~ 多難興校──回顧香港中文大學的艱辛歷程 (2023.07.31)~

多難興校──回顧香港中文大學的艱辛歷程

中文大學管治有沒有問題？難免。以前有沒有討論過有關問題？肯定有。討論有沒有結果？據聞2016年有個共識。大難當頭，如何自處？

作者: 黃賢 標籤: 品味歷史 Back to Menu 目錄 Download下載

本文回顧中大的艱辛歷程，篳路藍縷啟山林。（灼見名家製圖）

香港中文大學又一次危立風口浪尖。這不是它第一次要承受政府、政客的壓力。

多難興校，難得這兩年中大國際排名一直高企，還升上中國第五（註1）。卻總是有些勢力，以慣常手段，打着「改革」、「架床叠屋」等似是而非的口號，急不及待企圖動其根基，慶幸其幾次都雖敗猶榮。權貴若真的關心高等教育，要銘記「四改三」未幾又要「三改四」的慘痛教訓，特別是當年的作俑者。（註2）

在香港打壓大學屢見不鮮。而潛台詞的手段，不外以撥款為人質，逼迫大學就範。早在1928年，就有勢力以「節省公帑」等同樣似是而非的口號，企圖關掉香港大學，連多年前在其任內創立港大的前港督盧吉，也被迫要出面為港大辯護。慶幸連在倫敦殖民部的官員也有眼光，頂住這股壓力，懂得珍惜來之不易的建樹，沒有讓這些作俑者成歷史罪人。（註3）

英國外交部文件（CO129/511/14）證殖民部挺香港大學。

時代不便深究施壓者的動機，特別是立法會尤若縮頭烏龜（註4），不召開公聽會，卻收集架床叠屋式的書面意見。而作俑者更操弄慣常的「拔高」、「寧左勿右」手段，又「《基本法》斷章取義」，又「完全自主」，恐怕快編造成又一「國家安全」隱患。

百姓只好品味歷史，看圖識字，回顧一下中大的艱辛歷程，篳路藍縷啟山林。

《易》：「同人於野，亨，利涉大川。」

篳路藍縷，期待照片中啟山林者現身説法。

多難興校（一）：崇基歲月

中大源於內地又一次政治動亂，大批難民湧港，其教育頓成難題，特別是高等教育。鑒此，基督教各宗派合力籌辦崇基學院，錢穆等內地學者也在港成立新亞、聯合等多所漢語教學的學院、專科學校。以1956年為例，升讀港大，只有275人；負笈台灣，內地的分別是431和363人，可見供遠不應求。

匆匆草創，崇基具體何時成立已不便稽查，籌辦機構的記載，也在打架，分別是1951年和1952年。我傾向1951年10月。

崇基書院創辦於1951年的版本。

崇基書院創辦於1952年的版本。

但慶幸壞事也能變好事：因為形勢緊迫，各基督教宗派之間的教義難以協調成教材，崇基才得以成為以基督精神為基礎的人文教育機構，而沒有成為神學院，也因如此，才容易日後獲得批地和升級為大學。（註5）

崇基也因天時、人和，得來地利，在新界獲得大片建校空間，還幾經討價還價，團結當地四戶居民抵禦地區官員的反對，既擴大面積，還以激將法增設火車站。（註6）冥冥似乎應驗《易》的「同人於野，亨，利涉大川」。日後的校園就是以崇基為基礎。附上1954年行政局討論批地的文件，和何明華會督的校舍設計草圖：

1954年行政局討論撥地給崇基學院的文件。

何明華會督的草圖。

何明華會督的草圖。

何明華會督的草圖。

多難興校 （二）：暴動帶來新方向

1956年，崇基學院算是安頓了，然而擴大高等教育的問題，雖多經考慮，還是難以推動。按英國傳統做法，首選方案是學生經考核後，由香港大學授予學位；但此方案無法解決語言和人數的問題，還包括港大校長Lindsay-Ride 的「軟對抗」。（註7）

