小兒可能快要告別了 I May Be Loosing My Beloved Son Very Soon

小兒任一多﹙小名多多﹚近日證實肝臟嚴重衰竭，基本上藥石無寧。

大約三星期前，多多開始食慾不振， 小便和喝水量大增而且尿甚黃，然後有兩天完全沒有進食。十二月十六日，醫生根據驗血報告斷定他是肝臟出問題，但未能斷定性質，可能是肝癌，肝硬化，肝功能 衰退，或者是普通的感染。醫生只能大包圍開幾種抗生素和抗氧化劑之類的藥丸，再觀察進度。 可惜此後他食慾仍然不振，藥只肯吃其中一部份，除了小便情況有改善之外，其他各方面沒有明顯進展。

至上週末﹙廿五廿六日），他情況好像倒 退到剛剛未看醫生前一樣，我決定尋求第二醫療意見，終於約到星期一﹙廿七日﹚到大圍向我孩子任我游﹙鴨鴨﹚和孫兒任踏雪任白石的救命恩人Tiger醫生求 助，因為覺得她們那邊的醫療取向和態度比較進取和拼命。Tiger馬上替他再次驗血，跟第一次報告比較，發現某些方面情況正在逐步惡化，尤其是血蛋白含量 已降至接近危險水平。Tiger同樣指出有上述那些可能性，但坦言她不是這方面的專家，懂的可能有限，建議把我轉介給一位內科專家朋友，並馬上替我預約 好。

翌日(廿八日)，內科專家詳細了解多多病情演變，並即時替他照超聲波，X光，驗尿。種種跡象都肯定是肝臟而非其他器官的問題。最令我 吃驚的是，超聲波裡竟然找不到他的肝臟，只能從X光看到肝臟明顯比正常細小。醫生認為那表示肝臟的退化﹙不論是甚麼因素﹚已經非常嚴重，到了不可能復原的 地步﹙irreversible﹚。醫生說：講得白D，你的狗正邁向死亡﹙Put it brutally, you have a dying dog﹚。

本來還可以選擇開刀抽取肝組織化驗以證實病患的性質，但那手術原來規模不小，而且在目前情況下都已經沒意義了，因為那除了增加他的痛苦之外，已經不能夠增加他治療成功的機會。

經歷了兩天的檢驗折騰，多多實在累的要命，回家睡得不醒狗事。幸好他沉睡一整天之後，對醫生開給他的特別食物胃口大開，愈吃愈生猛，真是差不多一個月來吃得最積極的了。

那 種稱為「A/D」的特別配方食品，是專門給病到七彩毫無胃口缺乏營養的狗吃的，超容易消化容易吸兼且營養超高，想不到味道也超吸引。我和他媽媽商量過，現 階段的共識是：儘量要他吃得夠，有足夠營養維持生命，但抗生素等西藥就不再給他吃了，因為那些對他其實已經沒有實際幫助；情況許可，可能幾天之後嘗試給他 吃點自然療法的草藥，看看對能否稍為保持他本身的體質，不致衰退得太急劇。

多多是頭混種西施狗，小時候命途坎坷。1998年12月某天， 我上班的時候在村口碰到他，非常友善地跟著某人，初時還以為他在車站送車，後來發現原來他的主人根本不在，而他則到處向人示好，像要找人收留。鄰居說，是 村裡有人搬走了卻不帶他走，讓他頓然流離失所。咁都得？我暫時收留了他，並馬上物色到我的非常好朋友答應收養他。那時，從他的身形和表現來看，我估計他年 齡可能介乎半歲到一歲之間。

小狗在本來可以是一主好人家那邊住了一夜，不料朋友當時的家人不接受他。第二天一早，電話嚮起 ... 哦 ... 然後是非常好朋友滿臉無奈眼帶淚光的把他抱回來。就這樣，這個暫時收容的家就變成了他長久的家了。

至 於多多此名的由來其實是這樣的。從前唸法文的時候，教科書的故事裡有一頭叫Toutou﹙發音dodo﹚的小狗，從那時就很嚮往替狗起名作Toutou， 但我的狗都是用中文名的，靈機一觸就叫他多多。同時又想起中國現代詩人聞一多，於是又說他全名叫任一多。他也果然是條詩狗，常常一步成詩，最著名的作品是 朗誦起來可以長達十多分鐘的 《Wowowow, Wowowowow, Wowowow！》 ，唸起來鏗鏘有力，甚能引起全家狗狗的共鳴，隨時來個集體朗誦，廣受歡迎，鄰居側目。

多 多的一邊熊貓眼﹙左眼周圍長著黑毛﹚曾經鬧過幾次笑話。剛來的時候，隔壁陳太以為他一邊眼是盲的。一次帶他上街，迎面而來一個爸爸跟他的小女兒說：「隻狗 俾人打瘀左隻眼。」又一次，一班警察在我家附近查案，從樓下看見露台上的多多，又議論紛紛：「咁過癮既，好似打瘀左咁。」哈，真係！

任 一多在這家裡剛剛渡過了六個年頭，兩年多前一夜歡娛之後又搞出了一女五男小狗，卻從未盡過做父親的責任，只懂呼呼喝喝橫行霸道。不過無論如何，他總是我的 愛兒，小狗的爸爸。現在，只願他能安舒地溫暖地有尊嚴地而且充份感到被愛地渡過在世餘下的日子，將來在上主的懷中也快快樂樂乖乖地。

夢如人生試問誰能料

『懷緬過去常陶醉，一半樂事，一半令人流淚。』 --- 薰妮：《每當變幻時》

幾天前跟曾經一度緊密合作的舊日戰友吃了一頓「高級茶餐廳」的晚餐。雞飣唔斷。
沒一起共事大概十年有多了吧，上次共聚也好像是四五年前了。
從前佩服她的思想細密和對渣野的批評力度，跟她合作，總之要打醒精神；還有她對工作的conscientiousness ---- 最後這點，不知是否我們某一代隊友的特質，在後來的新隊友身上好像愈來愈薄弱。
從來都知道她是個會對本身感興趣的事物窮追不放的人，卻沒料到她現在會跑去學日文，為的是第一手地了解日劇所展現的日本社會文化，更打算為此重返校園，對這課題作個人類學研究。將心比己，對於我們這把年紀還想再唸書的傻人，我通常都會吶喊助威推波助瀾一番，對她當然沒例外，仲扮晒熟行提議埋邊間學校邊個課程。

回家路上，我的記憶飄到十多年前，我們在工作上一起經歷的最艱難也是最緊密時刻。
當時我們剛完成了兩部鉅製，製作主任和幾位編導卻紛紛請辭，害得大老細出馬在整個部門裡逐個約見了解。面對我們歷史上第一個夢幻組合的瓦解，我夜夜輾轉，渡過了連續幾個難眠的晚上，真有「問如何下去」的慨歎。(至今我仍然認為，當年的組合是我在工作上經歷過最強的集體腦袋。)
那時我是電視組創作主管，她統領電台節目，本來是同一部門各領一team，各有各做互不相干，只要姿態上保持友好合作就成。但登時形勢逆轉風雨飄搖，變成總監跟她和我三人要拼手抵足合力重新開天闢地。具體細節已很模糊，只是那種天天一起重頭買菜煮飯重建家園的感覺仍仿如昨日。
過了幾年，輪到她向我請辭。還記得她在南沙回香港的船上初次跟我分享離開的念頭，到後來正式辭職，那親筆寫的辭職信一開頭就說「任代總監：九年了」，字體龍飛鳳舞甚有型，內容簡潔卻是有情。她的last day，我確實依依不捨。

然而，往後十年卻更令我不捨。
獅山代有才人出，維港後浪推前浪。我有幸合作過其他出色的隊友，尤其慶幸的，是有比她更加conscientious更加盡心投入更加能夠毫不留情給我忠實批評而且能夠更加全面分擔我領導責任的緊密夥伴。這段歲月，勞氣沮喪的時候多得可以令我隨時仆街吐血，親密夥伴的支援卻讓我仆極唔死。
曾經幻想，剎那可以淡入永恆，但是天下筵席無不散，只是那筵席和鄰座的partner卻教我永遠難忘，永遠感激。
如今，孤身走路。要甘於寂寞，比想像中難。

『夢如人生快樂永記取，悲苦深刻藏骨髓。』 --- 薰妮：《每當變幻時》

商界不仁，以萬物為西九

紅灣半島話拆又唔拆，好多人額首稱慶覺得打贏仗，話環保意識勝利，公民社會勝利，輿論勝利。我就無咁樂觀，因為隨時win a battle but loose a war。

看看一些商界人士投資界人士 ... [題外話：呢個名都幾好笑，「投資」本身是一種市場活動，竟然可以稱為一個界別，咁我都可以稱為買書界買送界食飯界人士囉］ ... 唉，返番正題：

