Raphael Warnock speaks on the significance of life experience and seminary education in good preaching. (HT: Working Preacher)
As one who “preaches” as part and parcel of my work and ministry whether it’s at least three Sundays per month or responding to a variety of invitations from those whom trust me to share “God’s Message”, Raphael’s sharing here deeply resonates with me.
Better late than never.
During 8-11 June 2009, I spent few days at STM for this study process. Apart from plenary sessions with relevant respondents, we were also in small group discussions. At the end of the whole study process, I was asked to compile, organize and share a more cohesive summary of the scattered insights and conversations we had.
We had an interesting mix of participants and speakers. It was a pretty intense 4 days 3 nights. Perhaps by sharing the report I presented for our group, you would get the idea of some of the issues we wrestled with. So here goes for part one.
Mission as Reconciliation in Pluralistic Contexts
Edinburgh 2010 Study Process at STM, MalaysiaThe purpose of this report is to share a summary of the concerns and insights raised by the group members, as well as questions which needs to be explored deeper.
We will approach it from three main categories from theological, ecclesiological and missiological perspectives.
Theology/Gospel
1. Unpack the meaning of “Reconciliation” and its implications.a. “Reconciliation” is central metaphor in the Bible as well as to the Gospel. The reality of Reconciliation includes one’s relationship with God, the self and with fellow human beings as well as the whole of creation.
b. Key passages below provides a starting point:
i. Colossians 1: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
ii. 2 Corinthians 5: 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
c. The theme of Reconciliation provides not only the agenda for mission but also impacts the motivation for mission. We can then move away from fear and perhaps guilt, to the overflowing love because of God’s reconciling initiative in Christ, thus as new creations it is this love that compels us to engage in the ministry of reconciliation.
2. Revisit the focus on Christ and the Cross in a pluralistic context.(1)
a. The uniqueness and universality of the person, message and work of Christ is crucial in this discussion. This is done through a narrative approach in reading and presenting the message from the Scriptures through the story of creation, the story of Israel, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the formation of the church and the Eschaton.
b. The revelation of God in Christ on the Cross enables us to fully engage into the violent realities especially in situations of conflict which requires us to have a new imagination beyond the impasse of the cycle of hatred and violence. It was emphasized a Christian theology of Reconciliation can only grow out of the cross.
c. It is important to note that the tension of knowing him as not only the Reconciler but also as the Divider is part and parcel of providing grounding in ongoing ministry of reconciliation and peace making.
3. Wrestle with interpretation of the Biblical texts that are clearly “violent”.
a. The challenge of selected readings of our scriptures is ever present. This is evident in the understanding of Old Testament texts which clearly depict violence in the context of God’s judgment.
b. This is also true when one sees the description of “Cosmic Wars” such as in the book of Revelation in the New Testament. How one interpret these texts impacts our overall understanding and practice of Reconciliation.
c. A Christ-centred reading of these “difficult texts” or placing them under the broader narrative of the kingdom of God in the light of eschatological hope and fulfilment provides a hermeneutical way forward while taking seriously the exegetical challenges the texts poses.
i. In the Bible We note that in Revelation the sword mentioned is the sword that comes out of the mouth of Jesus, and this is the word of truth and not anay means of violence. From the Christian point of view Old Testament stories of violence and warfare can be interpreted with regard to the story of the configuration: Jesus appears with the OT figures Moses and Elijah. Moses launched the jihad against the enemies, but the voice from heaven clearly expresses that Jesus has the final word. Therefore for Christians the teaching of Jesus is normative and supersedes the violent stories of the Old Testament.
4. Re-examine our theological language and articulations.
a. How do we deal with the tensions between absolutist and relativistic polarizations? Epistemological humility is welcome, but a number of concerns were raised
i. In the use of confessional language alone, how does we not weaken one’s public convictions and privatize our beliefs. (2)
ii. In our quest to be open and inclusive have we blurred the lines so much so that we lose a clear Christian identity.
iii. As we engage in our deliberations and decisions on complex issues arising out of our context such as interfaith marriages (one suggests that in reality this is more of intercultural marriages) whether the importance of theological grounding and implications in life is highlighted for the individuals who are directly affected by these struggles and what are the pastoral implications which need to be addressed.(3)
b. On one hand, the fact of living with religious differences is a given and a reality we cannot ignore (Theses 1-5) On the other hand, we seek to practice Gospel integrity key issues ranging from world mission to welcoming the signs of God’s grace at work in the lives of all people? (Theses 6-10).(4)
(1) David Shenk, 1st Paper presented, “Mission as Reconciliation in Pluralistic context: Theological Foundations”
(2) Paulus Widjaya, Paper presented, “Mission as Reconciliation amidst Religious extremism”
(3) Hermen Shastri, Respondant to Pauls Widjaya
(4) Vinoth Ramachandra, 2nd paper presented, “Mission as Reconciliation: Religious Pluralism and Social Conflict.”
