作者：邁克 霍頓（Michael S. Horton） 譯者/校對者: Maria Marta/駱鴻銘
如果撒但真的控制了一個城市，那麼這個城市會變成什麼樣子呢？在我們腦海中劃過的第一幕景像可能是大規模的混亂：暴力充斥、偏差的性行為、自動販賣機全面販售色情刊物、教會關閉，信徒被強拉到市政廳等等。在超過半個世紀之前，費城第十長老教會牧師唐納德（Donald Grey
Barnhouse），為CBS廣播節目的聽眾描繪了倘若撒但控制了美國的一個小鎮，所可能出現的另外一幅完全不同的景象：所有的酒吧和撞球房會被關閉；色情現象會被禁絕；整潔的街道上迎面而來的是面帶微笑、秩序井然的行人；沒有人罵臟話；孩子們有禮貌地回答：「是的，先生」；「不是的，老師」；教會禮拜天的聚會座無虛席……只是那裡不傳講基督。
What
would things look like if Satan actually took over a city? The first frames in
our imaginative slide show probably depict mayhem on a massive scale:
Widespread violence, deviant sexualities, pornography in every vending machine,
churches closed down and worshipers dragged off to City Hall. Over a
half-century ago, Donald Grey Barnhouse, pastor of Philadelphia's Tenth
Presbyterian Church, gave his CBS radio audience a different picture of what it
would look like if Satan took control of a town in America. He said that all of
the bars and pool halls would be closed, pornography banished, pristine streets
and sidewalks would be occupied by tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other.
There would be no swearing. The kids would answer "Yes, sir,"
"No, ma'am," and the churches would be full on Sunday ... where
Christ is not preached.
這不是危言聳聽，目前的現象看起來就像撒但已經在掌權。敵人正在以微妙的方式，甚至利用適當的布景和道具來遮掩主角（基督）。教會、使命、文化轉型，甚至聖靈，這些都可以成為人們關註的焦點，而不再是「專一註視耶穌，就是我們信心的創始者和完成者」（來十二2）的管道。儘管唐納德舉的例子仍然頗具有挑撥性，但它所闡釋的重點只是在整個救贖故事裡所已經說過的。聖經中所有的大字標題背後的故事，是一場關於蛇的後裔和女人的後裔之間的戰爭（創三15），是上帝所應許的，會在蛇（撒但）的滅亡以及咒詛的解除中會達到高潮的一種敵意。這應許是向撒但和牠的王國的宣戰，這場較量也在該隱和亞伯之間的第一場宗教戰爭（創四；連同太廿三35），以及導致出埃及和曠野試探的雅威（耶和華）與法老之間的戰鬥中展開了。即使在應許地上，蛇繼續引誘以色列去崇拜偶像，與異族通婚，甚至煽動王室家族的大屠殺。然而，上帝總是眷顧保守那將要打傷蛇頭的「女人的後裔」（例如，參見王下第十一章）。這個故事一直發展到希律王時期，希律王因害怕占星家（博士）關於以色列真正君王誕生的宣告，於是命令殺盡伯利恆城裡兩歲以下所有頭生的男孩。
Not
to be alarmist, but it looks a lot like Satan is in charge right now. The enemy
has a subtle way of using even the proper scenery and props to obscure the main
character. The church, mission, cultural transformation, even the Spirit can
become the focus instead of the means for "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the
author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2). As provocative as
Barnhouse's illustration remains, it is simply an elaboration of a point that
is made throughout the story of redemption. The story behind all the headlines
of the Bible is the war between the serpent and the offspring of the woman
(Gen. 3:15), an enmity that God promised would culminate in the serpent's
destruction and the lifting of the curse. This promise was a declaration of war
on Satan and his kingdom, and the contest unfolded in the first religious war,
between Cain and Abel (Gen. 4 with Matt. 23:35), in the battle between Pharaoh
and Yahweh that led to the exodus and the temptation in the wilderness. Even in
the land, the serpent seduces Israel to idolatry and intermarriage with
unbelievers, even provoking massacres of the royal family. Yet God always
preserved that "seed of the woman" who would crush the serpent's head
(see 2 Kings 11, for example). The story leads all the way to Herod's slaughter
of the firstborn children in fear of the Magi's announcement of the birth of
the true King of Israel.
福音書解開了這個故事情節，使徒書信闡述了這救贖故事的意義。所有的事都引導人來到各各他（髑髏地），而當門徒（甚至是彼得）試圖分散耶穌對救贖使命的註意力時，他們無意中就成了撒但的僕役（太十六23）。他們「被這世界的神弄瞎了心眼」，以致於他們不但藐視猶太教和基督信仰的價值觀，而且「不叫基督榮耀福音的光照著他們。基督本是上帝的像。我們原不是傳自己，乃是傳基督耶穌為主，並且自己因耶穌作你們的僕人。」（林後四4-5）。
The
Gospels unpack this story line and the epistles elaborate its significance.
Everything is leading to Golgotha, and when the disciples-even Peter-try to
distract Jesus away from that mission, they are being unwitting servants of
Satan (Matt. 16:23). "The god of this world has blinded the minds of
unbelievers"-not simply so that they will defy Judeo-Christian values, but
"to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God. For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus
Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor.
4:4-5).
撒但在耶穌受難日和復活節的戰役中失敗之後就改變了策略，以遊擊戰的方式來阻止世人聽聞那會拆毀牠黑暗國度的福音。在以弗所書第六章，保羅在論述天空屬靈氣的惡魔爭戰時，指導我們要穿起真理、公義、福音、信德、上帝的道等全副軍裝來抵擋敵人。在啟示錄第十二章，尾巴拖著天上三分之一的星辰的龍，等著吞吃快要生產婦人的孩子，只有那升在天上的、蒙應許的後裔才能打敗這條龍。不過，龍知道自己的時候不多了，就繼續追趕孩子的兄弟姐妹。基督在哪裡被真正傳講，那裡就是撒但最活躍的地區。國與國之間的戰爭、在家庭和社區之內的敵意，只不過是蛇尾巴留下的痕跡，牠利用反覆測試的同一詭計，試圖吞噬教會：不只是從教會之外而來的磨難，更是從教會裡興起的異端和分裂。在本文的其餘部分，我想列出幾個我們慣常受誘惑的方式，這些方式只能被稱為可悲的「沒有基督的基督教」。
Satan
lost the war on Good Friday and Easter, but has shifted his strategy to a
guerilla struggle to keep the world from hearing the gospel that dismantles his
kingdom of darkness. Paul speaks of this cosmic battle in Ephesians 6,
directing us to the external Word, the gospel, Christ and his righteousness,
faith, and salvation as our only armor in the assaults of the enemy. In
Revelation 12, the history of redemption is recapitulated in brief compass,
with the dragon sweeping a third of the stars (angels) from heaven, laying in
wait to devour the woman's child at birth, only to be defeated by the ascension
of the promised offspring. Nevertheless, knowing his time is short, he pursues
the child's brothers and sisters. Wherever Christ is truly proclaimed, Satan is
most actively present. The wars between nations and enmity within families and
neighborhoods is but the wake of the serpent's tail as he seeks to devour the
church, employing the same tried and tested methods: not only martyrdom from
without, but heresy and schism from within. In the rest of this article, I want
to suggest a few of the ways we are routinely tempted toward what can only be
called, tragically, "Christless Christianity."
否認：撒都該人Denial: The Sadducees
現代精神一直致力於把權威從人的外面（教會或聖經）轉移到人的裡面（理性或經驗）。康德說，值得他永遠信賴的一樣東西就是他的道德直覺。這種道德直覺所帶來的是這個不爭的事實：「我們頭上的燦爛星空，和我們內心的崇高道德法則。」浪漫主義者說，我們應該相信我們的內在經驗。事實上，刺激天使路西華以及亞當和夏娃叛逆的，不正是他們想要篡奪上帝寶座的慾望嗎？
The
modern spirit has been dedicated to shifting authority from the outside (the
church or the Bible) to the inside (reason or experience). Kant said the one
thing he could always trust was his moral intuition, which led to the
irrefutable fact of "the starry heavens above and the moral law
within." The Romantics said we should trust our inner experience. In fact,
was it not the desire to usurp God's throne that motivated the rebellion of
Lucifer as well as Adam and Eve?
