[省思] 曼德:家庭教會:中國的清教徒運動

研讨会发言:中国家庭教会当前宗教政策的分析 from 曼德讲道集 on Vimeo.

1949年中國共產黨取得中國大陸政權後,使馬克思主義意識形態成為本質上的國家宗教(state church),而對基督教和其他宗教,使其成為了國家宗教的附屬宗教。當局扶持的三自教會(所謂的自治、自養、自傳的基督教會),本質上是國教的附屬宗 教。以吳耀宗、丁光訓為首的新派神學家在神學理念上完全認同共產主義意識形態,他們強調「因愛稱義」、「耶穌無神性」、「人無罪性」,人可以建立地上天國 —共產主義社會,他們只不過用基督教的名詞來闡述共產主義理念而已。在形式上,三自教會的牧者們全部受到官方培訓、官方控制。可見,三自教會實質上就是國 家宗教,這與清教徒時代英國國教聖公會有極大的相似性… (full article Part 1  and Part 2)

中國基督徒作家曼德在本文中認為,「目前中國家庭教會的政教關係,並不類似於受羅馬政權和猶太人雙重逼迫的初代教會時期,也不類似於宗教改革時期德國、法國、北歐基督新教受天主教逼迫時期。」原因是當前中國政府對家庭教會的管控與逼迫,不再像文革時期,是「有計劃、全面的 行動,存心要把基督教從帝國中連根鏟除」

宗教改革運動開始後,與初代教會類似的是法國的新教徒受到的天主教逼迫。在1573年聖巴多羅買日,天主教極端派在攝政母及國王支持下大肆屠殺新教的預格諾派信徒,在巴黎不止2000信徒被殺,在其他城市超過1萬人被殺。1629年新教預格諾派信徒在法國轉入了地下。(見《歷史的軌跡》第293、294頁)基督教在法國被殘酷鎮壓的嚴酷程度與中國「文革」差不多。而在當時的德國、北歐,基督新教由於受到王權的支持,所受的逼迫以外國勢力的戰爭威脅形式出現,荷蘭反抗西班牙的戰爭、德國和北歐的30年戰爭,都是當時基督教反抗天主教及其王權逼迫的產物。對外戰爭這一特點,也不適合目前的中國家庭教會。

他認為,「唯一與中國家庭教會目前處境比較類似的是在英國的清教徒。」這表現在 1) 清教徒對英國國教的分離,以及 2) 政權對清教徒運動不同歷史時期不同的逼迫程度。

清教徒運動是宗教改革運動在英國的繼續。1534年亨利八世宣布脫離羅馬天主 教,設立英國國教會(Church of English),也就是英國聖公會。曼德認為這與中國的三自教會非常相似,因為「三自教會也是國教,是馬克思主義這個國教的附屬物,國家元首是三自教會最高領袖。」

同時,1558年,伊莉莎白執政時,許多逃難到國外、日內瓦,推崇加爾文主義的信徒,希 望把教會中「天主教的舊酵old leaven of Catholicism」除淨,這批人就叫清教徒(Puritans)。

A fair Puritan
A Fair Puritan

當中一部分人雖反對聖公會的制度和教理,但仍願意留在聖公會中,「從內部加以改革」。這與那些流亡他國或沒入地下的清教徒分離派(disestablishmentarianists)不同。

曼德說,「在三自這個國教裡,也有很多同情、支持家庭教會的信徒和牧者。」與此同時,家庭教會與清教徒中的分離派一樣,形成了一個獨立於國教、獨立於政權的教會體系。為了堅持純正的信仰,成為「不從國教者」,受到程度不一的限制和迫害。

然而,清教徒追求信仰自由的奮鬥,間接或直接帶來了英國民主、憲政國家的來臨,國會與國王在清教徒問題上的爭端,使二者發生戰爭,最後確立國王必須接受國會監督、限制的政體。1688年光榮革命後確立的《權利法案》。「《權利法案》規定:國王不能終止法律;除非經國會同意,不得提高稅收或保持軍隊;若沒有法律手續,不可逮捕和拘留臣民」,清教徒革命「確立了代議制君主立憲政體,奠立了英國議會制的基石」。

家庭教會盡管自己絕無政治化的傾向,但在實質上卻為中國的民 主化起到了巨大的促進作用。歷史的吊詭讓他們不得不擔負某種政治方面的文化使命。

曼德結論道,清教徒追求「信仰自由」、「政教分離」、「國教能演變為長老制下的改革宗教會」的目標清晰合理,甚至為此能不惜組織軍隊與王權一戰。終於獲勝。

家庭教會信徒,也要有這樣的異像和策略,要把實現中國信仰自由、政教分離作為目標。廣傳福音,影響社會高層、影響有能力進行決策的人物。甚至 也要使三自教會中的高層,能夠同情和支持家庭教會。家庭教會要像清教徒一樣懂得抗爭,這次守望教會的持久堅韌抗爭,就是一個很好的範例。不懼王權主動抗爭、不怕流血犧牲,是清教徒的特征,這也正是中國家庭教會所要學習的。

就神學主張而言,曼德主張清教徒的方向也是當今中國家庭教會值得學習的。

加爾文神學,也是目前中國家庭教會急需奠定的神學根基,尤其是在人本主義、行為主義至上的中國,神的主權、人的敗壞、上帝的預定與揀選這些真理,必須要成為家庭教會的最為基礎性的神學。

