In the history page, it starts out with this paragraph:
In the book of Acts, after Peter heals a man who has been lame from birth, the people in town begin giving Peter the credit for healing the man. In response to their praise and adulation, Peter says "Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? Or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man walk." (Acts 3:12). Peter then continues by giving all the credit for the healing to the Lord. Similarly, when people praise the accomplishments and growth of Chinese Christian Schools, located in San Leandro, California, the administrators and faculty of the school can only echo Peter's comments, saying, "Ye observers of our school, why marvel at our growth and accomplishments? Or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power, holiness, and hard work we have made this ministry successful? God alone is to be acknowledged and praised for the success of Chinese Christian Schools!"
I feel compelled to comment on this. I think this message here contains a subtle half-truth. And of course the best and most devilish lies are those that piggyback along with some truth. The storyteller starts by asserting something we would agree with intuitively: excessive praise and/or the reception of such is an unwise practice. And with some thought we can justify this assertion by reflecting on the fact that if we are the one receiving excessive praise and we internalize it, then our own feelings of superiority and our own ego will blind us to things. If we are the ones offering excessive praise, then the action is also a form of self denigration which also leads us away from true seeing. This is an example of taking the "middle path".
So the author gets us on his or her side here, but then the story finds a solution to the problem which is curious: Peter asserts that it was "God" who did the job. We are left to assume that Peter had no part in it, it was all God. So wait a second, what does this mean? If Peter believes that "God" can act through him, then does Peter take responsibility for any of his actions? Which actions are Peter's and which are God's? This sounds like crazy talk.
Perhaps this is meant to suggest to us what to do if someone tries to throw excessive praise our way. We are told to respond that "God" did it, and that of course redirects the praise away from us and indirectly rebukes the praiser. I guess the praiser is supposed to say next time "praise God for this action".
This seems really similar to a parent whose child is being unruly in the restaurant and to fix things, the parent breaks out a chocolate kiss. The child forgets all their troubles once the promise of sugar enters the equation.
"Don't praise me, praise God". "Don't direct your unruly behavior at me, have a candy bar".
In both cases, I think we are teaching the other person to look outside themselves for happiness. This can only result in suffering. I want to teach about the power of mind, mindfulness, dwelling in the present moment, spaciousness, etc. You don't teach that with some kind of formulamatic answer. You only teach that through "being".
Ok, now if I goto church and they sing "Praise God from whom all blessings flow". Or just "Praise God", I don't have a problem with that, because to me God is just another word for divine presence, first cause, love, spirit, oneness, enlightened consciousness, every atom of the universe _is_ God and that's an inclusive God, not in any way separate from me. You can praise that God without inplying projection of an other.
