Dear Joshua,

No time to write properly but just a short reply for three letters you sent. I have been treating you badly of late with my untimely reply, but I think, with some excuse of work-related anxieties, you could spare me from presumption that I am neglecting you. And, I am really sorry indeed to hear that you have been treated badly by your colleagues.

It is a little difficult to explain how I feel that tho’ you have taken a way which is not for me, Roman Catholicism. I nevertheless can congratulate you – I suppose you rejoice in faith. Naturally, I do not draw from that the same conclusion in my own spiritual journeys; but there is no need for us to start a controversial correspondence! I have to admit that theologically, R. C. case as the true Church is quite convincing although at the end I have different conclusion. I can understand why Chesterton converted to R. C. from Anglicanism in his last years.

Indeed, I agree with you that the present wide-spread of atheism and apostasy is the fault of the clergy. However, I am rather sick of the modern assumption that, for all events (mostly negative stuffs), the people, never feel responsible: it is always our government, failing system, boss, etc but precious “us“. We are apparently perfect and blameless.

Oremus pro invicem,

Ho

The clip says all what I think :)

Now, why are we here?

Dear Joshua,

I am sorry to say that I do not think I will be at your tea party next Saturday. I am still recovering from my trips. After a series of private correspondences in the past three months, I think we can start our ‘rather public discussions’ again. I think what I am going to bring up now would spark some controversies and make me despised by some people. I am fully aware of that. It has been months and even years ad nauseam for me being silent about this [sic].

If it is not harking back too far, I would like to make two layman’s comments on Christianity today. Firstly, I would underline the importance of ‘spreading the Good News’ (as I have argued previously) however I am rather annoyed and bemused with the way the Good News reaches the public. There are churches that go to public squares and start shouting like St. John the Baptist in the desert. Such public engagement might be effective thousands of years ago but not in this digital era. Surely, we, as laymen, see them as madmen running away from psychiatric hospitals rather than from sane community.

There are many churches nowadays who are pretty ‘modern’; churches who ‘tweets’; ‘facebooking’, even touring with full instruments gigs – supported with Youtube video blogging etc. However, there are also churches or maybe I should call ‘communities’ with interesting way of proselytizing (or ‘Evangelizing’ as they call it). With or without the ‘marketing’ materials, they have teams that going around the city; dressed in a very simple manner, no Bible or anything eccentrics. What do they do? Just simply show people the love they have: try to talk to people in park benches, cafes, even beggars – and yes, including tourists. They do not ‘differentiate’ whether he/she is a local or not. They do not ‘force’ people to ‘repent’ and believe in Jesus in their first meeting. They are just ‘ears’ for strangers’ problem – even just a hug would do. I find them truly inspirational! I have to say that they do a pretty good job in getting the Good News across the public. This is just one example from many other things but I do think ‘outdated’ methods like shouting in public places or going around with ‘Jesus Loves You T-shirts’ will do more ‘harm’ than good. It is just an example. Just like what I have posted before, we need to know ‘the market’ of our ‘customers’ and ‘products’.

Secondly, I would employ Christians nowadays to assess the ‘rigidity’ in Church practice especially in is liturgy. Liturgy is defined as customary public worship done by a specific (religious) group, according to its particular traditions. Without doubt, I have no objections in the essence of liturgy which ensures the delivery of ‘main message’ – just like a ‘run down’ of a ceremony. I think it is nonsense for churches who claim that they do not follow liturgy; they might not use the ‘old day’s hardcore liturgy’ but whatever service they have, there is always customary actions in that service –I should call it ‘softcore liturgy’. I am really amused with the controversy of using modern musical instruments or ‘charismatic practices’ in praise/worship practices. I would think even an ‘organ’ was a modern instrument or ‘Book of Hymns’ were ‘pretty radical’ back then – even king David praised God dancing and clapping with new songs (that’s even in the Old Testament). I am not suggesting that every church has to follow this-and-that or what-not but I think it would be wise to properly assess the ‘liturgy’ that we have; hardcore or softcore. I certainly do not represent all people and I do believe why God permits this because there are people who prefer to praise and worship God in ‘hardcore’ and ‘softcore’ liturgy . The main focus is still God – no matter what. Would you blame me as a heretic by raising these two issues? Oh so much like burning all the heretics in  Henry VIII era! (I just finished watching The Tudors series by the way)

Not so long ago, I have been asked about my opinions in the miraculous city transformation like in Almolonga, Fiji, and many other places (read further here). Recently Manchester (UK) has undergone remarkable city transformation, propelled by local Christian communities. One key thing that I observed is the unity of the churches. If we take a look back in the history, Christianity grew rapidly under prosecutions which made the churches stand together with fuss about each other’s service or politics. Nowadays, we can see the real example in prosecuted Christians in China. How can we see the unity of Churches if their leaders are still fighting with each other at the back door about getting people for their congregations or talking badly about other denominations? I have many so called Christians who are preaching to be non-sectarian, by embracing non-believers and other denominations but in practice, they are sectarian by default as they only ‘hang out’ with people who agree with them – just like preaching to the converts. Well, who am I?

I’m learning the importance of realizing that God loves us and what He wants is a relationship not a set of laws like in the Old Testaments times. The problem is, sometimes the religions itself cannot be interfered with new and relatively true opinions. We barely have the chance to offer a better understanding for the whole matters. In the contrary, we are more likely to get bashed easily for mentioning newfangled point of views. I think most churches are too ignorant to spend the times for understanding the complexity of modern society. But, somehow I still got the hopes to never quit explaining. And if only I could speak better, I would speak better.

For now I think it is enough. What would you say? Please enlighten me..

Oremus pro invicem.

Yours desperately,

Hosea

Happiness is about depression. The play explores the place of this issue amidst the complex relationship among therapists, patients and the pharmaceutical industry. Inspired by books such as Stumbling on Happiness (by Daniel Gilbert) and Shyness: How Normal Behavior Becomes a Sickness (by Christopher Lane), the play explores a range of questions: What is happiness? How does “depression” function as a diagnostic category? How does evolving scientific knowledge about depression and other personality disorders relate to individuals and the choices they make? Are the psychiatric profession and the pharmaceutical industry effectively commodifying happiness? Does the treatment of depression prevent us from accepting sadness as a natural part of life? These questions have both practical and ethical dimensions, and there are no clear answers. Instead, there is a messy tangle of political, philosophical, scientific, and economic interests and considerations, which overlap and often conflict. Dan Frey just graduated from ASU with MFA in Playwriting, and plans to move to Los Angeles to pursue a career as a playwright and screenwriter. His plays Don Coyote, about human smuggling in Arizona, and AM:I, about artificial intelligence, were performed at ASU’s Lyceum Theatre. He’s a pretty happy person. (by Dan Frey, featuring Will Hightower, Lee Hanson and Drew Ignatowski)