他在最後引在中國人民大學教授、北京守望教會孫毅《北京守望孫毅長老對城市家庭教會發展之思考》說,傳統家庭教會的神學體系,從19世紀的敬虔派轉入改革宗神學和清教思想,變得 1) 更為強調對經文解釋的嚴格客觀性和絕對性、2) 教會治理方面,強調教會的組織與建制;3) 重視教會對文化使命和社群關係的建造。而這些是「可喜的轉變」。

我認為這是一篇有突破性觀點的文章,但我個人有諸多保留。我過往不曾將中國家庭教會問題與宗教改革時期的社會狀況做類比,畢竟宗教改革是發生在一個宗教社會,並非世俗社會。宗教改革開啟了世俗化社會的序章,反倒中國宗教政策變革是要推向一個自由多元社會。然而或許最近閱讀校園書房譯作《歷史的軌跡》給予了他啟發。從這裡我們可以繼續往下思考。

我的看法分為現象面和異象面:

I. 現象面
  • 清教徒真正的勝利並非在英國本土,而是在北美新大陸。事實上至今福音派在英國仍然是少數族群,主流是高派和自由派。在宗教改革的歐洲諸國中,英國的政教分離是做得最差的,從 Canterbury 大主教、西敏主教座堂到政府對宗教學校的補助,都為世俗人士所詬病。這部份不見於曼德的文章,卻仍亟待分析比較。
  • 被稱為清教徒革命的英國內戰成功,查理二世和詹姆士二世在十七世紀下半葉的復闢是重要導火線。此二人斯圖亞特王室成員的天主教背景和作為,無法為英格蘭新教徒所接受。當議會派和保皇派的戰爭衝突已久、宗教議題上升成為政治甚至軍事議題,查理二世和詹姆士二世復闢足以驅使國會中的清教徒和國教徒聯合採取政治上的抵制行動。尤其當年作為天主教徒的血腥瑪麗對宗教改革人士的恐怖鎮壓歷歷在目,人民容易同情新教徒對抗王室的聯合行動,並將天主教的剩餘影響肅清。中國的三自教會和家庭教會不具備這樣合作的條件,一個兩者需要共同攜手面對的宗教和政治霸權並不存在,使得教會涉政的舉動也將名不正言不順。
  • 中國基督教問題不是社會主流議題。中國現今只有 5-7%的基督徒人口,不像當初英國神學可以透過英格蘭國教的體系涉入政治與公領域。雖然需要神學是肯定的,但做政治神學(或其他建構神學)的思想難度會大得多。曼德樂觀地說,現在中國家庭教會也重視自身社會文化責任,但那完全只是剛開始萌芽的意識。我們需要看到這部分具體還差得多遠,以及其與其他自由國家教會間的鴻溝。
II. 異象面
  • 當代基督教在中國的發展將成為公民政治和民主化的基石,這個局勢在未來將會益發明朗。家庭教會在其中會扮演關鍵性的角色。問題在於時機和進程:現下家庭教會的當務之急仍然是應先深耕神學和靈命,而像守望一般浮上台面作塔台般的先知工作,雖也是教會身份的一部份,然而時機是否成熟?資源是否足夠?聖靈的聲音是什麼?
曼德寫道:
正如官方在《環球時報》針對北京守望教會謀求公開整體敬拜的戶外敬拜發 布的評論《個別教會要避免讓自己政治化》文中指出的:「成立任何大型組織,在中國一直是受到認真對待的事情。幾十年來中國社會形成了這方面的審慎習慣,政 府的相應管理一直比較嚴格。這方面是否需要有所松動,是全社會的政治大事。教會不應當在這個敏感問題上,充當推動變化的激進力量。否則教會就不是在搞宗 教,而成為搞政治,這是教會的大忌」。當局真正擔心的是家庭教會在衝擊結社自由的限制,是推動結社自由的激進力量。因此,我們從反面也可看到,家庭教會在單單實施自己的敬拜信仰自由時,無意地為中國公民的結社自由、集會自由做出了貢獻。盡管這不是家庭教會的本意。

教會發展眼下的岔路,在於教會是否已經足以充當一領導社會變革的政治主體。顯然當前勇於認同守望異象的家庭教會並不多(雖然守望教會確實是受到逼迫與不公待遇的),更別說曼德寄望的那些「同情家庭教會境遇的三自人士」。曼德在關鍵點上沒有將實際現象展開來論述,反而顯現得有些天真樂觀。

我的看法與曼德不同。耶路撒冷的基督徒當初被羅馬教會逼迫時,並非集結在京城抗爭,反倒是「順命」地向外四散(使徒行傳八:1),成了福音傳遍地極四方的先鋒部隊。與其讓血氣方剛的家庭教會向政府討要宗教自由和結社敬拜的「權利」以及向海外張羅援手,教會更需要在屬靈成熟度上滿有基督長成的身量。暫時分散成多個小聚會點未必不是一項聖靈的祝福,如同主耶穌所教導的:「靈巧向蛇、馴良如鴿」(馬太福音十:16)。

我的相關見解如下:

