同性戀權利、仇恨言論、待客之道——一個前同性戀者的渴望GayRights, Hate Speech, and HospitalityLONGINGSOF A FORMER LESBIAN
作者：Rosaria Champagne Butterfield 譯者： 駱鴻銘
那個特別痛苦的紐約冬日，一些嚴酷的承諾敲打著鄰居家的前門——一些至今仍然是難以捉摸、難以想像的承諾。
That particularly bitter New York winter whipped
harsh promises against the front door of my neighbor’s house — promises that
remained elusive and unimaginable.
在那扇門背後，我的鄰居肯恩•史密斯（Ken Smith）、芙若伊•史密斯（Floy Smith），和我正在說話。
Behind that door, my neighbors, Ken and Floy Smith,
and I were talking.
肯恩靠著門，手裏拿著一個溫暖的馬克杯，裏面裝著淡而無味的低咖啡因咖啡，然後問了一個凸顯我們對立之世界觀的問題：「你相信倫理觀念是由事實/真理來決定的，還是你相信事實/真理是由倫理觀念來決定的？」
Ken leaned in, a warm mug of weakly percolated
decaf coffee in hand, and asked the question that put our opposing worldviews
into perspective: “Do you believe that what is true determines what is ethical?
Or do you believe that what is ethical determines what is true?”
仇恨言論
Before It Was Hate Speech
幾十年前，當這個問題撼動了我那「只是拒絕上帝，否則就是合乎道德的」生活時（正如我之前所描述的那樣），我相信後者。我相信是道德推動了真理，而真理是一種文化創造，源於純粹的人性和人們的需要。當我的鄰居問這個問題時，我立刻斥之為孤陋寡聞和庸俗——有點像我杯子裏淡而無味的低咖啡因咖啡。我用多年來在情境倫理裏所受的教育來回擊：真理是一種社會建構。真理長什麼樣子，是由觀察者來決定的。
Decades ago, when this question unsettled my
God-rejecting-but-otherwise-moral life (as I would have described it then), I
believed the latter. I believed that ethics drove truth, and that truth was a
cultural creation, born out of the sheer goodness of humanity and the felt
needs of people. When my neighbor asked this question, I immediately rejected
it as ill-informed and vulgar — somewhat like the weak decaf in my mug. I shot
back with years of schooling in situational ethics: Truth is a social
construct. Truth takes its shape in the eyes of the beholder.
我和鄰居正在談論同性戀權利的話題。對我來說，這是一個既是個人性的、又是政治性的話題。我被認定是一個女同性戀者，並與另一個女人在一個彼此委身的關係中幸福地生活著。我以我所認為的最佳方式愛著我的女友。我關心同性戀社群（queer community）。在我任教的大學，我和其他人合著了第一份本土的夥伴政策。我準備成為一個「終身激進的」——一個有足夠工作保障的大學教授，也有高度的自信（hutzpah），可以把酷兒理論從大學普及到街頭。
We were talking, my neighbor and I, about gay
rights. This was a topic both personal and political for me. I identified as a
lesbian, and lived happily in a committed relationship with another woman. I
loved my girlfriend the way it felt best to me. I cared about my queer
community. I co-authored the first domestic partnership policy at my
university. I was poised to become a “tenured radical” — a university professor
with enough job security and hutzpah to take queer theory from the university
to the street.
我相信我站在歷史正確的那邊。但我的鄰居肯恩•史密斯，當時是雪城改革宗長老會（Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church）的牧師，也是我的朋友。他、他妻子和我每週一起聚餐——有時在我家，但主要是在他們家——我們談論生活、信仰、世界觀的一些深刻和沉重的話題。我們彼此傾聽，表達不同看法，然後下週回來繼續討論：聚餐、對談。
I was standing, so I believed, on the right side of
history. But my neighbor, Ken Smith, then-pastor of the Syracuse Reformed
Presbyterian Church, was also my friend. He, his wife, and I shared weekly
meals — sometimes at my house, but mostly at theirs — where we talked about
deep and weighty matters of life and faith and worldview. Where we listened and
disagreed and came back again the next week to do this again: to break bread
and talk.
「交織性」（Intersectionality）
Enter Intersectionality
二十二年前，肯恩接受了我是個女同性戀者，卻並不認同。這在當時並沒有被視為仇恨言論。我拒絕了肯恩的世界觀，他也拒絕我的。我們彼此是平等的。我們清楚看見我們的世界觀有許多差異，但當時的那些分歧，並未伴隨著人身攻擊的指責。按照今天的遊戲規則，那不會被人認同。
Twenty-two years ago, it was not considered hate
speech for Ken to tell me that he accepted me as a lesbian, but did not
approve. I rejected Ken’s worldview, and he rejected mine. We were on even
ground. We saw clearly our worldview differences, but those divisions, back
then, did not come with the accusatory weight of personal attack. In today’s
playbook, that wouldn’t fly.
為什麼呢？是什麼妨礙了我們與和我們有不同思維方式的鄰居作朋友呢？
Why? What is standing in our way of becoming
friends with our neighbors who think differently than we do?