看看一些商界投資界人士甚至個別經濟學者，竟然話紅灣發展商向政治壓力讓步，為香港營商和投資環境帶來負面影響。有條友對住鏡頭講，拆卸紅灣本來是個合理合法的正常商業決定，可惜少部份政客把事情政治化，恐怕會打擊投資者對香港信心(大意)。最離譜那個陳啟宗，話香港而家變成全國最共產主義的地方，只重財富分配，不重創造財富，聽到我火滾！

香港從來有停止過創富嗎？但創富是創了誰的富？市民叫那1%最富有的人咪亂黎，竟然被指為左住佢創富。大佬，而家香港貧富懸殊名列世界前茅，就算唔咁偉大講甚麼社會公義，功利D都要講下財富分配啦，否則隨時大暴亂都有份，到時搞到我的警察朋友鬼咁唔得閒咪慘！

當代世界商業趨勢，講究企業的社會責任，環保意識，文化使命；或是假意或是真心，總之都要做，否則根本無法立足。這也是近幾十年來全球資本主義不斷自我完善得以繼續生存的因素〈或者手段〉。陳啟宗之流自暴其短，遠遠落後。所以我覺得何俊仁對明珠台講得對，這類人只適宜到貪污橫行毫無環保概念沒有公民意識的「未發展」地區做生意。

政府仲好笑，初時死都話無野可以做，一陣又話唔贊成拆，人地公佈唔拆就當堂表示歡迎，側側膊過關。根本成單野係偉大的特區政府搞出來架嘛 --- 先是好大喜功八萬五，跟著見玩大左雞毛鴨血，為平息地產商怒氣立即停售居屋，咁剛剛起好個D點算？紅灣點算？咁呢單野你話邊個問責好呢？D局長司長有甚麼話可以說？

鏡頭一轉PAN到西九龍。上一鏡剛剛TAKE完紅灣，呢鏡我可以期望甚麼？我還夠膽期望甚麼？

政府現在擺明好大喜功，大地在我腳下。假如將來又發覺玩大左，咁會點？

各大財團虎視眈眈，未來可以有大把合理合法的正常商業決定；我等小民吵吵鬧鬧就是把事情政治化，影響各國投資者的信心。

看著眼前的香港，不知何故，近日頻頻想起百多年前，孫中山組織「興中會」時形容清代末期的中國：「強鄰環伺，虎視鷹鄰，瓜分豆割，實堪虞於目前 ... 」。

起來，不願做奴隸的人們 ... 香港特區到了最危險的時候 ...

卅年山水竟相逢

好神奇！真係好神奇！

最近竟然跟幾位廿多年沒見的中學同學飯聚！其中最近見過的一個都肯定超過十年沒見，最久的應該有廿九年啦。(係呀，我年齡無秘密，我1975年中學會考架！女同學就叫我咪咁大聲。)

事緣有幾位同學最近竟然咁得閒返母校參加46週年校慶聚餐，又竟然讀到我去年應邀為母校45週年刊物寫的懷舊文章，於是就想刮我。某夜，失去聯絡十多年的初中老友彭蜞竟然又找到我當年給他的電話號碼（連2字頭都未有），打來竟然又找到我。嘩！啤呢吧啦講左成幾十年野，又話我知當年的班長正在收集整理各人的聯繫方法，準備明年大搞畢業30週年聚餐。娃哈哈！ 過了幾天，班長來電，又係呱呱呱的講左幾十年野。最後結論：不如趁熱約幾個出來飯一飯佢啦，反正我明年都不知身在何方。

到達飯聚現場前一刻都頗為緊張 --- 如果行暈全場都認唔到人，點算？幸好各人風采依然好易認！但見各位昔日同窗，成熟穩重卻又青春長駐，道已不同卻是多嘴似當年，有人兒子大學快畢業，有人仍是蕭灑單身族，唯有我廿九年後還在讀書，唉有排搞。

是次偶然重聚既由一篇舊文章而起，我也就找那篇大作出來，在此獻世：
_________________________________________________________________

從靜室查經到神學研究
(寫於2003年9月，原刊於循道中學45週年校慶刊物)


一九七零年暑假某天，一個身材矮瘦得令人難以置信的中一新生，戰戰兢兢地踏進循道中學校長室，像其他所有新同學一樣，要面對正副校長個別接見。
面見結束時，副校長文國偉牧師對他說：「你家裡環境不太好，多用功讀書吧。」小子默默點頭離去。
小子如今已屆中年，身高正常，但依舊瘦削，而且畜了鬍子。
簡單一句話，成了我對循道中學最早的記憶；三十多年過去，文牧師說這話時的語調神態，依然歷歷在目；每當回想，心裡感動依然。　
中學時代，人未開竅，用功不成；但那句簡單的話，卻時刻提醒著我做人做事不能胡來，至今仍鞭策著我探求學問努力不懈。

當年校內「官方」的宗教氣氛並不濃厚，卻有一群熱心的基督徒同學在「民間」工作，令學生基督徒團契蓬勃非常。我大概也是抵受不了一些基督徒同學的猛烈攻勢，由中一下學期開始便參加學生團契的聚會，在團契的「靜室」裡查考聖經、唱詩祈禱，在週會裡聽講道。
一年一度的團契夏令會是每年盛事，更是有名的「靈性強心針」。二十元營費，便可以享受五六天的宿營，除了每天下午玩餐死、半夜不肯睡之外，早晚的聚會總叫人熱血沸騰，像要把生命放在祭壇上燃燒。一些已畢業的學兄學姊回來擔任營會導師，出錢出力，也成為叫人感動的模範。

回想起來，那時少不更事，對信仰之事似懂非懂。反叛的成長歲月，對任何好玩的事情都躍躍欲試；那個年代的社會急變，卻又挑動了我認識世界探索人生的心。
課堂裡枯燥得可以，課堂外卻是多姿多采；然而最堪回味的，還是中三中四期間跟一群本校和他校的同學一起，在社會署註冊，搞了一個社會服務社，服務油麻地避風塘的艇戶。一兩年之間，我對世界與人生的體驗來了個大躍進。相比之下，在學生團契裡接受的那一套信仰，便顯得太私人化和抽離現實了。
我早期的信仰之路，便是在這樣混雜的處境下起步的，表面平靜，內藏暗湧。但朋輩的拉力，特別是一些較高年級的兄姊的關顧和榜樣，令我始終沒有離開追尋上帝的路。
中五畢業後，我開始參與中學隔鄰的循道衛理聯合教會聚會，對基督的信仰也在此紮根。及後多年的升學、工作、和生活各方面之中，都不斷面對衝擊和挑戰；而正正是這些衝擊和挑戰，推動我一直投身傳播與文化工作，也驅使我進修神學研究，為要建立基督信仰與社會現實的橋樑。
卅年回望，今天我對當年在學生團契的私人化信仰很有保留，卻很懷念靜室裡的禱告，特別是中五會考前後，前路茫茫，大家經常一起分享祈禱、互相支持的日子。此刻夜深人靜，心中便惦念當年常常走在一起的婉芬、Sonnie、Kester、綺玲、詠儀、志璜、蕙仙、衰野、彭蜞 ….. 等等等等；這些年來，上帝對你們怎樣了？你們又對上帝怎樣呢？

簡介：
本文作者畢業於九龍循道學校，1970年經升中試分派到循道中學，1975年會考成績平平，未能原校升讀預科。在他校念預科後升讀浸會學院，畢業後至今多年一直從事傳播與文化工作，曾往美國麻省哥頓康維神學院攻讀神學研究碩士，及於中文大學深造傳播研究，曾任突破機構媒體節目總監，目前是中文大學崇基學院神學組名譽副研究員，英國愛丁堡大學神學院博士研究生。

My Daughter has Cancer

我舉頭觀看你指頭所做的天，並你所陳設的月亮星宿，便說：『狗算甚麼，你竟顧念牠；小狗算甚麼，你竟眷顧牠。你叫牠比人類微小一點，並賜牠善良的心為冠冕，又有善良的主人終生為伴。』 --- 南圍詩篇

My most beloved eldest daughter, Dug Jai德仔, is diagnosed of malignant tumour (cancer) today.

Over the last couple of weeks, we discovered that she has been getting clumsy when going down the stairs. I did not think it was a big deal at all and thought it was merely an effect of age. After all, she has turned 12 in June. Then about 2 weeks ago, I started to notice that her right hand limped during a walk outdoor. The limping seems to be getting more serious gradually. I decided that I could not procrastinate any longer for a check by the vet.

Yesterday the vet observed her walking and jogging in the corridor, then did a hand check on her arms, legs, and the back of her neck. After that, he said, ‘I have bad news for you.’ He basically mentioned three possibilities: the first two involve tumours either on her right arm or in the nerve of her neck; the third is a wear-and-tear problem of her neck (something similar to what I had, I guess). I had to take her back for x-ray this morning.

