本網誌精選內容已結集出版

任志強 《我愛丁堡》 香港：突破出版社，2010年10月初版。

【詳細介紹在此】

香港讀者，請到各突破書廊或各大書店搜購。

感謝支持 :)

popular media confronts Christianity ...

In the encounter between the two,

popular media confronts Christianity

to reconsider / revisit / rediscover

certain long-neglected aspects of Christian faith and theology:

1. the emotive (non-rational) side of the Christian FAITH
2. the material / body aspect of Christianity
3. the vulgarity of faith
4. irreverent expressions of faith
5. the dialogical (interactive) essence of Christian faith expressions
6. the narrative quality of Christianity (Christianity as story)
7. the essentially contextual nature of theology
8. the transient (ad-hoc) nature of theological constructions
9. the marginal identity of the Church
10. the mediated nature of religious faith (including Christianity)

[proposed as a tentative conclusion to Media, Popular Culture, and Christianity, offered at the Divinity School of Chung Chi College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong -- probably the first-ever course of its kind offered in a theological school in East Asia]

相輕 :: despising one another

An old Chinese saying has it: 'the literate persons tend to despise one another'.   The same seems to be true for theologians, who often (unconsciously) regard those from a different academic background or takes a different approach to theology as less capable, and their work less important.

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

【近恭聽某本土神學講座，對照近期所讀網誌，憶起昔日友儕之間閑聊，積積埋埋，有感 ... 】

在外地學成回歸的，覺得一直在本土訓練的稍欠跨文化眼界。

本地訓練成材的，覺得外地回歸的滿腦袋西方理論欠缺本地觸覺。

鑽研傳統西方神學的，覺得搞本色/本土/處境/實況神學的，泛泛空談，沒有深入扎根。

做本土神學的，覺得研究西方神學的，老是處理跟自己沒有關係的問題，脫離實況。

深入傳統經典以建構本色神學的，覺得專注當代處境的，刻舟求劍，過眼雲煙，沒有長遠價值。

著眼當下處境以建構本土神學的，覺得鑽傳統經典的，迷戀已逝去的歷史，沒有現實意義。

神學人，本質上畢竟也是文人，故亦相輕。

吁，惜哉。

虛擬與群體 :: being virtual and communal

Is the unity of space and place a necessary condition for Christian fellowship, as Wong Kam Ming has argued in his recent critique of virtual church?

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

『香港文化與社會』研討會上，蔡寶瓊嘗試從前任製衣工人的經歷提取對全球化下道德困惑的啟示，說：全球化把社會都變成一個個獨立求存的個人（stand-alone individuals），如是，道德/倫理的建立將會變得不可能，因為倫理by definition是必需要在社群內建構的。

又令我想起 Wong Kam Ming 對『虛擬教會』（virtual church）的批判。（沒有直接關係，只是我的自由聯想。）

Wong 說：教會其中一個最重要的元素，是團契生活（fellowship）；而團契生活的必要條件，是成員相聚於同一空間，虛擬教會的本質卻與此相悖。【see: Wong Kam Ming, 'Christians Outside of the Church: An Ecclesiological Critique of Virtual Church', Heythrop Journal 49.5 (September 2008): 822-840.】

只是，『同一空間』真的是團契/群體相交的必要條件嗎？（請注意，我真的是在問問題，而非把既有立場包裝成問題。）

以圖為辱 :: the humiliation of the image

The flip side of the idolisation of the (human) word is the humiliation of the image.  As some have pointed out, the word and the image should not be a matter of either/or.  Unfortunately, centuries of Reformed Theology, as well as a whole century of Chinese Protestantism,  have been embedded in this kind of either/or mentality which is in essence an exclusive 'fundamentalist' mindset.  They often tend to look for THE best choice and refuse to be inclusive of a range of possibilities.  Hence the exaltation of the word entails the suspicion against the visual image.  This idolisation of the word, I suspect, can trace its root to the Reformation notion of Sola Scriptura, which affirms the Biblical text as THE revelation of the Divine, and therefore there is no other salvation besides the text (the word).

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

把文字神聖化/偶像化的另一面，就是對影像或圖像的壓制、踐踏、甚至妖魔化。

誠如風火同學指出，影像和文字本來就應該是並行並存的，根本不必硬要二選其一。而且也正如Alan同學所imply，人類世界其實並沒有『最』適合盛載或傳達上主真理的載體。站在這立場上，表述信仰，本來就應該是百花齊放，圖文並存的。（我甚至會說，是『圖文並茂』的，意思即是，影像和文字媒體不但應該並用，更是兩者都要大力開拓，茂盛地發展的。）

但是可惜得很，數百年來的改革宗神學，以至百多年來的（新教）華人教會，在這方面卻自困於一套非此即彼、非白即黑、非友即敵的思維，即是典型的either/or mentality。骨子裡，這其實是一套非常fundamentalist的思維方式，相信世界有所謂『最乜乜最物物』（例如最正確、最適合、最理想...），因此也就講究基督徒對咩咩咩的『應有』看法/態度，十分攞命。

因此我同意kc同學的批評，那個『是否只有文字才足以盛載啟示』的問題其實很fundamentalist —— 這裡的fundamentalist非指宗教上的原教旨/基要主義，而是指一種對待事情/問題的態度。