每當我們通過查看自己的內心來決定什麼才是重要的事情的時候，我們往往會發明律法。有些人會提出異議說，「不是法律，而是愛」。然而，在聖經中，律法不過是要確定愛上帝和愛我們的鄰居是什麼意思而已。早在耶穌以這種方式對律法作出總結之前（太廿二39），律法是經由摩西的手傳下來的（利十九18、34），而保羅再次重申這點（羅十三8-10） 。我們是按上帝的形象被造的，毫無缺陷，完全有能力貫徹上帝使萬物降服於上帝愛的律法的道德旨意之下。墮落並沒有消除這種意義上的倫理目的，而是將我們的註意力轉向內心，以致於我們不是真正愛上帝和愛我們的鄰舍，而是以不義壓制真理。甚至，墮落的意思不是指人要變成無神論者，而是指人要成為迷信者：利用「上帝」、「靈性」和他們的鄰舍，來達到個人的目的。
Whenever
we determine what really matters by looking within ourselves, we always come up
with law. Some would object, "Not law, but love." However, in the
Bible, the Law simply nails down what it means to love God and our neighbor.
Long before Jesus summed up the Law in this way (Matt. 22:39), it was delivered
by the hand of Moses (Lev. 19:18, 34), and Paul reiterated the point (Rom.
13:8-10). We were created in the image of God, without fault, entirely capable
of carrying out God's moral will of making all of creation subservient to God's
law of love. The Fall did not eradicate this sense of moral purpose, but turned
us inward, so that instead of truly loving God and our neighbor, we suppressed
the truth in unrighteousness. The fall did not even mean that people became
atheists, but that they became superstitious: using "God" or
"spirituality" and their neighbors for their own ends.
當啟蒙運動哲學家承認道德是人類的共同分母時，他們是正確的。然而，他們卻從中得出結論，即任何從外面而來的----無論是神蹟的歷史記錄，還是救贖----對真正宗教的本質而言，都是最不重要的。「我們所需要的只是愛」和「我們所需要的只是法律」是完全相同的觀點。世界上所有宗教的核心（它們的內核），是責任、愛、或者道德和宗教經驗，而歷史的包裝（故事、神蹟宣稱、信仰、儀式）是外殼，是可以摒棄的。
The
Enlightenment philosophers were right when they recognized that morality is the
common denominator of humanity. Yet they concluded from this that whatever came
to us from the outside-the reports of historical miracles and redemption-was
the least essential to true religion. "All we need is love" and
"All we need is law" make exactly the same point. Duty, love, or
moral and religious experience lay at the heart of all the world's
religions-their insides-while the historical packaging (stories, miraculous
claims, creeds, rituals) are the outer shell that can be tossed away.
康德用「純粹宗教」和「教會信仰」的字眼將上述兩者作出區別。前者與我們的道德責任有關，後者是由以下內容構成的： 罪的教義、道成肉身、贖罪、稱義、童女生子、關於基督的特定歷史聲稱，以及教會實踐（如洗禮和聖餐）等等。例如，我們可以接受基督死和復活的故事，但條件是這些故事代表了某種普遍的道德真理（例如，為他人或某種原則獻身）。光從表面來看，它實際上是破壞了純粹道德的根基。如果你期待別人犧牲自己來拯救你，那麼你自己就不太可能完成屬於你自己那部分的責任。某種宗教異端處理罪的方法，是讓人把孩子扔進火山，以安撫神明，而基督教是說：「上帝愛世人，甚至將祂的獨生子賜給他們，叫一切信祂的，不至滅亡，反得永生。」（約三16）。然而，宗教一旦經過提煉，去除了這種「迷信」，所剩餘的殘留物就是純粹的道德，而這種道德至少會帶領我們建造一座通向天堂的高塔。相信你的內心；懷疑外部的一切。這就是啟蒙運動的教訓。
Kant
distinguished these in terms of pure religion and ecclesiastical faith. The
former has to do with our moral duty. The latter consists of doctrines of sin,
the incarnation and atonement, justification, supernatural rebirth, the
particular historical claims concerning Christ, as well as the official
practices of the church (such as baptism and the Supper). The story of the
death and resurrection of Christ, for example, could be accepted only to the
extent that it represented a universal moral truth (like self-sacrifice for
others or for one's principles). Taking it at face value actually undermined
pure morality. If you look to someone else's sacrifice to save you, then you
won't be as prone to fulfill your own duty yourself. One sect dealt with guilt
by throwing children into volcanoes to pacify the gods, while Christianity says
that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son ... "
(John 3:16). Yet once religion is refined of such "superstitions,"
the residue left over is a pure morality that will at last lead us to build a
tower reaching to the heavens. Trust your insides; doubt everything external to
you. That was the lesson of the Enlightenment.
當然，問題是我們有的是一位外在的上帝和一種外在的拯贖。我們裡面的一切才是問題的所在。然而，好消息是，與我們截然不同的上帝成為我們當中的一員，只是祂沒有屈服於我們自私的傲慢。祂成全了律法，擔當了審判，並且復活，為我們解決了罪的詛咒、死亡、和審判。此外，祂還差派祂的靈住在我們裡面，使我們由裡到外得到更新，直到有一天我們身體復活。當然，從某種意義來說，啟蒙運動是正確的，既然我們是按上帝的形象被造的，律法就在我們的本性裡面。福音是不可思議的好消息，必然是從外面來的。大家都知道黃金定律是「己所不欲，勿施於人」， 這定律本身不會招來殉道，它不需要見證人和使者。事實上，它並不需要道成肉身，更不用說是贖罪和復活了。
The
problem, of course, is that we have an outside God and an outside redemption.
Everything inside of us is the problem. The good news, however, is that the God
who is completely other than we are became one of us, yet without succumbing to
our selfish pride. He fulfilled the law, bore its judgment, and rose again as
our solution to the curse of sin, death, and condemnation. Furthermore, he sent
his Spirit to indwell us, making us new from the inside out, until one day our
very bodies are raised. In one sense, of course, the Enlightenment was right:
the law is in us by nature, since we are created in God's image. The gospel is
surprising, good news that has to come to us from the outside. Everyone knows
that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves: the
Golden Rule does not by itself provoke martyrdom. It does not need witnesses
and heralds. In fact, it did not require the incarnation, much less the
atonement and resurrection.
因此，毫不奇怪，世界會認為「我們所需要的只是愛」， 既然世界認為沒有基督也行，那麼我們也可以沒有教義。教義是各種宗教最明顯的分歧之處。教義使事情變得有趣----也使事情變得危險。如編劇家桃樂絲?塞耶斯（Dorothy Sayers）說，教義不是基督信仰中枯燥無味的部分，反而，「教義是戲劇」。耶穌不是革命者，因為祂說我們應該愛上帝和彼此相愛。摩西是最早說這句話的人，佛陀、孔子、和無數我們從來沒有聽說過的其他宗教領袖也這麼說。瑪丹娜、奧普拉、菲爾博士（Dr. Phil；譯按：美國電視上非常出名的心理醫師）、達賴喇嘛，甚或是許多基督教領袖都會告訴我們，宗教的要旨是讓我們彼此相愛。「上帝愛你」並不會挑起世人的反對。然而，當我們開始談論上帝的絕對權威、聖潔、忿怒、和公義、原罪，基督的代贖，不靠行為稱義、必須重生、悔改、洗禮、聖餐，和將來的審判等等教義時，房間內的氣氛會立刻轉變。如果後現代主義只是現代浪漫主義的復興（經驗主宰一切），那麼它根本就不算是後現代。
So
it's not surprising that the world would think that "all we need is
love," and we can do without the doctrine, since the world thinks it can
do without Christ. Doctrine is where the religions most obviously part ways.