港大校長反對中大的歪理。

契機來於又一政治動亂：1956年「雙十節」國民黨勢力藉故挑起真的暴動。（註8）親國民黨勢力備受抨擊，很多未正式納入港府教育體系的學院此前都曾有台灣資助，自此難以獲得支援，為籌辦另一所大學掃平政治障礙（註9）。在崇基的推動下，1957年初和教署主任Crozier開會得到首肯（註10），遂連同新亞和聯合書院共同成立專上學校協會（joint council），正式推動籌辦一所大學。

多難興校（三）：名正言順

還有一個關鍵問題，令辦大學計劃差點難產：如何取名？解決方法同時能解答為什麼選定「中文」大學，而不採用「聯合」、「城市」、「維新」、「國子監」等等其他或許更適合的名稱。用中文教學只算是「次要」原因。

問題源於一個現在已廢掉的古老規矩。按當時英國的儀禮，大學地位獨特，一個城市只能有一所大學，其chancellor由皇室擔任，僅掛名主持，不負管理責任，更不便有雙胞。同一城市所有高等學府的學位，均由唯一一所大學頒發，由chancellor扑頭。（註11）其後大學普及，畢業生眾多，該規矩也廢除，chancellor也由知名人士頂替，並非全職。

因此整個大英聯邦，當時只有兩個城市因歷史原因，擁有兩所允許頒發學位的大學，而都是多難興校：一是愛爾蘭的都柏林，既擁有16世紀成立的Trinity College（”college”在外國即大學，如哈佛大學本科生念的是Harvard College），又有天主教的National U（即此前的Royal U、Queen’s U），是經長期血淋淋鬥爭的妥協產物。另一是加拿大的蒙特利爾，既擁有較老的McGill U，又在加拿大自治後（怕美國侵略，1867年合併4個殖民地組成加拿大聯邦，妥協奉行雙語制）成立用法語的Université de Montréal。

構思的大學若選錯名，必定在倫敦觸礁。慶幸崇基在未正式提出成立大學前，就未雨綢繆提防節外生枝，定調選用唯一能被採納的”The Chinese University”（”The”是關鍵，不是”a“更不是”any“），超前化解危機，餘下就是歷史。

中文大學命名的考慮。

多難興校 （四）：後顧前瞻

中文大學管治有沒有問題？難免。以前有沒有討論過有關問題？肯定有。討論有沒有結果？據聞2016年有個共識。（註12）大難當頭，如何自處？但願能又一次慶幸超越。往後如何？套用現在政治歪理：時勢「叵測」，不便「妄議」。（註13）

孔子修《左傳》時不知是否已預知有今天：「明恕而行，要（約）之以禮，雖無有質，誰能間之？」（註14）

利益申報：

筆者和中文大學沒有直接關係，文中所用資料，是在研究多個領域的不同問題時，在多個公開、不公開的檔案館和收藏中連帶看到，凑巧都涉及中大，可見其影響，堪列香港核心價值。

間接關係，要回到 90 年代末，和中大地理與資源學系地球信息中心一起，申請到香港政府最早的一批科研撥款（近千萬），用於遙感。N 年沒有跟進，據聞該中心已成爲中國國家遙感中心的香港基地。

