5分46秒音樂歷史 :: history of music

Simply AWESOME!
講多無謂，自己看。

老竇請睇戲 :: a treat from my father

Watched a little bit of Planet of the Apes (1968) on Channel 4 this afternoon. The last time I saw it was in Majestic Theatre in Hong Kong. It was perhaps the last film that my father took us to as a whole family. I still remember a few lines and shots, after all these decades.

...............................................

          已經很少在午餐時間看電視，今天偶然扭開Channel 4，剛剛開始播原版的Planet of the Apes (1968，港譯《浩劫餘生》)，忍不住看了十五分鐘，後來又看了結局的十多分鐘。

          那大概是家父帶我們一家一起去看的最後一部電影吧。大華戲院，坐後座，$2.80。(是的，好豪。我想，如果現在我同樣有幾個孩子，大概不會捨得這樣買貴價票一家大小齊齊上戲院。)

          我一直覺得，這部舊片比Tim Burton 2001年拍的那部好看。這是我感情上的偏見。

          在那裡，我pick up了一句到現在還常掛在嘴邊的英文：going, going, gone。(三位太空人棄船後在湖上划著橡皮艇，望著正在沉沒的太空船 ... )

          還很記得，太空船裡錶板的特寫：SHIP TIME 2000； EARTH TIME 3978。(現在知道，原來還標明是1月25日。)

          還有這個鏡頭，和查爾登希士頓講的(好像是)全片最後一句對白：Oh，my God! (原來後面還有兩三句的。)

          我要找來看，我要找來看!

補充：應該還有一句由細講到大的英文，都是從這戲學的：abandon ship。

粵語搞野 :: Cantonese wickedness

The name of THIS small take-away is simply brilliant.

Best wishes.

......................................

那夜從不惑處踱步回家，途中經過這家小店，招牌上的店名令我回頭再望。莞爾。

謹祝生意興隆。

窮途的啟示 :: the revelation of a dead end

Today I left my student card at home and could not enter my study room or the library.  I tried to call somebody to open the door for me but my mobile ran out of credit. Seeing no alternatives at that moment, I went home, frustrated.  But actually, as I easily figured out shortly afterwards, I did have other ways to go around the problem. My over-preoccupation blocked my sights from any alternatives.  A revealing experience indeed.  

...............................................

          午餐後照常走路回學院。

          經過了火車站開始上斜坡的時候，即是對我來說還有三分鐘路程，突然發現自己沒帶錢包，即是沒有帶學生證，即是不能進入工作間，也不能進入圖書館，也不能借出我打算借的三本書。喔噢。

          也沒問題。Ben幫主天天忠心鎮守學校，就打個電話看看他在不在，能否下來開門。希望他有帶有開電話吧。

          『對不起，你的電話戶口沒有足夠儲值，無法接駁。』  ... 呵呵呵 ... 冇銀用。

          在斜路上呆站了幾分鐘，窮途了，實在沒法，只好放棄，打道回府。一陣無助無奈的挫敗感覺湧上心頭。

          回到家裡，一眼確定錢包的確在，安心了。(其實這點我一直沒有懷疑，因為清楚記得自己是怎樣忘記拿錢包的。)

          跟著立刻就醒悟，其實當時應該可以有幾個解決方法，沒必要撤退的。

1. 到圖書館按門鈴求進 (他們認得我，應該不會拒絕我進去的)，然後先在圖書館工作，再慢慢用MSN聯絡救兵；
2. 用淋雨堂的無線上網MSN找人 (雖然淋雨堂近日給藝穗節租用變得熱鬧非常，但相信在門外還是可以接到無線訊號的)；
3. 到學院警衛室打內線找人。

          全部都是非常簡單容易的做法，當時就是完全沒有想到。

          故曰，窮途未必是末路，只是當局者迷，尤其心緒不寧腦袋preoccupied的時候，很簡單的情境也看不透。

          當然，認識我久的人就會再看得出多一個啟示：人蠢冇藥醫。我認啊。

人生 :: c'est la vie

A few contemporaries who started their doctoral studies at the same time with me are either done or near completion.  But it seems that I still have miles to go before I sleep ...

.......................................

