I will have a simple Book Launch on August 8, 2021
Malay Ethnogenesis, Immigrants’ Threat, and Colonial Struggle
The People (Bangsa) Movement
The Islamic Influence
Independence and the Formation of the “Malay Nation-State”
The Rise of Malay Supremacy
Islamization as a Political Necessity
The Emergence of Islamic Revivalism (Dakwah)
UMNO and PAS
From Islamization to the Emergence of Malay Hegemony
The Islamized Public Space
The Irrepressible Malay Hegemony
The Defeat of the Moderates
Functional Dhimmitude as the Expression of Malay Hegemony
Functional Dhimmitude in Malaysia Today
Summary: From Malay Nationalism to Malay Hegemony
Details of the book and order it here: https://langhamliterature.org/dialogue-of-life
Writing about the Anglican Church, especially the Anglican Communion, is a tough job. Recently I took the challenge of reviewing a book on Anglicanism. It turned out to be a response paper and one which is yet completed.
The amount of reading and further research resulting from the attempted review above was much more than I expected. With another paper approaching deadline, I will have to put this “Anglican” project on hold.
This is a review I wrote to complete an online course:
Smith uses Michel de Certeau’s theoretical framework to outline the situation of online pedagogy. The Learning Management System (LMS) is depicted as the overarching structure (“strategies,” according to de Certeau). It has caused much uneasiness to theological educators who are transiting from traditional, non-digital classroom teaching. Smith outlines various shortcomings of LMS which affect the quality of teaching. Among them the lack of a sense of engagement, LMS’ potential over mediation, and the teachers feeling controlled by technology. Contrary to the common belief that digital classroom is an equalizer, the experience of LMS users is also determined by their technological, social, and economic background. Smith then proposes examples of “makeshifts” by using what Certeau calls “tactics.” Unlike the overarching structure, tactics are used to maneuver the structure and make it work for the users. In the case of LMS, Smith proposes the tweaks of user interface, method of delivery, use of forum, and the use of a hybrid of compensating tools. For those who are looking for a way to “survive” LMS in their institution, having been asked to use it, Smith’s paper offers the following. First, Smith is sensitive to the psychological state of educators who are struggling with LMS. This paper acknowledges their plights and offers help. Secondly, Smith’s use of Certeau’s framework is helpful, as it gives a clear overall picture of the situation, pitching the LMS on one side, and the educators on the other. They are described as entities within a same system. Educators should use “tactics” to navigates themselves through the waters of the strategies set by the LMS. Finally, Smith helpfully provides some real life examples on how makeshifts are made by educators to “game” the LMS, effectively making LMS work for them.
Smith’s paper can be found here:https://www.ats.edu/…/2019-theological-education-52-2.pdf
If there’s no vision, “Christian” leaders asking for submission are calling for followers to submit to them instead of God.
Christian leaders are often frustrated when followers don’t follow them. They shouldn’t be. Technically and ultimately, all Christians are Jesus Christ’s followers.
Christian leaders should be concerned when those entrusted to them are not following God.
Christian leaders’ responsibility is to lead followers to the vision that God has given to them. When such vision is not conveyed, leaders calling for submission is in the danger of giving the impression that they are calling for followers to submit to them. When there’s no vision to refer to, all the followers see would be the persons who are calling for attention and submission!
As leader, I need to constantly remind myself about this.
The protest against lockdowns amid the threats of Coronavirus (Covid-19) is due to the perceived infringement of human rights and economical plight. Both of the above are main concerns only in a liberal society, where members of society are defined by individualistic being having unquestionable human rights and freedom to seek their interests.
In countries which do not confined their identities to ideologies (capitalism or socialism), similar plights are experienced, but economic problem is often the responsibility of the state; and the human rights problem is considered insignificant compared to the welfare of the society. Confucianist societies in East Asia are good examples of states taking charge of the people’s interests, with citizens obediently submit to the leadership of the state. There is no guarantee of success, but there is certainly a higher level of coordination in the fight against a pandemic. People in these countries are not demanding their human rights to be honored. Their welfare systems and financial institutions, which are often backed by the state, are free to dispense financial aids to the people. In a typical liberal society like the USA, where free-market capitalism is held as the only “truth,” the state is crippled by the ideological bondage of capitalism that antagonizes any government initiative that show a hint of socialism. Any help from the state is alleged to be a move towards “big government,” and quickly shunned by the believers of the free-market. (The Obama years come to mind) Politicians are understandably cautious. So people are left to look after themselves financially. People whose means of income are affected in the current Coronavirus lockdown will have limited help from the state. When food is running out, protesting the lockdown is a viable choice.
