[書摘] Divine Impassability or Simply Divine Constancy?

Source:  Bruce McCormack, ‘Divine Impassability or Simply Divine Constancy? Karl Barth’s Later Christology for Debates over Impassability’ in Divine Impassibility and the Mystery of Human Suffering,  James Keating & Thomas Joseph White eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 150-186

Summary:

In this article, Bruce McCormack argues that we should dispense with the apostolic doctrine of divine impassibility, not just because of Adolf von Harnack’s Hellenization thesis (that the apostolic fathers’ exegesis has been contaminated by platonic thoughts), but more so because of Christology.

It is more justifiable to speak of God‘s fidelity and constancy. God’s affectivity is demonstrated in His own free power and His innermost essence, open and ready to co-suffering with alien suffering. Barth criticizes Schleiermacher’s conception of absolute dependence because the source of this absolute dependence has no heart and no soul (KD II/1, p.416; CD II/1, p.370).

For Barth, the human Jesus that suffers and dies is truly and fully God, and this creates two problems concerning the immutability and the impassability of God.

We have only two options. The first is to mystify the relationship between the ontic Trinity and the economic Trinity—that the transcendent God is also the immanent God with us is a paradox, a paradox culminated in Mk 15:34: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In the incarnation God not only becomes the creature, but gives himself over to the human’s contradiction of him, placing himself under the judgment that rests on that contradiction.

But according to Barth this solution is intolerable in that it sets God in self-contradiction. How can God reconcile the world with Himself if there is any fundamental self-contradiction in His [immanent and economic] nature?

Communication of attributes between Christ‘s two natures is an area of debate between reformed orthodoxy and Lutheran theology. But no one here who holds to the traditional paradox can give a satisfactory single-subject Christological account of the communication of attributes without either drifting into Nestorianism or winding up with greater paradox.

The only remaining option is to affirm that God has completely faithful to Himself. God must be fully committed in being in Christ and must not flirt with other possibilities. We can successfully hold this claim only by beginning with what God does in Jesus Christ, such a God that can be emptied, humiliated, suffer, and die. God’s immutability is preserved by if we speak of the ontology of God first and foremost in light of the Christocentric historical revelation. The Majesty of the father and the obedience of the son are manifestations of a single divine subject in different modes of being, a purposive /willed “self-repetition”. We might say it is precisely the father’s majestic command which posits Himself over against himself in the person of the son that is capable of responding in obedience.

Tweaking Barth’s theology in this actualistic way, there will be no room left for divine impassability.

The homecoming of the son of man” in CD IV/2

Barth and Cyril of Alexander both hold to the conviction that “what the man Jesus does, God does.” Cyril’s solution is to instrumentalize the human nature of Jesus to make it a tool/performative agent of the Logos as the single subject in Jesus Christ.

But to prevent it from collapsing into a Hegelian reduction, the abstractness of the Chalcedonian formula needs some reworking. Classically there is a static center between the great divine acts of virginal conception and resurrection that bypasses the history of Jesus. Barth thinks that we have to ‘actualize’ the doctrine of the incarnation that the traditional concepts of unio, communion, and communication will be all “terms which speak of actions, operationes, events.” (CD IV/2 p.46)

Christ exists in a modality of being in perfect receptivity in a kind of relation of his humanity that is more than merely economic, it constitutes God second mode of being in eternity. That the command and the obedience are the dual aspects of the divine election into eternal processions means the second person of the Trinity is always the “Logos asarkos in anticipation of the Logos ensarkos”. The hypostatic union is not a static state but can only be spoken as hypostatic uniting from a timeless aspect. Barth has set aside the essentialism of the ancient church and rejected that there is a Logos acting in and through and upon the human nature. He exchanged what was essentialist for an understanding that is historicized and actualistic.

Barth is not Arian, but also not a modalist according to the following reasons:

1)      Though Modalists (Noetus and Praxeas) and Barth both attributed suffering to the Father in certain ways, Barth has an adequate distinction between the person of the Father and that of the Son. The threes persons for Barth are distinguished not according to temporal or economic phases, but in the decision that takes place in eternity. The modalist thinking has been continued in 19^th century Lutheran kenoticism (Wolfgang Gess). (Notice also that Swiss reformed concept of “the genus tapeinoticum” [literally: the “genus of humility”] is the logical contrary of the Lutheran genus majestaticum.)

2)      Barth also distinguishes himself from Sabellius. The three persons for Barth exist in their different modes of being, and for Sabellius different modes of appearance.

3)      Barth identifies the misguided doctrinal commitment to divine impassibility as the root problem of both modalism and subordinationism. That is to say, God could have remained impassible only if He did not elect Himself to be for us. But since He did and He is completely faithful to whom He is, then there is no place for impassibility.

McCormack’s final suggestion is that Karl Barth has completely moved away and beyond early church fathers, including Cappadocian fathers, in terms of metaphysical framework.

The Scholastic effort to tie them back together is wrong and useless.  We have to accept Karl Barth  and reject church fathers because their worldviews were conditioned by their Hellenistic world rather than the biblical one.  This is inevitable because the Bible simply did not give us a firm and consistent teaching in metaphysics. That is not the concern of the biblical writers. This means today we have to develop a different set of Scriptural ontology according to our best understanding of the conditions of our time- the postmodern, and even the postliberal condition.

Other bibliography

• The Humanity of the Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Bruce McCormack)
• Jesus Christ Embodiment of Grace
• Karl Barth on the Hypostatic Union (Adam Neder)
• God’s Perfect Life (John Webster)

Related articles

• [書摘] Christ and Canon, theology and history – the Barth-Harnack dialogue revisited (breath35.wordpress.com)
• [書摘] God is His Decision: The Jüngel-Gollwitzer "Debate" Revisited (breath35.wordpress.com)
• [書摘] Argue Theologically with One Another: Karl Barth’s Argument with Emil Brunner (breath35.wordpress.com)

[省思] Sustainability: A principle of Christian ethics?

Image via Wikipedia

Source Link: Ecology and Jesuits in Communication

• This article is in my view an excellent response to the viewpoint made by Louis C. Gasper in my previous post  [文摘] Professing Catholic social thought in business and business schools.  The major criticism made by Gasper is directed against environmentalism, which, as an unwarranted religion, has unsolicitedly muddled the socio-political order by confusing economic matters with theological and ethical matters. He wrote:

The environmentalists…demanded… that the environment not be used at all as an engine to recycle manufacturing waste materials... [T]here is inadequate economic and business justification for such a solution, how can one defend it? The obvious answer is to make it a moral matter. This requires some higher justification, and thus environmentalism has had to seek a religious foundation for its requirements of « corner solutions. » What amounts to a new, secularized public religion has been concocted. At the core of its creed is a belief in Mother Earth, a being superior to man which must be served and sacrificed.[ 4]

一個重大的問題是生態保護主義，與工業發展（不論是採集自然資源和傾倒廢料）必須破壞自然之間的衝突。生態保護主義是一種宗教，不論企業界如何 做，都沒有達到這個宗教理想的一天。宗教有一種特色，就是它幻想的理想是另一個世界，而那是在這個世界永不可能人為達到的理想。以生態保護主義來說，只有 人類文明整個退回到原始世界了，他們人才會真正滿意。而這背後，其實是把社會利益團體價值觀必然產生的衝突，賦予道德的高度，甚至宗教和神學意義。這在作 者看來是極度不合法（理）的舉動。(My paraphrase in Chinese)

• Now we have the following article written by Markus Vogt, professor of Christian social ethics at the Theological Faculty of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich (Germany) and advisor to the German Bishops’ Conference on issues of sustainability, to comment on  how sustainability is a warranted idea of Catholic and Christian faith.
• I wholeheartedly agree with his viewpoints, but two additional points I wish to make in advance:

1. I have a foundationlist critique against his view- I do not think the Catholic social teaching (CST) can exert any moral (let alone legal) binding on non-catholic individuals and communities. On the one hand, it is good to undergird the secular principle of sustainability with a Christian theological foundation. Through this, we preach an eschatological hope "that reach beyond man’s social and technical capacities" and open humanity’s "horizon towards God" (hence our society may be drawn closer to faith), but as long and as far as there are religious-specific reasons behind it, there should not be any morally or legally coercive force upon individuals and communities who have not voluntarily entered into the covenant bindings of the Gospel as a people of God redeemded by the cross of Jesus Christ. It is crucial to keep in mind that the foundation for the "modern societies and economies" is by nature a social contract, established only as a result of multi-party negociation whereby "biblical imperatives are translated into ethical categories".
2. I have appreciated a more articualted and distinct Christian ecclesiology- The Church do "accept ethical impulses from outside". Indeed, that we gain impulses and impetus from the world does not mean that we uncritically identify with their reasoning and the reasons behind them. Only because of this, we are able to engage with and process the social issues biblically and give them a "renewed ethical and theological interpretation".

Markus Vogt wrote (all emphases, hyperlinks, and underlines are mine):

[書摘] A few quotes from The Mission of God

Cover of The Cross of Christ

‘A broadly missional reading of the whole bible…actually subsumes liberationist readings into itself… where else but from the God who triumphed climactically over all such wickedness and evil (human, historical, and cosmic) in the cross and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ?’— Christopher J. H. Wright (2006), The Mission of God, p.44

‘A missional hermeneutic means that we seek to read any part of the Bible in the light of…[t]he centrality of Jesus…. in relation to Israel and the nations…’—ibid, p.67 ‘

The cross of Christ is the key to the unfolding purpose of history, or, in terms of our argument here, the unfolding mission of God. Why is Christ worthy to govern history?’ –ibid, p.249

• The Cross of Christ is the nsame of a book by John Stott, C.J.H. Wrigjt’s mentor.

