作者： Michael Horton 譯者：駱鴻銘
光憑我們必須在福音派圈子裡討論這個問題，就足以證明教會世俗化的問題有多麼嚴重。主日不是附加在一般日子裡的迷信，而是為了敬重主對我們的慷慨服事，賜給我們七天中的一天，可以被「捲入」（be
swept into）祂的救贖戲劇當中。當此聖日被吸收到一個星期當中其他的日子裡、和其他日子沒有什麼分別時，教會就注定會被吸收到世俗的血液當中。The
very fact that we have to address this question, even in evangelical circles,
demonstrates the true measure of the church’s worldliness. It is not a
superstitious attachment to days, but respect for the Lord’s generous service
to us, that gives us one day in seven to be swept into the drama of redemption.
When the holy day is reabsorbed into the common week, the church is bound to be
reabsorbed into the world’s bloodstream.
在舊約聖經中，每一週的安息日是以創造（出廿8-11）和上帝救贖以色列脫離埃及（申五12-15）為根基的。使徒的教會在週日聚會，「七日的第一日」也被稱為「主日」（約廿19、26；徒廿7；林前十六2；啟一10）。In
the Old Testament, the weekly Sabbath is anchored in creation (Ex 20:8-11) and
God’s
redemption of Israel from Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). The apostolic church met on
Sunday, “the first day of the week,” also identified as “the Lord’s Day” (Jn
20:19, 26; Ac 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10).
使徒之後，有兩種有如雙胞胎的危害，一是反律法主義者（他們忽視每個禮拜的聚會），另一個是「猶太化」（judaizing）的律法主義，都已經冒出頭來了。為了對付後面這個問題，伊格納丟（Ignatius）提醒馬內夏（Magnesians），「如此，若那些活在過去習俗裡的人能明白新的盼望，不再守安息日，而是按照主日來活——在這一天，我們的生命也藉著祂和祂的死而復活（雖然有些人會否認），並且藉著這個奧秘，我們領受了相信的能力……」（Mag.
9:1）與此同時，主日仍舊在每週的行程表中佔據其尊貴的地位。康士坦丁在321年宣告主日是正式的休息日，開創了第四誡的公民應用，這個應用甚至持續到二十世紀的歐洲和美國。After
the apostles, the twin dangers of antinomian neglect of the weekly assembly and
“Judaizing”
legalism already reared their head. Addressing the latter problem, Ignatius
reminds the Magnesians, “If then, those who lived in antiquated customs came to
newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath but living in accordance with
the Lord’s day—on which also our life arose through him and his death (though
some will deny it), and by this mystery we received the power to believe…(Mag.
9:1). At the same time, the Lord’s Day continued to occupy its princely status
in the weekly schedule. Constantine declared it an official day of rest in 321,
launching a civil application of the fourth commandment that lasted even into
twentieth-century Europe and the United States.
在中世紀教會裡，有各種規定——公民的和教會的——被附加在主日上，連同許多慶典、節日、儀式，都是聖經所沒有授權的。改教家拒絕這種回到律法影子裡的做法。事實上，路德傾向於將安息日和主日作嚴格的區分。然而他卻將每個主日稱為「小復活節」。使人成聖的不是這個日子本身，而是話語的職事。不過，基於這個理由，路德的大教理問答堅持說，固定參與每週的聚會是必要的。In
the medieval church, myriad regulations—civil and ecclesiastical—had
been attached to the Lord’s Day, along with a host of celebration, holidays,
and rituals that Scripture does not authorize. The Reformers rejected this
return to the shadows of the law. In fact, Luther tended to distinguish sharply
between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. Yet he called each Lord’s Day “a little
Easter.” It is not the day itself that sanctifies, but the ministry of the
Word. For that very reason, though, his Larger Catechism insists upon the
regular participation in the weekly assembly.
加爾文看見安息日的制度有三重目的：1)
是一個會伴隨基督而來的最後安息的記號；2)
維持教會秩序；3)
為工人提供休息。加爾文的看法（《基督教要義》，2.8.31-32）基本上和路德的大教理問答有相同看法。Calvin
saw a threefold purpose for the Sabbath institution: 1) as a sign of the final
rest that would come with Christ; 2) to maintain church order, and 3) to offer
relief for workers. Calvin’s view (Institutes 2.8.31-32) is essentially the
same that can be found in Luther’s Large Catechism.