  • 清教徒精神 vs. 清教徒神學:中國信徒需要的是改教精神,未必得限於改革宗神學。這意味至少還得包含路德會、重洗派、衛理神學,甚至接觸天主教、東正教。如同清末的革命志士推動中華民國的民主,需要各方負笈海外、引入新思潮的學人,我們不能自我窄化,不能忽視保守神學在19-20世紀遇到的困難,以及21世紀以來的發展。這些都需要人才和土壤(現在的中國大陸不能提供)。
  • 進入議會(或「人大常委」)這部份的挑戰,需要更多著墨。當年的清教徒有圓顱黨Roundhead)以清新的形像進入公家要職議事。家庭教會如何串連三自內有志之士,並送新一代的人進入國家決策核心?現在講「白色殉道」,都是講小市民神學。無一已經建立的教牧神學可以有效地觸及公權力的範疇。當注意符合改教精神、適合中國處境的神學是需要被消化與建造的。曼德在多數說加爾文神學、清教徒神學才是能擊碎人本主義的救國之道,然而它一堆充滿獨斷性 的宣稱也陷入巨大的認識論困境之中遲遲無法脫身。更別說它政治神學常墮入政教不分的「改造派」(Reconstructionism)思想,在對「權 力」的理解上需要後現代思想的制衡!
  •  戰爭與反政府的語言必須避免。曼德的類比多番強調清教徒勇於「組黨」、「發動戰爭」、「對抗王權不懼流血」,在守望仍然有待突破當前關卡的困境下,只怕火上加油,害了中國家庭教會。曼德應當避諱這些具有鬥性、挑動敏感神經的語言。個人認為,以捨己和愛的見證為主軸,贏取國內和國際社會的正面觀感,才是家庭教會與中國社稷發展的正途。並且要有長遠的異象、普及的神學教育,來為中國的民主化和社會風氣的重建做更好的鋪墊。
  • 加爾文神學難以推上政治前線,因為語言不夠豐富-都在神主權、人墮落無能這個路線上打轉。在我看來,耶穌並不是一位加爾文主義者。保羅神學思想也還有待比改革宗教義更豐富的理解(例如,路德認為保羅神學的核心是「因信稱義」, N.T. Wright 則縱述舊約和歷史地說「與基督連結」是保羅更基要的主旨)!我認為家庭教會需要 1) 充實向外部社會參與及改造的見證、2) 深化自身對聖經的理解和應用。 3) 持續在地方堂會的牧養和建造上實踐重視人性尊嚴、民主、平權的基礎價值,成為一個模範性公民社群。這也是我一直放在心中的禱告。

在最近一篇回應飄流製作古斌的神學評論中,我撰寫了以下文字回應,聊表個人結合衛理公會、重洗派、天主教觀點、加爾文立場的基督教公眾神學精神:

在政教分離的原則下、甚或無神論的制度內,統治機器仍然可以找到合法的名目殺人。人們可以不再奉上帝的名殺人-奉公眾大義、奉自己創造出的偶像之名就可以了。
Gaddafi 未經審訊便遭武裝反抗軍虐殺,許多人憂心是社會公義的倒退國際社會秩序的危機。一如Bin Laden的死一般。
然而問題已經不在於回歸Luther的兩國論,因為即使最嚴密的世俗司法裁決都無法代替上帝自己的裁決。同時我們必須避免盲目將上帝理解為一個性格空泛、獨行其事的至高者。後自由神學(Barth, Hauerwas, McCormack, Gunton, Ford, and so on)說上帝之所以是絕對自由,不在於祂可以「選擇」做「任何」事-任意妄為的自由意志是啟蒙自由主義下的自由-;乃應在於唯有上帝可以完全做祂自己、忠於自己。
「人雖然失信,上帝仍是可信的,因為祂不能背乎自己。」(提後二:13)這是在社會關係中被異化、陷入存在性焦慮中、本質必須被行動所充填(per Sartre)的人類所沒有的自由。
因而基督徒不是輕率地為外在的倫常規則或既成的事件賦予神聖性,稱為「神意」,而是回到上帝完全忠於自我的啟示中尋求神學倫理的根基:即三位一體的和諧和虛己。
比起「懸置至高概念」而成為限縮上帝主權的神秘主義基督信徒(事實上我懷疑能否稱此為「宗教改革的主要精神」,因為加爾文派完全無此意思),後自由神學認為今日我們仍應當以耶穌進入世界的精神進入世界:即「至高」的本體之中蘊含著「至卑」;誰當居首誰就當為後;榮耀乃彰顯於羞辱與自我犧牲。

Publicités

石中劍啊石中劍(Sword in the Stone)

In Robert de Boron‘s Merlin, Arthur obtained the throne by pulling a sword from a stone. In this account, the act could not be performed except by « the true king, » meaning the divinely appointed king or true heir of Uther Pendragon.

天14 (於Disneyland, CA, USA, 1988)

石中劍(Excalibur= literally Cut-steel)的由來是在『亞瑟王跟圓桌武士』中有名的騎士國王Arthur King亞瑟王傳奇,是一把光輝熠熠、鋒刃無比的劍!傳說中,只有神聖命定的英格蘭天子、Uther Pendragon王國的繼承人,才有資格與能力拔出這把劍。

Arthur從小就被魔術師Merlin扶養,不知道自己就是不列顛王Uther的兒子。

在他小時候先王駕崩導致許多人爭王位。直到魔術師Merlin將眾人引向石台上插著的這把劍,並宣言『能拔出此劍的人就是不列顛的國王』(“Who so Pulleth Out This Sword of this Stone and Anvil, is Rightwise King Born of England.“),然後刻了字樣在Canterbury Cathédral 前。

這時許多人爭著去奪劍,是靠蠻力以及手勁。但任憑什麼樣的勇士壯漢都無法拔出。

Arthur無意間知道了這個消息,然後前往將劍從石臺上拔出,成為不列顛的王。當時的他年僅15歲。

———————

石中劍,曾有許多人憑恃自身勇力、尊貴、蠻勁、才華,想試著拔出;不是因為看到這把劍的內在,而是因為拔出石中劍對自己能力的證明、能得到從旁人而來的欽羨、能如天之驕子般地號令整個英格蘭。

