历史上的教会论ECCLESIOLOGIESIN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
文 / 麦克•霍顿（Michael
Horton） 译 / 述宁 校 / 雅斤
The
Christian Faith ASystematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way 一书的第22章 第三部分。
The
Christian Faith_ A Systematic Theolo - Michael S. Horton.pdf
教会最初在圣殿、犹太会堂和私人住处聚集（徒2:46）；教会之为“教会”的每个地方性表达形式都是由聚集的人（即圣徒）和在那里发生的行为所构成的：“都恒心遵守使徒的教训，彼此交接、擘饼、祈祷”（徒2:42）。在使徒们活着的时候，普通牧者和长老们可以诉诸他们去解决那些因为教义或实践而造成的各种分裂。在各种异端兴起后，教会越来越强调教会以主教形式为可见建制和外在纪律的重要性，这个时候的主教们直接管理地方教会中的团体（长老会）而不是特定的会众。
Meeting
at first in the temple, synagogues, and private homes (Ac 2:46), each local
expression of the church was constituted as “church” both by the people who
were gathered (i.e., the saints) and by the actions that occurred in that
place: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship,
to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Ac 2:42). While the apostles were
living, they could be appealed to by ordinary pastors and elders to settle the
various divisions that erupted over doctrine and practice. As a result of the
rise of various heresies, the church increasingly stressed the importance of
the visible institution and the outward discipline of the church in the form of
bishops who now ruled over groups (presbyteries) of local churches rather than
over particular congregations.
一、古代教会的教会论
A.
ECCLESIOLOGY IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH
当教会日益世俗化，特别是在教会与帝国权力结盟后，在二至四世纪，各种教派，包括孟他努主义（Montanism）、诺洼天主义（Novatianism）和多纳徒主义（Donatism）都不把真正的教会等同于她的外在秩序，而是等同于其成员的圣洁性。在三世纪中叶罗马重新迫害教会期间，北非的一位主教和殉道者居普良（Cyprian）严厉地驳斥这些教派、异端以及为了保全性命而向凯撒和众神献祭的教会成员。在他的《论教会的合一》（De unitate ecclesiae）中，他写下了一段著名的话：“不以教会为母的人，就不能再以上帝为父……在教会以外聚集的人，就是分散基督的教会”；“除了这独一的教会，信徒再没有其他的家”。和罗马天主教会一样，东正教教会声称自己是唯一的真教会，并将其真实性（authenticity）建立在主教传承之上，虽然后者否认任何一位主教比其他主教具有更高地位。
In
reaction to the growing worldliness of the church, especially alliance with
imperial power, various sects in the second through the fourth centuries
(Montanism, Novatianism, and Donatism) identified the true church not with its
visible order but with the holiness of its members.34 Cyprian, a North African
bishop and martyr during a revived Roman persecution in the mid-third century,
responded sharply to sectarians, heretics, and members who offered the required
sacrifice to Caesar and the gods to preserve their life. In his De unitate
ecclesiae (On the Unity of the Church), he famously wrote, “He can no longer
have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother; … he who
gathereth elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ";
“nor is there any other home to believers but the one Church.”35 Like Rome,
Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be the one true church and locates its authenticity
in the succession of bishops, although the latter denies the primacy of any
bishop over the others.
奥古斯丁发展出的教会观，把教会看作是只有上帝才能彻底认识的选民群体，尽管她现在是一种“混合的身体”的形式，即在绵羊中混有山羊。因此，奥古斯丁区分了无形教会（选民的团契）和有形教会（通过使徒统绪来确定）。在与伯拉纠主义者（Pelagians）的辩论中，他强调无形的教会，而通过与多纳徒主义者的对抗，他强调有形教会是通过源于众使徒的历史传承而得以确定的。在教会论方面,奥古斯丁最重要的遗产或许就是他“完整的基督”（totus Chiristus）这一观念：完整的基督，不仅指耶稣基督这一个人，也是指基督与他教会的联合。正如我们将看到的，这个想法在各种教会论中被肯定，尽管它们对其解释大相径庭。
Augustine
developed the concept of the church as the company of the elect, known fully
only by God, though in its present form it is a “mixed body,” with goats among
the sheep. Augustine therefore distinguished between the invisible church (the
communion of the elect) and the visible church (identified by apostolic
succession). In his debate with the Pelagians, he emphasized the invisible
church, while his confrontation with Donatism led him to stress that the visible
church is identified by its historic succession of bishops from the apostles.
Perhaps the most important legacy of Augustine with respect to ecclesiology is
his concept of the totus Christus: the whole Christ, which refers not only to
the one person, Jesus Christ, but to the union of Christ with his church.36 As
we will see, this idea is affirmed across widely varying ecclesiologies, with
quite different interpretations.
二、中世纪教会论的形成
B.
THE SHAPING OF MEDIEVAL ECCLESIOLOGY
东方教会一直把教会看作是所有圣徒（神职人员和平信徒）的团契，圣灵分赐给人各种恩典（charisms）；而西方却越来越多地采用一种更为中央集权化的等级体系，它反映了世俗机构（尤其是封建——帝国政治）的组织方式。高举一位主教在其他主教之上，这在西方和东方都一直遭到反对；然而早在中世纪早期，罗马主教们就已经一再维护这种做法。在公元五世纪，英诺森一世（Innocent I）为罗马教皇在整个教会中的至高地位而辩护；并且在五世纪末期，格拉修斯一世（Gelasius I）与拜占庭皇帝之间的争端，也预示了后来罗马主教们超越国家和教会的至高地位。
Whereas
the East has always regarded the church as the whole communion of saints
(clergy and laity), gifted by the diverse graces (charisms) of the Spirit, the
West increasingly adopted a more centralized hierarchy that reflected the
organization of secular institutions (especially feudal-imperial politics). The
elevation of one bishop over others, which had been opposed in the West as well
as the East, became repeatedly asserted by the Roman bishops already in the
early medieval era. In the fifth century, Innocent I defended papal supremacy
over the whole church, and later in that century the dispute between Gelasius I
and the Byzantine emperor anticipated the further claim that Roman bishops
would make to supremacy over the state as well as the church.
