Krisis & Praxis

Should the Church Adopt the Chinese Ritual of Ancestor Worship/Veneration?

I have been asked several times about my view on a Tik Tok video which shows a church conducting its Chinese New Year or Spring Festival worship which seems to follow the form of the Chinese ritual of ancestor worship or veneration.

My response to this video is based on how practitioners of this kind of rituals normally justify their adoption of the form of “ancestor worship or veneration. It is also based on my personal experience of similar worship during my younger pagan days.

One may argue that offering incense is in the Bible. OK, I can give some benefit of doubt on this matter. That is, putting three incense joss sticks is debatable and defensible – assuming worship & acknowledgement of the Triune God in heaven with NO images. Context matters.¹

Does the tablet in front of the table contain only Bible verses praising the Triune God without images? If there is no image, then the ritual could be discussed. But I doubt it as bible verses tablets have not become common place in church worship rituals. What is written in the tablet would make a crucial difference to the nature of the ritual as it could be some Chinese characters describing the “sky god” Tian (天), the “earth god” Tudigong (土地公), and the “kitchen god” is known as Zao Shen (灶神). The presence of these references would certainly be problematic. Looks like this video pertains more towards some form of ancestor veneration/worship. Continue reading “Should the Church Adopt the Chinese Ritual of Ancestor Worship/Veneration?”

1
[Additional footnote added on 14/04/2025 as clarification – Context matters. I wont approve putting a joss stick in front of an ancestral tablet, or the earth god tablet etc.- because according to pagan beliefs, the spirits of the ancestors or the spirit of the earth god resides within the tablets. This is idolatry even though there are no images. Conceivably, someone may just put joss sticks in an urn to offer incense to the “heavenly god/God” without a tablet or images – well, we can discuss to find out what exactly the one who puts the joss stick has in mind & decide accordingly. However, in reality (except for a Chinese cult, which existed briefly in the 1970s), 99+ % of the people put the joss sticks in front of some kinds of tablets which are understood to be residences of spirits. This would be idolatry. The case of the tablet in the video is ambiguous because I don’t know what is in the tablet – but if what is written in the tablet encourages or is in line with the customary idea of tablets being places of residence of any spirit(s), then it would be idolatry. The presumption is that the presence of the tablet is likely to become a stumbling block and therefore is best not used at all].

Liberal Scholarship can be Sophisticated and Erudite (John Barton), but “Liberalism is not Christianity. It’s Another Religion Altogether” (J.G. Machen)

Some readers of my earlier posts on Liberal theology have challenged me to explain what I mean when I refer to Liberal theology. It is claimed that the word “Liberalism” has been abused to disabuse and slander other believers simply because of some ‘minor’ theological differences. Truth be told, liberalism is no minor theological issue. It is a dangerous distortion of biblical Christianity precisely because it uses familiar theological term but invests in these terms meanings that are contrary to what the Bible originally teaches.

Liberalism is the reigning paradigm among biblical scholars and theologians teaching in Western secular universities today. I recommend my readers read John Barton, A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths (Penguin, 2020) to become acquainted with contemporary liberalism.

A cursory reading of Barton’s book shows that doubts about the historical reliability of the Bible run through the whole book. Given below is a small sample of Barton’s skeptical conclusions: Continue reading “Liberal Scholarship can be Sophisticated and Erudite (John Barton), but “Liberalism is not Christianity. It’s Another Religion Altogether” (J.G. Machen)”

A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ Misreading of Aquinas’ Philosophy in his Book, “Islam and Secularism”

Note: This post was earlier published as an appendix to the post, Link – The Primacy of “Existence” over “Essence” : A Foundational Principle of Christian “Existential” Philosophy.

Our exposition of Aquinas’ thesis on the primacy of existence over essence provides a corrective to Malaysia’s premier philosopher, Naquib al-Attas, who claims that Aquinas’ misguided notion of distinction between existence and essence led to the development of nominalism (or Ockhamism) which denies the ontological reality of universals and asserts that universals are merely names (nomina) or abstract concepts.¹ This denial results not only in doubts about the existence of objects but also the existence of God and ultimately gives birth to Western secularism.² Naquib writes, Continue reading “A Corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ Misreading of Aquinas’ Philosophy in his Book, “Islam and Secularism””

1
Strictly speaking, Ockham’s view should be described as conceptualism rather than nominalism. Nominalism denies the real existence of universals; universals are merely names or conventional linguistic constructs. Conceptualism also rejects universals as existing independently in the external world. They are mental constructs or representations based on similarities or shared features observed among individual objects. Note that the mind plays an active role in forming universals by abstracting common features. Conceptualism represents the middle ground between realism (which posits independently existing universals) and nominalism (which denies the ontological or epistemological significance of universals entirely). However, the boundary between conceptualism to nominalism is blurr, given the proximity between language and mental concepts. Hence the suggestion that Ockham view be described as “conceptualist nominalism”.
2
Note that Naquib asserts that Aquinas’ distinction of essence or quiddity from existence is based on a misunderstanding of Avicenna’s position since for medieval Islamic philosophers, essence and existence are not radically separated; rather, they are unified in a manner that reflects the interconnectedness of all creation with the Creator. However, the fact remains that existence for Avicenna (as he was read by Western philosophers in the 13th century) is not a constituent of the essence of anything, that is, existence is an accessory accident which must be conferred upon a thing by an external cause in order that it may exist. The validity of historical interpretation of Avicenna may remain an open question, but the logical implications of Avicenna’s view as understood then were correctly drawn out by Aquinas.

