was her regent. James Hamilton was famous for flipflopping between Protestantism and Catholicism.

In 1543, James Hamilton favoured the Protestants. Bibles were sold and Protestant preachers were appointed to church positions. He even had Cardinal David Beaton of St Andrews arrested.

In 1544, James Hamilton favoured the Catholics. Reading the Bible (in the vernacular) was illegal again, and the leading Protestant preacher, George Wishart was burned as a heretic. Upset, the Scottish Protestants marched up to St Andrews castle and murdered Cardinal Beaton in 1546. French troops (under Scottish permission) marched up to St Andrews castle and defeated the Protestants. Wishart's ex-bodyguard, John Knox was among the defenders.

Condemned to be slaves on board French ships, Knox and his defenders caused problems for his captors. Knox refused to respect the Catholic Mass and tossed an image of the Virgin Mary overboard. In 1549 he was released (under unclear circumstances).

Taking refuge in England, Knox tried to persuade Thomas Cranmer to speed up the Reformation in England. When Bloody Mary took over, he left for Geneva. Coming into the city that hosted the Reformist John Calvin, John Knox thought Geneva to be a paradise. In 1558, he penned The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. To Knox, the horrors unleashed on both England and Scotland were due to the reigns of both Blood Mary and Mary, Queen of Scots. It was poorly timed, as Mary I's reign was short. No way would Queen Elizabeth allow Knox to return after writing such a sexist book.

Nevertheless, Knox returned to Scotland in 1559. There, his sermons stroke up passions of Protestantism. Despite being declared an outlaw, Catholicism was beginning to be seen as something foreign. After all, Mary, Queen of Scots was living in France, married a French and was brought up in France. Soon Protestantism was fused with Scottish nationalism, and the French were driven out of Scotland (with the help of the English; Queen Elizabeth I would rather have a Protestant Scotland than a Catholic one).

In 1560, the Scotish Parliment declared that the pope no longer had any authority in Scotland, and a new confession of faith (the Scots Confession) was drawn up by John Knox. Mary, Queen of Scots, returned to Scotland the next year, but she had to accept a Protestant Scotland, whether she liked it or not.

Conclusion
What a turn of events! In 1558, both England and Scotland were Catholic, but both became Protestant in 1560. Yet the story of the Reformation in both these kingdoms were different. For one, the Reformation in England was monarchy-driven, while the Reformation in Scotland were people driven.

Now when comparing the stories of the Reformation in England, Scotland, Wittenburg (led by Luther), Geneva (led by Calvin) and Zurich (led by Zwingli), I am quite surprised by how different the events were. While it is possible to use the Reformation for political purposes (as in England), the Reformation can also occur without political support (as in Zurich and Geneva).

What this showed that the Reformation was not moral, social or political reform dressed up in theological clothing, but that a theological revolution laid underneath everything. As a project to keep living the gospel, we should not belittle the fact that theology may drive history.


For further reading

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame

Ryle, J.C. (1960) Five English Reformers

Recommended websites

Theology Network

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Alternative Culture: Matthew Parris-- As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

[Editor's note: In December 2008, the British newspaper The Times posted an interesting article on aid in Africa by atheist journalist, Matthew Parris. I have reposted it in this blog.]

Lake Victoria, Uganda, 2009
Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.

This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. "Privately" because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: "theirs" and therefore best for "them"; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the "big man" and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? "Because it's there," he said.

To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Alternative Culture: Gutters-- the New Testament, a new reboot?



Recently, the webcomic Gutters portrayed the New Testament as a reboot of the Old Testament, parodying the 2011 DC comics reboot.

Wait... what is a reboot?
In the comic industry, a reboot is to discard all or much of previous continuity of the series to accomodate new ideas. An example of this in the film industry is the 2005 movie Batman Begins, which discards canon in the previous canon.

So is this portrayal of the New Testament accurate? Does it discard the canon of the Old Testament?

What did Jesus say?
When we look at Christainity, we first have to look at Christ, and in this case on how he treated the Old Testament. Jesus treated the Old Testament as something he came to fulfil (Matthew 5:17-21). Jesus also had a high regard for Scripture (John 10:35), and referred to events that happened in the Old Testament (eg: Mark 12:26).

What did his followers say?
The followers of Jesus also made frequent reference. It would make little sense if the disciples intended to discard the Old Testament and yet frequently referred to it (eg: Romans 2:24; 1 Peter 1:16).

So did Jesus disregard anything from the Old Testament?
If he made anything new, Jesus gave a new convenant- one of his blood (Luke 22:20-23). The writer of Hebrews makes this even clearer, especially in Hebrews 8 (and at the same time, alluding to events in the Old Testament.

Wait, but reboots do make references to the past too, right?
That is true. For instance, the Iron Man comic book series received a reboot, which updated his origin from Vietnam to Afghanistan. However, that reboot did not dicard any of his previous stories. However, the New Testament cannot be loosely compared like that as the Old Testament does alludes to events in the New Testament (specifically the life of Jesus), while older story lines in the Iron Man stories do not intentionally allude to the future retcons.

Allusions to the New Testament went as far back as Genesis (eg: Genesis 3:14-15) and found in many of the prophets (eg: Isaiah 53, Isaiah 9:1-2, Micah 5:2). In fact Micah 5:2 was the verse that the wisemen quoted in finding Jesus (which frightened Herod) (Matthew 2: 1-12).

Conclusion
Hence, we see that the New Testament is not a reboot (in the literature sense) because
a) Frequent reference to Old Testament from the New Testament (including Jesus)
b) Future allusions from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

If the New Testament brings anything new, it is the fact that God came down in Jesus, so that we can look at Him for our righteousness and forgiveness.

For further reading

Alpha-- do prophecies about Jesus Matter?
Bethinking-- how did Jesus view the Old Testament?


PS: Gutters is a great parody site for comic book fans!

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

With Due Respect: Martin Luther is Anti-Semite!