Today, before letting me look at the x-ray, the vet made me feel the lump beside her right armpit. It’s big. ‘Massive,’ he said. Then the x-ray film explained everything. The tumour is definitely malignant, because only malignant tumours spread to other parts of the body, and this one has. I could easily see smaller patches in different parts of her body. Gosh, why didn’t I notice her lump earlier?

Given her age, the vet does not recommend doing any therapeutic treatment – taking away the large tumour by surgery only makes the smaller tumours grow rapidly; chemotherapy only makes the patient suffer too much while the outcome is not guaranteed. I just took some anti-inflammatory and pain relieving tablets to make her physically less painful if necessary. At this point, no one can predict anything. My beloved daughter may go relatively quickly – as her symptoms have just become noticeable quite recently, that can mean that her cancer is developing rapidly. Or she may live on for quite some time. ‘When you find that it has become too hard for her, you can ask us to put her to sleep,’ said the vet.

Putting her to eternal sleep at this point? No way. Dug Jai is still active, relatively playful, keen on eating, and fond of walk around. It is way too early to think of saying farewell.
Two and a half years ago, when Dug Jai just turned ten, I asked God to let her spend ten more healthy and active years with me. God might think that I am being ridiculous. Maybe I am. But I am not going to give in. After all, I have been wrestling and arguing with God over so many things over the years; might as well add one more item on the list.

As I have always believed in natural / herbal medicine myself, I have already identified a natural therapy approach for her, using herbal medicine. http://www.petmedicinechest.com/canine/discussions/tumorstext.asp

I am not at all optimistic in this case, but I am not going to abandon – not until I find that she is suffering more than enjoying.

Tears are set aside for the time being. I will do whatever I can to fight for her well-being. At least, I’ll try my best to make her life peaceful. She is my most beloved daughter for the last twelve and a half years, and she will always be.

(from my personal journal > 25 November 2004)

問我

問我歡呼聲有幾多，問我悲哭聲有幾多，
我如何能夠一一去數清楚？
問我點解會高興，究竟點解要苦楚，
我笑住回答，講一聲：我係我！


無論我有百般對，或者千般錯，
全心去承受結果；
面對世界一切，那怕會如何，
全心保存真的我。

----- 向黃霑(1941-2004)致意
>>> 我可以喜歡他，可以不喜歡他，但我不可能否定他在香港普及文化發展裡的位置

《爭分奪秒》的十大驕人成就

這陣子在香港做實地研究（套用人類學的術語，是進行田野研究），大條道理晚晚對住電視，話自己做本地普及影視文化的文本分析。最大樂趣，是看《爭分奪秒》邊看邊罵 – 嘩！成個場面設計照抄！ … 車！唔make sense！ … 唔係嘛！連堂景都抄埋 ！ …

平心而論，《爭分奪秒》其實好大膽。
1. 它突破了無線劇集多年來的人物關係例牌公式，沒有了『A鍾意B，B鍾意C，C鍾意D，D鍾意A』那種編劇自以為浪漫哀怨的所謂「多角戀」其實是令人煩到嘔的「多角亂」。
2. 它敢於營造一種令一般翡翠台慣性觀眾頂唔順的格調，絕不怕師奶觀眾轉台熄機。
3. 它把無線戲劇三十年來「抄」的傳統發揮得淋漓盡致，抄到入肉：除了基本構思和故事格局抄《24》之外，CIB總部成堂佈景都照搬人地的CTU反恐總部；除了人物設計抄《無間道》之外，大量場面設計甚至鏡頭調度都抄埋，餐餐都大牌當晒馬freeze action slow track，餐餐都黑社會大佬打邊爐。犀利！(又唔知點解大佬講數梗係要打邊爐，難怪咁大火氣！)
4. 它捨常見的主題曲不用而只用主題音樂，而且用《無間道》式的（模擬）人聲合唱；最厲害的是每次commercial ID (廣告前後的jingle)都急迫地由低音至高音唱：『拾下拾下拾下拾下拾下…..』，正好唱出了觀眾對劇中人的評價。好絕！
5. 它擺明車馬地宏揚佛法，尤其最後兩集，出現了不下五次「一念超生，渡人自渡」一語，全劇最終的resolution亦由此金句而來。最後一集出現了三個正邪人物在佛寺裡「與萬化冥合」的場面，更是香港電視劇非常罕見的對「超越」的嚴肅描繪 (serious representation of transcendence)。至於那是否真正的佛家教導，我唔識；不過是但啦，正如好多話係基督教製作，裡面講的是否真正符合基督信仰，我這個神學博士候選人都唔敢講。
6. 它甘冒破壞別國友好關係的危險，把泰國描繪成黑社會橫行當道無王管，泰國警察則是只懂跑來跑去任人點，兼且好鬼得閒隨時可以飛去香港媾仔。好勇！
7. 它讓我們認識到「死亡面前人人平等」的普遍真理，無論合理不合理，所有主要男角都在故事結束時死去或面臨死亡。好堅！
8. 它充份讓我們明白「人生荒謬，世事難料」的道理，所有人物的行為都沒有足夠可信動機 (credible motivation)，極力挑戰「情理之中，意料之外」這條編劇基本守則的霸權。而它對主流戲劇結構霸權最激的終極挑戰，在於它用來支撐整個戲的基本戲劇衝突（所謂大橋）是不成立的 – 那個李萬豪 / 鄭坤點解對那個王振揚副署長痛恨得咁犀利，冒自己生命危險都要搞到佢身敗名裂？他不是沒有足夠動機，而是完全沒有動機可言。縱橫江湖幾十年的老叔父，心理活動有如小學生。這做法完全顛覆了世界主流電視戲劇 （包括華語，韓日，英美，拉丁美洲）的敘事結構，絕對前衛！好激！
9. 它以戲劇的節奏告訴我們：正常來說，一天裡面發生的事情其實不會很多。於是，每集戲（一天的故事）觀眾大部份時間都是看著人物行來行去，想來想去，翻來覆去。它把一天的事情展現在觀眾眼前，讓我們明白，原來我們對生活不應這樣緊張，應該放鬆點，因為緊張都沒用，一切事情都可以無端端發生的，let it be！
10. 它大膽地起用一個反諷而充滿玄機的劇名（最初聽見還以為是遊戲節目）：看戲中人物，你絕對不會覺得他們在爭分奪秒，而是在盡力拖延時間。我默想了數星期，終於想通它的玄機：原來萬事萬物總有定時，爭分奪秒於事無補，急黎無用盞傷身；同樣，頻頻指出劇中人行為不合理之處也是晒氣的，佢點做就點做啦，關你鬼事麼！這份對生命最終極的洞悉，放到現實裡，就是要凡事看開點囉。好有智慧！

布殊贏了，世界輸了

布殊贏了，世界輸了。

今天明報社論標題：布殊連任，世界難安。正正道出了我心中的擔憂。

我從來沒有像今年那麼關注美國總統大選。就算多年前留學麻省期間，見證著麻省州長杜家麒(Dukakis)硬撼副總統布殊，慘敗而歸，片甲不存，一沉不起，都只是一絲絲失望。

今回卻是零舍肉緊，一直留意美國英國和香港的有關報導與評論，觀看直播四場辯論(連副總統一場都殺埋)。可能因為我隱隱感到，這趟事非尋常，影響深遠；也因為我感到，布殊實在唔係波。

我最難頂他老是拿著宗教旗熾招搖，開口埋口pro-life，family values，單純的美國保守派基督徒(和香港某部份)又以為佢講真，嘩，唔選佢美國道德淪亡喇。但其實正如我一位老友說，布殊政府到底為這些所謂道德議題做過甚麼？沒有嘛。(http://yamje.blogspot.com/2004/11/reflections-on-presidential-election.html)

美國倫理學者Peter Singer更妙，他的The President of Good and Evil (Dutton Juvenile, 2004) 說布殊才是當今美國最重要的倫理學家，因為他每次講話都含有大量道德詞彙，夠晒道德！既然講得咁響，當然不可忽視啦；不過唔知布殊本人是否一樣重視自己的道德言論囉。

布殊下下以自己為正義化身領導正邪決戰，他是正，全世界都邪，玩晒！人間世，有甚麼比替天行道更危險？
二千年前耶路撒冷的聖殿領袖替天行道，搞掂了妖言惑眾的耶穌。
一千年前羅馬教廷替天行道，十字軍東征血洗阿拉伯，種下停不了戰爭的禍根。
七十年前希特拉替天行道，清除拖累人類進步的猶太人。
廿一世紀布殊政府替天行道，炸平阿富汗揮軍伊拉克，拉登呢？大殺傷力武器呢？下次去邊度玩？邊度仲有石油任欏？