‘Any theology of mission that claims to be biblical must have at its core that which is at the very core of biblical faith—the cross of Christ.’—ibid, p.312

 

 

           

再辯同性戀道德基礎：一個總結－A Supervenient Moral Realism

Alexandre Hyacinthe Dunouy – Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Hi Mathturtle，

這幾天忙著自己和教會的事情。剛又看到Ptt上討論還繼續。我想確實已經進入你所關心的議題核心。即世俗框架下，「道德實在論」（moral realism）與「實用主義」（pragmatism）之爭。

kockroach雖自稱信神上教會，其實卻是持實用主義中的道德相對主義（Moral relativism）。他相信時代的脈落是有延續性、建構性。每一次議題出現的時候，都是參與契約簽訂與修訂的各方就當前脈絡重新制訂道德準則的契機，而只要溝通有成，協商滿意，新契約的訂定即可視為人類社會的一種進步。

這是「壞神學」的結果。他的神學其實大多不通，不是意識型態上的不通，是就專業上就搞錯了一些思想方法的基本內容和訴求（保羅新觀、申命史觀、經文鑑別）。

倒是他講David Tracy和Jurgen Moltmann的部份確實有所本，方向和觀念有抓到。Moltmann我在2005年見過本人，Tracy則人就在我時常造訪的芝加哥大學神學系。這部份我在自己的研究中還在整理。我現在關心的是在什麼位置上可以把他們的「公共神學」思想也列入我寫作框架的對話對象中。所以只是在這小站上爭論這些節點，對我來說就有點浪費時間。

———————————

kockroach回應：

在我看來，去幻想一個不實際的形而上結構，定義何謂婚姻，一副自己是多麼虔誠的「正統」神學家，光會拍老耶的馬屁，卻忽略了在這個體系下受到壓迫與不公平的對待的人，是狗屁不通的。

（對，我就是壞神學家…. 魯汶的系統神學走的是某種變相的多元主義…我走的是解構、神死的路，剛好跟 postliberal 相反啦～）

我贊同 Naturalist 所說的，被指控不道德的人其實沒有義務提出證據證明自己有道德。這就如同小英也沒有義務提出任合證據證明自己是或不是同性戀。

這純粹是一種人格上的羞辱。

相反的，應該是那些高舉道德大旗的人去承擔這個理論的「神義論」的責任。任何人所提出的任何道德規範，只要會壓迫到其他社會上的邊緣人，就應該反省自己，而不是要求那些被異性戀沙文主義所歧視的人提出證據證明自己的清白。

說得簡單一點，婚姻不一定有底限，但是那些認為婚姻有底線的人，有義務提出一套不會讓同志絕得自己受到屈辱的界限。

—————————

我的回應是：我認同kockroach說的地方在於

1. 如果不是忠於聖經，我是連將同性戀傾向視為缺陷也不願或是缺乏立場的。醫學生理研究，對我來說都是次要。如同左撇子（我個人即是），根據統計比右利者平均壽命短9-11年。慣用腦不同、思考習慣不同。卻無法從聖經說「左撇子不是造物主原初美好的心意」。我們對生存脈絡－（e.g. 生理的最優化 c.f. Darwinism）和社會脈絡（e.g. 私人利益的最大化 c.f. pragmatism）的視野都不會是基督徒人生的最高指導原則，我們對聖經救贖歷史脈絡的視野才是。
2. 基督徒必須挺身去終止壓迫和歧視。別再用不忠實的資訊去煽動家長和製造社會對立了。
3. 一套不會讓同志絕得自己受到屈辱的方案，要讓參與的先知去提。

—————————

Naturalist

「支持或反對同志婚姻的人都沒有必要為他們所堅持的訴求給出答案」。這人是純粹的解構虛無主義者（Deconstruction nihilist ）。不需要建立任何遊戲規則和互信框架，一切用權力決定，拳頭大說的算。這人無須理會。

—————————

windcanblow; MoonMan0319; dans; MathTurtle

你們四人在問的都是世俗基礎上的「道德實在論」如何可能成立？民法所保障的婚姻，有一個道德防線。如果同性戀要將這一個道德防線向後撤，是用什麼倫理學手段？而當此例一開，該手段是否可複製在亂倫、一夫多妻等可能議題上？

windcanblow是一個世俗道德實在論者（secular moral realist）。但他對這個道德底線的存在是悲觀的。引用Aristotle，和Margaret Marshall，他說「婚姻是一種公共承認與公共許可，其中的保證人則為政府。法定婚姻是一種具有高度公眾性意義的契約，雙方面皆可表達承諾的愛，背後是道德與倫理上的美德。」故在道德上反同婚姻者其實佔不到任何便宜。

但他後卻又提出，，異性戀也不過是彼此同意想結婚就結婚，很多劣質的婚姻，不存在「世俗道德」底線的。所以與其用「一男一女」、「傳宗接代」這種生理防線、「彼此承諾」這種已經不符合婚姻實然的道德契約防線，需要的應該是一種真正能用「愛情的內容品質」來衡量婚姻資格的超然標準吧？－只要「真愛」、「夠愛」，任何兩人都該被准結婚！但這在人類社會是永遠不可能做到的。到底政府不可能用「真愛」這種抽象標準訂定法律契約。而且在欠缺「道德實在論」的形上學依據之下，這簡單思考方向也會開放亂倫婚姻、兒童婚姻，且不需要為實用主義者所買帳。所以不是太具有建設性的論述，但已經將討論帶往正確的思考方向。

————————–

MoonMan0319回應：

這你恐怕有所誤解，上面那四位中雖然只有兩名基督徒，數龜（Mathturtle）的立場我不曉得，
我自己是完全站在挺同那一方的。所以我問的根本就不是你詮釋的問題：世俗基礎上的道德實在論如何可能？

我的問題是：在聖經中對於婚姻的價值，最核心之處在哪？(是否包括了性別。)你已經預設了在同志議題上將防線往後撤就是信仰防線的崩潰，我要質疑的正是這點。

————————–

我新增的回應如下：

同志神學的目的正是要提供一個可以安全撤動倫理防線的神學方案。所以我才挑戰所有提出異見的基督徒：「請用聖經說服我。」我認為單是質疑沒有意義，提出積極有建設性的方案劃下一個新的防線、新的聖經道德視界才是我們要做的。
日常經驗和直覺都可以幫助我們反思對經文的理解，但在我們真正被聖經說服之前，我們不應該被其他的神／偶像來指使我們的信仰。

————————–

windcanblow回應： 在這邊我只澄清「真愛跟夠愛是否可為婚姻的超然標準」這個問題這是新朋友的見解，他認為愛到卡慘死，外遇有真愛，就應該跳脫原先的婚姻契約去追求。我完全不同意這點。

所以抽除這個論點，與其說我對婚姻道德底線悲觀，不如說我偏向相對主義（moral relativism），因為我們叩問了如此之久，竟除了你之外無人能回答婚姻的意義與底線是什麼。但我也不同意你將一男一女作為最終的標準。這理由你已經知道。

那麼除了擁抱一個隨時代而改變的婚姻制度與內涵，我還能有什麼選擇呢？我們來思考一個情境，一對伴侶來到無人的星球上，女方懷孕了，是男嬰。而男方沒多久身亡。為了不斷後，女方產下男嬰後就以機械冬眠，直到男嬰長大成人。

沒錯，為了繁衍，他們近親交配，母子作現代社會所不允許的事情。他們產下許多的男嬰，卻沒有一個女孩，因此母親只好再次冬眠，一切只為了保留她的生育能力，讓這個家族不至滅絕。於是祖母與父親交配，祖母與孫子交配，直到家族成為一個部落，部落成為一個國家。

這情境中的道德問題是什麼？近親交配並非絕對將產下易死的後代，近親交配在面對種族繁衍生死交關的問題之前，它的道德問題是否又變得不重要了？我的回答是肯定的。所以即便滑坡謬誤會將所有尾隨在同性戀婚姻後的雜難通通滾到我面前，我也不會避開。如果時代已經來到同性婚姻是必然，那麼就讓它成吧，為何要感到恐懼？

——————————–

我這邊的回應是：

如果我是該女，或許會選擇生子後兩人一起活到壽終見主面。聖經中說生養眾多、遍滿「這地」（ הָאָ֖רֶץ） ，是帶著應許，恐怕既不該被看作誡命，也不包括外星。

Genesis 1:26 　神說、我們要照著我們的形像、按著我們的樣式造人、使他們管理海裡的魚、空中的鳥、地上的牲畜、和全地、並地上所爬的一切昆蟲。 27 　神就照著自己的形像造人、乃是照著他的形像造男造女。 28 　神就賜福給他們、又對他們說、要生養眾多、遍滿地面、治理這地（ הָאָ֖רֶץ）．也要管理海裡的魚、空中的鳥．和地上各樣行動的活物。

—————————–

實際派的人（opportunist），根本是沒固定原則的人。他們會說，先通過同性戀，等到亂倫真正被端上前線時再說。這也是實用主義論述的一支：社會風氣變來變去、原則也可以變來變去。

我認為整起討論串中最有建設性意義的是dans的這段，他試著發展Rawls 的社會契約（social contract）無知之幕（veil of ignorance）下的公共意識（public awareness），最後點出這個實用主義多邊協商下的正義（justice）價值維穩的潛在社會危機：

       「正義即是公平」，Rawls如是說。假設人皆以自利為目的，而眾人皆得最大利的前提下所產生的社會制度，即為這社會最大的利。Rawls的無知之幕論述巧妙的融合了Kant、Rousseau、Mill三派的思想，既為自由主義，又同時具備政府論下對個人權力的限縮的思想與功利主義下對福利作為衡量的概念。

因而Rawls說了，所得稅的累進稅制是公平的，因為無知之幕下的個人面臨無可預測的未來所產生的風險（可能變成富人或窮人，而28理論告訴我們變成窮人的機率會高一些），會傾向對富人多課些稅（財富累積的邊際效用遞減，就算是自己被課也不會太痛），轉而用以扶助窮人。這個公共意識（劫富濟貧）因而得以正當化。

因而，此論述的核心即在於我們如何界定公共意志對於『婚姻』的定位。或許無知之幕下的公共意志會認為婚姻是專屬異性所有，或許不會，這我不清楚，因為問題又會回歸到『婚姻的本質』上。

假如我們無法對於婚姻的定位有個明確的看法，那同志婚姻永遠就只能是那樣的『你認為它理所當然是人權，而我認為它理所當然不是人權』，就像『上帝的存在』，彼此陷入無法自證的窘境。

這樣的結果不必然就是好的，因為當價值觀無法被正當化，那價值觀的擠身主流就只能靠漫長的『洗腦』直到其跨越門檻，方能成為『基本人權』。「不能主動正當化，那只好盧到大家都能認同這樣的理念，並使之成為社會中先驗的知識」，這樣雖然耗日費時，但也沒辦法了。