East Asia countries have no such ideological bondage. People in these countries seldom see themselves as autonomous individual with self-defined freedom. Their cultures uphold the good of the community, over the interest or freedom of individual. After all, in a pandemic, we realize, our private well-being, including our properties, means very little unless everyone is well. From the ethical point of view, the lack of “telos” in liberalism is exposed in this pandemic. Self-centered individualism has become a threat to the whole society and its sociopolitical and economic systems, because it knows no “good” except one which is individualistic.
Is inefficiency a spiritual problem? Or contrarily, is efficiency a sign of hastiness and impatience, hence a kind of spiritual deficiency?
The answer to the questions above depends on which culture you are coming from. We operate according to our respective culture or worldview.
Those who are raised in a modernist culture where efficiency is highly valued often think that ministry in church must be as efficient or even more efficient that works done “in the world.” Some experience God through their serving in church or when they “feel” that the church is progressing with a good momentum. Others are simply used to the way things are in the modern world. They like it fast and efficient. When these are not found in the church they become disgruntled.
The “modern” church has many other problems. John Drane famously outlined them in his book, “The McDonaldization of the Church.”
Very few of us are trained to think from another cultural perspective. Thus, we tend to judge according to our cultural preferences. To prefer efficiency is a cultural preference. Not all culture follows the modernist definition of good life – with efficiency being a part of it for the purpose of production. This is the residue of industrial revolution and modernity.
We should not judge the seemingly inefficiency of the church based on our modernist cultural preferences and habits. The concept of efficiency is relative and not absolute. In some settings, being efficient is not valued, while in another, highly regarded.
So, what is the value of efficiency? Should the church be efficient?
Efficiency concerns achieving a goal within a given time.
Any goal is bound by the factor of time. No goal can be achieved apart from having it set within a time frame. To read the bible is a goal. To read it one chapter a month is a goal set according to a time frame. According to the set goal, one chapter a year is inefficiency. Discarding efficiency is as good as discarding having any goal.
Some will argue that we should just let things “flow” and by prayers, they will “fall into places.” I think that’s fine as long as everyone in the group is agreeable and comfortable. In the church setting, the modernists will move on to other more modernist churches. In normal circumstances, in the context of Malaysian churches, this will be the middle-upper class. But there is a more serious problem.
Inefficiency may seem harmless. Yet it is often a kind of irresponsibility. A parent that fails to feed a child on time is inefficient. If this prolongs, the child’s life will be endangered. The character of the parent is now highly questionable.
There is a thin line between training the child to have patience and abusing him/her.
We must not based our spirituality on efficiency. Yet, we must be efficient. Our efficiency is not to be based on our uncritical, habitual cultural preferences. It is based on our identity as children of God aiming to be more Christ-like, with dependency on God, and grace to accept any inadequacy. So there should be gracious acceptance that things may not be as efficient as we have expected; yet, not to be discouraged as we continue to set goals and aim to achieve them efficiently. Leaders (or servants) are efficient because their goals are set for those they serve. Their efficiency is to provide timely help to those they lead.
Some time ago I shared an infograph on my instagram (I shared it from somewhere. I lost track of the source. Please let me know if you own the image) and received some positive responses. I feel that I might as well outline my other concerns with the church today. Yes we are in a consumerist culture and this needs to be accepted. No amount of attacks towards consumerism is going to yield more disciples. Worse, most of our approaches of merely condemning the present cultures only distance the church from the “normal” people around us.
Accepting the reality of consumerist culture helps us to realistically assess the situation and prayerfully seek God’s way of engaging with the people in such context.
