Service Learning in Asia Curricular Models and

Practices 1st Edition Jun Xing pdf download

https://ebookname.com/product/service-learning-in-asia-
curricular-models-and-practices-1st-edition-jun-xing/

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Cross Curricular Teaching and Learning in the Secondary

School Cross Curricular Teaching and Learning in 1st
Edition Jonathan Savage

https://ebookname.com/product/cross-curricular-teaching-and-
learning-in-the-secondary-school-cross-curricular-teaching-and-
learning-in-1st-edition-jonathan-savage/

Cross Curricular Teaching and Learning in the Secondary

School Mathematics 1st Edition Robert Ward-Penny

https://ebookname.com/product/cross-curricular-teaching-and-
learning-in-the-secondary-school-mathematics-1st-edition-robert-
ward-penny/

Practice and Service Learning in Occupational Therapy

Theresa Lorenzo

https://ebookname.com/product/practice-and-service-learning-in-
occupational-therapy-theresa-lorenzo/

Bondage Breaker Youth Edition Neil T. Anderson

https://ebookname.com/product/bondage-breaker-youth-edition-neil-
t-anderson/
Political Handbook of the World 2009 1st Edition Arthur
S. Banks

https://ebookname.com/product/political-handbook-of-the-
world-2009-1st-edition-arthur-s-banks/

Criminal Law Core Concepts Larry W. Mays

https://ebookname.com/product/criminal-law-core-concepts-larry-w-
mays/

Becoming a Behavioral Science Researcher A Guide to

Producing Research That Matters 1st Edition Rex B.
Kline

https://ebookname.com/product/becoming-a-behavioral-science-
researcher-a-guide-to-producing-research-that-matters-1st-
edition-rex-b-kline-2/

The Growth of Islamic Banking in Indonesia Theory and

Practice 1st Edition Sigit Pramono

https://ebookname.com/product/the-growth-of-islamic-banking-in-
indonesia-theory-and-practice-1st-edition-sigit-pramono/

How Students Learn Mathematics in the Classroom 1st

Edition National Research Council

https://ebookname.com/product/how-students-learn-mathematics-in-
the-classroom-1st-edition-national-research-council/
Ascites and Renal Dysfunction in Liver Disease
Pathogenesis Diagnosis and Treatment 2nd Edition Pere
Gines

https://ebookname.com/product/ascites-and-renal-dysfunction-in-
liver-disease-pathogenesis-diagnosis-and-treatment-2nd-edition-
pere-gines/
Hong Kong University Press
14/F Hing Wai Centre
7 Tin Wan Praya Road
Aberdeen
Hong Kong

© Hong Kong University Press 2010

Hardback ISBN 978-988-8028-46-7

Paperback ISBN 978-988-8028-47-4

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue copy for this book is available from the British Library

Secure On-line Ordering

http://www.hkupress.org

Printed and bound by Goodrich International Printing Co. Ltd., Hong Kong, China
 Contents

Foreword by Edward K. Y. Chen vii

List of Contributors ix

Introduction: Service-learning in Asia 1

Jun Xing and Carol Hok Ka Ma

Part I: Variations in Meaning and Forms 15

1. Bridging Classrooms to Communities in Service-learning Programs 17

Charn Mayot

2. An Appreciation of Cross-cultural Differences through International 31

Service-learning at International Christian University, Japan
Yutaka Sato, Florence McCarthy, Mutsuko Murakami,
Takashi Nishio, and Kano Yamamoto

3. Building Students’ Total Learning Experience through Integrating 47

Service-learning into the Teacher Education Curriculum
Kwok Hung Lai

4. Service-learning Models in the Asia-Pacific Region and 63

Lady Doak College
J. Chithra and Helen Mary Jacqueline
vi Contents

Part II: Case Studies 71

5. The Community-based Instruction Program at Hong Kong 73
Baptist University
John H. Powers

6. How Actions Can Become Learning: The Cross-cultural 85

Effectiveness of Service-learning in Asia
Jens Mueller and Dennis Lee

7. Intercultural Service-learning and Multicultural Symbiosis 91

Enrique G. Oracion

8. Service-learning in University Curricula: A Case Study at 111

Fu Jen Catholic University
Jen-Chi Yen and Bai-Chuan Yang

9. International Service-learning: A Singapore Experience 127

Dennis Lee

10. A Cross-cultural Service-learning Program Model: W.T. Chan 143

Fellowships Program
Jane Szutu Permaul

Notes 157

References 161

Index 171
 Foreword

Service-learning, especially in the United States, has a long history as part of

the school and university curriculum. But service-learning is a relatively new
concept in Asia. There still exist some misconceptions and misunderstanding of
what service-learning is and how it should be implemented. I am very pleased
to see the publication of this important volume on service-learning in Asia,
providing some conceptual framework and many interesting case studies. This
volume will certainly become a major reference for studies in service-learning
in the region.
First, service-learning is not simply voluntary work or community service
that each student has to undertake for a certain number of hours a year as
required by the university. It should actually be integrated into and enhance
the curriculum. It is usually credit-bearing and for partial fulfillment of the
requirements of an academic subject. The service rendered is through structured
preparation, supervision and reflection. Second, service-learning should involve
university-wide participation and should not be applicable only to some
departments such as social work, social sciences, and humanities. Medical,
business and sciences students, for example, can easily incorporate service-
learning into their academic studies. Third, the assessment of service-learning
undertaken by a student should not be based only on the outcome of services
provided but also on the processes gone through by the student. Fourth,
service-learning should be distinguished from internship which emphasizes
skill and professional training and takes largely private interests into account.
Service-learning emphasizes experiential learning and takes largely public
interest into account.
The purpose of service-learning is learning how to serve the community
better and at the same time learning better an academic subject through
viii Foreword

providing services to the community. Service-learning is important in enhancing

academic learning as well as character forming in liberal education.
There is no one single formula for implementing service-learning, which
is to a large extent culture, location, and institution specific, though we can
develop a common framework and a generally accepted conceptualization.
This volume has collected a number of excellent papers on service-learning
with reference to the region as a whole and to particular Asian countries
and territories. It will fill in the gap now existing in the literature on service-
learning in Asia. In the past few years, higher education in the region has
increasingly given attention to service-learning; many conferences have been
held and many universities have introduced it to their academic curricula.
It is not always easy to establish and implement successfully service-learning
in a university. First of all, a strong support and commitment of the senior
management (especially the president) is required. Second, though it is not
essential and possible that all faculty members would participate, a university-
wide endorsement with reference to mission and vision is important. Third,
students, faculty and staff who participate must be strongly motivated and
not half-hearted. Fourth, a dedicated service-learning office must be set up for
the complex work of promotion, liaising, co-ordination, matching, training,
monitoring, and research. Fifth, adequate funding for service-learning in an
institution, preferably a sizable earmarked grant or donation, would be essential
for long-term planning and development purposes. Lastly, a good network for
establishing international and local partnerships is needed for finding suitable
organizations to host the students.
As a former president of Lingnan University who initiated service-learning
in the university and set up the first dedicated service-learning office in Hong
Kong, I warmly welcome the publication of this collection. I have faith in the
success and rapid development of service-learning in Asia.

Edward K. Y. Chen
Distinguished Fellow, Centre of Asian Studies, The University of Hong Kong
Former President, Lingnan University (1995–2007)

November 2009
 Contributors

J. CHITHRA has been a senior professor of mathematics at Lady Doak College,

Madurai, India since 1987. She obtained her master of arts in mathematics and
philosophy from Madras Christian College, affiliated to Madras University, with
a specialization in cryptography. She is currently a coordinator of the Centre for
Outreach and Service-Learning Program at the college. She has been a program
officer of the National Service Scheme in the college for 6 years and has been
coordinating all the extension programs of the college for the past 8 years.
She has attended conferences and workshops and presented papers on service-
learning at national and international levels. She has also attended the Inter-
Cultural Course on Women and Society at Manila in the Philippines and is
actively involved in women’s studies at the college.

Helen Mary JACQUELINE is a senior lecturer in economics at Lady Doak

College, Madurai, India. She is currently a coordinator for the Centre
for Outreach and Service-Learning Program at the college. She obtained
five postgraduate degrees: an MA in economics from Madurai Kamaraj
University, Madurai; an MA in population studies from Annamalai University,
Chidambaram; a master of philosophy (MPhil) in applied economics from
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi; a master of human resource
management (MHRM) from Annamalai University, Chidambaram; and
a master of business administration (MBA) from Annamali University,
Chidambaram. She was the program officer of the National Service Scheme for
5 years and is actively involved in service-learning program and human rights
activities. She has published more than 10 articles and presented papers in about
18 seminars and conferences at state, regional, national and international levels.
x Contributors

Kwok Hung LAI, PhD, is a senior student affairs officer at the Hong Kong
Institute of Education. He is currently the director of the Institute of Student
Affairs of the Asia-Pacific Student Services Association, after serving as treasurer
since 2002. He is also the vice-chairman of the Hong Kong Student Services
Association. Dr Lai is a registered social worker with over 26 years of professional
experiences in working with youths in the fields of social work and education.
He has published more than 50 articles in local newspapers and international
journals. His research interests are in youth work, crime and delinquency, civic
education, campus culture, student learning, and career aspirations.

Dennis LEE is regional vice president and managing director, Asia, for Students
in Free Enterprise (SIFE), a global non-profit organization represented in 48
countries. Previously, he was deputy executive director at Singapore International
Foundation (SIF). Academically, Mr Lee holds three postgraduate degrees: an
MBA from the University of Hull, United Kingdom; a master of divinity (MDiv);
and a master of theological studies (MTS) from Regent College, Vancouver,
Canada. He also obtained a postgraduate diploma in business administration
from the Society of Business Practitioners, United Kingdom. His professional
and tertiary education in marketing and civil engineering led to diplomas in
these disciplines from the Chartered Institute of Marketing, United Kingdom,
and the Singapore Polytechnic respectively.

Carol Hok Ka MA, PhD, is assistant director of the Office of Service-Learning

and an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and Social
Policy at Lingnan University. She was awarded a W. T. Chan Fellowship to
study and practice service-learning (elderly-related programs) at the University
of California, Los Angeles. She was also awarded a Lingnan Foundation
Scholarship to do a service-learning research internship on the topic of “doctor-
older patient relationship through negotiation” at the National Primary Health
Care Centre, the University of Manchester. Currently, she serves on several
important government committees in Hong Kong, including the Hong Kong
Awards for Young People; Commission on Youth; Working Group on Active
Ageing, Elderly Commission; Tuen Mun District Coordinating Committee
on Promotion of Volunteer Service, Social Welfare Department; Fight Crime
Committee (Tuen Mun District), Home Affairs Department; and as school
governor for Lingnan Dr Chung Wing Kwong Memorial Secondary School.
Her rich experiences in service-learning inspire her to explore different teaching/
learning models/pedagogies in the Asia-Pacific Region.
 Contributors xi

Charn MAYOT is director of St. Martin Center for Professional Ethics and
Service Learning, Student Affairs, Assumption University, Thailand. He has been
in charge of teaching business and professional ethics seminar and supervising a
service-learning program for undergraduate students at Assumption University
since 1998. He is also an ethics trainer for administrators of some corporations
in his country. He has written a number of articles in the areas of applied ethics,
moral education, moral development, and service-learning. He was formerly a
lecturer of applied ethics at the Graduate School of Philosophy and Religions
at Assumption University. He used to collaborate with UNESCO to organize
projects and promote peace and harmony in six countries in the Mekhong River
Basin region between 2001 and 2005.