所以我希望或許這個版的討論能幫我找到一個正當化的理由，而不是『它當然是人權』這種搖搖欲墜的大旗。但我其實明白，這問題我可能有生之年都無法得到解答。就像大部分毫無自證說服力的基本人權，只能以價值觀的傳播渲染作為爭取權力的手段。

bikaoru

這人則立場完全站不住腳。只談「自由平權」這項價值。他在理想上是天真自由主義者（naïve libertarian）。在實踐上則必定認知不協調。因為「平權」無法解釋為什麼小孩不能投票、原住民考試可以加分、富人必須被多徵稅、近親相姦還是不能合法。

法律是價值觀的體現，除了分配正義之外，又強調符合於某種社會期待。不是如他所以為的，只需要按著（不妨害他人下的）「平權」一項原則一路推到底。

如果他想說「婚姻是基本人權」，其他不是。那他還是要在邏輯理論上回答為什麼兒童不能結婚？近親不能通婚？人獸不能交配？

——————————–

• bikaoru回應：

breath35稱我為天真的自由主義者，其實我不否認
他所提出的：
為什麼小孩不能投票
原住民考試可以加分
富人必須被多徵稅
近親相姦還是不能合法
（請容我在此回應）這些全都是我身為一個天真的自由主義者所無法接受的。

多數人也許認為小孩沒有足夠的判斷能力。
但是也無法證明20歲後就有、未滿20就沒有不是嗎？
即使是小孩，他也會被政策所影響，理所當然該有投票權

原住民考試可以加分，這其實我在日常生活中就三不五時在罵了
原住民難道特別笨嗎？沒有嘛。
現代社會上原住民接受的教育跟漢人不同嗎？也沒有
這無異是另類的一種歧視，而且對其他考生也不公平

至於富人被多徵稅，這我更不能接受。
雖然我稱不上富有，但是人家賺的多是他的本事。
這是變相的強迫這些富人捐錢救濟。（怪了，為什麼一定要幫助窮人？）

近親相姦不能合法，這純粹只是滿足道德人士的心理。
我個人是完全不反對這點（當然，法律的理由也都是以道德為出發點無法說服我。）

他又提出：「要在邏輯理論上回答為什麼兒童不能結婚？近親不能通婚？人獸不能交配？」
1.可以
2.可以
3.可以
這些我都不反對，其實我實在想不出為何要反對他們。人家兩情相悅，是要反對什麼？真是莫名其妙

breath35：「法律是價值觀的體現，除了分配正義之外，又強調符合於某種社會期待。不是如他所以為的，只需要按著（不妨害他人下的）「平權」一項原則一路推到底。」

我想這就是我們在想法上絕對性的差異。

當今的法律不應是價值觀的體現，而是維持社會的平和何為社會平和？使所有人在不干涉他人的情況下保有100%的自由（所以不要在有人可愛的問我為什麼希特勒不能侵略別人了）

所謂的社會正義、價值觀，都是會隨著時代改變的東西真正完美的法律，是不會因為時代的演變而需要被修改。

例如中古世紀的巫女，在當時被綁起來燒死所有人也認為這是符合道德觀、社會正義的
但是現在呢？為什麼人家自己在家裡煮煮魔藥、研究些不存在的魔法就要被你們以多數暴力剝奪生存的權利？就只是因為道德觀看他不順眼？

而「社會期待」，到底有什麼重要性？說得明白些就是滿足某些人的道德心理、讓他們看的爽。這不叫民主，這是民粹。

今天那些人可以因為「看不順眼同性戀」就剝奪別人結婚的權利（或者說在法律上成為
配偶），明天我可不可以因為你長得醜我看不順眼就不准你上街？這根本就是假民主。

breath35又指出「理想上是天真自由主義者。」真正的自由主義者，實踐上絕不會認知不協調不反對跟支持是不同的東西，像是人獸交，我不會想做也不希望你做，但是我絕對認同你有人獸交的權利。

正因為現今是個講求民主、自由、平等的社會我才會對法律有如此多的矛盾而不滿，倘若台
灣是個專制國家，那即便法律如何的不妥，我都沒有意見，因為一個專制國家法律就是真理

正因為打著民主自由平等的招牌，卻立了不自由、不平等、且民粹的法律，就是這點教人看了噁心。

查了一下維基對於「自由意志主義」的詳細定義其實還滿多東西與我的看法不謀而合。

—————————————

我的回覆是：推，您將自己的立場說明得很清楚。

——————————————–

至此，個人認為問題已經無法再有任何進展。

「道德實在論」一定需要提出形上學依據。也就是說，你可以說你相信（有）某種道德價值實存於人類文明社會本身之外，是一個具有確切內容的實體，但這個實體的形上學擔保（metaphysical warrant）何來？回答這要求對我來說很簡單，唯一的依據就是聖經中的上帝。所以作為基督徒神學家我沒有興趣，也沒有可能幫無神論者另闢婚姻的道德根基。Dostoevsky 認為這就給無神道德實在者一個信仰上帝的理由。

今天見到遠志明牧師，我當面問他「基督徒如何維繫自由社會的道德底線」。他不是對這種問題想很深的人，但他認為，除了努力傳福音，別無方法。聽到我現在在做的事，他說「好好寫、好好幹！」。

再來看「實用主義」的立場，kockroach其實已經陷入Rawls框架中最後的困境，就是所有的議題都只能就當前的脈絡來協商最大利益，產生的原則就是一種暫時性的道德原則。但是脈絡這東西並非是不變的，他沒有弄清楚的是，每一個道德的產生，都是一種特殊的附隨現象（supervenience ）。附隨原則的定義如下：

哲學中，在一般情況下，兩組相異的屬性（如心靈屬性與物理屬性）之間，它們維繫著一種在本體上依存的不對稱的關係；充分條件且為必要條件的是，如果每個在物件（object）中屬於第一組的屬性（伴隨發生的屬性）發生的改變，是必然的結果，而且歸因於屬於第二組的屬性中（基本屬性）的改變。「伴隨發生」通常吸引那些希望主張物理主義（physicalism）而又拒斥同一論的哲學家：雖然不太可能將心靈屬性與物理屬性以一對一的方式視為同一件事，但心靈屬性仍可能伴隨發生，並因此坐落在物理屬性的基礎之上。因此沒有兩件在物理上相似的事物，能夠在心靈上（或心理學上）有所不同，而一個存在的心靈屬性將由它的物理屬性來決定。

套用在「社會脈絡」（social context and ethos）與「道德原則」之間的關係來說，脈絡就像身體，而道德就是心靈。前者的脈絡當然是一種實質（real entity），而後者雖然附隨，卻也是一種實質。而這個附隨實質還有一種特性，就是它會回過頭來調控第一組的基本實質，成為一種物理性或詮釋學的循環。

舉例來說，心靈「附隨」的必要條件是身體細胞元件包括心臟和大腦的某種穩定配合。所以心靈較為「不基本」。可是心靈卻能夠回過頭來控制調動肢體，支配身體去做各種事。只是如果心靈決定拿槍朝身體的大腦或心臟開槍，那麼身體死了，心靈也不存（或是就以靈魂的另類方式存在了）。

同樣地，還有文法（grammar, syntax）「附隨」於字詞觀念。文法存在的必要條件是字詞觀念在語言中的發展。例如「我」、「你」、「愛」、bitter、bitterness這樣的概念屬於字詞觀念。文法向來是以一種後設的方式在字詞觀念的結構關係中找出關連和差異，如區分「我」和「你」的言說位置，成就了語言結構中的主客關係；將bitter和bitterness對照分析，則會產生名詞、形容詞、cognate等多種語言學觀念附隨其上。表面上是個別字詞概念之間的關連方式，造就了「文法規則」。但文法規則附隨於自詞觀念之後，會回過頭來支配字詞觀念的發展。就像「我你愛」不是一個通順的句子，或是說“-ness” 成為一種的文法二序（second order）規則，代表著「形容詞的名詞化、性質抽象化」。這樣一組二序規則是在英語使用的脈絡中被「創」（附隨）出來的。然而一旦它誕生了（作為一個emerging property），它就必然會開始控管人們在日常脈絡中能夠怎麼溝通和造字。例如，adjective的意思是形容詞，那我就可以在這個脈絡中創一個詞 adjectiveness，它就是想當然爾是「形容詞性」的意思。簡單地說，就是先有語言的日常使用，才有語言學等二序抽象理論去統整、並反身來規範語言之日常使用。

使用這個附隨的觀念，就是要說，道德原則會在社會脈絡中生成，不是單純作為一種被動而無力的建構（construct）而已。它是一種附隨後的新生物質（emerging property），會產生調控和維繫社會脈絡的功能。這是客項（objectivation）和建構（contruction）的最大差別。前者是靈魂，是有實質思維內容和行動能力的實體；而後者充其量只能說是肉體的某一種型態（mode of being），不具備本體論的單獨地位。

那麼修改道德原則，就像我們要修改文法規則一樣。必須把它當作一個實體來對待，而不能用脈絡來強暴它。

要求人們提出理由說明同性戀婚姻為什麼可以合法或不合法，就像你必須告訴我為什麼「我你愛」（不）可以是正確通順的用法，都是分析知識論上合理的要求。

解構虛無主義者不認為自己需要達成這個要求，因為他們根本不買分析知識論者的帳。

他們會說：比拳頭、靠洗腦。如果一堆人都趕流行用起「我你愛」的說法，那它就取得社會認可，之後民間國語辭典就會開始羅列這樣用法，而下一步大概也會修改教育部的中小學國語教材。「正統」（orthodoxy）就這樣被改變了。

但在這同時，解構虛無主義者（deconstruction nihilist）一定會碰到「道德實在論者」（moral realist）或「語言純粹主義者」（purist/linguistic formalist）的挑戰，社會上的「倫理學家」、「宗教家」以及「語言專家」就是這樣的角色。他們是這些「附隨新生物質」（俗稱「道統」）的整理者、表述者、繼承者，因此也必定是脈絡反動的壓迫者。

他們代表社會這個有機體的「心靈」，除非「身體」的疲勞已經大到能夠瓦解心靈—一如流行語的被認可程度要大到語言學家必須屈服、挺同聲浪要大到傳統價值維護者的聲音已經聽不清，針對道統的「反動革命」是基本不會成功的。

