Dear White Pastor …


, ,

The Charlottesville Nazi march over the weekend has sparked different responses from our president Trump all the way down to the church. Trump at first stated that he condemned violence on “all sides” and then he changed his mind to condemn exclusively the fascist marchers, only to change his mind Monday to revert to his initial “all sides” statement. This obviously triggers a lot of internet anger. As a theological educator, my interest is the response of white churches. Here’re some typical responses from the white churches. The samples I’ve seen are taken directly from what I’ve seen. There might be others. First, there’s the “all sides” response where people would mix the fascist violence with all violence. Second, there’s what I call the “pie in the sky” response where people like John Piper would say that there’ll be no slavery in heaven, citing scriptural evidence. Third, of course, there’s the “let’s get along and unite” response which appeals to the Body of Christ. Fourth, of course, there’s the “let’s stay quiet in hope this rubbish will go away” response. Fifth, some have voiced out in complete opposition to the Nazis, denouncing them unequivocally. I find responses 1 to 4 insufficient. Here are the reasons.

Regarding the first response of “all sides,” it’s simply a lie. While I don’t condone violence, we can’t simply equate both sides to be the same. It’s stupid to do so. The fascists showed up in assault rifles and battle fatigue. They were clearly there to incite violence. In fact, one was heard talking about using deadly force to make sure their people could march wherever they pleased. Chants of “blood and soil” and “Jews can’t replace us” were clearly a call for genocide. The display of weapons should represent imminent threat to carry out the call. Based on one witness on the ground, very few anti-fascist protesters carried weapons while virtually all the fascists carried things they could use as weapons whether they were bats, flag poles, or assault rifles. It’s like comparing a bunch of peasants with sticks and stones with an army with modern weapons (which is essentially what it was). One account from a synagogue member tells of someone looking initially to target the synagogue only to change his mind by driving a car that killed the girl Heather Heyer. There’s no “all sides” when one side is a bunch of violent marchers who claim to be Nazis.

The second response is also inadequate. The “pie in the sky” approach is basically saying that our hope is in God whose future for humanity abolishes all injustices. Sure, as Christians, we believe that. That IS indeed a Christian hope, but is this the time to theologize in such a high and mighty tone? While the white Christian can sit back and theorize, people of color fear for their lives. This Saturday, I’ll be going to a chalk art festival nearby, and in the back of my mind, I’m thinking, “What if a white supremacist shows up and incites trouble with my family?” I’m not the only one to think about this. My Mexican friend who plans to get together with us at the festival coincidentally thinks like this too. This is something most white Christians don’t experience unless they walk through the so-called “bad side of town.” Well, we experience this everywhere we go. I experienced this growing up in the South. Telling people about that future hope sounds great, except it’s like telling a rape victim that there’ll be no raping upon Christ’s return. Oh, okay, we all know that, BUT WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO DO TO ELIMINATE SEXUAL ASSAULTS RIGHT NOW? There’s a time for theoretical discussion, but in crisis such as this, my concern is what will happen today and tomorrow in REAL TIME. Surely, there’ll be plenty of “amen’s” in white churches in response to Piper’s tweet, but among believers who are people of color, there’s only painful groaning and sighs of anger or frustration. Now isn’t the time to pontificate. The pie in the sky needs to stay in the sky because we simply can’t eat it on earth.

The third response is absolutely inadequate. It’s the kumbaya “let’s get along and unite” approach. Make no mistake about this, there’re two sides to this event: those who marched to eliminate all non-whites and those who resisted. There’s no “let’s get along and unite” and put aside our differences. The difference is between dire injustice and a fight for justice. As such, the church needs to fight against injustice and fight for justice. You can’t put aside differences like that. The injustice being touted is such a stain that we can call it the original sin of America: slavery of black people. To unite around that or any sort of racist ideology is to go against the very Body of Christ to which we belong. And if we believe that Christ had died for the church, then racist ideology is the direct offense to the cross. Such an ideology is essentially anti-Christian that can only come from the anti-Christ. Those who post stuff or preach sermons about getting along without denouncing and deconstructing the sin of racism have essentially compromised their faith to the degree of picking the side of injustice.

The fourth response is also highly inadequate. It’s the “let’s stay quiet in hope this rubbish will go away.” If we ask white pastors who take this approach how they really feel, they would tell us that racism is not right, but they won’t say it on the pulpit. The very thing happened in Hitler’s Germany. We know what happened to the Germany church during that time. The “evangelical church” had lost all credibility. History will be the judge of our pulpit at this moment. Silence is in fact a very popular approach. The fact Trump’s entire business advisory council had disbanded and defected over the events in Charlottesville but none of his faith advisory council has quit thus far says a lot about the state of Christianity in America. Perhaps our (mostly white) Christian leaders on his board enjoy the view from Trump’s spiritual sinking ship a bit too much. Whatever the reason, their silence is deafening. When they do speak as in the case of Jerry Falwell Jr., they become the president’s lying mouthpiece. So, do CEO’s from big corporations have more integrity than our big-name Christian leaders? From statistics, this seems to be the case.