Florence MCCARTHY is vice president for Asian affairs at International

Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership (IPSL). She received her PhD
in sociology and MA in sociology/anthropology from Michigan State University;
and BA in history/political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
She is a visiting professor at International Christian University (ICU), Tokyo,
Japan. Past positions include: associate professor and director of International
Education Development, Teachers College, Columbia University; senior lecturer,
College of Human Ecology, Cornell University; advisor, Head Women’s Section,
Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh; and Policy and Program Development,
Norwegian Overseas Research and Development, Oslo, Norway. She has been
awarded grants from Fulbright, the National Institute of Health, and the
Norwegian government.

Jens MUELLER is an associate professor for entrepreneurship and strategy at

Waikato Management School, New Zealand. He also serves as editor for the
Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability and International Journal
of Indigenous Entrepreneurship, Strategy, Advancement and Education. He is
the foundation chairman of the International Quality Education Foundation
(IQEF). Previously, he served as regional vice president and managing director,
Asia, Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE).

Mutsuko MURAKAMI is a service-learning program instructor at the

International Christian University. She obtained her BA from Tokyo’s Sophia
University and master of science in journalism (MSJ) from the Graduate
School of Journalism of Columbia University, New York City. She worked
in journalism for many years, primarily as staff correspondent for Asiaweek
magazine (a subsidiary of Time Inc.). She started teaching journalism and
communication at Sophia in 1993 and later service-learning courses while
xii Contributors

acting as the program coordinator at ICU. She is currently teaching service-

learning related courses at ICU.

Takashi NISHIO is a professor of public policy and administration, and dean

of the College of Liberal Arts (since April 2009), International Christian
University. He served as director of the Service Learning Center of ICU from
2005 to 2007.

Enrique G. ORACION holds BA and MA degrees in sociology from Silliman

University, Dumaguete City, Philippines and a PhD in anthropology from
the University of San Carlos, Cebu City, the Philippines. He is a full professor
at Silliman University and teaches in the Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, College of Arts and Sciences; School of Public Affairs and
Governance; and College of Education. He is also the current director of the
Research and Development Center of Silliman University. His particular research
interests include the human dimensions of natural resources management
and governance, children and gender issues, the anthropology of tourism, and
service-learning.

Jane Szutu PERMAUL, EdD, a lifetime student of higher education focused

on student and organizational development, introduced service-learning to the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and nationally worked with other
service-learning pioneers in exploring the challenges of integrating community
service with academic learning as part of higher education, beginning in the
late 1960s to today. Emigrating from China to the United States, Dr Perumal
received her BA in economics from Oberlin College in Ohio, master of science
(MS) in student affairs administration from Southern Illinois University, and
EdD in higher education from UCLA. Her interests in service-learning and
cross-cultural learning continue through her capacity as assistant vice chancellor
of student affairs, emeritus and adjunct professor of education at UCLA, and as
a trustee of the Lingnan Foundation.

John H. POWERS is a professor of communication studies at Hong Kong

Baptist University (HKBU). He served as director of the Service-Learning
Program there for nearly 5 years. His research interests include communication
in Chinese communities, communication theory, and public communication.
Before coming to HKBU in 1993, he taught at Texas A&M University in the
United States for 16 years. His books include Public Speaking: The Lively Art
(1994), Civic Discourse, Civil Society, and Chinese Communities (1999), and The
Social Construction of SARS (2008).
 Contributors xiii

Yutaka SATO is a professor of Japanese linguistics and director of the Japanese

Language Programs at the International Christian University (ICU), Tokyo,
Japan. He received his PhD in linguistics from the University of Hawaii at
Manoa. He served as director of the Service Learning Center at ICU from 2007
to 2009.

Jun XING is a professor and chair of ethnic studies at Oregon State University.
He is the author/editor of six other books, including Baptized in the Fire of
Revolution, The American Social Gospel and the YMCA in China: 1919–1937
(1996), Asian America through the Lens: History, Representations and Identity
(1998), Reversing the Lens: Ethnicity, Race, Gender and Sexuality through Film
(2003), Teaching for Change: The Difference, Power and Discrimination Model
(2006), and Seeing Color: Indigenous Peoples and Racialized Ethnic Minorities in
Oregon (2007).

Kano YAMAMOTO is managing trustee of International Christian University,

Tokyo, Japan. He served as an economist at the Bank of Japan, International
Monetary Fund, comptroller of UNICEF, and professor at International
Christian University. He was the first director of ICU Service Learning Center
and currently serves as its advisor.

Bai-Chuan YANG is an associate professor, dean of the Office of Student

Affairs at Fu Jen Catholic University, and deputy chief executive secretary of
the Academic Association of Chinese Student Affairs. He received his MBA
degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1989) and
PhD in business administration from Fu Jen Catholic University (2006). His
current research mainly focuses on core competence, service-learning, and
business ethics. He also served as a business consultant for Mon-Ya Management
Consulting Firm.

Jen-Chi YEN is director of the Service-Learning Center and the Jesuit Mission
Office at Fu Jen Catholic University. Father David received his MA in mass
communication from Loyola Marymount University. He served as chairman of
the Kuangchi Program Service, and on the evaluation committee of the Golden
Horse and Golden Bell Awards. He is also the producer of various TV programs
and writes movie reviews.
 Introduction: Service-learning in Asia
Jun Xing and Carol Hok Ka Ma

Four years ago in 2006, when Jun was working for the United Board of
Christian Higher Education in Asia (United Board), he visited International
Christian University (ICU) in Tokyo, where he learned about the inspiring story
of an ICU-NJU (Nanjing University) service-learning project. In January of
2005, a group of ICU students went to Nanjing University and participated in a
service-learning program, sponsored by the Amity Foundation, where ICU and
NJU students jointly produced a new play called Zouba! (Let’s Go). The play
portrays a group of students from Japan and China, trying courageously to move
beyond history and start a painful, but meaningful journey of reconciliation.
Despite its high political risks and initial tension, the joint performance in both
Tokyo and Nanjing in the following year turned out to be a resounding success
and made a huge splash in the news media. Here is a quote from a Japanese
student participant reported on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” on January 27, 2007:

“That first night we all went to dinner,” she (Michiyo Oi, who wrote much of the
script) recalls. “We sat around talking, and I figured they must be wondering what
we were thinking. Each of us introduced ourselves, and when my turn came, I
started to talk about the war, about what a shame it was that we did such terrible
things. The air froze. Until then we were all laughing. The moment I mentioned
the war, everyone went pale. The Chinese students looked at me as if they couldn’t
believe the way I’d brought this up.”

As we all know, because of historical reasons, Chinese and Japanese

are very much divided about that particular period of history. The Nanjing
massacre, or what the late historian Iris Chang called the “Rape of Nanjing,”
has been a focal point of contention between these two countries. It has
become a taboo topic for politicians and diplomats from both sides. It was
2 Jun Xing and Carol Hok Ka Ma

the service-learning project that brought students together and the joint
theatrical production became the ice-breaker that allowed students to openly
share their emotions and exchange ideas. It was such a powerful and profound
learning experience for both the Chinese and Japanese students that the
ICU Foundation in New York is planning to make a documentary about the
student experience.
Having invested his life in cross-cultural and international studies for
over two decades, Jun was greatly inspired by the story and just witnessed
the tremendous potential of international service-learning at its best. Indeed,
connecting academic study with community service through structured
reflection, service-learning is now widely recognized in the world as a movement
that is transforming education. As an instructional philosophy and pedagogy,
service-learning has become a major force in Asia. Between 2006 and 2007, on
behalf of the United Board Jun traveled to over a dozen university campuses
in several countries and witnessed how service-learning was recognized and
celebrated for its pedagogical values across the region.
Indeed, many leading universities and colleges across Asia had established
service-learning centers or programs, supporting a dedicated core of faculty
and serving an increasingly larger student population. Lingnan University, for
example, was the first to set up the Office of Service-Learning (OSL) on campus.
Clearly echoing Lingnan’s long-standing motto “Education for Service,” OSL is
devoted to fostering student-centered learning and whole-person development
1
model. Between 2006 and 2009, over 1,000 Lingnan students from various
disciplines, such as social sciences, business and arts have participated in the
three core programs in service-learning, including the Lingnan Healthcare
Program (LHCP), the Lingnan Community Care Program (LCCP), and the
Lingnan Service-Learning Evaluation Program (LS-LEP). These participants
were required to fulfill a service-learning practicum with at least 30 hours of
service and complete a subject-related project in a semester. So far Lingnan
students have served over 100 organizations (government, non-profit, schools,
and corporate firms) and registered 70,000 service hours for the needy, elderly,
youth, patients, and single-parent families. In addition, over 80 students have
joined international service-learning programs, sponsored by OSL and engaged
in service-learning activities in Yunnan, Beijing, Taipei, Guangzhou and several
cities in the United States.
For another example, under the auspices of the Singapore International
Foundation, over a five-year period (2000–05), the Youth Expedition
Project sent over 12,000 students on service-learning assignments across
2
Southeast Asia, China and India. In the meantime, the CBI (community-
based instruction) program at Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU)
 Introduction 3

partnered with 100 local service agencies and conducted several hundred
3
service-learning projects in Hong Kong and elsewhere. What is more,
in Taiwan, over half (86 out of 146) of its universities and colleges have
4
incorporated service-learning into their core curriculum. The Ministry of
Education in Taipei plans to add service-learning into its annual regular
accreditation process. In a sense, service-learning has come of age in Asia
and its place in the Asian academy has been secured.
However, despite these accomplishments, there are few scholarly
publications on Asian-based practices and contexts of service-learning. Most
of the written works on service-learning so far are monographs, teaching
anthologies or guidebooks published in the United States, including series and
booklets coming from the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE),
International Partnership for Service-Learning (IPSL) and Campus Compact.
The 21-volume set ‘Service-Learning in the Disciplines’, published by AAHE, is
a good example of this increasing body of literature. Although these are seminal
works that have made significant contributions to the development of service-
learning in Asia, we see the urgent need of a book that explores specifically local
or indigenous practices of service-learning in Asian societies. This anthology
is a modest attempt to help fill that gap by focusing on service-learning in the
Asian contexts, both reflective of international trends but also distinctive in its
own local and regional characteristics, given the tremendous diversity within
Asian societies.
As disparate as they may seem in length, cultures (a true mosaic), disciplines
(from social work to business) and institutions (public, private or Christian by
nature), the essays in the collection coalesce around three major thematic foci
and contribute to the overall objectives of the publication together.

Service-learning and Indigenous Cultural Traditions

Service-learning is not intended to be used in every course, but it is possible

to incorporate it into any discipline. It is not possible to design a single model
that effectively integrates service-learning into academic study for all disciplines
or institutions. Service-learning must be contextualized and relevant to meet
unique and evolving needs . . . Thus, service-learning takes different forms in
5
different contexts.