一种对旧约圣经叙事的寓意性解释将基督教世界等同于以色列。皇帝、国王和骑士继承发扬大卫和他尊贵战士的形象，要把迦南人赶出圣地。此时，完整的基督（Totus Christus）包括欧洲文明，它与教会一起，被称为基督的身体（corpus Christianum）。同时，封建社会的等级排序也反映在教会的圣品（orders）中。五世纪有一位不知名的神学家，假托那位因保罗在雅典著名的讲道（徒17）而归信之人的名义（故名伪丢尼修，Pseudo-Dionysius）写作。他对天上和教会的等级制度的猜想，将基督教新柏拉图主义带到了巅峰。在塑造中世纪思想上，几乎没有人（包括阿奎那）可以和伪丢尼修相比。教会越来越被视为是由天堂通到地上的梯子，有形有体地代替了不可见的上帝；教会可以使上帝临在于弥撒中并且教会可以控制他的临在。教会的等级制度反映了新柏拉图主义的本体论分层。
An
allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament narratives identified
Christendom with Israel. Emperors, kings, and knights revived the image of
David and his noble warriors, driving the Canaanites from the Holy Land. The
totus Christus (“whole Christ”) now encompassed European civilization, which
together with the church was called the body of Christ (corpus Christianum). At
the same time, the hierarchical ranking of a feudal society was mirrored in the
orders in the church. In the fifth century Pseudo-Dionysius, an anonymous
theologian writing under the name of a convert of Paul’s at his famous speech
in Athens named in Acts 17, brought Christian Neoplatonism to its zenith with
his speculations concerning the celestial and ecclesiastical hierarchy.37 Few
had as great a hand in shaping medieval thought (including Thomas Aquinas) as
Dionysius. Increasingly, the church was conceived as a ladder from heaven to
earth, the visible replacement for its absent Lord, whom the church could make
present in the Mass and whose presence the church could control. The ecclesial
hierarchy was an image of Neoplatonism’s ontological hierarchy.
出于反映灵魂优于身体、恩典优于自然这一观点，教会被特别地等同于神职人员：由她的首领（教宗）一直向下，到训导当局、主教以及其余的神职人员（神父和修士）。出于自然的下层领域由平信徒所占据；他们大部分人不明白拉丁弥撒的语言，也不能领圣餐（除了领饼之外）。只有持守“福音劝谕”（evangelical counsels）——这要求独身（celibacy）、默想（contemplation）和修道誓愿（monastic vows）——的人，才能获得较高的（超自然的[2]）生命；而平信徒的普通（自然的）生活则包括婚姻、家庭和世俗的职业。人们相信，藉着按立之圣礼而注入的独特恩典，把一种新的本体论的身份和地位传递给神职人员，并且使他们不仅在职分和功能上，也在他们被提升了的本质上，将他们与平信徒区别开来。严格说来，“教会”（the Church）指的是教宗和训导当局（以及代表他们的底层神职人员）——这就是罗马天主教所谓的“教导的教会”（ecciesia docens）。
Reflecting
the superiority of the soul over the body and of grace over nature, the church
was identified especially with the clergy: from its head (the pope) down to the
magisterium, bishops, and the rest of the clergy (priests and monks). Nature’s
inferior sphere was occupied by the laity, most of whom could not understand
the words of the Latin Mass and none of whom could receive Communion except for
the bread. The higher life (supernatural) was attained by keeping the
“evangelical counsels” — requiring celibacy, contemplation, and monastic vows —
while the ordinary (natural) life of lay Christians involved marriage, family,
and secular vocations. The distinct grace infused through the sacrament of
ordination was believed to communicate a new ontological identity and status to
priests, distinguishing them from the laity not only in office and function but
in their elevated essence.38 Strictly speaking, “the Church” refers to the pope
and magisterium (and to the lower clergy who represent them) — what Rome calls
the ecclesia docens (the church that teaches).
由于灵魂高于身体，恩典又在自然之上，因此有人（例如圣维克托的休格，Hugh of St. Victor）主张，教会（教宗是教会在地上的首领）在国家之上。教宗的至高权威，甚至超越整个教会，更不用说国家。在整个中世纪的不同时期，这一主张都引起争议，但各种抗议最终以失败告终。对教宗至高权威的主张，加上其他长期存在的差异，最终导致了东方和西方基督教世界在1054年的大分裂（the Great Schism)。
As
the soul is higher than the body, and grace is above nature, it was argued (for
example, by Hugh of St. Victor), the church — with the pope as its earthly head
— is above the state.39 Papal supremacy, even over the whole church, much less
the state, was contested at various points throughout the Middle Ages, but
— is
above the state.39 Papal supremacy, even over the whole church, much less the
state, was contested at various points throughout the Middle Ages, but
ultimately protests ended in failure.40 Along with other long-standing
differences, the assertion of papal supremacy led to the Great Schism between
Eastern and Western Christendom in 1054.
在古代和早期中世纪，教会被理解为是基督的奥秘的新娘和身体，但在升天的基督的自然身体、圣餐的身体（圣餐的饼）和教会身体（可见的教会）之间存在着清楚的区分：即所谓的“三重身体”（corpus triforme）。柯瑞格（Robert A. Krieg)看到：
In
the ancient and early medieval era the church was understood as the mystical
bride and body of Christ, but there was a clearer distinction between the
natural body of the ascended Christ, the eucharistic body (the bread in the
Supper) and the ecclesial body (the visible church): the so-called corpus
triforme (threefold body). Robert A.
Krieg observes,
直到中世纪后期，教会作为一个机构的观念才获得显著地位。在他1302年颁布的教宗诏书《圣教谕》（Unam Sanctum）中，教宗卜尼法修八世（Pope Boniface
VIII）理所当然地认为：教会是一个组织，对个人和公民国家拥有有约束力的法律权力。在后来，为了回应宗教改革，天特会议（1545-1563年）通过其教义及惩戒谕令中的司法性语言，传达了一种建制性的教会论。
It was only in the late Middle Ages that the notion of
the church as an institution gained prominence. In his bull Una Sanctam (1302)
Pope Boniface VIII took it for granted that the church is an organization with
binding legal powers over both individuals and civil states. Later, in response
to the Reformation, the Council of Trent (1545 — 63) conveyed an institutional
ecclesiology in the juridical language of its doctrinal and disciplinary
decrees.41
这样，教会就成为了一个法理性的机构，拥有掌管“善行宝库”的权柄，可以给所有的灵魂和身体分赐救恩并行使权柄。罗伯特•贝拉明（Robert Bellarmine）是天特会议的坚定拥护者，他宣告说：“唯一的真教会，是由因宣信同一个基督信仰而聚集在一起，并由共同的圣礼而连结在一起的一群人组成的一个共同体，是在合法的牧者，并且特别是由基督在地上的唯一代表，即罗马宗座的统管之下。”
Thus
the church became a legal institution invested with authority over the
“treasury of merits,” to dispense salvation and exercise authority over all
souls and bodies. Robert Bellarmine, a staunch defender of Trent, declared,
“The one and true Church is the community of men brought together by the
profession of the same Christian faith and conjoined in the communion of the
same sacraments, under the government of the legitimate pastors and especially
the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman pontiff.”42
虽然靠着其他意象来调和，这个把教会看作是普世性的法理机构，享有对所有人的灵魂和身体的权柄的观念从来都没有被撤销过。
Though
tempered by other images, this view of the church as a universal legal
institution, with power over the souls and bodies of all people, has never been
withdrawn.