          一頓即興的馬來風味，面前竟然有不知多少年沒碰過的沙爹，還有這個赤貧神學研究生很久沒見的有頭大蝦。

          返回現實的途中，巧遇數年沒見的SG。咦？喂! 噢! 兩天前剛剛經過了口試，只要小修改就行。哇，又一個數學博士誕生了。

Facebook 對全球開放，讓我重新接通了幾個初來愛丁堡便認識但是幾年沒見的人，都是同期來開始讀博士的。英格蘭出生的印度裔SG是其中之一。清邁來讀應用語言學的G，正等候九月口試，早前還周遊意大利，十分寫意。香港來讀社會學的LS，說打算年底交論文。嗯 ...

          心靈敏銳的旗木聽到數學博士誕生，就說，哎呀又好大打擊了，去喝酒去喝酒。

          赤貧學生一笑置之，無言繼續獨行。

          善解人意的村上再趨前，要不要去喝酒？去喝酒好嗎？

          好吧。

          我們去了曾經一度是愛丁堡神學生的聖地 — 快樂法官。

          對卡卡西來說，也許是 ...

紅燈將滅酒也醒　
此刻該向它告別
曲終人散回頭一瞥　
嗯……最後一夜

          於我卻是 ...

踩不完惱人舞步　
喝不盡醉人醇酒
良夜有誰為我留

          觸動心靈。

一次橫掃歷史耶穌 :: Scot McKnight on the Historical Jesus

Scot McKnight has a very comprehensive overview of the history of the Historical Jesus Quests in his blog. 【links below】 Once again I was brought back to the old days when I was so carried away by the study in Jesus and the Synoptics ...

 ...................................................

          繼 『保羅新觀』系列之後，Scot McKnight上週又一口氣刊出了五篇 『歷史耶穌』系列，橫掃二百年來幾個浪潮的歷史耶穌探索，簡明握要，十分正：

1. From Reimarus to Schweitzer
2. From Bultmann to the Jesus Seminar
3. Jesus Seminar
4. Third Quest
5. Summing Up

          Scot McKnight的核心專長，正是耶穌和符類福音 (對觀福音)。他早年曾經合編 The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP， 1992)，近年和他老師James Dunn合編了The Historical Jesus in Recent Research (Eisenbrauns，2005)。

          這回又是武林高手教基本紮馬。

          對我來說，則是勾起了不少已經放下漸漸淡忘的歷史記憶。 

          我長期以來一直對耶穌其人非常著迷。(否則信耶穌做乜？我唔明。) 然而那並非傳統上的、歷史上的基督教的常態 (the norm of traditional historical Christianity)。正如我的神學啟蒙恩師說，《使徒信經》由耶穌出生一跳就跳到受難，中間好像甚麼都沒有發生過一樣，耶穌在世界上的歲月，好像毫不重要，十分奇怪。原來傳統神學、正統教會信仰所高舉的，很多基督徒所重視的，只是復活的基督，而非在世的耶穌。

          還記得恩師提過，他初到神學院任教時，在受任儀式上的講題就是 『我係耶穌仔』(I am a Jesus Boy)，十分窩心。

          在波士頓讀書的時候，我專攻的範圍，就是符類福音裡耶穌的社會倫理。然而那是個學術黑洞，牽涉無數無法解決的考證難題，讀完碩士之後，就自知沒有條件在學術層面繼續硬碰。自此，便只敢遠觀而不敢褻玩焉。

          對於一切能夠/夠膽以耶穌或福音書做博士研究的高人，我是敬仰兼佩服兼羨慕。

怎能如此 :: an open letter to click comments

Dear Mr. Krates Ng and everyone from postreach.com,

         Earlier today (19 August) I entered my own blog only to find that all the click comment buttons (icons) were gone, leaving me to wonder what had happened to your project.  A few hours later, they all came back, but in a drastically different form.

          You are free to imagine that it is an improvement in your service to patrons.  The reality, however, is a downgrade.

         By adding a frame around all the buttons and beside them a funky monster with a big hand, you have in fact made Click Comments intrusive and obtrusive.  It is no longer slim and cute.  

          Also, by trimming away some buttons, you have narrowed the choices of the readers. Most notably in my case, most of the clicks that I've got are the HEART.  Apparently you have made the (incomprehensible) discretion to merge those HEART clicks with the INSIGHTFUL clicks.  What a joke!  How can you merge these totally different categories into one?  Can you not tell the difference between being touched at heart and being enlightened with an insight? 

          To say that I am upset with the changes is an understatement.  I am angry. And I cannot figure out any reason why you have to cut back on the number of buttons.

          To your credit, I notice that you have added the possibility of clicking negative comments, which is a good move.  Nonetheless, as for now I will not do anything until you give us back our HEART buttons.

