categories
Only lately have I realised that my faith had been first brought to me by people who had their faith brought to them by others. And so forth. The implications? Plenty. That having first believed whilst in their unique context, setting, cultural condition and state of affairs, the way they saw their faith—and how they subsequently ministered to us—was inevitably laced and laden with their cultural baggage.
I do thank the Lord and appreciate the faithfulness and sincerity of our Christian forefathers who first reached our shores with the gospel. Yet after grasping onto the essentials of the faith, we must move on from shouldering the theological categories that they have unconsciously conformed us to. What is conservative? What is liberal? These are all categories that the West speak of, but not necessarily what applies to Singaporeans.
This may be a can of worms I'm also opening here, but perhaps it is time to acknowledge that many of the theologies and traditions that we practice in church today were endowed upon us.
Our theology came (and so often still comes) from the great Bible scholars in the West; the Reformation that we take on arose as a response to a situation in the West... But have they brought to us cookie cutter theology, or theology that is one-size-fits-all—and that we have too quickly adopted it wholesale? I am not saying that what they taught is wrong per se, but I wonder: Would our theology be richer and closer to our hearts and roots if what we were taught were answers to what we were asking, according to who we were? Would a theology that belongs to us be able to better provide us answers to the changing times?
As for traditions (in local churches where they are still practiced), they are time-tested from where they came from, and hence certainly helpful. But these traditions have been adopted by us who knew not their roots. Even if we 'knew', we do not identify. We do not come from a place of long history, wars, revolutions, nor diverse cities—even if we did, our cultural identity would still differ. In other words, our entire schema is different. I'm not calling for a revolution to remove tradition, but again I ask: What would be a tradition that Singaporeans would own? Would it not be a more meaningful and richer tradition that we embrace and own?
(Then arises one of the trickiest questions around: What is truly Singaporean? Even our government doesn't know... But that's not to be addressed now.)
We have probably reached a point where tradition (that isn't ours) is not so much created but continued—I do not have good understanding on traditions in Singapore and will not comment too much on this, but what I believe we could do well to take the effort to teach our flock why we do what we do, even if it may not make the deepest connections to our cultural roots and identity.
Today it seems as though we are so often fighting fires; giving reactionary teachings to the changes of time and to the new questions that are pelting our way. We do still look toward the Bible scholars of the West to give us the answers to what we face here in Singapore which is fine and good; the Lord has certainly given many the wisdom and knowledge that we can share and be blessed by—but I would like to raise a challenge to all church leaders (and myself):
Will we acknowledge that we must strive no longer to view Scripture through anyone elses' lenses but the Bible's divinely inspired authors, then we desire to know our flock for who they are, listen to the ground more intently and seek to provide Biblical answers to what they are asking—with 2 Tim 4:1–5 as our principles?
And if one day we are faced with a correction that challenges what we hold on (too) dearly to, will we allow the Spirit to help us discern, reshape our hearts and thoughts—that we may see the Word as truly living and active?
NB Please do not take my word as authority—I still am in the midst of learning, and these are but questions and thoughts that I am simply voicing and processing out loud in my little cubby interweb-hole here. May you the reader of this post seek discernment and in all things, love. Lord have mercy on us all.
I do thank the Lord and appreciate the faithfulness and sincerity of our Christian forefathers who first reached our shores with the gospel. Yet after grasping onto the essentials of the faith, we must move on from shouldering the theological categories that they have unconsciously conformed us to. What is conservative? What is liberal? These are all categories that the West speak of, but not necessarily what applies to Singaporeans.
This may be a can of worms I'm also opening here, but perhaps it is time to acknowledge that many of the theologies and traditions that we practice in church today were endowed upon us.
Our theology came (and so often still comes) from the great Bible scholars in the West; the Reformation that we take on arose as a response to a situation in the West... But have they brought to us cookie cutter theology, or theology that is one-size-fits-all—and that we have too quickly adopted it wholesale? I am not saying that what they taught is wrong per se, but I wonder: Would our theology be richer and closer to our hearts and roots if what we were taught were answers to what we were asking, according to who we were? Would a theology that belongs to us be able to better provide us answers to the changing times?
As for traditions (in local churches where they are still practiced), they are time-tested from where they came from, and hence certainly helpful. But these traditions have been adopted by us who knew not their roots. Even if we 'knew', we do not identify. We do not come from a place of long history, wars, revolutions, nor diverse cities—even if we did, our cultural identity would still differ. In other words, our entire schema is different. I'm not calling for a revolution to remove tradition, but again I ask: What would be a tradition that Singaporeans would own? Would it not be a more meaningful and richer tradition that we embrace and own?
(Then arises one of the trickiest questions around: What is truly Singaporean? Even our government doesn't know... But that's not to be addressed now.)
We have probably reached a point where tradition (that isn't ours) is not so much created but continued—I do not have good understanding on traditions in Singapore and will not comment too much on this, but what I believe we could do well to take the effort to teach our flock why we do what we do, even if it may not make the deepest connections to our cultural roots and identity.
Today it seems as though we are so often fighting fires; giving reactionary teachings to the changes of time and to the new questions that are pelting our way. We do still look toward the Bible scholars of the West to give us the answers to what we face here in Singapore which is fine and good; the Lord has certainly given many the wisdom and knowledge that we can share and be blessed by—but I would like to raise a challenge to all church leaders (and myself):
Will we acknowledge that we must strive no longer to view Scripture through anyone elses' lenses but the Bible's divinely inspired authors, then we desire to know our flock for who they are, listen to the ground more intently and seek to provide Biblical answers to what they are asking—with 2 Tim 4:1–5 as our principles?
And if one day we are faced with a correction that challenges what we hold on (too) dearly to, will we allow the Spirit to help us discern, reshape our hearts and thoughts—that we may see the Word as truly living and active?
NB Please do not take my word as authority—I still am in the midst of learning, and these are but questions and thoughts that I am simply voicing and processing out loud in my little cubby interweb-hole here. May you the reader of this post seek discernment and in all things, love. Lord have mercy on us all.
Comments
Post a Comment