So why am I harping on this? It’s just my old complaint about individualism: While loving without getting loved back can be made to sound like the ultimate kind of love, it actually promotes a kind of individualism by ignoring that we are relational beings for whom a mutual benefit to loving is good and healthy. Loving with no expectation of return can be a temporary discipline, but if we make it the ultimate definition of love we are actually undercutting the need for other people. We are setting up the individual self-sufficient lover/giver as the ideal. This person does not need to get anything back when he or she loves because, well, it would not really be love if they did. That just seems kid of cold and twisted if you think about it.

This is a really good reflection on something we rarely question ourselves. Click here to read the full post. It’s really worth reading.

I would say there is nothing wrong with having expectations or hope for a reciprocal response in a loving relationship. There is a problem only when we manipulate or coerce the fulfillment of that expectation. If that is the case, then it is not love. Love must be freely given and received in return.

“Fools have no interest in understanding;
    they only want to air their own opinions.”

– Proverbs 18:2, NLT

“Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you.” (Deut. 16:17)

“But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you.” (1 Chr. 29:14)

“And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work…… You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.” (2 Cor. 9:8, 11)

Before we ask the question “What can I give?”, let us ask ourselves “What have I been given?”

Sometimes we question others: “Why are you not giving?” I think there may be a hidden phrase not spelled out: “Why are you not giving [what I am expecting you to give]?” Perhaps it is better to first examine what have they been given by God.

Identify, Empower, Unleash — the three-steps to mobilize people according to their gifts.

The Aedyn Chronicles: Chosen Ones by Alister E. McGrath

How on earth can one simultaneously be a full-time theology professor, a historical/systematic/scientific theologian, a popular apologist, a world-touring speaker, yet still finds the leisure of becoming…… a children’s fantasy writer? Judging from the title, this doesn’t seem to be the only one, but the beginning of a series…

With more than 66 titles published while he’s only 57 years old, I can only conclude that he is indeed a literature-producing machine……

“…… eternity is not an unending succession of days in the calendar, but something more like the supreme moment of satisfaction, in which totality embraces us and we embrace totality…… It would be like plunging into the ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time–the before and after–no longer exists. We can only attempt to grasp the idea that such a moment is life in the full sense, a plunging ever anew into the vastness of being, in which we are simply overwhelmed by joy.”

Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 12.

With a bit of tweaking and re-phrasing, I think it can translate into some fairly biblically-sound principles that church ministry should be done according to:

1. Autonomy –> Each person should ultimately be led by the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit, instead of the type of church leadership that likes to seize control and micro-manage things. (Of course church unity and proper individual/corporate spiritual discernment must be emphasized here, in order to prevent everyone basically doing their own thing.)
2. Mastery –> Each person’s spiritual gifts should be identified, embraced, and unleashed. Reintroduce spiritual disciplines into the life of church, so that people learn to become better at it. Develop a culture of excellence, for the glory of God.
3. Purpose –> We need a robust biblical theology to give us the grand purpose and eschatalogical meaning of living our lives and being the Church in this age. We should not be motivated by church growth or any kind of glorious numerical increase, but by God’s deep love for the world and the eschatalogical picture of the redeemed cosmos.

I believe we must not orient ourselves towards only one of the past, present, or future perspectives, but embrace all three under the providence of our Triune God. Just as it is written in the Anglican liturgy:

“Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life, to the honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” (Book of Common Prayer, Confession of Sin)

「現在我們痛心懊悔，求你憐憫我們，為了聖子耶穌基督，饒恕我們的已往，扶助我們的現在， 引導我們的將來，使我們樂意遵行你的旨意，歸榮耀給你的聖名。阿們。」（公禱書，認罪文）

Curses:

33 He turned rivers into a desert,
flowing springs into thirsty ground,

34 and fruitful land into a salt waste,
because of the wickedness of those who lived there.

Blessings:

35 He turned the desert into pools of water
and the parched ground into flowing springs;

36 there he brought the hungry to live,
and they founded a city where they could settle.

37 They sowed fields and planted vineyards
that yielded a fruitful harvest;

38 he blessed them, and their numbers greatly increased,
and he did not let their herds diminish.

Yes, you are right.

Curses are contingent upon the sin of mankind, but blessings are given freely out of God’s mercy without any human cause.

There is no “because” to make the blessings conditional.

What did Abraham do to merit God’s blessing in the beginning of Genesis 12? Absolutely nothing.