更間接的，是筆者在北大的學生，有成為中大教授，也有擔任中大法學院創院時的法律學教育諮詢委員。

任何通訊，煩經灼見名家代轉。

註：

1. QS排名，中國第五。
2. 〈那些年──我們一起經歷過的四改三〉，《中大學生報》
3. 官員批語：“HK University: no doubt the creation of idealists, and a financial drain. But the ideal may still be worth pursuing, and to close down would be a bad ‘loss of face’. We have done what we could to support its claim and assistance from Boxer Indemnity funds but the matter is not in the hands of the C.O….There is no chance at all of any assistance from the Home Treasury beyond the nominal sum of £300 a year for scholarships (even that has been queried by the axe-wielders; but we have managed to hold on to it on the ground that the University serves an imperial purpose and that this payment does serve as a symbols of the support of Hong Kong).”, CO 129/511/14.
4. 崇基校友近日官方用語。
5. 這體現在辦學團體的指導思想。1960年代，我有幸和何明華會督和關祖堯探討教會學校的定位，他們都強調，教育是潛移默化、引導（educate的拉丁原意）的工作，能教出好人就成功了，不必都成教徒；相反強行灌輸會適得其反。
6. 崇基提出港九鐵路增設專站，若前者出資建設，師生可永久享用優惠票價。
7. Sir James Duff和Sir Christopher Cox都是英國知名教育學家；Maxwell更是英國海外大學聯合會的主席。
8. 1956年國民黨會同黑社會挑起暴動，死60人；1967年左派仿效紅衛兵挑起暴動，死51人。兩次流血事件改變了香港的軌跡，促成日後經濟起飛。
9. 以新亞為例，早期還有蔣介石的支持，但逐漸被Yale in China替代。後者的代表Charles Long，是聖公會神職，曾幫助新亞籌款建農甫路校舍。錢穆和何明華會督相熟，有利日後籌備大學。
10. 1957年初的會面只有教署主任Crozier不經意提到，我從旁證認為是和何明華會督連同Charles Long去談，代錢穆做説客，期待有人能提供更多資料。
11. 有很多這類不一定成文的習俗，要瞭解香港的必須知道。又譬如，以前必須有主教、座堂才能稱city，否則只是town，所以開埠時只有town of Victoria，是1849年英皇制誥批准成立香港教區和建立聖約翰座堂時同時升級為city；連歷史博物館也曾出錯。
12. 狄志遠，〈不要輕易破壞「共識」常規〉（2023.07.28）
13. 我對1956年和1967年由左、右不同方面的投機、極端份子挑起的暴動都印象深刻。近日官場「新語」，勾起回憶，重聽起來倍感親切。
14. 《左傳‧隱公三年‧周鄭交質》，「要」即「約」的通假字，應上中大的校訓：「博文約禮」之「約之以禮」。

Back to Menu 目錄 Download下載

~The Church of the Saviour (西什庫天主堂) , Beijing (2023.01.04)

 

Vault of the the Church of the Saviour (西什庫天主堂) , Beijing

Short-link 鏈接本頁: https://wp.me/p28B6z-po

作者: 黃賢 標籤: 品味歷史 Back to Menu 目錄 Download下載

 The Church of the Saviour (西什庫天主堂) , Beijing

The Church of the Saviour (西什庫天主堂) in Beijing is a witness to the difficult relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Chinese State, despite the former’s many contributions to science and establishment of eleemosynary institutions in the latter.

The first visit to China by a Catholic missionary was in response to repeated invitations by the Yuan emperor, Kublai Khan忽必烈, who ruled confidently at the height of the empire.[1]

The first church in the capital (then called Khanbaliq 汗八里) was built soon thereafter, in 1299; the first Archbishop of Beijing was appointed in 1307. But collapse of the dynasty ended that effort.

Matteo Ricci arrived three centuries later during the late Ming Dynasty. His indigenization and accommodation approach was immensely successful, helped also by missionaries bringing modern science to China.

His legacy survived dynastic change, and Catholics were welcomed and protected by the Qing Emperor Kangxi (康熙) at the height of the empire. When missionaries cured his malaria in 1693 while court physicians and traditional medicines failed, Kangxi gifted land and funds for a church, the predecessor of the Church of the Saviour.[2]

But all that came to naught after the Rites Controversy (禮儀之爭), due partly to internecine struggles. The Catholics were expelled; I wrote a modern coda to that fiasco.[3]

With the decline of the Qing dynasty, a difficult period of perceived grievances followed, with episodic calamity. During the Cultural Revolution, the Church was confiscated and turned into an electronics factory; I attended many meetings there in the aftermath.

The physical church has been restored, and is now a declared monument, but historical problems persist, not yet resolved by Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 letter to the flock. RIP

---

[1]  Kublai Khan sent two emissaries, both of whom met the Pope. Very detailed first hand account of the second by Rabban Bar Sauma: The Monks of Kublai Khan, Emperor of China : medieval travels from China through Central Asia to Persia and beyond translated by E. A. Wallis Budge (1996).