三、现代罗马天主教的教会论
C. ROMAN CATHOLIC ECCLESIOLOGIES IN THE MODERN ERA
在十九世纪初，约翰•莫勒（Johann Adam
Möhler）提倡一种更为有机性的（organic）教会论。他的追随者，卡尔•亚当（Karl Adam），领导了一场更大规模的转变，从和天特会议一样将教会视为法理组织的观点，转变到更为有机的（教会为共同体，church-as-community）和圣灵论的视角。这个转变过程被称为“改革天主教主义”(reform Catholicism)。约翰•莫勒写道：“因此，有形的教会……就是神的儿子；他以人的样式在世人中间永恒地彰显自己，持续地被更新，并且永远年轻——同一位圣子永恒地显为肉身。”和黑格尔及施莱马赫一样，约翰•莫勒和卡尔•亚当以橡树和橡子的关系来理解神的国和教会之间的关系——不是机械的，而是有机的关系。卡尔•亚当主张，教会的主要目标是让所有认信的信徒回到罗马教会，从而“创造一种新的属灵合一，一个宗教中心，并由此为西方文明的重建和重生预备唯一可能的基础”。不只是神的国，基督本身的存在也被和罗马天主教会完全等同起来了。
In
the early nineteenth century, Johann Adam Möhler (1796 – 1838) advocated a more
organic ecclesiology. His disciple, Karl Adam (1876 – 1966), led a more
widescale transformation from a view of the church as a legal organization, in
accordance with the Council of Trent, to a more organic (church-as-community)
and pneumatological perspective.43 This trajectory became known as “reform
Catholicism.” Möhler wrote, “Thus, the visible Church … is the Son of God,
everlastingly manifesting himself among men in a human form, perpetually
renovated, and eternally young—the permanent incarnation of the same.”44 Like
Hegel and Schleiermacher, Möhler and Adam saw the relation of the kingdom of
God and the church in terms of an oak and acorn — not a mechanical but an
organic relation.45 The chief goal of the church, Adam argued, was for all
professing believers to return to the Church of Rome in order “to create a new
spiritual unity, a religious centre, and so to prepare the only possible
foundation for a rebuilding and rebirth of Western civilization.”46 Not only
the kingdom, but Christ’s personal existence, became identical with the Roman
Catholic Church.
这种有机性的类比，完全没有能够挑战以教会取代基督以及以“因功生效”（ex opera operato）的圣礼观念取代圣灵这样的错误，反而是加深了一个确信：罗马天主教会就是“神的国在地上的实现”。“主基督是真正的教会本体。”教会和基督是“同一个位格，一位基督，整个的基督”。在卡尔•亚当那里，我们发现奥古斯丁关于“完整的基督”这个观念的黑格尔版本的根源；这个观念不仅仅主宰罗马天主教的教会论，也主宰以后的许多更正教的教会论。他说：教会是“基督在信众当中所成为的肉身”。
Far
from challenging the displacement of Christ by the church and of the Spirit by
an ex opere operato notion of the sacraments, the organic analogy only deepened
the conviction that the Roman Catholic Church is simply “the realisation on
earth of the Kingdom of God.”47 “Christ the Lord is the real self of the
Church.” The church and Christ: “one and the same person, one Christ, the whole
Christ.”48 With Karl Adam we discover the roots of a Hegelian version of
Augustine’s notion of totus Christus that has come to dominate not only Roman
Catholic but many Protestant ecclesiologies of late. The church is “the
incarnation of Christ in the faithful,” he said.49
另一种不那么一面倒的看法，其焦点在于被视为一个法理机构的教会，这个改革性的教会论，基本上没有改变传统教义的原则，反而让合一优先于多元性，使整体优先于其不同的组成部分。因此，奥古斯丁“完整的基督”的观念就变成不单是指作为头的基督与其身体的合一，也是指基督就是他的身体。甚至耶稣基督独特的位格身份也被掩藏在以教宗为其有形的头的有形教会之中。
The
less one-sidedly one is focused on the church as a legal institution, the
reforming ecclesiology does not fundamentally alter the principles of
traditional dogma but even heightens the priority of unity over plurality, the
whole over its different parts. Thus Augustine’s totus Christus became not only
the unity of Christ as head with his body but Christ as his body. Even the
distinct personal identity of Jesus Christ is submerged in the visible church
with the pope as its visible head.
约翰•保罗二世（John Paul II）在他担任教宗期间重申这些认定，特别是在《主耶稣》（Dominus
Jesus）这本书中：“忠信的天主教徒必须宣信，基督建立的真教会（theChurch）和天主教会之间有（根植于使徒统绪的）历史延续性……这真教会在现今世界中构成并被组织成一个团体，依存于[3]天主教会中，由彼得的继承人和与他相通的主教治理[4]。”至于那些在这司法管辖以外的教会群体（bodies），“他们的有效性是来源于被交付给天主教会的丰富的恩典和真理[5]”。那些保有“有效的主教”（the valid Episcopate）和“有效的圣餐”的教会（即东正教群体）“是真正的特殊教会”，却尚未“与天主教会达成完美的团契”；而其他的教会“在严格意义上说，并不是教会”，虽然他们的洗礼让他们有资格“与真教会享有一定的相交，却是不完美的”。这个教宗通谕补充说，教会“蒙召是要去宣告并建立上帝的国度”，而教会和上帝的国度的关系就像种子和一棵完全成熟的树一样；这样的说法体现了莫勒和亚当的观念。
John
Paul II reiterated these commitments during his own pontificate, especially in
Dominus lesus: “The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an
historical continuity—rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church
founded by Christ and the Catholic Church ‘This Church, constituted and organized
as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic
Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in Communion with
him’ [Lumen gentium, 8].” With respect to those bodies outside of this
jurisdiction, “‘they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and
truth entrusted to the Catholic Church’ (Unitatis redintegratio, 3).” While
churches retaining “the valid Episcopate” and “a valid Eucharist” (i.e.,
Eastern Orthodox bodies) “are true particular churches” that do not yet exist
“in perfect communion with the Catholic Church,” others “are not Churches in
the proper sense,” although their baptism qualifies them for “a certain
communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”50 Echoing the language of Möhler
and Adam, the encyclical adds that the church is “called to announce and to
establish the kingdom,” church and kingdom being related as a seed to a fully
mature tree.51
虽然《主耶稣》这本书确认上帝的国度的完全实现还在未来，但它批评近年来的一些神学思想，因为它们把教会仅仅视为是国度的记号。“这些理论违背了天主教信仰，因为它们否定基督与神国之间以及真教会和神国之间关系的唯一性。”其他宗教的信徒可能会真的得到救恩，但他们没有“拯救的完满”。因此，我们可以看到，按照这种观点，教会实际上包括了全部的人类，她与独一、真实的天主教会有不同程度的相交。
While
affirming that the fullest realization of the kingdom of God lies up ahead,
Dominus Iesus is critical of recent theologies that regard the church merely as
its sign. “These theses are contrary to Catholic faith because they deny the
unicity of the relationship which Christ and the Church have with the kingdom
of God.”52 Members of other religions may truly receive saving grace, but do
not have “the fullness of the means of salvation.”53 Therefore, we see that in
this perspective the church is really the totality of humanity, in varying
degrees of communion with the one, true Catholic Church.
