“信徒皆祭司”是宗教个人主义吗？RadicalIndividualism: The Divisive Spirit of Our Age
文/菲尔·牛顿（Phil Newton） 译/江文宇 校/光盐
“粗鲁而质朴的个人主义”（rugged individualism）[2]于一个争取立足之地的新兴民族国家而言，是行之有效的。当历史学家们描述美利坚建国者的品性时，“粗鲁而质朴的个人主义”常作为一项主要特征而被提及。事实也确实如此。试问若无此等精神，谁人愿意挺进未知的疆域，面对极端的艰难困苦，在荒无人烟之境开拓一生？然而此等精神却并不适用于在基督里彼此联络，联合于同一个身体并竭力持守合一的各个地方教会中。Rugged
individualism works well for a new nation trying to get its feet on the ground.
Often, when historians describe the characteristics of our nation’s founders,
“rugged individualism” gets mentioned as a primary trait, and rightly so. Who else
would forge into unknown territory, face extreme hardships, and carve out a
life in the middle of nowhere without that kind of spirit? But that same spirit
doesn’t work well in local congregations bound together in Christ, united in
one body, and endeavoring toward unity.
作为对基督教影响与权威的反击，并伴随着源于科学发现的兴奋，自启蒙运动中诞生出一种个人主义的精神。正如罗德尼·斯达克（Rodney Stark）所指出的，相对于早期那些大有发现并且承认上帝的科学家们而言，那些毫无发现并且否认上帝的哲学家们所拥戴的，是启蒙运动的后裔们所持有的自由且反权威的思想。罗素（Bertrand Russell）称之为“对独立个体智力活动价值的重估，毫不夸张地说，是在迄今黑暗盛行之处散播光明。”他的观点是：黑暗存在于宗教之中，因此启蒙思想家们散播了没有基督信仰的光明。[3] A spirit of
individualism rose out of the Enlightenment as a reaction to the influence and
authority of Christianity, coupled with the excitement of scientific discovery.
Philosophers—who discovered nothing and denied God, as Rodney Stark points out,
in contrast to the early scientists who made discoveries and acknowledged
God—championed the freethinking, anti-authoritarian mind in the children of the
Enlightenment. Bertrand Russell called it “a revaluation of independent
intellectual activity, aimed quite literally at spreading light where hitherto
darkness had prevailed” His point: darkness existed in religion so enlightened
thinkers spread the light without the Christian faith. [1]
对于罗马教廷对信众的控制并使其无法发挥作用，改教运动先于启蒙运动做出了反应。路德支持“信徒皆祭司”，并以之作为反驳罗马天主教铁腕统治的圣经依据。提摩太·乔治（Timothy George）指出了对这一教义的种种误解，他用这样一句话解释了路德的立场：“每个基督徒都是别人的祭司，因此我们每个人都是彼此的祭司。（这）是一种职责和义务，同时也是一种荣幸的特权；是一种服事，也是一种地位。”路德解释道：“我们都是祭司与君王，这一事实意味着我们每个基督徒都可以到上帝面前为他人代求。若我注意到你没有信心，或信心软弱，我就能祈求上帝赐给你坚强的信心。”[4] receding the
Enlightenment, the Reformation reacted to the Roman Church’s control over and neutralizing of the
congregation. Luther championed “the priesthood of
all believers,” as the biblical
counter to Romanism’s iron hand.