          Wish you all the best possible wisdom and discernment you need in developing this project further.

Disappointedly Yours,

Yam

.................................................

吳先生及postreach.com仝人：

          今天(8月19日)本網誌內的 『按圖達意』按鈕無緣無故失蹤了數小時，後來再度出現，卻已面目全非。或許閣下以為這次變動是改善了對用者的服務，卻沒想到其實是一次倒退。

          你們在按鈕週邊加上了邊線，又在它們旁邊放了一隻大手怪物，徒然令 『按圖達意』變得礙眼，不再小巧可人。

          另外，你們又把一些按鈕撤掉了，無形中限制了來賓表達意見的選擇。以我這個網誌來說，我一直得到最多的反應，是 『觸動心靈』，你們卻自作主張把它跟 『有見地』合拼了，真是貽笑大方! 怎能把兩個完全不相關的類別綑綁在一起？你們難道真的不明白，心靈被觸動和理智上覺得欣賞是截然不同兩回事嗎？

          我對你們這次改動，不是遺憾，而是憤怒。(明白它們的分別嗎？)我完全無法理解，為甚麼非要減少按鈕的數目不可。

          話說回來，我知道你們也加入了讓人表達負面意見的按鈕，這肯定是好事。然而在你們恢復那 『觸動心靈』的按鈕之前，我不會改用另一套按鈕組合。

          祝願諸位慎思明辨，致業務蒸蒸日上。

失望的飲者

關於保羅新觀 :: perspectives on the New Perspective on Paul

Coincidentally, two articles on the New Perspective on Paul have recently come out at almost the same time, and both are from students of James DG Dunn.  Personally I have already drifted far far away from Biblical studies, but would still keep an eye on such a significant trend, as its implications are far reaching beyond the field of New Testament. Anyone who wants to get a handle on the New Perspective through the Chinese language should probably go to the Chinese University of Hong Kong, where the Head of Divinity School (yet another student of Dunn) teaches Pauline courses.

 ................................................

         近日無獨有偶出現了兩篇概覽評介 『保羅新觀』(New Perspective on Paul)的文章，均屬深入淺出的份量之作：

• Scot McKnight, 'Understanding the New Perspective on Paul' (PDF from www.vanguardchurch.com; original in www.jesuscreed.org, 6-10 August 2007) 
• Simon Gathercole, 'What Did Paul Really Mean?' (Christianity Today, August 2007)

          兩篇的作者，都是八九十年代 『保羅新觀』大旗手James DG Dunn的高足。

          Scot McKnight現於美國芝加哥附近的North Park University任教，應該是Jimmy Dunn的早期學生。(他的網誌 Jesus Creed甚有看頭，是我在本行以外的定期精神補給。)

          Simon Gathercole則幾年前才博士畢業，大概是Dunn退休前最後一批學生了，即將從亞巴甸/阿伯丁轉往劍橋任教。

          如果要用華文親身認識 『保羅新觀』的話，應該到香港中文大學，上崇基學院神學院的《保羅書信》，由同為Jimmy Dunn高足的院長親授。(Dunn在香港最少還有一位高足，是院長的同期同學，但此君一直默默做其浸信會牧師，相信好難請到佢出關。)

          我跟新約研究雖然已經疏遠得很久很遠，但是對一些曾經略為擦過一下邊緣的大動向，還是往往情難自禁地多望兩眼的。何況 『保羅新觀』所搖撼的，並不單是新約研究，而是對整個基督教神學/信仰本質的根本理解 —— 總括而言，幾百年來的基督新教是否誤解了保羅？即是說，加爾文和馬丁路德等人是否搞錯了？

          依稀記得，八十幾年前在哥頓康維爾上 T. David Gordon的《新約概論 》課，老師提過，EP Sanders提出了對第一世紀猶太宗教的新看法，很可能會令新約研究界對早期基督教的觀念翻天覆地，又提到對傳統保羅神學所理解的 『因信稱義』的衝擊；不過他說，學術界對Sanders的理論還需要時間消化，因為他那本書出版還不到十年，對學術理論來說，十年是很新的。全班登時哄堂大笑，現在回想，當時真是少不更事，不知天高地厚。

          後來才知道，原來那時David Gordon說的，就是正在萌芽的 『保羅新觀』，而EP Sanders那本書，就是Paul and Palestinian Judaism。

小朋友生日快樂啊 :: happy birthday kids!