Holocaust memorial in Berlin, 2008
One of the greatest atrocities commited in the history of mankind was the attempted mass extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany. This event, known as the Holocaust, killed about 6 million Jews in Europe (about two-thirds of European Jews), and millions of others whom the Nazis deemed "weak" such as the Slaves, the Gypsies and the infirmed.

In order to sway public opinion against the Jews, the Nazis used On Jews and their Lies (one of Martin Luther's tracts) and advocated it as the epitome of German virtues. Undoubtly, the tract contains slanderous material against the Jews, such as descibring than as being full of "devil's feces" and that their synagouge (place of worship) as a "whore" and "slut". Hence, Lutherean churchs have distanced and denounced the tract.

Often it is easy to conclude that the Reformer Martin Luther was anti-Jew and thus dismiss his theology in one swoop. But not only is this view a lazy representation of his theology, it is also a caricature of it.

Getting a few things straight....
Luther's style
One must understand that Luther's writing style is deliberately provoking. For instance, in his work Table Talk, he argued against the philosophy of Aristole, stating Aristole's reasoning is the "enemy" of Christian faith. While I am not condoning Luther's choice of words, one must understand how he wrote before assessing him hastily (Reeves, 2009).

Supporting the Jews
In fact, in 1523 Luther wrote That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, arguing against the mistreatment of Jews by Christian. He dedicated his work to a converted Jew  (whom he later would support financially and whose son he would house).

So why did Luther have a change of heart?

Anti-Semite?
After years of attemtping to convert Jews to Christianity, he described them as having a certain "hardness of heart" that prevented them from seeing how their own Scriptures led to Jesus. He wrote on Jews and their Lies as a response against attacks by Jewish apologists on Christianity.

Although painful to read (due to Luther's choice of harsh language), he argued that being children of Abraham was a matter of adoption, rather than family line. He went on to show how Jesus is the promised Christ from the Old Testament.

After that he went on to make a list of recommendations of how then standard anti-blasphemy laws show be applied to Jews. To be fair to Luther, he also argued against acts of personal vengenace against the Jews.

Conclusion
So was Luther racist? Not really. He was more against their spirtual beliefs than their genetic makeup. He argued against them, not because of their race (as the Nazis were against), but rather against Judasim (their religion). The harshness of the punishments recommended against them were standard against heretics of that time.

Nevertheless, his harsh tone towards the Jews (or more accurately, Judaism) had made his legacy a tough pill to swallow.

For more, read:

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Theology 1.0: What is the Reformation?

Vatican City 2009
[Note: This post is dedicated to my Christian friends whom I known (from Singapore and the UK) over the past 4 years. This is for all those who wanted to know more about the Reformation, but was overloaded by Wikipedia.]

Say the word Reformation, and immediately many people have different ideas.

Images of burning pyres and running nuns as the Protestants led by Martin Luther fled the Catholic church immediately fill the minds of some of the ill-informed. Some history buffs may portray it as an historic reactionary movement against the corruption of the church. Others may say it was just an European power play against authority of Rome.

While the mentioned views are slightly true, they are mere caricatures of what the Reformation was. For us to fairly understand what the Reformation was, we must go back in time.

Note: Before I start, I must add I am not a professional theologian or historian (I am a biology student finishing his Masters course), so bear in mind whatever I write is not authoritative. That said, I have read roughly around the issue, and there is a list of recommended readings below.

Before the Reformation
Like most events that changed society, the Reformation (also known as the Protestant Reformation or Protestant Revolt) was not a knee-jerk reaction that began in 1517 when monk Martin Luther published his Ninety-Five Theses, a list of objections to Roman Catholic practices. Dissent against the Pope had been brewing for years, and perhaps centuries.

The French Popes
Pope Clement V

 In the time of the Medieval Europe, all Christians looked to Rome as the Mother Church, and the Pope as the Father or Christ's representative on earth. (There was the Eastern Orthodox Church, which had broken ties with the Roman Catholic Church in the twelfth century, but for the sake of being concise, I will not mention them further).

In 1305, the Archbishop of Bordeaux was appointed Pope (Pope Clement V). Instead of relocating to Rome (as expected of Popes), he stayed in Avignon. This delighted the French king-- the residence of the Pope meant that God had shown his favour to France. Unsurprising, the next few Popes were French. Outside of France, the people were not as delighted-- the Pope was supposed to be the Bishop of Rome, the Mother Church. Had the Pope forgotten his duties?

In 1378, the people of Rome were fed up, and besieged the College of Cardinals. Naturally they elected an Italian Pope-- Pope Urban VI. However, Pope Urban VI's aggressiveness and arrogance led to many to voice their dissent (Pastor and Antrobus, 1906), and a new Pope Clement VII (aka Antipope Clement VII) was elected. This led to the division of the church now known as the Western Schism, where the kingdoms of Medieval Europe was divided in their papal alliances. For instance, France supported the French pope (Antipope Clement VII), while England would support another one.

A divided Europe was seen as a disaster for the church, so a new pope was elected (Antipope Alexander V). However, the two existing Popes would not go down easily, and eventually, a more determined council, the Council of Constance which met from 1414-1418 managed to get the two of the three Popes to resigned (Antipope Benedict XIII, who was Antipope Clement VII's successor, refused to step down).

Although the schism had ended, the people of Medieval Europe were genuinely confused. Who had more authority over the Church? Was it the Pope, who was Christ's representatives? Or the council, who elected the Pope?

To add to this problem, the next few Popes were of dubious reputations (eg: Pope Alexander VI had mistresses, while Pope Julius II had an aggressive foreign policy)-- it was a bad time for the Church to lose its respectability.

John Wycliff
Brought in the time of the Western Schism, an English priest named John Wycliff began to publicly identify with the Bible. He argued that the papacy was a human invention, and that the Bible had supreme spiritual authority. As he argued against several Roman Catholic practices and doctrines, he irked the English and drew the attention of Rome, and was forced to retire.

Still he commissioned preachers and started a secret project to translate the Bible (which was written in Latin) into English. At that time, sermons were only preached in Latin (and the general public did not understand them). After dying in 1384, the Council of Constance declared Wycliff a heretic and exhumed his remains.