On the first Friday of every month, BLC organizes a simple hour of contemplative and reflective worship for all who desire an “alternative” space to the busy, cluttered and noisy existence we experience daily.
This Friday, we continue to celebrate the season of Pentecost where we engage with the creative God who’s always ready to surprise us in the midst of the chaos of our lives.
The gathering would include moments of silent prayer, scripture reading and reflection, songs and the Lord’s supper.
Be our guest.
See you there at 8:30pm, at The Father’s House, (BLC premises).
The ripples continue with a kind mention of the “People Like Us” Forum in a mainstream paper article entitled, Healing Malaysia under the column : Art of Healing By DR AMIR FARID ISAHAK. It’s a little funny because I was 2 of the events he mentioned and was in dialogue with one of the speakers he mentioned Vinoth Ramachandra for a week during a variety of occasions! (HT: Lily’s Room)
Healing Malaysia
Art of Healing
By DR AMIR FARID ISAHAK
Can’t we all just get along? Not until we get to know each other better.
AFTER the euphoria of our 50th Merdeka (Independence), it didn’t take long for us to squabble again, and the displeasure of many over the status quo was evident in the 12th general elections. March 8, 2008 was a watershed in our political history as the ruling coalition, which has governed since independence, lost their erstwhile unshaken two-thirds majority in parliament, as well as the control of four states. The repercussions still hound as the politicians continue their charades.
We are a multi-racial, multi-religious society with differing views and aspirations even within each racial and religious community. Exposure to Western ideas and ideals, the advent of the Internet and satellite TV, and access to alternative media have also changed the mindset of the people, especially the younger generation.
Malaysia’s people may be diverse and distinct, but we can definitely come together as one.
Many social/political scientists, lay citizens, and foreigners have given their opinions, and many articles and commentaries have been written. Many forums, seminars, and dialogues have been organised, and millions of emails, blog-posts and Twitterings exchanged to discuss the issues, and hopefully find solutions to our imbroglio.
I am not a social scientist or a politician, but I am very much involved in peace and unity work through my interfaith activities. Although I prefer that religion and race be considered separately, it is not that simple here. As the Malays, who constitute over 60% (and growing) of the population, are uniquely defined in our Constitution as being Muslims, there is much overlap between interfaith and interracial affairs in Malaysia.
Recently, I attended four events related to achieving interracial and inter-religious harmony in our pluralist nation.
The first was a lecture by Dr Vinoth Ramachandra of Sri Lanka. He has a PhD in nuclear engineering but spends more time speaking about religion and world peace as an Anglican lay-theologian, writer, teacher, and human rights advocate than on his academic specialisation. His lecture entitled “Respecting Persons in a Pluristic Society” was organised by the Centre for Civilisational Dialogue of University Malaya. It was well-received by the small audience and gave us some valuable lessons.
The second was a dialogue between two Muslims and a Christian, organised by the Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) and Friends in Conversation (FIC) and held at a church. The Muslims were Waleed Aly, an Australian of Iraqi origin, who is described as a lawyer, academic, community leader, and rock musician; and Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, a local cardiothoracic surgeon and founding member of MPF. The Christian was Tricia Yeoh, research officer to the Chief Minister of Selangor, and active member of the Lutheran Church.
The dialogue on “People Like Us: How Arrogance Divides People” was hosted and moderated by Rev Sivin Kit, pastor of the Lutheran Church in Bangsar, KL. Over 100 people, mostly youths, equally divided between Muslims and Christians, plus some of other faiths, were there. We had a frank, lively discussion on issues affecting minority-majority rights and problems. Visit http://www.ucanews.com/2009/06/19/christians-muslims-discuss-minority-issues/ for details.
The other two were the public forum and roundtable discussion featuring Prof Aneez Esmail, the Ugandan Muslim refugee whose fight against racism in Britain helped change the law. In his talk “Race Relations: The British Experience”, he repeatedly said that we should not be passive victims of any form of injustice and that a needs-based quota to help the poor would work better than a race-based one (see thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/6/24/focus/4170788&sec=focus).
There have been many similar events over the years, reflecting the general concern we have on the need to improve our relationships and have true peace and harmony among us, so that we can progress as a nation united.
But why has true harmony been so elusive? Everyone over 40 laments that when we were young, there was so much interaction between people of different races and religions, whereas the interactions we see now are only superficial, often limited to festive “open-house” and official functions. There is minimal real and deep interaction between the races outside of work, sports, and entertainment. The changes in society over the last four decades can be traced to the events that led to the May 13th incident of 1969, and the policies that followed.
I mention this not to harp upon something best forgotten for us to move forward, but because it is my observation that the reason why we cannot solve our problems is because we don’t really trust one another. May 13 destroyed the trust our forefathers had, and until we rebuild that trust, we are wont to go round in circles in our discussions, dialogues, and negotiations.