It's the 5th birthday of my grand children today.

................................................

我常常記錯小朋友的生日，以為是8月22日。
應該是今天，是8月16日，16日，16日，16呀! 冇記性。老人痴呆。

今年我第一次不能親自跟你們慶祝生日，就送上這條生日短片聊作補償吧。明年保證真人上陣。
從第一張(也應該是唯一的)全體照，到第一次出浴，到我電腦內最近的近照，最後以自豪的小熊媽媽作結。請鼓掌!




按：

1. 以上短片，完全是不經人手/人腦的自動製作，我只需要提供原料(照片)，從罐頭裡選好音樂，再等幾分鐘就有得食，真嚇人。NG嗎？一聲做過，又是幾分鐘有貨。死未! 這個animoto.com 幾天前剛剛推出public beta，剪接師的末日開始了。諸位昔日同袍，好在轉行轉得夠快。
2. 我其實並不喜歡這種效果多於一切的製作，不過時下小朋友喜歡，算啦。

無可避免的田立克/蒂利希？:: the inevitable Tillich?

保羅田立克/蒂利希也許是 『文化神學』的創始人，而且早期跟普及文化研究的先驅 『法蘭克福學派』 關係密切，但他在近年方興未艾的普及文化神學討論中少被提及，自有其因。一來他對普及文化非常抗拒，二來他的文化觀是一套靜態的、且以歐美為中心的文化觀，跟當代文化多元的大環境格格不入。田立克/蒂利希在廿世紀神學自有其重要位置，可是假如要在歐美以外的處境建構 『當代普及文化神學』，他的貢獻十分有限而且邊緣。

...............................................

          I am quite bemused to learn about the association between Paul Tillich and the Frankfurt School (the predecessor of contemporary cultural studies).  It was Tillich who supervised the doctoral work of Theodore Adorno, and it was also under him as dean that Max Horkheimer was appointed as chair of social philosophy at Frankfurt University.  After all of them were expelled by the Nazi and relocated to the USA, they maintained close association. (Source: Kelton Cobb, The Blackwell Guide to Theology and Popular Culture, 2005: 97-100.)

          Cobb considers Tillich 'the one who created the discipline "theology of culture" ' (98), and 'the single theologian within the Frankfurt circle' (99).  He therefore laments that Tillich is totally left outside of the picture in contemporary discussions in theology / religion and popular culture that have been emerging since the 1990s.  Cobb calls this a 'strange kind of amnesia and wasted resources' (99).

          Cobb is partly right here.  Paul Tillich might be credited as the first person to use the term 'theology of culture' when he delivered his first public lecture under the title 'On the Idea of a Theology of Culture' (lecture to Kant Society in Berlin, 1919; published as part of What is Religion? in 1969).  While his understanding and his theology of culture went through substantial change in subsequent decades, he had persisted to work on correlating culture and theology — hence his famous 'method of correlation' in doing theology.  In a nutshell, we have not venerated the ancestor.

          Over the past few decades, when people talk about theology of culture, they tend to refer to H. Richard Niebuhr's well known framework of 'Christ and Culture' (lecture in Austin Seminary, Texas, 1949; published 1951), whether positively or negatively, whether embrace or critique or supplement or outright discard.  Some might even imagine that it is the framework.  In this sense the field has not done justice to Tillich.

          Nonetheless, Cobb is also only partly right.  Tillich is usually left outside of this emerging field because he has a well known 'aversion to popular culture', to use Cobb's own words (99).  Given the intrinsic incompatibility, Cobb's attempt to bend Tillich to address popular cultural concerns is less than convincing. 

          More importantly, Tillich's fundamental notion of culture is obsolete.  It is a static view of culture and is Euro-American-centred.  The cultural pluralism of the world is not at all in view.  His 'method of correlation' is a correlation with some imaginary unchanging thing out there called 'culture'.   Henceforth, the relevance of Tillich's theology of culture to the present discussions on theology of popular culture can only be limited and peripheral.  This is even more so in a non Euro-American context.

          Notwithstanding Tillich's important place in modern theology, a theology of (popular) culture for today should legitimately move beyond him.  On the contrary, an endeavour to use him as the key foundation to construct such a theology is itself a waste of resource.   

.......................................