從好的方面看，這種fundamentalist quest代表一份探本尋源的精神，不容隨便過關的簡易答案；從不那麼好的一面看，那種姿態卻是非常排他的 —— 正因為它誓要找出『最』的，那麼凡不是『最』的，都會看成是『差』的、『不好的』（即是『惡』的），就算不是『惡』的，也總是『次好』的、『欠佳』的、『有問題』（problematic）的。

在教會的場景裡，這種fundamentalist quest，也無可避免地貫注在神學視野和信仰氣質之中。於是，對待世界、處理問題的fundamentalistic態度，跟宗教上的fundamentalism也就難以分割。

由於改革宗神學以至百多年來的新教華人教會，早已把文字視為至尊，基於上述的fundamentalist眼光，影像媒體就被當成跟文字對立、搶奪注意和資源的對手了。（The visual image is regarded as the opponent which competes with the word for attention and resources.）

如是，縱使影像和各種影音媒體已經在教會群體之間大行其道，教會其實只不過是基於現實環境而『容許』、『忍受』其存在，接受它在特定處境下的特殊功用而已；在深層的知識論層次（epistemological level），仍無法賦予、確認、或接受它跟文字可以有平衡的、對等的關係。

何以如此? 只因為他們相信文字本身（word in itself）具有『救贖功能』，那是影像或其它媒體所沒有的。簡單來說，那套邏輯大概是這樣的：既然神的話都在聖經裡，即是說神選擇了用文字作為啟示自己的媒介；文字既是神的選擇，肯定有其特殊的神聖地位，一定是優於其他媒體的。

假如閣下讀到上面這幾句覺得想笑，我只能說，我所敬佩的同輩文字工作者、尊敬的基督教傳播界前輩、景仰的神學工作者（不是同一個人），都曾經說過類似的話。

往上追溯，那也許跟宗教改革『唯獨聖經』（sola scriptura）的傳統有關。『唯獨聖經』把上主的道、神的啟示、真理的表述，都鎖定在聖經的文本（text）裡面。文本以外，別無拯救。

而且宗教改革既是抵抗/抗議/抗衡羅馬天主教的（所以Protestantism其中一個 [現在不太流行的] 翻譯是『抗羅宗』），很自然就把流行於天主教會的聖像/圖像都一概摒棄掉了。

我本身從事影音傳播工作多年，曾經長時期負責領導某基督教機構的影音事工，對香港和各地華人基督教圈子在這方面的行情，自問頗為熟悉。長話短說，我相信自己摸到了那個ceiling，那個絕大部份人未必會意識到的、也未必在意的，在影像媒體之上的無形ceiling。

我不忿，所以我讀書。

【未講完，不過已經太長了；希望有精力有時間可以『待續』】

 

前文：以文為尊 The Idolisation of the Word

連結：不惑：閱讀與電影

以文為尊 :: the idolisation of the word

In a recent class discussion on 'Image and Visual Culture', there was a heated discussion on the question of whether human words (as opposed to visual images) are the sole / primary carrier of the Divine Word (or revelation).  While some who are embedded in the visual culture consider this an insignificant or obsolete question, others regard the word as a more supreme carrier when compared to visual images.  This latter stance, I would argue, is a product of post-enlightenment modernism, with its bias toward human reason.  Unfortunately, this kind of idolisation of the (human) word is so common in the Christian churches at least over the last century or so.

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

在探討『影像與視覺文化』的課堂上拋出一個問題，引起了頗熱烈的討論。

『只有文字才足以盛載上主的真理（啟示）嗎？』

有人浸淫於影像媒體多時，深知影像是這一代的given reality，直指這是個多餘的問題，根本沒有討論價值。

有人來自映像豐富的信仰傳統，覺得這個問題很fundamentalist。

有人抗議這個fundamentalist的批評，覺得這是需要深思的問題。

有人沉浸於學術理性多時，以影像為比較原始（primal）的媒介，文字才跟較高層次的復雜思維匹配。

如果所謂fundamentalist不是指宗教上的基要主義/原教旨主義，而是指一份『要找出最根本定義、追隨最基本原則』的精神，那麼，我絕對認同這個問題非常fundamentalist。它的fundamental之處在於它背負著一份探本尋源的精神，要確定甚麼才是最適合盛載上主真理的載體（carrier），而拒絕任何溫溫吞吞的『差不多先生』式答案。

但是如果fundamentalist在這裡的意思是指基督教基要主義的話，我就無法同意這是個fundamentalist的問題了 —— 除非閣下認為Karl Barth是個基要派，幾百年來的改革宗神學也全屬基要派。

假如因為影像媒體既已大行其道，而認為這是個無需討論的多餘問題，實在非常危險，因為它『以實然為應然』（takes what is as what ought to be），是徹底的實效主義 —— 『通街都係，人人係咁，仲駛乜反思咁多？』