兩位改教家都主張，雖然十誡的道德義務依舊持續，但是十誡的禮儀層面，包括附加的嚴格限制，在新約裡已經被廢除了。和路德一樣，加爾文也強調信徒每天都要領受基督，這是上帝在祂的話語裡所賜給人的，而且我們如果不那麼懶惰，就應當參加每天的聚會。上帝知道我們的軟弱，因此將一天分別出來，專門給話語的職事和聖禮。海德堡要理問答也有同樣的看法：Both
reformers argue that while the moral obligation continues, the ceremonial
aspect of the commandment, including the rigorous restricts attached to it, are
abolished in the new covenant. Like Luther, Calvin emphasized that every day
believers receive Christ as he is given in his Word and that we would attend
daily services if we were not so sluggish. Knowing our weakness, God sets aside
one day for the ministry of Word and sacrament. The same view is found in the
Heidelberg Catechism:
第一，要在福音上和教導上盡責；要殷勤上教會（特別是在安息日），學習神的話語，領聖禮，在會眾前求告神，並賙濟窮人。第二，我一生的日子要離開惡行，讓主以祂的靈在我裡面運行，這樣一來，永恆的安息就從今世開始了。（問答103）First,
that the gospel ministry and education for it be maintained, and that,
especially on the festive day of rest, I regularly attend the assembly of God’s
people to learn what God’s Word teaches, to participate in the sacraments, to
pray to God publicly, and to bring Christian offerings for the poor. Second,
that every day of my life I rest from my evil ways, let the Lord work in me
through his Spirit, and so begin already in this life the eternal Sabbath (Q.
103).
此外，我們的教會法規（來自多特大會）說，雖然教會的堂會在特殊場合子可以召集其他的聚會，「崇拜服事在守聖誕節、好星期五、復活節、耶穌升天節、五旬節時仍然必須舉行……」。（強調是另加的）In
addition, our Church Order (originating at the Synod of Dort) states that
although the consistory may call for other gatherings on special occasions, “Worship
services shall be held in observance of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension
Day, and Pentecost…” (emphasis added).
威斯敏斯特信仰告白明確接受這個「七日中的一日」的原則，把基督徒安息日建立在創造的基礎上，「歷世歷代每個人都要向祂守這日為聖。從世界之始到基督復活之前，這聖日為一週的末一日，自從基督復活之後，這聖日改為一週的頭一日，在聖經中稱為主日，而且要繼續下去。這是基督教的安息日，直到世界的末了。」信條沒有列出被禁止的活動，但是一般的要求是要用「公開或私下的敬拜，並履行賙濟憐憫貧苦人的義務」來取代「在平日屬正當的屬世職務和消遣」。（21章）信條容許在「特殊場合」舉行公開崇拜，但是清教徒大體上是反對慶祝聖誕節和其他聖日的。當我們查驗這些日子是如何被濫用的（今天也不例外），這種做法是很可以被理解的。The
Westminster Confession embraced explictly the “one-in-seven”
principle, anchoring the Christian Sabbath in creation, “to
be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the
resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week; and from the resurrection
of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is
called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the
Christian Sabbath.” There is no list of forbidden activities, but the general
requirement to exchange ordinary “worldly employments and recreations [that]
are lawful on other days” for “public and private exercises of his worship and
in the duties of necessity and mercy” (Ch. 21). The Confession allows for
public services “on special occasions,” but Puritans generally opposed the
celebration of Christmas and other holy days. When one examines the ways in
which these days were abused (not unlike today), this approach is quite
understandable.
改革宗教會也論證說，基督的復活堪被稱為開創了另一個世紀，因此把每週的安息日遷移到了禮拜天。然而，荷蘭改革宗神學家竇馬（J.
Douma）警告說，Reformed
churches came to argue that Christ’s resurrection was sufficiently
epoch-changing that it moved the weekly Sabbath to Sunday. Dutch Reformed
theologian J. Douma warns, however.