I have participated in many forums and seminars addressing these issues and found that different groups have different views about what is just and fair for them.
The Malays, being the majority, will continue to determine much of our nation’s policies and direction. But they are not homogenous in their views. The English-speaking tend to be more accommodating and liberal in their views compared to the Malay-speaking. Thus, when you attend forums and seminars conducted in English, or read only the English media, you will get a skewed view of Malay opinion, because they represent only the minority.
For example, many educated and well-to-do Malays have said that the Malays can compete on a level ground, but the majority of the Malay-speaking Malays feel that the community will be severely disadvantaged, and still need the “affirmative” policies to help them. In religion, the ideas promoted by Sisters-in-Islam may have the support of many English-speaking Malays/Muslims, but are rejected by most Malay-speaking Malays/Muslims. In religion, we find Allah has been brought to court. It is sad and ironic that we fight over the name of God who commanded us to love and respect, and not to fight and despise, one another. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
I am not taking sides, only pointing out you need to know the majority view for a clear picture of what that section of society wants. The same applies to the Chinese, Indians, and other ethnic groups. I wonder whether we really know the aspirations of the majority of their people. I don’t know what’s written in the Chinese and Indian media.
I will not delve into the other issues as enough has been written elsewhere. My point is that it is difficult to win if we cannot work as a team, and we cannot work as a team if we cannot agree on our specific roles.
Do we as Malaysians have a common dream? Can we come together, understand one another, compromise where necessary, and work to achieve it? I believe we can. But we must first really know what each community wants, and then we can have discussions on how to live happily ever after. We must also be prepared to give and take. Durian Party anyone?
Dr Amir Farid Isahak is a medical specialist who practises holistic, aesthetic and anti-ageing medicine. He is a qigong master and founder of SuperQigong. For further information, e-mail starhealth@thestar.com.my. The views expressed are those of the writer and readers are advised to always consult expert advice before undertaking any changes to their lifestyles. The Star does not give any warranty on accuracy, completeness, functionality, usefulness or other assurances as to the content appearing in this column. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.
For earlier posts read the following:
Ripples from “People Like Us” Part 1
Ripples from “People Like Us” Part 2
Ripples from “People Life Us” - Interlude for Comments
Ripples from “People Like Us” Part 3
Ripples from “People Like Us” Part 4
Ripples from “People Like Us” Part 5
I’ve met more than a few people who either have studied under Ray before or know him personally. I’ve read a number of his books, The Soul of Ministry was timely when I needed it and I have a copy of “Theological Foundations For Ministry” edited by Ray which my late uncle Justus Koo gave me before I started serving as a pastor. I was hoping if I had the chance one day whether I could meet him in person. Then I found out on Father’s Day he passed away. Looks like we will one day but not yet …
* * *
by Christian D. Kettler, Friends University
Ray S. Anderson passed away on Father’s Day, June 21, 2009. For many years Professor of Theology and Ministry at Fuller Theological Seminary, Anderson was a theologian who never ceased to be a pastor. Whether you are a clergy person or a lay person, whatever your denomination or Christian heritage may be, Ray Anderson has many exciting, and sometimes provocative, things to say. I speak from experience as a student of Anderson’s, beginning at Fuller Seminary, but extending along many years. While reading almost any of his many books, I am always struck by both a depth of insight and an almost joyful playfulness for the ministry of theology. Theology is ministry itself, a ministry of meditating upon the gospel of the unconditional grace of God in Jesus Christ, but ministry itself is also theology; true ministry, the ministry of God, always precedes and governs theology.
For over thirty years, Ray Anderson has been quietly writing a body of work that is remarkable in its ability to awaken both theology and the church to a theology that actually intersects with the ministry of the church and a view of ministry that dwells in a deep place of reflection. I regret is that I will be unable to replicate the spark of playfulness and intellectual restlessness that characterizes Anderson’s writings, lectures, and sermons. Donald Mackinnon, the noted Cambridge theologian who has received new interest in recent years, spoke of this “nervous, restless quality” even in Anderson’s doctoral dissertation (later published as Historical Transcendence and the Reality of God).
Anderson’s lectures were for many years a refuge of grace for weary students who were bounced back and forth in seminary classes, from studying academic, critical disciplines in one to learning pastoral and ministry skills in another, with little integration of the two. Most of all, in the midst of personal crises, the students found in Anderson’s lectures (and pastoral counsel) grace to help in time of need (Heb 4:16). Unconditional grace is not just a doctrine for Anderson, but the way that he responds to people, even in their weaker moments. For what Anderson means by a theology of ministry is not simply a thin veneer of Bible verses justifying the typical, prosaic ministry program of a congregation. Rather, his theology of ministry is truly incarnational, the Word penetrating deeply into our flesh (Jn 1:14), the flesh of the whole person, involving spiritual, emotional, and physical turmoils. That is where Jesus Christ meets us, and continues to meet us, not in a ministry of our own creation, but in participating in his continuing ministry, God’s ministry.