This quote from the authors of Chapter 4 in the volume captures the
first reigning theme and objective of the book, that is, promotion of the
concept of indigenous or local and culturally specific knowledge or systems of
knowledge. Indeed, service-learning, like any learning, is not culture-neutral
4 Jun Xing and Carol Hok Ka Ma

but deeply imbedded in the historical and social contexts of each educational
system. Although service-learning is primarily a Western term, the meaning,
understanding and practices vary from society to society. In the Philippines, for
example, service-learning is often practiced at colleges and universities that have
a Christian tradition, while in India it grows out of a vision of national self-
reliance in the post-colonial era. For Hong Kong the development of service-
learning has benefited from the government’s emphasis on whole-person
education. In contemporary China, as some scholars argue, service-learning
represents a way of countering the growing individualism and materialism in a
rapidly transforming society.
As indicated in the title, cultural diversity and local themes are the defining
characteristics of the book. For example, it is refreshing to read Chapter 1, where
Charn Mayot provides the national contexts of service-learning in Thailand.
He explains that although the very term “service-learning” was not coined until
1967 in the United States and it was not used in Thailand as late as in the early
1990s, social concern has been a part of higher education in the country for a
6
very long time through the concepts of community service and social exposure.
Similarly, in Chapter 7, Enrique Oracion helps the readers to distinguish
service-learning as a “pro-social behavior, but short of altruism,” a time-honored
Filipino cultural tradition, “because the latter means helping others without any
expectation of return,” while service-learning “maybe less or not at all altruistic
7
because of the learning or the grade the students expect to earn in exchange.”
Recently, there has been a growing debate over indigenous knowledge
and cultural traditions in the academy. The World Indigenous Nations Higher
Education Consortium (WINHEC), for example, was established in 2002 by
indigenous peoples’ representatives from Australia, the United States, Canada,
and Norway. WINHEC’s goals were to advance indigenous peoples’ endeavors
in and through higher education and establish an accreditation body for their
own higher education institutions and initiatives. In the meantime, international
attention has turned to intellectual property laws to preserve, protect, and
promote traditional knowledge. In 2005, the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC) sponsored a conference in Delhi, India,
and announced the initiative to create a digital library system for classifying
the region’s traditional knowledge and linking it to the international patent
classification system.
The papers collected in the volume demonstrate how students engaged
in service-learning can benefit from, and contribute to, the development and
promotion of indigenous knowledge and traditions. A good case in point was
the Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) program discussed in Chapter 6, which
provided ample evidences of how service-learning students from Singapore
 Introduction 5

worked with the tribal communities in Australia and the indigenous Maori
8
population near Whakatane, New Zealand. Equally telling was the eco-
tourism project taken on by Assumption University students in collaboration
with several local organizations at Mooban Khanim in Phang Nga Province,
Thailand. Mooban Khanim is in the area hit by the tsunami in 2004. Forty
faculty and students learned that the village was not destroyed because it was
protected by a vast mangrove forest around the village. Community members
realized that the mangrove forest was both a source of food and a natural
wall that protected the community from strong wind and giant waves. That
knowledge from the villagers helped Assumption University faculty and
students launch a multi-year service-learning project for the mangrove forest
9
preservation in a sustainable manger.
It is also heartening to learn that in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand,
students of Payap University executed their service-learning projects in the
library by digitalizing artifacts, rare books, and audio-video materials on
northern Thai culture. They had aptly named the project the “local wisdom
initiative,” which attempted to preserve and document northern Thai dialects,
folk songs, recipes, architectural designs and other cultural relicts. Altogether,
they have identified 1,000 photos, 2,000 slides, 60 CDs, 123 video tapes, 244
audio tapes and 50 rare books. Those prized collections will soon be made
10
available for researchers worldwide.
Over recent years, a growing rank of scholars has called for a paradigm shift
in liberal arts education. Specifically, they ask for a shift of emphasis upon the
transformative rather than only the utilitarian value of knowledge. Indigenous
knowledge, the philosophical, literary, scientific knowledge, as part of the
cultural heritage and history of the local communities is an important part of
that transformative knowledge. Unlike the “objective” or “scientifically based”
intellectual paradigms, indigenous knowledge can be experientially learned
in the field. Readers will pick up ample examples from this book that service-
learning, as a powerful experiential pedagogy, is one of the best pedagogical tools
we have to acquire that knowledge.

Service-learning and Social Justice Education

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an
inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever
11
affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

This quote from the late US civil rights activist and leader the Rev. Martin
Luther King, Jr. brings to the fore the second theme of the volume: service-
6 Jun Xing and Carol Hok Ka Ma

learning and the concept of social justice education. Although service-learning

.

has been adopted widely among faculty, administrators and educators, the
misconception of service-learning as charity work is still well around and alive.
Some faculty and students have expressed their skepticism about service-learning
simply because they feel that such endeavors amount to little more than “charity”
work or, even worse, “distractions” from core disciplinary competencies.
Indeed, we may have to admit that this “charity” type of service-learning
is still employed by some nonprofit organizations, including universities and
colleges, and some service-learning projects lack a political awareness component
and the service students perform treats social symptoms, without addressing the
root causes of the social disparities, poverty conditions and medical maladies.
As Kwok Hung Lai writes in Chapter 3, “Learning from serving others is not
automatic. Students serving meals to the homeless, mentoring at-risk youth,
and visiting chronically ill patients enjoyed the work and felt satisfied from such
altruistic experiences, but did not necessarily engage in critical thinking about
the existence of poverty, youth policy, and health-care reform. These experiences
may even promote a power imbalance of the privileged ‘haves’ providing for the
12
‘have-nots’.”
To help debunk this misperception and realize the full potential of
service-learning, service-learning scholars and practitioners are pushing the
advocacy and social change agenda. The stories told by faculty and students
in this collection provide ample examples about how faculty and students get
involved in policy-related learning and community engagement. A good place
to start is to teach students about the social construction of human differences
and their own unearned privileges. Chapter 7 illustrates vividly how doing
service-learning in Filipino rural communities challenged non-Filipino
students in the most personal way, “the comfort of air-conditioned bedrooms,
the soothing baths with running hot and cold water in clean bathrooms, the
savor of favored food at home or in restaurants, and many other privileges
13
in the urban world are temporarily denied to them . . .” While completing
their “social exposure” project, a group of Assumption University students,
for another example, witnessed the dire situation of street children in Pattaya
and reflected on their own unearned privileges. They were “strongly struck by
the fact that these children live on 12 baht a day” and that these children had
never tasted fruit before. In comparison, a majority of the students themselves
go and see a movie several times a week and spent more than 100 baht for each
14
movie. They learned that sacrificing one movie each week could potentially
help one child to be fed for seven days. Similarly, a Singaporean student
performing service-learning in Lijiang, China, wrote, “We saw ourselves as
 Introduction 7

fortunate and felt the need to contribute to a less privileged society in our own
15
capacity and capability.”
For social justice education, some service-learning have introduced Paulo
Freire’s concept of transformative processes for service-learning operations, which
calls for changing public policy as well as creating change agents. As discussed
by John H. Powers in Chapter 5, the CBI program at HKBU promotes the
concept of problem-based learning, which “was defined as a teaching method
that builds the instructional process around one or more complex problems that
16
the course content may be used to solve.” The expected learning outcome of
the CBI program, according to Powers, is to encourage students to identify real-
life problems from the community and apply knowledge they have learned in
seeking their solutions.
Doing service-learning in the Philippines taught the International Service-
Learning Model Program (ISLMP) students the enormous disparities between
the rich and the poor in the country. One ready example, given in Chapter
7, was the student experience of attending a lavish birthday party of a local
politician. Despite the festive mood of the party, a female non-Filipino student
was saddened by the lavishness, which presented such a powerful contrast to
the poverty they saw being experienced by so many in the community day
17
in and day out. These examples clearly demonstrate how direct community
engagement helps ISLMP students develop a transformative perspective on the
critical issues of social inequality.
Working for peace and reconciliation was another example cited by several
authors in service-learning for social justice education. As discussed earlier, after
its successful experience for the joint-production of “Zouba,” ICU’s service-
learning office is planning a follow-up reconciliation program in Nanjing in the
near future, where ICU students will acknowledge history and take ownership of
Japan’s war policies. “This may be a rather unusual agenda for service-learning,”
as the authors write in Chapter 2, “but as nationals of a country that invaded
Asian countries and committed atrocities during modern times, creating this
18
understanding is something very important for all Japanese as global citizens.”
Nowadays, social justice ideals are broadly embraced by faculty and
students, but oftentimes students are exposed to issues of injustice or inequity
only as an abstraction. Service-learning offers a proven pedagogy for moving the
discussion of human rights and social justice from the classroom to the streets,
where it takes on human meaning and the very concept of social justice can be,
therefore, translated into passion and commitment for the students.
8 Jun Xing and Carol Hok Ka Ma

Service-learning and the Concept of Multicultural Symbiosis19

If you give people fish, they can eat for a day.

If you teach them how to fish they can eat for a lifetime.
20
If you teach them to learn, they don’t have to eat fish all their life.

This pithy quote from Chapter 9 captures the spirit of service-learning in

promoting cross-cultural and world literacy. Chapters 2 and 7, for example,
describe in detail how in 2006 the six cooperative member schools of the Service-
Learning Asia Network (SLAN) first introduced the concept of “multicultural
symbiosis” or kyosei (meaning “living together” in Japanese) as the key learning
21
objective for the International Service-Learning (ISLMP) program.
In ecology, symbiosis, according to Enrique G. Oracion, refers to a
mutually beneficial relationship among organisms. “When applied to human
interaction amidst cultural diversity,” he writes, “the concept of multicultural
symbiosis implies how the coming together of people with diverse cultural
22
backgrounds offers relative benefits to all involved.” In both Chapters 2 and 7,
readers will find very successful cases of ISLMP participants broke down their
long-time held stereotypes against local cultures and residents. Living closer to
the Filipino communities, for example, they observed that school children came
to school late, not because they were lazy, but “because they must walk three to
four hours before reaching school” and “some pupils had to cross rivers several
23
times, which made it difficult to go to school during bad weather.”
However, to reach this lofty goal of multicultural symbiosis, it takes
vision, care and high ethical standards with regard to power, capacity, equity
and sustainability. Several chapters in the book shed light on the sticky side of
service, the all-important ethical conduct of service-learning in a cross-cultural or
international context. Indeed, there are risks or pitfalls of all kinds in conducting
service-learning, especially international service-learning. For example, some of
us are familiar with the phenomenon of “academic tourism,” referring to those
short and superficial stunts overseas without clearly defined learning objectives.
Occasionally, students have talked about their service-learning class as a glorified
vacation or a visit, a sign of the so-called academic tourism.
Furthermore, we may have heard about those “island programs,” where
students often stick together among themselves with little or no interaction with
the local communities. The entire service project could become exploitive of the
stakeholders and communities. Worse still, our faculty and students might try to
make other people in our own image, or use service as a way of exercising their
sense of generosity or beneficence (read paternalism, patronization or “colonial
mentality”). Those “benevolent programs” reinforce personal bias and cultural
 Introduction 9

prejudice against other people. The programs immediately become counter-

productive and destructive.
In view of all these potential problems, as service-learning faculty and
scholars, how do we set up some useful parameters or criteria for the ethical
conduct of service-learning? Reading through the volume, readers will find four
broadly defined themes emerge from the pages, namely power-related issues,
capacity-related issues, equity-related issues and sustainability-related issues.
For power-related issues, service-learning faculty and students are often
confronted with four interrelated issues: (1) How do we guarantee voluntary
participation and informed consent? In other words, how do we make sure
that there is no coercion for service-learning, especially among vulnerable
segment of the population with diminished autonomy or capacity? (2) Is
the principle of shared governance being practiced? Is there a strong buy-in
by the local communities? Are the host communities equal partners in the
education of student participants? Reflecting over the experience with ISLMP
students in Chapter 7, for example, the author emphasized that projects “must
be appropriate to the needs of the communities and should be identified
together with the locals during the planning stage in forging a partnership for
24
service-learning.”
A number of capacity-related questions can be asked about each of the
major players or partners in service-learning. First, for community capacity,
do our students understand the difference between help on the one hand and
social development on the other? Or, are we relatively certain that the local
communities we serve will improve their capacity by our genuine, active, and
sustained engagement? Secondly, for student capacity, do our students have
the maturity, skill, and knowledge, to perform the tasks or duties assigned by
the agencies? And, finally, for agency capacity, does the placement agency have
the capacity to provide monitoring or supervision for students at the service
site? Are the agencies’ staff properly trained or have the right credentials? Is it
faculty responsibility to scrutinize their qualifications or do we simply rely on
administration assurances about these oversight issues? Oversight responsibility
is a very touchy issue for the agency and faculty.
The case studies in the volume have addressed those questions in varying
degrees. On student capacity, for example, Kwok Hung Lai’s point is very well
taken when he writes about student placement in Chapter 3, “service-learning
placements should be tailored to students’ needs and their level of self-efficacy.
A community service placement that is perceived as too far beyond the student’s
capabilities will be threatening, and will decrease rather than increase their sense
25
of self-efficacy.”
10 Jun Xing and Carol Hok Ka Ma

