Course Syllabus
第一講 導論&太史公自序(一)(主題:什麼是責任?)
第二講 太史公自序(二)(主題:以俟後世聖人君子)
第三講 報任少卿書(主題:誰為為之?孰令聽之?)
第四講 報任少卿書(主題:太史公牛馬走司馬遷)
第五講 五帝本紀(主題:好學深思,心知其意)
第六講 吳太伯世家(主題:道德與成敗)
第七講 伯夷列傳(主題:儻所謂天道,是邪非邪?)
Course Syllabus
第一講 導論&太史公自序(一)(主題:什麼是責任?)
第二講 太史公自序(二)(主題:以俟後世聖人君子)
第三講 報任少卿書(主題:誰為為之?孰令聽之?)
第四講 報任少卿書(主題:太史公牛馬走司馬遷)
第五講 五帝本紀(主題:好學深思,心知其意)
第六講 吳太伯世家(主題:道德與成敗)
第七講 伯夷列傳(主題:儻所謂天道,是邪非邪?)
"A Pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself." AW Tozer
The reason people dare to ask challenging but sincere question, is because they have concluded that the lecturer is a man bold enough to stand for the truth. Therefore, when people do not dare or want to ask any challenging questions, it is not possible that they want to show support, but more likely that they in their hearts expect/accuse their lecturer to not be able to answer truthfully.
“A Japanese company and a North American company decided to have a canoe race on the St. Lawrence River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The North Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.
A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the North American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. So, North American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder.
It was called the”Rowing Team Quality First Program“, with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices, and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the North American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments in new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year’s racing team was outsourced to India.”
What is interesting is that so many Americans love this joke I wonder if it was written by an American or not. Nevertheless, one question remains, who are the Americans this joke is referring to? It surely cannot be the Americans who love it. Who then? The corporate chiefs and CEOs in USA? The U.S. government? The American patriots? The conservatives?
From the above observation, I can conclude thus, that many American citizens do not really consider themselves Americans...or at least responsible for the country they reside. These perhaps have the encouragement to think so because they believe their heritage is not American but foreign when they or their parents immigrated here. Despite their eventual settlement and obtaining citizenship here in this country, they do not see themselves as Americans, especially when America is viewed in a negative angle.
There will be a great tragedy from this because while they don't hold themselves responsible for their "alleged" country, their children who are most certainly born and raised in this country definitely have an opposite opinion about this. I suspect there are very few of us who realize this and therefore has a sort of advantage for the future. But the moment must be seized quickly.
Then, it was about education. People go to colleges not for knowledge (even though that is what they have learned to say), but for careers. "古人培养精英,今人培养工匠".
Now, from what I could observe from social media: People work not to build a family (again, they still know what to say), but for a great vacation. Until they have spent it all in hotels, they come back to work for the next round of "fun".
Ron Choong had a thesis on this, I think. I have commonly understood the challenge of this paradox: Is it good because God commands it; or does God command it because it is good?
The solution is to refer to the attribute of God, the nature of God. Hence there is no need for a third option as William Lane Craig suggested (I am still perplexed with his "God and abstract objects" topic). The answer can go with either one provided that God is the source of good.
Isn't He cruel?
Answer: It is no difference than how gravity can kill. Nobody seems to complain how cruel gravity is. And since God created and set the rules of physics, this only shows us that God is sovereign and that the cruelty is only invented by ourselves. God is obviously actively showing His righteousness against those who do evil (we were all sinners).
I received this book from Rev. Lin. I've just finished speed skimming the entire book, about 250 pages, within 1 hour.