題外：On the Chinese names of Tillich：

很多年前，他一直是田立克；不知甚麼時候開始，他突然變了蒂利希。其實兩個翻譯都不及格。(或許還有其他的，我未聽過。我出名悖 [無知]，請有識之士指教。)

田立克，令人以為是飲料，阿華田加好立克。這應該是其實不大懂德文的華語人的手筆，因為那個 『克』，大概是誤把德文的 「ch」 尾讀成 「k」 而來的吧。

蒂利希，更離奇，應該是粵語人手筆，因為那個 『希』，只在粵音 (hei) 裡面才能夠跟德文的 「ch」尾相乎，華語讀來完全莫名其妙。

要來個貫通華語粵語的翻譯，應該用 『睇你黑』 或者 『替你黑』。那個 『黑』，國粵語都能呼應原文的 「ch」。Paul Tillich 全名就叫： 『阿婆睇你黑』。

哇，大發現!

是怎樣？

夜欄靜，有人共鳴 :: who's echoing who?

Arguably one of the most important questions that any theological or religious study of popular culture must face is 'so what?'

Gordon Lynch (2005) Understanding Theology and Popular Culture, 41.

呵呵呵，it really gave me a good smile this afternoon.

請看【這】相關前作。

救救大小熊 :: God save the bears

The smart-looking black hats of guards in the Buckingham Palace are products of cruel bear hunting. Please sign a petition to request Her Majesty QEII and all those concerned to stop using real bear pelts for her regiments' headpieces. (See info at the end of this post.)

.......................................

【本文跟小女無關，放心】

          當閣下在倫敦白金漢宮外欣賞英姿颯颯的禦林軍換班時，大概怎也不會想到，他們那一身威武的制服，會跟殘酷的獵殺黑熊貿易有關吧？

          原來禦林軍頭上那頂超級有型的黑帽，是完全用黑熊皮造的，而且消耗量超大，往往要整頭黑熊的皮才能造出一頂。

          People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals歐洲支部(PeTA Europe)正發動遊說運動，要求禦林軍大老闆伊莉莎伯二世陛下、查理斯王子、和不列顛國防部，放棄使用黑熊皮毛造帽子，改用人造皮毛。

延伸：

• PeTA: unbearable cruelty
• sign the petition: 簽名要求女皇陛下指示國防部更換制服
• video：捕獵黑熊實況片段 【警告：內容令我極度不安，小心】

隨風飄送 :: blowing in the wind

Presented to my Hong Kong friends who are enjoying the surprise and brief visit by tropical typhoon this day:
Bob Dylan's public debut of Blowin' in the Wind (1963).

.............................

在我遙遠的家鄉，帕布兩度急轉彎，
香港廿四小時內從沒有颱風到一號到三號到八號再回落到一號風球，
朋友都有個快樂的風的日夜吧？

謹送上Bob Dylan在1963年首度公開演唱
Blowin' in the Wind的片段，
以茲贈慶。

遠去的寶貝 :: a treasure that is no more

The Yangtze River Dolphins, a species unique to Yangtze River in China, is now extinct.  It is probably the first human-caused extinction of a cetacean species. We can only hear their voices HERE.  We as humans have trespassed against the whole creation. Sad. (HT: Blog Dog)

.......................................

          長江白鰭豚已經絕種了。

          去年底，一隊跨國科學家在長江一帶進行了六星期的徹底搜索，完全找不到白鰭豚蹤影，當時就曾經宣布，在九十年代末期還剩下十三條的白鰭豚，很可能已經絕種。

          這隊科學家的研究報告，昨天 (8月7日) 剛在《生物學通訊》(Biology Letters)正式發表。該文說，白鰭豚的消失，可能是史上第一宗由人類活動導致的鲸豚類生物絕種，也大概是過去500年來第四次有整個哺乳類物種消失。

           聽著白鰭豚的【聲音】，身為人類，我只感到愧對創造者，也愧對那與我們一同承受生命之恩的眾生。

          好傷感。

消息來源：Blog Dog，轉引BBC

延伸：Biology Letters研究報告撮要

鼓動人心 :: dancing at heart

An enticing performance of madaiko Japanese drum we have watched. Perhaps a good doctoral thesis should also be able to entice the readers to embark on their studies. Do it.

.........................................