The fifth response is vocal denouncement of the Nazis. I’m thankful to hear my own pastor making strong denouncement through his preaching of scripture against such injustices in America. His voice is a minority voice among white pastors. Why? It’s simple. The backlash requires a man with backbone of steel. If you don’t believe me, just look at another local pastor Judah Smith’s video on this topic and the backlash he faces on social media. I’d never thought for once that denouncing Nazis who deservedly lost a world war can be so hard for Christian leaders. When denouncing evil becomes difficult in a faith community, the faith community has lost its collective conscience.

Based on what I said above, we’re only left with one appropriate response. We need to pick the side of justice and speak out against injustice. Silence is complicity. Neutrality in the face of evil is itself evil. Are we going to continue to normalize, justify or tolerate Nazis marching in our streets, threatening our people of color we call Christian brothers and sisters? It isn’t a political issue. It’s a theological issue. It’s a human issue. White pastors, you can do better. You must!


First Apology as the Mirror of the True Self



The big news this week, besides the continuous suffering of people in Syria and the bombing of the Coptic Church in Egypt is the United Airline customer debacle where a paid customer was violently forced off the plane for no other reason than trying to get some space for miscalculated crew travel. The amazing thing about this whole event is the way Oscar Muñoz, the CEO of UA, apologized. He described the violence to the customer with a newly coined word “re-accommodate”. He wrote, “This is an upsetting event to all of us here at UA.  I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also reaching out to this customer to talk directly to him and further address and resolve the situation.” Yet, in a leaked internal memo to the employees, he stood firm behind the employees who go above and beyond to ensure that UA “fly right.” The memo has since been deleted.

It was only after UA lost 250 million USD market share in one day that Muñoz issued his second apology that started to sound a bit like a real apology. Over the years, I’ve experienced various kinds of apologies from Rick Warren’s non-apology (i.e. best summarized by “if you don’t like my racially charged jokes, don’t read my Facebook page”) that progressed to a semi-apology (i.e. best summarized by “I’m sorry if what I said offended anyone”) to apologies that is directed to anyone other than the victim. Whether it’s an apology for a tasteless Facebook meme or a false advertisement using someone’s name without permission or plagiarizing someone else’s work, the first apology (not the redacted and rectified one) shows the heart’s true priority.

When apologizing for the offense, I’ve seen two strategies that offenders use to cover up the seriousness of the offense itself. First, the offender can use vocabulary that lessens or even normalizes the seriousness of the offense even to the degree of inventing new words (i.e. “re-accommodate”). If the offense isn’t physical like the one with UA, some would even go as far as saying, “It’s a joke, people. Lighten up. Grow thicker skin.” This strategy shows the offender’s sole interest is to bolster one’s ego and blamelessness. The unfortunate thing is, the more one washes off the blood, the redder one’s hands will become. Integrity, in this case, is merely a tool for beautifying one’s own public image.

The second tactic offenders use is to apologize to all the immediate financial and social-political interests instead of to the real victim. For example, one can  apologize to a publisher for plagiarism or to the readers for misleading them with false advertisement without apologizing to the one from whom one plagiarize or to the one from whom one has profited. This strategy shows that the offender only cares about his own financial or status gain and nothing else. This initial apology is there to make sure one’s financial affairs won’t be affected. Integrity, in this case, is merely a tool for financial gain. Integrity becomes a financial transaction rather than a character trait.

While the delete button can be the ultimate hand washing internet tool, that button will not help us advert true disasters. Deletion without proper apology is the ultimate act of a calloused coward whose spirit has been possessed by the demon of self aggrandizement and selfish gains. Embellished apology isn’t much better. However, as Christians, we have a better way, the biblical way of repentance in three steps. First, offenders must own their offense. Second, they have to rectify the loss that came from the offense by being on the victim’s side. Third, they have to determine in their hearts not to reoffend while turning their lives towards the opposite direction of the offending path. These are good and solid ways of living as an offender. We’re all humans. We are bound to offend in one way or another where real damage is done to real human beings. Our job is to ensure that our integrity is in tact even as we misstep. Hitting the delete button in social media without proper dealings with the victim only compounds the offense. Thus if we want to apologize with integrity, the first thing we should check shouldn’t be self-interest, but the interest of the victim. After all, your first apology exposes your heart. No matter what you do afterwards to “fix” the first apology, especially after your public opinion and stock prices have plummeted and your career has spiraled towards ruination, will not matter. The trust is already lost. It’s too late.

Muñoz and other cases of faux apologies or non-apologies teach us one thing: check your heart.

The Resurrection of the Chair of Death: The Herman Miller Story


On a plane flying to a speaking engagement recently, I was reading a book my wife recommended for me. It’s called Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s a psychological study on gut reaction and prejudices. I read the book in a search for answers to the complex problems involving racial prejudice and conflicts that have plagued our country lately, and I learned something inspiring I didn’t expect. I learned about the chair I sit on in my home office (Blink, pp. 167-175).