In recent years Anderson has found more dialogue with Christian psychologists than theologians (perhaps attesting to a fear among theologians of their own humanity?). This has born fruit in a remarkable issue of Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, in which Anderson’s article “Toward a Holistic Psychology: Putting All the Pieces in their Proper Place” was followed by several responses by psychologists, philosophers and theologians. This kind of critical interaction, certainly not uncritical, demonstrates the stimulation that Anderson’s thought can provides for all three groups of scholars and at the same time benefits all of those involved in the ministry of Jesus Christ.
For all of Anderson’s commitment to community there is a freedom in his theology to be a maverick, to be oneself and go against the grain. J. G. Hamann and Dag Hammarskjöld are two iconoclasts he likes to quote. Anderson presents an interesting portrait of the maverick theologian in the midst of community; not an easier venture, as his former colleagues and students will attest!
Good theology is not just a display of erudition, as Thomas Torrance told me once. Ray Anderson was not a historical theologian, biblical scholar, or philosopher in the guise of a theologian. Unapologetically, he was a “restless” theologian in service to the church of Jesus Christ. Good theology is being faithful to Jesus Christ and demonstrating that faithfulness with the kind of “nervous, restless quality” of mind that Donald Mackinnon spoke of Anderson’s thought. But Anderson is doubling challenging in that he refuses to allow for a theology that does not partake, like the incarnation, of actual human flesh, like the incarnation; the human flesh of human dilemmas, perplexities, and ambiguity. I remember well Ray Anderson telling a class that one must always be open to a “theology of ambiguity.” How difficult was it for us conservative evangelical students to hear that! But we came to realize that the ambiguity rightly exists in our limited and fallen understandings, not in God.
Anderson’s influences were many and profound, including Edward Carnell, Kierkegaard, the philosopher John Macmurray, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Thomas Torrance, James Torrance, and the interdisciplinary work of Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death. Ray Anderson was probably the first English-speaking theologian (in his dissertation published in 1975) to recognize the profound theological anthropology and ecclesiology in the work of the Greek Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas. Anderson provides an interesting case study of American evangelicalism at mid-twentieth century when some were trying to provide an intellectual alternative not only to fundamentalism but to the rationalistic theology that was presented by such early Fuller Seminary professors like Carl F. H. Henry. Anderson’s critique of Henry is very telling and insightful. Anderson’s place, and often a controversial place, in the modern history of Fuller Seminary modern American evangelicalism, is very much worthwhile for further study, when he and Geoffrey Bromiley sought to present Karl Barth’s theology to a Fuller evangelicalism often more interested promoting a Christian “worldview” or church growth techniques than to learn from Barth a radical evangelical theology and to build upon it.
When one reads Anderson one will be struck with the sheer humanity of his theology. The incarnation is not just an orthodox or abstract doctrine for him. I have two “Rays” that have been very influential on my life and thought: Ray Anderson and the fantasy writer Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451 and The Martian Chronicles. His writings have a profound humanity yet always with a sense of wonder and respect for the divine. In a way, as Ray Bradbury has brought a sense of God in the humanity of fantasy and science fiction writing, Ray Anderson has brought a sense of humanity into God in the field of theology. Anderson’s writings have that same respect for humanity that Bradbury’s do for the divine.
Born on a South Dakota farm, Ray Anderson comes from the soil of the very human and practical endeavor of the farmer and transplants that humanity into the struggles of American evangelicalism as a pastor and student and teacher at Fuller Theological Seminary. While a young farmer himself, Anderson listened to one of the most successful of the early radio evangelists, Charles E. Fuller, and his radio program, “The Old Fashioned Revival Hour.” From then, Anderson and his family travelled to Pasadena, California to enroll in Fuller’s relatively new theological seminary. The young Anderson found a form of the traditional American revivalistic tradition that had become preoccupied with correcting its intellectual and cultural deficiencies, now calling itself, “evangelicalism.” These sons (at that time almost exclusively male) of evangelists sought to avoid the parochialism and obscurantism of their fundamentalist forebears while holding to fast to what they perceived to be the eternal faith. The influence of Edward J. Carnell, a restless, iconoclastic, and troubled evangelical mind and professor at Fuller Seminary, was a great stimulation to the young farmer turned seminary student to move beyond simply regurgitating the new “evangelicalism.”