承蒙村上鴉夫人邀請，那天得以和他們一道看了這鼓動人心的演出。

去的時候，都不知道原來那天是愛丁堡藝穗節開幕，市中心都封路給這個巡遊，叫我在巴士上繞著市區兜了一大圈，最後還要下車走一大段。

台上的鼓，是好鼓，因為它確實有幾刻令我很想懂得打鼓。

就如大俠靈狐冲說，令人聽完之後自己很想講道的，那就是好的宣講了。

我從前的多年拍檔杰人哥也曾說，看完之後覺得I wish I've made it的，就是好電影。

那麼，一篇好的博士論文呢？是叫人讀完之後也很想讀博士的嗎？

開工啦，咁多野講。

跨越物種的饒恕與復和 :: forgiveness and reconciliation across species

A woman in Hong Kong is losing her right arm after being badly wounded by her own dog.  Yet she never blames the dog and is eager to embrace him once more.   

......................................

          她丈夫七年前中風去世，她兒子兩年前車禍去世，她和女兒住在不准養狗的公屋，偷偷地養了大狗和小狗。

          那個深夜，她照常帶著大狗小狗外出散步，不知道因為甚麼緣故，她責打小狗，大狗看不過眼反擊她。

          大狗咬著她不放，她對大狗說：「阿柑乖，鬆開口 ... 好痛啊，求主耶穌基督與我同在 ... 。」 大狗最後鬆開了口，她也重傷不支昏倒，送院急救後，醒來第一句話是﹕「感謝主！」第二句是「阿柑點呀？」

          醫生說她的右臂壞死了要切除，那個政府部門說那大狗「不適宜供人飼養」要「人道」毀滅。

           後來，那個政府部門又通知她女兒，可以領回大狗。可是她們住在不准養狗的公屋，大狗小狗都要再找其他人收養了。

          切除右臂之前一天，她說：「搞成咁(截肢)的那個人是我，我都未話要人道毁滅(大狗)，邊個話要咁做？」 「我不怕做手術，亦沒有怪阿柑。」她很想把阿柑擁入懷中，再次感受牠溫軟的毛毛。

          饒恕與復和的光輝，是跨越物種界線的。

          願上主祝福她、她、牠、和牠。

參：  《明報》：主人今截肢 阿柑突獲釋 

延伸：釀成悲劇後應先了解原因，不應動輒把傷人的寵物判處「死刑」

core business of the church

One of the most important things that Christians need to know about the church is that the church is not of ultimate importance. ... What is of ultimate importance is the reign of God, and it is from the church's commitment to preach, serve and witness to that reign that the church receives and maintains its identity. ... The point of the church is not the church.  The church can only be church if it is poised toward the kingdom, continuing to embody the ministry of Jesus as the face of the Spirit, sharing in the abundant trinitarian life God shares in history.  The church is missionary by its very nature.  (original italics)

Stephen B. Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today (2004), p. 396.  

Sounds familiar, huh?

Yes, it does remind me of an analogy from Karl Barth (Ben: was it him?), that the church exists because of its mission, just as fire exists because of combustion.  If there is no burning, there is no fire; likewise, when there is no mission, there is (or should be) no church. (Something like that.) I am glad to have been embedded in this line of thinking ever since my early years in church.  And yes, I am proud that my church taught me that; thank you, Rev. Lo.

Ironically, so much church-talks nowadays, wherever you are in the world, are church-oriented, church-focused, church-this, church-that. 

Well, you got me, 'church growth' ... uh oh! Could be one of the worst ideas over the last half a century.  

Dear God, have mercy on us.  And dear church, give me a break.

There is no such thing as theology ...

There is no such thing as "theology"; there is only contextual theology ... (original italics)

This is the first sentence in Stephen Bevan, Models of Contextual Theology (revised edition, 2002).

Then, building on Henri Bouillard's notion that a theology which is not actuelle (up-to-date) is a false theology, Bevan goes on to say that:

a theology that is not somehow reflective of our times, our culture, and our current concerns — and so not contextual — is also a false theology. (5)

This corresponds to my stance that all theologies or religious teachings or faith expressions, including the Holy Scriptures, are essentially and necessarily contextual.  As I have said here a year ago:

所有宗教信念的表述也必然是受文化侷限的 (all representations of religion are inevitably culture-bound)，因此任何宗教教導都必須而且必然是針對處境的，我們也只能這樣理解那些教導 (all religious teachings are thus necessarily contextual, and should duly be understood as such)。聖經亦然。

foresight on contextual theology from some 180 years ago

'If, therefore, a man claims to know and speak of God and carries you backward to phraseology of some old mouldered nation in another country, in another world, believe him not.'

Ralph Waldo Emerson, 'Self-Reliance' 

(RW Emerson, 1803-1882; Harvard Divinity School alumnus, 1825)