Doctrine is where things get interesting-and dangerous. As the playwright
Dorothy Sayers said, doctrine isn't the dull part of Christianity, rather,
"The doctrine is the drama." Jesus was not revolutionary because he
said we should love God and each other. Moses said that first. So did Buddha,
Confucius, and countless other religious leaders we've never heard of. Madonna,
Oprah, Dr. Phil, the Dali Lama, and probably a lot of Christian leaders will
tell us that the point of religion is to get us to love each other. "God
loves you" doesn't stir the world's opposition. However, start talking
about God's absolute authority, holiness, wrath, and righteousness, original
sin, Christ's substitutionary atonement, justification apart from works, the
necessity of new birth, repentance, baptism, Communion, and the future
judgment, and the mood in the room changes considerably. If postmodernism is
simply a revival of modern romanticism (experience as sovereign), then it's not
very postmodern after all.
歷史學家經常指出，儘管敬虔主義（pietism）和理性主義有許多的差異，它們卻匯聚在一起，從而創造出啟蒙運動。「現代性」（modernity）的繼承人向人的內心張望，在人的身上尋找自主的（autonomous）理性或經驗，而不是向外，憑著信心和悔改，尋找一位會審判和拯救我們的上帝。現代新教自由派之父施萊爾馬赫（Friedrich
Schleiermacher），強調耶穌是道德存在的最高典範，如果我們也擁有耶穌的「上帝意識」，所有的人就可以擁有這種道德。因此，儘管基督信仰或許可以代表這個原則最純凈、最完整的實現，但是其他宗教則是以自己的方式，試圖把這種普遍宗教和道德經驗以語言來表達。我們只是說法不同，但是我們所經歷到的，卻是同樣的事實。儘管康德把宗教的本質放在「實踐理性」（道德責任）上，而施萊爾馬赫則把它放在宗教經驗上，但這兩種方式都會使「自我」成為衡量真理的標準，而救贖則是在我們裡面可找到的某些東西，即使它是以「基督在我心裡」的方式呈現的。新教自由派和福音佈道主義（Evangelicalism）之母的奮興主義（Revivalism），將「行為比信條重要」和「經驗比教義重要」的論點推展到了極致。
Historians
often point out that for all of their differences, pietism and rationalism
converged to create the Enlightenment. The heirs of modernity looked inward, to
autonomous reason or experience, rather than outward, in faith and repentance
toward a God who judges and saves. With Friedrich Schleiermacher, father of
modern Protestant liberalism, the emphasis fell on Jesus as the supreme example
of the kind of moral existence that we can all have if we share in his
"God-consciousness." So while Christianity may represent the purest
and fullest realization of this principle, other religions are in their own
ways attempts to put this universal religious and moral experience into words.
We just say things differently, but we areexperiencing the same reality. Where
Kant located the essence of religion in practical reason (moral duty),
Schleiermacher located it in religious experience, but either way the self is
made the measure of truth and redemption is something that we find within
ourselves, even if it is "Christ in my heart." Revivalism, which is
the mother of both Protestant liberalism and Evangelicalism, pressed the
"deeds over creeds" and "experience over doctrine" thesis
to its limits.
當然，這意味著，基督不是唯一的完全神、完全人，而是最具有神性的人。福音不是基督在歷史上、在我外面，為我而死，而是基督在我身上所留下的印象，在我裡面激起了高貴的情操，好讓我們經驗到同一種的上帝意識和愛。罪不是我需要被拯救而脫離的光景，而是只要有足夠的動機和教導，我就可以避免的行為。基督的死不是滿足了上帝公義忿怒的贖罪祭，而是促使我們悔改的上帝的愛的榜樣。因此，最主要的問題是，「耶穌會怎麼作？（What would Jesus
do?）」，而不是「耶穌成就了什麼？（What has Jesus
done?）」。內在優先於外在。
This
means, of course, that Christ is not the unique God-Man, but the most divinized
human being. The gospel is not what Christ did for me, outside of me, in
history, but the impression that he makes on me, the nobility that he stirs up
within me, to experience the same God-consciousness and love. Sin is not a
condition from which I need to be saved, but actions that I can keep from doing
with sufficient motivation and instruction. Christ's death is not an atoning
sacrifice that satisfies God's just wrath, but an example of God's love that
moves us to repentance. Hence, "What would Jesus do?" is the main
question, not "What has Jesus done?" The inside takes priority over
the outside.
分散註意力：法利賽人Distraction: The Pharisees
與撒都該人相反，法利賽人很嚴謹、一絲不茍。他們認為外在很重要，但必須通過律法的形式來進行。他們相信復活、最後審判、聖經歷史敘述的神蹟奇事的真實性，他們也如此渴望彌賽亞時代的到來，以致於希望每個人都能把自己的問題管理好（以等待彌賽亞君王的到來）。只有當上帝的子民在所有細節上服從律法（甚至猶太拉比所制定的許多規條是為了防範以色列人違反摩西的法規而設計的）， 彌賽亞才會尋訪以色列，並且在最後的審判中為以色列人辯護。
In
contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees were scrupulous. The outside mattered,
but in a legalistic way. They believed in the resurrection, the last judgment,
the truthfulness of the miracles reported in the Bible's historical narratives,
and were so eager for the messianic age that they wanted everybody to get their
house in order. Only when God's people obey the law in all of its details (even
the rabbinical rules designed to guard against violating the actual
prescriptions of Moses) would the Messiah visit Israel and vindicate his people
in the last judgment.
好，要求道德更新和國家公義，能算是錯誤嗎？但是法利賽人沒有把註意力集中在上帝國度真正的要點上。他們盼望有一位君王能推翻羅馬統治，重新建立摩西的神治政體，因此錯過了就在他們眼皮底下的彌賽亞國度和彌賽亞的真實身分。門徒本身的註意力也不集中，當他們臨近耶路撒冷，每當耶穌談到十字架時，他們經常轉換話題。他們在幻想著國王登基的日子，連同最後審判的結束，國度在一切榮耀中的終極完成。然而，耶穌知道唯一通向將來榮耀的道路是前面的十字架。法利賽人為了強調外表的公義和行為，他們也肯定從內心得拯救：通過道德上的努力。
Now
what could be wrong with a call to moral renewal and national righteousness?
But the Pharisees were distracted from the real point of the kingdom. Expecting
a king who would overthrow Roman rule and reestablish the Mosaic theocracy,
they missed the real identity of the Messiah and his kingdom under their noses.
The disciples themselves were also distracted, routinely changing the subject
whenever Jesus spoke of the cross as they neared Jerusalem. They were thinking
inauguration day, with the last judgment and the consummation of the kingdom in
all of its glory. Jesus knew, however, that the only route to glory down the
road was the cross up ahead. For all their emphasis on external righteousness
and behavior, they too affirmed salvation from inside: by moral effort.
在路加福音第十八章著名的比喻中，耶穌把法利賽人的假敬虔與祂的國度子民真正的信心和悔改拿來作對比：
Jesus
contrasts the false piety of the Pharisee with the genuine faith and repentance
of the citizen of his kingdom in his famous parable in Luke 18:
「有兩個人上聖殿去祈禱，一個是法利賽人，一個是稅吏。法利賽人站著，禱告給自己聽，這樣說：『上帝啊，我感謝你，我不像別人，勒索、不義、奸淫，也不像這個稅吏。我一個禮拜禁食兩次，我的一切收入都奉獻十分之一。』稅吏卻遠遠站著，連舉目望天也不敢，只捶著胸說：『上帝啊，可憐我這個罪人！』我告訴你們，這個人回家去，比那個倒算為義了。因為高擡自己的，必要降卑；自己謙卑的，必要升高。」（路 十八 10-14）
Two
men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax
collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus: 'God, I thank
you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like
this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.' But
the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was
beating his breast and saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you,
this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who
exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be
exalted. (vv. 9-14)
耶穌告訴法利賽人：「你們在人面前自稱為義，上帝卻知道你們的心；因為人所高舉的，上帝卻看作是可憎惡的。」（路十六15）基本上耶穌似乎忽略了撒都該人，因為他們可能認為彼此互不相幹，祂反覆警告說「要提防法利賽人的酵，就是虛偽。」（路十二1）
Jesus
told the Pharisees, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of
others, but God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an
abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15). While Jesus basically seems
to ignore the Sadducees, since they probably viewed each other as irrelevant,
he warns repeatedly of "the yeast of the Pharisees," which is
"their hypocrisy" (Luke 12:1).