Planting a new Evangelical Free Church congregation in Covina, California exposed Anderson to the very real experience of a young pastor. “Restless” is the word that seems to have continued to characterize Ray Anderson in his early days in pastoral ministry. During this time of living with the raw realities of a congregation and the stereotypical expectations of a “reverend,” Anderson found himself jotting down short “musings” as he would later call them, a theological notebook of the daring of faith that sought to think beyond the stereotypes of ministry and theology. Published much later as Soulprints (1996), this theology in the midst of ministry will be hashed out in the context of the increasingly alienated culture of the 1960s. The result was a ministry that sought consciously to be incarnational, less concerned with success than with human beings trapped in an alienating world.
Mid-life took Anderson to Scotland for a Ph.D. in theology at the University of Edinburgh under the noted theologian Thomas F. Torrance. Torrance, a student of Karl Barth’s, provided for Anderson a theology that would put words to what he had become to experience in Covina, an incarnational ministry that drove one to ask new questions of God. The result was his doctoral dissertation, Historical Transcendence and the Reality of God, published in 1975. Borrowing deeply from Dietrich Bonhoeffer and John Macmurray, Anderson sought to orientate the doctrine of God in an increasingly skeptical age to a view of transcendence that is not “other-worldly,” but based on the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. A strikingly original ecclesiology proceeded from this, Anderson’s first major theological work.
After a short time teaching at Westmont College in California, Ray Anderson joined the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1976. As theological mentor for Fuller Seminary’s growing Doctor of Ministry program, Anderson assembled the massive anthropology, Theological Foundations for Ministry (1979). Not content with simply gathering a plethora of competing theologies for the student to be befuddled by, Anderson presented a coherent theology base on the Trinity and the incarnation, including generous selections from Barth, Bonhoeffer, Thomas and James Torrance, and others including the most ecclesiologically dynamic sections of Historical Transcendence and the Reality of God. Of special note is the essay by Anderson, “A Theology of Ministry,” in which he lays out the significance of ministry preceding and governing theology, not the opposite, based on an incarnational theology in which God is “on both sides” of both revelation and reconciliation. Reconciliation, like all of God’s ministry, is not to be left up to us! Such an anthology signaled to many that a new way of integrating theology and ministry was being proposed that did not simply try to find a lowest common denominator in ethical values or pastoral practice, but was based on the richness of the triune life of God revealed in Jesus Christ. This was a different kind of evangelical theology than the apologetics-driven heritage of the early Fuller Seminary, but one which was just as loyal to the ancient faith in the Trinity and the incarnation. Yet it was refreshingly free to acknowledge not just that Jesus Christ was God, but that God actually assumed human flesh, so an incarnational theology and ministry is not afraid but embraces the human, as messy as that might often be in the realities of ministry.
The incarnational imperative for the humanization of the world (including the church!) drove Anderson increasingly into questions of a theological anthropology. Questions of theological anthropology had begun to intrigue Anderson when he observed how little theological basis there exists with some colleagues at Westmont, whom otherwise possessed a strong, personally pious theology, yet seemed often to offer little integration with their academic disciplines. His pious colleagues seemed to be operating with more of a philosophical, non-theological anthropology than one that was rooted in the incarnation. The fruit of Anderson’s thinking came in 1982 with the publication of On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology. I don’t think that Karl Barth’s profound writings on the doctrine of humanity had ever been mined so thoroughly in light of pastoral and ministry practice. Yet Anderson remained certainly his own man. As a seminarian at the time, I remember vividly the excitement of Anderson’s terse yet provocative prose, bursting with genuine theological and ministerial potential. Not easy to digest for some, but for many, Anderson’s continuing “nervous, restless quality” was the stimulation to believe in the continued healing power of a trinitarian-incarnational theology. Many a Fuller Seminary student can attest to practically stumbling into a Ray Anderson class week upon week, beaten up by life’s events, desperately seeking the grace of God … and finding it in Ray’s provocative and faithful witness to Jesus Christ.
On Being Human only served to further ignite Anderson’s creative theological juices, particularly in the implications of a theological anthropology. Anderson’s theological anthropology is profoundly relational, including male and female relationships and the family, so it was natural that On Being Family: A Social Theology of the Family, written with the family sociologist Dennis B. Guernsey, and the fruit of their team-taught course at Fuller, “Theology and Ecology of the Family,” was published in 1984. The provocative and pastoral thinking on death and dying in On Being Human led to Theology, Death and Dying in 1982. Anderson was fond of mischievously suggesting that he wanted the book to be entitled, On Being Dead, in order to harmonize with On Being Human and On Being Family, and perhaps include ethics and be called, On Being Good and Dead!
Anderson integrative interests continued to be broad and sweeping with the volume on leadership, Minding God’s Business, in 1982 and one on counseling, Christians Who Counsel, in 1990. No shoddy thinking here, Anderson demonstrated his theological bravery is taking on such “nuts and bolts” issues of ministry.