第一次梵蒂冈会议（1869-1870）正式颁布了教宗无误的教理。到了第二次梵蒂冈会议（1959-1965），一种没有那么反动的精神占了优势，其结果是一种更为丰富并且是更为合乎圣经的关于教会的教义。教会不单被看作是按教阶制度决定的司法机构，也被视为是上帝的百姓。不过，这些元素是对天主教传统的自我理解所作的改良和深化，即天主教会是基督真正的、唯一的有形身体，而教宗是其在地上的头。罗马继续主张教宗拥有在整个教会之上的超越权柄。根据新近的《天主教教理》，“因为罗马教宗拥有作为基督的代理（Vicar of Christ）以及作为整个教会的牧者的职位，所以他对整个教会拥有全面、至高和普遍的权柄，可在任何时候不受阻碍地行使这种权柄。”基督的群羊只有“聚集在一个头之下时”才是合一的，而这个头“凭借其职位就享有这无谬误性……”
At
the First Vatican Council (1869 — 1870) the dogma of papal infallibility was
officially promulgated. With the Second Vatican Council (1959 — 1965) a less
reactionary spirit prevailed, and the consequence was a much fuller and more
biblically informed doctrine of the church. Not only conceived as a
hierarchically determined juridical organization, the church was also to be
seen as the people of God. Nevertheless, these elements are refinements and
elaborations of the traditional self-understanding of Roman Catholicism as the
one true visible body of Christ with the pope as its earthly head. Rome
continues to assert papal supremacy over the entire church. According to the
recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his
office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full,
supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always
exercise unhindered.”54Christ’s flock is one only “in so far as it is assembled
under one head” who “enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office …”55
另一个对当代罗马天主教教会论的重要贡献来自巴尔塔萨（Hans
Urs von Balthasar），尤其是来自他的《教会与世界》（Church and World）一书。巴尔塔萨强调，个别的基督徒是一个完整身体的一部分，因为他们是“他的肢体，但实际上不是真教会的真成员”。他推动的是一种以基督论为中心的教会论。他补充说，事实上“不可能存在哪种不以基督论为核心的教会论”。然而，黑格尔版的“完整的基督”还是主流，它使得基督论被吸收到教会论里。个体的位格（包括耶稣基督）屈从于整体：
Another
important contribution to contemporary Roman Catholic ecclesiology has come
from Hans Urs von Balthasar, especially in his Church and World (1967).
Emphasizing that individual Christians are part of one body because they are
“his members, and not actually members of the Church,” von Balthasar advanced
an ecclesiology that was christocentric.56 In fact, he added, “There can be no
ecclesiology which is not, at its core, Christology.”57 Nevertheless, the
Hegelian version of the totus Christus is dominant, allowing Christology to be
assimilated to ecclesiology. Particular persons — including Jesus Christ — are
surrendered to the whole:
事实上，敬虔主体屈从于教会论客体（也就是施莱马赫和黑格尔所谓的“共同体意识”，community-consciousness)，这种残酷的、往往是“钉十字架式”的牺牲，最终是圣体的主（Eucharistic Lord）临在的条件之一：“……无论在哪里，有两三个人……聚会……（也就是说，几个个体的人怀着深刻的信心和顺服，渴望成为教会并实现教会）,那里就有我在他们中间。”
In fact, this violent, this often “crucifying”
sacrifice of the pious subject to the ecclesial object (that is what
Schleiermacher and Hegel call “communityconsciousness”) is, ultimately, one of
the conditions for the presence of the Eucharistic Lord: “Where two or three
are gathered together …” — that is, where individuals, in profound faith and
obedience, desire to be and to realize the Church — “there I am in the midst of
you.”58
巴尔塔萨写以下这段话时，他想到的应该与“橡子和橡树”的类比相去不远：
The
acorn-and-oak analogy is not far from von Balthasar’s mind when he writes,
教会是正在形成的得赎的世界，并且同时也是基督全面救赎世界的工具。由此，对于这处于时间中的教会，其个体成员就其功能而言并不承担并执行教会功能。他在作为一个整体的教会里并和这教会一起发挥作用……因为爱成全了所有的功能，而这些功能并非与爱迥然不同的，它们虽然彼此各不相同，却是爱自身鲜活的器官。
The
Church is, at one and the same time, the redeemed world in course of becoming
and Christ’s instrument for the full redemption of the world. Consequently, the
individual member of the Church in time is not, actually, functional as regards
the Church, as if it were the executive bearer of this function. He is, rather,
functional in and with the Church as a whole … for charity fills all functions,
not as if they were something disparate to it, but as its own living organs,
distinct one from the other.59
这些观点让我们直接接触到当代罗马天主教的教会论。
These
contributions give us a taste of contemporary Roman Catholic ecclesiology at
first hand.
正如杜勒斯枢机主教（Cardinal Dulles）所言，在过去的一个多世纪里，人们采用了很多种隐喻和模式。由社会模式转到基督的奥秘身体（the Mystical Body)，并在第二次梵蒂冈会议之后，转到神的百姓和基督的圣礼；每一个模式都反映不同时代的强调点。1968年普世教会协会（World Council of Churches）的乌普萨拉大会（Uppsala Assembly）呼应了第二次梵蒂冈会议：教会是“将要出现的人类合一的记号”。现今，在罗马天主教会内部，关于教会是仆人和医治者的神学理念引发很多讨论。在民主时代，“神的百姓”似乎更适切；就像“仆人模式越来越流行，因为它满足了某种参与缔造更美好世界的渴望——虽然这种渴望单就其动机而言是基督教的，但它的目标是建立教会和整个人类家庭的联合（solidarity）”。
As
Cardinal Dulles shows, a variety of metaphors and models have been employed
over the last century. Shifting from the societal model to the Mystical Body
and, after Vatican II, to the People of God and the Sacrament of Christ, each
reflects the emphasis of a different era.60The World Council of Churches at its
Uppsala Assembly in 1968 echoed Vatican II: the church is “the sign of the
coming unity of mankind.”61 Today, there is also much discussion in Roman
Catholic theology of the church as Servant and Healer. “People of God” seemed
more relevant in a democratic age, just as “the Servant Model has become
popular because it satisfies a certain hunger for involvement in the making of
a better world — a hunger that, although specifically Christian in motivation,
establishes solidarity between the Church and the whole human family.”62
虽然不同模式之间存在着差异，但每个模式都继续推动这样一个命题，即有形教会（完全等同于罗马教会），用狄鲁巴克（Henri de Lubac）的话说，“真正地使（基督）临在”，并且她“不单接续基督的工作”，也“是他实际的延续……”
In
spite of their diversity, each of these models continues to advance the thesis
that the visible church (identified fully with the Church of Rome), in the
words of Henri de Lubac, “really makes [Christ] present,” and that she “not
only carries on his work” but “is his very continuation….”63
四、宗教改革的教会论
D. REFORMATION ECCLESIOLOGIES
谈到信义宗和改革宗，杜勒斯枢机主教认为用“教会就是使者”（the
Church as Herald）最能恰当地描述他们的教会论。藉着教会讲道、教导和施行圣礼这些正式和公开的事奉，所有的圣徒都成为基督的见证人。事实上，教会所有的活动都以传扬基督这个使命为导向。教会自身的根源及其日常的存在，都是单单凭借这圣言的能力，但这就表示教会必须为他人而活，而不是单为她自己而活。正是在向万民（包括向教会自己的儿女）传扬基督时，教会才有自身的生命力。路德的教会论的特点也是在于强调信徒皆祭司，教会是混合性的聚集，只有通过基督在讲道和圣礼中的临在教会才得以被显明，以及公民政府只能在其司法管辖权范围内决定教会的信条和敬拜方面的事务。
For
Lutheran and Reformed ecclesiologies Cardinal Dulles selects “The Church as
Herald” as the most appropriate identification.64 Through its official and
public ministry of preaching, teaching, administering the sacraments, all of
the saints become witnesses to Christ. In fact, all of the church’s activity is
oriented to this mission of heralding Christ. The church has its own origin and
daily existence solely through the power of this Word, but this means that the
church must live for others and not only for herself. It is in heralding Christ
to all people, including the church’s own children, that the church itself
continues to live. Luther’s ecclesiology was also marked by his emphasis on the
priesthood of all believers, the church as a mixed assembly whose visibility
resides exclusively in Christ’s presence in preaching and sacrament, and the
right of the civil government to determine the ecclesiastical confession and
worship in its jurisdiction.