In addition, the concepts of reciprocity, equity and respect have been cited
by the authors as the absolute key for a successful service-learning program.
Dennis Lee in Chapter 9, while discussing the Singaporean situation in service-
learning, cites reciprocity as the key factor in differentiating service-learning
26
from community service. He advises his readers to avoid “the ever-present
pitfall of paternalism disguised under the name of service.” “Service-learning,”
he writes, “avoids the traditionally paternalistic, one-way approach to service
in which one person or group has the resources, which they share charitably or
27
voluntarily with the person or group that lacks resources.” Likewise, in Chapter
10, Jane Szutu Permaul, in assessing the cross-cultural learning outcomes of
the W. T. Chan Fellowships Program, raises similar questions: “Is cross-cultural
learning a one-way or two-way learning experience? Do the American hosts
learn anything along with the fellows?” It is interesting to note how Assumption
University students quickly find out that many communities will only allow a
stranger to be involved in the community’s life through someone they trust. “In
our social exposure to hill-tribe communities,” Charn Mayot writes in Chapter
1, “we work together with the Mirror Foundation, a local NGO that engages in
28
community development.”
Some writers in the book are strong advocates for the principle of equity,
making sure that it is the communities, instead of selected individuals, who
benefit from the service. Charn Mayot, for example, advises his readers in
Chapter 1, “Any service-learning produces a good outcome for only one or two
stakeholder group risks exploitation of the rest, and service-learning programs
that intentionally or consciously ignore the benefits to other groups reflect an
29
attempt to harvest other stakeholders’ labor.” It is also interesting to note that
the quote has pointed our attention to exploitation issues for the community as
well as students. In fact, specific suggestions have been made by several authors
about how to honor and recognize community contributions at the end of our
projects. Perhaps, similar questions can also be asked about student exploitation,
making sure partner agencies do not use free student labor to perform duties
that should have been done by salaried employees with no proper supervision,
especially duties outside service-learning agreement. With regard to respect,
these writers strongly endorse the idea of diversity/sensitivity training for
students by faculty or staff in student affairs, as recommended by John Powers
in Chapter 5, where students are expected to be prompt, reliable, respectful, and
have the cross-cultural competency in a different society.
In teaching service-learning, we cannot avoid asking whether the project is
sustainable given the human, environmental and economic resources available
locally. Again, we cite Charn Mayot, as an example, who teaches students the
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
since all attempts to account for this testimony, without admitting its
truth, fail hopelessly.
By the first witnesses, we mean those persons who saw, or said they
saw, Christ alive after His Crucifixion. This will include the twelve
Apostles, and over 500 other Christians, most of whom St. Paul says
were still alive when he wrote. It will also include two persons, who
at the time were not Christians,—St. Paul himself, an avowed enemy,
and St. James who, though he was Christ's brother, does not seem
to have believed in Him.[312]
[312] John 7. 5.

And before discussing the value of their testimony, it may be well to

glance at some general rules in regard to all testimony. If, then, a
person plainly asserts that a certain event took place, before we
believe that it did take place, we must inquire first as to his Veracity:
did he speak the truth as far as he knew it? Next as to his
Knowledge: had he the means of knowing the truth? Next as to his
Investigation: did he avail himself of those means? And lastly, as to
his Reasoning: did he draw the right conclusion? And all possible
ways of denying the truth of a man's statement can be brought
under one or other of these heads. For if it is not true, it must be
either:—
Intentionally false = want of Veracity.
or
had not the means of = want of
knowing the truth Knowledge.
Unintentionally or
false, did not use = want of
in which case he them Investigation.
either had the means, and
or
either
used them = want of
wrongly Reasoning.

From this it is clear that for anyone to deny a man's statement,

without disputing either his veracity, knowledge, investigation, or
reasoning, is very like denying that one angle is greater than
another, without disputing that it is neither equal to it, nor less than
it. We have now to apply these general rules to the testimony in
favour of the Resurrection of Christ. And, as we shall see, the denial
of these four points corresponds to the four chief alternative
theories, which, may be called the Falsehood, the Legend, the
Vision, and the Swoon Theory.
(A.) The Falsehood Theory.
We will begin with the Falsehood Theory. This would be to deny the
veracity of the witnesses, and say that though they asserted that
Christ rose from the dead, and appeared to them, they did not really
believe it. In other words they were deliberate impostors, who,
knowing that their Master did not rise from the dead, yet spent their
whole lives in trying to persuade people that He did. And, as we
shall see, their motives, their conduct, and their sufferings, are all
strongly opposed to such a theory.
And first as to their motives, had they any interest in asserting that
Christ rose from the dead unless they really believed it? Clearly they
had not, for they were so few or so faint-hearted that they could not
prevent their Master being crucified. What chance was there then of
persuading the world that He had risen from the dead, and why
should they have embarked on such a hopeless scheme? Nothing
indeed but the most firm conviction of their Lord's Resurrection, and
therefore of supernatural assistance, would ever have induced men
to have ventured on it. If they believed the Resurrection to be true,
then, and only then, would they have had any motive whatever for
preaching it.
Next as to their conduct, did this show that they really believed what
they preached? And here also the evidence is overwhelming. When
their Master was crucified His followers were naturally filled with
gloom and despair; but in a few days this was changed to intense
joy and confidence. They preached the Resurrection in the very
place where He was crucified, and boldly went forth to convert the
world in His name. It is clear that before such a marvellous change
could take place they must at least have thought they had, what St.
Luke asserts they actually did have, many proofs of the Resurrection.
[313]
To them, at all events, the evidence must have seemed
conclusive, or Christianity would have perished on Calvary.
[313] Acts 1. 3.

Lastly as to their sufferings. This is the most important point, since

voluntary suffering in any form, but especially in its extreme form of
martyrdom, seems conclusive as to a man's veracity. Persons do not
suffer for what they believe to be false; they must have believed it
to be true, though this does not of course prove that it actually was
true. And here is the answer to the common objection, that since all
religions have had their martyrs, this kind of evidence proves
nothing. On the contrary, it does prove something, though it does
not prove everything. It does not prove that what the man died for
was true, but it does prove that he believed it to be true. It is
therefore a conclusive test as to his veracity.
What evidence have we, then, that the first witnesses suffered for
the truth of what they preached? And once more the evidence is
complete and overwhelming, both from the Acts and St. Paul's
Epistles. We need only refer to these latter, as their genuineness is
undisputed. St. Paul then, in one place, gives a list of the actual
sufferings he had undergone; he alludes to them in numerous other
places, and often as if they were the common experience of all
Christians at the time; and in one passage he expressly includes the
other Apostles with himself in the long list of sufferings he describes.
While he elsewhere declares that at a still earlier time, before his
conversion, he himself persecuted the Christians beyond measure.
[314]

[314] 2 Cor. 11. 24-27; Rom. 8. 35; 1 Cor. 4. 9-13; Gal. 1. 13.

There can thus be no doubt as to the continual sufferings of the first

witnesses, and, as just said, it is a decisive proof of their veracity.
We conclude therefore that when they asserted that Christ rose from
the dead, they were asserting what they honestly believed whether
rightly or wrongly, to be true. And as this belief was due, simply to
the witnesses believing that they saw Christ alive after His death; we
must further conclude that they honestly believed in the
appearances of Christ as recorded by themselves, and their friends,
in the New Testament. In other words, these accounts are not
intentionally false.
So much for the veracity of the witnesses. It is not, as a rule, denied
by modern opponents of the Resurrection; but in early times, when
men ought to have known best, it was evidently thought to be the
only alternative. St. Paul declares emphatically that unless Christ had
risen, he and the other Apostles were false witnesses, in plain words
liars.[315] That was the only choice. They were either saying what
they knew to be true, or what they knew to be false. And the idea of
there being some mistake about it, due to visions, or swoons, or
anything else, never seems to have occurred to anyone.
[315] 1 Cor. 15. 15.

(B.) The Legend Theory.

