[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?
Publicités

2 réflexions sur « [文摘]基督不丟石頭3 »

Poster un commentaire 我有話說

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s