信义宗和改革宗的教会论有很多共同的主题和重点，但卡维里（Veli-Matti
Kärkkäinen）恰当地称后者为“作为圣约的教会”。罗马天主教会在历史性的机构里（这机构由顺服教宗的主教们带领）找到教会的合一性、大公性和使徒性。东正教会在圣餐礼中找到它，其预设是主教们的使徒传承（不必另外还要委身于一位主要宗座）。自由教会（Free Church）将它等同于个体信徒的内心。然而，宗教改革的教会将这合一性、大公性和使徒性置于传讲福音和施行圣礼中。这样，他们拒绝将教会的本质置于一个表面上无谬误和毫无缺陷的机构的单纯的客观性里，或是置于个体性回应的主观性之中。
Lutheran
and Reformed ecclesiologies share many common themes and emphases, but
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen aptly labels the latter “The Church as Covenant.”65 Rome
locates the unity, catholicity, and apostolicity of the church in the historical
institution that is led by the bishops in obedience to the pope. Eastern
Orthodoxy finds it in the Eucharist, which presupposes apostolic succession of
bishops (without the additional commitment to a primal see). Free churches
identify it with the heart of the individual believer. However, the churches of
the Reformation lodge this unity, catholicity, and apostolicity in the
preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. In this way,
they refuse to locate the essence of the church in a sheer objectivity of an
ostensibly infallible and indefectible institution or in the subjectivity of
individual response.
这表明，对于改革宗人士来说，教会不仅仅是上帝儿女的总和，也是她儿女的母亲，正如加尔文支持居普良在上面提到的格言，说：“因为我们的软弱，我们不能从这学校休学，反而要一生作这学校的学生。此外，若不在这母亲的怀中，没有人能盼望罪蒙赦免或得救。”加尔文坚决反对重洗派“圣洁教会”的理想，如同他反对罗马教会的绝对主义（absolutism）一样。“教会被称为‘大公的’或‘普世的’，因为若说有两三种教会，这等于分裂基督的身体，但这是不可能的。所有的选民都在基督里面合而为一，并因共同依靠这元首，就在同一个身体里面一起成长……”无法被推翻的就是这个教会。
Lutheran
and Reformed ecclesiologies share many common themes and emphases, but
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen aptly labels the latter “The Church as Covenant.”65 Rome
locates the unity, catholicity, and apostolicity of the church in the
historical institution that is led by the bishops in obedience to the pope.
Eastern Orthodoxy finds it in the Eucharist, which presupposes apostolic
succession of bishops (without the additional commitment to a primal see). Free
churches identify it with the heart of the individual believer. However, the
churches of the Reformation lodge this unity, catholicity, and apostolicity in
the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. In this
way, they refuse to locate the essence of the church in a sheer objectivity of
an ostensibly infallible and indefectible institution or in the subjectivity of
individual response.
菲利普•沃克•布廷（Philip Walker
Butin）分析加尔文的观点：
Philip
Walker Butin observes of Calvin’s view,
对于在基督和教会里的成员身份，如果信徒的感受主要是基于他们出于自身作为基督徒的委身而有的忠诚（或可见的圣洁、善工，或甚至是主观的信心），那么在面对他们人类的罪和失败时，这种感受总要受到怀疑。加尔文充分意识到，对教会成员身份的这种主观主义式的理解，可能会给教会的稳定带来多么大的破坏作用。另一方面，若能恰当地理解教会的“无形的”的观念，目的是建立教会必须具备的实体性的、处境化的存在的三一论稳固基础，这两个视角就可以视为一个单一实存不可分的两个方面。
If believers’ sense of membership in Christ and the
church were based primarily on the faithfulness of their own Christian
commitment (or visible holiness, works, or even faith, subjectively
understood), it would always be subject to doubt in the face of their human sin
and failures. Calvin was well aware of how debilitating this subjectivistic
understanding of church membership could be to the church’s stability. On the
other hand, when the “invisible” conception of the church was properly
understood to aim at establishing the Trinitarian basis and stability of the
church’s necessarily corporeal, contextualized existence, the two perspectives
could be seen as inseparably aspects of a single reality.69
加尔文说，圣经有时说教会是“事实上在神的面前”，但也是“在全世界宣称自己敬拜独一之神和基督的人……我们必须相信无形的教会虽然是我们看不见的，却是神所知道的，同样的，神也吩咐我们尊敬被人称为‘教会’的有形教会，并与之保持相交”。“圣徒在基督的团契中彼此联合，是基于这个条件：即神赐给他们的所有福分均彼此分享。然而，此分享并非与恩典的多样性不相容，因为我们知道圣灵将不同的恩赐分给各人。”根据加尔文的理解，圣徒相通源自与基督的联合。
Calvin
says that Scripture speaks of the church sometimes as “that which is actually
in God’s presence,” but also as “the whole multitude of people spread over the
earth who profess to worship God and Christ Just as we must believe, therefore,
that the former church, invisible to us, is visible to the eyes of God alone,
so we are commanded to revere and keep communion with the latter, which is
called ‘church’ in respect to human beings.”70 “The saints are gathered into
the society of Christ on the principle that whatever benefits God confers upon them,
they should in turn share with one another. This does not, however, rule out
diversity of graces, inasmuch as we know the gifts of the Spirit are variously
distributed.”71 The communion of saints, in Calvin’s thinking, has its source
in union with Christ.