推進一步來說，這種看法也反映咱們神學上的無根（theological uprootedness），對千百年來教會傳統裡的神學討論感到難以理解，更加答不上口。需知道，對影像的歧視、恐懼、抗拒、打壓，是幾百年來改革宗神學的主流 ，也是近百年來現代華人（新教）教會（包括香港）的集體潛意識。一天不好好處理這個根本問題（fundamental question），一天影像媒體在教會裡都只會是沒有名份的私生子 —— 『係呀，影像媒體好重要，你地俾心機做啦，不過唔好忘記，文字先至係最重要架，千祈唔好因為發展影像媒介而分薄文字工作D資源呀，唔好拖垮文字事工呀。』

William Dyrness 在 Reformed Theology and Visual Culture 裡，正是要處理這個改革宗神學的歷史鬱結。

至於說影像是比較原始的媒介，那是很難有異議的。從人類文明演進的角度來看，的確是先用圖像，後發明文字；從人類感官認知的角度，影像也是比較容易（或傾向）訴諸原始本能慾望的。然而也正因如此，影像和文字在人類對世界的探知、思索中，扮演了不同的角色，而且肯定是互補而非互相排斥的。

可是，如果因為文字跟影像有不一樣的特性/長處，譬如直線邏輯（linearity）、有利於表達抽象概念和進行理性思辨、甚或對某些人來說能夠激發想像等等，就以文字為比較優越的媒體，其實只是出於啟蒙運動之後的現代世界（post-enlightenment modernism）那份『罷黜百家，獨尊理性』的偏見。就表現來說，那是對文字的過度抬舉；在深層裡，那是（也許不自覺地）把歐洲啟蒙運動鎖定為人類文明的巔峰。

影像自有其限制，但文字亦然。文字或長於抽象理性，表述具體事物卻怎也不及影像來得直截了當；影像固然受制於一個框架/鏡頭（frame/shot），然而文字其實也受制於那句句子；文字的直線邏輯（linearity），能使人一步一步的推論思考，但是也等於它難以盛載/表述非直線的多元化多層次經驗，只能把一切壓成一條又一條直線，逐一鋪排。

再推進一步，如果認定文字是比較優越的媒介，因而假定那它才是盛載真理（或說上主的道）最恰當最基本甚至最絕對的媒體，把人的文字跟上主的道看成渾然天成（intermingling human words and Divine Word）,  那恐怕是把文字放上了一個神聖的高度，是把它偶像化了。

如果Jacques Ellul把影像媒體的勃興說成是the humiliation of the Word，我倒想說，把文字推到至尊無上的位置，是the idolisation of the (human) word。

而非常不幸，在近百多年的現代基督教會歷史中，這種對文字的膜拜，比比皆是。

 

延續：以圖為辱 The Humiliation of the Image

G.T.Who?

Characteristics of good university teachers in relation to students:

(from Ken Bain, via Scot McKnight)

1. They do not display power but investment in the learning of the students. Good teachers want their students to learn and not just to do well on an exam.
2. The best teachers trust their students and their instinct, when things don’t go well, is to seek for a cause in their teaching instead of in the laziness of students.
3. The best teachers related to students openly — they create an environment of openness. They bring themselves to the classroom and to the students.
4. The best teachers create an interactive atmosphere.
5. The best teachers connect themselves and their students to the awe of discovery and of the grandeur of life and are humble because they know they are not gods. They create a bond with their students in a mutual journey of learning. The opposite model is an ego game. Thus, they are fellow students.
6. They exhibit an awareness that they and their students can do great things, make discoveries together and can accomplish something.

Am I, or will I be, or can I be one of them?

開學了 :: for whom the school bell tolls

The teaching term in Hong Kong is starting this week. 

This year, the Divinity School of Chung Chi College at the Chinese University of Hong Kong is offering two special courses, which are very unique (if not absolutely unprecedented) in East and Southeast Asia.  Seems interesting.  Just not sure if the guy who teaches them is capable. 

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

香港中文大學崇基學院神學院這個學年開辦下列兩門全新的特別課程，都是在東亞/東南亞神學圈子中罕見的，似乎頗有趣，只是不知道教的人是否勝任。

 

RST 5224: Special Topic on Christianity and Society I:

Media, Popular Culture, and Christianity (媒體、普及文化與基督教)

(Semester 1, 2008-2009)

This course is a critical exploration of the intricate relationships between popular media culture and Christianity. While popular culture and the media have become the daily reality in many parts of the world over the decades, they have seldom been taken seriously in the theological arena, whereas the relationship between popular media and Christianity is often overlooked in academic studies until relatively recent time. We shall re-examine various manifestations of popular culture from Christian theological perspectives, and also probes into the subtle interrelatedness between media culture and Christianity as a an organised religion. This course engages with the wider academic context of the vigorously developing interdisciplinary study of media, religion, and culture (MRC), and attempts to focus particularly on the Chinese language popular media and Chinese Christianity in Hong Kong.

 

RST 5225: Special Topic on Christianity and Society II:

Cinema and Theology (電影與神學)

(Semester 2, 2008-2009)

This course considers the various religious and theological dimensions of contemporary cinema, and examines a range of approaches to such endeavours. Since the inception of motion picture in 1895, cinema and institutional religions (including Christianity) have always been interested in each other – numerous films have used religious themes and motifs as subject matters, while religious communities have been eager to harness the cinema by critiquing, censoring, or making use of films in their ministries. The study of film from serious academic theological perspectives, however, was scarce until the mid 1990s. In this course, we explore a number of approaches in which the theological study of film can take place. These include, for example, the study of explicit representation of religious materials, the 'uncovering' of implicit religious motifs, the use of film as resource for theological reflection and construction. Films to be viewed and discussed cover a broad range from foreign classics, Hollywood hits, to contemporary East Asian and Chinese language films.