 

從這個角度說來，「以人權為基本價值而無須其他立場支撐」的觀點看問題的性別論述者，是天真的直覺主義者（naïve intuitionist）。因為「人權」只是當代契約書寫和簽訂時「附隨」的文法，該文法規則在三千年前並不存在，是近二三百年革命出來的。

而人權的提出有沒有訴諸形上學擔保？有！。不像「法律之前人人平等」、「天子犯法與庶民同罪」是一種人與人之間的社會契約語言、一種大家「約法三章」而成立的遊戲規則，「天賦人權」、「人人生而平等」是一種對於上帝和人類終極秩序的信仰，其革命的價值和激進性也是由其神學性的高度而來。

所以更進一步該分析的問題就是要看革命的正當性，不是光訴諸「反霸權」、光控訴「那些說『我愛你』而反對說『我你愛』的人」是「文字威權主義者」就能完事的’；這麼做只是使社會變得更為原始而退化的民粹主義罷了。

 

再次回到語言學的類比來說，用「人權」來壓「一男一女的婚姻法案」，事實上是「上訴高層文法規則」（人權）來護航新潮語用（人權保障了任何合意成人之間的婚姻權）的一種手段。

問題在於，「溝通行為」雖然是日常生活間的文化契約，例如一群年輕人在網路上開始用火星文，或同性戀之間協議同居，彼此之間是沒有問題的。但現在火星文用者如果要在更大範圍內爭取「我有權說火星文」，主張新潮火星文也要被一視同仁納入教育部國語辭典、在十二年國教中教導學生識讀、並要求在各大網站論壇、報紙、期刊的貼文和刊載標準中不得有任何刪除、歧視之行為，要與說國語的人得到一樣的政府資源保障，那合法性就顯得相當不足了。

況且，從邏輯操作面來說，這招「訴諸內在文法矛盾」（反同違憲）的做法看似可行，實際上也很容易化解。

因為語言純粹主義者會說「下層文法」與「上層文法」是「條件子集」（conditional subset）的關係，而不是衝突關係。亦即，縱然具有「平權」的大框架，下面還是會有許多「累進稅制」、「排富條款」、「未成年條款」、「種族保障政策」（e.g. Affirmative action）、「殘障人士政策」、「基本家庭價值維護」、「老年政策」、「歧視有犯罪前科者」、「移民條款」等各種價值但書，這些東西就是下部文法，是上層語言規範的條件子集，是在社會實踐意義上而非嚴格邏輯意義上支持「平權和穩定的大方向」。

（對於這層文法夾雜社會實踐意義的語言學研究叫做「言說分析」discourse analysis。）

新潮語言主張對婚姻定義的重新詮釋和性別認同的自由選擇。但現在有一個「基本家庭價值維護」的下部文法在那，想要改寫規則的人必須提出，為什麼改寫這一個特定文法的正當性存在？為什麼必須按照你們提出的方案修改？明明過去「平權」和「家庭基本價值」就是大眾所認為互相輔佐配合的上下部文法，而現在有一群人站出來訴求，說他們的「發語權」（婚姻權）被「家庭基本價值」這套文法規則給侵害了。社會是不是應該聽他們的？

社會大眾說：「是你們不肯學習按照正確文法（嫁娶異性）說話行事，不是我們沒有給你們發語權（婚姻權）。」但同性戀者要說的是：「我們的聲帶構造（性向）使我們學習按照這套文法順序發音非常不易、甚至不可能學會。你們若不修改規則，無異就是在發語權（婚姻權）上歧視我們。」

我認為，「一男一女的婚姻制度」是臺灣社會過往脈絡下所生成、附隨的一套規則，由「家庭基本價值」的這組文法所支撐。就如同北平官話成為今日中華民國臺灣的國語一般，有其根據歷史脈絡的合理性存在，並且已經升級為文化中的實存內容：臺灣是說中文普通話的國家。不論是支持繼續用北平官話當作唯一標準國語，或是繼續維持成年一男一女為唯一婚姻制度類型，「附隨」是支持維持現況的道德實在論者最有力的論述，而實用主義者也必須承認的。

 

傳統婚姻觀認為只有成年的一男一女才配結婚，至少根據的是百萬年人類演化下所誕生的文明內蘊。在自由多元社會底下，不論你是想讓火星文成為官方語言或是想讓同性戀合法化，所有針對制度（文法）的革命都必須要靠壓力團體去催促附隨現象的再開。而這些壓力團體並不需要一些什麼永恆的理想或道德觀，只需要把所有的理由和反動能量加起來渲染成為「壓力」。

但在「附隨」發生之前，我不認為持無神論的「反動者」（支持同性戀婚姻正常化者）要稱自己是一個道德實在論者是邏輯上可能的（因為你們所說的價值還沒有被脈絡衝撞／承認／附隨出來），而他們要面對的就是一批道德實在論者。

（在有神論的公民社會或神權社會，改變文化文法規則的方式，則將必須透過經典的再詮釋。）

我就差不多整理分析到這邊。有誤解或可能需要修正的地方再提出來。

至於我個人，作為一個由神學形上學導引出特定道德實在論的基督徒，所提出的就是兩個參與範疇的後自由政治神學。不論世俗是按照實用主義的非道德性契約、相對主義、或道德實在論行事，基督教都會是提出同一套價值，用非道德性契約、相對主義、或道德實在論三種不同的語言翻譯出來：「同性戀不是造物主原初美好的心意。同性戀傾向是一種個人無法選擇的缺陷，需要上帝的救贖；同樣地，異性戀的社會歧視同性戀更是這個社會異性戀的過犯，需要為此向上帝懺悔以蒙潔淨。」

當代基督徒的問題和人性的問題，就在於人實在很難一面說同性戀是一種缺陷一面又完全做到不用有色眼鏡看待同性戀（即使是將同性戀放入現象學的括弧中），更別說還能用無條件的愛來愛他們。還不論教會之間神學有光譜差異、個別信徒間靈命參差不齊。難怪在外人看來精神分裂、偽善。我們是能說不能做。

但耶穌卻做到了。

耶穌不歧視淫婦，卻清楚讓淫婦知道她行淫的罪行是她的缺陷和罪性。

耶穌不歧視殘疾人，清楚讓瞎眼和瘸子知道他們的生理殘疾是他們的缺陷，他們需要醫治拯救。

所以你們不要信我，要信耶穌。

你們不要信基督徒，要信基督。

Related articles

• Multiculturalism and Moral Relativism (adw.org)
• What is Moral Realism? (visayanatheists.wordpress.com)
• 回應：「身為基督徒對真愛聯盟的疑惑」－分析、倫理、與實用主義 vs. Mathturtle 2
• 回應：「身為基督徒對真愛聯盟的疑惑」－公眾、無知之幕、與後自由 vs. Mathturtle
• 回應：「身為基督徒對真愛聯盟的疑惑」

[文摘] Book Review of The Nature of Doctrine

Image via Wikipedia

According to George Lindbeck, the reason why modern church is defenseless in their confrontation against the motley strands of modernity  is all because it no longer practices the kind of unifying biblical hermeneutics within the soteriological framework that the early church embodies.

What does this practice actually entail?

Peter Ochs (Edgar Bronfman Professor of Modern Judaic Studies University of Virginia) summarizes the appeal Lindbeck advances in The Nature of Doctrine:

To recover these practices is, following Barth, to resituate Christian theology as a practice of reading the Gospel as itself a practice of rereading the Old Testament history of Israel. This rereading is not a one time event, however, as if we could say, "well, the Gospel already reread the Old Testament, so we will learn the meaning of the Old simply by rereading the New." It is, instead, a perennial event of returning to the plain sense of Israel’s story and rediscovering, everyday, what it now means in light of the Gospel narrative.
For Lindbeck, this practice of rereading implies that the story of Israel remains integral to Christianity‘s scriptural witness and that it remains open, as well. No contemporary Christian reader knows, beforehand, all that any text of the Old Testament means, since each reading must return to rediscover the texts of the Old Testament as they will be re-read in light of the Gospel witness for this day. Rediscovering the message of the Old Testament, the Christian reader also rediscovers the place of Israel in salvation history. But the meaning of that place of Israel is not yet fully defined. While the Christian reader knows that "Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel," no reader knows before the present moment of reading everything there is to say about the meaning of that sentence. Lindbeck returns us, on this note, to the principle of semper reformandi.

- Ochs, Peter.  "The nature of doctrine: religion and theology in a postliberal age" Review & Expositor, 103 no 1 Wint 2006, p 239

Two applications:

1. Perennial rehearsal (preaching) of the Old Testament is the key by which we keep our Christian message integral [in defense of the divisions of modernity and relativism and postmodernity]. It is the recovery of the Eastern tradition of metaphors and narratives for contemplating the dominant logic of the West, the continuity of the Old with the New, and unity of the philosophical high (metaphysics) and low (ethics).
2. Our study of the Bible today must be oriented to serve the unity of the church, in Lindbeck’s thoughts, first, in terms of the Catholic-Protestant relations, then in relations between the Western and Eastern Churches, and both now—and in the eschatological "then"—in relations between the Church and the People of Israel.

Revelation 5:7-14 καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου. 8  Καὶ ὅτε ἔλαβεν τὸ βιβλίον, τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου ἔχοντες ἕκαστος κιθάραν καὶ φιάλας χρυσᾶς γεμούσας θυμιαμάτων, αἵ εἰσιν αἱ προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων, 9  καὶ ᾄδουσιν ᾠδὴν καινὴν λέγοντες· ἄξιος εἶ λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους 10  καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 11  Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἀγγέλων πολλῶν κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων 12  λέγοντες φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· ἄξιόν ἐστιν τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον λαβεῖν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ πλοῦτον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ ἰσχὺν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν καὶ εὐλογίαν. 13  καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα ἤκουσα λέγοντας· τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 14  καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα ἔλεγον· ἀμήν. καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν καὶ προσεκύνησαν.