In 1991, Anderson wrote his first “popular” book, but one that is truly profound in its thinking: The Gospel According to Judas: Is There a Limit to God’s Forgiveness? Featuring an imaginary conversation between Jesus and Judas after Judas’s death, this book has deeply affected and challenged many in how shallow our view of grace and forgiveness really is. Still, many have been offended, even with the later version, Judas and Jesus: Amazing Grace for the Wounded Soul (2005). These little books still continue to have a great ministry, including, Anderson tells, even with a convicted murderer serving life in prison. Concern for the individual desperately needing the grace of God is evident many of Anderson’s later books such as, Don’t Give Up On Me – I’m Not Finished Yet! Putting the Finishing Touches on the Person You Want to Be (1994), its more technical cousin, Self-Care: A Theology of Personal Empowerment and Spiritual Healing, Living the Spiritually Balanced Life: Acquiring the Virtues You Admire (1998), Everything That Make Me Happy I Learned When I Grew Up (1995), Unspoken Wisdom: Truths My Father Taught Me (1995), Exploration Into God: Sermonic Meditations on the Book of Ecclesiastes (2006), and The Seasons of Hope: Empowering Faith Through the Practice of Hope (2008).
The church, the corporate, communal and relational nature of the Christian life and the presence of Christ today, however, was never far from Anderson’s thought and pen. Ministry on the Fireline: A Practical Theology for an Empowered Church (1993) challenged the need for evangelical theology which emphasizes a “Word” theology to embrace as well a “Spirit” or “Pentecostal” theology of the presence of the Holy Spirit in mission. Such concerns continued with what the summary of decades of Ray Anderson’s thinking on a theology of ministry based on a trinitarian-incarnational theology: The Soul of Ministry: Forming Leaders for God’s People (1997). Wide-ranging concerns from homosexuality to “The Humanity of God in the Soul of the City” are developed in light of a trinitarian model of practical theology in The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis. Anderson’s disgust in the lack of practical ecclesiology in much of modern systematic theology reflects his desire to leave “systematic theology” behind for the sake of “practical theology.” This direction from systematic to practical theology is spelled out more in detail theologically in The Soul of God: A Theological Memoir (2004).
Anderson continued to provoke his evangelical roots (and colleagues!) with Dancing with Wolves While Feeding the Sheep: The Musings of a Maverick Theologian (2001) with such chapters as, “Was Jesus an Evangelical?”(the “wolves” are his faculty colleagues!). One of Anderson’s most challenging proposals is his practical theology for secular caregivers found in Spiritual Caregiving as Secular Sacrament: A Practical Theology for Professional Caregivers (2003).There are many treasures of ideas in all of these books, ideas that have much appreciated by colleagues and students alike through the years. Much critical thinking stimulated by Ray Anderson’s theology can be found in the two Festschriften edited in honor of Ray: Incarnational Ministry: The Presence of Christ in Church, Society, and Family: Essays in Honor of Ray S. Anderson (eds. Christian D. Kettler and Todd H. Speidell) (1990), including essays by Thomas Torrance, James Torrance, Geoffrey Bromiley, Colin Gunton, Alan Lewis, and Lewis Smedes (with a telling introduction by the president of Fuller Seminary, David Allan Hubbard and a bibliography through 1990) and On Being Christian … and Human: Essays in Celebration of Ray S. Anderson (ed. Todd H. Speidell) (2002), which includes contributions by many of Ray’s former students, including LeRon Shults and Willie Jennings and an essay on “Community in the Life and Theology of Ray Anderson” by Daniel Price (along with a bibliography through 2002). Also included are the case studies used by Anderson for many years in his theology sequence of courses.
Karl Barth, in the lectures he gave during his tour of the United States late in his life, remarks that what he desires for Americans is to be freed for a “theology of freedom.” In a way, I think Ray Anderson is the purest example of an answer to Barth’s desire for America: A theologian who has always been first of all a pastor of a concrete, local church, never deserting the church for the rarified air of seclusion in the academy, never deserting particular, actual people for abstract values or virtues. For most of Anderson’s over twenty years of seminary teaching he was preaching every week at the “high of the low churches,” Harbour Fellowship. Anderson builds upon Barth’s revolution but is distinctly a theologian for the church in the U.S. today. Much is made today of a need for a theology of “globalization” and “postmodernism” and certainly the church and the gospel are for the world. But Anderson’s roots in a South Dakota farm and an evangelical parish become real in a theology that takes very seriously actual human beings and concrete situations in the church, not to be swallowed up by what can become abstract ideals and causes, from orthodoxy to social justice.