我另一位美國老友說，恐怕布殊當選令世人誤會美國人都支持這個德州牛仔。(http://yamje.blogspot.com/2004/11/sad-day.html)

我倒恐怕這不是誤會，因為他得到的大眾票(popular votes)雖然只是51%，但是票數達六千萬張，破了美國歷任總統紀錄。

新約聖經學者Robert Jewett與宗教學者John Shelton Lawrence合著，Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil (Eerdmans, 2003) 是美國神學家對自身文化的神學反省。他們說，替天行道，拯救世界的超人心態，其實深深植根在亞美利堅普及文化裡，由連環圖到電影，跟美國的公共宗教(civil religion)結合了，影響著國民心態與國家政策。

愛丁堡大學基督教倫理學講座教授羅邁喬(Michael Northcott)近著，An Angel Directs the Storm：Apocalyptic Religion and American Empire (I.B. Tarius, 2004) 則代表不列顛神學界對近年美國在世界上橫行的深層批判，指出布殊政府和美國人民深受一種錯誤的末世觀影響，失去了對絕對權力的批判。

A Sad Day --- 另一位華裔美國基督徒對布殊連任的感受

[飲者按：美國總統大選大局已定；我收到另一位美國老朋友的電郵，分享對布殊當選的極度憂傷；文中形容布殊政府自大，矇騙，自以為義，恐怕世人會誤會美國人竟然支持如此一個德州牛仔。承蒙原作者允許登載，照例保護當事人。]

Although vote counting is still going on, chances are we are going to get four more years of Bush. This has saddened me profoundly. In fact, I am so depressedthat I had to go out for a drink! (Don't worry, it's just a cup of tea, not alcohol.)

I have never felt so strongly about a presidential election. Anyone familiar with American politicsknows that there have always been fundamental and ideological differences between the 2 major parties, namely the Republican and Democratic parties. Without going into details, I suppose each party gets some ofthe things right. Therefore, in any other election, even if the person I voted for did not win, I was willing to give the other guy a chance to prove that whatever he has to offer the country will do us some good. But, this time is different. For the past four years, this administration has shown itself to be arrogant, deceptive and self-righteous to a point that it blatantly ignores the rest of the world. It is not even whether we win or lose the war in Iraq, it is howthe administration has handled itself.

I understandthat a lot of people (especially my fellow Christians) also voted to express their deep concerns about abortion and same sex marriage. It is good that they care so much about these moral issues in our society. I just hope that they did not just vote to make a stand and then forget about what we have to actually do to contribute to the world to make it a better place to live in.

Four years ago, this country did not know better. Now, we should know better in terms of what Bush can offer. I hope the world does not get the wrong idea that America is backing this Texas cowboy's way of treating the world. After all, it is another tight race. This country is deeply divided. I hope Bush gets the message that he is not appointed by God to run this country and that he should respect this contract that he has with the people of this great land. May God help us all!

(written by a good friend on 3 November 2004, posted with permission of the author, who prefers to stay anonymous)

一個華裔美國基督徒對大選的反思 Reflections on the Presidential Election from a Chinese American Christian

[飲者按：近期我一直跟兩位美國老朋友討論有關總統大選等問題，11月1日(投票前一天)再收到其中一位的電郵，埋身反省當地基督徒的選舉態度，裡面提到為甚麼他多年支持共和黨，但今次卻為民主黨克里作個人拉票，水準高超唔係野小！正所謂人點燈不是放在斗底下，現蒙原作者允許在此登載，公諸友好。當然，為保護當事人，人名教會名全部略去。]

At our church yesterday (Sunday), part of the sermon touched on the election. The intention was good in that the church is trying to encourage brothers and sisters to be more concerned about politics and to vote. The pastors/leaders are careful to stay neutral. They are well aware of the consequence of siding with either side, because in U.S., non-profit organizations are not allowed to push political agenda. Otherwise they will lose their tax free status.

But as evangelical Christian, our pastor still feel the obligation (their pastoral duty) to say that"moral issues" are (should be) the most important issues when considering who to vote for. Hint hint...abortion, homosexual issues, and hint hint, vote for Bush.

Attached to the weekly bulletin insert that was distributed to everyone at church were lists of political issues collected from CNN.com, AOL.com, CCN, etc. And the list shows where the candidates stand on each issue. The idea is that we can go through the list of issues, see where we stand on each issue. And at the end, get a count on how many issues we agree with each candidate. So if we agree on 20 out of 30 issues with Bush and only 10 out of 30 issues with Kerry, then vote for Bush.

And hint hint... as evangelical Christians we should place more weight on "moral issues".

After the sermon, I expressed my concern to a fewpeople, including a newly elected "elder" of our church. My concern is that this is an overly simplistic approach to deciding who to vote for. For one thing, Bush can say he is pro-life, but what has he done in the four years he has been president on this "moral issue"?

When asked point-blank during one of the debates whether they will appoint supreme court justices to over-turn abortion right, Kerry clearly said he will appoint justices to uphold the U.S. constitution, not on specific issues (hence, "no"). But Bush basically just danced around and gave his standard"answered-but-no-answer" type of response.

And Bush claims he is against same-sex marriage. But the Republican president, Republican-controlled House and Senate couldn't even get serious discussion going on constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. What has Bush done on this moral issue?

During the RNC (Republican National Convention), Bush campaign was so concern of appearing "too much to the right", they didn't invite conservative Christian leaders to speak or to the RNC itself. These poor Christian supporters of Bush had to gather and pray for Bush privately in a nearby hotel room, away from the cameras and the public.

Is this the "moral" candidate that we should support? This is not as simple as checking off on a list of issues.

While I am concern about moral issues as well, I am more concern, in this election, about the fundamental differences in "world view" of each candidate. I feel that Bush and his gang of ultra-rightwing, and self-righteous advisors are extremely dangerous, not just to the U.S., but to the world.

I heard on the radio the other day that someone said Bush should never have been allowed into the White House and should never be allowed back into the White House ever again. I feel maybe it is more important that ultra-rightwing folks like Donald Rumsfeld(defence secretary)and Paul Wolfowitz (deputy defencesecretary) should never have been allowed into thePentagon.

Knowing that Massachusetts is not a swing state andthat Massachusetts is very much knocked up in Kerry's camp, I spent some time today "sharing my thoughts"with some colleagues at the office who are NewHampshire residents. Hoping to win over some undecided. New Hampshire, as you know, is still in a tight race. Hope to do something, in whatever small way I could, to help Kerry's campaign :-)

I started forming my political views during the 80's and I was very Republican. I thought Reagan was great, and his supply-side economy saved the U.S. economy from the oil crisis. I hate big government and as a young Christian I sided with the conservatives' moral stands. But now that I have my very first opportunity to vote as a new U.S. citizen, I am voting against Bush. Not that Kerry is my ideal candidate. I am anti-Bush.

Just one more day... I am glad it will be all over soon. It has just been too much anxiety.

As always, wish you are here to chat with in person instead of writing emails.

(written by a good friend on 1 November 2004; posted with permission of author who prefers to remain anonymous)

論文第二章

這兩天正部署自己的能量，進入論文第二章。

早前寫過的第一章，是我的研究議題的基本理論處境(primary theoretical context)，審視歷來從神學與宗教角度研究電影的討論，以及這方面自從2003年以來的走勢。

第二章審視實戰處境(practical context)。可以說，這次在香港坐定了個多月，到現在才開始我真真正正需要在香港進行的功夫。按時間規劃，我應該要在今年之內完成這一章，同時要規劃好跟著幾章的大概內容。時日無多。

過去四個月以來，認真面對評核議會各老師在口試時給我的意見和挑戰，腦袋日夜翻騰，重新思索論文的總路向和命題。那段日子，看書找資料不管用，完全是自己面壁思考的功夫，所以我看的書離奇地少，四處刮料的時候更少，怕思路給外圍因素搞亂檔。其實到目前仍是翻騰未止，但我在寫好了一個修訂計劃之後，電郵了給麥佐人老師，就不斷努力的叫自己要暫時忘記它，否則難以繼續上路。

各位老師給我的最高難度挑戰，令我要致力思考這論文對當前香港 / 華人 / 東亞的重要神學課題有甚麼貢獻。如此一來，神學上的跳水台高左，難度分又高左；我有信心跳的好看，但係無信心跳得中水池。好驚跌死。

隆重登場！

本網頁今天隆重開業！

趁著思考與寫作裡一個短短的轉折期，我偷了自己若干小時，做成了這個'北海 . 尋道 . 我愛丁堡'，作為在愛丁堡唸書期間的印記，分享我的求學心路。

今天之前的archive是回顧倒敘，故事由2003年9月29日我到達愛丁堡第一天開始。Archive裡面有部份是曾經發過給朋友的，另外有些來自我的個人扎記。在整理的過程裡，我也彷彿回顧了過去一年多的心路。唉，一額汗。