The Primacy of “Existence” over “Essence”: A Foundational Principle of Christian “Existential” Philosophy

Note also the appendix: A corrective to Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ misreading of Aquinas’ philosophy in his book, Islam and Secularism.

A. Definition of terms “Existence” and “Essence”
In classical metaphysics, “essence” refers to what a thing is – its defining characteristics or nature. “Existence,” on the other hand, refers to the fact that a thing is – its actuality or the act of being.¹ Etienne Gilson notes that philosophers who were influenced by Greek philosophy treated essence as primary, with existence being a secondary or accidental attribute. Gilson critiques Platonic-Aristotelian and medieval Islamic philosophers like Avicenna and modern rationalist philosophers like Descartes and Kant for subordinating existence to essence.

Étienne Gilson’s book, The Elements of Christian Philosophy (Doubleday, 1960) offers a lucid exposition of his argument that “existence” (esse) is more fundamental than “essence” (essentia) within the framework of Thomistic thought which Gilson deploys to critique of certain trends in medieval and modern philosophy. For Gilson, Aquinas’s insight was revolutionary because it inverted the traditional emphasis on essence. Gilson lays out his argument that existence is more fundamental than essence in his book, The Elements of Christian Philosophy. Continue reading “The Primacy of “Existence” over “Essence”: A Foundational Principle of Christian “Existential” Philosophy”

1
F.C. Copleston gives a careful explanation of the distinction and relationship between “essence” and “existence”: “Essence is that which answers the question what a thing is; it is substance considered as definable…Existence, on the other hand, is the act by which an essence or substance is or has being…Essence is the potential metaphysical component in a thing (it is that which is or has being, the quod est), while existence is the act by which essence has being (it is the quo est). This distinction is not, be it noted, a physical distinction between two separable things; it is a metaphysical distinction within a thing… And inasmuch as the substance, considered as essence, is that which has being, that of which we say that it exists, it can be said to ‘receive’ existence. But these ways of speaking are not meant to imply either that existence is something apart from an essence or that an essence has objective reality apart from existence. The distinction between them is a distinction within a concrete finite being” F.C. Copleston, Aquinas (Penguin, 1955, 1975), p. 101.

Recommended Books on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. BADR Part 12/12

Selected Bibliography on Biblical Anthropology, Death and Resurrection
1) Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament. Fortress, 1973.
2) Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image. Eerdmans, 1986.
3) John Cooper. Body, Soul and Life Everlasting. Eerdmans, 2000.
4) Gary Habermas & Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Christ. Kregel, 2004.
5) G.E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Eerdmans, 1975.
6) John Wenham. The Easter Enigma. Zondervan, 1984.
7) Murray Harris, From Grave to Glory. Zondervan, 1990.

ANNOUNCEMENT
Kairos Podcast will be taking a break until March 2025. It will resume with a 5-parts podcast series on Homosexual Practice and the LGBT Sexual Revolution: Biblical & Sociological Perspectives.

The Eternal Significance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. BADR Part 11

The Eternal Significance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. BADR Part 11

Question: How does the nature of Jesus’ resurrected body shed light on the final transformed bodies of believers in the final days?

A. 1 Cor. 15 – Christ’s [Last Adam]*** resurrection as first fruits – In a twinkling we shall receive our glorified body like Jesus – imperishable and immortal.

Paul on the “spiritual body” – The apostle does not speak of a bodily spirit, but a spiritual body. A spiritual body is a resurrected physical body with greater capacities as an instrument of the Holy Spirit. Among its new powers are those of being incorruptible and giving life (v. 45).

1) Incorruptible– It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption (1 Cor. 15:42). For this corruptible must put on incorruption (1 Cor. 15:53).
2) Glorious – It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory (1 Corinthians 15:43).
3) Powerful – It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power (1 Corinthians 15:43). The believer will have permanent invigoration, unsurpassed beauty, and endless energy.
4) Spiritual – It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44) – In the resurrection the believer will have a body perfectly responsive to his redeemed spirit which in turn will be completely amenable to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It will be spiritual also in that it is free of sinful propensities and without physical vulnerabilities & limitations [hyperspace teleport?].

B. Sum: Like the resurrected Jesus Christ, our transformed bodies will be corporeal, recognizable, immortal, imperishable, glorified.

Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR Part 10

Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR Part 10

Question. What is the nature of appearances of the risen Jesus and the nature of his resurrected body?

A. Nature of the Appearances
The initiative in the resurrection appearances always rested with Jesus.
They occurred to several individuals. Some appearances were to a single person; one was to a group of five hundred. They are reported to have taken place during a very specific period of forty days.

Ophthe, which means “he appeared.” This term probably implies seeing something which was objectively present outside the mind of the observer. Phaneroo, “reveal,” as in John 21:1, “Jesus revealed himself”; Harao, in its aorist passive form ophthe – permitted to become visible (Acts 1:3a), (“God permitted him) to become visible” (Acts 10:40).

The writers of the Gospels and Paul agree that Jesus appeared in bodily form. But Jesus’ body is no longer bound by space & time. Finally, there was a continuity between Christ’s body before the resurrection and his mode of existence after the resurrection.

B. Nature of Christ’s Resurrection Body
His body made impressions on physical senses.
Jesus’ body is no longer bound by material or spatial limitations. It has new powers diff. from his earlier, natural body. It belongs to a different order of reality. Jesus’ body is both materialistic and non-materialistic.

You may view the video at:
Encounters With the Risen Christ and the Nature of His Resurrected Body. BADR 10