We pass on now to the Legend Theory. This would be to deny the
knowledge of the witnesses: and say that our Gospels are not
genuine, but merely record subsequent legends; so we cannot tell
whether the first witnesses had, or had not, the means of knowing
the truth. But if we admit the genuineness of our Gospels, and the
veracity of their writers (both of which have been admitted), the
Legend Theory is out of the question.
They asserted, it will be remembered, that Christ's Body, not His
Spirit, appeared to them, after the crucifixion; and from their own
accounts it is clear that they had ample means of finding out if this
was true. Whether they used these means, and actually did find out,
is, of course, another question; but as to sufficient means being
available, and their being quite competent to use them if they liked,
there can be no doubt whatever. As has been well said, it was not
one person who saw Him, but many; they saw Him not only
separately, but together; not only for a moment, but for a long time;
not only by night, but by day; not only at a distance, but near; not
only once, but several times. And they not only saw Him, but they
touched Him, walked with Him, conversed with Him, ate with Him,
and examined His Body to satisfy their doubts. In fact, according to
their own accounts, Christ seems to have convinced them in every
way in which conviction was possible that He had really risen from
the dead.
And even apart from our Gospels, the Legend Theory is still
untenable. For St. Paul mentions several of the appearances, and as
this was within a few years of the events, there was no time for the
growth of legends. Moreover he heard of them direct from those
who saw them, St. Peter, St. James, etc., so he must have known
the circumstances under which they occurred, and, being an
educated man, is not likely to have been taken in by any imposture.
While his saying that some of the five hundred had died, though
most of them were still alive when he wrote, implies that he had also
made some enquiries about that appearance. His testimony is thus
very valuable from every point of view, and absolutely fatal to the
Legend Theory.
(C.) The Vision Theory.
We now come to the Vision Theory. This would be to deny the
investigation of the witnesses; and say that they were so excited, or
so enthusiastic, or perhaps so stupid, that they did not avail
themselves of the ample means they had of finding out the truth. In
other words they so expected their Lord to appear to them after His
death, and kept so dwelling on the thought of Him, as though
unseen, yet perhaps very near to them, that after a time they
fancied they actually saw Him, and that He had risen from the dead.
The wish was, in fact, father to the thought; so that when a
supposed appearance took place, they were so filled with joy at their
Master's presence, that they neglected to ascertain whether the
appearance they saw was real, or only due to their own fancy.
Such is the theory; though it is often modified in regard to particular
appearances, by ascribing them to dreams, or to someone being
mistaken for Christ. And as it is at present the favourite one with
those who reject the Resurrection, we must examine it carefully; first
considering the arguments in its favour, then those against it, then
its failure to account for the facts recorded, and lastly what is known
as the theory of real visions.
(1.) Arguments in its favour.
Now we must at once admit that it is possible for an honest man to
mistake a phantom of his own brain, arising from some diseased
state of the mind or body, for a reality in the outer world. Such
subjective visions, as they are called, are by no means unheard of,
though they are not common. And of course the great, if not the
only argument in its favour is that it professes to account for the
alleged Resurrection, without on the one hand admitting its truth, or
on the other that the witnesses were deliberate impostors. Here, it is
urged, is a way of avoiding both difficulties, by allowing that the
witnesses honestly believed all they said, only they were mistaken in
supposing the appearances to be real, when they were merely due
to their own imagination. And undoubtedly the fact that men have
often thought they saw ghosts, visions, etc., when there was really
nothing to see, gives it some support.
(2.) Arguments against it.
Let us now consider how this Vision Theory would suit the accounts
of the Resurrection written by the witnesses themselves, and their
friends. As will be seen, we might almost imagine that they had
been written on purpose to contradict it.
To begin with, the writers were not unacquainted with visions, and
occasionally record them as happening to themselves or others. But
then they always use suitable expressions, such as falling into a
trance.[316] No such language is used in the Gospels to describe the
appearances of Christ, which are always recorded as if they were
actual matters of fact. While as to St. Paul, he never confuses the
revelations and visions, which he sometimes had, with the one great
appearance of Christ to him near Damascus, which qualified him to
be an Apostle.[317]
[316] E.g., Acts 10. 10; 9. 10; 16. 9.
[317] 1 Cor. 9. 1; 15. 8; Gal. 1. 16-17.

Secondly, the appearances did not take place (as visions might have
been expected to do, and generally did)[318] when the disciples were
engaged in prayer, or in worship. But it was during their ordinary
everyday occupations; when for instance they were going for a walk,
or sitting at supper, or out fishing. And they were often simple, plain,
and almost trivial in their character, very different from what
enthusiasts would have imagined.
[318] E.g., Acts 10. 30; 11. 5; 22. 17.

Thirdly, subjective visions due to enthusiasm, would not have started

so soon after the Crucifixion as the third day. It would have required
a much longer time for the disciples to have got over their utter
confusion, and to have realised (perhaps by studying the old
prophecies) that this humiliation was, after all, part of God's scheme,
and was to be followed by a Resurrection. Nor again would such
visions have only lasted for a short time; yet with the single
exception of that to St. Paul, they were all over in a few weeks,
though the enthusiasm of the witnesses lasted through life.
Fourthly, it is plain from all the accounts that the Apostles did not
expect the Resurrection, and were much surprised at it, though they
afterwards remembered that Christ had foretold it. This is shown,
not only by the Christians bringing spices, to embalm the Body, and
persons do not embalm a body unless they expect it to remain in the
grave; but also by the account of the appearances themselves. For
with the exception of the two farewell meetings (and possibly that to
the two Marys), Christ's appearance was wholly unexpected. No one
was looking for it, no one was anticipating it. When for instance
Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty, it never even occurred to
her that He had come to life again, she merely thought the Body had
been removed.
Fifthly, and this is very remarkable, when Christ did appear, He was
often not recognised. This was the case with Mary Magdalene, with
Cleopas and his companion, and with the disciples at Tiberias. But it
is plain that, if they so hoped to see their risen Master, that they
eventually fancied they did see Him, they would at once have
recognised Him; and their not doing so is quite inconsistent with the
Vision Theory.
Sixthly, we are repeatedly told that at first some of the disciples
disbelieved or doubted the Resurrection.[319] This is an important
point, since it shows that opinions were divided on the subject, and
therefore makes it almost certain that they would have used what
means they had of finding out the truth. And a visit to the grave
would have shown them at once whether the Body was there, or
not: and they are not likely to have preached the Resurrection,
without first ascertaining the point. Moreover, some of them
remained doubtful even after the others were persuaded, St.
Thomas in particular requiring the most convincing proof. His state
of mind was certainly not that of an enthusiast, since, instead of
being so convinced of the Resurrection as to have imagined it, he
could with great difficulty be got to believe it. Indeed, according to
these accounts, scarcely one of the witnesses believed the
Resurrection till the belief was almost forced on him.
[319] Matt. 28. 17; Mark 16. 11-14; Luke 24. 11, 37; John 20. 25.

Seventhly, subjective visions do not occur to different persons

simultaneously. A man's private illusions (like his dreams) are his
own. A number of men do not simultaneously dream the same
dream, still less do they simultaneously see the same subjective
vision—at least a vision like that here referred to, of a person
moving about among them, and speaking to them. This is quite
different from Constantine's army thinking that they saw a luminous
cross in the sky, or a body of Spanish troops that they saw their
patron (St. James) riding at their head, or anything of that kind;
several instances of which are known. But a subjective vision, at all
resembling what is described in the Gospels, is extremely rare. It
may perhaps happen to one person in ten thousand once in his life.
It is difficult to believe that even two persons should have such an
experience at the same time, while the idea that a dozen or more
men should simultaneously see such a subjective vision is out of the
question. And the Gospels, it may be added, always imply that Christ
was visible to all present (though some of them doubted as to His
identity), which was not, as a rule, the case in other alleged visions.
Eighthly, how are we to account for visionary conversations? Yet
these occurred on every occasion. Christ never merely appeared,
and then vanished. He always spoke, and often for a considerable
time, giving detailed instructions; and can we imagine anyone
believing a mere vision to have done all this? Is it possible, for
instance, for St. Thomas to have believed that Christ conversed with
him, and for the other Apostles, who were all present, to have
believed it too, if the whole affair was only a vision? Indeed,
conversations in the presence of others seem peculiarly hard to
explain as visions, yet they are mentioned more than once.
For all these reasons then—because the appearances are not
described in suitable language, did not occur on suitable occasions,
began and ended too soon, were not expected, were not recognised,
were not believed, occurred simultaneously, and always included
conversations as well—the Vision Theory is to say the least
extremely improbable.
(3.) Its failure to account for the facts.
But this is not all; the Theory is not only improbable, it does not
account for the actual facts recorded—facts concerning which,
unless the writings are intentionally false, there could be no doubt
whatever. A vision, for instance, could not have rolled away the
stone from the door of the tomb, yet this is vouched for by every
Evangelist. Again, persons could not have honestly believed that
they went to the tomb, and found it empty, if the Body was there all
the time. And this also is vouched for by every Evangelist. Nor could
they have thought that they touched their Master, i.e., took hold of
His feet, if He existed only in their imagination; for the attempt to
touch Him would at once have shown them their mistake.[320] Nor
could they have seen Him eat food, for a vision, like a dream, would
not explain the disappearance of the food. Nor again could a mere
vision take bread, and on another occasion bread and fish, and give
it them to eat.[321] In regard to all these particulars, then, the Vision
Theory is hopelessly untenable.
[320] Matt. 28. 9.
[321] Luke 24. 30, 43; John 21. 13; Acts 10. 41.

There is also the great difficulty as to what became of the dead Body
of Christ. For if it was still in the grave, the Jews would have
produced it, rather than invent the story about its being stolen; and
if it was not in the grave, its removal could not have been due to
visions. With regard to this story it may be noticed that St. Matthew
says it was spread abroad among the Jews; and Justin Martyr,
himself a native of Palestine, also alludes to it. For he says that the
Jews sent men all over the world to proclaim that the disciples stole
the Body at night;[322] so there can be no doubt that some such
story existed.
[322] Matt. 28. 15; Justin, Dial., 108.

But its weakness is self-evident. For if the soldiers (who were

probably posted on the Saturday evening, and thus not known to the
women) were, as they said, asleep at the time, how could they tell
whether the disciples had stolen the Body, or whether Christ had
come forth of His own accord? Moreover that Roman soldiers, with
their strict discipline, who were put there on purpose to keep the
Body, should really have gone to sleep, and allowed it to be stolen,
is most improbable. And though it seems unlikely that they could
have been bribed to say they were asleep, if they were not, as it was
a capital offence; we must remember that they were already liable
to death; since they had left the tomb, and the Body was gone. So
whether they were asleep, or awake, at the time mattered little. And
in any case, the fact of their having left it (which is plain from all the
accounts) shows that something very extraordinary must have
happened.
All, then, that the story proves is this (but this it does prove
unquestionably), that though the Body was guarded, yet when it
was wanted it was gone, and could not be found. And this is a
strong argument not only against the Vision Theory, but against
every theory except the Christian one. For when the Resurrection
was first announced, the most obvious and decisive answer would
have been for the Jews to have produced the dead Body; and their
not doing this strongly supports the Christian account. Indeed, the
empty tomb, together with the failure of all attempts to account for
it, was doubtless one of the reasons why the Apostles gained so
many converts the first day they preached the Resurrection.[323]
 [323] Acts 2. 41.

Lastly, we must remember that this gaining of converts, i.e., the

founding of Christianity, is, after all, the great fact that has to be
explained. And even if the Vision Theory could account for the
Apostles themselves believing that they had seen Christ, it would not
account for their being able to convince others of this belief,
especially if the Body was still in the tomb. For a mere vision, like a
ghost story, would begin and end in nothing; and if the Resurrection
also began in nothing, how are we to account for its ending in so
much?
Summing up these arguments, then, we conclude that the Vision
Theory is most improbable in any case; and can only be accepted at
all by admitting that nearly the whole of our accounts are not only
untrue, but intentionally so. But then it is quite needless. Its object
was to explain the alleged Resurrection without disputing the
veracity of the writers, and this it is quite unable to do. In short, if
the writers honestly believed the accounts as we have them, or
indeed any other accounts at all resembling them, the Vision Theory
is out of the question.
It does not even account satisfactorily for the one appearance, that
to St. Paul, which it might be thought capable of explaining. For his
companions as well as himself saw the Light and (apparently) heard
the Voice, though not the actual words.[324] And how could a
subjective vision of St. Paul have thus affected all his companions?
Moreover physical blindness does not result from such a vision, and
to say that in his case the wish was father to the thought, and that
his expectation and hope of seeing Christ eventually made him think
that he did see Him, is absurd. For even when he did see Him, he
did not recognise Him; but had to ask Who art Thou, Lord? Here
then was the case of an avowed enemy, and a man of great
intellectual power, who was converted, and that against his will,
solely by the appearance of Christ. And as he had access to all
existing evidence on both sides, and had everything to lose and
nothing to gain from the change, his conversion alone is a strong
argument in favour of the Resurrection, more especially as the fact
itself is beyond dispute.
[324] Acts 9. 7; 22. 9; 26. 13, 14.