四個月之前，我通過了小型口試，獲推薦為博士候選人，並得到評核議會給我好多好多點意見期望好評提醒忠告批評指正責備鼓勵鞭策督促，要求我把研究計畫進一步修訂整理。本來以為幾個星期可以完成的，結果搞到現在才初有成果。唉，一額汗。

搞個網頁玩下，當是慶祝幾個月來的初步成果，也學布殊總統一樣，轉移一下視線。

正如我近期寫的這幾句嬉戲詩詞，可算是在不列顛研究生涯的點滴：

北海驚濤觀逝水，論文淘盡英雄， [在英格蘭的朋友：改成泰晤士河東逝水就可以啦]
口試成敗轉頭空。
皇室依舊在，帝國夕陽紅，
八國同窗酒吧內，慣看英倫輸波，
一壺生啤喜相逢，
古今多少事，都付笑談中。

這些年間，我時而在愛丁堡時而在香港或其他地方，但是基本的生活型態是一樣的 --- 行動上以閉關為主，獨行為副，爭取機會見見想念的人，偶爾集體飯聚嘰嘰呱呱也無妨；心態上以愛丁堡為基地，以香港為處境。
所以，我人在那裡，對這裡的內容影響不大。
你也不用理會我某一刻到底身在何方。

隨緣。

記念布殊

為全世界安全著想，請為美國總統布殊禱告！

美國總統大選即將舉行，選情緊湊，難料鹿死誰手！
由於美國是目前世界上唯一超級大國，它的內政外交均對全球影響深遠，大家應該密切注意。
如果你相信祈禱的力量，更應該為美國大選而懇切禱告。
為喬治布殊禱告吧！

尋求連任的喬治布殊，是美國聯合衛理公會(United Methodist Church)教友，他自認是個全心追求上帝的人，認為自己一切都是為神而作，替天行道。
所以他奉上主之名轟炸阿富汗，把那個本來已經生靈塗炭的國家再炸個片甲不留。
他又奉上主之名入侵伊拉克，把石油的控制權奪過來 --- 儘管他所屬的堂會牧師勸他不要打，儘管聯合衛理公會全體主教發表聲明反對開戰。
他已經成功改變了伊拉克人民的命運 --- 本來在撒達姆候賽恩極權統治下惶恐度日的人民，變成天天在炸彈和內戰的陰影下惶恐度日。
他更帶領全美國人民一起學習信心的功課，創造了美國聯邦政府有史以來最高的財政赤字，和多年來最差的就業情況。

既然布殊弟兄這麼親近上帝，我希望主也好好報答他。
願上主叫他經過十一月二日大選的折騰之後，可以功成身退，歸回安息，回家享福，天天快樂度假，不再需要為國事天下事操心，無須再被白宮內外的事務纏身，更免去了被傳媒諷刺被政敵攻擊被世界多國人民咒罵的痛苦。
這些苦差，就讓John Kerry和他那一夥民主黨人承擔好了。
願上主與他同在，更與全世界無數無辜而痛苦的人同在。
阿門。

Film Stuff: Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11 (dir / pro / writ: Michael Moore, USA 2004)
§ Winner of Palme D’Or at Cannes 2004
§ Watched @Cameo @£1

It is a brilliant advocatory-documentary: it documents to advocate for an explicit political stance. This stance is clear and simple throughout the whole film, but is explicitly put forth right at the opening and the ending.
Opening sequence: from Al Gore celebrating the winning of presidential election in 2000 to Bush’s inauguration in DC which encountered unprecedented protests. The film starts with a reminder to the US American people that they did not elect GW Bush, the court did. Moore tries to establish the illegitimacy of Bush’s presidency by saying that it is merely the product of his daddy’s network with influential people.
Then the film continues to discredit GW by showing his apparent impotence or inactivity during his first few months in office. He spent 42% of his first half year on vacation. Two days before 9/11 he was still on vacation. Then came the attack. Instead of figuring out how to deal with the national crisis, Moore tells the audience that the president was trying to sort out ways to get out of trouble – thinking of ways to hide his family’s close connection with the Bin Laden family.
The first half of the film is basically an attempt to show how the two families are linked in terms of interests, and how GW is trying to stop the congress from starting immediate investigation into 9/11, and how the Bush administration has been ‘stealing the sky and changing the sun’ to divert public attention toward Iraq by artificially connecting Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda.
Then the second half of the film is an exhibit of the absurdity of the war on terrorism and the ungrounded invasion of Iraq. Innocent American citizens come under secret agent surveillance simply because they have said something about terrorism. Innocent Iraqi civilians are killed, and their homes blown into pieces. Innocent US American young people from poor communities drafted into the army for the sake of a better future, only to find themselves killed or severely wounded or carrying out their duties in desperate situations. Big corporations get together to make business plans for ‘rebuilding’ the country. The senators voted for going to war but would not encourage their own children to be enlisted.
The film’s premise is that Bush is actually targeting the war on his own fellow US American citizens. He takes the war on terrorism as a pretext to manipulate the country and create business opportunities for the defence industry.

There are several especially powerful moments.
The treatment of the 9/11 attack is an audio-only sequence with total visual blackout. Then we see the reaction of people in the street in NYC.
The Iraqi woman who have lost her son in the bombing calling to Allah.
The American woman who lost her son reads his last letter home: ‘don’t vote for this stupid guy again’.

Somehow you have to know at least something about US American society-culture-politics to appreciate this film. It plays around with a lot of old American songs, TV programmes and film clips, such as superimposing the heads of GW and others (including Tony Blair) onto the opening jingle of Bonanza. The analogy of GW Bush being a cowboy is clear.

Is it a balanced documentary? No. Are there evidence and viewpoints from different sides? No. It is never intended to be. It is unabashedly a political statement against GW Bush government. Understandably the Bush supporters would refrain from watching it, and those who dislike him would like the film. It is no wonder that audience in the USA, as told by Hoi Sue, cheers and screams in cinema.
Forget about the balanced reporting baggage. A filmmaker’s mission, as a producer of culture, is to go for what she or he thinks, as far as it is well grounded with sound evidence, well presented in a clear and convincing and attention-drawing manner. To bring forth viewpoints of all sides and tell the audience to decide for themselves is the job of a messenger.
Michael Moore has always been doing this, successfully. This time, in Fahrenheit 9/11, his effort is to be celebrated.

(originally written on 14 July 2004)

Film Stuff: The Return - a parable on Hong Kong from Russia!

The Return (dir. Andry Zvyaginstev, Russia 2003)
§ Winner of Golden Lion Awards for Best Film and Best First Film, Venice 2003
§ Viewed @ Cameo @£1

Two teenagers, Andrey and Ivan, suddenly encounter the home-coming of their father, who has left home for an unknown reason for 12 years. The day following his return, the father (who is unnamed in the film) brings the two sons on a camping trip, which turns out to be not only emotionally intense but tragic in outcome.
Ivan, the younger son, is sensitive, suspicious, rebellious, but timid. He is shown in the opening scene that he is too afraid to jump into the water from a high platform. After his peers (including his elder brother) are gone, he stayed there, shivering, crying, until his embracing mother comes to his rescue. He is called ‘shorty’ by his peers, and because of the failure to jump, also rejected as chicken the following day.
In contrast, his elder brother Andrey is an average teenager but tends to be more accepting and obedient to the unknown father. The father is strict, uncommunicative, and can even be described as militant in his handling of his sons.
The tone of the whole film and the character of Ivan are set in the opening scene, in which a group of teenagers are playing diving from a high platform. The sky is cloudy, with strong wind blowing, and the whole frame is greyish blue. The film prepares itself for a heavy and depressing story, and Ivan is shown to be a timid boy afraid of jumping from the platform.
Second scene: sky begins to turn dark. Ivan is alone on the platform, embracing himself in the cold wind, crying, and desperate; he dare not jump but dare not climb down the ladder lest he would be called a chicken. Mother comes, clothes him, comforts him, and assures him that nobody would know he has not jumped.
Scene 3: Ivan goes into a grey worn out abandoned building to join his peers who are playing football there, only to find himself rejected as being a chicken. He and his brother get into a fight. Then the audience sees Andrey chasing after Ivan. The editing and numerous changes in background suggest that they are running a long way. While in one shot Ivan is running toward the back dollying camera, we see Andrey turning into an alternative way at the back of the shot. Then we see them running together again. This arrangement suggests that they are probably very familiar with the way, and that it might not so much be a chase but rather a running together. It is in this run that we briefly see some warm colours in a distant for the first time.
Then, we find that they are running toward a house, with Ivan yelling mom, complaining that Andrey is pulling his shirt, while the latter says that Ivan is hurting his lips. But mother tells them to be quiet, saying that their father is sleeping. From this, two things are established: one, the two boys are brothers; two, their father being at home is a fact they have to get used to.
Inside the house, an older woman (presumably their granny) is sitting in front of the table, playing her own hands, seemingly nervous. The boys peep at their father sleeping in bed, and go to the attic to search for an old family photo. Seeing it, Andrey says, ‘that’s surely him.’ Apparently they have not seen their father since they were small kids as shown in the picture.
The dinner table sets up the father’s authoritative character. He pours wine for his wife and mother and himself, but then tells his wife to pour the kids some wine. It is probably the first time the boys have any wine – Andrey likes it and asks for more, while Ivan expresses that he does not really like it. The father’s full shot is the main shot, and we see him breaking bread and giving it to the others. He is the one in control, despite his absence for (we do not yet know how many) years.
It is also in this dinner scene that we see Ivan’s initial enthusiasm – asking about the father’s car, asking for a ride, and expressing excitement when told of a trip ahead. But that very evening, over the bed time talk of the brothers, we know that Ivan is doubtful of this father while Andrey takes it for granted.

