christian in a non-christian society.

CHRISTIANS IN A NON-CHRISTIAN SOCIETY



INVOLVEMENT: IS IT OUR CONCERN?

It is exceedingly strange that any followers of Jesus Christ should

ever have needed to ask whether social involvement was their

concern, and that controversy should have blown up over the

relationship between evangelism and social responsibility. For it is

evident that in his public ministry Jesus both went about teaching

and preaching (Matthew 4:23; 9:35 RSV) and went about

doing good and healing (Acts 10:38 RSV). In consequence, evangelism

and social concern have been intimately related to one another

throughout the history of the Church Christian people have

often engaged in both activities quite unselfconsciously, without

feeling any need to define what they were doing or why.

The evangelical heritage of social concern2

There were some remarkable examples of this in eighteenthcentury

Europe and America.The Evangelical Revival, which stirred

both continents, is not to be thought of only in terms of the preaching

of the gospel and the converting of sinners to Christ; it also led to

widespread philanthropy, and profoundly affected society on both

sides of the Atlantic. John Wesley remains the most striking instance.

He is mainly remembered as the itinerant evangelist and open-air

preacher. And so he was. But the gospel he preached inspired people

to take up social causes in the name of Christ. Historians have attributed

to Wesleys influence rather than to any other the fact that

Britain was spared the horrors of a bloody revolution like Frances.3

The change which came over Britain during this period was well

documented in J.Wesley Breadys remarkable book, England Before

and After Wesley, subtitled The Evangelical Revival and Social Reform.

His research forced him to conclude that the true nursingmother

of the spirit and character values that have created and

sustained Free Institutions throughout the English-speaking world,

indeed the moral watershed of Anglo-Saxon history, was the

much-neglected and oft-lampooned Evangelical Revival.

Bready described the deep savagery of much of the 18th century,

which was characterized by the wanton torture of animals

for sport, the bestial drunkenness of the populace, the inhuman

traffic in African negroes, the kidnapping of fellow-countrymen for

exportation and sale as slaves, the mortality of parish children, the

universal gambling obsession, the savagery of the prison system and

penal code, the welter of immorality, the prostitution of the theatre,

the growing prevalence of lawlessness, superstition and lewdness;

the political bribery and corruption, the ecclesiastical arrogance and

truculence, the shallow pretensions of Deism, the insincerity and

debasement rampant in Church and State such manifestations

suggest that the British people were then perhaps as deeply degraded

and debauched as any people in Christendom.

But then things began to change. And in the nineteenth century

slavery and the slave trade were abolished, the prison system was

humanized, conditions in factory and mine were improved, education

became available to the poor, trades unions began, etc., etc.

Whence, then, this pronounced humanity? this passion for

social justice, and sensitivity to human wrongs? There is but one

answer commensurate with stubborn historical truth. It derived

from a new social conscience. And if that social conscience, admittedly,

was the offspring of more than one progenitor, it nonetheless

was mothered and nurtured by the Evangelical Revival of vital,

practical Christianity a revival which illumined the central postulates

of the New Testament ethic, which made real the Fatherhood

of God and the Brotherhood of men, which pointed the priority of

personality over property, and which directed heart, soul and

mind, towards the establishment of the Kingdom of Righteousness

on earth.

The Evangelical Revival did more to transfigure the moral

character of the general populace, than any other movement British

history can record. For Wesley was both a preacher of the gospel

and a prophet of social righteousness. He was the man who

restored to a nation its soul.

The evangelical leaders of the next generation were committed

with equal enthusiasm to evangelism and social action. The most

famous among them were Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson,

James Stephen, Zachary Macaulay, Charles Grant, John Shore

(Lord Teignmouth), Thomas Babington, Henry Thornton, and

of course their guiding light, William Wilberforce. Because several

of them lived in Clapham, at that time a village three miles south of

London, and belonged to Clapham Parish Church, whose Rector

John Venn was one of them, they came to be known as the

Clapham Sect, although in Parliament and in the press they were

mocked as the Saints.

It was their concern over the plight of the African slaves which

first brought them together. Three days before his death in 1791,

John Wesley wrote to Wilberforce to assure him that God had raised

him up for his purpose.