Side note: Knowing Rev. Lin, I was expecting to find more faults in the book, which I will discard shortly (If I need the book in the far future, I shall buy one on kindle). Rev. Lin has only brought this book to me because she thought I would be a missionary to the Middle Eastern countries or something. This is the result of her poor understanding of the Holy Spirit, which has been obvious on many occasions. Which is perhaps why I don't see much work from her church. Imported teachers, imported volunteers, etc. Like another pastor, she had asked me to attend some workshops on similar subject before. Regarding the latter case, I've told her that I have suspected these workshops and most Western view of mission to the Muslims are very shallow in that they think they are preaching to Muslims when they converted "moderate" Muslims (I would just call these pagans from or influenced by Islamic cultures, not really Muslims. They don't usually know they Quran very well). Therefore, I have no interest in such topics where the word "Muslim" is used in the titles. Not to mention that I doubt, based on experience, that Rev. Lin has ever read this book. It is probably recommended by someone or something else to her. This reminds me of Dr. Tong's criticism of pastors today, especially in the West, that they are nothing but "theological immigration officers", transporting theological resources from one place to another. I thought of using a new term for people like Rev. Lin. That she's like those karaoke machines, attempting to equip themselves with all kinds of songs for all types of people, but she has no vision (she was even ready to make me who never has any association with the church, the next pastor of her church), no conviction (she's showed me she bought Paul Washer's book, I hardly think she even cares about the material except that she imagined I favored Paul Washer much because I talked about him). Now, she even paid me $2000 (a 67% "raise" - how pathetic for those who do not raise their own but outsource help from elsewhere) for 2015 in my service as IT to the church (it is basically nothing more than weekly web updates and some email sending, which takes no more than 30 minutes each time. Well, if not counting Dr. Tong's Expository on Romans subtitle making, but that is a strategy of mine and a test for her and the church for any foreseeable improvement in the future). As for the money, I was reminded by another statement Dr. Tong made: When a church has so much money that causes her to make excuses to spend it, disaster will come.
Alright, enough said about Rev. Lin. The point of this entry is the book, though I had intended to lay my criticism on Rev. Lin from the beginning. This is to alert myself to steer clear of those who like to show off their supports for others as a cover for their own impiety.
The book, on the other hand, despite certain common problem resulting from a shallow view of evangelization (I do note that this book is not about how to preach to Muslims as the author had already claimed), of making the distinction of "extreme" and "moderate" Muslims at an Islamic theological level, which creates more contradictions for the author's book, as a good reviewer on Amazon has also pointed out, the book actually shows that the author is quite informed of the state of the Islamic West of today. Lutzer appears to be quite accomplished in his Islamic study. He correctly noted that the Islamic Allah is not the same as God of the Bible (pg. 35), against the critique of the same reviewer who either skipped this page or tried to nitpick semantic problems the author had made on page 38. The book also presented lots of historical and examples that concern with the movement of Islam to the Western civilizations, along with the call for awareness for parents to not let their children be indoctrinated in the Islam-friendly education system, and other hidden Islamic tactics, that is the whole point of the book and I commend it.
Nevertheless, as someone from a Muslim country (I'd be surprised if Rev. Lin, who's from Indonesia, didn't know better, had she read the book), I agree with another online reviewer that this book is for Westerners only. Not that I have nothing to learn from it (the historical facts the author put together are very informative, though a tad unorganized, and I have no idea why he would cite quotes regarding "PUNISHING SMYRNA" (Chapter 3) pg. 88-89 from Milton's Paradise Lost (pg. 315-317). I'll say it's a typo for now.
As I see it, the author's true intention is to prepare American Christians to face the worse. He spent the other pages to merely observations and descriptions of church or national problems without much solutions. I am a pessimist, but not that pessimistic. My vision is to disassociate all patriotism in America when it comes to evangelizing to the Muslims, so that Christians here will see no pride in themselves but the true regenerated lives after true repentance. That the Muslims see only the glory of God. So in a way, I do invite and welcome what the author feared. I shall end with a quote from the author: Even when a church is in the Devil's hands, it is still in God's hands.
"As long as he doesn't convert it into action, it does not matter how much a man thinks about his repentance." ~ C. S. Lewis
I think I could have put it better, but this is it for now.
Founded by Chuck Colson, a Catholic, (turned himself in due to the Watergate incident, after his conversion after reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity), the Prison Fellowship ministry is said to be the world largest prison ministry. The U.S. hosts 25% of world prisoners.
When Archie mocked Colson's promise to help the prisoners, it stuck in his mind ever since his release and thus, the prison ministry was founded.
Based on the testimonies I've read in a booklet mailed to me, it would seem that the ministry indeed makes huge impact on prisoners' lives. Angel Tree is a program in the ministry that helps children of the incarcerated, gifting them Christmas presents on behalf of their imprisoned parents who are in the prison ministry program (mostly it has to do with the reentry program).
When the power of God is at work, a fragile church becomes astonishing while displaying all signs of vulnerability and meekness.