My love affair with Herman Miller’s Aeron chair purely came by accident. I used to look at architectural magazines when I was studying and working in architecture but that was another lifetime ago. I knew about Herman Miller from afar until one day, I was in this fancy hotel in one more speaking engagements. I parked my tired behind on the hotel room chair to answer my endless work emails and that’s when I encountered the Aeron chair. As soon as I leaned back on that chair, all of my fatigue and trouble just escaped through its porous seat back. I had to have that chair (the chair I’m sitting on in the photo of my study). Today, I own this wonderful chair, touted as one of the most aesthetically pleasing and ergonomic chairs around. I’ve tried lots of ergonomic and pretty chairs (including the art piece Goldman chair in my living room), but none came close to the Aeron. I don’t think I can work as well on any other chair since that day. What I didn’t know was the rough beginning of the Aeron chair.

Back in the 90s, Herman Miller sought to design the most ergonomic chair on the market especially for the executive clientele. He hired top industrial designers Don Chadwick and Bill Stumpf to come up with the concepts. They first created Ergon and Equa which were highly copied but Herman Miller wasn’t satisfied. The Aeron which they came up will defied all chair fashion by sticking with the most basic skeleton design all without the traditional cushion. The entire chair is porous. What’s striking however is that the chair imitates how our hip and back pivot in order to avoid putting stress on the lower back. For those of us who make a living sitting in front of our desks, this is the deal breaker.

The Aeron chair back and the seat move independently while boasting a vertically and horizontally adjustable armrests. Thus, the chair doesn’t only take into consideration of how the back pivots but also the width of the person sitting on the chair. This legendary chair debut on terribly shaky reception. When it was first tested, the average customer satisfaction was somewhere around 4.75 out of 10. It was an invention nobody wanted. The problem isn’t the product. The problem is how Americans perceived comfort in the 90s. The average American equated comfort with cushion (may American chairs are still highly cushioned). Even though the mesh material of the Aeron provides the flexibility necessary to shape the chair to the body for comfort, the customers just couldn’t overcome the impression they had. Herman Miller continued to work on the comfort factor while the customer base continued to demand some kind of fabric or cushion. At the end, what was the cause for the feeling of the customers? It wasn’t the surface of the chair but the prejudice of the mind.

Herman Miller was in a bind. The company had already committed a lot of scientific research on this product. At this stage, it could do no more, unless the company decided to abandon ship. The marketing research and statistics pronounced nothing but doom. By popular opinion, the Aeron should be called the “Chair of Death” (someone in the marketing department actually named it that). What would the company do? The company had decided to stick to its commitment to its ideal and buck the aesthetic trend of the time. Popular opinions be damned, the Herman Miller Aeron was born.

Not much happened when it finally hit the market, but momentum slowly picked up as real clients who needed comfort for 8-10 hours a day sitting started to experience the Aeron. In cities like NYC or the Silicon Valley where more people sit in front of their keyboards, it became the artistic piece rich clients could show off for the radical aesthetics while experiencing comfort instead of back pain. It won the Industrial Designers of America award. Since then, this chair has become one of the most sought after in the world. You’ll find them in many upscale hotel rooms in front of the work desks. All this happened because Herman Miller stuck to its ideal.

What was the deciding factor that tipped the scale to put it on market instead of shelving the project? Certainly, it wasn’t the popular opinion from marketing research. Bill Dowell, the research leader in Herman Miller put the matter this way, “When you are in the product development world, you become immersed in your own stuff, and it’s hard to keep in mind the fact that the customers you go out and see spend very little time with your product. They know the experience of it then and there. But they don’t have any history with it, and it’s hard for them to imagine a future with it, especially if it’s something very different.” (Blink, pp. 173-174) But when they finally spend prolonged hours on the Aeron chair, their idea of what was “ugly” now changed to “beautiful” all due to the experienced comfort.

Herman Miller shows to us that expertise is a gift, but it isn’t always a gift for popular consumption. The designers of the Aeron spent more time and had a better grasp on ergonomic comfort more than anyone else. They believed in their data, as did Herman Miller. IF Herman Miller believed in popular opinion, we’d still be sitting on cushy chairs that cause back pain. The only people who benefit would be the chiropractor. The Aeron shows that something is more important than popular opinions (sometimes, even prejudices and idiocy). That something is the time spent honing a quality product. Quality isn’t about popularity. Quality is about longevity. Herman Miller should bring great comfort not only to our tired backs, but also to our ideal for high quality, whether we’re writing, speaking or working on a unique project. Since its shaky inception, the profit has grown 40-70% annually. When we work for something unique, we may not be immediately popular, but our results will last. Besides, who needs a cushy office chair when you have the ultimate office chair of all chairs: the Aeron chair. May Herman Miller inspire you today as you read. Thank you, Herman Miller, for not giving up on the unique Aeron chair.


Writing is a Privilege!

I can’t believe my new Mark commentary has hit the bestseller Christian book list in HK this week. Works like that don’t usually sell that well. It’s been a little while this year since I made it on that list. I’m under no illusion that I’ve written anything profound to deserve that number one spot. I’m also under no illusion that I’ll top the chart with that one for long. After all, academic books are mostly written for those who REALLY care about what the biblical text says. Your average evangelical readers tend to exclaim, “Who cares?” Throughout my writing career, I’ve had a great run in the Chinese world. Every year, at least one or two of my books are in the top ten. I’m under no illusion though that it’s necessarily some sign of divine blessing (though I’d love to think so). It’s just the way the market falls. Throughout my writing career, I’ve also heard other writers complain about deadlines and criticism. Don’t we all hate deadlines? Sure, we do … except I really don’t. Let me explain.

