作者: R.C. Sproul 譯者: Maria Marta
每次我讀福音書，我都深有感觸，無論耶穌走到哪裏，祂似乎都被發現身處在爭論之中。耶穌如何處理每一次不同的爭論，給我留下了深刻的印象。耶穌並不是依照紐約巨人隊經理迪若丘（Leo “The Lip” DeRosier）那樣辦：以同樣的方式對待每一個他所遇到的人。雖然耶穌期望每個人的行動都遵守相同的規則，但祂根據他們的具體需求來牧養他們。
舊約聖經描述好牧人是一個手執杖和竿的人，因為他的責任是引導他的羊，保護他們免受餓狼的襲擊（詩廿三4）。在福音書中，我們看到耶穌行使祂的保護桿的大多數情況都是針對文士和法利賽人的。耶穌對付這些人，祂要求不讓步，絕不讓步。當祂公開宣告上帝對他們的審判時，祂使用舊約聖經先知的「禍哉神諭」（oracle of woe）：「虛偽的經學家和法利賽人哪，你們有禍了！你們走遍海洋陸地，要使一個人入教；當他入了教，你們卻使他淪為地獄之子，比你們更甚」（太廿三15新譯本）。
當日耶穌強硬對付許多宗教領袖，因為他們內心頑硬，假冒為善。而那些認識自己的罪，並為罪感到羞愧的其他人------耶穌則以愛和鼓勵來對待他們。想想打水的撒瑪利亞婦人（約翰福音第四章）。在當天，因為對婦女和撒瑪利亞人的共同偏見，耶穌坐著與撒瑪利亞婦人說話，這是猶太拉比來前所未聞的事。祂耐心地引導她認罪悔過，並向她透露祂的彌賽亞職份。耶穌把她視為壓傷的蘆葦和將殘的燈火，溫柔地與她當面對證，而不是把她壓垮（太十二15–21）。
除了其他許多的例子外，我認為基督的榜樣亦教導我們如何應對與我們意見不合的人。有時我們必須強硬，有時我們必須溫柔-------對付狼，必須強硬；對待耶稣的羊，必須溫柔。
我們不但與我們的兄弟存在分歧，而且與那些聲稱是我們的兄弟，實際上可能是披著狼皮的羊也存在分歧。這樣的狼總是對耶穌基督的羊的安全、健康、與福祉構成明顯的危險。我們對狼絕不讓步，但我們蒙吩咐要溫柔對待那些與我們意見相左的，持守正統信仰的基督徒，切勿觸動他們的心。
知道何時要溫柔，何時要強硬，這是成熟的基督徒最難辨別的問題之一。我沒有一個易於適用的公式，但我知道，我們總是蒙吩咐要在寬容，即愛的基礎上處理我們存在的糾紛和分歧。
愛德華滋（Jonathan Edwards）所著的《博愛及其果實》（Charity and Its Fruits）是我所知道的對哥林多前書第十三章最深刻的論述。我已經讀了至少6次，也許更多。愛德華茲在這本書中寫道：
「一個真謙卑的人，只為他的主和主人強硬，這是因真理和美德的緣故。在這一點上，他堅定不移，因為這是上帝和良心所要求的；但少數時候，在不涉及他作為基督追隨者的原則，和只與他個人利益有關的事宜上，他則往往讓步給其他人。」
一定要將愛德華茲在這裏所說這種謙卑，帶到突然出現在信徒之間的每一個分歧當中。這種顯著的謙卑，在教會歷史上被許多人稱之為愛的判斷。愛的判斷大致是這樣的：我們彼此看法不同，我相信身為基督徒，我們受吩咐要假定與我們意見相左的人的動機是單純的動機。那些熱愛聖經，但並沒有試圖改變聖經教導的人，在聖經的解釋上，的確與我們的看法不同，應對這種情況，我們就要采用這种方法。這些人（同样）不願意妥協基督信仰的基本真理。
現在，在基督徒的糾紛中，愛的判斷假定：與我們有分歧的兄弟或姐妹誠實、正直地表達不同的意見。這裏我想到我的朋友約翰麥克阿瑟（John.MacArthur）。如果我不同意約翰的某些看法------我不管它是什麽------我們聚在一起談論，約翰會改變他的立場------不計任何代價------如果我能說服他，聖經的教導與我的觀點而不是他的觀點一致。他改變是因為他希望忠於上帝的聖言，而且看得比其他任何事情都重要。
這就是我所指的愛的判斷的意思。我們切勿質疑他人的動機，當我們與其他人的意見相左時，切勿臆斷他們是其中最壞的人。我們區分最佳情況分析與最壞情況分析。在榮耀的一面，我們作為罪人都會出現的問題是，我們往往把自己的動機歸入最佳情況分析，將兄弟妹妹的動機列入最壞情況分析。這恰好與我們受吩咐要擁有符合聖經的謙卑的精神相反。
本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。
What Is the Judgment of
Charity?