I have just finished a work that is to be a little introduction to Anderson’s work entitled, Reading Ray S. Anderson: Theology as Ministry, Ministry as Theology. I am pleased that Ray was able to read the preface and seemed happy (and embarrassed!) by the book. “Theology as Ministry” particularly relates to the doctrines of God and theological anthropology. “Ministry as Theology” suggests the profound integration of a theology praxis to the church in its ministry and mission. But the dialectical aspect of “Theology as Ministry, Ministry as Theology” should not be forgotten. There is one ministry of God, Anderson contends, the ministry of Jesus Christ. Theology only seeks to serve that ministry. Anderson has been well known for his uses of cases studies in exploring the implications of theology in ministry. (The actual cases he uses for examinations in his courses are found in the second Festschrift, On Being Christian … and Human, edited by Todd Speidell). So at the end of each chapter I have included a case that which “fleshes out” the implications of that chapter for ministry. I think you’ll find that the writings of Ray Anderson will be an incredible stimulation to your participation in the ministry of Jesus Christ.
* * *
This looks interesting. Any effort to encourage building bridges is a good effort. While this is jointly organized by Three Muslim NGOs, it’s open to all.
Intercultural Dialogue Using Theory of Constrain
Speaker:
Zana Borisavljevic
Venue:
The Nomad Offices
Level 8, Pavilion KL
168 Jalan Bukit Bintang, KL
Date:
27 June 2009 (Saturday)
Time:
930AM - 1130AM
Jointly Organized by Muslim Professionals Forum [MPF], Sisters in Islam [SIS] and Islamic Renaissance Front [IRF]
Biography
Zana Borisavljevic is a Holistic Education and Development Consultant with over 20 years’ experience in education. She is currently based in Serbia where she works as the director of an NGO “Education Plus”, an organization offering personal and professional development programs, Parenting Courses and Youth Leadership Programs. She is also one of the founders and directors of the international education program Theory of Constrain [TOC] for Intercultural Dialogue which uses TOC logic tools for enabling dialogue and understanding between different cultures and ethnicities. During the last few years, Zana has been particularly involved in programs aimed at building bridges between young people of different ethnicities in the Balkans.
strange how some memories are coming back and other thoughts are surfacing.
What a way to break my internet fast.
Don’t take this personally .. Imaginary Inquisition (I mean Interview)
Interviewer: "what is your theological position"?
Crazy Maker: … changing?
Interviewer: are you orthodox?
Crazy Maker: Not eastern
Interviewer: are you a heretic?
Crazy Maker: yes as far as Vipers are concerned! (HT: John the Baptist)
Interviewer: so you are emergent?
Crazy Maker: hmmm …. in relation to science, philosophy, theology or ecclesiology?
Interviewer: So why aren’t you answering the question directly? Make your yes … yes … no … no. if not it’s from the …
Crazy Maker: The Kingdom of God is like …
Interviewer: (pause)
Crazy Maker: Let me ask the question back … to you the interviewer
what is your economic position?
are you a pure capitalist?
so you are a communist?
I mean socialist?
Interviewer: (puzzled look)
me: okay…. are you making poverty history?
Interviewer: I’m talking about the matters of God here!
me: No …. ?
Interviewer:not about economics
Crazy Maker: okay …
go and sell all your wealth, give it to the poor (at least a substantial amount) and then come back and talk to me
Looks like there’s a growing momentum for more “conversations” (my preferred term 
) to help create greater awareness on crucial concerns affecting every citizen in Malaysia.
ECUMENICAL SOCIAL FORUM
” HOW MUCH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS THERE ?
When? 2.00 - 4.00PM, Saturday, 27TH June 2009
Where? TRINITY METHODIST CHURCH, PETALING JAYA, 6 Jalan 5/37, 46000 Petaling Jaya
Who?
Moderator
Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam
Panelists
Tan Sri Simon Sipaun (Vice Chairman of SUHAKAM)
Dato’ Ti Lian Ker (Chairman of NGO National Bureau MCA)
Mr. Tommy Thomas (Prominent Lawyer)
Mr. K. Shamuga (MCCBCHST Think Tank & Article 11)
What?
Forum Discussion
Summing Up and Closing Remarks
ALL ARE WELCOME!
Contact CCM Secretariat
COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF MALAYSIA
No.10. Jalan 11/9 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Tel: 03-79567092 Fax: 03-79560353
Email: cchurchm@streamyx.com Website:ccmalaysia.org
Many thanks to Union of Catholic Asian News for making the Indonesian version of their article available. While there are some minor differences, there’s so much similarity between Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia that this translation can add on to the ripples and contribute to those who are reflecting on this in Bahasa Malaysia.
MALAYSIA - Umat Kristen dan Muslim Membahas Isu-Isu Minoritas
2009-6-19 | MS07437.647b | 562 kata Text size
BANGKOK (UCAN) — Lebih dari 100 umat Kristen, Muslim, dan penganut agama-agama lain berkumpul di gereja Lutheran di Malaysia baru-baru ini untuk mendiskusikan isu-isu yang dihadapi kelompok-kelompok minoritas di negeri itu.