You know what deadline is? A deadline is a way for someone to keep us accountable to the discipline of writing. Good writers need discipline. Good writers read, think and write every single day. A deadline is there to remind us that we aren’t here just to enjoy popularity and fame. We’re responsible to a reading public. Therein lies the problem. In this internet age, anyone can be a writer and almost anyone can become popular (e.g. look at Kim Kardashian). The problem is, writing with longevity isn’t something you can solve with popularity because in order to have longevity, you have to have substance first.

You know what a deadline is? A deadline is a blessing. It’s a reminder that people have chosen to read our articles, columns or books instead of playing the latest video game on their phone or merely google for information. If someone chooses to pay us for our columns or our books, we’re in no place to complain. A deadline isn’t a burden. It’s only a burden for the undisciplined.

Why do people complain about deadlines? It’s because they fail to have a clear vision and mission as to why they write. They don’t like to be criticized. They just want to be liked. Some have very fragile egos. They can’t take any criticism. They have to be right all the time in the same way the immature child stomps his feet. Others like to criticize others but don’t like criticism back.

Why else do people complain about criticism? It’s because they don’t like being misunderstood. Well, if you look at the criticism someone launched on Amazon about my book Right Texts, Wrong Meanings, you’ll see that he’s looking for apples while I was delivering oranges. The ironic thing is, my PhD is mostly in “apples”. I have published journal articles in “apples”, but of course, the keyboard warrior doesn’t know that or bother checking his facts (who checks facts anyway these days?) I’m thankful for this negative critique though because frankly, most people don’t even bother to put any negative criticism in writing. If someone feels passionate enough to engage your writing to write a critique, perhaps it means that someone is reading! We write to be read! As long as someone is reading and engaging my stuff, so what if he misunderstands? In some cases, I can do a better job communicating. In other cases, maybe the critic is just an uninformed idiot who himself isn’t published but loves to play keyboard author. So what? Grow thicker skin, smile a little and shake your head. That’s what you do with those people. If you don’t like to be misunderstood, stop writing.

Why do people complain about criticism? It’s because they fail to realize that writing is a responsibility. You’re responsible for what you write. You don’t have the right to sprint to the shelter that has “you misunderstood me” at its doorframe every time someone retorts against the writer’s literary battle. If you dish it out, be prepared to receive the same amount of backlash. Writers who play victim are most pitiful because they’ve misunderstood that their mission is to be popular and well liked. In this internet age of click baits, they’ve mistaken the cyberspace for reality. Don’t want criticism? Don’t criticize others, or just stop writing altogether.

Why do people complain about criticism? They complain because they see writing as the means to fame. Popularity isn’t the essence of writing. Integrity, truth and depth are. If you want popularity without responsibility, you can sell your integrity to appeal to the lowest spiritual taste of the simpleton. That’s how life goes. Just look at the Daniel Diet book where Rick Warren and co. hijacked a perfectly great biblical character by promoting a diet plan that’s about as far from the historical Daniel as could be. Now that appeals to the popular ignoramus. When the Bible clearly indicates that Daniel and his friends followed a vegan diet, the book has Teriyaki stir fried beef, or chicken noodle soup etc. That’s what selling your soul looks like. That latest Rick Warren’s bestseller, now translated into Chinese, is what I call a spiritual joke book, but you can get hugely popular with spiritual joke books. Want fame? Make a sex tape. It’ll get you more famous than writing. Stop writing!

Why do writers complain about deadlines and criticism? Let me summarize: they fail to see writing as a privilege. Writing is a privilege, and popularity demands responsibility. Writing isn’t something we’re entitled to because no one HAS TO read your stuff. If you fail to see writing as a privilege but see it as entitlement, then you clearly don’t belong to the guild of serious writers. Writing is merely a means for you to get famous, but that isn’t the essence of writing! IF you’re allowed to write, and people actually read your writings, you should thank the heavens above for your great privilege and never complain about the burden. It doesn’t have to be a burden unless you seek fame without responsibility. Thank God everyday for the deadlines and criticisms. That’s what we writers should be doing!

Encouragement through Church History

I’ve written recently about how African pastors I met have been courageously speaking without being scared to offend politically powerful people within their congregation (Chinese version here). I want to follow up with a blog about situations when you speak truth and offend others. These days, you almost can’t preach anything dealing with serious issues without offending somebody. I was called plenty of names in my time as a preacher of the church, sometimes blatant to my face. Even the way you dress, you look or you speak, can bother somebody. Sick people have fragile emotions. If you travel the globe as often as I do speaking in different contexts, cultures and denominations, you’d get backlashes in multiples. Of course, the nasty comments from the annoying grapevine that eventually leak back to us also can discourage. Besides being reminded of the sinful brokenness of Christians (yes, even Christians and sometimes especially Christians), some can wallow in that discouragement for a bit too long. Here’s some good news to help you cope.