在耶穌所講的比喻中，那個法利賽人甚至禱告，「上帝啊，我感謝你，我不像這個稅吏。」 唯一比他的假冒為善和自義更糟糕的是，他假裝分給上帝一點功勞。在頒獎典禮上，我們都目睹受獎人承認他們的成功離不開許多人的幫助。然而，遺產受益人卻完全不同，從起草遺囑的那一刻起，他就被視為敵人。沒有基督的基督教並不意味著缺乏「耶穌」、「基督」、「主」甚至是「救主」等語言的宗教或靈性經驗。而是意味著，名字和頭銜被使用的方式，在它們在人類悖逆和上帝救贖的歷史展開過程中，所佔有的具體位置是毫不相幹的，也和如洗禮和聖餐這樣的實踐是毫不相幹的。耶穌作為生命的教練、治療師、哥們、重要的人（另一半）、西方文明的創始人、政治性的彌賽亞、徹底的愛的榜樣，以及其他無數的圖像等等，這些名字和稱呼都可以讓我們分散註意力，離開這個跌人的石頭，和「耶穌基督和他釘十字架」的愚拙， 以致於我們不能一心一意地對主忠誠。
In
the parable that Jesus tells, the Pharisee even prayed, "I thank you that
I am not like this tax collector." The only thing worse than his hypocrisy
and self-righteousness was that he pretended to give God a little credit for
it. We have all witnessed awards ceremonies in which recipients acknowledged
the many people without whom such success could not have been possible. This is
quite different, however, from being a beneficiary of the estate of someone
who, at the very moment of drafting the bequest, was treated as an enemy.
Christless Christianity does not mean religion or spirituality devoid of the
words "Jesus," "Christ," "Lord," or even
"Savior." What it means is that the way the names and titles are
employed will be removed from their specific location in an unfolding
historical plot of human rebellion and divine rescue and from such practices as
baptism and Communion. Jesus as life coach, therapist, buddy, significant
other, founder of Western civilization, political messiah, example of radical
love, and countless other images can distract us from the stumbling block and
foolishness of "Christ and him crucified."
在魯益師（C. S. Lewis ）所著的《地獄來鴻》（The Screwtape Letters）一書中，大魔頭大榔頭（Screwtape）以問答形式誘導唆使受訓員小鬼魔蠹木（Wormwood），要阻止基督徒的註意力集中在這點上：基督是免去上帝忿怒的救贖主。大榔頭教唆蠹木，不要笨拙地直接攻擊基督同在的宣告，反而要想方設法讓教會對「基督教與......」感興趣：「基督教與戰爭」、「基督教與貧困」、「基督教與道德」等等。當然，魯益師並不是說基督徒不應該對這些緊迫的問題感興趣，反而，他所提出的觀點是，當教會的基本信息不看重基督是誰，以及祂已經一次而永遠地為我們作成了什麼，而更看重我們是誰，以及我們當做什麼，以證明祂的犧牲是正當的，這種被改頭換面以「切合時代需要」的宗教，就不再是真正的基督信仰了。
(Screwtape)
catechizing his minion (Wormwood) to keep the Christians distracted from Christ
as redeemer from God's wrath. Rather than clumsily announce his presence by
direct attacks, Wormwood should try to get the churches to become interested in
"Christianity and...": "Christianity and the War,"
"Christianity and Poverty," "Christianity and Morality,"
and so on. Of course, Lewis was not suggesting that Christians should not have
an interest in such pressing issues of the day, but he was making the point
that when the church's basic message is less about who Christ is and what he
has accomplished once and for all for us, and more about who we are and what we
have to do in order to justify all of that expense on his part, the religion
that is made "relevant" is no longer Christianity.
如果認為「基督被釘十字架」不如「基督和家庭價值觀」、「基督和美國」、「基督與世界饑餓」那麼切合時代需要，我們最終就會把福音同化為法律。我再次強調，法律本身沒有什麼不妥：法律的道德命令揭露我們道德上的失敗，法律是信徒學作基督門徒的指引。然而，如果把某人所作成的工作的好消息同化為我們自己行動的指導方針，就是個大災難。用伯撒（Theodore Beza）的話來說，「把律法與福音混為一談是所有正在敗壞或曾經敗壞教會的弊端的主要源頭」。當上帝的律法（而不是我們自己的內心情感）真的向我們說話，我們的第一個反應應該是，「上帝啊，開恩可憐我這個罪人」，而不是像年輕富有的官的回答，「這一切我從小都遵守了」（譯按：參可十20；路十八21）。In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis has the devil By
not thinking that "Christ crucified" is as relevant as "Christ
and Family Values" or "Christ and America" or "Christ and
World Hunger," we end up assimilating the gospel to law. Again, there is
nothing wrong with the law-the moral commands that expose our moral failure and
guide us as believers in the way of discipleship. However, assimilating the
good news of what someone else has done to a road map for our own action is
disastrous. In the words of Theodore Beza, "The confusion of law and
gospel is the principal source of all the abuses that corrupt or have ever
corrupted the church." When God's Law (and not our own inner sentiment)
actually addresses us, our first response should be, "God, be merciful to
me, a sinner," not the reply of the rich young ruler, "All this I
have done since my youth."
我們用「法利賽人」式的方法來歪曲基督的宣告的另一種方式，是通過有時被稱為「不明言的福音（the assumed gospel）」的方式。這種方式往往是我們轉眼離開基督的第一階段。即使基督被當作是對上帝公義憤怒的解答，對這點的強調卻被視為在基督徒的生命中可以被拋諸腦後的。我們認為人們是先「得救」，然後才成為「門徒」的。給罪人的福音是基督的死和復活；然而，給門徒的福音是「動手作」！但是這卻是在假設門徒並不是罪人。聖經沒有一句經文吩附我們要「活出福音」。根據定義，福音不是我們能夠活出來的。它只是我們能聽聞、能接受的消息。福音是好消息，而不是好建議。好消息是「但如今，上帝的義在律法以外已經顯明出來，有律法和先知為證：就是上帝的義，因信耶穌基督加給一切相信的人，並沒有分別。因為世人都犯了罪，虧缺了上帝的榮耀；如今卻蒙上帝的恩典，因基督耶穌的救贖，就白白的稱義。上帝設立耶穌作挽回祭，是憑著耶穌的血，藉著人的信，要顯明神的義；因為祂用忍耐的心寬容人先時所犯的罪」（羅三21-25）
Another
way we distort the proclamation of Christ in the "Pharasaic" mode is
by what has sometimes been called "the assumed gospel." This is often
the first stage of taking our eyes off of Christ. Even where Christ is regarded
as the answer to God's just wrath, this emphasis is regarded as a point that
can be left behind in the Christian life. The idea is that people "get
saved" and then "become disciples." The gospel for sinners is
Christ's death and resurrection; the gospel for disciples, however, is,
"Get busy!" But this assumes that disciples are not sinners, too.
There is not a single biblical verse that calls us to "live the
gospel." By definition, the gospel is not something that we can live. It
is only something that we can hear and receive. It is good news, not good
advice. The good news is that, "But now, apart from law, the righteousness
of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the Law and the prophets, the
righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe,"
since sinners "are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by
his blood, received through faith" (Rom. 3:21-25).