However Wycliff's ideas and works were received eagerly by Jan Hus, the rector of the University of Prague. He began to critique the Pope and the Church on issues such as indulgences (paying a way into heaven) and the existence of purgatory. Summoned to Council of Constance to defend his views, he was instead imprisoned and eventually burnt for heresy (despite being promised safe passage).

This led to an armed revolt in Bohemia, where Hus was well-respected. A series of crusades were launched against the Hussites, but the Hussites held on. This allowed an independent church to be established. Hussites preachers were free from the control of the papacy.

Printing presses
In 1440, a scholar named Lorenzo Valla published his findings on the document Donation of Constantine. He challenged the claim that this fourth-century document detailing Emperor Constantine's handing over the lordship of the Western Roman Empire to the pope was actually written in the 700s. This was vital as that document was the basis in which the medieval popes asserted their authority over Europe. The implications were huge-- if such a key papal claim was forged, was anything else?

Inspired by Valla, Erasmus of Rotterdam published a Greek translation of the New Testament in 1516. Erasmus did not place the official Latin translation along side it, but used his Latin translation. Erasmus meant to bring a healthy reform to the church by drawing more attention to the Bible, and even had the Pope's blessing. However as with Valla, his works had big consequences for the future of Christianity. For instance, in Matthew 4:17, the official Latin version had 'do penance' while Erasmus had 'be penitent'. If Erasmus was right, it challenged a Roman Catholic belief of the external sacrament of penance. Again, if the theologians of Rome were reading the Bible wrong, what other beliefs were wrong?

But the seeds of the Reformation were just ready to sprout as the printing presses (developed by Johanns Gutenburg) became commercially available around 1450s. Now not only were these books printed faster and in greater numbers than ever before, the first book was Gutenburg's Latin Bible. It was time of the medieval world to be broken by the Word.


The History of the Reformation

Martin Luther

Martin Luther
Born on 10th November 1483, Martin Luther was raised to be a lawyer. However, at the age of 21, Luther had a near-death experience and decided to become a monk. And a pious monk he was. Still, there were many things that troubled him as a monk-- he was constantly working to be right with God, and as a result was never really joyful. He was worried of his inattentiveness during sermons, his wandering eyes and poor singing. Worst of all, he wondered if he was truly repentant of his sins, or just trying to avoid damnation (Kittelson, 1986)?

Posted to be a teacher of theology at the University of Wittenberg in 1508, Luther came into conflict with Johann Tetzel, a monk who was selling indulgences. (Indulgences were remissions of sins). Luther argued that forgiveness was for God to give, and was horrified that Tetzel was raising money for the rebuilding of St Peter's basilica. As a result, Luther nailed his famous Ninety-five Theses to a church door on 1st November 1517 (All Saint's Day). Contrary to popular belief, it was not a call to reform, or even a Reformation manifesto. It was simply an academic challenge over the issue of indulgences.

Luther's challenge gained him many enemies, and Johann Eck (a theologian) famously accused of having more in common with heretics Wycliff and Hus as Luther placed the Bible as superior to the Pope. Such an accusation fertilised the seeds of the Reformation in Luther's mind-- if the Pope was always superior to God's word, then the church cannot be reformed by the Bible. This made Luther doubt the papacy more.

But it was not until 2 years later that Luther himself came up with ideas of reforming the church. For the first time Luther realised the good news that God gave His righteousness for sinners. The Christian life was not about moral perfection by the sinner's own effort, but accepting God's perfect divine righteousness.

Then Luther began to write-- not in Latin (only academics could understand Latin), but in ordinary German, so that commoners would understand it. He challenged the supremacy of the Pope (that only the Pope could interpret the Bible, only the Pope could reform the church etc) and the traditions (such as the sacraments) of the Roman Catholic Church. Most importantly, in his work On the Freedom of a Christian he asserted that faith was simply trusting in God's promises and that was all that was needed for salvation (justification by faith).

This provoked Rome, and he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X after refusing to recant his works. The Holy Roman Empire (not to be mistaken for Rome, or the Roman Empire) summoned him to a council in the town of Worms. At that event, now known as the Diet of Worms, Luther again refused to renounce his works, causing Emperor Charles V to declare Luther an outlaw, and banned anyone from providing him food and shelter.

Luther fled to Wittenberg, but he was kidnapped by unexpected allies en route. Elector Frederick the Wise had decided to place Luther under safe custody to protect him from the wrath of Rome and the Holy Roman Empire. Staying at Wartburg Castle, he translated Erasmus's New Testament into ordinary German (and arguably became the Father of Modern German).

Returning to Wittenberg after 10 months, Luther was careful in executing his reformist ideas. It could not just be simply doing everything opposite the Roman Catholic Church does. Some, inspired by Luther's defiance, started to destroy images of saints and eating on fast days. No, Luther was certain that if the Word of God was to be spread, it would be through preaching, and not by force. The Word of God itself would convince. He started congregational singing (before that only priest sang), trained preachers and even advised kings interested in the Reformation. He wrote catechisms (basic explanations of faith) and encouraged his congregation to memorise them.

The Reformation had begun. So essential was Luther to the Reformation that when he was thought dead after the Diet of Worms (he was kidnapped instead), the famed artist Albrecht Ducher wrote that if Luther was dead, "who will teach us the holy gospel so clearly?"

However, Luther was not the only person who initiated the Reformation. Almost independently, other Reformers had started their reforms at about the same time.

Battle of Kappel
Ulrich Zwingli
Ulrich Zwingli was born 1st January 1484 in a small alpine village called Wildhaus in Switzerland. One of Switzerland's key exports of that time were mercenaries, and Pope Julius II (who had an aggressive foreign policy) often sought the Swiss to provide the backbone for his armies.

At 22, Zwingli was a priest at Glarus, and decided to join the Pope's army as an army chaplain. At the Battle of Marignano, over 10, 000 Swiss died, shocking Zwingli from the glories of war and bloodshed. He realised he had misunderstood warfare and the Pope. If he was mistaken about that, what else was he wrong about?