The trip is in one sense a ‘power struggle’ between the authoritative father and the rebellious and suspicious younger son, interspersed with the two boys mutual questioning of the other’s attitude.
Father insists that Ivan should answer him by saying papa, which Ivan does reluctantly after some coercion, while Andrey always say papa this and papa that – an attitude which his younger brother scorns at. Father would insist Ivan to finish eating within a certain period of time, gets back Andrey’s wallet from a thief whom he asks his son to beat, leaves Ivan on the roadside as a punishment of the latter’s complaints (for not letting him to fish longer at the same spot). He is also unpredictable and mysterious. We twice see him calling someone, and suddenly send his sons home by bus because he has business to do, and then takes the boys off the bus again to continue the trip. He always acts without explaining, and it is probably the same manner in which he has left home twelve years earlier.
The tone of the trip, which forms the bulk of the whole film, alternates between sunny warm colour and grey monotone cloudy-rainy sky. Most of the time, a sequence would begins with a bright visual mood and followed by dark clouds and even heavy rain. The emotional relationship between father and sons follows this alteration.

The trip / power struggle comes to a disastrous end when the boys come back several hours late after going fishing with the boat. Father hits Andrey harshly. Ivan cannot stand it and takes the knife he has stolen from father to threaten killing him. After a few words of verbal confrontation Ivan runs to climb up a high tower, threatening to jump. Ivan the boy who is afraid of height climbs up a high tower! He must be extremely desperate. Father tries to climb from the side but falls to the ground, dies, because of a loosened plank.
The boys use all their effort to take father’s body back to the boat and back to the shore where they have come from. But when they manage to put everything back into the car, they see the boat drifted away from shore, sinking, together with their father (and the box, of which they know nothing). Here, the audience sees Ivan to be most anxious, running into the water toward the boat, calling ‘papa’ unendingly, a name which he has been so reluctant to call earlier in the trip. Back in the car, Ivan finds an old photo of the two of them with mother. The visual memory of the family has always accompanied papa, although he has not been with them in person.

Throughout the whole film the father is a mystery – his motivations, his background, what he is really trying to do. We do not even know what he has uncovered in the small house on the island; we only see him digging out a suitcase and take out a box from it and put in the boat. It is something of his past, but as his own body is to sink into the water, so is his box; the audience is never to know. (Interestingly, a lady later asked at the box office about what happened to the box. Haha! That’s funny!)

If this is a Hong Kong film, it would certainly be a parable about Hong Kong and China – the authoritative, unpredictable father who believes that he is trying to be good to the sons. The sons, who have not been together with papa over the years, are either accepting, obedient, trying to follow and please papa, or suspicious, critical, and has his own way. But at the end of the day, both prove to be truly affectionate to their father.
Nonetheless, this is not a Hong Kong film. Yet, unabashedly, I am reading this into the story as a native of Hong Kong – as an Ivan, like so many other Hong Kong people.

(originally written on 7 July 2004)

Film Stuff: Deep Blue

Deep Blue (dir. Andy Byatt & Alastair Fothergill, UK & Germany 2003)
§ Viewed @Filmhouse @ £2.2

Stunning, awesome, spectacular … I can easily run out of adjectives for describing my feeling toward this documentary about the ocean. The sheer view of tens and hundreds of dolphins dashing on the surface of the sea, or hundreds of sharks gathering are haunting images. The shots of thousands of smaller fish swirling around are just like Finding Nemo in the real world.
I think it is a theatrical release version of the BBC series Blue Planet. Some of the shots are familiar, such as a killer whale catching the young seal at the shore and throwing it around into the air, and also killer whales chasing after a baby grey whale for several hours trying to separate it from its mother. But it is more than an abridged edition. It is nicely scripted, beautifully edited, superbly scored with original music played by the Berlin Philharmonic. Different from many BBC documentaries, its narration is minimal, only to provide basic facts to enhance appreciation of the film. I have not watched nature documentaries on a big screen for a long time. (Or have I ever?) It is quite an experience to view this in a cinema, only that the screen should be even bigger.

There is a point of theological reflection in watching these nature documentaries. I remember David Attenborough once said something like this: How can I claim a loving and merciful and good creator when I see with my own eyes the sheer cruelty of nature – a killer whale playing around with a baby seal before killing it?
Does that really refute the notion of a creator who is at the same time totally good and omnipotent? Does that indicate that there is something inherently evil in the animal world, in nature, and thus in the creation – and would therefore negate the possibility of a universal moral force / order? (Well, okay, I am jumping steps here.) OR: is it simply to be understood as a ‘food chain’ thing? I’ll try to check if the works of Andrew Linzey (animal theology) address this issue. (Probably not.)
That's interesting. I have never thought of the theologies of nature and of creation from such perspectives. It can be a tremendous theological issue; and its complexity probably explains the anthropocentrism in mainstream theological works – in our theological construction / reflection, we are only able to deal with the human world; apart from our own species we are unable to say anything, or even uninterested.
Yes, I feel heart stricken when I watch those scenes of nature’s brutality. It is somewhat unbearable to a nature / animal lover such as me. But why do I not feel the same when I see the birds (albatross) diving to catch fish, or dolphins catching fish, or sharks eating fish in the deep seabed? It can be something very personal – that I feel emotionally closer to other mammals, and that somehow explains why I am still a vegetarian only on land.
But, at certain moments during the film, I was telling myself that I would probably refrain from eating fish; or at least, as a compromise, to eat still less seafood than present.

(originally written on 8 July 2004)

Trip to the USA

Earlier this month I flew over to the USA to attend an academic conference in Louisville, Kentucky (which is in the middle of nowhere) and then spent a few days in Boston where I studied ages ago.

The conference was the ‘4th International Conference on Media, Religion, and Culture’, which is THE major conference in my field of study, held once every several years. Earlier conferences in the series have been held in Uppsala (Sweden), Boulder (Colorado, USA), and Edinburgh.

Participants are mainly scholars in media/communication, theology/religion, or other fields in humanities and social science. The common thread among these people is their serious attempts in crossing academic boundaries to muddle with the disciplines next door. It was really an invaluable opportunity to meet some people whose research interests or concerns are similar to my own. It is an amazing thing to meet people from varied social and cultural contexts but share more or less the same cluster of frustrations as mine, or even make similar critical observations about Christianity and the media.

Among the academic or semi academic conferences I have attended, this is the one with which I feel most at home by far. In occasions which are more theologically oriented, people tend to regard me as a media person and are always curious why I am there; while among cinema or media study circles people think that I am a theologian and query my presence. It is only here that I do not need to justify my presence. Open invitations from the World Association of Christian Communication and New York University for presentation and exchange are encouraging affirmations to what I am doing.

The brief stay in Boston after the conference was a good nostalgic time. I stayed with a couple who was the first persons I met when I went there to study years ago, and since then have become good friends of mine. Of course I also had the chance to rekindle friendship with several old friends whom I have not seen for ages.

Yet the most memorable moment was the evening spent with Dr. Stephen Mott, my major professor-advisor back in Gordon-Conwell, who is a pioneer in social ethical study among US American evangelicals. He has made his mark on me not only through his classes and writings, but more importantly through his lifestyle, his way of handling his students, and his overall approach to theology and scripture. Stephen has left his teaching position ten years ago and has since then been pastoring a United Methodist Church south of Boston. We have not seen each other after I graduated. This reunion is truly a moment beyond words.

I also had the time to go back to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Harvard Divinity School. As the Chinese saying goes, the sceneries were there but the faces had changed. Familiarity and unfamiliarity were ambivalently mingled. Yet apparently one thing about myself has changed – I have not bought a single book during the whole trip, which was unimaginable in the past. Well, has my area of study become so specific that I am no longer interested in books that used to interest me? And the books that I was specifically looking for were not available there. Save some money, at least. J

Farewell, new excitement. Farewell, good memories. Now I am (slowly) getting back to my normal work on hand, which is to embark on writing the 2nd chapter of my thesis and to carry out field research in preparation for writing the main body. At the same time I need to restructure my whole thesis and continuously rethink the focus of my primary research question.