法利賽人的詭辯對安息日所作的曲解，在有關我們在禮拜天可以做什麼、不可以做什麼的各種詭辯上，找到其翻版。每一條福音——無論是關於出埃及，或關於基督的救贖——都可以被扭曲為律法。這發生在教會裡，特別是在中世紀，「因為教會不再能體會到第四誡裡的福音。而這點在基督親自教導安息日的真理後，更該受到責備。」（121-2頁）The
distortion of the Sabbath given in the casuistry of the Pharisees finds its
mirror image in various casuistries related to what we may and may not do on
Sunday. Every gospel—whether concerning the exodus from Egypt or concerning
Christ’s redemption—can be made into a law.” This happened in the church,
especially during the Middle Ages, “because the church no longer grasped the
gospel of the fourth commandment. And this, after Christ’s own instruction
about the Sabbath, is even more blameworthy” (121-2).
保羅警告我們，不可將迷信附加在聖日之上（羅十四5），尤其是當人不明白舊約的安息日和節期是指向基督這個實體時（西二16-17；另參：加四10）。這也是希伯來書第四章所說的要點：舊約裡的諸多安息日是象徵在基督裡的永恆安息。新約沒有明確說明安息日就是主日，但事實是前者已經被使徒擱置了，他們將禮拜日分別出來，作為上帝所定旨的慶祝基督復活的節日。如同竇馬指出的，這段經文清楚地表明，「猶太安息日已經止息了。」（136頁）他補充了和割禮的比較：Paul
warns against the superstitious attachment to holy days (Rom 14:5),
particularly when people fail to realize that the old covenant Sabbaths and
festivals were pointing to Christ as the reality (Col 2:16-17; see also Gal
4:10). This is the point, too, of Hebrews 4: an everlasting rest in Christ,
that is signified by the various sabbaths under the old covenant. The Lord’s
day is never said explicitly to be the Sabbath in the New Testament, but the
fact that the former is set aside by the apostles singles Sunday out as the
divinely ordained festival of Christ’s resurrection. As J. Douma points out,
these passages clearly indicate that “the Jewish Sabbath has ceased” (136). He
adds a comparison with circumcision:
基督是割禮的應驗。這影子已經消失了；但正是基於這個理由，其他的東西可以取代舊約聖經的聖禮；那就是和割禮一樣，是聖約的記號和印記的：洗禮。基督是安息日的應驗。這個影子也消失了。但有其他東西可以起來取而代之，正如安息日，是紀念得釋放一樣。任何人想要維持第四誡卻不遵守救贖歷史時鐘時間的人，就必然會堅持猶太人的安息日。但是這樣的人就看不到第四誡真正的、釋放人的意圖……割禮、逾越節、安息日的影子是為洗禮、主的晚餐、禮拜日作預備的。（137頁）Christ
is the fulfillment of circumcision. The shadow has disappeared; but precisely
for this reason, something else could replace the Old Testament sacrament,
something which, just like circumcision, signifies and seals the covenant:
baptism. Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath. That shadow too has
disappeared, but in its place something else could arise which, just like the
Sabbath, commemorates liberation. Anybody wanting to maintain the fourth
commandment without keeping time with the clock of redemptive history must
stick with the Jewish Sabbath. But then such a person will catch no glimpse of
the true, liberating intention off the fourth commandment…The shadows of
circumcision, Passover, and Sabbath made room for the signs of baptism, Lord’s
Supper, and Sunday (137).
基督徒守主日的關鍵，不是列出一張清單，說什麼可以或不可以做，而是讓這一整天都沐浴在上帝話語的陽光下，用基督的寶藏充滿我們自己。許多教會正在把這件事變得越來越困難，因為他們把公眾崇拜削減到一場一個小時左右的崇拜服事。這樣的教會在「超級盃星期天」（Superbowl
Sunday；譯按：每年這一天，美國會舉行美式足球的年度冠軍賽）；其他人則把這個新的聖日併入到崇拜服事裡。然而在「有秩序」的教會，應該問這些問題，尤其是牧師和長老：我們每個星期是在預備一場盛宴，還是我們也在使主日變得越來越無關緊要，然後責怪人不夠認真？The
key to a Christian use of the Lord’s Day is not drawing up a list of
what can and cannot be done, but to give the whole day to basking in God’s
Word, loading ourselves up with the treasures of Christ. Churches themselves
are making this more difficult, as they trim down the public worship to a
single service of an hour or so. Some churches suspend worship on “Superbowl
Sunday”; others incorporate the new holy day into the service. Yet even in
“rightly ordered” churches, the question has to be asked, especially by pastors
and elders: Are we preparing a feast each week or are we contributing to the
trivializing of the Lord’s Day and then blaming the people for not taking it
seriously enough?