[文摘]基督不丟石頭4

Source: 炯論博客：基督教社關評議 http://www.brilliantforum.org/?p=194

再談「丟石頭」

2009年3月25日
張國棟（美國印第安納大學哲學系博士候選人）

一．梁文道的〈基督不丟石頭〉

梁文道寫了〈基督不丟石頭〉*後，引起很多信徒撰文在教內教外報章回應，其中一篇是香港浸信會神學院助理教授劉振鵬的〈對〈基督不丟石頭〉的一點讀 後感〉，刊在《明報》的。這篇文章刊在《明報》，令我有點納悶，因為劉文與梁文對 Hauerwas 的理解，分別並不算大，劉主要想說的只有三點：一，Hauerwas 的中文翻譯為侯活士，但梁譯成郝華斯。二，「梁兄所引用侯活士兩篇文章作其論點，但筆者認為二文的主旨皆非針對同性戀作出系統的正反論述。」但劉沒有指出候活士對同性戀究竟有甚麼立場。三，梁說：「耶穌基督最讚賞的美德不是嚴守貞潔等種種行為守則，而是仁慈、寬恕與正義」，但劉不同意，批評梁有一個「對基督信仰生命的分割與簡化的推論」。

談Hauerwas 的中文翻譯，有點多餘。但讀者不妨從另一角度看，這樣一個命名上的更正或拒絕使用別人的用詞，其實是論述權力的一個彰顯，有意或無意地要表達一個潛台詞 ───我們基督教人士才有權對 Hauerwas 作出正確詮釋。這個未必在文中很明顯地可以看出來，但觀乎近日各篇由基督徒寫的、批評梁文道的文章，卻似乎確有這隱然的動機。

不管 Hauerwas 是否接受同性戀，我最主要想談的是第三點。劉提出的反駁如下：「雖然耶穌給她無條件的饒恕，但耶穌囑咐她不要再犯罪。換言之，耶穌其實已作出判斷：不認同其（淫亂）作為，視之為不合宜的（improper）行為，稱之為罪。……因此，筆者絕不否定仁慈、寬恕與正義的重要，但不能因此而降低神對貞潔的要求。 否則，基督徒可以為籌募推翻暴政（為正義）的經費或解救他人的困境（為仁慈）而賣淫（不嚴守貞潔）？這不正是傅徹勒（Joseph Fletcher）的情景倫理（situation ethics）觀點：愛是最重要，甚至是唯一的考慮因素？這不正是情景倫理最為人詬病之處：單以愛作準則的倫理是否合理和可行？單一原則變成沒有原則的倫理。」

* 此文和其他本文提及的文章，皆可在本站圍紀內找到。

二．耶穌手法與今天教會做法的差異

聲稱耶穌仍有吩咐那女人不要犯罪，這樣一個論點在教會圈內、在這事以先，早已有很多人提及。他們認為，耶穌有吩咐那女人不要犯罪，因此愛人和恨惡罪是兩件可以同時進行的事；也因如此，明光社陣營常聲稱他們反對的只是某些法例安排，他們對同性戀者是充滿愛心的（即使這在教外人看是近乎精神分裂的）。中國神學研究院院長余達心在《明報》回應梁文道同一文章時，也正正運用了這一個論證：

「梁先生說得對，基督不丟石頭。然而，他有話直說。基督對那位幾被石頭打死的女人說：「去吧！從今以後不要再犯罪！」這話 若向當今某些群體說出，直是冒犯。對井旁的婦人，基督就更冒犯了。當她否認自己有丈夫，基督直揭她的瘡疤說：「你說沒有丈夫是對的，你已經有過5個丈夫，你現在有的並不是你的丈夫。」基督 不和稀泥，他將人的實况坦誠道出，而對於淫亂，他的立場更鮮明而嚴厲（馬太5：27-30）。看來梁先生對基督的詮釋似有斷章取義之嫌。」

我不同意劉和余的所謂聖經「正解」，也不覺得梁文道有甚麼斷章取義，說三人全都有點各取所需地對待聖經比較適合。余和劉及很多教會對那段經文的詮釋，顯然忽略了言說行為（speech-act）向度。

* 諷刺地，這是聖經研究和哲學界別—甚至神學裡的真理觀—裡的一個重要概念。但他們卻可以「突然」忘記了 。另外，其實這段經文在聖經研究裡常被質疑是否屬於正典的。但奇怪兩位神學教授都不提及這個。（多謝一位牧師朋友指出這點。）

一句話說出來，除了其真假外，很多時那個場合和傳達的媒體也是重要的。必須要留意的是，耶穌就算有對那女人說「以後不要再犯罪」，但經文記載裡，明顯地祂只是私下對她說，而沒有在一個公開的場合說，亦即是，祂沒有公開定那女人的罪，也沒有用社會道德壓力來審判她。這一點，「正解人士」完全不理會，並且，他們堅持，單單由於耶穌有講過「以後不要再犯罪」，所以他們今天也有權告訴別人，「你這樣做是錯的，是罪」，然後，他們推而廣之，認為他們有權並且應該出於對信仰的忠誠，在社會立法的議題上不斷借題發揮地指斥同性戀為錯，有時甚麼越公開越好，這叫做「為真理作見證」。

• 當一個哲學博士生，敢在解經上戰神學院教授，先給你一個讚。然而Searle & Austin的言說行為理論並不是什麼百毒不浸保命丹，其缺乏的地方還需要由Discourse analysis演說分析理論來補完和修正。以下的地方更說明了作者是誤用了該理論。言說行為的locution, illocution, perlocution，沒有一個是在講「發話媒介」或場合。illocution強調的是語言表情和語言在情境中的行為向度。耶穌對行淫女子所做的私下道德勸說，只說明了耶穌把婚姻的忠貞放在跟信仰上帝一樣的「誓約」層面。
• 這樣看來，兩位神學院教授完全沒有解錯。劉振鵬和余達心的問題，在於他們立論雖在護教結構上完整，卻不見對教會現實內部情況（特別是部分右基的髮指論述和行徑）做出平衡觀點的檢討批判；格局上有所欠缺。

他們今天的行動與耶穌昔日的行動很不同的地方是，耶穌沒有借助群眾壓力來對那女人作道德譴責，只是私下要求那女人作個人的懺悔，彷彿她根本就明白這是錯的，她不是得罪了社會，不是犯眾憎，不用被杯葛，只是得罪了上帝。我相信基督徒可以在神學上和聖經裡找到一些在社會公開表態的理由，但用約翰福音第八章這段經文來支持這行動，視之為對這經文的正確詮釋，則對聖經有點不敬。

我們可以想像一個情境，教會（或某些基督教機構）在那類立法事情上，發表一份聲明，指出一些宗教上和非宗教上對同性戀生活方式的保留，但不包圍立法會，不用人海戰術「炸」那會議，也不會用大量電郵「炸」反對者的電郵箱。然後，不管社會最後決定如何，教會嘗試聯絡相關人士，尤其那些被認為是同性戀者的人士，向他們再表達一遍，希望那個信息可以完整地傳達到他們耳中。做了這一步後，工作就做完了。即使假設原來香港社會漸漸出現大量並非來自基督教的反同性戀情緒，教會也絕不會趁機再做甚麼，例如策動人們推翻某些法例。這才比較像耶穌昔日對那女人的處理手法。這更貼近該段經文的精神。不是很難明白吧？

• 這就是Hauerwasian ethcis的精神啊！教會只負責和平、敬拜、作見證。在認信群體之外不會用暴力／權力將那非信徒所不能負的軛強加在人項上。這一整串論述，不論怎麼看，Hauerwas都是贏家，無懈可擊的後自由戰神。

三．以愛作統攝性美德有何不可？

劉在文末說：「單以愛作準則的倫理是否合理和可行？單一原則變成沒有原則的倫理。」我雖沒有看過 Fletcher 的處境倫理，無意替Fletcher 說項，但單就劉這句話來看，並不覺得有理。不論中國哲學或中世紀的基督教神學，皆有言論把眾美德統攝於幾項德性之下，例如中國的仁義， 或基督教的信、望、愛。就連上世紀的新教社會思想家尼布爾（Reinhold Neibuhr）也把社會公義視作愛的一個表現。劉教授說單談愛就會沒有原則，因此十分擔憂，這顯出他對「愛」在基督教和各地哲理裡的統攝性功能認識過於膚淺。

• 戰鬥力高強，給第二個讚！

而且，說回耶穌對待那女人的故事，耶穌正正就是因為有這一份愛，所以拒絕公開指斥那女人有犯罪。但另一方面，耶穌卻又不願意誤導那女人，令她以為自己沒有做錯（假如她有這樣想），所以選擇了私下對她說。若我們只講原則，把愛視為只不過是其中一條原則，然後弄一些二序原則（second-order principle）來判斷何時應怎樣做，恐怕未必可以得出耶穌那個行為決定。似乎，今天高舉他們有權公開地為真理作見證，因此毫不遮掩地指摘同性戀者的某些基督徒，會在理論上遇到這個困難（未必是致命的，但需要進一步交代）。

• 這段後半文意怪怪的我有點看不太懂。應該是說：如果右派神學打算不談「視愛為具有統攝性功能的」德行倫理（which is Hauerwasian）、也不談Fletcher的處境倫理（事實上我私自覺得作者你有點遜，哲學博士候選人來談倫理學竟然可以沒讀過Fletcher的Situational Ethics。），那右派神學的解決道路就只剩下[把愛視為準則之一的]準則倫理和義務論了了。而這兩條倫理進路會產生的困難將是Foucault式的，也就是邊緣族群和明顯的他者將遭受到意識型態和輿論強暴。這起討論串啟示性的敘事不應該被遺忘：「你們中間誰沒有罪，誰可以拿起第一塊石頭。」當天的法利賽人老到少一個一個閃身了，倒是今日Luther、Calvin教出一批批稱義、得救、特殊選民、自信飽滿的右基 懷中 倒積攢著不少發燙的紅磚塊。

四．結語

梁文道和很多近期論者以基督教思想來批評明光社陣營的手法，其用意明顯不過，就是要諷刺支持明光社陣營的基督徒。但那些基督徒卻好像聽不懂似的，煞有介事地公開談論究竟怎樣讀聖經才是沒有「斷章取義」，把一些香港只有少於十分一人口關注的宗教內部問題揚出來公開分析探討，我個人的感覺是他們真的不了解這世界人們在想甚麼，也令教會很尷尬；就算他們回應稱得上有點合情理，但按我上文的分析，他們的講論又不見真的比教外人有道理，這就顯得有點醜態。