The almost-full moon above reminds me that it is festival time. My mind is occupied with a favourite Chinese poem, and with family and friends all over.

人有悲歡離合 Humans experience sorrow, joy, separation, and union;
月有陰晴圓缺 The moon experiences cloudiness, clarity, fullness, and eclipse;
此事古難全 From antiquities, these have always been inevitable.
但願人長久 I shall look forward to eternity,
千里共嬋娟 That we can go a thousand miles together.

蘇軾: 水調歌頭
(poem from Song Dynasty, AD960-1279, my paraphrase)

Have a good Mid Autumn.

(written in Hong Kong)

The Minster Retires

Paul King wept.
It is the last day of service, the last Sunday worship, the last communion, the last sermon preached. The minister of Nicholson Square Methodist Church is retiring after serving 11 years in this church. A couple of weeks ago there were already a farewell lunch gathering (which I did not join but heard that it was overwhelming) and a Sunday evening dialogue (which I did join). Still, it has been an emotional moment today, especially toward the end of the service when the choir sang a very touching tone after the benediction.
Finally over the tea and coffee, Paul had to take out his handkerchief to wipe his tears after saying his final words of thanks and receiving gifts.

Paul brilliantly preached on John 8:1-11 (Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery) and 1 Cor 1: 10-25 (Paul, Peter, and Apollos).
John 8: the tension between being strict on things and being more accepting toward human weakness yet maintaining discipline – ‘I don’t condemn you, but don’t do it again’.
1 Cor 1: great analogical play of the ministers own names: don’t get caught up in personality cult – neither Paul (King) nor Peter (the incoming new minister) matters, but God. Don’t even be caught up with the personality cult of Jesus.
When he came 11 years ago, Paul said, there were about 155 – 160 people in the church. Now there still are. In the tide of church attendance decline in the whole UK, he is thankful for this. Also he is thankful for baptising a new member today. How about that! I bet British churches today do not often see people being baptised. What a surprise. But it’s intriguing that they do not use water in the whole liturgy.

(taken from my personal journal > 4 July 2004)

重遇舊情人

重遇舊情人

「舊情人是個在腦海中飄過的感嘆號 … 」- 周潤發舊歌：《舊情人》

過去幾天 (7月1 – 3日)，我參加了『耶魯 – 愛丁堡宣教歷史研討會』。耶魯和敝校堪稱研究宣教歷史和世界基督教 (World Christianity) 的世界頂級重點單位，天下有雙，最近十四年來雙劍合璧，每年輪流主辦此研討會，今年剛好輪到敝校，益左我近水樓臺食到正。研討會各國高手雲集，學術報告大多扎實有料到，令我有如連續三天「服食過量學術」(academic overdose)。

但世事難料，我竟在此重遇那久違了的舊情人，三天日夕相對令我心靈悸動，卻又可望不可親叫我輾轉難眠。
話說這次研討會裡，一共有五篇關於十九二十世紀在華傳教士的論文，愈聽就愈想起我的學術舊愛，思潮澎拜意難平。
回想八十幾年前在波士頓讀神學，還未坐定便班門弄斧未死過，研究人家美國福音信仰教會的社會觀。跟著那個風雪紛飛的一月，修讀「歷代教會的社會思想」，首兩個星期便要狂啃Ernst Troeltsch的經典巨著The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (當然不是全部看完啦)，囫圇吞棗根本消化不良，跟著還要讀其他的social teaching of the Black Church，social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church … 諸如此類。
從那時就開始萌生了一個奇怪的念頭，還對老師說，將來要寫一部《中國教會的社會思想》 (Social Teachings of the Chinese Church)。老師說，好哇，你說不定會成為中國的Troeltsch。
往後幾年一直都頗為密切注意這個「她」，成為我搞傳媒和文化以外的學術外遇，偶爾還妄想有朝把她娶進門。然而我自覺對中國現代歷史四分一桶水都無，始終不敢造次。加上生活磨人，漸漸的，我們疏遠了，她的一切變得愈來愈陌生。是我始亂終棄。
沒料到，2004年7月 …。正是：驚鴻一瞥莫道春遲似霧水 … 。
不過請放心。會後第二天午後散步的時候我已經搞通思想了，現已重回現實，回到我的「傳媒文化與神學」的東宮那裡，畢竟我們是真心相愛的。

「舊情人是個做到最好偏錯失的結局，是對是錯也好，長夜裡不必想得太多。」
- 周潤發舊歌：《舊情人》

順帶一提：埋頭九個月，我終於在上個星期面對了研究生評核議會，舌戰三師近兩小時，我自知神學部份是我研究計畫的致命弱項 (早就話自己神學渣啦)，必遭直插，卻沒料到會殺到如此血流成檯 – 那夜失血過多腦震盪，無心睡眠腦交戰。
最後雖然他們強烈要求我修改2046樣野，但總算通過了，決定推薦我成為正式博士研究生 (full PhD student status，大約相當於美國制的博士候選人PhD candidate)。當老師口頭宣佈決定時，我只是平靜地說一聲謝謝，暗暗舒了一口氣，卻沒有特別覺得開心。還是後來愛人在電話裡的祝賀提醒了我，是應該開心的。
昨天再跟老師見面，我把當日評核的結果總結為最重要的兩大方面，他聽完之後即說：你漏了最重要的一樣，就是你通過了評審，那不是最重要的嗎？那才是你最重要的成果呀！喔噢！哈，又係！

小插曲：
我在研討會裡竟然認識了咱們循道衛理教會會長’s的老師 – 是前任和現任會長 (李炳光牧師和李鼎新牧師) 多年前在英格蘭進修時的老師胡德牧師 (George Hood)，是位四十年代在潮州宣教、後來駐守馬來西亞廿多年的退休傳教士。

(originally my Letter from Edinburgh 4 > 4 July 2004)

Sleepless in Edinburgh (as usual)

A sleepless night it was.
I got ready to go to bed at almost 3am, but then did not want to sleep. Then finally went to bed at 6. Waken up by 2 phone calls from Jee in the morning, but fortunately I was able to get back to sleep. Got up at 2pm, finally. How about that!
I told myself not to think about it and let it cool off for a while. But last night I found myself replaying clips from the board meeting over and over again in my mind, especially the conversation with Michael Northcott. L

A good sleep does help, somehow. Watching Wimbledon quarter final in the afternoon and Euro Cup semi final in the evening, and a long walk to the meadow and residential area beyond are good things to do. The meadow is really a nice big piece of grass. Admirable for somebody who has grown up in a crowded city. It’s the first time I ever walk there in daytime; the previous times were when going to Elisabeth Koepping’s place at night with others.

Thought on the meadow – a dialogue with my own self: It’s already a tremendous thing to be able to do a PhD in Edinburgh. It’s something that I have not even dreamt of. Now I am here. Now I have attained recommendation for full PhD candidate status. What’s the big deal of making alterations in the research proposal? After all it’s a good challenge to reflect more deeply theologically. I just need to make sure that it is a theological study of the cinema, instead of (what I fear) becoming an a priori theological statement, or simply (the original idea) a cinematic cultural studies with a theological appendix / packaging.
And I (sort of) figured out why I liked Michael Northcott. Perhaps it’s because of our similarity – he likes to make strong statements about things, and his strong statements, for good for bad, find resonance in me. Except one thing: he is a great fan of Stanley Hauerwas and I am not. No way. That would be the major point of departure in our theology. So it’s not surprising that he is so critical toward my whole approach.

I am glad to see Jolyon’s email this afternoon. (But it was sent last night! Haha!) Well, the ‘well done today’ is somehow encouraging – though I knew I performed pretty okay in the meeting. Even better, he offers a debriefing meeting time of next Monday (5 July), which is exactly what I need.

Right now I am looking forward to the Yale-Edinburgh mission study conference from tomorrow onward. What an opportunity!

(from my personal journal > 30 June 2004)

Meeting the PhD Board

I have gone through my postgraduate review board this afternoon.
I was not as happy as I thought I would be. Only feeling relaxed. After all, that’s what the past 9 months of work is up to.
In fact I am pretty puzzled. I am still trying to digest what the board suggested / recommended, and over the last few hours I have developed a stronger and stronger feeling that it is going to involve a big shift – and that’s what I am afraid of. I am not sure I want that, or whether I can afford that in terms of time and energy. (But as Gtom says, it’s better to have happened now and not 2 years later.)