清教徒稱禮拜天是「靈魂上市場的日子」。在這一天，我們不花一毛錢就可以買酒買肉。我們放下日常俗務和消遣；在這一天，我們主要不是工人，而是領受者，雖然還有一些必要的憐憫事工要做。當我們在這一天把自己投身在運動、購物、娛樂上，是要說明我們把最終的財寶放在哪裡呢？難道基督從死裡復活，沒有發生任何變化嗎？難道不存在一個我們所屬的新造世界和新家庭，而基督是其初熟的果子和元首嗎？難道不存在施恩的管道，這是來世闖入到即將過去的今世的媒介嗎？難道今天在地上在我們每週固定的作息中，找不到聖靈正在使罪人與基督聯合，藉著祂的話稱他們為義也更新他們的場所和時間嗎？把「在教會」和「去教會」拿來作比較，已經變成了一種時尚，但是除了上帝在曠野藉著祂的話和聖靈所建立的大會之外，沒有可以讓我們「在」的教會。我們去教會是為了領受施恩的管道，正因為如此，我們可以成為那個在世上的教會。The
Puritans called Sunday “the market-day of the soul.” On this day, we come and buy
wine and meat without cost. We set aside our ordinary activities and
past-times; we are not primarily doers but receivers on this day, although
there may still be works of necessity and mercy. What are we indicating about
where our ultimate treasure lies when we give ourselves to sports, shopping and
entertainment on this day? Has nothing changed with Christ’s resurrection from
the dead? Is there no new creation and new family to which we belong, with
Christ as its first-fruits and head? Are there no means of grace through which
the age to come is breaking into this passing age? Is there no place on earth
today, no time in our weekly routine, in which the Spirit is at work uniting
sinners to Christ, justifying and renewing them by his Word? It has become
fashionable to pit “being the church” against “going to church,” but there is
no church for us to “be” apart from the assembly that God is erecting in the
wilderness by his Word and Spirit. We go to church to receive the means of
grace, precisely so that we can be the church in the world.
十誡有十條誡命，而不是九條。附加在道德律之上的禮儀律和民事律已經不再具有約束力了，但是道德律本身仍然永遠保持其效力。我們不能因為律法主義者的扭曲就拒絕或輕視第四誡，就和我們不能不管其他反對謀殺、姦淫、偷盜等等的誡命一樣。大賀治（Charles
Hodge）觀察到，「每當誦讀十誡時，所有的教會都會誦讀第四誡，教會也教導百姓，要他們說，『主啊，憐憫我們，收服我們的心好遵行這個律法。」（系統神學[Eerdmans,
1946]，324頁）若上帝已經吩咐，我們就當遵守；濫用命令不會廢止這個命令。慕理（John
Murray）問了一個很好的問題：「為什麼堅持守安息日是法利賽人和律法主義者的行為？問題在於：這是上帝所定的律例嗎？若是，堅守這律例就不是律法主義的行為，正如堅守其他誡命一樣。」（“The
Sabbath Institution,” Collected Writings, Vol. 1 [Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 1976], 214）。即使在改革宗和長老會圈子裡，關於主日的解讀也有許多不同的意見。如同我在上面指出的，這也不是什麼新鮮事。和路德在十六世紀德國贊同寬鬆地守主日一樣，加爾文也不會贊同展示在清教徒的新英格蘭裡的那種安息日會式的詭辯。我已經改變自己的立場（在The
Law of Perfect Freedom這本書中），相信主日是同時是建基在創造上，也建基在救贖上的。There are Ten Commandments,
not Nine. The ceremonial and civil laws attached to the moral law are no longer
binding, but the moral law itself remains in effect forever. We can no more
reject or treat lightly the fourth commandment because of legalistic
distortions than we can dismiss the other commandments against murder,
adultery, theft, and so forth. Charles Hodge observes, “The fourth commandment
is read in all Christian churches, whenever the decalogue is read, and the
people are taught to say, ‘Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to
keep this law'” (Systematic Theology [Eerdmans, 1946], 324). If God has
commanded something, it is to be obeyed; abuse of the command doesn’t abrogate
it. John Murray puts the question well: “Why should insistence upon Sabbath
observance be pharisaical or legalistic? The question is: is it a divine
ordinance? If it is, then adherence to it is not legalistic any more than
adherence to the other commandments of God” (“The Sabbath Institution,”
Collected Writings, Vol. 1 [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976], 214).There is a
wide spectrum of interpretation even in Reformed and Presbyterian circles today
with respect to the Lord’s Day. As I’ve indicated above, that is nothing new.