當福音----也就是，基督作為救主----被視為理所當然的時侯，我們就不再需要從我們的假冒為善和自我信靠、自愛中不斷地歸正。就像耶穌的比喻裡的法利賽人，我們感謝上帝說，我們不像別人，但是我們所信靠的其實是我們自己的「門徒身份」。法利賽人也是門徒，他們有他們的門徒。但是，只有在基督裡的門徒身份是基督的生命、死亡和復活的果子，而不是它對人類救贖所作出的貢獻。
When
the gospel-that is, Christ as Savior-is taken for granted, we are no longer
being constantly converted from our hypocrisy and self-trust to faith and love.
Like the Pharisee in Jesus' parable, we thank God that we are not like others,
but we are really trusting in our own "discipleship." The Pharisees
were disciples too, and they had their disciples. But only in Christ is
discipleship the consequence of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, rather
than its own contribution to human redemption.
耶穌自己說，「正如人子來，不是要受人的服事，乃是要服事人，並且要捨命，作多人的贖價」（太廿28）。當門徒責怪耶穌用談論十字架給門徒潑冷水時，耶穌說：「但我原是為這時候來的」（約十二27）。當腓力要求耶穌向他們顯明到天父那裡的路時，耶穌說祂就是道路（約十四8-14）。同樣，保羅告訴哥林多人，他立定主意不單是只傳耶穌基督，更是只傳「被釘十字架的基督」， 雖然這「在猶太人看來是絆腳石，在外邦人為愚拙」， 但它卻是唯一能拯救人的好消息（林前一18、22-30，二1-2）。換句話說，保羅知道（超級使徒們總是會提供具體的證據），傳道人可能使用耶穌的名，但卻是用在其他事情或其他人身上，而不是用在那位代替罪人犧牲的基督身上。
Jesus
himself said, "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and to
give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). When he was rebuked by his
disciples for raining on their parade by talking about the cross, Jesus said,
"It is for this reason that I have come to this hour" (John 12:27).
When Philip asked Jesus to show them the way to the Father, Jesus said that he
is the Way (John 14:8-14). Similarly, Paul told the Corinthians that he was not
only single-mindedly determined to preach Christ alone, but "Christ
crucified," although it is "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness
to Greeks," since it is the only good news capable of saving either (1
Cor. 1:18, 22-30; 2:1-2). In other words, Paul knew (the super-apostles were
always providing concrete evidence) that preachers could use the name of Jesus,
but as something or someone other than the vicarious sacrifice for sinners.
希臘人愛智慧，所以就向他們展示耶穌更聰明地解決了日常生活的難題，教會就會擠滿了支持者。猶太人喜愛神蹟奇事，所以就告訴他們，耶穌現在就能幫助他們活出美好的人生，或帶來榮耀的國度，或把羅馬人趕逐出去，並且在異教徒面前證明他們的純全，而耶穌就會被人帶上桂冠，獲得讚美。但宣講基督是獻上自己生命、又再度將它取回去的受苦僕人，大家就都會覺得奇怪，究竟是誰轉移了話題。
The
Greeks love wisdom, so show them a Jesus who is smarter at solving the
conundrums of daily living and the church will throng with supporters. Jews
love signs and wonders, so tell people that Jesus can help them have their best
life now, or bring in the kingdom of glory, or drive out the Romans and prove
their integrity before the pagans, and Jesus will be laureled with praise. But
proclaim Christ as the Suffering Servant who laid down his life and took it
back up again, and everybody wonders who changed the subject.
教會存在的目的是為了把「我們和我們的行為」這個主題，轉變為「上帝和祂的救贖作為」，把我們拯救世界的諸多「使命」轉變為基督已經完成的救贖使命。倘若教會宣講的信息，聽眾不需要歸信也能明白；如果它對那些作了一輩子的基督徒的人來說，從來是不痛不癢，不會偶爾冒犯他們，以致於他們也需要更多地向自己死、更多地向基督而活，那麼這信息就不是福音。當有人在談論基督，很多事情可能發生，但未必和祂的死亡、升高、掌權、和再來有關。但是當我們宣講基督的拯救職分，教會就成為死亡和復活的舞台，會帶來真正的見證、愛的、團契的、團體的和事奉的生命---然而這些生命仍需要得到赦免，因此總是需要再次回到關於基督的好消息。
The
church exists in order to change the subject from us and our deeds to God and
his deeds of salvation, from our various "missions" to save the world
to Christ's mission that has already accomplished redemption. If the message
that the church proclaims makes sense without conversion; if it does not offend
even lifelong believers from time to time, so that they too need to die more to
themselves and live more to Christ, then it is not the gospel. When Christ is
talked about, a lot of things can happen, none of which necessarily has
anything to do with his doing, dying, rising, reigning, and return. When Christ
is proclaimed in his saving office, the church becomes a theater of death and
resurrection, leading to genuine lives of witness, love, fellowship, community,
and service-yet always requiring forgiveness and therefore always coming back
to the good news concerning Christ.
今天，我們有很多這兩種傾向的實例：否認和分散註意力。一方面，有些人明確地拒絕新約聖經關於基督位格和工作的教導。耶穌只是另一種道德指引---也許是有史以來最好的---但祂不是神而人的救贖者。然而，福音派是以他們反對新教自由主義的立場而聞名的。另一方面，有許多在理論上肯定所有關於基督和救恩的正確觀點的人，似乎認為讓基督信仰真正切合時代需要、有趣、和具有革命性的，是一些別的事情。分散註意力的現象隨處可見。這並不意味著耶穌並不重要。祂的名字出現在無數的書籍、講道、T恤、咖啡杯、和廣告牌中。然而，耶穌的名字已變成陳腔濫調或者註冊商標，而不是唯獨我們能靠著得救的「萬名之上的名」。
Today,
we have abundant examples of both tendencies: denial and distraction. On one
hand, there are those who explicitly reject the New Testament teaching
concerning Christ's person and work. Jesus was another moral guide-maybe the
best ever-but not the divine-human redeemer. However, evangelicals are known
for their stand against Protestant liberalism. On the other hand, many who
affirm all the right views of Christ and salvation in theory seem to think that
what makes Christianity truly relevant, interesting, and revolutionary is
something else. Distractions abound. This does not mean that Jesus is not
important. His name appears in countless books and sermons, on T-shirts, coffee
mugs, and billboards. Yet it has become something like a cliché or trademark
instead of "the name that is above every name" by which alone we are
saved.
耶穌基督作為道成肉身的上帝，仁慈地救贖罪人，使罪人與上帝和好，早已不是當今大多數教會或基督教活動的主題了。當我們不再被提醒上帝是誰以及在人類歷史上，祂為被罪和死亡捆綁的世界所成就的工作，換句話說，當教義變得次要時，會發生什麼事呢？我們會回到我們的自然宗教裡：就是那一直存在我們心裡的，我們憑直覺所一直知道的：法律。「要行為，不要教義」（Deeds, not creeds） ，等於「要律法，不要福音」。雖然他們的理論差異很大，但自由派和福音派最終聽起來卻很像對方。福音派說他們相信基督，但結果是把基督降至為一個道德榜樣，徹底就像自由派一樣；福音派不是徹底否認基督，而是分散了註意力。本文的目的不是為了給現代基督徒貼上「撒都該人」和「法利賽人」的標籤，而是要指出，一個人可以不需要靠否認基督和福音，就可以變成沒有基督的基督教。事實上，人們可以訴諸基督，並且「讓耶穌成為中心」，然而在某種意義上卻是漂移回到「純宗教」（道德），並遠離「教會信仰」（教義）。
Jesus
Christ as the incarnate God in the merciful service of redeeming and reconciling
sinners is simply not the main theme in most churches or Christian events these
days. And what happens when we stop being reminded of who God is and what he
has achieved in human history for a world in bondage to sin and death-in other
words, when doctrine is made secondary? We fall back on our natural religion:
what happens inside, that which we always know intuitively: law. "Deeds,
not creeds" equals "Law, not gospel." For all their theoretical
differences, liberals and evangelicals end up sounding a lot like each other.
