成為基督徒的權利 The Right to Be a Christian

作者: Albert Mohler    譯者:  Maria Marta

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/right-be-christian

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/SUf7gxNXFg4

道德革命要求法律革命。對性革命以及性解放的各種成因來說，這是毋庸置疑的事實。只有當法律結構與新道德的理解對準成一直線時，革命才算完成。「對準成一直線」恰好是美國公共生活在同性戀解放議題上所發生的情況。

每個社會都有一個系統結構，它要麽影響行為，要麽強制行為。社會為了與通常或至少在很大程度上被認為是道德正確和錯誤的標準對準，社會最終要朝著立法行為和規範行為的方向發展。沒有道德控制與影響的體系，文明是不會延續的。

縱觀幾乎所有的西方歷史，在較大的社會裡，這一發展過程是以一種對基督教教會和基督徒毫無威脅的方式出現的。只要文化的道德判斷與教會的信念和教義相配，教會和文化就不會在法庭上爭執。此外，在這樣條件下，要發現基督徒處在道德評估錯誤的那一面是不可能的。

在當今時代，當文化變得更加世俗化，西方社會逐漸遠離他們過去所擁抱的基督教道德時，一切開始發生變化。 這一代基督徒認識到，我們並不代表普遍存在於學術界、創造性文化，和法律領域的同一個道德框架。 公共生活的世俗化，和與基督教根源分離的社會，令到許多美國人似乎沒意識到這個事實：現在備受指責的基督教信仰和教義，曾經被認為不僅是主流信仰，而且對整個社會規劃更是必不可少的 。 隨著性革命對社會的入侵，隨著在致力同性戀解放和同性婚姻合法化过程中產生的問題的日益凸顯，基督徒現正面臨一系列宗教自由的挑戰，這是前幾代人無法想象的。

在其中一個最重要的這些案例中，法官裁定婚禮攝影師因拒絕為同性婚禮服務而違反法律。 在一個令人難以置信的決定中透露，法院聲稱，攝影師的宗教自由確實受到侵犯，因為他被強制參加同性婚禮。 雖然如此，法院仍斷定新道德戰勝了宗教自由上的顧慮。

同樣，我們看到宗教機構，特別是學院與學校，都要面對基於性、性行為，和性取向的不得歧視的要求，這些要求等於向性革命投降。在某些管轄區，立法者正在考慮將仇恨犯罪立法，即排斥並宣布與新道德共識相沖突的言論為非法。

現在我們面臨一場不可避免的抵觸自由的沖突。在劇烈、激進的道德轉變的背景下，這場沖突是難忍受、巨大，與顯著的。在這些情況下，抵觸自由的沖突意味著，新道德體制在法院和監管型政府的支持下，將優先考慮性愛自由，而非宗教自由。在過去的幾十年裏，我們看到性革命的到來。性愛自由被提升為一項權利，比宗教自由更基本的權利。現在，性愛自由排斥、顛覆，和抵銷宗教自由---------一種被這個國家的創建者和憲政秩序所高度珍視的自由。我們必須記住，憲法的制定者並不相信他們創造權利，而是承認「自然法」及「自然神的旨意」賦予全人類權利。

現在我們所面臨的對宗教自由的挑戰，託付給身處在性愛自由和宗教自由互相抵觸這一沖突領域的每一個信徒、每一個宗教機構，和每一個會眾。這一挑戰並沒有對「自由派神學」（theological liberals）以及他們的教會和宗派構成威脅，因為那些教會為了迎合新道德而作了自我調整，而且自我感覺相當良好。此外，一些這樣的自由宗派和教會給自己命名為新道德的捍衛者，和法律修改的真正擁護者，即擁護為限制更保守的教會和宗派的宗教自由的權利而對現行法律的某些部分進行修改。

有趣的是，勞赫（Jonathan Rauch），一個同性戀婚姻的早期倡導者，警告他那些道德革命者夥伴：你們也必須小心，以免踐踏良心的權利，和你們的敵手的宗教自由。在勞赫的著作《Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought》中，他表達了自己的擔憂：

「今天，我擔心在同性戀平等的問題上，許多與我站在同一陣線的人忘記了曾使我們得自由的體制對我們的恩情。一些同性戀者-------並非全部，也非大多數，而是相當一部份------想刪除歧視性的看法。『歧視是歧視，偏執是偏執，』 他們說：『歧視性的看法是無法忍受的，無論它們是否會碰巧成為某人的宗教或道德信條。』