在上面提到的重点原则方面，改革宗与路德的意见一致；而改革宗在信徒之间的相交和团契方面，给予教会的可见性更多空间。正如我们知道的，虽然路德和加尔文（以及其他宗教改革领袖）对称义和成圣的教义（以及律法的功用）观点一致，但就成圣在人此生中的可见性，他们之间却存在着细微差别。虽然路德有时似乎暗示，我们的成圣是完全隐蔽的，改革宗神学则鼓励信徒发现成长的迹象，并预备好面对基督徒生命中的成功与失败。
Agreeing
with Luther on the principal points mentioned above, the Reformed also gave
more place to the visibility of the church in the communion and fellowship
between believers. As we observed in chapter 19, despite agreement on the
doctrines of justification and sanctification (as well as the uses of the law),
there were different nuances between Luther and Calvin (as well as other
Reformed leaders) with respect to the visibility of sanctification in this
life. While Luther sometimes seems to suggest that our sanctification is
entirely hidden, Reformed theology encourages believers to expect signs of
growth and to be prepared for successes as well as failures in the Christian
life.
关于成圣的这些不同的重点，也延伸到教会论。改革宗领袖们（包括加尔文）强调基督徒对其他弟兄姊妹所负有的责任，因为我们若是与基督联合，就不可能没有彼此的相交。在有些地方（在不直接涉及布道和圣礼的地方），路德对教会的外在形式表现得相对不在意，而加尔文（甚至比一些改革宗同侪更甚）则寻求使教会的每一方面都要受圣经约束。除了基督的道以外，没有任何东西应该加在基督徒身上——甚至是由牧师所加的，更不要说由世俗权威了——而任何圣经所要求的却都不能被遗漏。基督是教会唯一的头；他赋予牧师、长老和执事的权柄，是牧养的权柄，而不是训导的权柄。教会的外在形式（她的敬拜、教会纪律、治理和秩序）非常重要，以至最终成为教会的第三个记号。加尔文确实只承认两个记号，但他明确地坚持，在信仰和实践的所有事情上，唯独神的道才拥有权柄——而这正是“第三个记号”（教会纪律）的目的所在。
These
different emphases regarding sanctification carry over into ecclesiology.
Reformed leaders, including Calvin, emphasized the duty that Christians owe to
their brothers and sisters because none of us is united to Christ apart from
our communion with each other. Where Luther expresses relative indifference to
the outward form of the church (where it does not touch directly on preaching
and sacrament), Calvin sought — even more than some of his Reformed colleagues
— to subject every aspect of the church to Scripture. Nothing beyond Christ’s
Word should be imposed upon Christians — even by the pastors, much less the
secular authorities — and nothing required can be omitted. Christ is the only
head of the church; the authority he gives to his pastors, elders, and deacons
is ministerial rather than magisterial. The outward form of the church (its
worship, discipline, government, and order) was so important that it was
eventually made a third mark of the church. It is true that Calvin acknowledged
only two marks,72 but he clearly insisted upon the authority of God’s Word
alone over all matters of faith and practice — which is the intent of the
“third mark” (discipline).
在这方面，教会纪律不单指对教会成员（包括有教会职分的人）在教义和实际生活上的照顾（以及必要的纠正），在更广泛的意义上讲，指对教会等次和职分、敬拜礼仪和关怀服事进行规范，使之尽可能地符合神的道。慈运理和布林格（甚至加尔文的导师布塞尔）更接近路德，认为这些事情大体上是无关紧要的（adiaphora），是可以由王侯来管理的。特别是随着宗教改革而产生的“基督教世界”（神圣罗马帝国）的分裂以及逐渐兴起的民族国家的势力影响，信义宗和改革宗的很多教会不再顺服教宗，转而顺服王侯或市议会。虽然加尔文花了大量精力，使教会脱离日内瓦市议会而自立，但很多改革宗教会不是默许现状，就是为现状辩护，正如伊拉斯塔斯（Thomas Erastus）所做的那样——这种观点也以他的名字而得名，称为伊拉斯塔斯主义（Erastianism）。布灵格和布塞尔影响力深远，他们的指导实际在很大程度上塑造了伊丽莎白女王时期的英国改教家和主教们的观点，后者就和更偏向日内瓦的“长老制主义者”产生了冲突。
Discipline
in this connection refers not only to the doctrinal and practical care (and, as
needed, correction) of members (including officers), but more generally to the
regulating of the church’s order and offices, the liturgy, and diaconal care so
as to accord as closely as possible to God’s Word. Zwingli and Bullinger (even
Bucer, Calvin’s mentor) were actually closer to Luther in regarding these
issues as largely adiaphora (things indifferent), which could be regulated by
the prince.
Especially
with the fragmentation of “Christendom” (the Holy Roman Empire) by the
Reformation and the power of rising nation-states, many Lutheran and Reformed
churches transferred their obedience from the pope to the prince or the city
council. Although Calvin spent enormous energy on behalf of the independence of
the church from Geneva’s city council, many Reformed churches either acquiesced
to the status quo or defended it, as did Thomas Erastus (1524 — 1583), who lent
his name to this view: Erastianism.73In fact, the influential guidance of
Bullinger and Bucer largely shaped the views of the English Reformers and
bishops under Elizabeth, with whom the more Genevan “presbyterians” collided.74
加尔文认为，长老治理教会最符合圣经（因此不是无关紧要的），但他为了合一的缘故，愿意容许改革宗教会有一种主教治理制度。不过，他的继任人伯撒和一些英国长老制主义者，如卡特赖特（Thomas Cartwright）和特拉弗斯（Walter Travers）则视长老治理体制是本质性的。追随苏黎世方面（特别是布林格）的建议，英国的主教们为主教制辩护，认为主教制是君权神授的一部分，用来决定教会的外在纪律。而为了争取英国教会的合一，政治扮演了决定性的角色。
Calvin
had considered presbyterian government most conformable to Scripture (and
therefore not indifferent), and yet was willing for the sake of unity to allow
an episcopal government for Reformed churches. However, his successor, Theodore
Beza, and some English presbyterians (like Thomas Cartwright and Walter
Travers) viewed presbyterian polity as essential. Following the counsel of
Zürich (particularly Bullinger), England’s bishops defended episcopacy as part
of the prerogative of the monarch to determine the church’s outward discipline,
and in the struggle for a united Church of England, politics played a decisive
role.
虽然从普世教会合一主义（ecumenism）的角度看这是一个悲剧，但这种对教会的有形治理的关注指明一个事实，即改革宗传统丝毫没有将教会属灵化，而是向来都对各种二元的教会论持批判性的看法。教义的灵魂和实践的身体，都是服在高升了的基督的主权之下，并由他的道来规范，都是在上帝救赎和圣化之功的范畴内。因此，罗马天主教和改革宗在教会论的这一点上的重大区别，不是关于教会外在形式的重要性，而是在于她的实际形态。改革宗相信，他们是归回到使徒时期和古代教会的实践，即由牧者和长老在地方教会和更广的聚集中共同治理。
Although
a tragedy from the perspective of ecumenism, such a concern for the visible
government of the church points up the fact that, far from spiritualizing the
church, the Reformed tradition has been critical of dualistic ecclesiologies.
Not only the soul of doctrine but the body of practice is the sphere of God’s
redeeming and sanctifying work, under the lordship of the ascended Christ and
regulated by his Word. The great difference between Roman Catholic and Reformed
ecclesiologies at this point, then, is not over the importance of the church’s
outward form but over its actual shape. The Reformed believed that they were
going back to the apostolic and ancient church practice of shared governance by
ministers and elders together at local and broader assemblies.