 

The Instructor:

is an Honorary Research Associate at the Divinity School of Chung Chi College, who specialises in the interdisciplinary study of cinematic media and theology. His academic study is supported by ample experience in the creative-production and management across different media. He did his PhD in popular cinema and contextual theology at the University of Edinburgh, after pursuing theological study in Boston and communication study in Hong Kong.

關於種族的神學探索 :: a theological investigation on race

這是個『種族化』(racialised) 的世界 —— 以種族界定現象，把人分門別類，評定優劣；西方社會過去二三百年從這『種族化』中獲取優勢；基督教（及其神學）也在其中自我界定為屬於西方的文化傳統。

對這個課題，基督教神學可以有甚麼思考呢？

在這樣的背景之下，杜克大學神學院 (Duke Divinity School) 的 J. Kameron Carter 這本剛出版的新書，應該十分有趣。【HT: Halden】

J. Kameron Carter, Race: A Theological Account (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 504pp.

美國牛津大學出版社的介紹如下：

In Race: A Theological Account , J. Kameron Carter meditates on the multiple legacies implicated in the production of a racialized world and that still mark how we function in it and think about ourselves. These are the legacies of colonialism and empire, political theories of the state, anthropological theories of the human, and philosophy itself, from the eighteenth-century Enlightenment to the present.

Carter's claim is that Christian theology, and the signal transformation it (along with Christianity) underwent, is at the heart of these legacies. In that transformation, Christian anti-Judaism biologized itself so as to racialize itself. As a result, and with the legitimation of Christian theology, Christianity became the cultural property of the West, the religious ground of white supremacy and global hegemony. In short, Christianity became white. The racial imagination is thus a particular kind of theological problem.

Not content only to describe this problem, Carter constructs a way forward for Christian theology. Through engagement with figures as disparate in outlook and as varied across the historical landscape as Immanuel Kant, Frederick Douglass, Jarena Lee, Michel Foucault, Cornel West, Albert Raboteau, Charles Long, James Cone, Irenaeus of Lyons, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor, Carter reorients the whole of Christian theology, bringing it into the twenty-first century.

Neither a simple reiteration of Black Theology nor another expression of the new theological orthodoxies, this groundbreaking book will be a major contribution to contemporary Christian theology, with ramifications in other areas of the humanities.

這份思考，對咱們的本土神學、華人神學、漢語神學、東亞神學 ... 等等，不知又會帶來甚麼刺激/啟迪/挑戰？

返、回、去 :: to go, or to go back

It is an issue of different usages of the Chinese language among different cultures of ethnic Chinese societies.  It appears that Hong Kong people tend to say 'go back' (or 'return') a lot -- go back to school, to work, to church, etc., and even to some places with which we are remotely related or unrelated at all.  In contrast, Taiwanese just say 'go' in such cases.  Admittedly, 'to go back' or 'return' signifies a belonging relationship.  Does this suggest that Hong Kong people exhibit a desperate longing to belong? And that Taiwanese refuse to belong to any place else apart from their own home/country?

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

輝哥與小點到倫敦度蜜月。他們說成是『返英國』，十分有趣， 再次令我想起去年跟北海幫主議論過『去』與『回』的問題。（噢，原來已經是一年前年的事了，真彷如昨天。）

話說各位北海幫臺灣代表見我常常在此寫『回學院』、『返學校』，覺得非常奇怪；對他們來說，只會是『去學院』、『去學校』。

那時我才頓然發覺，原來香港中文是很喜歡/經常用『返』的 —— 返學校、返宿舍、返教會、返團契、返崇拜、返工、返公司、返九龍、返新界 ... 返鄉下、返大陸、返天堂。

最奇特的是有人會說『返深圳』，但說的人跟深圳其實一點關係都沒有，只不過是去買書 / 吃飯 / 玩。還有明明身為遊客，都會說自己從某處坐火車『返』巴塞隆納、從某地『返』法蘭克福轉機，等等等等。

我們會從外地『返香港』，又會從香港『返』一個 / 一些我們曾經到過而有丁點關係甚或只是有點好感的地方

如果（正如臺灣代表所指）『返』、『回』是標示一種『歸屬』的關係，又如果語言習慣是反映集體意識/心態的話，那麼香港人大概是渴求歸屬，一直不自覺不停地尋找歸屬，連一些跟自己其實沒有實質關係的地方都來個『想像的歸屬』(imaginary belonging)。

又或者港人傾向容易在不同地方建立據點。譬如到了歐洲遊玩，就選定一個城市做基本點，那麼從別處再到那個地方，就說『回去』。又譬如只要停留過某個地方，之後再去，就會說『回去』。所以輝哥和小點畢業『返』了香港又再『返』倫敦度假之後又『返』香港『返工』，然後可能還會『返』中國大陸，跟著又『返』香港。