[2]  Very detailed first hand account of curing Kangxi’s malady by French missionaries: Lettres Édifiantes Et Curieuses, Vol. 7: Écrites des Missions Étrangers, par Quelques Missionnaires de la Compagnie de Jesus (1708), pp217ff.

[3] Bishop Ronald Hall: Quiet Moments – an Encounter with Confucius 何明華主教：靜祈籌動 – 與孔子邂逅 (2012).

~ Obituary: Jimmy Lowcock (2012)

DBS staff visiting China in 1956. Jimmy Lowcock at the back.

Shortlink 鏈接本頁：http://wp.me/p28B6z-6q
Back to Menu 目錄

To my beloved Headmaster:
Sydney James Lowcock (1930-2012), Headmaster of Diocesan Boys’ School (1961-83).

Goodbye, Jimmy

Full text of “Goodbye, Jimmy“

 

Thank you, Jimmy

Full text of “Thank you, Jimmy”



(Full text below)

---

Goodbye, Jimmy

by Hanson Y Huang ‘68

Senior Prefect
Boarders’ Senior Prefect
Arthur House Captain

Jimmy left unexpectedly, far too early, but mercifully very peacefully, even serenely. The last time we talked, during his 81st birthday party last December, he had asked me to bring him a book after the holidays; and I had some good news for him, as if he didn’t know already, about the SJ Lowcock Foundation. But that was not to be.

I first met Jimmy on a sunny Saturday morning in September, the weekend before school started, over 50 years ago. I had just entered Primary 5 as a boarder and after running around in the school field, was resting under the huge ficus tree near the old high-jump pit when a tall gentleman with a distinctive moustache came over, took my pulse, and told me to continue running. Two days later I found out he was the new Headmaster who was destined to lead DBS through a difficult period of rapid socio-economic change, riots and short-sighted Government micro-management.

The next nine years, my formative years, were spent in this extended institution and family, and Jimmy became a figure to learn from, to emulate and to rebel against.

This was how he described his role when pleading my case, in a letter to Deng Xiao-ping in 1985, when I was battling certain evil forces in China:

“Huang Yin is well known to me since 1961. When his father passed away at an early age and his mother had to work as a journalist, he and his elder brother were placed in the boarding school at which I was headmaster.

“Since then I have acted virtually as their parent for the nine years they were in school. I know the two boys extremely well as they spent most of their time with me.”

That was an understatement, in classic Lowcock style. And many will recognize this low-key approach as he was wont to offer help without publicizing it, give advice without being overbearing, and spot potential and spend an inordinate amount of time trying to bring the best out of individuals without the beneficiary ever realizing it.

My nine years went by in a flurry, highlighted by a non-ending stream of exciting and challenging activities and, frankly, not much schoolwork; perhaps he saw my greatest potential was last-minute cramming for exams and getting away with it.

Jimmy’s emphasis on regular extra-curricular activities such as sports, music, drama, time-keeping, etc., is well known. But it was how he handled extraordinary events, such as riots, student strikes (not the first in DBS history), and the nascent urgings of democracy (he allowed all students to vote on the design of the School badge as well as the length of lunch-hour) that best exemplifies his positive and delightfully iconoclastic attitude towards life, the School and, above all, his faith and trust in his students and prefects.

Lesser known aspects of Jimmy: he was proficient in Latin; he had a taste for Danish blue even before the cheese was readily available in HK; he loved ties, and I am the happy recipient of a few; he used to smoke, not the garden-variety cigarettes but Du Maurier in an orange box, turning a vice into a style; he could be caught sitting on the living-room carpet listening to the MJQ, Take Five, Joan Baez, Buffy St. Marie, Miriam Makeba and taped sessions of DBS on RadioHK Quiz competitions.

He also tended his resignation to Goodban not once but three times, all brushed off by Goodban with a: “Don’t be a bloody fool!” Years later, when I tended mine to him, he brushed it off by turning TS Eliot against me, and we privately memorialized the affair by selecting Eliot’s Complete Poems and Plays as my Special Prize for Senior Boarders’ Prefect.