Timothy George points out the misunderstandings of this doctrine, explaining
Luther’s position in one sentence: “Every Christian is someone else’s priest,
and we are all priests to one another.” It “is a responsibility as well as a
privilege, a service as well as a status.” Luther explained, “The fact that we
are all priests and kings means that each of us Christians may go before God
and intercede for the other. If I notice that you have no faith or a weak
faith, I can ask God to give you a strong faith.” [2]
我们在基督的身体中彼此服事、牧养，并不必需一位教皇或许多神父。在如此一种行使祭司职分的方式中，“信徒皆祭司”得以被强调。在这一教义中，并没有提到说基督徒要想出什么新奇的、个人主义的解经，也没提到要发展每个人各自版本的基督教，或是谁应该以刻薄酸腐的评论搅扰教会的聚会。“信徒皆祭司”的基础在于与基督的联合，对“唯独圣经”的信靠，以及对圣徒共同体的关注。众肢体联合为一体，彼此服事，并且共同在真理之上稳固站立。在“信徒皆祭司”这种祭司方式中，没有任何所谓粗鲁而质朴的甚或极端的个人主义得以抬头。The emphasis in
such priesthood of all believers is found in the way that we serve and minister
to one another in the body without the necessity of pope and priests. Nothing
is said about coming up with novel, individualistic interpretations of
Scripture or developing one’s own version of Christianity or disrupting a
church meeting with caustic remarks. The priesthood of all believers finds its
basis in union with Christ in reliance on sola scriptura and the focus on the
community of the saints. Together the body serves one another and stands upon
truth together. Nothing about rugged or radical individualism raises its head
in the priesthood of all believers.
且让我们快进到19世纪。浸信会[5]领袖威兰德（Francis Wayland）向他父亲承认说：“我只是略懂一点系统神学。”然而他却通过自己的大量写作，塑造了未来历代浸信会的神学思想。受启蒙运动影响，威兰德推进了个人主义，而非在与基督联合的身体中的共同体生活。他认为基督徒没有必要委身于任何地方教会，因为“信仰唯独关乎个人与其造物主之间的关系。”但在约翰福音17章中，耶稣并不这么认为；在以弗所书2-4章中，保罗也不这么看！诺曼·马林（Norman Maring）观察到：“威兰德的倾向，是将个人判断（private judgment）的权利，从基督教社群的语境中剥离出来。”威兰德写道：“我们的基本信仰，就是相信圣经是上帝启示的……是对每个独立个人的启示。经文被赐予了每个独立个人，以使他可以独自理解领会……因此没有任何标准可以宣称其拥有凌驾于我们之上的权威。”所以，他拒绝任何信仰告白及教会规约。他的极端个人主义，对新约关于教会治理的教导及对共同体生活的强调，留下了能够予以否定的破口。[6] But fast
forward to the 19th century. Baptist leader Francis Wayland admitted to his
father, “I have but little idea of systematic theology.” Yet he shaped the
theological thinking of future generations of Baptists through his prolific
writing. Influenced by the Enlightenment, Wayland pressed individualism rather
than corporate life in the gathered body. He saw no necessity in joining a
local church since “religion is a matter which concerns exclusively the
relations between an individual and his Maker.” Jesus did not see it this way
in John 17 nor did Paul in Ephesians 2–4! Norman Maring observes, “Wayland’s
tendency was to separate the right of private judgment from the context of the
Christian community.” Wayland wrote, “It is our essential belief that the
Scriptures are a revelation from God . . . to every individual man. They were
given to every individual that he might understand them for himself. . . hence
we have no standards which claim to be of any authority over us,” and so
rejected confessional documents and church covenants. His radical individualism
gave way to denying that the New Testament gave directions on church government
and emphasized corporate life. [3]
当马林斯（E. Y. Mullins）在20世纪初继承了浸信会领袖地位后，他并没有远离威兰德的个人主义——反倒是对此更有所加强。马林斯是个神学家，而威兰德并不是。汤姆·内特斯（Tom Nettles）指出：“对于人类意识和经验的强调”主导了马林斯的神学。[7]直到19世纪，浸信会信徒们都维持着对基督徒共同体的关注，也曾对“信徒皆祭司”有着坚定的强调，“信徒皆祭司”（the priesthood of