Calvin would not have countenanced the sort of sabbatarian casuistry exhibited
in Puritan New England any more than Luther approved the lax observance of the
Lord’s Day in sixteenth-century Germany. I have changed my own position in (The
Law of Perfect Freedom), convinced now that the Lord’s Day is grounded in
creation as well as redemption.
然而，我們應該都會同意以下幾點：Nevertheless,
we should all be able to agree on the following points:
--
新約規定主日是主的百姓，為了施恩管道和公眾崇拜所舉行的每週的聚會；The
New Testament prescribes the Lord’s Day as the weekly gathering of the Lord’s
people for the means of grace and public worship;
--新約堅持定期參與這些公開的施恩管道。我們需要一整天在聖徒相通中，再次浸泡在來世的權能中；The
New Testament insists upon the regular attendance upon these public means of grace.
We need a whole day to be bathed again in the powers of the age to come in the
communion of saints;
--第四誡的道德意圖仍然有效，但是禮儀和民事層面已經廢止了；The
moral intent of the fourth commandment remains in effect, but the ceremonial
and civil aspects are absolete;
--禮儀層面已經被廢止了，是因為預表和影子已經被實體——即耶穌基督——應驗了。慶祝基督徒的安息日或主日，卻沒有被在基督裡的喜慶的喜悅（這是福音為祂穿上的）所充滿，就只是另一種迷信的儀式罷了。The
ceremonial aspects are obsolete because the types and shadows have been
fulfilled in the reality, which is Jesus Christ. Any celebration of the
Christian Sabbath or Lord’s Day that is not filled with this festive delight in
Christ as he is clothed in the gospel is just another superstitious ritual.
--對主日漫不經心，就是對施恩管道和聖徒相通漫不經心，而這是我們這個時代的諾斯底主義和反律法主義者的主要成分。基督並沒有廢止形式、結構和有形的管道，正如祂沒有將祂的身體交給墳墓一樣。這正如華腓德（B.B.
Warfield）所表達的，「基督將安息日隨著祂帶進到墳墓裡，然後在那個復活的清晨，把主日隨著祂帶出了墳墓。」The
carelessness for the Lord’s Day is ultimately a carelessness for the means of
grace and the communion of saints, which is part and parcel of the Gnostic and
antinomian spirit of our age. Christ has not done away with forms, structures,
and tangible means any more than he has surrendered his body to the grave. As
B. B. Warfield expressed the point, “Christ took the Sabbath into the grave
with him and brought the Lord’s Day out of the grave with him on the resurrection
morn” (“The Sabbath in the Word of God,” ed. John Meeter, Selected Shorter
Writings—I [Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970], 319).
懸賞：拒絕被歸類的基督徒
WANTED: CHRISTIANS WHO DEFY CATEGORIES
作者：Trevin Wax 譯者：駱鴻銘
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2017/03/07/wanted-christians-who-defy-categories/
http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2017/03/11/WANTED_CHRISTIANS_WHO_DEFY_CATEGORIES.aspx#comment
WANTED: CHRISTIANS WHO DEFY CATEGORIES
作者：Trevin Wax 譯者：駱鴻銘
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2017/03/07/wanted-christians-who-defy-categories/
http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2017/03/11/WANTED_CHRISTIANS_WHO_DEFY_CATEGORIES.aspx#comment
當唐納·川普贏得了總統選舉時，我請我的編者暫停編輯的工作，以防萬一我需要對《就是現在》（This is Our Time；暫譯）一書作最後的修改。When Donald Trump won the presidency, I asked my editor to hold the presses in case I needed to make some last-minute changes to This Is Our Time.
在其中的一章，「在人的城裏總是如坐針氈」，我提出忠告，說明基督徒在政治領域裏如何能對耶穌保持忠心。選舉過後，我重讀了這章的每一個字，思索著在川普得勝的情況下，有什麼需要修正的地方。兩天後，我告訴我的編者：「我一字未改。」在那章裏的真理仍然適用，比起在歐巴馬的時代，甚至有過之而無不及。In one of the chapters, “Never ‘at Home’ in the City of Man,” I offer counsel on how Christians can be faithful to Jesus in the political sphere. After the election, I reread every word of that chapter, considering what should be revised in light of Trump’s victory. Two days later, I let my editor know: “I didn’t change a thing.” The truths in that chapter were just as applicable, if not more so, than they had been in the Obama era.
