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

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

Dilectissime Joshua,

Felix sit annus novus! Ein glückliches neues Jahr…

What a nice letter! I also like the Edradour cream whisky that you sent. What a fantastic present for my recovery! I was suffering from accumulation of research and private duties that made me impossible to undertake anything more in the previous weeks. Hence, my delay replying your letter.

I have a fear that you may be right about the healthy effect of complaining, but I feel that complaining endlessly would not be healthy to the body nor the mind – also such waste of time! As I said previously, being grateful is the antidote surely.

Your topic about dedication in life sounds worth following up. I have just met two young chaps, one whose name is Scott and the other one’s is Liam. Scott is a scientists in a world-renowned drug discovery lab in Portree and Liam is a Christian devout and church-activist also in Portree.  Scott works from 9am to 8pm and back home just for dinner, scientific journal reading, and sleep while Liam has college to attend and (almost) every evening he has church activities from Bible study, choir, to his own Bible reading. For both of these people, they call their lives as dedication to science and God, respectively.

I look up the definition of ‘dedication’ on Merriam-Webster dictionary (here):

1 : an act or rite of dedicating to a divine being or to a sacred use
2 : a devoting or setting aside for a particular purpose
3 : a name and often a message prefixed to a literary, musical, or artistic production in tribute to a person or cause
4 : self-sacrificing devotion <her dedication to the cause>
5 : a ceremony to mark the official completion or opening of something (as a building)

Scott, the scientists, argued that science is limitless and he feels that his research is everything in his life. He hardly participates in public engagement of science and he seldom consider ethics or science contribution to society. While, Liam on the other hand, is very much pre-occupied with his college and church-activities.

In my humble opinion, their lifestyles would certainly drive me mad. At first, I would call them obsessed but it is presumably a bit too strong: that’s why I call it ‘too much dedication’. My disagreement comes from the fact that too much dedication can actually result in narrow-mindedness and extremism as mentioned. As a scientist myself, I do still feel that my research has to be communicated to public as science is one of the pillars in society. Science is blind without ethics and brutal without philosophy.

As a Christian spiritualist, Jesus himself said that we have to help the unbelievers and love them. How can I show my ‘love’ to the people surrounds me or even my own family if I am too busy with Church activities all day? But apart from those: – I agree that dedication is needed for career development and respect/’service’ to God. Surely, moderation is the key – for really it is astonishing how seldom professors and church-leaders remind their ‘minions’ about moderation. Don’t you agree with me?

Vale. Oremus pro invicem.

Yours,

Ho

========================================================

Note: All characters appearing in this post are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely accidental, coincidental, and/or perhaps transcendental.

Dearest Joshua,

Well, well – so that struggle seems over (for now). It does not surprise me in the least that one who can’t do a job himself should be set to teach others. Failed chairmen become presidents and ministers and failed authors become critics. It’s the normal thing.

I think you have a mistaken idea of a leader’s duty. We must use the talent we have, not the talents we haven’t. We must not of course tell anything that will flatter lust, pride, or ambition. But we need not all tell patently practical and theoretical work. Indeed, work whose leadership is latent may do quite as much good and may re-act some whom the more obvious managerial work would scare away. The first business of being a leader is leading themselves. If they cannot handle small things, how they can handle big things?

For the second point you raised, I don’t know whether anything an outsider can say is much use; and you know already the things we have been taught  that being a man with free will (but oh!, on the ground that we both do not believe in predestination)  makes you and I live in this world full of choices – just like what The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus illustrates. Life is full of choices. CS Lewis in his Letter on 8 February 1956 and Screwtape Letters mentioned that the reality of life is a queer mixture if idyll, tragedy, farce, melodrama… the more claims on life, that we make, the more often we will feel injured; men are not angered by misfortune or disappointment as such but by misfortune or disappointment conceived as injury. Lewis has a point.

The question is of course, which one is the right choice? Sometimes the answer is pretty obvious just like the situation between cheating and not cheating on exams. But, there are times when we are facing difficult situations in which all the choices can be all good and can be all bad. There are also times when the answer is not so clear. Nowadays, there are even books and personal training about decision-making offered on internet or tvs. If you ask me about my personal point of view for the ambiguous choices, I would say that I see both options are right, of course after looking at my previous experience in the past and all consideration about consequences in present and future. No matter what is the outcome from the decision I made, it is part of our ‘adventure’ in life. It may sound reductionistic but uh-oh, what more can I say? What do you think about it? Would you agree with me?

Obviously, we have to realize that the more ones can accept that life is full of ambiguous choices and sacrifice,… the less, I believe one suffers.

By the bye, I seems almost rude not to tell you about Monika Beutelspacher death. She passed away couple of weeks ago. Such a sad and shocking news as I was with her hiking in the Alps last August!

Tschüß !

-Ho

My dear Joshua,