兩國論神學和新凱波爾主義TWOKINGDOM THEOLOGY AND NEO-KUYPERIANS
作者：Kevin DeYoung 譯者：駱鴻銘：
我這週有幾天在OPC家庭退修會當講員。有很多很棒和很有神學思想的人。當天會後的討論集中在兩國論神學和新凱波爾主義上（我知道，這聽起來很像你們的家庭退修會）。I was speaking at
an OPC family camp for a few days this week. Really great folks and very
theologically literate. The after-session discussion du jour focused on two
kingdom theology v. neo-Kuyperianism (sounds like your family camp too, I
know).
大致說來，兩國論的人相信有兩個國度，今世的國度和基督的國度。身為基督徒，我們有雙重國民的身份。此外，我們無法期望自然領域看起來會像恩典領域（譯按：指被救贖的領域，即教會），或照著恩典領域的方式運作。生活在這兩個國度的張力之中，我們應該停止想要改造這個世界文化，使它變成我主基督的國度的努力，而是把焦點集中在教會身為教會，就要由她被正式按立的教會職員所帶領，並透過一般的施恩管道來牧養。In broad strokes,
the two kingdom folks believe in a kingdom of this world and a kingdom of
Christ. We have a dual citizenship as Christians. Further, the realm of nature
should not be expected to function and look like the realm of grace. Living in
the tension of two kingdoms we should stop trying to transform the culture of
this world into the kingdom of our Lord and instead focus on the church being
the church, led by it duly ordained officers and ministering through the
ordinary means of grace.
另一方面，新凱波爾主義（荷蘭神學家、政治家凱波爾[Abraham Kuyper]的知識傳人）則主張，這世界的每一寸土地都屬於基督。因此，祂的主權必須表現在政治、藝術、教育的範疇，簡單來說，表現在所有的地方。既然基督的工作不只是要拯救罪人，也要更新整個世界，我們就應該努力改變這個世界，並改造文化。On the other hand,
neo-Kupyerianism (intellectual descendants of the Dutch theologian and
politician Abraham Kuyper) argue that every square inch of this world belongs
to Christ. Therefore, his Lordship should be felt and manifested in politics,
in the arts, in education, in short, everywhere. Because the work of Christ was
not just to save sinners but also to renew the whole cosmos, we should be at
work to change the world and transform the culture.
我不喜歡那些主張「第三條路」的人，他們總是把自己放在兩個極端之間，認為自己的立場才是明智的選擇，但是我必須承認，兩種取向——兩國論神學和新凱波爾主義——都有一些看似合乎聖經，也看似危險的要素。I don’t like the “third rail”
folks who are always positioning themselves as the sane alternative between two
extremes, but I have to admit that there are elements of both approaches–two
kingdom theology and neo-Kuyperianism–that seem biblical and elements that seem
dangerous.
兩國論的優點：
On the plus side for the
two-kingdom approach:
--強調教會和施恩管道（例如：講道，聖禮）
Emphasis
on the church and the ordinary means (e.g., preaching, sacraments)
--以唯實論立場來評價我們墮落的世界和烏托邦理想主義的危險
Realistic
appraisal of our fallen world and the dangers of utopian idealism
--承認基督徒在世上雖然可以也應該做許多有價值的事，但是教會身為教會，其擁有的使命是更為侷限的
Acknowledges
that while Christians can do and should do many worthwhile things in the world,
the church as church has a more limited mandate
--會避免永無止境的、經常是愚蠢的，關於各種文化和政治事務的宣告
Avoids
endless, and often silly, pronouncements on all sorts of cultural and political
matters
--認真看待這個已經降臨/尚未完全實現的國度
Takes
seriously the already and not-yet of the kingdom
--明白發生在世上的一切美好事物，不是「天國事奉」（Kingdom Work）
Understands
that every nice thing that happens in the world is not “kingdom work”
--是對抗神治主義（theonomy）和重建主義（reconstructionism）的堡壘。
A
bulwark against theonomy and reconstructionism
但是我也看到極端兩國論的一些危險：
But I
also see some dangers in a radical two-kingdom approach:
--誇大平信徒和教會職員之間的區分（例如：傳福音是長老和牧師的責任，而不是一般教會會友的責任）
An
exaggerated distinction between laity and church officers (e.g., evangelism is
the responsibility of elders and pastors not of the regular church members)
--不願大膽地呼召基督徒，為了正面改變他們社區而行動，並且相信部分改變是可能的。
An
unwillingness to boldly call Christians to work for positive change in their
communities and believe that some change is possible
--十九世紀「教會的屬靈性質」（spirituality of the church）的教義，讓美國南方教會在蓄奴問題上「棄踢」（to “punt”，註）（或更糟）
The