The Jews in the early church were not aware of the nature of the gospel which can travel from one culture to another and change those cultures in the process. The New Testament clearly shows how Paul, Peter and the early church eventually came to realization that the gospel was for the gentiles as well. Surely the trans-cultural nature of the gospel will take its effect in our age. The gospel has been accepted by the Greeco-Roman world and changes them, and the same happened to the European cultures. In today’s postmodern, highly consumeristic context, the gospel will surely challenge and change the culture – after it has entered it.
So before we criticize those who believe they are entrusted to engage the consumers of today, let’s pause and remember that once, the Jews were also wondering if the gospel should remain entirely Jewish. Today, we who grew up in a different socioeconomic context, must not be too quick to judge. Shall the gospel be domesticated by the agrarian culture and be excluded from the consumerist culture birthed by modern free-market capitalism? I think it will find its way to the consumers, and then change them to disciples.
Of course there are others who may think that consumerism is outright incompatible with the gospel. Again, if we understand it as a kind of culture, we should already know that no culture in this world is fully compatible with the gospel. That’s why some missionaries of today are engaging the “consumers” like the missionaries in the past, engaging them with their culture.
The gospel doesn’t change, and it doesn’t need us to overprotect it.
This is a long-awaited and much needed treatment on the subject of mission, the book of Acts and their relation to the contemporary context.
There is a postmodern theology. Although the term ‘postmodern’ might be overused, it still mean something. Modernity has passed. Not all elements of modernism has left us, just as not all of Medieval left Enlightenment Europe, or tribal/traditional culture left the developed Asian countries of today. Yet, postmodernity has arrived. Whenever the overarching, over-confident meta-narrative of the Enlightenment project is in doubt, modernism fades and postmodernity arises. It is in politics, society and arts. There is a certain ‘postmodern’ culture which defines its own meanings and symbols. The very reactions towards the failed Enlightenment confidence, coupled with a world dominated by free-market capitalism, allows an ultra utilitarianistic and narcissistic culture to emerge. This culture only sees individuals. Blinded to the need to submit to governments and authorities, partly due to market forces and self-interest, this generation of postmoderns are also pragmatic – ”meaning’ means very little to them apart from what meant to be of their own interest. There is no need for a universal truth or value.
How does this affect theology in the 21st century? It is certain that systematic theology will suffer (it has) as it is suited more for a modernist mindset than a postmodern one. Yet the more crucial question is how can we theologise if the modern category is faulty? This is not new. The discovery of various cultures worldwide and the missionary encounter with them have confirmed that the Western categories or methods of theologising is limited. Western Christianity, it was discovered, was modernist, especially when compared to the various contextual theologies in the Third World.
Mission theology, informed by the Liberation Theology and other contextual theologies, should take prominent role in theologising in the 21st century. If the modern project was Western, postmoderns represent a multitude of cultures and peoples. If theology was at a time (from Enlightenment to the 20th century), a Western and systematic exercise, today it shall be a ‘postmodern’ exercise for Global Christianity. Thus, mission theologians equipped with the skills of contextualisation and training in classical theology, history, biblical studies and practical ministries, must set the pace for this age. To the postmodern, a proper exegesis of a biblical text means very little unless it means something to him or her. An all encompassing, structural, and theoretical, and authoritative tone suited to the big meta-narrative claim has given way to the cry for meaning of the particulars and individuals. It will take a missionary of the 21st century whom can decipher cultures to communicate with them. Just as the residues of modernity still linger around, and their values not to be undermined, a postmodern way of doing theology does not deny the classical and modern ways of doing theology. Yet it takes the bull by its horns by asking relevant questions about this age, while reinventing and evolving itself to be relevant to the present era.
p.s. There is no denial of a core – or a constant in context of Christianity. Just how this core can be discovered and discerned is a continuous debate. Suggested readings:
I have posted some pieces about inculturation earlier and the posts have been receiving on average 3 views per day ever since. I am currently writing a paper on ‘redefining inculturation’, attempting to propose a more comprehensive definition for inculturation. My previous posts were mainly a combination of thoughts and theology from the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches. They were basically not critical work and has very little academic value.
In my present research, I have managed to review a whole range of definitions of inculturation and the ways in which those definitions have come into being. All that I would like to say here is this: inculturation is a huge subject.
Currently I am still working on the definition of ‘culture’ – that is after months of studies.