• 太挑釁…但又太中肯～我的天。

愛罪人但恨惡罪，這是教會經常講的，但我們看不出這群基督徒有足夠智慧實踐出來，他們就連公開發表某些話是會引來不同後果也好像未弄清楚。面對同性戀，並不是弄一套無文化背景的形而上道德／神學規則、空降在任何社會，便可以了事的；就如耶穌沒興趣陪法利賽人一同玩那個公開指摘和製造「犯眾憎」壓力的遊戲。這些手法對那女人可會造成一些旁人想不到的嚴重傷害，那些群眾看不出來，但耶穌卻看出來，所以沒隨波逐流。

批評太多可能會惹人不滿，那麼容我介紹一個較正面和像樣的言論。我印象中最恰當地既有立場但又充滿愛心的，是這一篇以衛理宗四法碼角度討論的文章：James H. Zahniser and Lisa Cagle, "Homosexuality: Toward an Informed, Compassionate Response", Christian Scholar’s Review, XXXVI:3, Spring 2007, 323-348. 文章的結束有以下幾席話，抄出來可讓沒有讀該文的朋友感受一下兩位作者如何嘗試既有立場又有愛心地表達他們的觀點：

Conclusion:

Powerful cases are made on both sides of the debate by people who are committed to the living God-on the one hand, for the full acceptance of gay and lesbian persons and the sanctification of gay/lesbian relationships within the Church; and, on the other hand, for maintaining a traditional stance that homosexual practice is wrong, but that gay and lesbian persons are to be accepted and welcomed in the community of faith. What we argue here, however, is that if we were to liberate ourselves of the notion that our first responsibility is to judge people and instead take a principled stance of loving people, then maybe we can avoid some of the divisive nature of the debates and minister more effectively. Barbara Brown Taylor expresses eloquently this very sentiment:

I don’t have a position on homosexuality. Rather, what I have, instead, is a life. I have a history, in which many people have played vital parts. When I am presented with the issue of homosexuality, I experience temporary blindness. Something like scales falls over my eyes, because I cannot visualize an issue. Instead, I visualize the homeroom teacher who seemed actually to care whether I showed up at school or not. I see the priest who taught me everything I know about priesthood, and the professor who roasted whole chickens for me when my food money ran out before the end of the month. I see the faces of dozens of young men who died of AIDS, but not before they had shown me how brightly they could bum with nothing left but the love of God to live on. .. . I have arrived at a different understanding of what it means to follow the Word of God. The phrase has become a double entendre for me, meaning not only the Word on the page but also (and more crucially) the Word made flesh. If Jesus’ own example is to be trusted, then following the Word of God may not always mean doing what is in the book. Instead, it may mean deviating from what is in the book in order to risk bringing the Word to life.

Problems and Future Directions:

The notion that God made certain people gay or lesbian, or at least created a world in which people could, through primarily naturalistic processes, develop a homosexual orientation, is relatively new in the history of Christianity, as is the often associated notion that it may be morally acceptable for people to embrace a gay or lesbian identity. It is understandable, then, that most Christians would reject these notions, given that they seem inconsistent with the only available biblical teachings and the prevailing interpretations of them. On the other hand, as social strictures ease and both scientific and experiential evidence continues to accumulate that homosexual orientation is not an unencumbered choice, that it is difficult to alter, and that the well-being of gay or lesbian persons can be harmed significantly by rejection and discrimination, it is understandable that many Christians would seek full acceptance for themselves and for their gay and lesbian friends, siblings, sons or daughters….

• 回應：Part of the evidences laid out here are misleading. First of all, whether if there is a so-called ‘homosexual gene’ is still a debatable issue. Second, that ‘homosexual orientation is not an unencumbered choice’ is a Christian consensus, but such structural intervention to personal choice could be at the same time cultural-societal, theological (i.e., sinful genes passed through genetically), and biological. I seriously doubt the pure biological explanation of the origin of all homosexuality. On top of this, the matter could be made more complex by taking into consideration ‘the fluid spectrum’ of personal sexual orientation (e.g., speaking of gender, I could be 85% male and 15% female).

A Final Word:

At this point in history, we cannot promote marriage and ordination for gay and lesbian persons. However, you are our brothers and sisters in Christ, we love you unconditionally, and we welcome you into our churches, communities, and homes. We recognize that our understanding of the Bible is not complete, that "the call of faith is to the living God whose revelation continues," and we acknowledge that it is possible that the Holy Spirit is at work to transform our Christian ethic with respect to homosexuality. We need you to help us seek greater understanding, and we are willing to respect and to learn from your experience, as well as to examine our own sin and complicity in perpetuating homophobia and discrimination. Please forgive us for the ways in which we have failed you. Will you help us learn how God works to bring about redemption and wholeness in the lives of people with homosexual desires and identities, and will you help us learn better how to participate in such redemption? We hope that you will join us in a commitment to love one another and to follow Jesus, wherever he might lead.

• 回應：This explains why I love Methodism. Nonetheless, it is recognized that Methodism is largely in want of a methodological theology that serves to defend your aforementioned position from the attack of conservative Christians, especially the Reformers.

[文摘]基督不丟石頭3

Source: (明報)2009年3月24日http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/090323/4/bbc2.html

文／劉振鵬（香港浸信會神學院助理教授）

【明報專訊】拜讀梁文道兄的〈基督不丟石頭〉（《明報》，2009年2月7日）後，得悉梁兄明白「基督徒並不是鐵板一塊」，對此感到欣慰。這是香港教會的情，也是美國及其他地方的情。事實上，在任何群體中，對事情的看法必存在程度上的差異，正如香港泛民主派中，各黨派的政治立場，在民主的光譜中也有差異，有激進、也有溫和。深信梁兄對耶穌的信仰有一定的認識，了解基督福音其中一個重要的向度是無權無勢者的福音，並正確地指出耶穌從來不是律法主義者。就此而言，梁兄的觀點是正確的。

如梁兄所言，侯活士（Stanley Hauerwas，梁兄譯作郝華斯）「是當今神學界裏最具分量的倫理學家之一」。這話絕對正確。筆者認為其中的主要原因有二：

首先，侯氏乃倡導美國教會抗衡自由主義侵蝕最力的神學家。梁兄正確地指稱侯氏「多年以來，他從不放棄重建教會美德的努力」，因為侯氏認為德性或品格的建立 （virtue / character formation）乃教會在現今自由主義思想支配的社會中，唯一生存之道。所以教會是一個品格群體（a community of character）。

其次，長期以來，侯氏對政治和基督教的霸權主義深惡痛絕，其中最令人津津樂道的是在過去的日子，他對美國自列根以降的共和黨總統與基督教保守主義（所謂的「右翼教會」）的結盟作嚴厲的批評，故他飽受美國主流基督教神學界批評，嘲諷其神學並標籤為「小眾群體主義」（sectarianism），意謂不問世事的隱居群體。對此，侯氏當然不以為然；他表示若要他接受這標籤，那麼小眾群體 （sectarian）的意思就不是隱居群體，而是堅持恢復教會作為訓練說話的場所，從而支撐信徒的生命來服侍世界。

耶穌非視貞潔次於仁慈寬恕

在文中，梁兄所引用侯活士兩篇文章作其論點，但筆者認為二文的主旨皆非針對同性戀作出系統的正反論述。在〈同志友誼：天主教道德哲學的一個思想實驗〉，侯活士嘗試從德性倫理（virtue ethics）的觀點來思考羅馬大公教會的倫理立場：友情（friendship）為一項德性，以此來思想同性戀課題，期望從而得到新的亮光。在〈為什麼同志在道德上要比基督徒優越〉，侯氏作為和平主義者，當然不希望任何人服役於軍旅，所以他只是借題發揮地表達其反戰立場。以筆者的了解，侯氏關於同性戀課題較為詳細討論是載於〈抵抗資本主義：關於婚姻與同性戀〉（"Resisting Capitalism: On Marriage and Homosexuality," in A Better Hope: Resources for a Church Confronting Capitalism, Democracy, and Postmodernity, 2000）。侯氏指出基督徒群體的踐行（practices）才是探討這課題的關鍵。教會應將焦點集中討論「淫亂／性雜交／性濫交」（promiscuity），而不是同性戀的問題。因為基督徒委身於專一（singleness）和婚姻的踐行，能夠把淫亂的事情顯露出來，而這等踐行乃塑造基督徒活現被呼召出來的生命；亦唯有專一和婚姻的踐行是明確地展示在聖經中。

相對於引用侯氏之論點，筆者對梁兄稱「耶穌基督最讚賞的美德不是嚴守貞潔等種種行為守則，而是仁慈、寬恕與正義」更感困惑。

何謂「耶穌基督最讚賞的美德」？何謂「讚賞」？是否更寶貴或重要的意思？這說法的神學與聖經論據為何？梁兄將後三者視為最為耶穌最讚賞的美德，筆者認為這是對基督信仰中有關美德的誤解，也是對基督信仰生命的分割與簡化的推論。耶穌基督所有的講論皆有其處境（上文下理），不可隨意約化。且，從新舊約的整體 （正典）觀點來看，神視其選民（以色列人）在信仰上的不忠等同對婚姻的不忠，以婚姻的貞潔比喻以色列人對信仰的忠誠，換言之，對神不忠等同姦淫（不貞潔），此乃非同小可的事情。若以此觀點來看，忠誠／貞潔是首要的。怎能被視為次要的美德？因為十誡之首是「除了我以外，你不可有別的神」（出二9），這就是對神的忠心（貞潔）。當耶穌被問及「誡命中那是第一（要緊的）？」，祂說：「第一（要緊的），就是：『以色列啊，你要聽：主我們神，是獨一的主。你們要盡心、盡性、盡意、盡力愛主你的神。』其次就是說：『要愛人如己。』再沒有比這兩條誡命更大的了。」（可十二28-30）故此先愛神，然後愛人是聖經一貫的教導，甚至可說：愛神的必然愛人。