因为改革宗和信义宗的教会极力肯定教会的公共秩序是作为教会可见的记号，由此他们同意，教会主要不是等同于一个历史性组织（用当代的话说，就是宗派），而是等同于所有认信的信徒彼此共享的相交；这种相交首先是因着与基督的联合，这种联合通过忠心地传讲圣道，并施行基督设立的圣礼而成为外在可见的。唯有神所赋予的在讲道和圣礼中的应许才能使教会的服事有效力。按照罗马天主教的教导，基督徒的文化性劳作从属于教会，而改革宗的教会论则将这些普遍的召命与有形教会的正式服事区分开来。因此，甚至基督徒志愿形成的机构，比如学校、出版社、慈善组织和医院，都不能被看作是有形教会的服事，它们因此都不从属于教会及其管理者。
While
eager to affirm the public order of the church as a visible mark of the church,
Reformed and Lutheran confessions agree that the church is not identified
primarily with a historical organization (in contemporary terms,
denominations), but with the communion that all professing believers enjoy with
each other by virtue first and foremost of their union with Christ, which is made
visible by the faithful preaching of the Word and the administration of the
sacraments according to Christ’s institution. Only God’s promise attached to
preaching and sacrament validates ecclesiastical ministry. Where in Roman
Catholic teaching cultural labors of Christians are subservient to the church,
Reformed ecclesiology distinguishes these common vocations from the official
ministry of the visible church. Even Christian voluntary organizations such as
schools, publishing houses, charities, and hospitals, therefore, cannot be
regarded as part of the ministry of the visible church and, consequently, as
subservient to the church and its officers.75
五、重洗派、自由教会和五旬宗的教会论
E.
ANABAPTIST, FREE CHURCH, AND PENTECOSTAL ECCLESIOLOGIES
自由教会的教会论缘于重洗派和独立清教徒（Puritan
Independence）的传统，强调圣洁的或聚集的教会（gathered church)的模式。路德、加尔文和他们的同工都支持奥古斯丁，将有形的教会理解为混合体；他们都是改革者，而不是分离主义者，并且在清教徒中也明显存在着这样的力量。不过，重洗派一开始就是激进的分离运动，把建制教会（无论是罗马天主教、信义宗还是改革宗）看作是假教会。
Emerging
from the traditions of Anabaptism and Puritan Independency, Free Church
ecclesiologies emphasize the pure or gathered church model. Affirming
Augustine’s understanding of the visible church as a mixed body, Luther,
Calvin, and their colleagues were reformers rather than separatists, and this
impulse was evident among the Puritans as well. However, Anabaptism arose as a
movement of radical separation, viewing the established churches (whether Roman
Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed) as invalid.
对改教家来说，所有信徒皆祭司的观念否定了神职人员和平信徒在基督这唯一中保面前有任何本体论上的区别。不过，这绝非是认为教会不需要公众性的职分，仿佛人一受洗就是被按立去讲道、教导和施行圣礼一样。重洗派运动经常会走这么远，而这在“公谊会”(Society of Friends，即贵格会）中就会被特别宣告出来。大部分重洗派都是和平主义者，绝不是政治上的革命分子；很少有人会像闵采儿或和路德一度合作过的卡尔斯塔特（Andreas Carlstadt）那样激进，弃绝人一切的学问，甚至包括学习圣经（主张直接启示）。不过，在不同的团体——如在《施莱坦信条》（Schleitheim Confession）中列举的——当中有一个普遍的倾向：1）把真教会完全等同于所有重生的信徒；2）强调教会的标记是个人的圣洁（被理解为与世界完全的分离）而不是讲道和圣礼；以及3）表现出一种明显的灵/物质二元论，并应用到教会的外在形式和服事以及国家上面。
For
the Reformers, the priesthood of all believers simply denied any ontological
divide between clergy and laity before Christ, the only mediator. However, this
in no way eliminated the necessity of public offices in the church, as if
everyone were ordained by baptism to preach, teach, and administer the
sacraments. Anabaptist movements frequently took this further step, which
became especially pronounced in the Society of Friends (Quakers). Most
Anabaptists were pacifists rather than political revolutionaries; few were as
radical in their denunciation of all human learning and even Scripture (in
favor of direct revelations) as Thomas Müntzer or Luther’s one-time associate,
Andreas Carlstadt. Nevertheless, there was a general tendency among the various
groups (exhibited in the Schleitheim Confession) to (1) identify the true
church exclusively with regenerate believers, (2) emphasize personal holiness
(understood as complete separation from the world) rather than preaching and
sacrament, as the mark of the church, and (3) display a marked spirit-matter
dualism applied to the outward forms and ministry of the church as well as the
state.76
因此，主要的改教家和罗马天主教同样担忧，重洗派运动反映了一种多纳图式的教会论，即主张“圣洁教会”（只包括真正重生的人），而不是“混合体”。拒绝为信徒的子女施洗，代表着这种理想的顶峰；和罗马天主教会一样，信义宗以及改革宗教会在神学上反对这个拒绝，有些人（特别明显的是慈运理）甚至赞同执行古代的查士丁尼法典（Justinian code)，将重洗视为大罪。在基督教世界的处境中，教会作为混合体这个概念，在更正教，以及罗马天主教和东正教范围内都成了笑柄。不单信徒和他们的儿女，甚至所有公民都被视为至少是外在地属于基督的身体。当然，基督教世界的这个看法本身，也和启蒙运动一样，推动了教会的世俗化。对比之下，自由教会的教会论强调个人的重要性，特别是个人与世界分离的决定，而这世界也包括被他们判定为属于这败坏秩序的那些有形教会。
Consequently,
the magisterial Reformers shared the Roman Catholic concern that the Anabaptist
movements reflected a Donatist ecclesiology of the “pure church” (consisting
only of the truly regenerate) rather than a “mixed body.” The denial of the
baptism of believers’ children represented the culmination of this ideal, and
Lutheran and Reformed churches shared Rome’s theological opposition to this
denial, some (notably, Zwingli) even sharing its enforcement of the ancient
Justinian Code, which made rebaptism a capital offense. In the context of
Christendom, the concept of the church as a mixed body became a parody in Protestant
as well as Roman Catholic and Orthodox realms. Not only believers and their
children, but all citizens, were regarded as belonging at least outwardly to
the body of Christ. Surely this vision of Christendom itself contributed as
much to the secularization of the church as the Enlightenment. By contrast,
Free Church ecclesiologies have highlighted the importance of the individual
and especially of the decision of the individual to separate from the world,
including the visible churches that they judge to belong to this corrupt order.