Forum Profesional Muslim (MPF, Muslim Professionals Forum) dan Friends in Conversation bersama-sama menyelenggarakan acara bertema “People Like Us: How Arrogance Divides People” (Orang seperti Kita: Betapa Kesombongan Memecah-belah Kita). Friends in Conversation merupakan sebuah kelompok Kristen yang membahas isu-isu sosial, politik, dan ekonomi. Kelompok ini dibentuk 12 Juni di Gereja Lutheran Bangsar di Kuala Lumpur.
Keberhasilan utama acara ini adalah bahwa kaum Muslim, umat Kristen, dan penganut agama-agama lain “benar-benar berkumpul dalam suasana tanpa ancaman dan berinteraksi sebagai sahabat,” kata Pendeta Sivin Kit kepada UCA News. Pendeta dari Gereja Lutheran Bangsar yang menjadi tuan rumah dan memfasilitasi acara itu mencatat bahwa setengah dari 103 peserta adalah kaum Muslim dan sisanya kebanyakan Katolik dan Protestan.
Dia juga memuji para peserta karena saling berinteraksi sebelum dan sesudah acara dua jam itu, dan terutama kaum Muslim yang datang ke sebuah gereja untuk terlibat. Para peserta “berhati-hati agar tidak saling menyerang,” karena bagi kebanyakan peserta, ini merupakan yang pertama kali mereka menghadiri peristiwa seperti itu, katanya.
Menurut Pendeta Kit, Tricia Yeoh, salah satu dari tiga panelis dalam acara itu, mengangkat beberapa isu yang dihadapi kelompok-kelompok minoritas di Malaysia yang berpenduduk mayoritas Muslim. Salah satu isu adalah kompetisi partai-partai politik yang didominasi Muslim untuk memaksakan aganda-agenda Islam di Malaysia.
Aloysius Pinto, seorang peserta Katolik, sependapat. Ia menunjukkan bahwa media dan kelompok-kelompok politis menggunakan isu-isu agama sedemikian rupa sehingga menimbulkan kebingungan.
Yeoh, seorang Kristen yang bekerja di kantor riset menteri utama Negara Bagian Selangor, juga mengangkat isu tentang umat Kristen tidak diijinkan menggunakan kata “Allah” yang mengacu pada Allah.
Di tahun-tahun belakangan ini, mingguan Katolik “Herald” (Bentara), yang menurunkan berita Katolik dalam bahasa Inggris, Melayu, Mandarin, dan Tamil, terlibat dalam sebuah perdebatan dengan pemerintah soal penggunaan kata bahasa Arab “Allah” untuk Allah, dalam seksi bahasa Melayunya.
Pada akhir Mei, Pengadilan Tinggi negeri itu mengumumkan bahwa Gereja Katolik tidak boleh menggunakan kata “Allah” sampai pengadilan membuat keputusan tentang soal itu pada 7 Juli.
Ahmad Farouk Musa, pembicara lain dalam acara itu, membahas perlunya reformasi bagi kaum Muslim. Salah satu pendiri MPF itu menekankan pentingnya penalaran.
Pembicara lain adalah Waleed Aly, seorang pengacara asal Australia dan pemimpin komunitas Muslim, yang menulis buku “People Like Us: How Arrogance Is Dividing Islam and the West” (Orang seperti Kita: Betapa Kesombongan Memecah-belah Islam dan Barat). Dalam acara itu, dia mengatakan bahwa banyak kesalahpahaman tentang Islam dan Muslim di Barat. Dia mengakui adanya kesalahpahaman yang bersifat kultural, namun dia menepis bahwa kaum Muslim mengalami diskriminasi di Barat.
Pendeta Kit, salah satu anggota pendiri Friends in Conversation, mengatakan kepada UCA News melalui telpon bahwa kelompok itu tengah menyiapkan dialog dan percakapan lebih lanjut dengan kelompok-kelompok Muslim. Dalam bulan-bulan mendatang, misalnya, kelompoknya berencana mengadakan sebuah acara bersama dengan Saudari-Saudari dalam Islam (SIS, Sisters in Islam), sebuah kelompok yang berkomitmen menegakkan hak-hak kaum perempuan dalam kerangka Islam.
SIS menjadi perhatian umum belakangan ini ketika PAS (akronim bahasa Melayu untuk All-Malaysia Islamic Party), salah satu dari tiga partai politik dalam koalisi menentang pemerintah federal, menganjurkan agar SIS diselidiki dan dibubarkan jika ditemukan bertentangan dengan ajaran-ajaran Islam.
Malaysia adalah sebuah negara multi-etnis, dan pemerintah menganggap agama sebagai sebuah masalah yang sensitif. Sekitar 60 persen dari 27 juta penduduk Malaysia adalah kaum Muslim etnis Melayu. Sisanya adalah kebanyakan etnis Cina dan India.