• 這裡文字不太精確，但是神學上高明的是，把信仰的「獨特性」、「排他性」再次指了出來。Hauerwasian ethics正必須建立在這種獨特性上。「唯信」的耶和華上帝是一位忌邪的神，絕不跟其他宗教的神明搞混亂；凡來到祂面前的，必須要將自己分別為聖。因此基督徒有能力去愛人、為同志爭取平權，是先有了愛神的心在他裡面。在這點上，基督徒的左右派都沒搞懂，但這篇文章搞懂了。

斷章取義 後果堪虞

梁兄僅從《約翰福音》中的撒馬利亞女人來推論「耶穌基督最讚賞的美德不是嚴守貞潔等種種行為守則，而是仁慈、寬恕與正義」，這不單是約化，甚至是斷章取義，後果堪虞。在約八1-11，耶穌面對那個犯姦淫的婦女時，說：無人定你的罪，「我也不定你的罪……從此不要再犯罪了」。雖然耶穌給她無條件的饒恕，但耶穌囑咐她不要再犯罪。換言之，耶穌其實已作出判斷：不認同其（淫亂） 作為，視之為不合宜的（improper）行為，稱之為罪。事實上，「貞潔」與「仁慈、寬恕與正義」皆指涉人與人之間的一種恰當和忠誠的關係。故此貞潔並非單指行為規條或守則，而是對他人的忠誠，對夫妻關係的忠誠。可見耶穌並非如梁兄所言，視貞潔次於仁慈、寬恕與正義。

• 然而，耶穌視之為主要對手的當時猶太宗教社會文化，是在性道德貞潔議題上完全沒有放鬆的，這點的確與我們現今張牙舞爪的性解放不同。因此耶穌專注於打擊假仁假義的猶太教右派（好像咱今日的右基），但我們是不是也要看看舊約先知以及保羅怎麼告訴我們要在信仰群體中勠力保持聖潔呢？
• To complicate the issue a bit even more, we need to look at no further than the theological validity of ‘legal justice’ in the secular world. How is it possible for one to mimic Jesus in His forgiveness of an adulterous woman, if legally she is to be sued and sent to jail– our contemporary equivalent of ‘stoning to death’? Does theological justification waive such a woman’s legal responsibility as a moral agent and citizen? If the answer for us Christians is a ‘NO’ (which I believe definately not!), then in the next step we have to consider, as a matter of fact, that the ethical basis for such secular legal justice is, indeed, a deontological one and therefore should always be posited in conflict against [post-liberal] Hauerwasian virtue ethics.
• In regard with this conflict [of power and ideology], we cannot but have to elevate the level of discussion to one of Political Theology– namely, "what should Christians as electorate or policymakers say when theological ideals and secular establishments are at the same time complementing and opposing each other?"
• On the one hand, every government has its own agenda. It is never possible that a government could be faithfully libertarian with no cultural and religious values in its legalized norms and spirit (Government as human construct that objectivates humanly externalized values). For example, sexual matters are at nowhere a private thing, in particular with regard to adolescent development — we’d say they’re not responsible moral agents yet and would impose what we deem as ‘correct sexual conduct’ upon them. Neither can marital abuses be let alone).
• On the other hand, if we are indeed telling (or dictating to) [certain] people (minors in this case) what is right and wrong through our legal system based on our theological conviction, then what is the boundary for such intrusion (or we call ‘Christian cultural engagement)? What is the boundary[between Christendom and State, between individuality and community]?
• Theoretically and hypothetically, if a man is ever to love the world as God does, he should act out of love in a way that might provoke people’s hatred against him, even when it involves the exercise of His seemingly abusive power. We know God Himself does this sometimes, though not always— "for those whom God has chosen He disciplines", but for those whom God deems to perish, He either lets them or punishes them (to me they are both types of divine judgment, with the former type being passive or posthumous). However, Jesus in His earthly life, never directly exerted such kingly power upon people outside the believing community (the closest case to such power exercise is in his cleaning of the temple, which is still at least nominally considered an act within YHWH-believing community). Thus in the real world, I do not believe that there could be any Christian individual that loves humanity better than Jesus Christ to warrantably wield a legal power that even Christ Himself has never used, whether in the name of love, justice, or whatever.
• Hence the safest way to construct a foundation of political theology within Orthodoxy would be along this following principle: we can exercise political power over any given people only as much as we love them and have their interests, well-being, and even agendas (I regret that the nuance and balance for our concern of these three things are not possible to be discussed in brief here) in mind. It is thus never justifiable to sacrifice the interest of minority groups for the sake of majority group’s welfare, for 1) everyone is born equal; 2) political theology is less about making most people happy than making God’s peace and justice for God’s glory.
• Though the consensus that all humans are equal is relatively easier to achieve, the political implementation of this ideal is practically impossible. John Rawls is dead-on right to suggest that basic human right is something that deserves our fighting for it. 法律往這方向努力並且維持正義至少是可行的…。然而，怎麼看待政府對未成年人的法律保護責任和甚至墮胎議題中的胎兒與母體的對價關係？只要簡單去想一下實行面的問題，就又得再次繞回政治神學的思想起點：一個基督徒跨出教會大門後，有什麼權柄管別人這些家務事？Here Rawls hit the point again by proposing social contract as the basis for democracy, which is a voluntary association and does not account for voters’ ideological & logical sanity. Because it enlists believers and unbelievers, it has not only to be voluntary-democratic, but also capitalistic and liberal in the sense of being an embodiment of God’s lavishing grace that honors human’s free-trade of ideas. Church, the ideal of which though is being catholic, socialistic, and hierarchic, has to work separately yet within this structure. The dilemma usually is being the church’s lack of self-awareness [to be witness, salt, and light].

因此，筆者絕不否定仁慈、寬恕與正義的重要，但不能因此而降低神對貞潔的要求。否則，基督徒可以為籌募推翻暴政（為正義）的經費或解救他人的困境（為仁慈）而賣淫（不嚴守貞潔）？這不正是傅徹勒（Joseph Fletcher）的情景倫理（situation ethics）觀點：愛是最重要，甚至是唯一的考慮因素？這不正是情景倫理最為人詬病之處：單以愛作準則的倫理是否合理和可行？單一原則變成沒有原則的倫理。

• 這裡就牛頭不對馬嘴了。從第一篇文章開始用的就是Hauerwas的品格倫理，而把Fletcher的處境倫理拿來跟右派傳統的準則倫理（e.g., homosexual intercourse is categorical sin）、義務倫理（e.g. one has the responsibility to annihilate homosexuality）胡攪是怎麼回事？

Related articles

• Review of ‘Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty’ (churchandpomo.typepad.com)
• 基督不丟石頭1
• 基督不丟石頭2
• 基督不丟石頭4

Practical Theology of Evangelism: An Integration

Cover via Amazon

ME 5001 Interaction Paper
D-160 Mu-tien Chiou

During the course we have read three evangelical authors presenting their views on evangelism, one of the central marks of evangelical Christianity.

Introduction

Rick Richardson’s Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey invites Christian evangelists to make use of all kinds of their gifts from God to proclaim the gospel message in a culturally relevant way. Gordon Smith’s Beginning Well: Christian Conversion and Authentic Transformation proposes a fresh understanding of conversion as a response to an encounter with the Trinitarian God, expressed by both internal convictions and external manifestations through holy sacraments. Mark Mittelberg, through Becoming a Contagious Church: Increasing Your Churches Evangelistic Temperature raises his call for "an outwardly focused, evangelistically active churches…that proactively partner with their members" for evangelism (p.17).

In this paper, the strengths and weaknesses in each of these positions will be outlined and evaluated. Particular attention will be put on their reliance on biblical passages in support for their theses. Finally, I will combine particular strengths of their arguments to format a philosophy of evangelism that is personally applicable in my coming years of ministry.

I.
Reimagining Evangelism can be understood of what is charactering the ‘emerging church movement’ in the recent decade. Richardson offers the new travel guide metaphor for evangelists to replace the old salesperson imagery that people get when encountering télé-evangelizing, door-knocking, and porte-à-porte styles of outreach. The key concepts that make this book stand out from others’ are fourfold:

Richardson

1. Collaboration with the Spirit versus activism: We first slow down and try to see what God has already been doing. Since the Holy Spirit has initiated the work, we do not have to be activists to get our evangelistic cause publicized. His primary scriptural supports are from the gospel and Acts. While Jesus told the disciples in his farewell discourse that they would do greater things than he after his ascension because the Holy Spirit would come (Jn. 14; 17), in Acts Luke makes also sure to point out that the Holy Spirit is the one working at every turn.
2. Friendship verses Agenda: what many people need know about Christ is that those who follow him can be trusted. The foundation of this trust is genuine friendship rather than an agenda, no matter how compelling it may seem. However, I have to disagree with Richardson if this leads to the rejection of the necessity of having an agenda altogether. Jesus does have an agenda He comes to give lives (Jn. 10:10). He is not here to befriend everyone, but to warn this world about the judgment of God and command men to repent (Acts 17:30-31). Friendship is a good thing, but this does not mean we are about to be as non-offensive as possible in our evangelism as if fearful of the sword that the right conviction of the world’s sinfulness might entail (Mat 10:34).
3. Outside the Box Jesus verses cliché Jesus: this particularly applies to post-Christian society, in which people have gotten enough the dull and pale Jesus image, church-portrayed. The historical Jesus made known himself with more than one image (the Transfiguration in Matt 17:1–6; Mark 9:1–8, and Luke 9:28–36; also arguably in his post-resurrection appearances), and he surprised people often. In the same manner Rather than showing a cliché Jesus people already know, we share a Jesus people have yet to discover.
4. Journey verses Event: to be Christian is to follow Jesus Christ our leader along the journey. The old model focuses on a one-time decision to get a one-way ticket to heaven, an event which marks who’s in and who’s out. The new model sees everyone as at different points along (or away from) the Way. He includes Acts 2:1-41 as an example for different dimensions in a person’s spiritual journey: Repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. This only minor issue I have about this analogy is his omission of the fact that every journey has a starting point, as there are also important intersections where a transition based upon a one-time decision needs to be made. Paul’s conversion narratives (Acts 9:3-19; 22:6-16; 26:12-18) indeed illustrates that there are ‘events’ within journey.

II.
That being said, Gordon Smith’s Beginning Well is indeed a book that specifically addresses the issue of Christian conversion. The aim of this book is threefold: 1) to help believers’ better personal self-understanding; 2) to fuel effective Church ministry; 3) to undertake the [contemporary] theological task (10-11).