(4.) The Theory of real visions.

Before passing on, we must just glance at a modification of the
Vision Theory, that has been suggested in recent years; which is that
the Apostles saw real visions, miraculously sent by God, to persuade
them to go on preaching the Gospel. And no doubt this theory
avoids many of the difficulties of the ordinary Vision Theory,
especially in regard to the appearances beginning so soon as the
third day, their not being expected, and their occurring
simultaneously. But it has even greater difficulties of its own. For it
admits the supernatural, and yet these divinely sent visions were
such as to mislead the Apostles, and to make them think that
Christ's Body had risen from the grave, and saw no corruption, when
in reality it was still decaying in the tomb.
And this alone is fatal to the theory. For if God gave a supernatural
vision, it would certainly be to convince men of what was true, not
of what was false. And even a real miracle is easier to believe, than
that God should found His Church on a false one. Moreover
supernatural visions are just as unable as natural ones to account for
the facts recorded, such as the rolling away of the stone, the empty
tomb, the holding of Christ by His feet, or the disappearance of the
food. While the great difficulty as to what became of the dead Body,
applies to this as much as to the ordinary Vision Theory.
(D.) The Swoon Theory.
Lastly we come to the Swoon Theory. This would be to deny the
reasoning of the witnesses; and say that though they saw Christ
alive after His Crucifixion, they did not draw the right conclusion in
thinking that He had risen from the dead, since as a matter of fact
He had never died, but had only fainted on the Cross.
And in support of this, it is urged that death after crucifixion did not
generally occur so quickly, since Pilate marvelled if He were already
dead; and that He might easily have been mistaken for dead, as no
accurate tests were known in those days. While the blood coming
out of His side is also appealed to, because blood does not flow from
a dead body. Moreover, as He was then placed in a cool rock cave,
with aromatic spices, He would probably recover consciousness;
when He would come forth and visit His friends, and ask for
something to eat: which is what He did according to St. Luke. And
they, superstitious men, looking upon their Master as in some sense
Divine, and perhaps half expecting the Resurrection, would at once
conclude that He had risen from the dead; especially if they had
already heard that the tomb was empty.
And the chief argument in favour of the theory is, of course, the
same as that in favour of the Vision Theory. It professes to account
for the recorded appearances, without admitting either the truth of
the Resurrection, or deliberate falsehood on the part of the
witnesses; who, according to this theory, were themselves mistaken
in thinking that Christ had risen from the dead, when in reality He
had never died. They could not therefore have helped in restoring
Him; He must have recovered by Himself. This is essential to the
theory; so it is quite unlike a case recorded by Josephus, where a
man who had been crucified, and taken down alive, was gradually
restored by a doctor.[325]
[325] Josephus, Life, 75.

How then would this theory suit the facts of the case? While
admitting its possibility, it is hard to find words to express its great
improbability. It has immense difficulties, many of them peculiarly its
own. And first as to Christ Himself. He must have been extremely
exhausted after all the ill-treatment He had received, yet He is
supposed not only to have recovered consciousness, but to have
come out of the tomb by Himself, rolling away the large stone. And
then, instead of creeping about weak and ill, and requiring nursing
and medical treatment, He must have walked over twelve miles—
and this with pierced feet[326]—to Emmaus and back. And the same
evening He must have appeared to His disciples so completely
recovered that they, instead of looking upon Him as still half-dead,
thought that He had conquered death, and was indeed the Prince of
Life. All this implies such a rapid recovery as is quite incredible.
[326] The feet being pierced is often disputed, but St. Luke (who
probably knew more about crucifixion than we do) evidently thought they
were; for he records Christ as saying, See my hands and my feet that it is
I myself, which implies that His hands and feet would identify Him.

Next as to the piercing of His side with a spear.[327] This is recorded

by an eye-witness, and would doubtless of itself have caused death,
though St. John's statement that He was dead already seems the
more probable. Nor did the blood coming out, in any way, disprove
this. For blood (as long as it remains liquid) will of course flow out
downwards from any body, just as other liquids would do. Only when
a person is alive, the action of the heart will make it flow out
upwards as well.
[327] John 19. 34.

Again, it is most unlikely that so many persons, both friends and

foes, should have mistaken Christ for dead. Yet according to this
theory the soldiers entrusted with the execution, who must have had
a good deal of experience in such matters; the centurion, who was
sent for by Pilate on purpose to ascertain this very point; the
Christians, who took down the Body and wrapped it in linen cloths;
and the Jews, who are not likely to have left their Victim without
making sure of the fact, must all have honestly believed that Christ
was dead when He was not. Moreover, the tomb was carefully
guarded by His enemies for the express purpose of securing the
Body. How then did they let it escape? If they were not asleep at the
time, they must either have done this willingly, because they were
bribed; or unwillingly, because they could not help it, being
overcome by some supernatural Power; and either alternative is fatal
to the Swoon Theory.
This theory also requires not only that the Apostles should have
been mistaken in thinking that Christ had risen from the dead, but
that Christ Himself should have countenanced the mistake; or He
would have explained the truth to His disciples. He is thus made to
be a deceiver instead of His Apostles, which all will admit to be most
improbable.
And then, what became of Him afterwards? If He died again within a
few weeks, His disciples could scarcely have thought Him the Prince
of Life, who had the keys of Death and of Hades;[328] and if He
continued to live, where did He go to? Moreover He must have died
again at some time, and His real tomb is sure to have been much
venerated by His followers; and it would have prevented any belief
in the Ascension. Yet as said before (Chapter XV.), this seems to
have formed a part of Christian instruction from the very first.
[328] Acts 3. 15; Rev. 1. 18.

But perhaps the chief argument against this theory is that it does
not account for many of the actual facts recorded; such as Christ
passing through closed doors, His vanishing at pleasure, and His
Ascension. These details present no difficulty on the Vision Theory,
nor on that of deliberate falsehood; but they are inconsistent with
the present one. And though it accounts to some extent for the
empty tomb; it does not account for the angels being there,
announcing the Resurrection.
Nor does it account for the grave-clothes being so carefully left
behind. For if Christ had come out of the tomb by Himself, He could
scarcely have left His clothes behind; not to mention the difficulty of
taking them off, caused by the adhesive myrrh, which would have
stuck them together, and to the Body. These grave-clothes are thus
fatal to this, as to every other theory, except the Christian one; yet it
was a simple matter of fact, as to which there could be no possible
mistake. Either the clothes were there, or else the persons who said
they saw them were telling a falsehood. Moreover, in any case Christ
could not have walked to Emmaus and back, or appeared to the
Apostles, or to anyone else, in His grave-clothes, so He must have
obtained some others, and how did He get them? His enemies are
not likely to have supplied them, and if His friends did, they must
have been aware of the fraud.
On the whole then, we decide that the Swoon Theory, like the Vision
Theory, is very improbable in any case, and only tenable at all by
supposing a large part of our narratives to be intentionally false. But
then it is quite needless.
(E.) Conclusion.
Before concluding this chapter a few remarks may be made on the
alleged difficulties of the Christian theory. There are only two of any
importance. The first is that the Resurrection would be a miracle,
and probably nine out of ten men who disbelieve it, do so for this
reason. It is not that the evidence for it is insufficient (they have
perhaps never examined it) but that no conceivable evidence would
be sufficient to establish such an event. Miracles, they say, are
incredible, they cannot happen, and that settles the point; for it is of
course easier to believe any explanation, visions, swoons, or
anything else, than the occurrence of that which cannot happen.
But we have already admitted, in Chapter VII., that miracles are not
incredible. And though no doubt, under ordinary circumstances, a
dead man coming to life again would be so extremely improbable as
to be practically incredible; yet these were not ordinary
circumstances, and Christ was not an ordinary man. On the contrary,
as we shall see, He was an absolutely unique Man, claiming
moreover to be Divine, and having a mass of powerful evidence both
from His own Character, from previous Prophecies, and from
subsequent History, to support His claims. Therefore that He should
rise from the dead, as a proof that these claims were well-founded,
does not seem so very improbable after all.
The other difficulty refers to Christ's not appearing publicly to the
Jews. Why, it is asked, did He only appear to His own disciples?
Surely this is very suspicious. If He really did rise from the dead, and
wished the world to believe it, why did He not settle the point by
going publicly into Jerusalem?
But we cannot feel sure that this would have settled the point. No
doubt the Jews who saw Him would have been convinced, but the
nation as a whole might, or might not, have accepted Christianity. If
they did not, saying for instance it was due to a pretender, it would
have been worse than useless. While if they did, the Romans would
very likely have looked upon it as a national insurrection, and its
progress would have been more than ever difficult. It would also
have greatly weakened the force of Prophecy; since, in the absence
of ancient manuscripts, people might think that the old Jewish
prophecies had been tampered with, to make them suit their
Christian interpretation. But now these prophecies, having been
preserved by men who are opposed to Christianity, are above
suspicion.
Moreover, to get the world to believe in the Resurrection required
not only evidence, but missionaries, that is to say, men who were so
absolutely convinced of its truth, as to be willing to spend their
whole lives in witnessing for it, in all lands and at all costs. And the
chief object of the appearances may have been to produce such
men; and it is obvious that (apart from a miraculous conversion like
St. Paul's) there could not have been more than a few of them.
For only a few could have conversed with Christ, and eaten with Him
after His death, so as to be quite certain that He was then alive; only
a few could have known Him so intimately before, as to be quite
certain that it was really He, and only a few had loved Him so dearly
as to be willing to give up everything for His sake. In short, there
were only a few suitable witnesses available. And Christ's frequently
appearing to these few—the chosen witnesses as they are called[329]
—in the private and intimate manner recorded in the Gospels, was
evidently more likely to turn them into ardent missionaries (which it
actually did) than any public appearance. Indeed it so often happens
that what everybody should do, nobody does; that it may be
doubted whether Christ's publicly appearing to a number of persons
in Jerusalem would have induced even one of them to have faced a
life of suffering, and a death of martyrdom, in spreading the news.
This objection, then, cannot be maintained.
[329] Acts 10. 41.

In conclusion, it seems scarcely necessary to sum up the arguments

in this chapter. We have discussed at some length the veracity,
knowledge, investigation, and reasoning of the first witnesses of the
Resurrection; and as we have seen, not one of these points can be
fairly doubted. In fact the evidence in favour of each is
overwhelming. Therefore the alternative theories—the Falsehood,
the Legend, the Vision, and the Swoon Theory—which are founded
on denying these points, are all untenable. And this greatly supports
the conclusion we arrived at in the last chapter; so that combining
the two; we have an extremely strong argument in favour of the
Resurrection of Christ.
 CHAPTER XIX.
THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE PROBABLY

TRUE.

(A.) Their Credibility.

They present few difficulties; the casting out of evil spirits.

(B.) Their Truthfulness.

(1.) General marks of truthfulness.
(2.) Special marks of truthfulness.

(C.) Their Publicity.

(1.) They occurred in public.
(2.) They were publicly appealed to.
(3.) They were never disputed.
(4.) The silence of classical writers.

(D.) Conclusion.
Futile attempts to explain them away, the subject of modern
miracles.