doctrine of the “spirituality of the church” allowed the southern church to
“punt” (or worse) on the issue of slavery during the 19th century
新凱波爾主義也有一些優點：
The neo-Kuyperians have some
positives too:
--渴望公開他們的信仰
A
desire to make their faith public
--熱心地正面迎擊社會的不公不義，並幫助受傷的人
Zeal
to confront injustice and help the hurting
--欣賞被造界的美善
Appreciation
for the goodness of the created world
--認真看待基督信仰不只是罪人得到天國門票而已
Takes
seriously that Christianity is about more than sinners getting their ticket
punched for heaven
不過，新凱波爾主義也有一些缺點：
But,
alas, there are also number of shortcomings with the neo-Kuyperian view:
--模糊了普遍恩典和特殊恩典之間的界限
Blurs
the distinction between common grace and special grace
--模糊了普遍啟示和特殊啟示之間的界限
Blurs
the istinction between general and special revelation
--會以宇宙更新為代價而低估了個人的救贖
Can
minimize personal redemption at the expense of cosmic renewal
--吩咐所有基督徒要改變世界或改造文化的明確聖經支持非常薄弱
Explicit
biblical support for commanding all Christians to change the world or transform
the culture is very thin
--很容易會演變成模糊的道德主義
Devolves
quickly into an indistinct moralism
因此，這給我們什麼啟發呢？我不太確定。按照我的看法，兩國論神學有比較多的聖經支持。對我來說，我們更像是被擄到巴比倫的以色列人，而不是在應許地的以色列人。改造世界的最誠懇的呼召假設說，因為基督必要更新整個宇宙，因此我們身為基督徒的主要工作，也是作同樣的工作。但這是把整個神學建基在一個相當脆弱的涵義上。我感覺兩國論神學比較實際，也更符合我從新約聖經所領受到的「不要被改造社會佔據你的心思」（un-preoccupied-with-transforming-society）的氛圍。So where does this leave us?
I’m not quite sure. The two kingdom theology has better biblical support in my
opinion. It seems to me we are more like the Israelites in exile in Babylon
than we are the Israelites in the promised land. The earnest calls for world
transformation assume that because Christ will renew the whole cosmos therefore
our main job as Christians is to do the same. But this is basing a whole lot of
theology on a pretty tenuous implication. Two kingdom theology feels more
realistic to me and fits better with the
“un-preoccupied-with-transforming-society” vibe I get from the New Testament.
然而，我也討厭為現狀辯護，或對那些想要看到墮胎被廢止或夢想非洲的孩童可以飲用乾淨的水的年輕人潑冷水。我不認為教會擁有一個領養事工或戒毒事工是錯誤的。我認為改變結構、制度、觀念，不只是能幫助人，更能為福音廣傳預備道路。And yet, I am
loathe to be an apologist for the status quo, or to throw cold water on young
people who want to see abortion eradicated or dream of kids in Africa having clean
water. I don’t think it’s wrong for a church to have an adoption ministry or an
addiction recovery program. I think changing structures, institutions, and
ideas not only helps people but can pave the way for gospel reception.
也許存在——我不相信我竟然要這樣說——一條中間路線。我要說的是，我們不要失去福音的核心，即上帝透過自我替代（self-substitution）來自我補贖（self-satifaction）。我們也不要為挑戰基督徒能證明這種為他人而死的愛而感到抱歉。我們不必為了地獄，和必須悔改和重生的教義而感到不好意思。我們也不必害怕向所有的人行善，尤其是向信仰的家庭（household of faith）。讓我們一同對抗我們這個時代的不公不義和苦難，也讓我們能重視現實，知道如同耶穌所說，我們當中永遠會有窮人。底線是：在上帝呼召我們、賜給我們恩賜去改變的地方，就努力去做，但不要忘記，基督給我們的大使命是進到世界中，使人作祂的門徒，而不是進到世界中建造天國。Perhaps there is a–I can’t
believe I’m going to say it–a middle ground. I say, let’s not lose the heart of the gospel, divine
self-satisfaction through self-substitution. And let’s not apologize for challenging Christians to show
this same kind of dying love to others. Let’s not be embarrassed by the
doctrine of hell and the necessity of repentance and regeneration. And let’s
not be afraid to do good to all people, especially to the household of faith.
Let’s work against the injustices and suffering in our day, and let’s be
realistic that the poor, as Jesus said, will always be among us. Bottom line:
let’s work for change where God calls us and gifts us, but let’s not forget
that the Great Commission is go into the world and make disciples, not go into
the world and build the kingdom.