可惜的是,一個個貴族、勇士拼了勁地嘗試,無一能得~甚至還有透過兩三人幫忙的!他們最後氣餒地離開,有些不忘撂下狠話和咒詛,想自己拔不出來,或許是因為嵌在石頭裡面的劍身早就鏽蝕了…「就算誰拔了出來必也是一把鈍器廢鐵!」

誰知,原來石中劍鋒銳而深涵的奧秘,正在於只有那顆神所命定、單純無雜念、不逐名利、不貪權色、不驕不餒的赤子之心才配得著。

但若不是在童話故事,我還真不知道世上可以有這樣的人。如同擊敗歌利亞時的大衛,若不是出於神寵及神轉化的大能,在這不停「傅柯擺」的世間,又可見幾稀呢?

而石中劍,她的稀有、寶貴、與銳涵,世人原先不知道。唯有當自己站在石台上握著了,渾身被那劍柄由上而下醍醐灌頂的聖靈力量膏臨到,她的光輝才隨著劍身一點一滴地出石,驚現鑽石璀璨。

如今長存的有,有望,有這三樣,其中最大的是。」

————————-

Source: http://blog.roodo.com/grayhawk/archives/984909.html#comments

石中劍的作者為提倫斯.漢伯瑞.懷特(Terence Hanbury White),1906年出生於印度孟買。五歲時,隨母親回英國與外祖父母同住。大學時他進入劍橋大學專攻英文,始在文壇大放異彩。他寫詩,主編文學刊物,在週刊上撰寫劍橋專欄,第一年便獲得獎學金;然而翌年卻罹患了當時仍屬絕症的肺結核,以為自己只剩六個月生命。懷特的導師和朋友發起捐款,湊錢讓他前往義大利休養一年。他造訪了那不勒斯、維蘇威等地,並完成第一部小說《異國之冬》(They Winter Abroad)和詩集《受寵的海倫》(Loved Helen)。大學畢業那年,懷特寫了一篇文章討論《亞瑟之死》,提出許多創見,也為日後寫作《石中劍》埋下契機。

大學畢業後,懷特放棄學術研究,全心投入創作。1936年,懷特辭去教職,租下史道威公學附近的狩獵小屋,專心寫作。一天晚上他隨手翻開《亞瑟之死》,反倒讀出新的趣味、新的觀點。他在給友人的信中讚揚這是「一齣完美的悲劇,開端處便埋下了開頭、中間和結尾的伏筆」,此外「書中人物都是真實的,具有我們能夠預測的正常反應。」

懷特於是萌生為馬洛禮作「序」的念頭,以過去的亞瑟王文學中被忽略的領域―亞瑟的童年,作為主題。中世紀作家為了凸顯英雄的不凡身世,往往強調其誕生時的諸多異象,藉以增添神秘色彩,實際的成長經歷則表過不提。這作法不僅首開先例,也正好符合十九世紀末興起的童年書寫傳統,這類作品將童年提升至近乎神話的美好層次,以牧歌的形式歌詠逝去的黃金年代。表面上為兒童讀者所寫,實則是成人的懷舊寄託。

懷特的博(雜)學多聞肇因於幼年家庭問題所引發的不安全感,致使他一生不斷學習各種技能,藉以「平緩危機意識和自卑感」;他更透過梅林之口,表示「治癒悲傷最好的方法就是學習」。懷特的閱讀量驚人,又能射箭、狩獵、馴鷹、釣魚、駕駛飛機、潛水、織毛線、做木工和砌牆造屋,還通曉中古拉丁文,這些嗜好都出現在書中,為作品更添趣味。

1938年《石中劍》於英國出版,懷特親手繪製四十二幅插圖,幽默而精準地傳達出筆下人物和情境。《石中劍》讓懷特初嘗名利雙收的滋味,不僅在英美兩地熱賣,迪士尼更買下版權拍成動畫。亞瑟王傳奇的悲劇色彩,在本書看似戲謔的敘事口吻和無拘無束的童年光陰中,似乎還不明顯。小說的最後標記著「故事開始」,暗示亞瑟一生的風起雲湧與劫難,才正要登場。

—[局部]引用來源:《石中劍》中文版導讀(繆思,2004)

American versus British Ph.D. Programs 美國神學博士班vs.英國神學博士班:三位在學博班生的分享

St. Leonard's Hall in Pollock Halls of Residen...
Image via Wikipedia

American versus British Ph.D. Programs: Three Doctoral Students Reflect on Their Decisions

來源:http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=723

作者:Chris Keith/Charles J. Otte III/Dieter T. Roth

翻譯:邱慕天(註:中文翻譯為帶有個人語風之譯筆,字句未必完全緊貼原文)

« Are American or British Ph.D. programs better? » This is an important question that numerous graduate students ask every year as they prepare to apply for doctoral studies. However, like so many issues surrounding the decision to pursue doctoral work, there is likely no direct answer to be had. Unfortunately, this lack of a clear answer often leads students and advisors alike to perpetuate unhelpful stereotypes by narrowing the decision to one aspect of it. Instead of offering a myopic view, in what follows three current doctoral students will explain their respective decisions and reflect on those decisions now that their studies are underway. One contributor chose to do a British Ph.D.; another chose to do an American Ph.D.; and a third chose to do the coursework of an American Ph.D. but then transfer to a British program for his research.