Returning to Glarus, Zwingli realised all he had read was Bible commentaries and not the Bible itself. Buying a copy of Erasmus's translation of the New Testament, Zwingli made the revolutionary step of attempting to understand it. At that time, understanding the Bible required the Pope's guidance, and attempts to otherwise implied that the Pope was not God's appointed interpreter. After a near death experience (with a plague in 1519), Zwingli attributed his survival to God's mercy and decided to spend more time mediating on the Bible.

Unlike Luther, Zwingli had little problems with the papacy and continued to receive a papal pension (for his military service). He even accepted the appointment of Great Minister of his canon. However, as he began to preach directly from the Bible, demands for reform were made from Zurich. Yet Zwingli turned the people down-- he was concerned that any poorly executed reform would be a simple cosmetic, political change. No, he had to change people's hearts. Thus, Zwingli preached, instead of campaigning for change.

Not everyone in Zurich liked the changes. Rumours began to spread that Zwingli was a heretic, or at worst, the Antichrist. To clear matters, Zwingli wrote his 67 theses, but again unlike Luther who focused on the issue of indulgences, Zwingli critiqued the theology of church. He argued that Christ rules the church via His word rather than the Pope, and that at the cross, our redemption is complete (challenging the need for Mass). The first shot at Rome had been fired.

To combat Zwingli, a public debate was organised in 29th January 1523. The city hall of Zurich was packed to see the debate. Zwingli was no pushover-- not only did he bring copies of the Hebrew Old Testament, Greek New Testament and the Latin Bible, he was able cite passages in their original from memory. So prominent was his victory that the city council of Zurich ruled that only preaching that was biblical would be allowed in Zurich.

Soon, schools for Bible studying were set up and monasteries were closed down. Relics and images of saints were removed from the churches. Finally on Easter 1525, bread and wine were served in church instead of Mass. The preaching was given in Swiss German, rather than Latin. No longer receiving sacraments from Rome, the break from the Catholic church was complete, and the Reformation in Switzerland had begun.

In 11 October 1531, the Swiss Catholics fought the Protestants at the battle of Kappel in an attempt to convert Zurich back to Catholicism. Despite winning the battle and slaying Zwingli, the invading forces failed in their efforts to suppress the Swiss Reformation.

The cover page of the 1559 edition of Institutes of Christian Religion

John Calvin
Although considered one of the leading reformist, John Calvin was very much unlike the provocative Luther or the brawny Zwingli. Calvin instead was often described as a "timid scholar". Born in 10 July 1509 in Noyon, France, Calvin was much younger than Luther or Zwingli too (they had just began their priesthood around then).

When he was 12, Calvin was dispatched to Paris to study theology, but his father decided there was better prospects in law, and moved Calvin (when he was 17) to Orleans to study law. Here Calvin learnt (and enjoyed) the world of the Renaissance humanism, where he appreciated the beauties of Greek and Roman classics. In his new social circle, he made friends that would changed his life. His cousin Pierre Robert translated the Bible into French, allowing easy access to the Bible for Calvin. Melchior Wolmar taught Calvin Greek, which was the language of which the Reformation works were in. Wolmar also lent Calvin some of Luther's works. And soon, Calvin (who rarely wrote about himself) began to experience a conversion. In his Commentary on the Book of Psalms, he wrote that "God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame". Ideas for reform had started in his mind.

Yet France was not ready. In 1528, a statue of the Virgin Mary was defaced, prompting the Pope plea with King Francis I to persecute the followers of Luther (even though Luther had condemn such behaviour in Wittenburg). In 1534, placard attacking the Mass were posted across France. One of the placards was even nailed to the king's bedchamber in Chateau d'Amboise. Soon, the word "reform" became closely related to sedition.

When the Rector of University of Paris, Nicholas Cop expressed Lutheran sympathies, attempts to arrest him were made (Cop escaped to Switzerland). Even Calvin was not spared. A warrant was made for him and his house was ransacked. Calvin was grieved-- while he agreed with the theology of the placards, he was strongly against the provocative defacing and the insensitive placard postings. These people were giving the Reformation a bad name, and Calvin joined Cop and his cousin Robert in Basel, Switzerland. There, Calvin wrote Institutes of Christian Religion, and dedicated it to King Francis I. Other than explaining that Lutherans were not dangerous heretics, Institutes also gave an introduction to the evangelical faith.

Business called Calvin back to France. As France and the Holy Roman Empire were at war at that time, he went South to Geneva. A city at the border of both nations, Geneva had allied itself with the Reformation-- it had driven out its bishops and ceased Mass. Guailluame Farel, the instigator of the Reformation in Geneva recruited Calvin to aid the reforms of the city in 1536.

Even though, Geneva was receptive to the Reformation, Calvin's and Farel's reforms proved too much for the city council (one of the preachers called the city council "drunk"), and when Calvin and Farel refused to use the old school wafer-style bread during Communion, they banned the duo from preaching. However, Calvin and Farel continued to preach, they were then banished from Geneva in 1538.

Calvin moved to Strasbourg, France as he originally intended. Again, he was recruited to aid the Reformation in Strasbourg, this time by Martin Bucer, the leading Reformist in Strasbourg. Unlike Geneva, Strasbourg was more established in its reforms, and Calvin found himself enjoying his time there, getting a glimpse on what a reformed church should be like. He even got married there.

But the Roman Catholic Church was not sitting on its hands. Upon hearing that Geneva had banished Calvin, Cardinal Sadoleto wrote a letter to the Genevans in 1539, urging them to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Sadoleto described the reformists as self-centred, trusting their own righteousness rather than the church. This was evident as the reformists had divided the church unnecessarily. Although still in exile, Calvin was asked to write a response to the cardinal's letter.

Calvin explained that the reformists sought to reform the church, rather than divide it. Such reforms sought to restore the ancient form of the church, more genuine than what the Roman Catholics had made up. While Soldoleto had trusted in the church, the reformists had trusted Christ Himself for their righteousness.