When faced with criticism, the first thing we often do is to look at what we did realistically. That’s best done on a Monday or a Tuesday after the Sunday sermon. Some may take longer. After our honest examination of the content and delivery, if we’re still fine with what we did, we should focus on a few truths that’s sure to help us to grow a bit thicker skin. First, someone else always has it worse off than you. Think about church history. John Knox the great Scottish reformer was exiled for speaking the truth, but he never shied away from speaking the truth even with the queen attending his church. Back in the day of John Chrysostom, people could tell about the theological orientation and spiritual health of the church by whether Chrysostom was in exile or not. Pope Leo put a price on Martin Luther’s head. Even now, people in various parts of the world are murdered and raped for speaking and believing the truth. These thoughts should make our annoyance seem trivial. Second, you aren’t called to be popular. Truth isn’t a popularity contest. It’s infused with properly nuanced questions and proper solutions, whether people enjoy the questions or adopt the solution or not. At the end of the day, courage is gained through having an accurate big picture. If we don’t want to be criticized, then either speak in mundane topics that entertain rather than change or just stop speaking altogether.

Sometimes, when we put things into perspective, it’ll give us the strength to face whatever critics throw at us in the coming days. I hope my readers find that strength.

Do’s and Don’t’s in Public Presentation (and also Sermons)

I’m finally back from the Global Proclamation Congress, after more than a month of teaching an intensive preaching course, speaking at various places and launching my new commentary (in Chinese) on Mark’s Gospel. Such a tour of various cultures and venues allows me to review some of the principles of basic presentation skills that every public presenter should have. This is especially true for preachers in the church. These observations are directed at no one in particular. In fact, I’ve seen a lot of great speakers, but hopefully such observations also help my readers to review their own habits. I’ve blogged about this topic extensively. Anyone interested in more extensive discussions can search this blog on more topics on preaching and public presentation. This is not an exhaustive list. It’s just stuff that hits me as I listen to various speakers and observe my own habits.

Let me start with the “Do’s”.

  1. Pause and explain. When talking at length for more than 15 minutes, the audience needs pauses so that they can reflect. Pausing sometimes for the sake of explanation especially at the beginning of a presentation is important. Sometimes, it’s easy just to throw cliches around but without explanation, misunderstanding rather than understanding will occur.
  2. Master your powerpoint. I’ve made this point wherever I go. I’ll be the first to say that I’m no master of the powerpoint. In fact, I’m a bit of an old-fashion guy who isn’t always keen to use powerpoint. I’ve noticed most masterful preachers don’t need powerpoint to get their point across. IF one must use powerpoint, please master its use. I’ve seen many examples of speakers pressing the button for the wrong slides or not knowing which slide comes next in his speaking outline. This only confuses and disrupts the otherwise decent presentation. Some have chosen to ask others to operate the powerpoint. That’s a wise decision only if the speaker provides clear transitions so that the operator knows when to switch slides. For many cases I see, the speaker is better off not using powerpoint.
  3. Stay on point. Although this would seem obvious, many speakers don’t stay on point. Some speeches have so many unrelated points that the audience is caught in a thick fog. Either that or they’ll fall into a coma. IF you’re a biblical preacher, stay on point within the text that you’re preaching. Don’t make stuff up in your exposition that explains more your own agenda than the purpose of the text. Let the text set the boundary for the sermon. For other public presentation, let your big idea set the boundary for your speech. Leave other stuff for another day. If you don’t, people won’t learn more. They just get confused and learn nothing.

Let me now go with the “Don’t’s”

  1. Don’t set up straw men. A straw man is a caricature often of an opposing position in order for the speaker to knock down easily. Unhelpful cheap humor is one good way to set up a straw man. The problem with straw men is intellectual dishonesty. It’s intellectually dishonest to go for a cheap laugh at the expense of opposing opinions. It strikes at the problem of integrity. A good speaker has integrity enough to represent other positions accurately. If speakers can’t represent the opposing opinions accurately, it’s best not to even try.
  2. Don’t moralize. Moralization is different than speaking about ethics. When ethics ARE the main issue, we need to address them. However, when ethics aren’t the main issue and the speaker makes the main issue ethics, then s/he is moralizing. Moralization is immensely annoying for the intellectually engaged listener. Especially bad is when someone brings in an unrelated moral illustration as a hobby horse in order to beat the dead horse. If the main issue of the text isn’t that topic, skip it for another day. People who moralize in church honestly give preachers a bad name.
  3. Don’t quote random verses (even if done in context) for rhetorical effect. Every verse has a context.This principle also applies to any quote. If you quote and haven’t read the book, just don’t quote. Misquotation only impresses the ignorant. Quoting a verse doesn’t infuse it with magical power. Many Christian speakers like to quote verses to back up their points to make their points appear more biblical. Most of the time, the text they quote doesn’t really say what they want it to say. Perhaps a few more people need to read my Right Texts, Wrong Meanings book. Most of the biblical quotes are there to bait for cheap “amen’s” from the audience. Is that really what we’re supposed to do? Just stop!
  4. Don’t equate hyperactivity for true passion. Some speakers speak passionately. Others speak to appear passionate. I’m unsure of what the main cause behind that is, but perhaps they feel that the louder and more hyperactive they are on stage, the more they look like they really mean  what they say. It’s hard to pinpoint the main cause, but I can tell when this is going on. One of my fellow listener gave a keen observation, “Even loud sermons can make you sleepy.” That’s so true. Louder doesn’t mean truer. Volume and truth aren’t necessarily the same thing. Plus, it’s hard on your blood pressure to be that hyperactive unless you do regular cardio.