在這個意義來說，香港人對於『多重歸屬』從來沒有問題；這也可以解釋，為甚麼很多（大部份？）香港人根本不覺得、不明白、甚至無法理解『雙重效忠』有甚麼問題。

根據眾幫主教導，臺灣中文很少用『返』、『回』，他們會說去學校、去教會、去公司、去上班 ... ，只有自己的『家』與『國』才是『回』的。那麼，如果套用上面的邏輯，是否顯示他們的歸屬已經很自足，無須不停尋找歸屬的對象呢？

抑或是他們很抗拒『歸屬』的感覺，連自己的學校、教會、公司，都不願意建立或者確認一種歸屬的關係呢？

又抑或是他們不容易/不傾向在外面建立據點，在外不管停留多久，都時刻醒覺自己『跟那個地方沒有關係』呢？

哈愈想愈得意。（敬候各位北海幫臺灣代表，或者曾經留學臺灣的代表指教。當然歡迎香港隊，或者曾經留學香港的代表加入。）

試後報告 :: post-viva analysis

Before my viva last Thursday, I was actually extremely nervous; but still I was able to sleep peacefully for the few nights prior to that. And fortunately, my anxiety was all gone once the entered the room for viva. The examiners were fair and friendly. The whole process was like an intelligent discussion among people who know the field and interested in the project, rather than 'grilling'. I can never forget the moment when my external examiner. Dr Chris Deacy, said, 'You've passed, and you pass with flying colours. So, congratulations!'

After the viva, they invited me to join them for lunch, during which time we started talking about the publication of my thesis and they pointed me to some possible directions to consider.

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

前奏

口試之前的幾天其實緊張得不得了。

皆因老師一句 「一定要有一份跟對方完全一樣的版本拿在手上」，我打破了奉行多時的無紙張政策，星期一下午到大學的印務中心把論文印出來。唉，又砍了很多樹了。

看印刷本和看電子檔案畢竟是不同的經驗，我愈看愈覺得陌生 ... 噢我真的有這樣說哦？而且本能地一面讀一面做標籤、筆記，愈讀愈覺得那件東西實在很massive，總之讀得很慢。

試前那天黃昏，把論文帶到將要舉行口試的Porteous Room，繼續讀，給自己熟習環境。

到那個晚上，我其實都未曾完成一次細讀，不緊張就假，可是仍然很安然的一早就睡了，因為實在累。

結果，我是口試那個早上九點才看完整份論文的。那刻，雖然緊張，卻感到胸有成竹。

胸有成竹不是說我認為自己一定通過，而是知道怎樣回答各方面的問題了。連我估計可能是最棘手的問題，我也在筆記上寫著，也就是準備這樣回答：對這個問題，我尚未有答案，所以論文裡只能指出這些初步的提議。

只是，有一條很可能會出現的問題，我一直都想不到可以怎樣 —— 我的論文的主要弱點是甚麼呢？也許怪我這方面自省能力低，我真的想不出有甚麼基本的弱點，而且那幾天愈讀就愈讚嘆自己寫得好，哈哈。（而且預演的時候老師說過，這類問題要格外小心，不要過了頭，猛數自己不是。）

回校應試的時候，在巴士上終於想通了怎樣回答 —— 這論文最大的弱點，如果有的話，也許是作者的野心太大，超過了一個讀幾年的博士學位所能盛載。

正場

早上十點正，負責主持的校內主考到學院大堂，跟我親切握手問好，把我和只能旁聽的麥佐人老師領到口試房間，早在房內等候的校外主考也向我們親切問好。

我呢，進入房間之前還是挺緊張的，一進去就不再緊張了。

我的校外主考是Dr Chris Deacy。依據我的評價，他在「神學與電影」的研究、寫作、出版，是全世界近年最活躍的五位學者之一。【其餘幾位包括現於Nottingham任教的循道公會神學家Clive Marsh；Fuller Seminary教授Robert Johnston；我老師；還有一位我暫時未知道是誰。】

校內主考Dr Hannah Holtshneider，在我校任教現代猶太教，擅長以影像作學術研究的材料，而且是位專研文化記憶和集體回憶的專家。

Hannah發問了那題標準的開場題目 「為甚麼要做這個博士研究」之後，就由Chris連番發問。他準備了一份相當可觀的筆記兼問題，逐題發問。他的問題非常細致，而且題題到位，全部有根有據 （你在第幾頁第幾行和第幾頁第幾行這樣說 ... 你在第幾章的第幾個和第幾個註腳兩次提及某某的終末論 ...），並非無的放矢天馬行空上空盤旋的大圍問題，當中Hannah也問了好幾個相關的和其他問題，處處顯示他們看論文看得非常仔細，對內容細節的掌握不下於作者本人。

幸好論文作者毫不遜色，對內容大處小節和背後涉及的理念和參考資料也如數床下底家珍，而且徐疾有致不亢不卑表情動作適當時候搞個輕鬆笑話，兩位主考面容看來似乎頗為滿意。

那個我認為最棘手的問題，也果然出現了，而我真的說：我暫時沒有答案，只是覺得，相對於其他相關的選擇，這大概是最適合繼續探索的路向。他們也接受我的答案。

然而最重要的是，他們的問題和發問姿態都十分公平公正而且友善，沒有刻意刁難，或者傳說中那種 「煮死人」（grilling）的情況，只是要求我澄清某些論點，引申一些概念。整個口試過程，有如幾個熟悉某個範疇的人進行一場高水平的學術討論。如此口試，實在難得。