Smith

Drawing his thesis from a thematic biblical study of conversion in the Synoptic gospels, John, Acts, and in Paul’s epistles, Smith analyses seven elements to be observed in authentic conversion (pp. 138-141):

1. Belief (intellectual);
2. Repentance (penitential);
3. Trust and assurance of forgiveness: (emotional or affective);
4. Commitment, allegiance, and devotion (volitional),
5. Water baptism(sacramental);
6. Reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit (charismatic);
7. Incorporation into the Christian community (corporate).

It is also noteworthy that he understands conversion from the vintage point of eschatology: it is past (Titus 3:5), present (Phil. 2:2), and future (Rom. 8:24) (p.24); conversion doesn’t just pertain to the afterlife (p. 28). He reminds readers that transformation is not merely spiritual, but holistic (1 Thess. 5:23-24) (p. 28).
For it various strengths I find this book immensely helpful. It is clearly written, biblically sound, and the author wouldn’t hesitate to cite theological thinkers, such as Francis Schaeffer (213), Karl Rahner (29, 59), George Lindbeck (40), philosophers, such as Wittgenstein (40), and prominent exegetes to elucidate his points.

III.
In Becoming a Contagious Church Mittelberg has made explicit his practical concern, which is clearly the strengths of this book. Early in this book the author delineates the limitations of individual evangelism to solidity his appeal for doing personal evangelism in tandem with the local church (p. 18). The rest of the book thereby surrounds the issue of "how to" on building a "contagious church". Mittelberg lays out 6 stages. These steps each have a scriptural support.

Mittelberg

The first three stages serve as the backbone of building a contagious church.

1. Live and Evangelistic Life (1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Tim. 4:12): If we really understand the evangelistic potential of the church well enough, we will naturally get excited about it.
2. Instill evangelistic values in those around you (2 Tim. 2:2): A contagious church has much more power than a contagious individual, whereas it is from a contagious person who shares this evangelistic vision that a contagious church starts to be build. This is the vision casting piece which needs to be revisited all the time.
3. Empower an evangelism leader (Eph. 4:11-12): The only qualifications for leadership are a demonstrated gift and a passion for evangelism. If there is already an existing mission, use it as a spring board for justifying evangelistic action. Instead of simply launching evangelism training in an undiscriminating manner, start from where the fire of evangelism is already kindled (94)! The point is this person must be empowered, which may includes the (re)allocation of human and financial resource.
   The second three stages are more practical in nature.
4. Train the whole church in evangelism skills (Acts 20:20, 27, 31; 1 Cor 7:7)— the 100 percent: "For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have" (2 Cor 8:12).This takes the view that it’s everybody’s responsibility to do evangelism. One of the strategies listed in this chapter was to help people discover their evangelism styles. I consider this to be the greatest contribution of Mittelberg’s thoughts, of which I shall turn to more discussion in the end.
5. Mobilize the evangelism specialists (Eph 3:7)—the 10 percent: this is what logically and practically follows step 3 and 4.
6. Unleash an array of outreach ministries and events: after all the previous organizing works are done, the last— but not least— step is to get out of the lab spending time with real non-Christians and enjoying the adventure—Risks, Rewards, and all.

While I applaud for this book’s thoughtful instructional guide for building a contagious church, I feel the last two points leans less on sound biblical support than Willow Church’s own successful evangelist model. Although Mittleburg spends the last two chapters (ch.8-9) of this book describing the "contagious vision" to reassure his readers about strong correlation between life-transforming effects of the undiluted gospel, his emphasis on organization and events nonetheless seems a bit too programmatic and mechanic that it prevents the promising prospect he opens in stage 4 (ch.5) concerning types spiritual gifts from developing into a full-fledged philosophy of evangelism.

IV.
Modern evangelicalism promotes many different methodologies for accomplishing the biblical mandate for the Great Commission. A good philosophy of evangelism asks about three things: God, us, and the world.

Philosophy of Evangelism: A Proposal

We start with God. Modern revival of the biblical notion "missio dei" recognizes that mission is not primarily an activity of the church, but an attribute of God. Thus The Church must not think its role is identical to the missio Dei as it is participating in the mission of God. Many Christians today tend to inadvertently think of evangelism in terms of the Church’s need for expansion, but a closer examination of the scriptures reminds us of the fact that it is entirely God’s plan for the redemption of His creation and God’s invitation for the Church to participate in His plan (Mat 28:18-20: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go therefore…"). The ramifications of missio Dei in our practicing of evangelism are threefold: 1) we discern what God has already been doing in world history and individual’s lives (Richardson). 2) We pray to God for His guidance and empowerment, individually and collectively, before ever speaking to anyone about the Gospel. 3) We constantly read ourselves through the redemptive history in the Bible to remind ourselves of the refreshing grace of the Creator-Redeemer God.

Secondly, we seek to understand ourselves within the great framework of the missio dei. The identification of spiritual gifts and personal calling falls into this category. Modern evangelists have observed at least six styles of Evangelism in the scripture (Confrontational Style; Intellectual Style; Testimonial Style; Interpersonal Style; Invitational Style; Serving Style). In light of our modern culture, there are a variety of forms that communities and individuals can engage in evangelism (mass evangelism, personal evangelism, evangelistic preaching, literature evangelism, church evangelistic crusades, evangelistic counseling, radio and television programs, entertainment, Sunday school evangelism, and evangelistic bible study). The church today must discern what kind of gifts and resources we have been given from God (while we can still ask God for needed resources and empowerment of spiritual gifts) and be a good steward of them. This means that each organ and limb of the body of Christ will do its job and support each other according their respective functions, while following the instruction of Christ the head. The model of organic ministry— as opposed to mechanic or programmatic evangelism— allows for inter-denominational and cross-type evangelist collaboration in a given parish.

Lastly, we investigate the world. If we are to address those people in our generation with cultural relevance and demonstrate a sensitivity to the audience’s needs and tastes, then our examination of the biblical narrative and search for scriptural guidance inevitably leads to the evangelist type of incarnational ministry. In 1 Corinthians 9:22 the apostle Paul speaks of challenging people within their own cultural reference frames, meeting them where they are at. The gospels tell us that Christ Jesus was a "friend of sinners," (Matthew 11.19). Evangelism is all about transformation of souls through the incarnated word of God, and at the heart of being incarnational is simply loving people like Jesus loved people; loving people enough to be with and empathize with them. In our context today, I propose that the church’s general lack of interest in studying culture and communication has become a great obstacle against evangelism, and it is due to spiritual pride and insensitivity. It is unfortunate that the church has most forgotten the fact that it possesses neither Jesus’ inexhaustible and unconditional love nor His special spiritual insights into human souls (Mat 9:35-26; Jn. 2:24; 6:15). Therefore, a translation of the significance of "Immanuel" into our philosophy of evangelism would be a calling that we be companions with and cultural exegetes for those souls we deem too precious to let alone unsaved.

Reference

Gordon Smith, Beginning Well: Christian Conversion and Authentic Transformation. InterVarsity, 2001.
Richardson, Rick. Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey. InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Mark Mittelberg, Becoming a Contagious Church: Increasing Your Churches Evangelistic Temperature. Zondervan, 2007.

Related Articles

• British evangelicalism: a snapshot (eardstapa.wordpress.com)

Book Review: Reimagining Evangelism

Richardson, Rick. Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey. InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Mu-tien Chiou

Over the years, evangelism has been a nightmare not only to some of the Christians but also to those whom are being "preached". Rick Richardson, in his work Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey, made an attempt to diagnose the cause in ole evangelizing method that traps our evangelistic enterprise in stagnation. Drawing clues from his campus ministry involvement of the past two decades, the current associate professor in evangelism in Wheaton College identifies seven elements, each in juxtaposition to their traditional counterparts, as keys for unlocking the power of the gospel in our contemporary context (26-29). They are

• Collaboration verses Activism: we first slow down and try to see what God has already been doing. The Holy Spirit has initiated the work. We do not have to be activists to get our evangelistic cause publicized.
• Community verses Individual: evangelism is not to an individual task like a salesperson going door to door; rather, we build witnessing communities and the reputation of our "product" stands long and spreads.
• Friendship verses Agenda: what many people need know about Christ is that those who follow him can be trusted. The foundation of this trust is genuine friendship rather than an agenda, no matter how compelling it may seem.
• Story verses Dogma: dogma informs, while story transforms. Storytelling retains the whole package about God’s reality in our life, so as to go beyond abstract ideas and beliefs.
• Outside the Box Jesus verses cliché Jesus: this particularly applies to post-Christian society, in which people have gotten enough the dull and pale Jesus image, church-portrayed. The historical Jesus made known himself with more than one image (the Transfiguration in Matt 17:1–6; Mark 9:1–8, and Luke 9:28–36; also arguably in his post-resurrection appearances), and he surprised people often. In the same manner Rather than showing a cliché Jesus people already know, we share a Jesus people have yet to discover.
  

  Image via Wikipedia

• Good News About God’s Kingdom verses Good News About the Afterlife: Jesus’ message to people was mainly about this life rather than the next. Our gospel message also should proclamation of God’s this-worldwide initiative.
• Journey verses Event: to be Christian is to follow Jesus Christ our leader along the journey. The old model focuses on a one-time decision to get a one-way ticket to heaven, an event which marks who’s in and who’s out. The new model sees everyone as at different points along (or away from) the Way.

One helpful analogy in Richardson’s book is his portrayal of evangelist as a travel guide as opposed to salesperson. A salesperson goes door to door, using cliché images and pushy and manipulative in order to get the "closing the deal" response. A travel guide, however, does not have so much statistics and performance in mind. His mission is to befriend those around them and direct them on the journey toward their encounter with Jesus.

Rick Richardson (picture and info from Wheaton College faculty’s page )

Position

Director of M.A. in Evangelism of Wheaton College
Associate Professor (On faculty since 2005)

Education

Ph.D.in Intercultural Studies – Trinity International University, 2007
M. Div. in Evangelism and Urban Ministry Concentrations – Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1991
B.S. in Civil Engineering – Lafayette College, 1978.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For a very helpful comment and critique of this book: Extended reading