The above is the short list of do’s and don’t’s. I think the bottom line is this. The final product of any speech depends on the person of the speaker. Much of it has to do with integrity, whether it’s moral, intellectual or spiritual. You can’t fake integrity.

The Entitled Millennials?!


Well, if you read what older folks (people my age) say on social media, you’d think the millennials are the laziest, dumbest, ignorant, and the most narcissistic generation EVER in human history. I think reality is much more complicated than these general statements.

What is a millennial? These are the young people born between the 80s and mid 90s. In other words, they’ll (barely?) reach adulthood by the beginning of the 21st century. From my observation, laziness, stupidity, ignorance and narcissism aren’t the sole commodities of the millennials. In fact, I bet baby boomers (the generation to which I belong) have heard the same complaints about our rock music, our weed smoking and our tendency to get too groovy. Have our old memory so easily forgotten the psychedelic 60s? Does anyone remember the event called Woodstock? Some of us are known for smoking enormous amount of weed while listening to rock music or demonstrating against the Vietnam War or having sex with our unshaved bodies in the great outdoors. Far out? I think we’re all products of our own generation and our weaknesses express themselves in different manners through different media. We’re all humans with huge flaws. The unfortunate thing for millennials is that they now have the social media (which they’ve mastered) to demonstrate those flaws for all the world to see. They aren’t both masters and slaves of social media. My generation luckily has no means to show off our own stupidity.

Before we blame millennials, let’s be very clear that our generation (the older folks) invented things like the internet, the iPhone or whatever favorite toys these “annoying” little millennials are using. In other words, WE made THEM (if our complaint is indeed legit). The problem isn’t the age of the millennials that made them flawed. The problem is that our invention of new media (and all sorts of advanced technology) have run way ahead of our wisdom (and this includes old guys like me). What we have isn’t a millennial problem. What we have is an ethical problem. What we have, indeed if we do have a problem, is an educational problem. If we criticize the millennials, we need to ask harder questions to those who educated them, starting at the home. Are we bringing them up in wisdom? I don’t have concrete answers, but I believe we often are asking the wrong questions and launching half-true accusations.

Therefore, every time we look at some social media meme that mocks the millennials (or any generation), we would be all the wiser to say that these are only individual cases of stupidity. Every time we read statistics, we would be all the wiser to cast a critical eye at the framework that resulted in those statistics. I think as Christians, we need to avoid blanket statements that may be partially true without pausing to reflect on the deeper issue that may reveal the whole truth.

Meanwhile, anyone wants a selfie with me?

Doing Church and Politics Right: What I learned from My African Friends

I’ve met many prominent African ministers while attending the Global Proclamation Congress in Thailand (see photo in this blog I got from the congress Facebook page). These people are in charge of congregation of thousands. The mega church in the US would be considered “normal” for them. Naturally, many politicians attend their churches. This lesson coincides with the news that Donald Trump has enlisted many evangelical leaders to be his spiritual counsel. How do my African friends handle the situation?

  1. The politicians only attend as a regular member. If they come to the minister, they come to the minister as church members in need of pastoral counsel, not as politicians in need of publicity.
  2. The pastor doesn’t allow the church to be a political platform for any party. The pulpit isn’t a place for politicians to make their political speeches in order to gain support.
  3. The pastor freely speaks about social justice even before officials because that’s his pastoral charge. He doesn’t take sides in terms of political parties, but he does speak on issues clearly, loudly and boldly.

Compare just what I described to many Hong Kong churches. We possess the opposite traits. Many don’t have enough integrity to practice this healthy separation between church and state as my African brothers and sisters do. As a result, we repeatedly allow politicians to use the pulpit or pulpit endorsement to get votes. Others don’t want their preachers to preach on sensitive issues in fear of 1) losing their own financial interests locally with China 2) offending someone who may be pro-government. I’ve heard one assistant minister getting a good “talking to” by his seniors for seeking justice for the victims of Tiananmen massacre in his pastoral prayer. Apparently, God doesn’t care much about justice for victims or families of mass murders. Others fail to understand their role in the church by naively participating in a hopelessly fraudulent system not by changing it (because so far, nothing has changed for the best) but by being complicit in its crimes. At the end of the day, we’re left with three questions. First, what God do we serve? Second, what should be the duties of a pastor? If preaching the gospel doesn’t include the justice of God and His love for those who’re in need, then what kind of gospel are we preaching?

I think this comparison shows why so many African churches are growing and making impact in their societies, even under oppressive conditions and why the name of Jesus is often reviled in Hong Kong. Others’ hatred of Christians has nothing to do with persecution. I hope one day the right people (e.g. those who represent oppressive evil forces) will hate us for the right reasons (e.g. social conscience) because our present immaturity, cowardice and greed have murdered our reputation.