1. 不符合聖經的人論
1. Unbiblical Anthropology
我與肯恩和芙若伊的對話是在「交織性」（intersectionality；或譯為「交叉性」）的概念從學院走向街頭之前。在1997年，交織性仍然只是一種學術觀點。它的前提是：最能決定你個人特質（personhood）和身分認同（identity）、決定你究竟是誰的，乃是取決於你受到多少的社會壓迫。
My conversations with Ken and Floy came before the
idea of “intersectionality” had moved from the academy to the streets.
Intersectionality was, in 1997, still just an academic idea. Its premise was
this: personhood and identity, who you really are, is best determined by how
many social oppressions you have suffered.
最初，交織性所處理的是實質的、結構性的壓迫——突出了在一個由罪人組成的社會中，種族、階級，和性別歧視的「玻璃天花板」（譯按：指看似無形，卻實際存在的障礙）有多麼沉重。但是，當女權主義效忠的對象從馬克思轉向弗洛伊德時，當它從數目轉向感情時，性取向（sexual orientation）和性別認同（gender identity）就呈現出了新的形式。
Originally, intersectionality dealt with material,
structural oppressions — highlighting how race and class and the glass ceiling
of sexism weigh heavy in a society made up of sinners. But when feminism
shifted allegiance from Marx to Freud, when it turned from numbers to feelings,
sexual orientation and gender identity took on new forms.
當諸如「人格尊嚴受損」（由於某人拒絕認可你的罪，而對你的尊嚴產生傷害）這樣的想法，在民法中找到了其地位時，交織性就釋放出一頭怪物來。隨著那個怪物傳來了一個信息：同性戀不是罪；它是一種審美觀，一種情慾的傾向或觀察世界及其中一切的方法。今天，福音正在與這個信息產生碰撞。
When ideas like “dignitary harm” (the harm accrued
to your dignity by someone’s refusal to approve of your sin) found its place in
civil law, intersectionality unleashed a monster. And with that monster came a
message: homosexuality is not a sin; it is an aesthetic, an erotic orientation
or way of looking at the world and everything in it. Today, the gospel is on a
collision course with this message.
2. 妥協的教會
2. Compromised Churches
交織性使我們認識到基督徒和我們的鄰舍之間的分歧，他們有不同的思考方式。但上帝的子民永遠不應該被世界觀中當前的時尚所吸引——即使某部分的福音派教會受到了重擊。真正的問題不是世界在想什麼，而是某部分的福音派教會正在允許世人向教會講道，講述個人特質和身分認同——關於人究竟是誰，在本體論上是誰，以及他們需要成長茁壯之處
Intersectionality informs the divide between
Christians and our neighbors who think differently, but God’s people should
never be sucker punched by the current fad in worldview — even if some segments
of the evangelical church are smitten by it. The real problem is not what the
world thinks, but rather that parts of the evangelical church are allowing the
world to preach to it about personhood and identity — about who people really
and ontologically are, and what they need to flourish.
當世界對教會講道（而教會也傾聽）時，就會產生許多悲劇，其中一個是虛假的回轉（悔改、相信）成倍增加。我們生活在一個福音派世界裏，他們的先知可能會相信福音的應許，但他們並不必然會被福音真理歸正。他們講道的主題是什麼呢？他們宣講由許多問題所構成的講道，把上帝稱為「罪」的事物轉移到美學的範疇——在痛苦中觀察美。他們把上帝的真理視為「貼在汽車保險杆上附有標語之貼紙」（bumper sticker）的邏輯，用更多的問題回答問題，沒有解答，總是偏袒罪人的觀點，勝於被釘十字架且復活的基督的觀點。
Many tragedies occur when the world preaches to the
church (and the church listens), and one is that false conversions multiply. We
live in an evangelical world whose prophets may be convinced of gospel
promises, but who are not necessarily converted under gospel truth. And what is
the sermon topic that they preach? They preach sermons of questions, relocating
what God calls sin into the category of aesthetics — the observation of beauty
amidst the pain. They reject God’s truth as “bumper sticker” logic, and answer
questions with more questions, with no answers, always favoring a sinner’s
point of view over that of the crucified and risen Christ.
福音派教會的領袖一旦把上帝稱為罪的事物，放在一個美學框架裏，主耶穌賜給祂百姓的偉大禮物，也就是贖罪和悔改的禮物，就不再被認為是必要的了。當受指責的就從一個人的罪，轉移到世人所感知到的「教會的偏見」。
Once leaders in the evangelical church locate
something that God calls sin into an aesthetic framework, the great gift that
the Lord Jesus holds out to his people, the gift of ransom and repentance, is
no longer considered necessary. The blame shifts from a person’s sin to the church’s
perceived prejudice.