This contrast just highlights the inherent goodness and the steadfast love of God…… which is in fact the overarching theme of Psalm 107.

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever. (Ps. 107:1)

“You of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:31)

首先，要出番幾個preamble先，唔係會俾人誤插：

1. 到目前為止，我都未被遊說到影音使團是否真正找到方舟，抑或任何有價值的考古事物。
2. 本人並不認同他們的處事手法（例如：缺乏獨立科學/考古鑑證、沒有諮詢行內有權威的學者、有用發佈會直接大事宣揚未經證實的事等…）
3. 我一直都不大喜歡他們的營運模式，如時常緊急籌款，並且幾百萬幾百萬地籌，後知後覺地回應流行文化（如斷背電影、達文西密碼等），本人也親耳聽過內部長期欠同工糧的事。所以不嬲都對他們沒有什麼特別好感。
4. 我亦不是想特別撐他們那邊，為他們辯護。
5. 我只是想講番句公道說話。

話說，西人世界blog壇裡，對這件發現方舟的事報導得最熱衷的，非 Jim West 和 Bob Cargill 莫屬。他們對影音使團發現方舟的事非常反感，除了列出很多推理證明這件事有問題的地方，更一口咬定是一個騙局(hoax)，認為影音使團是個專欺騙愚蠢的信徒(the gullible)金錢的一個組織。Cargill 這樣強調：”this group was put together to do one thing and one thing only: make money and spread ideology by pimping both archaeology and religion.” West 也非常肯定地說，影音使團為自己辯護，不肯承認這是一個騙局的原因只有一個：正因為有金錢利益的關係。

其實事件發生以來，我都抱著一個心態，就是寧願相信這只是影音使團一時愚蠢信錯了當地的導遊騙子誤以為找到寶，也不希望他們是專程設計了一個世紀大騙局，無中生有，利用影音技術營造一場非常迫真的探險旅程，事實上知道什麼也沒有，只是為了攪一場能夠賺大錢的騷。正所謂：”Always believe in the good of people, unless there is evidence that proves otherwise.”

縱使我有幾不認同影音使團的做事手法也好，除非有實質證據指出他們確是騙子，我也不能除意巫告他們的確存有邪惡的動機。沒有證據的話，我這樣做只會是表達著個人的主觀意見，甚至可以說是隨意地論斷弟兄（太7:1-5，申19:15)。

我的內心和良知告訴我，我需要講番句公道說話。我並不是想撐影音使團，也不是想為他們辯駁。我只是覺得網上的討論已經超乎了客觀對事實的評論，加插了很多個人的情緒，主觀的批評，和以有色眼鏡地看事物。正正高舉客觀、理性、科學、證據的一班考古學家/神學家/牧者們，竟然在毫無證據底下便一口咬定別人是騙財的騙子，這不是有點兒過份嗎？

所以，我在 Jim West 的 blog 上留了個言，道出我以上的觀察和感受，叫他撫心自問，會否覺得這樣地巫告他人（甚至這些確是主內弟兄）的確有點兒過火呢？

結果怎樣？他竟然 reject 了我的 comment，不讓它瞪出來！

所以我再寫多一個，問他為什麼 ban 了我的善意批評。我沒有講粗口，也沒有用詞不當，我只是以事論事，討論這樣隨意論斷別人是否公平？我說，blog 是他的，他有權 reject 或 approve 所有 comment。若我所說的有冒犯性，他當然可以 ban 我。但若果我只是講道理，為何不何拿出來討論呢？我再說，若然他真的不喜歡我留言，也算吧。我只求他可否寬容點、客觀點對待地球另一邊的主內弟兄而已。

誰不知他又再 ban 了我的 comment，卻立刻 approve 了排在我之後的那個和他同聲同氣的 comment！

我真的失望了。

口口聲聲說要客觀、理性，自己卻主觀得很（也不肯承認）。
批評別人沒有實質的考古證據，自己卻無根無據地論斷他人。
說別人不受得科學理性的批判，自己卻在網誌上做同樣的東西，禁止別人 critique 自己。

唉…… 縱使在網絡上有幾出名，寫那麼多post，又怎麼樣呢？

P.S. 你會問，我的 comment 會否淪落了 comment spam folder 呢？我可以告訴你，以往我打親的 comment 他很快便會 approve，因為他是個時時刻刻都上網的人，每日更加 post 上十篇八篇文章 (真的不知他是否全職寫 blog 抑或係牧緊會的人???) 況且，我寫了好幾個 paragraph，內容絕對不似 spam。