落入政治的窠臼Falling Into Political Ruts
五個月後，我越來越渴望見到一種拒絕被歸類的基督徒見證。Five months later, I long more and more for a Christian witness that defies political categories.
很不幸，我們對政黨的依戀會讓我們很難發出真正的先知之聲。我們經常會落入到一些政治化的窠臼裏。一直以來，我們的想像力是被黨派的羈絆所塑造的，到一個程度，很難聽見聖經用活潑的話語，如醍醐灌頂般地對我們說話。Unfortunately, our attachments to political parties make it challenging to be truly prophetic. We fall back into politicized ruts. Our imaginations have been shaped by our partisan affiliations, to the point it becomes difficult to hear the Bible break in with a fresh word.
例如：有些基督徒對近日的難民限制感到憤恨不平，因為這明顯是不公不義的，但是碰到墮胎的議題時，卻會拐彎說「這件事很複雜」。其他基督徒的立場則完全相反。很感恩的是，有些基督徒拒絕黨派的界線，在他們自己本地的教會和社區裡，同時向那些遭難的母親和正在被重新安置的難民展現憐憫。但是更常見的是那些只會跟著政黨路線起舞的立場，即使在這兩件事上會危害到人的尊嚴。即便所有的人都不以為意，我們也應該對這種以「複雜性」為藉口，把它當作問「誰是我的鄰舍」的方法的傾向，有高度的警覺。For example, some Christians are outraged about what they see as clear injustice in recent refugee restrictions, but will appeal to “complexity” when it comes to abortion. Other Christians do the opposite. Thankfully, some Christians defy party lines and in their local churches and communities demonstrate mercy and compassion to mothers in distress and refugees being resettled. But more frequently, these positions fall along party lines, even if human dignity is at stake in both. And even if we, of all people, should be intensely aware of the tendency to fall back into “complexity” as a way of asking “Who is my neighbor?”
紐約大學社會心理學家海特（Jonathan Haidt）解釋這是如何運作的：「人們把自己和有著同樣道德故事的政治團體綁在一起。一旦他們接受了某種特定的故事，他們對其他的道德世界就會變得盲目。」Jonathan Haidt explains how it works: “People bind themselves into political teams that share moral narratives. Once they accept a particular narrative, they become blind to alternative moral worlds.”
接下來會怎樣呢？若我們的「道德世界」（moral world）更多是由我們所屬的政黨、而不是由聖經來塑造的，我們就會發現，當那些屬於我們的政治聯盟的人採取一種和我們不同的立場時，我們很容易就會忽略、或是把基督徒信念推得一干二淨。我們會成為由共和黨或民主黨所塑造的幻想的俘虜。我們需要耶穌基督的國度眼光來打破黨派政治，撼動我們黨派的藩籬。What happens next? If our “moral world” is formed more by our political party than by Scripture, we will find it easier to overlook or explain away aspects of Christian conviction when people who are part of our political coalition take a different stance. We will be captive to imaginations shaped by the Republican or Democrat parties. We need the kingdom vision of Jesus Christ to break through and rattle the walls of our party politics.
拒絕被歸類的君王A King Who Defied Categories
我們所代表的是一位拒絕被歸類的君王。祂始終如一地提高祂如何應用舊約律法的標準，祂所要求的公義，遠超過假冒為善的法利賽人和宗教領袖所要求的。然而祂對罪人卻展現出最深的同情。We represent a King who defied categories. He consistently raised the bar in how he applied the Old Testament laws, demanding righteousness that far exceeded the hypocritical Pharisees and religious leaders. And yet he demonstrated the utmost compassion for the sinner.
一方面，耶穌對離婚採取一種連門徒都感到震驚的強硬立場，以至於連門徒都想知道是否最好不要結婚。另一方面，祂公開地、且滿有恩典地和一位結婚多次的撒瑪利亞婦人說話，或是充滿同情地與一位被人逮到正在通姦的婦人互動。這是一位一邊在聖殿裏翻倒桌子，拿著鞭子把人趕出聖殿，一邊卻迎接瞎眼的和瘸腿的人進入全能上帝院宇的人。On the one hand, Jesus could take such a hard-line stance against divorce that even the disciples were shocked and wondered if it were better not to marry. On the other, he could speak openly and graciously with a many-times-married Samaritan woman, or act with compassion to the woman caught in adultery. Here is Someone who in one moment was turning over tables in the temple and driving people out with a whip, and in the next was welcoming the blind and the lame into the courts of God Almighty.