美國或英國?這問題已經困擾學生很久了,且每年都會遇到。然而缺乏清晰的分析比較,使得片面的看法和刻板印象長年持續流竄在師生耳語中。這篇讓我們來聽聽三位學生分享他們作決策的心得。三位中一位是選了英國,一位選了美國,還有一位是選擇先在美國修完課,然後轉學到英國作研究論文。

Given the autobiographical nature of this essay, its limitations should perhaps be acknowledged upfront. First, other options for doctoral work (e.g., Canadian or European programs), will not be discussed. Second, the important issue of seminary versus « secular » Ph.D. programs will not receive the attention it likely deserves. Third, admission and financial aid clearly play a large role in any particular student’s available options and decision. However, the contributors will not dwell upon these factors here in order to make this essay as broadly applicable as possible. The specific concern is not the choice of a particular institution but rather a particular style of doctoral program.

這篇文章基本上還是自述性的,它的限制必須在前頭加以說明:1) 加拿大和其他歐洲的學程並不在討論範圍中。2) 神學院vs.自由派一般大學的爭論,儘管也是很重要的議題,但不太會在這篇文章中出現。3) 入學條件和獎學金當然是學生影響作抉擇的重大誘因。但這些案例無法普及到每一位申請者身上,因此撰文者將不會一直在這些點上打轉,以確保文章有較為廣泛的實用價值。重點不是在某間學校,而是兩種文化下的不同學術型態。

(Chapel, U of Edinburgh)

Despite these three obvious limitations, the contributors hope that this essay will help both students who are in the process of applying for doctoral work and the faculty members supervising them in their decisions.

講了這些,還是希望這邊文章能對有益申請的學生帶來幫助,也讓老師們更加照顧學生的想法。

一、

Why I Chose a British Ph.D. Program
In considering doctoral work, I applied only to British programs, and did so for a number of reasons. First, I applied to programs based primarily upon a particular scholar with whom I was interested in working and secondarily upon a particular program in which I was interested in working. The scholars with whom I most wanted to work were all employed by British universities. Second, and equally important with the first reason, my wife and I wanted the experience of living in a foreign country/culture. Neither of us had been outside the USA for more than a brief period, our parents were in good health, we had no children and thus little true responsibility, and therefore, at the end of the day, no good excuse not to go abroad. Third, having an undergraduate degree in biblical studies and having completed a Master of Divinity (including having written a Master’s thesis), I preferred to start independent research immediately rather than go through more coursework. I consulted with some professors on campus who agreed that this would be the best option for me. Thus, in the Fall of 2005, my wife and I packed our bags and moved to Edinburgh, Scotland, where I commenced a Ph.D. in New Testament and Christian Origins.

我為何選英國

我選英國,因為1) 我選校的首要考量是要跟對人,其次才是學科和課程。我想跟的人全在英國大學。2) 和第一點同樣重要的是,我太太和我都很想去體驗異國文化和生活。我們從來沒有長時間走出美國。我們的爸媽都很健康,我們沒有小孩,因此談不上什麼生活負擔。這樣就沒有理由不出國啦。3) 我大學念聖經本科,之後又修畢了一個道學碩士(還加一篇碩士論文),到博士班我已經不想再修一堆課了,想儘快開始作自主研究才是王道。我問過的老師都同意這個看法。於是2005年秋天,我和我太太就整裝出發前往蘇格蘭愛丁堡,開始我的「新約和基督教起源」博士研究生涯。

On the eve of my final year of doctoral work at the University of Edinburgh, I can say with no hesitation that I have never regretted my decision to study in a British Ph.D. program, and certainly not my specific decision to come to the University of Edinburgh. I must stress, however, that my satisfaction with Edinburgh is a direct reflection of the fact that I (and my wife) approached this process as a holistic decision. That is, while the academic environment is stimulating and fruitful and my supervisors are excellent, equally important is the opportunity to go, for example, to Rome for a short vacation, to London for a couple nights, or to the Scottish Highlands for the weekend. Doing the Ph.D. is clearly the most important aspect of anyone’s doctoral experience, but it is not the only aspect of it, and I would encourage those in the decision-making process to think not just about the academic issues but also about what type of life you want for you and/or your family while in the program.

在準備進入愛丁堡大學最後一年的博士學業的此時,我可以肯定地說我對自己的選擇毫不後悔。這並非單指愛丁堡大學而言,我必須強調,我在愛丁堡能如此酣暢地學習,完全是因為我們在選校之時作了周全的考量。就先不論這裡學術環境是多麼有啟發性、老師們有多優秀了,講白一點,沒事就來個羅馬假期,或到倫敦、蘇格蘭高地逗上幾天、調劑身心,這才是重點。念博士不是只有讀書,奉勸各位選校時除了課業考量之外,也要好好思考你和你的家人想要的生活形態,

The lack of formal coursework has been a tremendous advantage for me in particular, as has the freedom to work at my own pace with occasional meetings with my supervisor(s). This fosters a professional environment, where the faculty treats the student more like an independent researcher than a student per se (which often results in students having the confidence and ability to publish journal articles while still technically students). Worth noting, however, is that this less-supervised study environment seems to be a disadvantage for other students. Some students work best when left alone; other students work best with external pressure that a classroom setting can provide. When asked, I have often compared the British Ph.D. to being thrown in the deep end of the pool — you sink or you swim, but it is up to you.