Evangelicals who say that they believe in Christ end up reducing Christ to a
moral example just as thoroughly as liberals, not by outright denial but by
distraction. The goal of this article is not to brand contemporary Christians "Sadducees"
and "Pharisees," but to point out that one doesn't have to deny
Christ and the gospel in order to end up with Christless Christianity. In fact,
one can appeal to Christ and "make Jesus the center" in a way that
drifts back toward "pure religion" (morality) and away from
"ecclesiastical faith" (doctrine).
今天， 在一個後基督信仰時代（post-Christian era），為了在一定程度上回應這種令人震驚的缺乏真正門徒的現象，許多新教徒，如候活士（Stanley Hauerwas）和麥拉倫（Brian McLaren）鼓勵我們找回重洗派（Anabaptist）的傳統，正如我所提到的，專註在耶穌作為道德榜樣上。在《耶穌關心的七件事》（A Generous
Orthodoxy）一書中，麥拉倫解釋說，「重洗派教徒首要地是把基督信仰看作是一種生活方式」，他是透過耶穌登山寶訓的鏡頭來詮釋保羅，而不是倒過來。他強調的重點是門徒訓練，而不是教義，仿彿跟隨耶穌的榜樣和跟隨祂的教導是互相對立的。當登山寶訓被同化為一般性的道德倫理的愛（即純道德），而教義（教會信仰）被當成次要，會出現怎樣的後果呢？
Today,
partly in response to the appalling lack of genuine discipleship in a
post-Christian era, many Protestants like Stanley Hauerwas and Brian McLaren
encourage us to recover the Anabaptist legacy, which, as I mentioned, focused
on Jesus as moral example. In A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren explains,
"Anabaptists see the Christian faith primarily as a way of life,"
interpreting Paul through the lens of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount rather than
vice versa. The emphasis falls on discipleship rather than on doctrine, as if
following Jesus' example could be set against following his teaching. What
happens when the Sermon on the Mount is assimilated to a general ethic of love
(i.e., pure morality), and doctrine (ecclesiastical faith) is made secondary?
基督自己就變成僅僅是一位幫助人們成為更好的非基督徒的榜樣。事實上麥拉倫寫到，「我必須補充，雖然我不相信塑造門徒必須等同於塑造持守基督信仰的人。在很多（不是全部！）情況下這可能是明智的，就是幫助人們成為耶穌的跟隨者，但卻保留自己的佛教、印度教、猶太教背景。」「我並不盼望所有的猶太教徒或印度教徒會成為基督教的成員，但我很希望所有那些感受到如此呼召的人，會成為耶穌的猶太教跟隨者或耶穌的印度教跟隨者。」這樣，關於自由派新教徒，麥拉倫可以如此這樣評論就是不足為奇的了：「我讚賞他們渴望活出神蹟奇事的真正意義，儘管他們不相信聖經所寫下的故事。」畢竟，重要的是行動，而不是信條。麥拉倫似乎表明，無論是否明確信靠基督（教會信仰），都可以跟隨耶穌（純宗教）。
Christ
himself becomes a mere example to help people become better non-Christians. In
fact, McLaren writes, "I must add, though, that I don't believe making
disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be
advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of
Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts."
"I don't hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian
religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu
followers of Jesus." It is no wonder, then, that McLaren can say
concerning liberal Protestants, "I applaud their desire to live out the
meaning of the miracle stores even when they don't believe the stories really
happened as written." After all, it's deeds, not creeds that matter.
McLaren seems to suggest that following Jesus (pure religion) can exist with or
without explicit faith in Christ (ecclesiastical faith).
當然，就後現代而言，所有這些沒有什麼特別。這只不過是啟蒙運動的遺產，也受惠於它之前的道德主義。如果跟隨耶穌愛的榜樣是福音（不必管祂的獨特宣稱，引發爭議的言語，審判的警告），那麼，比起我們許多認信的基督徒，當然會有很多行為更好的佛教和自由派「基督徒」。正如奧斯特萊克（Mark Oestriecher），另一位新興教會（Emergent church）作家的敘述：「我的佛教徒表妹，除了她不幸不能接受耶穌之外，她是一個比幾乎我所認識的基督徒更好的『基督徒』（根據耶穌描述什麼是基督徒）。如果我們使用馬太福音第二十六章作為標準，她是一隻綿羊，而幾乎每一個我所我認識的基督徒都是山羊。」 然而，到了末了，「徹底的門徒」也會被筋疲力盡，並且明白到他們就像我們其他人一樣是假冒為善，虧缺了上帝的榮耀，需要在他們以外的人，不僅向他們展現得救的方法，而且展現祂自己就是那唯一的得救方法。雖然麥拉倫本人並不否認信條上所承認的基督，但是他認為關於耶穌基督最重要的的事情，是祂要人作祂的門徒的呼召。這個作門徒的呼召，會讓我們能夠參與到祂的救贖工作當中，而這個救贖工作並不是祂唯一的、無法重覆的、在兩千年前就已經為罪人所完成的工作。
There
is nothing especially postmodern about any of this, of course. It is simply the
legacy of the Enlightenment and its moralistic antecedents. If following Jesus'
example of love (never mind his exclusive claims, divisive rhetoric, and
warning of judgment) is the gospel, then, of course there will be many
Buddhists and liberals who are better "Christians" than many of us
who profess faith in Christ. As Mark Oestriecher, another Emergent church
writer, relates, "My Buddhist cousin, except for her unfortunate inability
to embrace Jesus, is a better 'Christian' (based on Jesus' description of what
a Christian does) than almost every Christian I know. If we were using Matthew
26 as a guide, she'd be a sheep; and almost every Christian I know personally
would be a goat." Yet at the end of the day, "radical disciples"
will burn out, too, and realize that they, like the rest of us, are hypocrites
who fall short of God's glory and need someone outside of them not only to show
the way but to be the way of redemption. Although McLaren himself does not deny
the Christ confessed in the creeds, he believes that what is most important
about Jesus Christ is his call to discipleship, which allows us to participate
in his redeeming work, rather than his unique, unrepeatable, completed work for
sinners two thousand years ago.
在聖克魯斯聖經教會（Santa Cruz Bible Church）的牧師丹?金博爾（Dan Kimball）所著的《新興教會》（The Emerging Church）一書中，作者宣佈新興教會運動的目標：「回到原始復古形式的基督教，面無愧色地專註在耶穌門徒的國度生活上。」 如果容許我們從新約聖經中挑選任何我們喜歡的內容（再次強調，這算不上是後現代主義的獨特傾向----托馬斯?傑斐遜[Thomas Jefferson]有他自己編輯的新約聖經，即道德式的愛的耶穌，減去「教會信仰」的基督），我們所挑選的內容總是傾向自己、自己的內心經驗或道德，而遠離上帝：在福音裡所宣告的法律和救贖的外在權威。新興教會的基督徒以非凡的洞察力認識到福音派消費主義的假冒為善，他們對於在《辛普森一家》（The Simpson；譯按：美國一部非常著名的卡通動畫喜劇）成員富蘭德（Ned Flanders）身上所發現到的基督徒形象，也許也有適當的反彈，然而，他們忘記了新興運動之前的「耶穌運動」，這運動結果是演變為他們認為有缺陷的巨型教會運動。
In
his book, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations, Dan
Kimball, pastor of Santa Cruz Bible Church, announces the goal of the emerging
church movement: "Going back to a raw form of vintage Christianity, which
unapologetically focuses on kingdom living by disciples of Jesus." If we are
allowed to pick and choose whatever we like from the New Testament (again,
hardly a uniquely postmodern trend-Thomas Jefferson had his own edited version,
the moral Jesus of love minus the Christ of "ecclesiastical faith"),
we will always gravitate toward ourselves and our own inner experience or
morality, away from God: the external authority of his law and redemption
announced in his gospel. Emergent Christians recognize the hypocrisy of
evangelical consumerism with remarkable insight, and properly recoil at the
images of Christians one finds in The Simpsons' character Ned Flanders.
