【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】
***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated,將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像:以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文(https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/)翻譯成英文,鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演,在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***
中文精簡版本:https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/
Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.
In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.
The possibility of realizing legislative majority
Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.
The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?
Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.
Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.
Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority
To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.
While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.
Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.
Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.
Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP
What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.
Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.
The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.
Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution
Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.
Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.
The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.
All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.
https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
old testament中文 在 葉漢浩 Alex Ip Facebook 的精選貼文
親愛的讀者:
《歷代志下:啟動天地互通的聖殿敬拜》出版了!
有一天,收到鄺炳釗牧師的電郵,建議我看一本新書The Old Testament Is Dying,[1]此書先以數據分析北美教會的講壇,了解教會在六十六卷聖經中多選取哪些書卷來講道,結果發現所選的多是新約。雖然舊約佔聖經78%篇幅,但在講壇上所佔的比例卻少於三分之一!而且只集中在詩篇、創世記和以賽亞書。點擊率近乎零的書卷包括歷代志上、耶利米哀歌、利未記、約珥書、約伯記等;關於苦難、失敗及哭泣的書卷最冷門,如詩篇中的哀歌、傳道書、約伯記等。
北美教會有選擇地運用舊約,其中一個原因,就是這些冷門書卷與教會比較正能量的教導方向格格不入。在堂會發展趨向商業化及業務化的主調下,這些舊約書卷便不合市場需求,在奧斯廷(Joel Osteen)所帶領的成功神學型的教會,這種情況尤其嚴重。作者斯特朗(Brent A. Strawn)稱奧斯廷為快樂主義者(happyologist),把基督信仰演繹成讓人幸福、開心、滿足、成功的信仰,因此任何苦難、悲哀、失敗等「非常規性」(irregularities)的經歷被詮譯為不能接受。斯特朗認為舊約作為一種語言的言說正步向死亡,在北美的教會找不到根,在那些超大型教會(megachurch)尤甚。
原來,當教會太重視業績與成功,她所宣講的道理便會傾向「常規性」(regularities),慢慢打壓「非常規性」,把舊約多元而豐富的神學,約化為簡單的正能量思維。教會的宣講於是變得「離地」,因為不能進入人生非常規的悲哀、哭泣、苦難、失敗,淪為口號喊叫。
在香港,除了一些高舉成功神學的教會外,舊約的宣講仍算是多元,情況比北美好得多。然而,始終有一些書卷屬冷門書卷,原因是缺乏華人學者的研究與華文釋經書的出版。我祈求自己能在這方面盡一點力,為華人教會撰寫更多較冷門書卷的釋經書,如歷代志、耶利米哀歌、利未記、以賽亞書,讓講壇能夠多元化,免得淪為喊叫正能量口號的地方。
看斯特朗的書,讓我更肯定神對自己的召命,就是在離世之前,為華人教會撰寫十本釋經書。我祈求神賜我有力有命完成這十本書,好在日後交賬;又祈禱舊約多元聲音的教導能夠持續下去,防止成功神學及教會企業化在華人教會植根;也祈求我們的講壇能「落地」,進入人生種種「非常規性」的範疇,這樣的信仰才能承載苦難、失敗、悲哀與哭泣。
歷代志下屬於冷門書卷,信徒總是喜歡撒母耳記及列王紀,卻冷落歷代志下。其實,歷代志下道出生命的起與跌,特別在刻畫人性的黑暗與邪惡方面,很多地方能成為後世讀者的警惕。任何一位用心閱讀歷代志下的人都會同意,全書把七章14節的因果報應神學發揮得淋漓盡致,活現在列王的歷史循環當中,有血有肉地說明神赦罪的應許與憐憫,而非紙上談兵。可惜的是,人總是未能在循環的歷史汲取教訓,變得有智慧,反而不斷重蹈覆轍。然而,歷代志作者還是為我們重新編寫一次列王的遭遇,挑戰我們不是看過便忘,讓這些偉大的敘事成為我們生命的衝擊,重新定位前行的步履。
在歷代志的研究上,我們還處於起步階段,華文原創的歷代志下釋經書很少,比較倚賴翻譯作品。可是像賈費特(Sara Japhet)、 [2]威廉森(Hugh Williamson)、[3]諾珀斯(Gary Knoppers)[4]與迪拉德(Raymond Dillard),[5]這些全球研究歷代志的頂尖學者的著作,因為沒有譯本,甚少華人信徒閱讀過他們的作品。筆者期望在《歷代志下:啟動天地互通的聖殿敬拜》,整合最新的學術發展,把歷代志下的神學信息扣定在聖殿敬拜的主題上,並說明天地互通的神學重點。嘗試一方面讓讀者更容易掌握此書的神學重點,另一方面能成為日後建構舊約神學的踏板。
黃福光博士在歷代志的研究上比我走得更前,也是華人神學院中少數肯立志進行深度學術研究及寫作的舊約學者,有幸得到他賜序,感激萬分。馮耀榮牧師是文學批判及敘事文學的專家,他的釋經往往叫人眼前一亮,對敘事文學尤有心得,很榮幸得到他賜推介文。楊錫鏘牧師是我在中國神學研究院修讀道學碩士的希伯來文老師,他是一位用心牧養的牧者,感謝楊牧師賜序,看出他對學生的關愛。
最後,感謝太太與女兒的支持。當我在英國研究歷代志時,她們不離不棄地陪伴同行,常聆聽我的心聲與分擔憂慮。若果沒有她們,本書以至任何關於歷代志的研究都無法進行。因此,特別將本書獻給她們。
祈求神使用這本著作,讓人從此愛上向來被冷落的歷代志。也祈求日後在華人教會的講壇上,能聆聽到更多歷代志下對我們的提醒、鼓勵與教導!