As the politics in Geneva changed, the Genevans wanted someone they respected back into the city-- Calvin. Persuaded by Bucer and Farel, Calvin reluctantly returned in 1541. During his first sermon, he was expected to critique Geneva's rulers for exiling him. However, he simply preached where he left off three years ago-- Calvin was determined to set personal methods aside and be a preacher of God's Word.

Calvin knew the the city council would be a problem for the new church-- while it had effectively replaced the Pope. It had control over the ongoings of the church. Hence, Calvin would propose his reformist policies as soon as possible while he was still welcomed. While some of his policies encouraged his preachers to care for the congregation, many were unhappy about some of his disciplinary suggestions (such as banning taverns). Anti-Calvin parties soon formed, and once again, Calvin was expected to be banished again.

In 1555, the unexpected happened. Anti-Calvin parties executed a coup on the newly elected city council. The Genevans rallied against the Anti-Calvin participants, and soon Calvin found himself in a city full of allies. With huge support behind him, Calvin launched an ambitious plan-- to let the world know about the Reformation. Already considered the leader of French Protestantism, Calvin turned Genevan into an centre for the global proclamation of the gospels. Not only did he dispatch missionaries to as far as South America, he also set up a theological college in Geneva in 1559. The world would now hear about the good news of the Bible, thanks to the Reformation.

The theology of the Reformation
While Erasmus wanted to merely clean out corruption in the church, and the radicals wanted to simply revolt against the old ways,  Luther's experience with Romans 1 summed up the theology of the reformists-- justification (or being righteous before God) was an unmerited gift from God. Justification made the Reformation the Reformation.

Unlike the Roman Catholics, Calvin and Luther viewed works of love as the consequence of justification, rather than the cause of it. This distinction could not be clearer when the Council of Trent convened in 1545 to establish the Roman Catholic church's position on this issue.

Firstly, the Council of Trent rejected the Reformation idea of sola scriptura (the principle that the Bible alone had the highest authority), and equal regard should be given to the Bible (now to include the apocrypha) and the oral traditions of Jesus and his apostles. From there, the council defined justification to not only be the remission of sins, but the sanctification and renewal of the inner man.

In other words, the Reformers viewed that justification as the divine declaration that the sinner (while still a sinner) is given the righteousness of Christ, the Council of Trent treated justification as a process of becoming more holy and thus more worthy of salvation. In addition, the council also listed a string of statements defining heresy (eg: Canon 9 of the Council of Trent condemned anyone who said justification is by faith alone).

The Council of Trent also affirmed tradition Catholic beliefs such as sacraments and purgatory and made attempts to remove corruption from the church. Fresh orders of monks and nuns were set up (such as the Jesuits) and missionaries were dispatched. The Roman Catholic Church would thus experience a sense of renewal (known as the Counter Reformation)

Wait-- what's the difference?
Professor Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystorm (2005) argued that there was no significant difference in the theology of Roman Catholicism and evangelicalism. After all, to bicker whether we are saved by faith (as Rome argues) or by faith alone (as evangelicals believe) seems to be rather petty and uncharitable in this day and age.

In this sceptical era, we do not trust mere words-- language can be used as a tool for manipulation, and it seems to be far better to seek reconciliation by defining as little as possible.

That said, we must question ourselves-- are we seeking for peace, or truth? Defining something as major as justification has a major effect on our fates. Is salvation based on Christ righteousness, or is our own holiness needed also? Far more is at risk than just mere words.

Worst still, if we are unwilling to engage with deeper doctrines, we will always be doomed to be prisoners to spirit of the age. It was exactly what Luther accused Erasmus of doing -- choosing to ignore truth for the sake of peace. Hence any change effected by Erasmus's views would have been purely cosmetic.

Conclusion-- rediscovery, not reinterpretation
Although some may portray the Reformation as simply another reinterpretation of the Bible, one must remember that the Reformation involved interpretation after rediscovery of the original texts, and was an effort to increase the accessibility of people to Scripture (via translations and distributions). Contrast that with what was happening in Turkey, where Islamic scholars are attempting to update their interpretations of the Koran to be more relevant today.

In other words, the Reformation was not about progress, as in progressing away from the gospels, but regress, in which the Reformers wanted to unearth the old Christianity that had been buried under years of human tradition.

Yet the Reformation is not over. After all, the Reformation is not simply a historical reaction, but a programme to get closer to the Bible. And this programme is needed more than ever. In Western societies, we see many are cultural Christians-- while they enjoy Christian music and art, their hearts are not transformed by Jesus. In South America, we see Christianity mixed with traditional superstition.

In this age, we are also bombarded with the message that in order to be loved, we must make ourselves more attractive. It may not be God-related, but it is still works-related. A culture of self-esteem and positive-thinking has supposedly replaced the issue of justification, making the message of the Reformation seemingly less relevant for us today. But ignoring the issue of justification succumbs to the old problems of guilt and self-blame that Luther faced before.

Yet the message the Reformers worked so hard for the future generations provide a solution for the goal-orientated, results-driven world today -- we sinners are attractive because we are loved; not loved because we are attractive. And if we don't get that, we lie in the danger of having the Bible, but no gospel.

So let's try to rediscovery the gospel today.

References
Kittelson, J. (1986) Luther the Reformer

Noll, M., Nystorm, C. (2005) Is the Reformation over?

Pastor, L., Antrobus, F.I. (1906) The History of Popes


Recommended readings
Bainton, R. (1950) Here I Stand: A life of Martin Luther

Parker, T.H.L. (2006) John Calvin: A Biography

Potter, G.R. (1976) Zwingli

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame

Recommended sites
Wikipedia
does a great job of summarising the event in the historical perspective, but is OK in theological impliactions. I find it unnecessary lengthy in some parts also. Still, a great primer!

TheologyNetwork
a fantastic selection of articles on the Reformation, catering to those with limited understanding of the issue to those who read widely around it.