八月的反思。2010

牧者的话：-
八月是我们的国家将庆祝独立53年，而九月将欢庆马来西亚日。在这期间，我们禁食、祷告、守望。若我们诚心回应反省，我们会发现，我们的国家在改革、改善的进程上没有很大的改善。反而不公平、不公正、不公义的事似乎节节上升。然而，我们也看见人民对公义、公正的意识已经提高。
福音的信息不但提及救赎的好消息，并有提到社会公益、公义的参与。信徒对圣经的认识，并需在其日常生活中，在各领域活出圣经的教导。我们需要成为光和盐的作用。给予社会带来影响力和公信力。叫我们所信的真理，不是活在教堂四部围墙里面。
我们的信仰、信念和所信的道是有承载生命、生活难题的力量和能力。一年了，我发现，我需要重提一件事。那就是：若没有耶稣的救恩-人性难改；，轻蔑之罪！
上个月因已故一年了赵明福先生的事件，我也出席了赵家验尸庭的探讨。没想到八月：-这个所谓的“独立感恩月”却也发生那么多的事情，是我们大马的人民需要反省对于“马来西亚”我们的国家，如何看待身为公民；我们的权利；我们的权力；我们的责任。
在希腊文里Huperephania,Huperephanos被译为多个意义，而不能以一两个字来形容。这是指人性所犯最严重的一种，也是最基本的一种罪。这是指着人骄傲自大，到了极其狂傲，傲慢非常甚至全然无理的心态。这个字是Huper-在上面+phainesthai-表现自己的人。这简单来说是“在上面来表现自己”。这个字在旧希腊文中通常用于在消极方面。这是指：-当人自视其高，自负非凡，轻视他人，招摇过市。
这等人可因他自己因为富有；才干；权力；地位等。就鄙视他人，在街上对行人或个行的人不理不睬。买卖的态度有如专横霸道，口气压人到底。这等人过分的自傲而导致他们的生活在一种思维里存着嚣张的态度，把人和事都目空一切。
这等人也可在外面假装谦卑与世无争，心中却是不把任何人放在眼内。他自己拥有的一切，令他不需要他人。这使他把他自己放在一切之上，甚至他认为“每一个人都有一个价码，是可以用钱来“买”的。这个的罪，严重到可以对上帝无理，这等人以经把自己当作是造物者而不是被造的，上帝对他来说只不过是他所“造出来”的，是专门被他“可使用”的“能力”。或者我们可以这么的说：-“除我以外，没有别的”。这是个非常可怕和邪恶的罪。回想当今的世代和国家所发生的事，我们可以说。我们的领袖若不悔改，我们有如正朝向一条毁灭的不归路，是失控于道德和信仰的持守心态与行为。
我们需要认真看待，我们的信仰。

再论政要意识：--
对于民主操作的认识
实现真正民主的操作是我们当今正在急需要看见的。但是对于民主的意识形态，我们是有一些基本，特别是从非专业或普通老白姓来看政治的议程和操作。
我们对民主的概念环绕在基本三个理论和意识状态里，

一）古典式的民主classical Democracy ：-
在一个的国家里，难免我们需要制法、立法、执法、和守法的意愿
和行为。被选的政府，是要实现人民的：-
共同愿意Common will
共同利益Common good
但在我国，这却往往集权于少数的“精英”和多数的群众似乎有一
个的距离。

二）代议式的民主 Representative Demoncracy
能力和时间是另一个政治议题，居于大部份的人都没有时间和能力
参与政治的政策和行使。这就令至需要选出拥有才能、地位的代表
这来“替代”他们，执行政治事务。
为了平衡权力的操作，这令使他们制造出制度，希望来平衡这权力
的运作。

三）参与式的民主 Participation Democracy
这个把中央集权的制度要把权力分发 Decentralization给其他的地
区以方便行政与管理。而渐渐的把议决有关地区性的课题权力，
开放给各地区的代表来决定。这些的代表来之民间的百姓。这是种
民众直接参与政治，政策的意决。
英国二战时的首相丘吉尔曾对民主意识说过：
『民主虽然不一定是最好的制度，但当我研究参考其他的制度时，
发现其他的更不像样』。
这暂时只是引发民主意识的讨论：---