all believers）指向的是所有信徒，约翰·汉莫特（John Hammett）称之为“教会的能力”；与之相对的是“信徒是祭司”（priesthood of the
believer），指向单个信徒的“灵魂的能力”。马林斯从复数转向了单数——从共同体生活转向了个人主义。他的强大影响力改变了浸信会的立场，使其对于教会作为同一身体的关注转向了个人。这也影响了后来浸信会信徒们对会籍、惩戒、权威及福音传道等议题的看法。他曾写道：“地方会众在教会事务上所做的决定，是‘有能力者的共识’。……教会是自治个体的社群，直接臣服于基督主权之下，因着共同利益的社会盟约而联合一起。”这种“灵魂的能力”意味着“在圣经经文含义上有作出私人判断的权利”，与“共同体的理解”相对立。虽然马林斯所谓“灵魂的能力”之后成为了浸信会信徒的标志之一（甚至被写进了《2000年浸信会信仰及信息》序文中），但汉莫特指出：“即使在浸信会信徒的生命中，灵魂的能力也是一件新鲜事。”他更进一步解释到：“就教会论而言，马林斯标志着一个决定性的转折点，那就是在浸信会信徒的教会生活中，起决定作用的不再是教会能力这一概念，而是转向了灵魂能力的个人主义原则。”[8]这就不可避免地逐渐损害了浸信会对于教会的理解，并为无惩戒的会籍、以人为中心的福音传道，以及不健康的教会生活铺平了道路。When E. Y. Mullins
followed as the Baptist champion of the early 20th century, he did not depart
from Wayland’s individualism—he elevated it. Mullins was a theologian while
Wayland was not. Tom Nettles notes, “Emphasis
on human consciousness and experience” dominated Mullins’s theology. [4] Until
the 19th century, Baptists maintained the corporate focus of Christians, with
strong emphasis on “the priesthood of all believers,” and what John Hammett
calls “church competence,” in contrast with the singular “priesthood of the
believer” and “soul competence.” Mullins moved from the plural to the
singular—from corporate life to individualism. His powerful influence changed
the Baptist position on the body to focus on the individual. This affected the
way that future Baptists viewed membership, discipline, authority, and
evangelism. He wrote, “Decisions of the local congregation on ecclesiastical
matters are the ‘consensus of the competent.’ . . . The church is a community
of autonomous individuals under the immediate lordship of Christ held together
by a social bond of common interest.” This soul competence meant the “right of
private judgment as to the meaning of the Bible,” contra corporate
understanding. While Mullins’ “soul competence” subsequently became one of the
identifiers of Baptists (even expressed in The Baptist Faith & Message 2000
preamble [p. 5]), Hammett notes, that “soul competence is something of a
novelty in Baptist life.” He further explains, “In terms of ecclesiology,
Mullins marks a decisive turning point from the concept of church competence to
the individualistic principle of soul competence as determinative in Baptist
church life.” [5] Inevitably, it undermined the Baptist understanding of the
church and paved the way to undisciplined membership, man-centered evangelism,
and unhealthy church life.
当我们将启蒙运动的思想，威兰德和马林斯风格的、与共同体生活相对立的个人主义，以及对于个人主义的后现代的强调，全部浇灌进入地方教会里面，会发生什么？我们得到的结果就是极端个人主义：它轻看教会会籍，它拒绝会众中的问责与惩戒，它怠慢彼此服事，它忽视教会合一，它使基督徒无法在福音的使命和职事中无私地走到一起来，而且它更拒绝了基督为地方会众建立的教会权威。What happens when
we pour Enlightenment thinking, Wayland and Mullins’ styled individualism in contrast with corporate life,
and the post-modern emphasis on individualism into the local church? We get the
result of radical individualism that holds church membership lightly, that
rejects accountability and discipline in the congregation, that neglects
serving one another, that ignores unity in the church, that fails to come
together selflessly in mission and ministry, and that rejects ecclesiastical
authority established by Christ for local congregations.