However, they forget that before Emergent there was the "Jesus
Movement" that turned into the megachurch movement that they recognize as
deficient.
就他們所有的回應來說，「後現代福音派」的新興教會人士，似乎是在跟隨他們奮興運動前輩的老路線，把教會看作是宣揚自己而不是宣揚基督的社會道德改良者。像許多新興教會的領袖（與我在福音派教會成長下的牧師經驗是一脈相承的），金博爾（Kimball）援引聖方濟（Francis of Assisi's）的名句：「無論何時都要傳福音，只有在必要時才用話語來傳」。「我們的生活比起任何我們所說的話，都能更好地宣講福音。」 然而，這不正意味著宣揚我們自己，而不是宣揚基督嗎？我們所傳講的福音之所以是好消息，是因為這不是關於我們作門徒的故事，而是關於基督為我們所作的順服、死亡、和復活的事實。好消息不是「查看我的生活」或者「查看我們的群體」，而是宣告上帝在基督裡稱罪人為義。
For
all of their reactions, the "post-evangelical" emerging folks seem to
follow the well-worn path of their revivalist forebears in seeing the church
primarily as a society of moral transformers who preach themselves rather than
Christ. Like many emerging church leaders (in continuity with my evangelical
pastors growing up), Kimball invokes Francis of Assisi's famous line:
"Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." "Our
lives will preach better than anything we can say." But doesn't this mean
to preach ourselves rather than Christ? The gospel that we preach is good news
because it is not the story of our discipleship, but of Christ's obedience,
death, and resurrection in our place. The good news is not, "Look at my
life" or "look at our community"; it is the announcement that in
Christ God justifies the wicked.
是的，假冒為善是存在的，且因為基督徒無論何時都既是聖徒又是罪人，因此在每個基督徒裡面、在每間教會裡面，都總是會有假冒為善。好消息是，基督也拯救我們脫離假冒為善。但是，當教會的宣傳材料指向自己和我們「生活的改變」時，特別容易產生假冒為善。我們談論自己越多，世界就越有機會指控我們是假冒為善。我們越認自己的罪、領受赦免，並把這好消息傳遞給他人，我們的生活將會有更大、更真實的改變。我無意冒犯尊敬的聖弗朗西斯（St. Francis），但福音是只能被告知（即要靠話語）的、只能被宣告的故事。在這個大故事之內講我們生命的改變，而不是倒過來，罪人才真正能得到救贖，並走向世界的宣教使命。
Yes,
there is hypocrisy, and because Christians will always be simultaneously saint
and sinner, there will always be hypocrisy in every Christian and in every
church. The good news is that Christ saves us from hypocrisy, too. But
hypocrisy is especially generated when the church points to itself and to our
own "changed lives" in its promotional materials. The more we talk
about ourselves, the more occasion the world will have to charge us with
hypocrisy. The more we confess our sins and receive forgiveness, and pass this
good news on to others, the more our lives will be authentically changed in the
bargain. With all due respect to St. Francis, the gospel is only something that
can be told (i.e., words), a story that can be declared. When our lives are
told within that larger story, rather than vice versa, there is genuine
salvation for sinners and mission to the world.
金博爾寫道，「門徒的終極目標......應該由耶穌在馬太福音第二十二章37至40節的教導來檢驗：『你要盡心、盡性、盡意愛主你的神。』 我們都愛祂更多嗎？我們都愛人如己，愛人更多嗎？」 這不是革命性的、新的信息；這是倫理要求的宣講，是我們很多成長在福音派的人，總是會聽到的宣講。
Kimball
writes that the "ultimate goal of discipleship ... should be measured by
what Jesus taught in Matthew 22:37-40: 'Love the Lord with all your heart,
mind, and soul.' Are we loving him more? Love others as yourself. Are we loving
people more?" This is not a revolutionary, new message; it is the
imperative preaching that many of us have always heard growing up in Evangelicalism.
就其所有對巨形教會運動的精闢批判來說，華理克（Rick Warren）所號召「要行為，不要教義」的新興教會信息究竟有多大的不同呢？這些聲音提醒我們法律的要求是什麼（這方面的提醒是正確的），以及耶穌在祂的教導和榜樣中，展示了愛對我們最深的要求。但是，如果這是好消息，那我們就都有麻煩了。當我在我的聖潔中成長----更愛上帝、更愛鄰舍----我實際上會更意識到我的虧欠。因此，在心情好的時候，我可能會以審慎樂觀態度回答金博爾的問題，心情不好的時候我可能會絕望。但福音是我在任何日子裡都需要的好消息，它會引領我遠離自己，來到基督面前，「祂是愛我，為我捨己」（加二20）。
For
all of its incisive critiques of the megachurch movement, how different is the
Emergent message from Rick Warren's call to "Deeds, Not Creeds"?
These voices are right to remind us of what the law requires, and how Jesus in
both his teaching and example exhibited the deepest demands that love places
upon us. But if this is the good news, then we are all in trouble. As I grow in
my holiness-realized in greater love for God and neighbor-I am actually more
aware of how far I fall short. Therefore, on good days, I might answer
Kimball's question with cautious optimism, on other days it might lead me to
despair. But the gospel is the good news that I need on any day, leading me
away from myself to Christ "who loved me and gave himself for me"
(Gal. 2:20).
許多保守的福音派人士和新興的「後福音派人士」展示出他們美國奮興傳統的共同遺產，即朋霍費爾（Dietrich Bonhoeffer）所描述的「不含宗教改革的新教」。最近一期時代周刊報導教宗本篤（Pope Benedict）與伊斯蘭的重大關係，保守的天主教學者邁克?諾瓦克（Michael Novak）關於羅馬教皇的評論被人引述，「他的角色是代表西方文明」。 有很多福音派領袖似乎認為這也是他們的工作。教會的使命是為民主而趕走羅馬（即民主黨），並且使世界變得更安全。新興運動的政治手段是不同的：他們寧左勿右。對於許多在宗教右翼「美國基督教」的大肆宣傳下成長的人，這似乎是一個重大轉變，但它只是改換政黨，而不是從道德主義到福音使命更深度的轉移。新興教學的社會哲學也是不同的：在點著蠟燭的黑暗房間裡的星巴克和電子吉它，而不是在明亮光彩的影院內的沃爾瑪超市（Wal-Mart）和讚美樂隊。然而，在這兩種情況下，道德主義繼續把「被釘十字架的基督」推擠到邊緣的地位。
Many
conservative evangelicals and emerging "post-evangelicals" display
their common heritage in an American revivalist tradition that Dietrich
Bonhoeffer described as "Protestantism without the Reformation." In a
recent issue of TIME on Pope Benedict's critical relationship with Islam,
conservative Catholic scholar Michael Novak was quoted as saying concerning the
pontiff, "His role is to represent Western civilization." There are a
lot of evangelical leaders who seem to think that this is their job, too. The
mission of the church is to drive out the Romans (i.e., Democrats) and make the
world safe for democracy. The Emergent movement's politics are different: they
lean left rather than right. For many reared on the "Christian
America" hype of the religious right, this may seem like a major shift,
but it's just a change in parties rather than a deeper shift from moralism to
evangelical mission. The Emergent sociology is different, too: Starbucks and
acoustic guitars in dark rooms with candles rather than Wal-Mart and praise
bands in bright-lighted theaters. Yet in either case, moralism continues to
push "Christ crucified" to the margins.