Formal, Non-Formal and Subpar Education

I spent this week attending the Global Proclamation Congress in Thailand. Besides speaking in one morning chapel, I spent my time mostly thinking, listening and learning. The biggest takeaway is the discussion about education. Since Christianity isn’t always a popular religion in many countries, access to theological education isn’t always readily available. Some obstacles are persecution and English literacy along with general educational level of local population. I also heard about a number of Protestant (quite often evangelical) theological institutions doing away with the tenure system in favor of a more “practical” approach to education. How are these related? I will discuss below.

Let me go with some definitions first. Formal education is one that goes through all the necessary steps with the goal of receiving a degree at the end. Non-formal education trains up students in a practical way that forces them to go through necessary steps without necessarily getting a degree at the end. Sometimes, non-formal education is an abbreviated version of formal education for practical reasons. Informal education may be anything that is done informally without necessarily going through all the steps of either formal or non-formal education but the student learns something. Whatever that “something” is probably depends on the effort of each student. Most likely, the vigor of formal education is greater than non-formal and informal.

In formal education, there’s a system in place not only to ensure that the student passes qualifying steps but also to ensure that the instructors go through their own qualification for ranking. In non-formal education, students also go through the qualifying steps but probably in a less vigorous manner. As far as instructors are concerned, in non-formal education, qualification can vary because quite often, there’s no requirement for the instructors to enhance their professional growth.

Let me now turn my attention to the formal education in terms of a tenure system. Traditional formal education has a tenure system. It’s a system set up for ranking so that the instructor has something to shoot for. Instructors with fresh PhD’s with good potentials are often put on a tenure track, a journal that qualifies them for a tenure position, typically lasting 5-7 years. After qualifying through publications, administration and teaching, the instructor achieves tenure usually given a title of associate professor. In non-tenure formal education, instructors often teach in such a way that they earn their ranks also through publications, administration and teaching. Yet, there’s less security with job security without a tenure. In recent years, the second form of formal education has deteriorated to such a degree that in some cases, only adjuncts are used. In such a case, there’s no requirement to publish. Everything is geared towards the “practical”. This is a tragedy.

I suspect there’re two possible reasons why the deterioration happens. First, the institution doesn’t have the budget to pay so much benefit to tenured professors. Second, the cry of the church for practicality is so great that the institution sees keeping tenured professors who sit around contemplating huge concepts and writing about them as luxury, or worse yet, as dinosaurs of a bygone pre-internet age. I believe the main cause however is the lack of clear direction and understanding of the role of the formal educational institution. As a result of this tragedy, the formal has slowly faded into a non-formal structure while insisting that it’s still giving a formal education. It’s little wonder that some instructors have mistaken writing in social media, blogs, popular magazines, or other forms of non-traditional medium where there’s no quality control or refereeing as serious writing. Such aren’t serious writings. They’re pretending to be serious writing but the goal of such writing merely expands one’s cyber footprint and quick fame. These media aren’t serious scholarship. Neither are the resulting watered down courses serious education. The deterioration of the institutional understanding quickly spreads to the deterioration of the understanding of each individual instructor. We need to ask some serious questions at this juncture. Who will research and write future commentaries and dictionaries etc.?  Who will further our knowledge database? Without new horizons, teaching becomes a rehashing of old class notes (which happens more often than you’d imagine) and old knowledge. This regurgitation of overnight vomit will surely destroy the church ultimately.

I’m not saying that the tenure system is the answer, but I believe the complete abolition of the tenure system is surely not the answer. In fact, such a move towards all adjunct faculty only indicates deeper problem of lack of understanding of what education is. Perhaps, we lack a middle ground non-formal education at the church level. So, when the student arrives at the seminary, s/he isn’t really ready to absorb the seemingly irrelevant material for ministerial use. The cry of irrelevance is often a cry of ignorance due to the inability to absorb intellectually challenging material. The funeral of the mind starts at the lack of non-formal training at the local church in favor of other priorities. Until we get that piece of non-formal training in place, the misplaced blame and uninformed pressure put on the seminary will continue to cover over the real problem. We may as well sound the death knell for the church. Don’t ask for whom the bell tolls? It tolls for the Protestant (often evangelical) church.

A Wounded Child or a Terrorist Brat? Accessing China with the Christian Voice


There’s a popular (but, in my view, highly misguided) theory that China acts like a hurt child who needs to be coddled. The dialogue usually goes something like this. Usually, people point out that China behaves badly in human rights violations. Inevitably, the official answer is the immediate kneejerk victim drama. The China apologists would immediately say that China was a hurt child, a kind of victim from western colonialism. Its past hurt and its present inferiority complex cause it to behave badly. So, our job is to heal their wounds by talking about it and denouncing it and so on without always harping on present bad behavior in hope that the bad behavior will correct itself. I’ve seen Christian leaders who want to do more work in China fall into this communist myth and defend China’s action regardless of gravity of the situation. I say this theory is total balderdash, utter bunk. I would in fact call China a terrorist brat rather than a hurt and abused child.