這樣問答問答問答了大約一個小時，我和老師被請退席讓主考商議。離開房間，離開房間外的走廊，老師就說，well done，你比我預期中表現更好；之後帶我到一間我不應該進入的房間沖茶，一面作賽後分析。他說，他們也對你很客氣，那個關於某某終末論的問題 （即是我心目中的棘手問題），其實他們是可以咬著不放的，但是沒有。

大約十多分鐘之後，我們被召回口試房間。Chris跟著說的幾句話，過去幾天一直在我腦際重播，每次重播，坦白說，我都有點飄然。他說：你通過了，而且是勁過，恭喜你！（You've passed, and you pass with flying colours. So, congratulations！）

跟著他們用了十多分鐘向我講解詳細結果，簡單地講述他們對論文和我口試表現的評價。Chris說，我問了你二十二條問題，你全部都可以清楚準確引述論文內容來回答，反映你寫的時候已經思考得很仔細，而且整份論文的論點推進和鋪排得很嚴密。

完成一切離開房間的時候，大約是十一點半。不過其實最令我覺得虛幻的，是眾人收拾準備離開的時候，Chris突然說：我們一點鐘要吃午餐的，要不要一起吃？我登時：吓？他再說，我們等會吃飯，你來不來？我說，哦，好哇。

餘慶

就這樣，午餐時間給他們帶了到一家在學院附近但是我從來不知道存在的餐廳，連名字都沒有看清楚。我點了一道從來未曾吃過的西式炒魷魚，口感甚佳，又應各位主考和老師要求，要了紅酒乙杯。

席上，除了聽了不少不列顛聯合王國學術工作血淚秘辛和叫人莞爾的笑話之外，也積極談論剛才考核通過的那份論文應該怎樣部署出版，最後建議我向兩家出版社投石。

直至三點，因為麥佐人老師要開會，大家才帶著依依不捨的心情埋單。結果我的帳單是老師付的，無啦啦變了謝生宴，呵呵呵。

我通過口試的消息在學院老師之間也傳得快。話說口試完畢不久，還沒出外午餐，碰到非西方基督教研究中心主管Jack Thompson，他就已經向我道賀；午餐後回到學院，一進門碰到神學與公共事務中心主管Cecilia Clegg，她又說恭喜我，哈。事後回想，我這幾年在研究過程裡雖然沒有跟他們二人交過手，但論文所牽涉的範疇都跟他們那範有關；他們巧合地成為最先向我道賀的老師，也巧合得恰當。

那夜，還沒適應自己已經完成博士學位的事實 （其實到此刻都未適應），不知道如何安放自己，感謝Emily請我喝酒，也感謝Ben給我請喝酒。

題外：剛剛發現原來上一篇 「成了」，是敝網誌第400篇文章。四百，也是個完滿的數字啊，哈哈。

決戰前夕 :: gearing up

My supervisor gave me a rehearsal of the viva (oral defence) the other day.  He called himself a viva pessimist and prompted me that anything could happen, but also admonished me that I have to believe in my own thesis, and since it is (should be) the best I can do at this stage, I must defend it in the best way I can.

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

我從香港混愕回來，老師從冰島講學回來，就在蘇格蘭國家藝術館外，溫暖陽光與冰涼清風交疊的咖啡座上，來個論文口試預演。

說預演，其實也是面授機玄，讓我醒覺要特別注意的重點，和怎樣應付一些可能是故意刁難的問題。

老師說，對於口試，他從來都是個悲觀主義者，只因為太多影響結局的因素，甚麼事情都可以發生。

總之，要相信自己的論文，這是我這個階段所能夠做到最好的，就要好好地盡力保護它。

總之，在整個口試的房間裡，我才是對這論文掌握最透徹的人，不要被橫飛的炮火嚇怕。

總之，要精準，簡潔，到題，不遊花園，不亢不卑。

為了準備口試，再次把論文列印裝裱，拿在手上，才有機會自己觀賞一下，第一次感受到它的實在。(上次印出來，一印好裝好馬上就拿到樓上的人文及社會科學院辦公室，簽了裡面的作者權責聲明，交了，自己都沒多看兩眼。)

噢，好像真的寫得不錯。

放心，我一定全力保護你。　

千古保障 :: who protects the church?

I encountered a very profound theological challenge in St. Mary's (Roman Catholic) Cathedral today, which could put our faith in divine providence to test.  As I was on my way out after mass, I saw a computer-printed notice: 'This cathedral is protected by CCTV'.  Then I noticed that the letters 'CCTV' were crossed out by pen, and above it were 3 letters written in hand: 'GOD'.  Well?