沒有形式上的課表,對我來說是一項大利多,我可以按照自己的步調作研究,並和指導教授偶爾會面。這個制度有助於滋養專業的學術風氣,老師以一個獨立研究員的身份看待學生,而不只是學徒。(這有助學生在學時期時就能養成勇於發表的信心和能力)。然而值得注意的是,對一些學生而言,指導教授放得太鬆並不是一項好事。有的學生適合獨立,有的人則需要教室的學習環境給予他外在的壓力。我常把英國的博士班比喻為深水池子,學生被丟進去,沈浮則全看自身造化。

My one lament about the British program is the lack of formal training in modern research languages (e.g., German or French). Students are expected to prove competence in these languages in their thesis, but no official structure exists for language acquisition. Also, in practice, it seems, different schools adopt different strategies on how they enforce demonstration of that competence. What the British system lacks in formal structure, however, it makes up for in research training, and this has been the most advantageous option for me.

英國制度美中不足的一點是,它們對當代研究語言(如德文和法文)的能力培養缺乏正規形式。學生在他們的論文中要展現這方面的語文能力,但這兒沒地方給他們學。再加上,不同學校在這些語文方面的要求和標準也不一而足。不過呢,英國大學對研究能力的訓練很是出色,這點跟我再對味不過了,因而也彌補了他們在其他學程制度結構上的不足。

Chris Keith, University of Edinburgh 克里斯.凱實於愛丁堡大學

edinburgh-84

二、


Why I Chose an American Ph.D. Program
I just completed my first year in a Ph.D. program in Northwest Semitic Philology at the University of Chicago; if all goes as planned, this will become a joint program with the Linguistics department. Very early in my college career I became entranced by the siren song of doctoral education. Because most of my early influences had done their doctoral studies abroad in places like Sheffield, Aberdeen, and Israel, I naturally began to dream of studying abroad for my Ph.D. (during Seminary I even visited a couple of schools overseas). The decision, therefore, to matriculate in an American Ph.D. program was all the more surprising. However, I made the decision deliberately for reasons that will become clear.

我為何選擇美國

我剛在芝加哥大學博士班完成我在「西北閃米語言文獻學」學程的第一年學習。如果一切順利按照計畫,我可以得到一個語言學系的雙聯學位。早在剛進大學時我就充滿著對博士學習的嚮往。然而因為早期影響過我的前輩們都在博士時出國留學,例如到雪菲爾德、亞伯丁、以色列這些地方,我當時也自然而然懷著這樣的留學夢(神學院期間我甚至參觀了不少間海外的學校)。之所以會留在美國念博士,其實是個頗為出乎意料的決定。然而這決定經過深思熟慮判斷的,我會在底下將理由說明清楚。

Those who were kind enough to advise me in the process of applying for and selecting a Ph.D. program repeated a single refrain: location does not matter. By this, they meant that I should not be concerned with where a school was or with what its ostensible reputation was, but rather with the scholars and the program itself. They encouraged me to focus on finding a program that fit and a scholar I would like to emulate. This advice proved prescient in my case because it allowed me to go beyond my own desire to study overseas and find a graduate program that fit me best, a program that I absolutely love.

在我決策過程,給過我建議的人都重複著一句話:山不在高、水不在深,在哪唸書地點一點都不重要。他們的意思是,我不該讓學校地理位置或是它的表面學術風評給牽著鼻子走,教授學者和課程才是重心。他們鼓勵我找尋適合的課程,還有想要師法的學者。這些建議果然是有先見之明,他們讓我不再執著於出國留學,進而找到自己真正適合、並且喜愛的研究所。

The key factor for me in finding a Ph.D. program was the ability of a program to help me bridge the gap between my own level of preparedness and the body of material that I needed to master. This was critical because it allowed me to hold in abeyance other considerations until I had the academic and professional component resolved. This required a lot of honesty and a lot of foresight, but I truly believe this is essential to successful graduate work. I made up my mind about the broad shape of my academic goals and asked professors where and with whom I might be able to achieve those goals.

我搜尋博士班的關鍵點在於它們課程是否能幫助我銜接我現有的程度及所學,並通往我所打算精通的領域專業。在把其他次要考量納入之前,學術專業的部分必須先搞定。誠實、遠見都是決策過程的關鍵,而這些特質一樣是通往成功研究道路的不二法門。當我清楚了自身未來學術志業的藍圖後,我才開始向教授們請教哪裡是適合我的地方。

I knew that I wanted to combine Semitic Philology and Modern Linguistics in a thorough and rigorous manner. I had a strong background in biblical studies and history and a reasonable amount of preparedness in Semitics, but no formal background in linguistics in my undergraduate or Seminary studies. As I looked at programs, they had to be able to accommodate this reality. While British programs were very willing to let me pursue interdisciplinary work, they could not provide the coursework necessary to lay a strong foundation in linguistic theory. This foundation was something they expected to be in place before arriving. Semitic philology requires the mastery of a large number of languages, and linguistics requires a strong theoretical base before significant research can be undertaken. British programs expect the student to be prepared to enter into the research stage immediately. I was not. I had several languages left to learn (though I already had research German prepared) and all of my linguistic theory to master. I felt that this was more than could reasonably be accomplished in three years. My Seminary work, while related to my ultimate academic goals, did not directly prepare me for my primary academic focus at the Ph.D. level. This need for further coursework weighed heavily against British programs. (My inability to speak or read Israeli Hebrew made it unrealistic to consider Israeli programs.)