拒絕被歸類的教會A Church That Defies Categories
和耶穌一樣，我們也應當拒絕被分門別類。透過我們的教會和在我們社區中的見證，我們應該拒絕一些刻板印象，並斬除一切的偏見。Like Jesus, we should defy categories. Our witness through our churches and in our communities should defy stereotypes and shut down prejudices.
基督徒在一個獎勵侮辱的世界裏，應當以追求榮譽而著稱。我們在一個只知道捏造事實的世界裏，應該以喜愛真理而著稱。我們在一個拜倒在魅力之下的世界中，應當以追求信念而著稱。Christians are to be known for honor in a world that rewards insults. We are to be known for truth in a world that knows only spin. We are to be known for conviction in a world that falls for charisma.
犧牲信念而追求政治權勢就是投降To sacrifice conviction for political power is capitulation.
或許你會以為我是在呼籲基督徒「不要加入政黨」或「遠離政治」。我不是。ou may think I am calling for Christians to be “non-partisan” or “apolitical.” I am not.
我是呼籲基督徒要以不同的方式從事政治，在眾多的領域作鹽作光，而不是只在那些能幫助我們在我們所屬政黨裏升到高位的領域作鹽作光。譬如說，當寇爾森（Chuck Colson）為監獄改革而發聲時，他並不擔心會被那些宗教右派人士標籤為「對犯罪行為手軟」。他堅定地站穩他的立場，因為他的良心是由基督徒的倫理觀所塑造的。I am calling for Christians to engage in politics differently, as salt and light in multiple areas, not just in the ones that help us rise in the ranks of the party we belong to. For example, when Chuck Colson advocated for prison reform, he wasn’t worried about being labeled “soft on crime” by those on the right. He took the position he did because his conscience was formed by Christian ethics.
既勇敢又謙卑Bold and Humble
今年我要把魯益士（C. S. Lewis）的信件讀完一遍，我已經讀到1939年和二戰的開始。魯益士拒絕對英國教會的崇拜禮儀進行更改，因為這個更改要求信徒把聯軍視為正義之師，而為聯軍禱告。魯益士對這種假定感到不安，即使他的兄弟才剛剛被召去服役。I’m reading through C. S. Lewis’s letters this year, and I’ve arrived at 1939 and the start of World War II. Lewis opposed a change to the Church of England’s liturgy that would have asked for prayer for the Allies’ cause as righteous. Lewis felt uncomfortable in presuming such a thing, even as his brother had just been called up for duty.
如果是師出有名，必然是為了抵抗納粹這個戰爭機器，不是嗎？但是即便真是如此，魯益士也感到這是踏入到一個危險的領域，是在假定我們通曉全能者對這個衝突的想法。他的疑慮提醒我，林肯曾經說過，「我關心的不是上帝是否站在我們這邊，而是我是否站在上帝那邊，因為上帝永遠是對的。」If there was ever a righteous cause, surely it was defending against the Nazi war machine, right? But even if that was the case, Lewis felt it was stepping into dangerous territory to assume to know the mind of the Almighty on the conflict. His hesitation reminds me of Abraham Lincoln, who once said, “My concern is not whether God is on our side, but whether I am on God’s side, for God is always right.”
在這種疑慮中，有真正的謙卑。在這種忠心而不自以為是的渴望裏，即使知道我們有可能有所誤解卻仍然大膽行動，有真正的智慧。There’s humility in that hesitation. There’s wisdom in that desire to be faithful without presumption, to act boldly even though we know we may get things wrong.
若我們想要在下個世代中拒絕被分門別類，我們就應該時刻感到自己乃是身在這個世界，卻不屬於這個世界；我們身在美國，卻不屬於美國；身在一個政黨，卻不屬於一個政黨。擁抱這種張力不是軟弱，而是忠心。If we are going to defy the categories in the next generation, then we should always feel in the world but not of the world, in America but not of America, in a political party but not of a political party. Embracing that tension is not weakness, but faithfulness.