Even less known, but of great importance to DBS, was the influence of his mentor, Bishop Hall. We never found out when they first met. The Bishop was a remarkably open-minded person, with an aversion to pomp and ceremony. What Jimmy learnt from him was simple: there should be a healthy balance and separation between church and school that has been a hallmark of success for DBS, namely: to produce good people, regardless of race, religion, creed, or background. I also had the good fortune of meeting the Bishop and hearing this from him. When the Bishop retired, Jimmy, on behalf of the School Committee, presented him with a token of appreciation for his 30 years of service as Chairman, an oil painting of DBS that I painted in P5. Yes, Jimmy even held impromptu painting sessions at the HM’s House; he brought the paint and brushes, the canvas and even a bit of inspiration.

The Bishop visited Beijing in 1956, in the midst of the cold-war, as the guest of Premier Chou En-lai, and subsequently arranged for a group of DBS and DGS teachers, including Jimmy, to visit China the same year. He was therefore not a bit surprised when I visited Beijing in 1972, which led, indirectly, to the letter quoted earlier.

The Chinese connection ran even deeper. To promote education for working class children, the Bishop supported the Workers’ Children School, knowing full well it was a front for the leftist and defended them when the Government tried to close the school in 1949 after the PRC was established; George She also became their Supervisor in 1947. During the Leftist riots in 1967, the Workers’ Children School not only was our arch-rivals in athletics, but also was implicated in the violence. Yet Jimmy still invited their athletes to practice at our school field. That was magnanimity of a spiritual level.

Bishop Hall also sent Jimmy, while HM-designate, on an extended tour of the US and UK to visit various theological seminaries and schools to broaden his perspective and meet with old boys. Only in the last few years, and after much coaxing, did he start talking about that period, when he crossed paths with, but never met Paul Tillich whom he had admired and read extensively. In the sixties, we only knew he had many books by Tillich, de Chardin, Barth and Eliot. On that trip, he also met an old boy who became one of the biggest donors to the School.

At our last meeting, the conversation again drifted to Bishop Hall, who eschewed but never intervened in some of George She’s more ritualistic approach to faith (GS, who was from an earlier generation, headed the last Anglican congregation in HK that sung the liturgy by Merbecke, with gusto!) Jimmy became quite animated when relating the elaborate efforts to implement some of these schemes. When he became HM, he aligned school ceremonies along the design of Christ Church, the first church built under the auspices of Bishop Hall: sparse but spiritual. This was also reflected in his design for the RO Hall Chapel (now converted) under the New New Wing, and the crucifix he designed for the School Chapel: elegant and not unduly elegiac.

In time, relations with him inevitably reach a critical point, a rite of passage: when to call him Jimmy, as opposed to Mr. Lowcock, Headmaster, or the generic “you”. I guess he sensed some unease on my part when I first visited him upon my return to HK in 1992 after 20 years in the US and China, so not too long thereafter, on the flimsiest of excuse, he sent me a letter by telex, signing it with “Jimmy”. So it cannot but be Jimmy from then on.

So what will Jimmy make of all the arrangements for his funeral and memorial? I think I know him well enough to second-guess him: he will, with a brush of his hand, say it is all a fuss and a bloody waste of time. Yet I think I also know him better: he will see some good reason and agree to what his boys need.

So it was with the SJ Lowcock Foundation. When the idea of starting a Fund in his name to support the needy at DBS after the School went DSS was first raised, he thought it was a bit ostentatious. But over time, he saw a clear need and agreed. Of course, in true Lowcock style, in a letter he wrote me about the decision, he only modestly referred to it as “a Trust Fund”. The Foundation now supports deserving students through their first year of college and he quite liked the idea. And I had planned to see him after the holidays to report a rather exceptional fund-raising auction.

So it will be with his Memorial Service. It will be a kind of end-of-term service to refresh and share memories of time spent with him and to give thanks for all he did for so many. It will not be mourning over a tragic loss; it will be a celebration of a life well-lived. That will do wonders for his boys. I believe he will play cool but agree, and even smile ever so serenely.

Goodbye, Jimmy.

---

Thank You, Jimmy

– A Tribute to SJ Lowcock (18 Feb 2012), delivered at his Memorial Service at the School Hall

For the past few weeks, we have been saying our goodbyes to Jimmy.