Having discussed in the last two chapters the Resurrection of Christ,

we pass on now to the other New Testament miracles, and will
consider in turn their credibility, their truthfulness, and their
publicity.
(A.) Their Credibility.
Now with one exception, the casting out of evil spirits, the miracles
present scarcely any difficulty provided miracles at all are credible,
which we have already admitted. Most of them, especially those of
healing, were very suitable from a moral point of view, while that
they were meant to confirm Christ's teaching and claims is beyond
dispute. Not only do all the Evangelists declare this, but Christ
Himself though He refused to work a miracle when challenged to do
so—He would not work one to order, as we might say—yet appealed
to His public miracles in the most emphatic manner.
Thus, when St. John the Baptist sent messengers to inquire whether
He was the Messiah, His only answer was, 'Go your way, and tell
John the things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their
sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear,
and the dead are raised up,'[330] etc. And this is specially important
because Christians would not have invented an incident which shows
that Christ's own messenger had (apparently) lost faith in Him. Yet it
is not easy to separate his question from the reply which it received;
while if we admit that Christ gave this reply, it seems to settle the
question as to His working miracles.
[330] Matt. 11. 4; Luke 7. 22; see also Mark 2. 10; John 5. 36.

And He afterwards condemned Chorazin, and other cities, in the

strongest terms, because, although He had done so many miracles
there, they had not repented; which again shows both the publicity
of the miracles, and their intended evidential value.[331] And this
passage also is very important, since its genuineness is confirmed by
the fact that not a single miracle is recorded as having been worked
at Chorazin. Yet, if the Evangelists (or anyone else) had invented the
saying, they would surely have invented some miracles there to
justify it. If on the other hand, they did not invent it, and the words
were actually spoken by Christ, is it conceivable that He should have
blamed these cities for not believing on Him in spite of His miracles,
if He had done no miracles?
[331] Matt. 11. 21-24; Luke 10. 13-15. Both this passage, and the
last, belong to Q, the supposed earliest source of our Gospels.
We pass on now to the casting out of evil spirits, which implies that
persons may sometimes be possessed by such spirits, and this is
often thought to be a difficulty. But though our ignorance on the
subject is undoubtedly great, there is nothing incredible here. For we
have already admitted the influence of such spirits (Chapter XII.),
and what is called possession is merely an extreme form of
influence. Indeed, the accounts of mesmerism at the present day,
though they cannot always be trusted, seem to show that even one
man may so entirely possess the mind and will of another as to
make him do whatever he wishes. And it is certainly no more difficult
to believe that this power may in some cases be exercised by an evil
spirit. With regard to the outward symptoms mentioned in the
Gospels, they seem to have resembled certain forms of madness;
though, as the patients are now kept under restraint in civilised
countries, they have not the same notoriety.
But it may be said, why ascribe this madness to an evil spirit? But
why not? Madness often follows the frequent yielding to certain
temptations, such as drunkenness or impurity; and that it may really
be due to the action of an evil spirit (an unclean spirit is the
significant term used in the Gospels) and be the appropriate
punishment for yielding to his temptation, is certainty not incredible.
And if so, considering the immoral state of the world at the time of
Christ, we cannot be surprised at such cases being far more
common then than now. And the writers, it may be added, do not
(like some early nations) attribute all maladies to evil spirits, for we
read of men having fever and palsy, as well as being blind, lame,
deaf, and dumb, without any hint of its being due to an evil spirit; so
they were quite able to distinguish between the two.
There is, however, one instance—the swine at Gadara—of animals
being thus afflicted,[332] which undoubtedly forms a difficulty, and I
have never seen a satisfactory explanation of it. But still our
ignorance about animals, combined with the fact that they resemble
man in so many respects, prevents us from saying that it is
absolutely incredible. And as to the alleged injustice of the miracle
(which is often objected to) we must remember that if Christ were
the Divine Being He claimed to be, the world and all it contained
belonged to Him; so His allowing the swine to be destroyed by evil
spirits was no more unjust to their owners, than if He had allowed
them to die by disease.
[332] Matt. 8. 30-32; Mark 5. 11-13; Luke 8. 32-33.

Lastly, all the Christian miracles lose a great deal of their

improbability when we consider the unique position of Christ. And
what would be incredible, if told of another man who had done
nothing to alter the history of the world, may easily be credible of
Him. We decide, then, that all the New Testament miracles are
credible: we have next to consider whether they are true.
(B.) Their Truthfulness.
Now the testimony in favour of these miracles is very similar to that
in favour of the Resurrection of Christ. They are recorded by the
same writers and in the same books, and everything points to these
accounts being trustworthy. To put it shortly, the writers had no
motive for recording the miracles unless they believed them to be
true, and they had ample means of finding out whether they were
true or not; while many of them are such as cannot possibly be
explained by want of investigation, or an error in reasoning.
Moreover, as we shall see, they contain numerous marks of
truthfulness. These may be divided into two classes, general, or
those which concern the miracles as a whole; and special, or those
which concern individual miracles, or sayings about them; and we
will consider each in turn.
(1.) General marks of truthfulness.
Among these we may notice first the extremely simple and graphic
way in which many of the miracles are described, such as the curing
of the man who was born blind, with the repeated questioning of the
man himself.[333] Then there is the raising of the daughter of Jairus,
and the curing of the man who was deaf and had a difficulty in
speaking, both of which are described with the most minute details,
including the actual Aramaic words spoken by Christ.[334] It is
difficult to think that they do not come from eye-witnesses. And the
same may be said of a large number of the miracles.
[333] John 9. 8-34.
[334] Mark 5. 41; 7. 34.

Secondly, the kind of miracles ascribed to Christ seem (as far as we

can judge) to be worthy of Him. They were not for His own benefit,
but for that of other people, and they are a great contrast to the
imaginary miracles ascribed to Him in the Apocryphal Gospels, most
of which are extremely childish. When for instance Christ was a boy,
we read of His making clay birds fly; of His turning children into kids
for refusing to play with Him; and of His cursing another boy who
had run against Him, and who in consequence fell down dead.[335]
How different such miracles are from those in our Gospels scarcely
needs pointing out. Nor is the case of the barren fig-tree, so often
objected to, an exception. For the tree itself could have felt no
injury, and as far as we know, its destruction injured no one else.
[335] Gospel of the Infancy, chapters xv., xvii., xix.

Thirdly, the miracles are closely connected with the moral teaching
of Christ, and it is difficult either to separate the two, or to believe
the whole account to be fictitious. His wonderful works, and His
wonderful words involve each other, and form together an
harmonious whole, which is too life-like to be imaginary. Indeed, a
life of Christ without His miracles would be as unintelligible as a life
of Napoleon without his campaigns. And it is interesting to note in
this connection that our earliest Gospel, St. Mark's, contains (in
proportion to its length) the most miracles. As we should expect, it
was Christ's miracles, rather than His moral teaching, which first
attracted attention.
Fourthly, the miracles were as a rule miracles of healing: that is to
say, of restoring something to its natural state, such as making blind
eyes see; and not doing something unnatural, such as giving a man
a third eye. Miracles of either kind would of course show
superhuman power; but the former are obviously the more suited to
the God of Nature. And this naturalness of the miracles, as we may
call it, seems to many a strong argument in their favour.
Fifthly, there were an immense number of miracles, the ones
recorded being mere examples of those that were actually worked.
Thus in St. Mark's Gospel we are told that on one occasion, Christ
healed many who were sick with divers diseases; on another that He
had healed so many, that those with plagues pressed upon Him to
touch Him; and on another that everywhere He went, into the
villages, cities, or country, the sick were laid out, so that they might
touch His garment, and as many as touched Him were made whole.
[336]

[336] Mark 1. 34; 3. 10; 6. 56

Sixthly, there was a great variety in the miracles. They were of

various kinds, worked in various places, before various witnesses,
and with various details and characteristics. They occurred in public
as well as in private; in the towns as well as in the country; at sea as
well as on land; in groups as well as singly; at a distance as well as
near; after due notice as well as suddenly; when watched by
enemies as well as among friends; unsolicited as well as when asked
for; in times of joy, and in times of sorrow. They were worked on the
blind as well as the deaf; the lame as well as the dumb; the leprous
as well as the palsied; the dead as well as the living. They
concerned men as well as women; the rich as well as the poor; the
educated as well as the ignorant; the young as well as the old;
multitudes as well as individuals; Gentiles as well as Jews; nature as
well as man—in fact, according to our accounts, it is difficult to
imagine any miracles that could have been more absolutely
convincing.
Seventhly, the miracles of Christ were (with trifling exceptions)
worked suddenly. They were not like gradual cures, or slow
recoveries, but they were done in a moment. The blind man
immediately received his sight; the palsied immediately took up his
couch: the leper was straightway cleansed; the infirm was
straightway made whole; the dead immediately rose up, etc.[337]
This was evidently a striking feature in the miracles, and the
Evangelists seem to have been much impressed by it.
[337] Luke 18. 43; 5. 25; Mark 1. 42; Matt. 8. 3; John 5. 9; Luke 8.
55.

Eighthly, many of the miracles were of a permanent character, and

such as could be examined again and again. When, for instance, a
man who had long been lame, or deaf, or blind, was restored to
health, the villagers, as well as the man himself, could certify to the
cure for years to come. And miracles such as these are obviously of
much greater value than what we may call momentary miracles
(such as Christ's calming the storm) where the only possible
evidence is that of the actual spectators.
Lastly, and this is very remarkable, the Evangelists nearly always
relate that Christ worked His miracles by His own authority: while
the Old Testament prophets, with scarcely an exception, worked
theirs by calling upon God. Take for instance the similar cases of
raising a widow's son.[338] Elijah prays earnestly that God would
restore the child to life; Christ merely gives the command, I say unto
thee, Arise. The difference between the two is very striking, and is of
itself a strong argument in favour of Christ's miracles; for had the
Evangelists invented them, they would certainly have made them
resemble those of the Old Testament. But instead of this, they
describe them as worked in a new and unprecedented manner, and
one which must at the time have seemed most presumptuous.
[338] 1 Kings 17. 21; Luke 7. 14.

The Gospel miracles then, from the simple and graphic way in which
they are described; their not containing anything childish or
unworthy; their close connection with the moral teaching of Christ;
their naturalness; their number; their variety; their suddenness; their
permanence; and above all from the authoritative way in which they
are said to have been worked; have every appearance of being truth
fully recorded.
(2.) Special marks of truthfulness.
Moreover several individual miracles, and sayings about them, are of
such a kind as could scarcely have been invented. Take, for instance,
the raising of the daughter of Jairus.[339] Now of course anyone,
wishing to magnify the power of Christ, might have invented this or
any other miracle. But if so, he is not likely to have put into the
mouth of Christ Himself the words, The child is not dead but
sleepeth. These words seem to imply that Christ did not consider it a
miracle; and though we may be able to explain them, by the similar
words used in regard to Lazarus,[340] they certainly bear the marks
of genuineness.
[339] Mark 5. 39.
[340] John 11. 11.

We are also told, more than once, that Christ's power of working
miracles was conditional on the faith of the person to be healed, so
that in one place He could do scarcely any miracles because of their
unbelief.[341] This is not the sort of legend that would have grown up
round a glorified Hero; it bears unmistakably the mark of
truthfulness. But then if the writer had good means of knowing that
Christ could do no miracles in one place, because of their unbelief;
had he not equally good means of knowing that Christ could, and
did, do miracles in other places?
[341] Matt. 13. 58; Mark 6. 5-6; Luke 18. 42.