勞赫還表示，「我希望當同性戀者-------和非同性戀者-------在遇到憎恨或歧視性的意見時，我們不是以力圖壓制或懲罰對方的方式作回應，而是以設法糾正他們的方式作回應」。沒有跡象表明勞赫的忠告被接受。對「宗教自由的挑戰」與「信仰堅定的基督徒的良心、行為，和信仰的權利」的對抗所作的檢查表明，這一切是多麽的嚴峻。我們可以肯定我們的戰爭還未結束，只是開始而已。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年一月號 。

The Right to Be a Christian

by Albert Mohler

Moral revolutions require legal revolutions. This is certainly the case with the sexual revolution and its various causes of sexual liberation. A revolution is only complete when the legal structure aligns itself with a new moral understanding. This alignment is exactly what is taking place in American public life on the issue of gay liberation.

Every society has a structure of systems that either influence or coerce behavior. Eventually, societies move to legislate and regulate behavior in order to align the society with what is commonly, or at least largely, considered morally right and wrong. Civilization could not survive without a system of moral controls and influences.

Throughout almost all of Western history, this process has played out in a non-threatening way for the Christian church and Christians in the larger society. So long as the moral judgment of the culture matched the convictions and teachings of the church, the church and culture were not at odds in the courts. Furthermore, under these conditions, to be found on the wrong side of a moral assessment was unlikely for Christians.

All that began to change in the modern age as the culture became more secularized and as Western societies moved more progressively distant from the Christian morality they had embraced in the past. Christians in this generation recognize that we do not represent the same moral framework now pervasively presented in academia, the creative culture, and the arena of law. The secularization of public life and the separation of society from its Christian roots have left many Americans seemingly unaware of the fact that the very beliefs and teachings for which Christians are now criticized were once considered not only mainstream beliefs, but essential to the entire project of society. As the sexual revolution pervades society, and as the issues raised by the efforts of gay liberation and the legalization of same-sex marriage come to the fore, Christians now face an array of religious liberty challenges that were inconceivable in previous generations.

In one of the most important of these cases, a judge found that a wedding photographer broke the law by refusing to serve at a same-sex wedding. In an incredibly revealing decision, the court stated that the religious liberties of the photographer would indeed be violated by coerced participation in a same-sex wedding. Nevertheless, the court found that the new morality trumped concern for religious liberty.

Similarly, we have seen religious institutions, especially colleges and schools, confronted by demands that amount to a surrender to the sexual revolution with regard to nondiscrimination on the basis of sex, sexual behavior, and sexual orientation. In some jurisdictions, lawmakers are contemplating hate crime legislation that would marginalize and criminalize speech that is in conflict with the new moral consensus.

We now face an inevitable conflict of liberties. In this context of acute and radical moral change, the conflict of liberties is excruciating, immense, and eminent. In this case, the conflict of liberties means that the new moral regime, with the backing of the courts and the regulatory state, will prioritize erotic liberty over religious liberty. Over the course of the last several decades, we have seen this revolution coming. Erotic liberty has been elevated as a right more fundamental than religious liberty. Erotic liberty now marginalizes, subverts, and neutralizes religious liberty—a liberty highly prized by the builders of this nation and its constitutional order. We must remember that the framers of the Constitution did not believe they were creating rights but rather acknowledging rights given to all humanity by “nature and nature’s God.”

The religious liberty challenge we now face consigns every believer, every religious institution, and every congregation in the arena of conflict where erotic liberty and religious liberty now clash. This poses no danger to theological liberals and their churches and denominations because those churches have accommodated themselves to the new morality and find themselves quite comfortable. Furthermore, some of these liberal denominations and churches style themselves as defenders of the new morality and actually advocate legal modifications that restrict the religious liberty rights of more conservative churches and denominations.

Interestingly, Jonathan Rauch, one of the early advocates of gay marriage, warned his fellow moral revolutionaries that they must be careful lest they trample upon the conscience rights and religious liberty of their adversaries. In his book, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, Rauch voiced his concern:

Today, I fear that many people on my side of the gay-equality question are forgetting our debt to the system that freed us. Some gay people—not all, not even most, but quite a few—want to expunge discriminatory views. “Discrimination is discrimination and bigotry is bigotry,” they say, “and they are intolerable whether or not they happen to be someone’s religion or moral creed.”

Rauch also stated, “I hope that when gay people—and non-gay people—encounter hateful or discriminatory opinions, we respond not by trying to silence or punish them but by trying to correct them.” There are few signs that Rauch’s admonition is being heard. A review of the religious liberty challenges already confronting the conscience, conduct, and belief rights of convictional Christians shows us how daunting all this really is. We can be sure this is not the end of our struggle. It is only the beginning.