Today, we welcome him home.

Today, we join him at his favourite place, where for over 30 years, so many of us are honoured to call him a teacher, a colleague and a mentor.

Today, we come together as his friends, not to mourn a tragic loss, but to celebrate a life well-lived,

In the words of Psalm 118: “we will rejoice and be glad today”, for: “it is marvellous in our eyes.”

I am most fortunate to have had Jimmy as a teacher and mentor.

As with the best mentors, you do not get from Jimmy rules or lists of what to do or what not to do.

In fact you seldom get a straight answer from him. Sometimes, he even speaks in parables.

So it is virtually inconceivable to write a book like: “Lowcock for Dummies.”

In my last few years at DBS, I had the chance of working very closely with Jimmy, virtually on a daily basis.

It was a great opportunity:

to Watch him, to Ask him, to Question him

even: to Challenge and Confront him

And, boy, was it fun to challenge and confront him, and throw him off-balance.

Learning from him may be slow, like absorbing by osmosis.

But in the end, what you get from Jimmy is a compass and direction,

You acquire a positive outlook on life.

You develop an inner strength, a strength that will help you to fight the good fight, with all your might.

Those were by far the most important things I learned at DBS and from Jimmy.

I can wax lyrical about how and what I learned from him, but I will leave that to another day.

Many year later, when I had to do battle against certain dark forces, I could draw on this inner strength and conviction, this inner calm, never to doubt that I could muster both the will and the skill to do battle and win, as indeed I did.

It is during those difficult moments, that we really come to appreciate the individuals and institutions that help define who we are. And I thank him for that.

The question is, where did Jimmy find HIS compass and direction, HIS inner strength and HIS positive outlook on life?

Simple. HE also had great mentors: Bishop Hall, Gerald Goodban, even George She.

Again, I can wax lyrical about how and what he learned from his mentors, but I will leave that to another day.

All in all, if you look at it from a historical perspective, it seems as if it is all in the family.

And I am not entirely exaggerating when I say we are called Diocesan for a good reason: we believe in the apostolic succession and the passing on of the DBS spirit.

That was so true of our Jimmy.

What he received from his mentors, he passed on to so many of us,

much, much more than he received,

and in many, many more ways.

Yet again, I can wax lyrical about how he did what he did, but again, I will leave that to another day.

Today, I only ask that, when we sing our School hymn, we will take special note of the word “BUILD”, to BUILD from age to age, an undefiled heritage,

to BUILD from age to age, an undefiled heritage;

to BUILD from age to age, an undefiled heritage.

We benefited from this heritage. It is our duty to help build it.

Jimmy, in his time, did a darn good job of building.

And for that we will always remember him.

So when we welcome him home today,

I believe I speak for all of us, when I say: “Jimmy, Thank you!”

 

 

郭慎墀 in Wiki

Back to Menu 目錄

~ Bishop Ronald Hall: Quiet Moments – an Encounter with Confucius 何明華主教：靜祈籌動 – 與孔子邂逅 (2012)

Shortlink 鏈接本頁: http://wp.me/p28B6z-5C
Full text 全文： A_Chance_Encounter_with_Confucius
Back to Menu 目錄



Bishop Ronald Hall: Quiet Moments – an Encounter with Confucius     何明華主教：靜祈籌動 – 與孔子邂逅 (2012)

A paper presented at the centennial of the Chung Hwa Sheng Kung Hui:
The International Academic Conference sponsored by the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui on:
“Sheng Kung Hui – Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future:
Anglican-Episcopal History in China and its impact on the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui”
中華聖公會百週年：「回溯過去，展望未來：在華聖公會歷史及其對香港聖公會的影響」國際學術研討會

June, 2012

By: Hanson Y HUANG (黃賢)
B.A., J.D. (Harvard)

 

Abstract

Bishop Ronald Owen Hall (“ROH”) (1895-1975) was one of the longest serving bishops of the CHSKH (1932-1951/1966), presiding over a period of unprecedented turmoil and change.