The session took almost 2 hours. From about 3:10 to 4:10 I was being questioned and had to ‘defend’ my proposal, then I waited outside the Senate Room for 5(?) minutes, then they told me their decision and recommendations. After everything it was almost 5pm.
Elizabeth Koepping was mainly concerned with my possible subjective bias as an insider and the methodology on reception context, as expected from an anthropologist by training.
Michael Northcott is truly a theologian. As expected, at several moments I found it hard to argue back at him though I did try to – well, maybe I was only clarifying my position and thinking. As I jokingly told Casey Barton afterwards, Michael was almost giving a half hour lecture – with some sporadic talking back from me. His were fair criticisms though, because the theological aspect is my self-identified dead point anyway. I agree with many (or perhaps even most) of the points he made, but I never thought of putting them in a thesis, and I am still not sure I should do so. They are big statements – about Chinese Christianity, about HK Christians, about the nature of Christian mission, or even the nature of Christianity, etc.
Yes, I surely have to do a lot more rethinking / reflection on these and related things. But I am not sure I should / can put it in a doctoral thesis. I was told by Jolyon early on that this is not to be my magnum opus, so throughout the months I have moved away from attempting to make any kind of ‘theological statements’.
Still, I am glad that I did clarify my refutation of Tillich’s method of correlation. That Michael reads that from my proposal means that I have not spelled out my theological perspective clearly. Niebhurian, perhaps a bit; but Tillich, no way.

They suggested the thematic focus of redemption rather than identity. (Michael says the whole idea of Christianity is about redemption, and has nothing to do with [ethnic] identity.) I can give it some thought, but I would prefer to deal seriously with the theological dimension / significance of identity. I need to argue a strong case for identity as a theological issue.
** Does Christianity really boil down to redemption? Should it not be the Reign of God? What then is the relationship between redemption and the Reign? Shouldn’t the Reign be the end & the redemption of all merely the means?
** If Christianity has NOTHING to do with ethnic or any identity, there is tremendous implications – e.g. there is no (or should be no) such thing as ‘Chinese’ Christianity. But does the Pauline notion of breaking boundaries of Jew / Greek, men / women, master / slave entail this? Then it would be a totally de-politicised and de-socialised version of Christianity. Am I misinterpreting Michael Northcott?

If my original proposal is lopsided toward cinema, their recommendation is making it lopsided toward theology. Certainly I want to do it from a theological perspective rather than a social scientific, cinematic study, or cultural studies perspective; and that is the whole idea why I ‘insist’ on doing it in the context of a divinity school. But as it is now going, with the board being dominated by Michael Northcott, it could be ‘just’ wrestling with important theological issues. And at present, I must confess that I don't have the faintest idea on how to incorporate the cinematic study part into this grand idea. Well, it's too early to make any real judgement, may be. I’ll let it cool off for a while, walk walk walk walk around, eat, sleep … and then approach it again with a refreshed mind.
Let’s hope that Clive Marsh’s Cinema and Sentiment comes out soon. I’d have to grab it and read it ASAP.

Talking really helps. In fact I am happier after talking to the Thai group about it after my post-dinner walk. Nice supportive people they are.

(from my personal journal > 29 June 2004)

毋忘六四

毋忘六四
Never forget Tiananmen

人心不死
If human conscience do not fail

真理長存
and truth persists

公義必彰
justice will prevail


commemorating the 15th anniversary of Tiananmen Incident
Beijing, 4 June 1989

Film Stuff: Love is a Many Splendored Thing!

Love is a Many Splendored Thing！

日前跟相識多年的老友 --- 電視機 --- 共進午餐，BBC2正在播影一套關於荷李活老牌影星威廉荷頓的紀錄片。我對此人無甚興趣，但近期很嚮往我父母年輕時看的西片，於是就繼續看那大量精華片段。不料紀錄片之後，竟然食住上播映威廉荷頓當年鉅製： Love is a Many Splendored Thing。

我對此片毫無認識，所以都準備熄機洗碗，怎知第一組鏡頭便令我走不開：
Shot 1 – 五十年代香港海旁高角度遠景。咦！？
Shot 2 – 港島某街道，十字車嗚嗚嗚過鏡。娃哈哈！！！
Shot 3 – 十字車繼續風馳電摯穿過街道。O^O ç 我的眼鏡
Shot 4 – 港島半山，背景見維港和九龍，十字車到達，傷者被抬下車，車門清楚可見：東華東院。嘩！

再看下去，不得了。
一個生存於民族與文化夾縫裡的人(中英混血兒)，在戰爭與和平交錯的動盪時刻 (四十年代後期到五十年代初期之間)，住在中國歷史巨變的門縫外 (香港)，每天處身流落香港的大陸難民之間，跟傷痛和患難埋身肉搏 (做東華東院醫生)，又戀上了對傷痛患難冷眼旁觀的男人 (記者)，自己背負著舊時中國的貞節傳統 (丈夫在內戰中被解放軍殺了)，對方卻是個已婚美國男人。
你話係咪好過癮？係咪好得？

當然，那不過是套荷李活片，由威廉荷頓表演他的風度翩翩，珍妮花鍾斯努力地外剛內柔，在美麗神秘的東方城市裡面合演一套exotic的愛情故事，所以期望不能太高。
但是荷李活畢竟製作一流，南區海灘、香港仔太白海鮮舫、上環茶樓、醫院病房 … 香港外景與加州片場接合天衣無縫，小道具和室內環境的重造真既一樣。(信我啦，我年紀夠大，細個時都見過呢D野！) 只差亞裔茄哩啡差D，不是流利美國話，就是中文方言亂晒龍，粵語國語台山話大雜匯。

如果我沒搞錯，應該是根據真人 (但不知是否真事) 為藍本的 – 珍妮花鍾斯的角色叫韓素音 (Han Su-yin)，有番咁上下年紀又熟識中國現代情況的，應該聽過她的大名。

套戲本身普通，只是時代背景就很令人慨歎。中西文化夾縫，局勢人心動盪，愛國不能歸，愛人不能聚。五十年過去，景物人面皆非，掙扎無奈卻長存，歷史的玩笑何時開完？

迷失愛丁堡

一天半之前剛剛寫完了論文第一章。很虛脫。
請注意，是寫完，不是完成。我的優點從來都是很有自知之明，當寫完之際，冷靜一刻，基本上已經知道有甚麼地方要動大手術，只不過未知刀怎樣開而已。無聊兩天，待今午見完老師，完全掃低之後，就會重新開始大工程。真好玩。

初到愛丁堡的幾個月，整個人的狀態有如水銀瀉地，看書上課聽研討會甚麼都有殺錯無放過。反映在我的研究構思上也是如此，老師說我總是talking about the universe，意即想處理的問題太巨大，像要拯救全世界；我自己則說是shooting in all directions。
農曆新年過後，收拾心情面壁靜思，大刀闊斧重新開天闢地，終於在二月中和月底先後寫成了研究建議的第四、第五稿，和整理出整份論文的分章大綱草稿。老師才「終於」覺得研究意念清晰，可以繼續下一步。但不是說這個建議已經完全搞掂，只不過是講通了基本脈絡，似樣D，稍後還要再回頭把它執正、補充，才可以交給評核議會。

套用足球術語，我是過了一開波瘋狂搶攻的階段，過去幾個月是沉著應戰。用生活術語表達，則是過了鹹魚白菜也好好味的密月期，這幾個月真是不知21克生命究竟有多重。
借用咱們愛丁堡李思敬師兄所借用楊牧谷大師兄所言，我這回真箇是「甘於寂寞，專心研究一個問題」了。真好玩。

半年來，我對自己有兩個很重要的發現 --- 就是很多年來第一次認真地覺得自己神學渣、英文渣。讀到這裡，你可能會掩嘴偷笑，或者破口狂笑，心裡說：「車！我早就知啦，你而家至發覺？」是呀，坦白說，已經好久沒有這樣的感覺了。
從前哥頓康維的訓練，令我對解釋聖經有很嚴謹的要求，而且力求把聖經的信息切入現今的時代處境；哈佛的薰陶，則令我對最新的神學思潮保持敏銳和開放，遇到最離奇的學說也能夠面不改容。但現在深感對經典的神學討論不夠熟悉，舉步維艱。唔掂，畢竟是一份感覺，很難解釋。
初來不久，有次老師突然問：「英語是你的母語嗎？不是吧？但係你英文咁勁既？」搞到我當堂飄高了半公分 (身體剛好輕了21克)。可是到寫作入肉時就見真章了。原來我的寫作太口語化，又太像新聞寫作，論點驚人證據不足。唉，衰囉，咁多年學埋晒D美國帝國主義英文，只識舞文弄墨有形無實。現在要重新努力學習嚴格的學術英文，用我老師的說法，是有如學習另一種語言，真好玩。

你呢？好嗎？一定很掛念我了，嘻嘻！
雖然未必有能力逐一回覆，但都很想知道你的近況，寫少少吧。
祝快樂、平安。主祐。

(originally my 'Letter from Edinburgh 3' > 22 April 2004)