頁數:632 (42萬字)
定價:$230
[1] Brent A. Strawn, The Old Testament is Dying: A Diagnosis and Recommended Treatment (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017).
[2] Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1993).
[3] H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
[4] Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9, AB 12 (New York: Doubleday, 2004); Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10-29, AB 12A (New York: Doubleday, 2004).
[5] Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC 15 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987).
#封面的希伯來文寫上了歷代志下七章14節
#感謝明道社專業的編輯
#第三本中文釋經書
old testament中文 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的精選貼文
Notice from publisher: My bestseller is now on its 3rd printing. Thank you, my readers. Why not get this inexpensive Christmas gift for your friends who have not bought it? Keep this book consistently on the bestsellers list. I'm ever so grateful. The Old Testament version is in the works and will see the light of day soon.
My bestseller on interpretive fallacies of the NT, sold out first print in 3 months, 2011. Vid reviews here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdaUyyahDmo&feature=youtu.be
http://christiantimes.org.hk/Comm…/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp…
Chinese blurbs here:
金 句式的思維是華人教會一個信仰生活的現象。曾博士沒有否定這種使用聖經的方式,只是糾正、深化和豐富華人教會的金句式閱讀,希望我們讀金 句讀得更全面,思想得更仔細,使用得更恰當。因此,曾博士熱誠地分解一些金句讀經的偏頗和謬誤,嘗試去蕪存菁,叫人更能吸取神話語的豐 盛。細讀其書,不難看見他的為人和學問,而讀者跟他一同思想書中所舉述的經文,可學習更嚴謹、深度的聖經思維, 也領悟如何進入經文、活學活用。
曹偉彤院長
香港浸信會神學院
新約聖經由多元而豐富的二十七卷書所組成,要正確地了解並不容易,需要對各卷書的歷史處境、體裁,經文結構和內容、修詞用語等有所認識,對釋經的方法有所掌握,才可避免誤解聖經。然而,為了使一些未信及初信者容易明白,傳道人傾向於將聖經的解釋簡單化,甚至有時未作研究就胡亂地解釋,因而做成教會信徒對聖經的認識流於膚淺,甚至誤導,集非成是,這對信徒的信仰成長為害甚大。曾思瀚教授的《壞鬼釋經:新約解「毒」-紏正新約金句的常見詮釋》,毫不客氣地指出教會的問題,並且正面地以不同的例子講解正確的釋經方法,這正是今日教會所需要的一本書。
盧龍光院長
香港中文大學崇基學院神學院
我真的很盼望所有準備踏上講壇的人,都要先讀讀這本著作!曾思瀚博士拆毀我們那安舒的私意解經陋習,逼使我們認真地面對他所提出的挑戰。堅持己見的人無法明白曾博士用心良苦,他並沒有引經據典,也沒有引用一貫教會習語,而是細膩地觸動自認是教導聖言者的心思意念。假如你有意用心學習上帝的聖言,就應當翻開這本書,細味箇中精彩之處。
鮑維均博士
美國三一神學院新約系主任
我們有太多根深蒂固對聖經錯誤的理解,甚至習非成是。本書以淺易的講論,引導讀者小心從多段經文的處境及上下文,去理解經文含意,作為正確註釋經文的方法的範例,非常有價值。
蕭壽華牧師
宣道會北角堂主任牧師
解釋聖經,對信徒來說,既是必要的,卻又常感到為難,惟恐自己錯誤理解經文。特別在華人教會中,不少充滿屬靈亮光的教訓,實在與經文的真義有極大的差距。曾博士以其對釋經的熱愛,豐富的學養,深盼能幫助信徒走出「壞鬼釋經」的束縛。這是一本十分實用的好書,相信你必因此更愛研讀神的話。
劉少康牧師
香港浸信教會主任牧師
雖然在歐美學術界中,有關釋經謬誤的書已屢見不鮮,但在漢語世界中,曾思瀚博士的新作算是少有的書。此書的內容廣泛而全面,對問題的討論頗為深入及有見地,對讀者,論是平信徒或是教牧,均有極重要而且是極需要的幫助,值得向眾信徒推介。
羅慶才博士
鑽石山浸信會主任牧師
提摩太後書二章15節教導那些「竭力在神面前作一個蒙稱許、無愧的工人」的弟兄姊妹要「正確地講解真理的道。」曾思瀚博士給我們作了卓越的示範,指出我們對某些經常見的錯誤理解、該等經文的意思、應用和避免釋經謬誤的方法。
葉敬德博士
香港浸會大學校牧