有些人，比如重洗派和英国分离主义者，拒绝与当时存在的官方教会有任何联系，自认为他们的运动是为了重建原初的基督教；而其他人，比如后来的敬虔派和奋兴派团体，则把他们自己看作是在更大群体中的更新运动——为了更大范围的相交而作见证的“真教会”。正如路易•伯克富所看到的，荷兰阿米念派“基本上使教会成为一个有形的群体……”“另一方面，敬虔派表现出一种轻视有形教会的倾向，寻求建立只由信徒组成的教会，显示他们对良莠混杂的建制教会（established Church）的漠不关心，并寻求在非国教信徒的秘密聚会（conventicles）中得到造就。”这种说法并不大公平。毕竟，大部分敬虔派都没有和建制教会分离，而是创造了“教会中的教会”（ecclesiola in ecclesia）。不过，敬虔主义把秘密聚会的内部圈子视为塑造真门徒的地方，与教会的正式事奉形成对比，所以它倾向于排斥正式事奉的重要性。敬虔主义不改革教会，也不从教会中分离出来，而是忍受教会的外在形式，但将真正的基督徒团契和牧养放在其他地方。敬虔主义把真正的教会等同于教会中真正重生的人组成的核心部分，由此偏向于一种过度实现（overrealized）的末世论，似乎无形教会可以在终末成全之前变得完全可见一样。
Some,
like the Anabaptists and English Separatists, rejected all connection with
official churches then in existence, regarding their movements as a restoration
of original Christianity, while others, like some of the later pietist and
revivalist groups, considered themselves to be renewal movements within larger
bodies — the “true church” witnessing to the wider communion. The Dutch
Arminians, as Berkhof observed, “made the Church primarily a visible society….”77
“The Pietists, on the other hand, manifested a tendency to disregard the
visible Church, seeking a Church of believers only, showing themselves
indifferent to the institutional Church with its mixture of good and evil, and
seeking edification in conventicles.”78 This is not quite fair. After all, most
pietists did not separate from the established churches, but created a
church-within-a-church (ecclesiola in ecclesia). Nevertheless, by treating the
inner ring of the conventicle as the place where genuine discipleship occurs,
in contrast to the official ministry of the church, pietism tended to
marginalize the importance of that official ministry. Neither reforming the
church nor separating from it, pietism endured the outward forms while locating
genuine Christian fellowship and nurture elsewhere. By identifying the true
church with the nucleus within the church that could be recognized as truly
regenerate, pietism tended toward an overrealized eschatology, as if the
invisible church could become fully visible before the consummation.
康德的敬虔派遗产，可以在他将“纯正宗教”（也就是实践道德）和“教会信仰”（正式的事奉、信经和礼仪）的对比中识别出来——这样的对比仍然是显而易见的，因为只要调查一下西方人（特别是美国），就能看到西方人大部分委身于“灵性”，而不是“宗教”或正式的教会会籍。在启蒙运动之后，随着救赎被化约为道德启蒙，教会越来越多地被视为是众多人类机构当中的一个。浪漫主义运动是反抗理性主义的运动，寻求恢复生命中密契的方面；并且在浪漫主义的影响下，关于教会的观念（特别是受施莱马赫的影响）逐渐等同于共同体精神。对施莱马赫来说，教会几乎完全只有在密契性团契中才是可见的。在这条路线上，敬虔主义、循道主义、贵格会和类似的运动，他们都倾向于贬低公开性事奉和其职分的重要性，支持非正式的团契以及个体性实践。
Kant’s
pietistic heritage may be discerned in his contrast between “pure religion”
(i.e., practical morality) and “ecclesiastical faith” (the formal ministry,
creeds, and rituals) — a contrast that remains evident whenever surveys of
Westerners (especially Americans) reveal a high degree of commitment to
“spirituality” but not “religion” or formal church membership. In the wake of
the Enlightenment, with redemption reduced to moral enlightenment, the church
was increasingly regarded as one human institution among others. Reacting
against rationalism, the Romantic movement sought to recover the mystical
aspect of life, and under the influence of Romanticism the concept of the church
(especially under Schleiermacher) became identified with the spirit of the
community. The church is visible almost exclusively for Schleiermacher in its
mystical fellowship. All along the way, pietism, Methodism, the Quakers, and
similar movements tended to downplay the significance of the public ministry
and its offices in favor of informal fellowship and individual practices.
“教会中的小教会”这个概念反映在组建教会小组，德国敬虔派称之为“敬虔的学院”（collegia pietatis），而早期循道会则称之为“圣洁会”（holy clubs）。虽然它们通常接受他们所属教会的信经和信条，但这些团体为其成员制定了自己的标准，有更严谨的纪律和对内在生命的检视，并且它们逐渐成了他们的主要关注。最终，很多这些“小教会”（ecclesioiae）若不是脱离宗派，就是被驱逐，最终形成自己独立的宗派。在很大程度上，全球福音派庞大的超教会机构网络（parachurch network）代表着小教会（ecciesiola）对教会（ecciesia）的胜利，为这运动注入了相当多的活力和创造力以及一定程度边缘化的教会论。
This
concept of a church-within-the-church was reflected in the creation of small
groups, which German pietists referred to as “colleges of piety” (collegia
pietatis) and early Methodists called “holy clubs.” Although they usually
accepted the creeds and confession of their church, these groups drew up their
own standards for membership with a more rigorous discipline and examination of
the inner life, which became their central concern. Eventually, many of these
ecclesiolae either separated or were expelled and formed their own separate
denominations. To a large extent, the vast parachurch network of global
evangelicalism represents the triumph of the ecclesiola over the ecclesia,
infusing the movement with remarkable vitality and creativity as well as a
somewhat marginal
represents
the triumph of the ecclesiola over the ecclesia, infusing the movement with
remarkable vitality and creativity as well as a somewhat marginal ecclesiology.
在自由教会中，五旬宗特别强调“在圣灵大能中的教会”。不同的潮流塑造了福音派运动，但最决定性的塑造力量或许是自由教会和卫斯理—五旬宗传统。由于不强调一些形式上的标记，而是强调教会是重生的信徒所组成，福音派运动因此能相当大程度地包容相差甚远的宗派的成员，从而展开合作。与此同时，它也使得这个运动一定程度上如无根之木，容易受机构组织的世俗性模式和增长的影响。越来越多福音派人士看到一个危险的趋势，就是越来越不把教会视为圣徒的团契，而视为消费者的一个专门市场的观点的盛行。
Among
free churches, Pentecostalism especially emphasizes “the church in the power of
the Spirit.”79 While the evangelical movement is shaped by various streams, it
is perhaps more decisively shaped by the Free Church and Wesleyan-Pentecostal
traditions than any other. Its emphasis on the church as regenerate believers
rather than on formal marks has made evangelicalism remarkably open to
cooperation between members of disparate denominations. At the same time, it
has also made the movement somewhat rootless and susceptible to secular patterns
of organization and growth. A growing number of evangelicals recognize a
dangerous trend toward viewing the church less as a communion of saints than as
a niche market of consumers. Engaging all of these different ecclesiological
paradigms will be the goal of the following chapters.
[2] 天主教译为“超性”。——编者注
[3]
原文同时有单复数。——译者注
[4] 《教义宪章》（Lumen gentium），8。
[5] 《重新合一》（Unitatis redintegratio），3。