我的期盼是透過嚴謹的治學方式來結合閃語文獻學和現代語言學。我在聖經研究和歷史方面都有足夠底子,閃米語也有不錯的造詣。但是大學和神學院期間我都沒有受過正規的語言學訓練。因此我理想的學校必須要能夠補足這點。英國的大學儘管非常歡迎也支持跨領域研究,卻無法在課程上提供扎實的語言學理論教學。他們期待的是學生在入學之前便已經具備了這些學理基礎。閃米文獻學和語言學互為經緯,讀閃米文獻學需要精通許多語言,語言學則為文獻資訊的整合提供能夠一以貫之的理論框架。英國博班期待學生一進來就是即戰力,能立刻研究上手。我不是,我還有好幾種語言要學(儘管我已經具備了學術德文),語言學理論也尚待專精。有這一堆東西要搞,我覺得自己大概無法三年準時畢業。我在神學院所學儘管與我的學術終極目標相去不遠,卻無法直接給我在博士班的學術研究重心作支撐。總之,我還需要修課,英國學校在這點上的不足大大扣分。(我不會說也不會讀現代希伯來文,不然的話以色列本來很值得考慮的。)

Science_And_I (U of Chicago Neighborhood)

By contrast, American programs require three or four years of coursework during which time the student masters the relevant languages, histories, and, in the case of Semitic Philology, archaeological frameworks necessary for research. This structure appealed to me because it shifted pressure to acquiring the requisite skills of my field before trying to work toward the dissertation. Moreover, I work much better under external deadlines and with external pressures to study and achieve than I do with internal pressures. Because of this, the regular deadlines of American programs appealed to me.

相反地,美國博班要求修課三到四年,期間讓學生得以通曉所需的語言、歷史。就閃語文獻學而言,還包括研究必須的考古學知識。這個制度很吸引我,這樣我在寫論文前只要專心修課,累積研究實力和技巧就行了。再者,我是那種有人逼你,才會表現更好的人;因此,有明確期限(不管是報告交件或考試)的美國博班更對我胃口。

One further consideration in my decision was the aesthetics of the Ph.D. experience. My wife and I both love to travel, and we have both spent considerable time overseas. For this reason, the prospect of studying in places such as Edinburgh, Cambridge, or Tübingen appealed to our aesthetic sensibilities and engendered excitement rather than anxiety. After all, contrary to conventional wisdom, there is more to life as a student than studying. However, academic matters ultimately outweighed this consideration. Nevertheless, Chicago compensates for the missed overseas experience with its cosmopolitan vibe and the University’s neo-gothic flair. Ultimately, I think the key to enjoying the Ph.D. experience is tuning into the life and culture of the city/region where the school happens to be located, regardless of the continent.

其它的考量,應該就是讀博士班時的美感經驗了。我太太和我都喜歡旅遊,我們都曾經在海外住過。因此,我先前的理想學校,例如愛丁堡、劍橋、圖賓根,都能觸動我的美學神經,給我帶來的是興奮之情而非學術焦慮。總之,和傳統觀念不同,在那邊地方過的應當是校園學生生活,而不是作爆肝研究。經過天人交戰,我對學術成就的渴望還是壓過了對生活品質的追求。不過,芝加哥的大都會脈動和芝大歌德式建築的寫意多少彌補了未能涉足海外的缺憾。總之不管在哪一洲,我認為進入博士班如魚得水的關鍵,還是在於學生生活和在地文化必須調適得和諧一致。

Charles J. Otte III, University of Chicago 查爾斯 J. 奧提三世於芝加哥大學

University_Chicago (U of Chicago)

三、

Why I Chose To Start in an American Ph.D. Program and Finish in a British One
The final possibility considered in this article is that of completing the doctoral coursework of an American Ph.D. program and then writing a thesis in a British Ph.D. program, which is in fact the route that I have chosen. After completing the coursework for the doctoral program in Hermeneutics and Biblical Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary, I am now writing my thesis at the University of Edinburgh in New Testament and Christian Origins. Regardless of whether this option strikes you as a wonderful opportunity to glean the best of both academic worlds or an awkward, and likely uncomfortable, attempt to straddle not merely a fence but an entire ocean, the challenges and benefits of this option are worth considering.

我為何選擇在美國博班修課,又轉到英國完成論文

本文提供的最後一個選項就是在美國修課,然後到英國完成論文。這也是我選擇的方式。我在西敏神學院的博士班修畢「詮釋學與聖經解釋」的課程後,目前轉戰愛丁堡大學的「新約與基督教起源」學程進行論文。你或許會覺得這個選項天衣無縫地揉合了兩家學術之長,也可覺得這個腳踏兩條船,不、腳跨兩大洲的企圖是怪誕不羈 ;但不論如何,它的利弊就讓各位看倌來自由權衡。

First, it is readily apparent that there are a few drawbacks to this approach. It must be admitted that this option requires the most paperwork as I endured not one, but two rounds of applications to doctoral programs. In addition, it requires multiple relocations as my family and I moved within the U.S. to begin a Ph.D. and then headed overseas to finish. Finally, at this point I do not plan to write two doctoral theses; since I completed only part of an American program, I will ultimately receive a degree only from the University of Edinburgh (though it should be noted that one could be ABD [all but dissertation] from the American institution if comprehensive exams are taken before coming overseas). These issues alone may be enough to dissuade some from this option; nevertheless, there are certain situations in which the path I have trodden is not only worth considering, but actually may be advantageous.