According to Wikipedia, a terrorist state is one that is willing to commit acts of terrorism against a foreign target and against its own people. Terrorism, at its heart, is systemic use of violence to cause fear in a certain population in order to achieve a certain political objective. The substance of the word “terrorism” is about “terror” or fear. FBI defines an international terrorist as someone who operates outside of his own national boundary to coerce and intimidate a particular population. The common tactic of a terrorist is to threaten and kill soft targets to achieve ideological goals. We see the pattern of threat against soft targets quite often since the fateful day on June 4, 1989 at Tiananmen. According to some definitions, what happened on June 4 fits perfectly internal terrorism. That’s the most recent memory for most of the world. China’s attack at soft target has never stopped from day one. The kidnapping of Hong Kong dissident bookstore owner Lee Bo and Taiwan tourists in Kenya are just the latest examples. In Hong Kong, as we recall, Mr. Lee ran a dissident bookstore of assorted quality (I heard some of the books are good while others are very so so). In a strange turn of event, Lee called off the British help (Lee is a British passport holder) to get him released and said that he voluntarily went into the mainland. Most sources state that Lee’s statements were coerced by threats. The Taiwanese nationals who were kidnapped had already been acquitted for their alleged crimes in Kenya, but apparently, China wasn’t satisfied. So, instead of letting them leave with their Taiwanese passports, China had brought their own security force to “arrest” these Taiwanese with the cooperation of Kenya. Five men who ran that same store had been missing in the past six months, disappearing from various locations including territories not belonging to China. In many cases of such kidnappings, the usual pattern surfaces. First the kidnapping happens. Then, people discover that the kidnapped victim holds a foreign citizenship. China then is in violation of international law kidnapping its victim overseas. Finally, in dramatic fashion, the family members of the victim would plea for international community not to try to rectify the situation and that the victim somehow was either guilty of trumped up charges or was willing participant of a visit back to the motherland. How is it the ones making the plea for the international community not to go after China’s bad deeds are usually family members?

There’s only one explanation. Family members are regularly threatened within and outside of China. Do I know this for a fact? No. Do I know there have been cases like that in the past? Certainly. The hideous tactic of threatening one’s family to get compliance is a clear indicator of a terrorist state.

If we follow the metaphorical logic of China being a child, we have to say that it’s been 60 odd years and many lives lost. A one-year-old child is cute. A 60 years old child is dreadful. Why would such a theory of the wounded child even work in light of everything logical and historical? It’s because China takes the Marxist model that has a built in element of oppression. The narrative goes something like this. The peasants were oppressed. So, as victims, they rise to revolt. The so-called revolt would take on the powerful in order to finally find parity among classes. This all sounds good until the victims who stubbornly pretends to be victims forever become victimizers. A country with the most corrupt officials in the Panama Papers isn’t a victim. It’s a victor pretending to be a victim, a gangster pretending to be a gentleman sitting at the international negotiation table. This Marxist drama continues to plague us even to today. The wounded child whose wounds we can often debate has become a full-grown monster. Its terrorist action is indefensible in light of international law. Using teargas to kidnap 45 Taiwanese citizens who had committed minor crimes in Kenya in order to extradite them back to the Mainland China isn’t the action of a child. 45!!! Christians who defend that warped narrative have no excuse.

Most likely, Christian leaders who defend this myth want to do more mission in China. By defending China, they hope they can convince China to behave better. This is as absurd as the myth by Deng Xiaoping who insisted that economic growth would spur more human rights. Deng’s theory didn’t materialize thus far. Neither has the theory of China’s immaturity given any excuse for this old country. If you’ve evolved for 5000 years and remain a wounded child, something is wrong. Those Christian leaders who continue to prop up this myth should think about what they’re really thinking. Their strange psychology and delusional logic simply can’t cover up their ulterior motive. Calling China a wounded child instead of a terrorist state is like calling heaven hell or calling a deer a horse. Is preaching the gospel more important than justice? If so, then we have a very flawed gospel that is neither true to the Bible nor the church tradition nor to recent history of China. Speaking in favor of a terrorist state is a serious sin. I don’t see the same people speaking up for ISIS. Why would they do so for China? Just because they think they can get access to preach the gospel? Those who do so will risk standing under the judgment of a God they claim they believe in. It’s time to just pronounce the simple judgment. China is a terrorist state. The pussyfooting around in our churches (both Chinese and non-Chinese) should just stop!

What solution is there if we read the whole situation as diaspora Chinese looking in from the outside? I think it’s ultimately not just logical and historical but theological. Many of us diaspora Chinese (aka Chinese immigrant to the West) have forgotten that as Christians, we mistakenly thought that the MOTHER-land is China and somehow the honor of that mother deserves protection. No! Our mother isn’t China. As Christians, if we say that God is our Father, we forget that the Church is our mother. Whose honor matters most? Clearly, it’s the witness of the church for justice and truth! It’s bad to defend a whore like a mother when we’re supposed to be the Bride of Christ having received our spiritual DNA from our Mother Church. If we defend an unjust system we consider (falsely) to be our mother, we’ve sold out the real Mother and the true faith we profess to believe in. The cost is too great.