我們徹底分心了，向右，向左，向中間， 完全迷失了方向。在福音派教會長大的孩子，對基督信仰的基本知識，和不上教會的青年一樣薄弱。他們越來越多地住在一個越來越少地由福音所塑造的教會世界裡——這個教會世界本來是由以基督為中心的教理問答、講道和聖餐（耶穌所設立的塑造門徒的管道）所建構的。他們所唱的歌曲大多是感性的，而不是為了「讓基督的道豐豐富富地住在你們心裡」（西三16）， 而他們的個人靈修比起過去的幾代人，較少被整個教會群體的禱告和讀經的成果所塑造。沒有必要在文件上作出改變：他們仍然可以作「保守福音派人士」，但這個稱謂已經無關緊要了，因為教義已經不重要了，也就是意味著信仰也是不重要的。如今，最重要的是行為，所以，開始行動吧！
We
are totally distracted, on the right, left, and in the middle. Children growing
up in evangelical churches know as little as unchurched youth about the basics
of the Christian faith. They increasingly inhabit a church world that is less
and less shaped by the gospel through Christ-centered catechesis, preaching and
sacrament (the means that Jesus instituted for making disciples). The songs
they sing are mostly emotive, rather than serving to make "the Word of
Christ dwell in [them] richly" (Col. 3:16), and their private devotions
are less shaped by the practices of corporate prayer and Scripture reading than
in past generations. Nothing has to change on paper: they can still be
"conservative evangelicals," but it just doesn't matter because
doctrine doesn't matter-which means faith doesn't matter. It's works that
counts now, so get busy!
所以，如今人們蒙召要成為「好消息」，通過「與人建立關係」來生活，並且活得「很真誠」，好讓基督的宣教使命可以得到成功。新約宣告的是改變生命的福音，而現在的「福音」則是我們已經改變的生命。「我們原不是傳自己，乃是傳基督耶穌為主」（林後四5），已經被一種不斷訴諸我們個人和集體的聖潔，把這些當作主要招徠的做法所取代了。教會行銷大師喬治?巴納（George Barna）鼓勵我們以我們的性格為基礎，去接觸未上教會的人：「他們正在尋找的是更好的生活。你能帶他們到會提供美好生活的基礎材料的某個地方或某一群人那裡嗎? 不要對人說基督教是一套的規矩，而要告訴人說基督徒是與藉著榜樣來帶領我們的那位（耶穌基督）建立關係的宗教。然後尋求已經被證實為有效的方法來獲得意義和成功。」我不是暗示我們不應該跟隨基督的榜樣，或教會不應該有榜樣和導師。我的主張是，門徒訓練是教導別人，並且訓練好他們，以致於即使我們作為榜樣會畏縮不前、蹣跚踉蹌時，他們自己成熟的門徒身份也不會失敗，因為其根基是建立在基督這個基礎上，而不是建立在我們身上。
So
now people are called to be the "good news," to make Christ's mission
successful by living "relationally" and "authentically."
Where the New Testament announces a gospel that changes lives, now the
"gospel" is our changed life. "We preach not ourselves but
Christ" (2 Cor. 4:5) has been exchanged for a constant appeal to our
personal and collective holiness as the main attraction. Church marketing guru
George Barna encourages us to reach out to the unchurched on the basis of our
character: "What they are looking for is a better life. Can you lead them
to a place or to a group of people that will deliver the building blocks of a
better life? Do not propose Christianity as a system of rules but as a
relationship with the One who leads by way of example. Then seek proven ways to
achieve meaning and success." I am not at all implying that we shouldn't
follow Christ's example or that the church shouldn't have models and mentors.
What I am suggesting is that discipleship is teaching others, and teaching them
so well that even when we falter as role models, the maturity of their own
discipleship will not fail because it is grounded in Christ and not in us.
無論我們如何吹噓我們相信基督的位格和工作，倘若我們不經常沐浴在基督的位格和工作裡，最終將導致如理查德?尼布爾（H. Richard Niebuhr）所描述的新教自由派：「一位沒有忿怒的上帝藉著沒有十字架的基督，把無罪的人遷入沒有審判的國度裡」。根據北卡羅萊納大學（University of North
Carolina）的基督徒社會學家史密斯（Christian Smith）的研究，美國青少年實際的宗教信仰----無論是福音派或自由派、教會或非教會----都是「道德主義式的、有療癒作用的自然神論（moralistic, therapeutic deism）」。而根據許多大型教會和新興教會的說法，他們對這個問題的解答是「多做一些；要真誠，活得更透明。」難道這就是會改變世界的好消息？
No
matter what we say we believe about Christ's person and work, if we aren't
constantly bathed in it, the end result will lead to H. Richard Niebuhr's
description of Protestant liberalism: "A God without wrath brought men
without sin into a kingdom without judgment through a Christ without a
cross." According to University of North Carolina sociologist Christian
Smith, the working religion of America's teens-whether evangelical or liberal,
churched or unchurched-is "moralistic, therapeutic deism." And the
answer to that, according to many megachurches and emerging churches is
"do more; be more authentic; live more transparently." This is the
good news that will change the world?
以下的脈絡會助長沒有基督的基督教：要麼講道是關於永恆教義和道德規範的演說，要麼是基督在所有的字義研究和應用當中消失了。當教會用教會活動、自我表達、「崇拜經歷」的騙人花招和節目，取代了一般聽道的職事，不再用基督賜給我們的恩典管道來領受基督時，基督便在教會中消失了。當基督被推銷為一切問題的答案，而不是我們的審判、死亡和罪惡的答案，或者基督是達到以下這些目的的手段：更多的興奮、更多的娛樂、更好的生活，或者更美好的世界（就好像在上帝透過律法與福音向我們說話之前，我們已經知道這些將是什麼樣子），這時侯，基督便失去蹤影了。
Christless
Christianity can be promoted in contexts where either the sermon is a lecture
on timeless doctrine and ethics or Christ gets lost in all the word studies and
applications. Christ gets lost in churches where activity, self-expression, the
hype of "worship experiences" and programs replace the ordinary
ministry of hearing and receiving Christ as he is given to us in the means of
grace. Christ gets lost when he is promoted as the answer to everything but our
condemnation, death, and the tyranny of sin, or as the means to the end of more
excitement, amusement, better living, or a better world-as if we already knew
what these would look like before God addressed us in his law and gospel.
回到唐納德（Donald Grey Barnhouse）的說明。當然，撒但喜歡戰爭、暴力、不公平、貧窮、疾病、壓迫、不道德，和人類罪惡的其他展示。當然，無論何時只要人奉主耶穌基督的名供應一杯冷水給口渴的人，牠都不會高興。然而，牠花大部分時間暗中謀劃的事情是讓基督不再成為教會認知的焦點、事奉、和教會使命的中心。牠的主要策略是使非信徒心盲眼瞎，以及使信徒分心。只有當我們認識到下面的兩個事實，真正的重生才會到來：(1) 教會總是被分散註意力的事所吸引，而我們總是必須重新回到基督面前；(2) 總是只差一代人，教會就會變成不是這樣的地方——事實上是唯一的地方——手指所指的方向是離開我們，指向基督，就是那「神的羊羔，是除去世人的罪孽的！」（約一29）。
Back
to Barnhouse's illustration. Of course, Satan loves war, violence, injustice,
poverty, disease, oppression, immorality, and other displays of human
sinfulness. And of course he is displeased whenever a cup of cold water is
offered to a thirsty man in Christ's name. However, what he spends most of his
time plotting is the displacement of Christ from the focal awareness, ministry,
and mission of the church. Keeping unbelievers blind and believers distracted
is his main strategy. Genuine renewal only comes when we realize that the
church is always drawn to distractions and must always be redirected to Christ,
always one generation away from becoming something other than the place in the
world-the only place, in fact-where the finger points away from us to Christ,
"the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
註腳：
1 The quotations from Brian McLaren are taken
from his work, A Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, 2004) pp. 61, 206, 214, 260,
264. The quotation from Mark Oestreicher is found in Dan Kimball's The Emerging
Church: Vintage Christianity for a New Generation (Zondervan, 2003), p. 53. The
direct quotation from Kimball is from the same book, p. 26. The quotation from
Francis of Assisi is taken from pp. 185 and 194 of Kimball's work. The TIME
magazine article on Pope Benedict is from the November 27, 2006, issue, p. 46.
George Barna's quotation is from his book Grow Your Church from the Outside In
(Ventura: Regal, 2002), p. 161..
本文原刊於Modern Reformation雜誌： May/June 2007 Vol. 16 No. 3 Page number(s): 10-16