該怎麼辦呢？要確保你是一個忠於聖經教義的教會成員，這樣的教會，其做法具有真教會的記號：正確分解真道、忠心執行聖禮和教會紀律。如果你的教會不符合這些標準，或者你拒絕成為教會會員，因為它會束縛你；或者你認為與罪惡講和，會使你在餐桌上可以向世人見證基督，請再多加考慮。你的教會會員資格（church membership），是你與世界接觸的屬靈操練的一部分。如果你在一個實踐或認可罪惡的教會中擁有會員資格，你就會使自己與這個教會成為一體，而在這種罪惡上有分。
What to do? Make sure that you are a member of a
biblically sound church whose practices embrace the marks of faithfulness:
handling rightly the word, the sacraments, and the practice of church
discipline. If your church fails to meet these standards, or you refuse
membership because it ties you down, or you think that making peace with sin
will allow you a place at the table to witness Christ to the world, think
again. Your church membership is part of your spiritual discipline for engaging
with the world. If you hold membership with a church that practices or endorses
sin, you have made yourself corporately guilty of this sin.
3. 迷戀社交媒體
3. Social Media Infatuation
對社交媒體的迷戀消除了私人和公眾之間的差別。肯恩、芙若伊和我的晚宴是私人的，雖然經常有其他人加入。但我們之間真誠的差異，並不會遭到推特、臉書或博客的嚴厲抨擊。
Social media infatuation has removed distinctions
between private and public. Ken and Floy Smith and I had private dinner
gatherings. Often other people joined us. But our heartfelt differences were
not subjected to the harsh glare of Twitter, Facebook, or blogs.
我們沒有在社交媒體上彼此嘲弄或企圖摧毀對方，而是仔細思考我們的分歧，並在下週四的晚餐帶來一道佳餚。這種回應會幫助我們淡化一些齟齬，而將重點放在全局上。它鼓勵我們把彼此當人——而不是心靈的白板（blank slates），被互相競爭的意識形態和權力關係所充滿。
Instead of mocking or attempting to destroy each
other on social media, we pondered our differences, and brought a hot dish to
the next Thursday night meal. This response helped us to let some offenses
slide and focus instead on the big picture. It encouraged us to regard each
other as human beings — not blank slates filled by competing ideologies and
power relations.
敞開的門
Open Doors
肯恩、芙若伊和我，在當前的文化危機之前就作了朋友。我們可以看到，我們的人道精神（humanity），與我們不同的世界觀以及它們所代表的各種思想、詞彙、書籍、價值觀，有著密切的關聯，但並未完全被其吸收。即使在我們的分歧當中，我們也可以將彼此當成人來看待。因著這個視角，我們可以來到桌前，聚餐、談話。
Ken and Floy and I became friends before this
current cultural moment. We could see that our humanity was intimately
connected to, but not completely absorbed by, our differing worldviews and the
sets of ideas, vocabulary, books, and values they represented. We could see
each other as human beings even across our differences. And because of this
perspective, we could come to the table, break bread, and talk.
所以，基督徒啊，你們如何開始積極地與你的鄰居接觸呢？認識你們的文化，在一個忠於聖經的教會中宣誓成為會員，並歸回到隱私的做法。是的，交織性今天已經找到了其立足點，不僅在更廣泛的文化中，更在部分的福音派教會中。這是一個帶著最後通牒（ultimatums）——愛屋及烏（直譯作：「愛我，愛我的狗」）——的世界觀。這是建基於不符合聖經本體論（人們是誰）之概念的世界觀。它拒絕這種觀念：原罪真的是邪惡的，寧可把這個在我們第一次呼吸之前就存在於我們內心的罪，僅僅視為一種審美上的差異。
So, Christian, how can you begin to constructively
engage with your neighbors? Know your culture, take membership vows in a
biblically faithful church, and return to a practice of privacy. Yes,
intersectionality has found its foothold today, not only in the wider culture, but
also in some segments of the evangelical church. It’s a worldview that comes
with ultimatums (“love me, love my dog”). It’s a worldview that rests on
unbiblical notions of ontology (who people are). It rejects that original sin
is really sinful, preferring to regard this sin that registers in our hearts
before we take our first breath as merely a form of aesthetic difference.
上帝的子民對那些在個人特質和交織性上所提出的不符合聖經的反思說「不」的最好方法，是對聖經的待客之道說「是」。當你和你假想的文化敵人聚在餐桌上時，不是一次，而是每週，你就是在表明，文化不是主宰一切的君王。耶穌才是。問一些好問題，並傾聽別人的答案。也許你可以從這個問題開始：你相信倫理觀念是由事實/真理來決定的，還是你相信事實/真理是由倫理觀念來決定的？
And the best way for God’s people to say “no” to
unbiblical reflections of personhood and intersectionality is to say “yes” to
biblical hospitality. When you gather around the table with your perceived
cultural enemy, not once, but weekly, you show that culture is not king. Jesus
is. Ask good questions and listen to people’s answers. Perhaps you could start
with this one: Do you believe that what is true determines what is ethical, or
do you believe that what is ethical determines what is true?
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield is a former tenured
professor of English at Syracuse University. She has taught and ministered at
Geneva College, is a full-time mother and pastor’s wife, and is author of The
Gospel Comes with a House Key: Practicing Radically Ordinary Hospitality in Our
Post-Christian World.