这就远非“同被建造，成为上帝藉着圣灵居住的所在”的教会，远非那藉着其生命与教义合一而使“天上执政的、掌权的”得知“上帝百般的智慧”的教会，也远非行事为人“与蒙召的恩相称，凡事谦虚、温柔、忍耐，用爱心互相宽容，用和平彼此联络，竭力保守圣灵所赐合而为一的心”的教会。（弗2:22，3:10，4:1-3）这也与那由上帝所立的领袖们共同装备起的教会，那等候各人得蒙上帝建造，“直等到我们众人在真道上同归于一，认识上帝的儿子，得以长大成人，满有基督成长的身量”的教会（弗4:11-13）有天壤之别。这也不是新约中描述的教会，不是那秉持“惟用爱心说诚实话”的教义如牢靠的锚，那全身心都向着基督成长，百体各按其职，以便叫“身体渐渐增长，在爱中建立自己”的教会。（弗4:14-16）极端个人主义永远无法描绘出耶稣用他宝血赎买来的教会（徒20:28）；它分裂基督的教会，变乱福音，篡夺教会共同体的见证。It’s far different than the church “being built together into a dwelling of God in
the Spirit,” the church by its
unity in life and doctrine making known “the manifold wisdom of God . . . to
the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places,” the church walking “in a
manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility
and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being
diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 2:22;
3:10; 4:1–3). It’s a far cry from the church equipped by God-appointed leaders
to be built up together “until we all attain the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature
which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:11–13). It’s not the same
church described in the New Testament as doctrinally anchored, “speaking the
truth in love,” growing up in all respects to Christ, with each individual
properly working to cause “the growth of the body for the building up of itself
in love” (Eph 4:14–16). Radical individualism can never portray the church that
Jesus purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28). It divides Christ’s church,
confuses the gospel, and usurps the church’s corporate testimony.
让我们尽力强调教会的能力，而非灵魂的能力吧！让我们回归“信徒皆祭司”，而非“信徒是祭司”吧！极端个人主义依然存在，是我们这个时代分裂的灵。唯有藉着回归耶稣在约翰福音17章中所描绘的教会生活，也就是保罗在以弗所书2-4章所阐明的教会生活，才能得到医治。Rather than soul competence,
let’s stress church
competence. Instead of the priesthood of the believer, let’s return to the priesthood of all believers.
Radical individualism remains as the divisive spirit of our age. It’s cured by
a return to the kind of church life that Jesus pictures in John 17 and Paul
sets forth in Ephesians 2–4.
作者简介：
菲尔·牛顿（Phil Newton），1987年创立了田纳西州孟斐斯南森林浸信会教会并担任主任牧师。此前他在密西西比和阿拉巴马牧会。他是新奥尔良浸信会神学院神学硕士，富勒神学院教牧学博士以及东南浸信会神学院博士。
[1] 本文取自Founders Ministries网站，http://founders.org/2016/07/07/radical-individualism-the-divisive-spirit-of-our-age（2017年8月31日存取），承蒙授权翻译转载，特此致谢。——编者注
[2] 粗鲁而质朴的个人主义，语出美国第三十一届总统胡佛在1928年发表的以此为题的演讲。——编者注
[3]
Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the
World’s Largest Religion ，New York: Harper One, 2012, p.238, p.252.
[4]
Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers rev. ed, Nashville: B&H, 2013,
pp.96–97.
[5] 作者本身是一间浸信会教会的主任牧师，因而此处并非是对浸信会整体的定性和批判，而是作者对自己所在传统的有益反思。——编者注
[6]
Winthrop Hudson, ed., Baptist Concepts of the Church: A Survey of the
Historical and Theological Issues which Have Produced Changes in Church Order
,Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1959, p.138, p.150, p.152.
[7]
Tom Nettles, By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and
Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life ,Grand Rapids: Baker,
1986, p.247.
[8]
John Hammett, “From Church Competence to Soul Competence: The Devolution of
Baptist Ecclesiology,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, 3:1,
pp.145–163; citations from Mullins, The Axioms of Religion, p. 56, pp.128–129.