醜話說在前頭,這方法的不便之處是顯而易見的。光是申請兩次博士班所需要繳交的作業文件就夠你受的了,家人還得搬來搬去跟著你受罪。最後呢,因為我並沒有寫兩份博士論文的打算,因此只有愛丁堡會給我博士學位(不過,假如你在原本的學校修完課、考過資格考的話,他們是會給你博士候選人的資格證明的)。有些人看到這裡應該就打退堂鼓了吧,不過接下來說明的,相信能證明我走過的這條路不僅值得一試,甚至還是利多於弊的。

Without a doubt, my own doctoral work experience has allowed me to have both a broader exposure to my field through doctoral coursework in the U.S. and a more extensive research experience by writing my thesis in the U.K. This amalgam of different contexts for Ph.D. work may prove particularly attractive to students who may wish, for whatever reason, to pursue coursework beyond the Masters level in a theological or seminary context, but may desire to write their thesis in a research university or secular context. As this was the case for me, I am able to draw not only from the benefits of academic work in multiple doctoral contexts, but also from academic work in multiple approaches to religious studies. However, even if a shift of approaches from a theological to a secular context is not of interest for you, I would still consider the ability to develop a more extensive knowledge of a field through a specific curriculum of Ph.D. coursework and then move into an extended and focused time of research in Britain as potentially quite attractive in preparing for future research work and the classroom.

毫無疑問地,我的博士歷程讓我在自己的專業領域中結合了美國課程的廣度和英國研究的深度。對那些希望能夠在正統神學院得到超越碩士層級的修課經驗、又想在世俗研究圈子寫研究論文的人,這樣橫跨脈絡的結合應該有很大的吸引力。對我來說,不僅是學術內容的廣博,學術方法的多元視角更是帶給我很大的幫助。就算你對於從神學方法轉到世俗研究方法不感興趣,我也會勸你從未來研究和教學的需求面來思考,藉由博士課程培養專業領域的學識廣度,然後在英國有一段較長時間專心致志作研究、挖掘深度。

In addition, enrolling in and completing Ph.D. coursework in the American context, as opposed to a shorter program of study such as a Th.M., allowed faculty members to evaluate my work on the doctoral level, which proved beneficial for the requisite recommendations as I applied to British universities. Although gaining admission to top-ranked doctoral programs will always be challenging, I am quite confident that the narrowing and focusing of my research interests in doctoral coursework (of tremendous value in developing my thesis proposal) and the recommendations of faculty evaluating my work on a Ph.D. level contributed to my having multiple offers of admission in the U.K. This situation afforded me, and my family, the luxury of being able to mull over all relevant considerations in evaluating which offer of admission to accept.

此外,在美國完成博士課程,讓老師有更多機會就博士層級來評估我的學術表現,進而也幫助我達到申請英國博士時的入學要求,這是一年短期的神學碩士所難以提供的優勢。儘管要被頂尖學府錄取是相難困難的,但我申請英國卻是錄取通知書收到手軟。我相信這是我在博班計畫性地專注修課(對後來撰寫博士論文大綱帶來莫大幫助),以及與我在博班互動的老師們給予強力背書所帶來的申請優勢。我等於拿了一手好牌,可以跟家人一同決定前往押寶的地方。

(Westminster Theological Seminary)

As is so often the case, whether a « split context » model of Ph.D. work is attractive to you is largely dependent upon your own interests as a student and the future direction you envision for your academic work. For those who, like me, are interested in drawing on the strengths of multiple approaches to doctoral work, an international academic experience, and the possibility of integrating doctoral coursework with extensive research experience in future work or classroom instruction, it may very well be worth considering the attempt to take advantage of the experience and knowledge gained through completing both U.S.- based coursework and a Britain-based thesis.

當然,這種「博士班斷層組合」的好壞是見仁見智,端看你個人的學習型態和未來的學術目標。我這種人喜歡多元進路、學術有國際觀、希望在未來教學研究上能夠既深且廣,如果你跟我一樣,就可以來考慮這種在美國修課、英文寫論文的博士學歷。

Dieter T. Roth, University of Edinburgh 狄耶特 T. 洛實於愛丁堡大學

edinburgh-85

(U of Edinburgh Neighborhood)

Conclusion
So, are American or British Ph.D. programs better? The short answer is a deliberately ambiguous « Yes. » Each of the contributors to this essay made his respective decision for different reasons. Hopefully, however, a common denominator has emerged in the course of their individual reflections. Some students will benefit more from an American program; others will benefit more from a British program. The most important criteria in making a decision between the two are knowing what type of student you are, what type of preparation you have had for doctoral research, and what type of overall doctoral experience you (and your family) desire. The contributors hope that their experiences will be beneficial as you make your decision regarding which program will suit you best.

結論

美國還是英國博班好?硬要回答就是「是」,等於沒回答。本文作者們選擇各異,也有各自己的理由。但願,經由他們的分享,你們可以獲得一個共識的雛形。有人適合美國,有人適合英國。最重要的就是要瞭解自己是哪一種類型的學生、你既有的學術底子如何,以及你(和你的家人)渴望的是哪一種整體學術生活環境。希望他們的經驗分享能幫助你擇你所愛,愛你所擇。

Professors Could Take Performance-Enhancing Drugs for the Mind

Results for parts II and III of the Mathematic...
Image via Wikipedia

Some university faculty members have started popping « smart » pills that are generally prescribed for other purposes to enhance their mental energy and ability to work long hours, say two University of Cambridge scientists who conducted a small informal poll.

Source: http://chronicle.com The Chronicle of Higher Education