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

今天在聖瑪莉座堂，又遇到了非常深層次的神學衝擊，直接挑戰現代/後現代人的自我保護意識和對上主的信靠。

話說不列巔聯合王國是全世界在公眾場所設置最多閉路電視的國家 (以人口比例計)，無論你到哪裡都躲避不了，連教堂也不能倖免。

今午離開教堂之際，赫見面前圓柱上貼了一張告示，大大隻電腦打印字體：

『This cathedral is protected by CCTV』(本大教堂有閉路電視保護)

然而 『CCTV』給人用筆刪了，上面寫上 『GOD』。

哈哈。

本來故事到此為止，但是後來才想起，剛才唱的其中一首聖詩，正是《千古保障歌》(上主是人千古保障，是人將來希望 ... )。

呵呵呵，上帝之手喔！

三蚊上帝 :: $3 worth of God

Read this from Ben Witherington:

I would like to buy $3 worth of God, please - not enough to explode my soul or disturb my sleep, but just enough to equal a cup of warm milk or a snooze in the sunshine.

I don't want enough of him to make me love a foreigner or pick beets with a migrant worker.  I want ecstasy, not transformation; I want the warmth of a womb, not a new birth. 

I want a pound of the Eternal in a paper sack.  I'd like to buy $3 worth of God, please. 

My Chinese paraphrase:

請給我三塊錢上帝 — 那剛好不致令我心靈震撼或者輾轉無眠，只讓我感到無比溫馨，有如一杯熱鮮奶或者陽光下的小睡。

我不需要足夠斤両的上帝，我不想真的愛異族人或者體驗外勞苦況。我只想要亢奮的喜樂，不想要生命更新；我只想要母腹的溫暖，不想要離開母腹的新生。

請把一磅永恆用紙袋包裝給我。我買三塊錢上帝就夠了，謝謝。

好一個 「無痛信仰」淋漓盡致的表達，而且真實存在於無數自稱為基督徒的人之間，跨越國界種族文化。

這種 「無痛信仰」的神學淵源，極堪玩味，有精力的時候再談。

神本教會 :: God-oriented churches

I read something online which  dichotomises between the so-called 'God-oriented churches' (where you can hear the voice of God) and 'human-oriented churches' (where you only hear human voices).  Views such as this one, which might be quite popular among some Christians, are in fact twisted and dangerous, for the following reasons:  1. What they regard as the 'voice of God' is often only the voice of a few people, or even a single person, speaking in the name of God.  2. The God in Hebrew and Christian scriptures is more 'human-oriented' than oriented to God-self.  3. Hence, the quest for such 'God-oriented churches' is futile and tend to end up in self-inflicted disillusionment of the seeker. 

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

早前偶然碰到一篇網誌上的短文，大意是說世界上有兩種教會：一是 「神本教會」，在那裡你可以聽到神的聲音，看到神的作為；另一種是 「人本教會」，只聽到人的聲音 ... 等等等等，諸如此類。

一看驚心動魄，隨即搖頭嘆息。

這種把事情二元對立非黑即白的論調，很可能普遍流傳於不少教會信徒之間，大概屬於流行而扭曲(popular but twisted)的觀念。我本來想說這種說法 「有問題」(problematic)，但始終覺得這樣說太溫和，不足以表達它的危險。

首先，他們所想像的那種 「神本教會」其實是不會存在的。那所謂 「神的聲音」，很多時候其實是少數幾個人，甚至一個人的聲音；那幾個人/一個人以自己為神的代言人，奉天承運，權威無上，不聽他(們)那一套就是不聽從神。

所以，若以為在那裡聽不到人的聲音，其實是聽不到 「眾人」的聲音，只聽到自我神化了的 「一個人的聲音」。那比 「眾人的聲音」離開 「神的聲音」可能更遠。

第二，那種所謂 「神本教會」更加是不應該存在的。(NB：不! 應! 該! ) 在正統的猶太-基督宗教信仰裡面，其中一道非常重要的信仰傳統，就是：「神」也是以 「人」為 「本」的。

當人只顧到聖殿獻祭，天天唱詩祈禱哈利路亞夠晒 「神本」，卻蝦蝦霸霸惡死能登沒有 「人本」的時候，上主勃然大怒實行翻檯媽叉，說最頂唔順你地咁多崇拜唱詩祈禱會，唔該行遠D。(以賽亞書1:11-17, 特別注意第17節)

真正的敬虔是甚麼呢？就是照顧患難中的孤兒寡婦，並且醒醒定定，不與邪惡的勢力同流合污。(雅各書1:27)

正因為上帝本身也是以 「人」為 「本」的，所以才會有道成肉身這樣的驚世之舉。

正因為上帝以 「人」為 「本」，所以若有任何人透過基督與神修復關係，那對神來說就 (等同) 是一次 「新的創造」。保羅竟然動用到一套cosmic language來形容一個人接受上帝的舉動，還有更加大陣仗的事嗎？(哥林多後書5:17)

第三，由於這樣的 「神本教會」並不存在、不會存在、不應該存在，追尋這樣的教會便等同追尋一個虛幻的境界，只會帶來不絕的失望和痛苦，結果就是一個自己招致的理想幻滅 (self-inflicted disillusionment)。揾鬼可憐。

真正 「神本」的群體，必須也是 「人本」的。

任何把所謂 「神本」與 「人本」對立起來的信仰，都是扭曲的屎片神學 —— 因為它沒有認真看待基督 「道成肉身」這個基督信仰裡最核心最重要最珍貴最indispensable的道理；因為它沒有正視整部聖經正典對上主的描繪，陷上主於自我膨脹的不義；因為它無緣無故地增加人的困惑和煩惱。一句講晒：教壊人。

the messiness of life and, therefore, of theology

Life cannot be lived as a theory, not even when lived theologically. Though theology's cognitive aspect functions as a framework within which one chooses to live, neither this nor any other such framework (philosophical, political, ethical) is 'pure'. The practicalities of living intervene, and it is right and proper that they should. This reality of 'unsystematic living' ... confirms the importance of living as both embodied and influenced, even shaped, by both habits and interruptions, the precise content of which is not predictable or controllable.