CatholicEncyclopedia
a look at the Reformation from the side of the Catholics. While it does a commenable job of covering what happened before and after the Reformation, it failed to mention how the Reformation resulted due to the increasein accessiblity of the Bible to the common folk. It doesn't really represent John Calvin well (eg: he did not start Calvinism; but rather Calvinism was a development of the ideas of Calvin's followers to counter the views of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius).

Postscript
There was much more I wanted to write about such as additional details about Luther (such as his conversations with Eramus and Zwingli), Zwingli (like the account of his fall at Kappel) and Calvin, the Reformation in UK and Italy and how the Catholics attempted to curb corruption in their own church. Maybe next time I'll write more about the after effects of the Reformation, such as the Counter-Reformation and Jesuits.

Thursday, June 09, 2011

With Due Respect: Who created God?


God as first cause
One of the common arguments for the existence of God is the assertion of God as first cause. In other words, the presence of a finely-tuned created universe implies the presence of a creator (Rees, 2003).

However, the common rebuttal to this is that if God had created the universe/world/nature, what/who created God (Dawkins, 2006)?

This is a retort makes two suggestions:

1) That the answer of "God" only pushes the question of origins one step further back.

2) That a complex god that could create a complex creation is sufficiently complex enough to require an explanation.

Biblical interpretation
Christian doctrine generally teaches that God is eternal and thus have no origin (eg: Psalms 90:2 and Psalms 90:4).  To put it simply, God is the creator of time, and can exist outside time and thus is able to see the history itself.

On the other hand, some Bible scholars has pointed out that God is portrayed in Scripture as acting in time (Boyd, 2007). For instance, in Genesis 18, Abraham negotiated with God over the fate of two evil cities. Nevertheless, there is no compelling reason why God cannot exist out of time and be able to act within it at the same time.

The infinite regression problem
Answers from the Bible are very unlikely to convince the unbeliever. While many belivers find it satisfying as a solution to an infinite regression problem (if A was created by B, who was created by C, who was created by D... who created E, F, G,.... etc), some non-believers view the "God" answer as a cope-out to avoid questions about origins. If pointed out that God just came to be (ie God as first-cause and self-existant), it can be argued that the same is true of the universe.

However, if the universe did not have a cause, it would be immense difficultly to discuss the origin of the universe as a concept. While it may be argued that the universe "just came to be", it would also hardly be the satisfying answer the sceptic would seek.

Rephrasing the question

Ultimately, the nature of the questioner (both the theist and the atheist) must presume something-- whether everything, including the universe has a cause. If so, then the theist must somehow defend "God" as his answer, while the atheist will be left to the problem what the first cause is.

However, if not everything needs to have a cause, then the question of "who created God?" is meaningless.


Also check out:
Biologos

References
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

Boyd, G. (2007) God of the Possible

Rees, M.J. (2003) Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shaped the Universe

Friday, May 06, 2011

Alternative Culture: The Royal Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Recently as you may know, a royal wedding took place in the United Kingdom. Yes, I'm talking about the wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince Harry.

I watched the wedding from my friends' laptops-- my friends and I was stuck in the laboratory sorting spiders, insects and other invertebrates, while we streamed the wedding online. Personally, I was amazed by how grand the wedding was. The multitude of the crowds cheered the couple on as the horse-drawn carriages galloped passed them. It must be good to be royalty.

How does one be royalty?
I often joke with my friends that we should try  to be royal sometime-- but it is almost an impossibility, none of us are of a royal bloodline, and such privilege is inherited, rather than earned.

The other possible way (excluding the fact you can start your own kingdom) is to be married into one. In fact, one of the features of the wedding that the media played upon is Kate Middleton was a commoner who was made royal by marriage. With a simple vow, Kate Middleton not only becomes Princess Catherine, she also claims equality with the royal bloodline.

The theological implications
Isn't it essentially the Gospel message? Separated from God from sin (Isaiah 59: 1-3), we should not be able to enter in God's presence. And being of perfect purity and holiness, we as sinners cannot ever hope to be reconciled with Him. There is not a thing we can do for redemption.

Yet The Christian God invites us to be with Him. Not by our own works, but by marriage (Revelations 21: 1-4). In such union, not only are we able be with God, we are able to claim his righteousness and holiness. And such redemption cannot be earned-- he chose us, because He loves us (Romans 5:8).

Conclusion
Like any marriage proposal, we reserve the right to reject such a gift. Just remember, Christ invites us as his friends and his bride, and not his slaves.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

With Due Respect: God is unfair!



Poor apologetics

One of the most common mistakes that most of my Christian friends (and I) make is to jump into a direct rebuttal to our non-Christian friends. However, that demostrates poor listening skills. Often people expressed an opinion (in this case on the fairness of God), we give them 101 reasons or examples why God is fair. But we need to get to the heart of the issue-- what do they actually mean?

The concept of grace is unfair!
One way that they could actually mean is that grace is unfair-- how can God make salvation something a gift rather than something we can earn?


If you think about it deeply, it is true-- the concept of grace is unfair. By dying on the cross to redeem mankind, God made salvation a gift, rather than something anyone deserves(Romans 5: 6-8). Because if God gives us what we deserve, we'll go to hell--no one is simply good enough (Romans 3: 9-20).

Attempting to define God's intention
Another aspect that non-Christians may misunderstand is to set up false aims that the Christian God intented to achieve. For instance, some may argue that if God was fair, everyone would be healthy, wealthy or the like.

However, nowhere in the Bible does it state that God's ultimate intention for mankind is for everyone to be without illness or poverty.

Conclusion
When non-believers say that God is unfair we must carefully examine what they mean, instead of giving textbook answers without getting to the heart of the matter.

Note that this list of potential reasons why non-Christians view God is unfair is not exhaustive, but simply a starter to such conversations.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Theology 1.0: What is apologetics?