And what shall we say of Christ's frequent commands to keep His

miracles secret?[342] There were doubtless reasons for this in every
case; but Christ's followers, who presumably recorded the miracles
in order to get them known, are not likely to have invented, and put
into His mouth the command to keep them secret. Nor is Christ likely
to have given it, had there been no miracles to keep secret. Nor
again is anyone likely to have added, unless it was the case, that the
command was generally disobeyed. This seems surprising, yet it is
very true to human nature that a man who had been suddenly cured
of a long complaint, should insist on talking about it.
[342] E.g., Mark 3. 12; 5. 43; 7. 36.

In the same way the discussions about working miracles on the

Sabbath Day have a very genuine tone about them and it is difficult
to imagine them to be inventions.[343] Yet such discussions could not
have arisen, if there had been no miracles on the Sabbath, or any
other day.
[343] Mark 3. 1-5; Luke 13. 10-17; John 5. 9-16; 9. 14-16.

Then there is the striking passage where Christ warned His hearers
that even working miracles in His name, without a good life, would
not ensure their salvation.[344] This occurs in one of His most
characteristic discourses, the Sermon on the Mount, and it is hard to
doubt its genuineness. But even if we do, it is not likely that Christ's
followers would have invented such a warning, if as a matter of fact
no one ever did work miracles in His name.
[344] Matt. 7. 22.

And much the same may be said of another passage where Christ is
recorded as saying that all believers would be able to work miracles.
[345]
If He said so, He must surely have been able to work them
Himself; and if He did not say so, His followers must have been able
to work them, or their inventing such a promise would merely have
shown that they were not believers. On the whole, then, as said
before, the accounts of the New Testament miracles have every
appearance of being thoroughly truthful.
[345] Mark 16. 17.

(C.) Their Publicity.

But the most important point has still to be noticed, which is the
alleged publicity of these miracles; and as this renders the testimony
in their favour peculiarly strong, we must examine it at some length.
(1.) They occurred in public.
To begin with, according to our Gospels, all the miracles of Christ
occurred during His public ministry, when He was well known, that
at Cana being definitely called the first.[346] And as they were meant
to confirm His teaching and claims, it was only natural for them to
begin when His teaching began. But if they had been invented, or
had grown up as legends, some at least would have been ascribed
to His earlier years (as they are in the Apocryphal Gospels) when
there was less chance of their being disputed.
[346] John 2. 11.

Moreover, many of them are stated to have been worked openly, and
before crowds of people, including Scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers.
[347]
And the names of the places where they occurred, and even of
the persons concerned, are given in some cases. Among these were
Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue; Lazarus, a well known man at
Bethany; Malchus, a servant of the High Priest; and the centurion at
Capernaum, who, though his name is not given, must have been
well known to the Jews, as he had built them a synagogue. While
the miracles recorded in the Acts concern such prominent persons as
the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, at Cyprus, and the chief man, Publius,
at Malta. And it is hard to overestimate the immense difficulty of
thus asserting public miracles, with the names of persons, and
places, if none occurred; yet the early Christians asserted such
miracles from the very first.
[347] E.g., Luke 5. 17-21.

Take for instance the feeding of the five thousand, near the Lake of
Galilee. This is recorded in the earliest Gospel, St. Mark's, and must
therefore have been written down very soon after the event, when a
large number of the five thousand were still alive. Now is it
conceivable that anyone would have ventured to make up such an
account, even twenty years afterwards, if nothing of the kind had
occurred? And if he had done so, would not his story have been
instantly refuted? Or take the case of healing the centurion's servant
at Capernaum. This, as before said, belongs to Q, the supposed
source common to Matthew and Luke, and admitted by most critics
to date from before A.D. 50. And how could such a story have been
current within twenty years of the event, if nothing of the kind had
occurred?
It is also declared that the miracles were much talked about at the
time, and caused widespread astonishment. The people marvelled at
them, they wondered, they were amazed, they were beyond
measure astonished, there had been nothing like them since the
world began.[348] The miracles were in fact the talk of the whole
neighbourhood. And we are told that in consequence several of
those which occurred at Jerusalem were at once officially
investigated by the Jewish rulers, who made the most searching
inquiries about them;[349] and in two instances, at least, publicly
admitted them to be true.[350] And this also is not likely to have been
asserted, unless it was the case; and not likely to have been the
case, if there had been no miracles.
[348] Matt. 9. 33; 15. 31; Mark 5. 42; 7. 37; John 9. 32.
[349] E.g., John 9. 13-34; Acts 4. 5-22.
[350] John 11. 47; Acts 4. 16.

(2.) They were publicly appealed to.

Moreover, these public miracles were publicly appealed to by the
early Christians. According to the Acts, this was done in the very first
public address, that at Pentecost, by St. Peter, who reminds his
hearers that they had themselves seen the miracles (even as ye
yourselves know), as well as in one other speech at least.[351] And
this is important, because even those critics, who deny the
genuineness of the Acts, yet admit that these speeches date from a
very early time. And if so, it shows conclusively that some of Christ's
immediate followers not only believed themselves that He had
worked miracles, but spoke as if their opponents believed it too.
[351] Acts 2. 22; 10. 38.

That they are not more frequently alluded to in the Acts is not
surprising, when we remember that, according to the writer,—and he
was an eye-witness in some cases, as they occur in the We sections,
[352]
—the Apostles themselves worked miracles. There was thus no
occasion for them to appeal to those of Christ as proving the truth of
what they preached; their own miracles being quite sufficient to
convince anyone who was open to this kind of proof. But still the
important fact remains that in the first recorded Christian address
the public miracles of Christ were publicly appealed to. And this was
within a few months of their occurrence; and at Jerusalem, where
the statement, if untrue, could have been more easily refuted than
anywhere else.
[352] Acts 16. 18, 26; 28. 6, 8-9.

Passing on to St. Paul's Epistles; it is true that they do not contain

any reference to Christ's miracles, except of course the Resurrection.
But as they were not written to convert heathens, but to instruct
those who were already Christians, there is nothing surprising in
this; and they do not mention any of His parables either. On the
other hand, they do contain direct reference to Apostolic miracles.
St. Paul in two of his undisputed Epistles positively asserts that he
had worked miracles himself; and he uses the same three words,
signs, wonders, and mighty works, which are used in the Gospels to
describe the miracles of Christ.[353]
[353] Rom. 15. 18, 19; 2 Cor. 12. 12.

The second passage is extremely important, since he speaks of them

as the signs of an apostle; and calls upon his opponents at Corinth
to admit that he was an apostle because he had worked these
miracles. And this implies not only that the miracles were done in
public, but that his readers as well as himself believed that the
power of working miracles belonged to all the Apostles. And it will be
noticed that he is addressing the very persons among whom he
declares he had worked the miracles; which makes it almost
inconceivable that his claim was unfounded, quite apart from the
difficulty of believing that such a man as St. Paul would wilfully make
a false statement.
From all this it follows that the first preachers of Christianity not only
appealed to Christ's miracles; but also to their own, in support of
their claims. And, as just said, how they could have done so, if they
worked no miracles, is not easy to understand.
We next come to a class of writings where we should expect to find
Christ's miracles alluded to, and these are the first Christian
Apologies. Nor are we disappointed. The three earliest, of which we
have any knowledge, were by Quadratus, Aristides, and Justin; the
first two being presented to the Emperor Hadrian, when he visited
Athens, A.D. 125.
Quadratus, in a passage preserved by Eusebius, lays stress on what
we have called the permanent character of Christ's miracles. He
says: 'The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, for they
were real; both they that were healed and they that were raised
from the dead were seen, not only when they were healed or raised,
but for a long time afterwards; not only whilst He dwelt on this
earth, but also after His departure, and for a good while after it,
insomuch that some of them have reached to our times.'[354]
[354] Eusebius, Hist., iv. 3.

Aristides bases his defence of Christianity on its moral character, and

does not appeal to any public miracles, though as before said
(Chapter XIV.) he asserts the Divinity, Incarnation, Virgin-birth,
Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ.
Lastly, Justin, about A.D. 150, not only specifies many of Christ's
miracles; but also says in general terms that He 'healed those who
were maimed, and deaf, and lame in body from their birth, causing
them to leap, to hear, and to see by His word. And having raised the
dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled the men
who lived at that time to recognise Him. But though they saw such
works, they asserted it was magical art.'[355] Justin, however, does
not base his argument on miracles, but on prophecy, because, as he
tells us again, the former might be ascribed to magic.
[355] Dial., 69; Apol. 1. 30.

But still, the actual occurrence of the miracles, he evidently thought

to be indisputable. He even says that the Emperor and Senate can
learn for themselves that Christ worked miracles (healing the lame,
dumb, and blind, cleansing the lepers, and raising the dead) by
consulting the Acts of Pilate.[356] And this certainly implies that such
a document, whether genuine or not, then existed in Rome; and that
it contained an account of the miracles. Thus two out of the three
earliest writers in defence of Christianity appealed to Christ's
miracles, in the most public manner possible, when addressing the
Emperor.
[356] Apol. 1. 48, 35.

(3.) They were never disputed.

But now comes another important point. Though these public
miracles were publicly appealed to by the early Christians, and
though written accounts of them were in circulation very soon after
they are stated to have occurred; yet, as far as we know, they were
never disputed. And this is the more remarkable, since they are said
to have been worked among enemies as well as friends. They were
thus peculiarly open to hostile criticism; and we may be sure that
the bitter opponents of Christ, who had brought about His death,
would have exposed them if they could. Yet, as just said, they were
never disputed, either by Jews or Gentiles; though, of course, they
both denied their evidential value.
The Jews—that is to say the Scribes and Pharisees—did this, by
ascribing them to the Evil One. And though this was a very strange
expedient, as their effect was obviously good, and not evil, they had
really no alternative. The common people were much impressed by
the miracles, and were anxious to welcome Christ as their Messiah;
[357]
yet the Pharisees decided that such a man as this—so unlike
what they expected—could not possibly be their Messiah. They had
then to explain away the miracles somehow. And since they denied
that they were worked by God, they were bound to ascribe them to
the Devil, for these were the only supernatural powers they believed
in; though of course both of these had subordinate angels under
them. But we may ask, would the Jews have adopted such an
expedient had there been any possibility of denying that the miracles
occurred? Yet that they did adopt it can scarcely be disputed. It is
positively asserted in each of the first three Gospels;[358] and
Christians are not likely to have reported such a horrible suggestion
as that their Master was an agent of the Evil One, unless it had been
made.
[357] John 6. 15; Mark 11. 10.
[358] Matt. 9. 34; 12. 24; Mark 3. 22; Luke 11. 15.

The Gentiles on the other hand, believed in a variety of gods, many

of whom were favourable to mankind, and could be invoked by
magic; so they could consistently ascribe the miracles to some of
these lesser deities; or, in popular language, to magic. And we have
abundant evidence that they did so. As we have seen, it is expressly
asserted by Justin, who in consequence preferred the argument
from prophecy; and Irenæus did the same, and for avowedly the
same reason.[359]
[359] Bk. ii. 32.

Moreover, Celsus, the most important opponent of Christianity in the

second century, also adopted this view. His works are now lost, but
Origen in answering him frequently and positively asserts it; saying
that he often spoke of the miracles as works of sorcery.[360] And
though Celsus lived some years after the time in question, it is most
unlikely, if the early opponents of Christianity had denied that the
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com