He became inextricably linked with China from 1920, and was present at the founding of the National Council of Churches in 1922 and Shanghai after the 30 May 1925 Massacre. His efforts on behalf of the Chinese people were recognized by both Mao Tse-tung and Chiang Kai-shek. Song Ching-ling invited him to be the Vice-chairman of the Industrial Co-op during WWII. Chou En-lai invited him home for dinner in 1956. He also consecrated the first female clergy in the Anglican Communion.

ROH is best known for his vitality and pioneering work, and his enduring influence over his flock: in HK he founded 17 churches, dozens of schools, and innumerable charitable organizations etc.

This paper will highlight a lesser known and more personal side of ROH, in quiet moments, when he was at one with himself, his circumstance and his God. These moments led to great understanding and clarity.

Only one such quiet moment will be addressed: in August 1926, when ROH made a visit to Qufu to see the temple and burial site of Confucius, where he followed the Chinese custom and bowed three times before Confucius’ tomb.

This paper will relate some events and thinking leading to that moment, and highlight the influence of the insight thus gained on ROH’s ministry.

The impact on ROH’s views on three relationships will be addressed, namely: 1. the relationship between Christianity and Confucianism and, more generally, non-Christian faiths; 2. the relationship among different Christian denominations; and 3. the relationship between Christianity and the State, specifically with the People’s Republic of China.

No conclusions will be drawn as ROH’s work continues. ROH’s bold vision and prescience is still refreshing and current.

 

摘要

何明華主教（1895-1975）是〈中華聖公會〉奉職主教任期最長人士之一（1932-1951/1966）。其主政期間社會處於前所未見的轉變和動蕩。

何氏自1920年即與中國結下不解之緣，更欣幸蒞臨1922年〈全國基督教協進會〉之成立並于1925年〈五卅慘案〉后抵達上海。何氏對中國的貢獻，分別被毛澤東、蔣介石褒揚。二次世界大戰期間，宋慶齡邀何氏出任〈工業合作社〉副主席。周恩來伉儷于1956年設家宴款待之。他還施按禮，授李添愛女士聖職，創聖公會之先河。

何氏以其活力和創新氣魄以及對其牧眾的持久影響著稱。僅在香港，他即創辦17所教堂、幾十所學校以及難以盡列的衆多慈善機構。

本文以何氏較不爲人知和較私人的一面為題，即其靜祈時刻。此時，他和其自身、其處境以及其奉信之神融為一體，爲他帶來更深刻的理解和徹悟。

本文僅描述一起這樣的靜祈時刻。事源1926年8月 ，何氏前往曲阜參觀孔廟和孔陵，依循中國傳統習俗，向孔陵行三鞠躬禮。

文章描述若干導致該靜祈時刻的事件和認知歷程，並突現此次之徹悟對何氏日後牧職之影響。
文章探討此次的領悟，如何影響何氏對三種關係的看法，即:（一）基督教和孔子學説的關係，並引伸至神和中國的關係；（二）基督教各教派之間的關係； 以及（三）基督教和國家，尤其是和中華人民共和國的關係。

文章不妄下結論，蓋因何氏之事業仍在進行。何氏的大膽見識和前瞻性，依然令人耳目一新又緊貼時弊。

Key Words
Ronald Hall, Red Bishop, Confucius, Confucianism, Chinese Rites Controversy, Qufu (Chefu) , CHSKH, May 30 Massacre, World’s Student Christian Federation Conference (WSCFC), National Christian Conference (NCC), National Council of Churches, Anti-Christian Movement, ecumenism, interfaith, syncretism, Student Christian Movement
關鍵詞
何明華 紅色主教 孔夫子 孔子 中國禮儀之爭 曲阜 中華聖公會 五卅慘案 世界基督教學生聯合會（基督教學生聯合會）全國基督教會議 全國基督教協進會 反基督教運動 普世主義 宗教間對話 合一主義基督徒學生運動

ROH：Timeline

Full text 全文：  Bishop_Ronald_O_Hall_of_Hong_Kong_A_Chance_Encounter_with_Confucius

Synopsis:  QuietMomentsPresentation

Press Release 新聞報道：
echo.hkskh.org  & www.christianweekly.net/2012/

Back to Menu 目錄