An admission of guilt?
Apologetics (in this context) is simply the defence of the Christian gospel and faith. Often mistaken for an admission of guilt, failure or fault, an apologetic (or apology) involves give an answer (or a reasoned response) to explain certain beliefs or actions. Technically sepaking, a defence lawyer would be giving apologies all the time, but they are not admissions of guilt!

Who is the apologist?
The Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:15 makes in clear-- all Christians are expected to give a reason for the hope the have in Christ, but with gentleness and respect.

The Apostle Paul sets up an example how how we Christians should proclaim apologetics. In Acts 17: 1-4, Paul respectfully followed Jewish traditions to reason with the Jewish audience in Thessalonia. In Athens, Paul reasoned gently (Acts 17: 16-34) but forcefully for the Christian God against other gods. He followed suit in Ephesus, where he reasoned in both the synagoue for three months, and a secular lecture hall for three years (Acts 19: 8-10).

This acts of proclaimation was not limited to Paul, as the Apostle Philip also gently and respectfully explained Scripture to an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8: 26-40).

How does it apply for us Christians, then?
As the New Testament shows, apologetics is not separate from evangelism. The reason why Paul and Philip spent time to reason with their peers is for the sake of the gospel (Matthew 28:16-20). Likewise, we Christians should not be afraid to show that reason is not contrary to our faith.

Although we may not have all the answers, or know everything about our faith, it should not hinder our efforts to make the gospel known. In fact, our non-believing friends would appreciate our honesty if we do not.

But I'm not an Apostle/Theologian/Priest/Pastor!
Unless you're Timothy Keller (pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church), Francis Collins (ex-head of the Human Genome Project) or Ravi Zacharias(Christian apologist), odds are we will not be invited to speak at university halls or the like. But no one is asking you to do that. On a personal level, we can invite our friends one-on-one for coffee or a movie. At the community level we can volunteer for church activites or a community centre soup kitchen.

There are many ways to evangelise. But let's reverse the question-- are you willing?

References
What is Apologetics?

Thursday, March 03, 2011

With Due Respect: Christians value the Bible over Jesus!

Recently, an article in the Guardian (a British newspaper) criticised on how much Protestants value the Bible over God. While it is well-written, I find some points raised questionable, and will attempt to handle them here. I encourage you guys to go take a look.

Bear in mind that I am probably not as well-read in Christian history or theology as the author (Stephen Tomkins) in Guardian (I am currently doing a Masters in Biology), so my reply would not be as refined as his.

The problem with Bible literalism
While the author seems to critique Bible literalism, he seems to suggest (he didn't write it explicitly) that just because the some parts of the Bible is not literal, it is not true (referring to the earth was "created in six days").  However, one must recall that something may be true, yet not literal. Take for Songs of Song for instance. It is definitely not literal, but it is an honest expression of Solomon for his beloved.

The author also suggests that we should read the Bible asking questions about context (eg: "What was St Paul saying to the Galatians?" and "How would first-century Asia Minor have understood these words?"). I agree with this point, and would also like to add that I have never been to a Bible study session where we did not consider context.

Jesus vs the Bible
The author raises up an important question-- who do Protestants value more, Jesus or the Bible. While sounding witty and intelligent, the author misses an important point-- which Jesus should we worship then? The Jesus of the Quran who spoke in Mary's womb? The Jesus of the Jesus Seminar who died and remained dead? The Jesus or the Church of Latter Day Saints who also appeared in the Americas? Or Jesus of the New Testament, who died for the sins of mankind. Ultimately, something has to be authoritative.

Furthermore, he also fails to mention that Jesus Himself regarded Scripture highly, and referred that Scripture was about Him (eg: Luke 24:44, John 5:39). So if the Bible is fine with Jesus, it's ok with me. The idea of Jesus vs the Bible is a false dichotomy.

Criticism of Bible writers
While it can be argued the intention of Biblical writers were riffed with political discourse, it's also perfectly possible they were genuine. After all, they were writing what they felt was divine. Wouldn't they carefully write it then?

Summary
While the question of the Bible's authority must be asked, one must to readily to reverse the questions on oneself--without the Bible, how do we know the nature of God? How would God reveal his nature to mankind?

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Alternative Culture: Confessions (2010 Japanese film)

My friend, who is doing a Masters in art asked if I wanted to watch a Japanese film with her. The last Japan films I watched were of the Death Note series, and it was L: Change the World.

So wondering what the film was like, I decided to watch Confessions with her. After all, it was an Academy Award nominee, so it had to be at least a decent film.

Confessions tells the story of a teacher who seeks to avenge her daughter's death, by going after her killers. The two killers are her own students.

The storyline
Moriguchi Yuko (Matsu Takako) announced to her form class of 13 year-olds that she is resigning. She revealed that her daughter (Ashida Mana) had been killed by two students of the class-- Shiomura Naoki (Fujiwara Kaoru) and Murakawa Shinya (Amami Juri), even though the police concluded that her death was via accidental drowning. The rowdy class remained apathetic and rude until Yuko reveals that she had injected HIV-positive blood into the milk of Naoki and Shinya. Although none of them would be infected with HIV (you can't get HIV from drinking tainted milk! More people should study Biology, like me!). the class shrieked in horror as they back away from both Noaki and Shinya. Yuko reminded the class that "all life is precious" hypocritically and finally took her leave.

Confessions is unlike a typical revenge story, as it is told from five perspectives, thus involving flashbacks and flashforwards. Let's go through each of them.


Shiomura Naoki
Naoki suffered from inferoirty complex. He joined a sports school, but was not good at sports. He joined a cram school, but was not good in his studies. Everyone in class bullied him, and he longed for a friend. Everyone, except Shinya.

Sick of Yuko's attempts to help him, Naoki suggested that they should target Yuko's daughter to teach Yuko a lesson. On the day of the murder, Shinya rigged a purse to deliver an electric shock to render Yuko's daughter unconscious (but alive). Thinking that he had killed her, Shinya boasted that he finally did something note-worthy. He then confessed that he never liked Naoki anyway, and was just using him to lure a target. In other words, Naoki would never amount to anything, much less a killer.