FROM
R.C. Sproul
Every
time I read the Gospels, I am struck by how Jesus seems to have found Himself
in the middle of controversy wherever He went. I am also struck by how Jesus
handled each controversy differently. He did not follow the example of Leo “The
Lip” Durocher, the former manager of the New York Giants and treat every person
He encountered in the same manner. Although He expected everyone to play by the
same rules, He shepherded people according to their specific needs.
The
Old Testament depicts the Good Shepherd as One who carries both a staff and a
rod, for His responsibility is both to guide His sheep and to protect them from
ravenous wolves (Ps. 23:4). In the Gospels, we see Jesus exercise His
protective rod most often against the scribes and Pharisees. When Jesus dealt
with these men, He asked no quarter and gave none. When He pronounced the
judgment of God on them publicly, He used the oracle of woe that was used by
the Old Testament prophets: “Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte [convert], and
when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as
yourselves” (Matt. 23:15).
Jesus
dealt with many of the religious leaders of His day so forcefully because of
their hard-hearted hypocrisy. Other people who were cognizant of their sin and
ashamed of it—these He addressed with love and encouragement. Consider the
woman at the well (John 4). Jesus sat and talked with a Samaritan woman, which
was unheard of for a Jewish rabbi in those days because of common biases
against women and Samaritans. He patiently drew a confession of sin out of her
and revealed His Messianic office to her. Jesus treated her as a bruised reed
and smoldering wick, tenderly confronting but not crushing her (Matt.
12:15–21).
Among
many other things, I think Christ’s example teaches us how we are to deal with
those with whom we disagree. Sometimes we must be forceful and sometimes we
must be gentle—forceful with the wolves and gentle with Jesus’ lambs.
There
are disagreements we have with our brothers, but also disagreements we have
with those who claim to be our brothers but who may, in fact, be wolves in
sheep’s clothing. Such wolves always represent a clear danger to the safety,
health, and well-being of Christ’s sheep. No quarter can be given to wolves,
but we are called to exercise gentleness toward those whose disagreements with
us do not touch the heart of Christian orthodoxy.
To
know the difference between when to be gentle and when to be forceful is one of
the most difficult matters for mature Christians to discern. I don’t have a
formula that is easily applied, but I do know that we are always called to deal
with the disputes and disagreements we have on the basis of charity, that is,
love.
Charity
and Its Fruits by Jonathan Edwards is the deepest exposition of 1 Corinthians
13 that I know of. I’ve read it at least half-a-dozen times, probably more. In
this work, Edwards writes:
A
truly humble man, is inflexible in nothing but in the cause of his Lord and
master, which is the cause of truth and virtue. In this he is inflexible
because God and conscience require it; but in things of lesser moment, and
which do not involve his principles as a follower of Christ, and in things that
only concern his own private interests, he is apt to yield to others.
The
humility of which Edwards is speaking here is a humility that must be brought
to every disagreement that erupts among believers. It is a humility that brings
to the fore what in church history many have called the judgment of charity.
The judgment of charity works something like this: When we disagree with one
another, I believe that we are called as Christians to assume the motives of
the person with whom we disagree are pure motives. This is the approach we are
to have with those with whom we have an honest difference in biblical
interpretation but who love the Bible and aren’t trying to change what it
teaches. Such people are unwilling to compromise the essential truths of the
Christian faith.
Now,
the judgment of charity assumes in a Christian dispute that the brother or
sister with whom we are disagreeing is disagreeing honestly and with personal
integrity. Here I think of my friend John MacArthur. If I disagree about
something with John—I don’t care what it is—and we go to the mat and talk about
it, John will change his position—no matter the cost— if I can persuade him
that the Bible teaches my view and not his. That’s because what he wants more
than anything else is to be faithful to the Word of God.
That’s
what I mean by the judgment of charity. We don’t impugn people’s motives and
don’t assume the worst of them when we disagree with them. We make a
distinction between best-case and worst-case analysis. The problem we all have
as sinners on this side of glory is that we tend to reserve best-case analysis
to our own motives and give worst-case analysis to our brother’s and sister’s
motives. That’s just the opposite of the spirit we’re called to have in terms
of biblical humility.
This
post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.