Clive Marsh, Cinema and Sentiment: Film's Challenge to Theology (Paternoster, 2004), 132.

A Film is Never Only a Film

** Dedicated to my last batch of colleagues in television and film (yes, film!) productions, 2000-2003 (you know who you are, and you who know who you are know what I mean); with ambivalent memory of the good (though turbulent) old days.

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

14 theses on the interrelationship between the cultural role of theology and the practice of film-watching:

1. Life's disjointedness takes some handling.

2. Spirituality is best understood as 'life structure'.

3. Spirituality without theology is vacuous.

4. The practice of theology makes integrated living easier.

5. To see film-watching as a spiritual discipline does not spoil the watching of a film.

6. A film theatre is never only a film theatre.

7. New ways of 'being church' will include finding ways of respecting people's cinema-going habits.

8. It is better to go to the cinema than to watch a film at home.

9. Film critics and film studies lecturer need to be better informed about religion and theology.

10. Theologians and religious studies lecturers need to be better informed about popular culture.

11. Religion could itself be revitalised through critical film-watching. Film-watching could be enhanced by relating to critical theology.

12. Emotionally conscious theology is not only for charismatics.

13. The question of what and who 'God' is remains vital throughout.

14. The only theology worth bothering with is a culturally informed and culture-critical theology.

Clive Marsh, 'A Film is Never Only a Film', in his Cinema and Sentiment: Film's Challenge to Theology (Paternoster, 2004), 132-147.

Gifford Lectures video stream

While our own Professor David Fergusson is delivering the Gifford Lectures series in Glasgow University these 2 weeks, the whole Gifford series in Edinburgh last month is now available to be heard/watched online.

It was given a month ago by Professor Alexander Nehemus (humanities, philosophy, comparative literature) of Princeton University.

The title of the whole series was:

'Because it was he, because it was I: Friendship and its place in life.'

The topics and videos (wvx) of the sessions are here:

1. Friendship in Art, Literature, and Philosophy: a Poor Subject

2. The Aristotelian Background: Ancient Philia and Modern Friendship

3. Because it was He, Because it was I: Loving our Friends for Themselves

4. Friendship in Drama, Film, and Television: the Significance of the Unimportant

5. Friendship, Politics, and Morality: a Clash of Values

6. The Good of Friendship: Freedom, Autonomy, and the Self

**********

Personally, I am actually more interested in Prof. Fergusson's topics.

• The new atheism: historical roots and contemporary context.
• The implausibility of religious belief: claims and counter-claims.
• The genesis of religion: can Darwinism explain it away?
• Religion, morality and art: invention or discovery.
• Is religion bad for our health? Saints, martyrs and terrorists.
• Sacred texts: how should we treat them?

Going over to Glasgow a few times a week is a bit far. Just hope that Glasgow will also put it online soon, or I'll have to wait for the book to come out. (Still, just reading the book, you'll miss the beauty of a Scottish gentleman lecturing.)

受難節思考 :: being messy and particular

... the Judeo-Christian tradition is one that emphasises the scandal of particularity that stems from understanding God's actions in the messy arena of history and of particular people with all their strengths, faults, and idiosyncrasies. The particularity of situatedness does not, however, isolate religion from the rest of life. A fideistic [*] approach that attempts to segregate faith from other currents of life is, on this reading, a gnostic or docetic impossibility, contrary to the postmodern rejection of the modern 'unencumbered self '. (my italics)

Dan R. Stiver, 'Theological Method', in Kevin J. Vanhoozer (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 180.

Theology is therefore ideally suited to handle life's messiness. Far from avoiding what life throws up, theology as a discipline is about handling a living tradition, fed by insights of a living body of people, in the service of understanding and living life to the full. (my italics)

Clive Marsh, Theology Goes to the Movies (Routledge, 2007), 163.

• rejoining 卡卡西：黑白之間 / 意義 / 宗教生活的基本形式

the horror, the horror ...

As one of us recently discovered when teaching a module on biblical hermeneutics to a class of divinity students training for the priesthood, work undertaken at the interface between the Bible and popular culture ... is often met with derision and disdain within theology. ...... the mere mention of Edward Scissorhands (Tim Burton, 1990) or Mystic River (Clint Eastwood, 2003) led to at least one cry of 'blasphemy', and a general consensus among the students that the 'serious' business of theology was being dumbed down.

Christopher Deacy and Gaye Ortiz, Theology and Film: Challenging the Sacred/Secular Divide (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), x.

So, you see how far out I am?

Gracious God, have mercy on us.