As Shinya left the scene of crime, Naoki discovered that their victim was still alive. Remembering Shinya's words, he tossed the Yuko's daughter into a swimming pool, effectively drowning her to deny Naoki's claim to murder.

Upon thinking he was infected with HIV, Naoki dropped out of school, and refused to attend classes in the new term. He refused to let everyone and everything touch him, and scrubbed everything he touched, thinking that he had infected it (like Lady Macbeth).

New teacher Yoshiteru Terada (Okada Masami) naively attempts to reach to him with enocuragement and messages from the class (the class had made notes of encouragement for him, but contained cryptic messages to remind Naoki of his murder), but his attempts only drive him further to insanity. Kitahara Mitsuki (Hashimoto Ai), the class moniteress suggested to Terada that he was pursuing a lost cause, but this drive Terada (who does not knowthe whole story) to increase his efforts.

Mrs Naoki
Naoki's mother (Kimura Yoshino) is incapable to believing that her son's mediocrity is his fault. She blames society, Yuko, Terada, his classmates and herself (basically everyone except Naoki) for her son's condition. Continually absolving her son's innocence in the light of recent events, she finally hits a breaking point when Naoki confesses that he intentionally killed Yuko's daughter. Taking the blame of her son's action, Mrs Naoki wrote a letter of confession and stabbed her son in the chest. Naoki then demostrated what he was really good at-- killing, and stabbed his mother.

Kitahara Mitsuki
After the resignation of Yuko, the class began to taunt and bully Shinya, constantly reminding him that he was a killer. Only the class monitress Mituski refused to take part in such activities. Upon discovery of severe bullying, Terada reprimanded the class, and Mituski was immediately suspected as Terada's informant. So she shared the bullying with Shinya.

Such bullying made Mituski close to Shinya, and they become good friends. Believing her love for him would change him, Mituski confessed she admired Shinya's genius. To impress Shinya, she told the police the reason for Naoki's breakdown-- the frequent visits of Terada. This destroys the naive Terada's personality, confidence and ultimately his faith in the character of his students.

Murakawa Shinya
Shinya is a genius with a superiority complex. Despite winning a science fair, he craves fame, and was upset when news of a juvenile murdering her whole family made the front page. Abandoned by his mother (a professional physicist) when he was young, Shinya was hoping that his genius would allow his mother to finally accept him. He would show off his inventions in his blog (his source of confessions), but she did not reply.

He went to the extent of intenting to kill Yuko's daughter but failed. This denied him the chance of fame. He finally broke and decided to blow the whole school up. When ridiculed by Mituski for his craving for fame (as mummy issues), he beat her to death via a blunt object.

Despite planting the bomb at the school hall, it failed to detonate as he activated it. What happened?

Moriguchi Yuko
Yuko had planned everything all along. Refusing to over her evidence to the police (as they would have pressed light charges to minors), Yuko took revenge into her own hands.

She had played on Terada's enthusiasm, and advised him to keep visiting Naoki (counting on the nastiness of her ex-class to ruin Naoki further). As Mituski regularly met up with her, Yuko learnt about Shinya's family issues. She was the one who had moved the bomb, and confessed this act to Shinya over the phone, and that the bomb was placed at his mother's office. In other words, Shinya killed his mother.

Confronting Shinya (who was now in tears), Yuko told him that he had tasted his own medicine (death of a loved one), and now he had to work on a road of reformation and redemption. "Just kidding," she ended, rejecting his possiblity of redemption.

Discussion
Social responsiblitiy: Classic Liberialism and Conservativism
One of the ideas the film explores is the idea of responsibility. Who is responsible when a person commits a crime. Traditional Liberialism (sounds like an oxymoron) tends to place the blame on society, while Classic Conservativism places blame on the individual.

And to some extent, the film explores both cases. Naoki can be easily seen as a leaf in the ocean, being pushed an influenced by Shinya, his classmates and his mother. He bases his self-worth on his friends and parent, and he slips into depression upon Shinya's betrayal and the painful reminders by his classmates.

Shinya, on the other hand is a force of his own. Other than motivated by fame (his self-worth), he attempts to kill Yuko's daughter and the school, and actually kills Mituski and his mother himself. Despite his genius and strong personality, he fails to choose what is right. This is most poignant when Yuko rightly pointed out that Shinya could have chosen not to detonate the bomb. But he did.

Self-worth
The film places a lot on self-worth. It does not take a philosopher to underline the importantness of this question. For Naoki's mother, it is her son. Thus when realising her son was beyond redemption, she murders him. For Shinya, it was his mother's respect and the need for global recognition. Upon wanting those, he planned to murder a school to make headline news.

However as Christians, we have to remember that our self-worth is in God. After all, if we believe in God, then we are reasonable to believe in our own value. God made us his unique creations, possessing unimaginable, intrinsic worth.  Furthermore, each child of God has a unique gifting from the Spirit, indispensable and irreplaceable (1 Cor 7:7).

In the film, we see how family, fame and love can lead to destructive circumstances. Although the three can be admirable things, they can be devestating once made the ultimate goal in life. As you can see, theology matters.

For more details on self-worth, read this.

Redemption
The film lastly suggests that some people are beyond redemption. Naoki's mum saw it in her son. Yuko saw it in Shinya. Even Mrs Naoki's and Mituski's attempts to redeem Naoki and Shinya respectively ended in failure and death. In fact Yuko concludes the movie by stating that redemption for Shinya is a joke.

However, in the Christian view, we have to remember that no one is beyond God's reach (John 3:16). It's not about what we did, but what has been done for us. It's not about where we been, but where our brokeness leads us to. And it's not about what we feel, but what He felt to forgive you. And that's what we preach a Gospel of Christ crucified, to redeem all mankind.

Review
I did like the movie, but found it unnecessarily brutal. I cringed at Mituski's death and dismemberment. I kind of thought that the movie missed out the views of Terada, the new and enuthsiastic teacher, to provide a optimistic framework to the pessimistic tone of the movie.

I give it a 68/100.