作者：Michael S. Horton 译者/校对者: 大迪/诚之
庆祝宗教改革500周年的喧闹依旧甚嚣尘上。去年（2016年），普世教会联合大会主席、瑞士牧师克里斯提娜.奥德奥（Chiristina Aus der Au）在柏林的一份声明中提到的问题：“宗教改革意味着勇敢的去破旧立新”。没错，这就是宗教改革的所发生的事：当时的平信徒和主教因信仰而遭受火刑，并且由于西方教会的分裂，导致人们变得厌倦了一成不变的旧习俗，并开始寻找非传统的信仰和生活方式。这和如今的我们并无二致！
Perhaps
the most evident example of missing the point is the statement last year in
Berlin by Christina Aus der Au, Swiss pastor and president of an ecumenical
church convention: “Reformation means courageously seeking what is new and
turning away from old, familiar customs.”
Right, that’s what the Reformation was all about: average laypeople and
archbishops gave their bodies to be burned and the Western church was divided,
because people became tired of the same old thing and were looking for
nontraditional beliefs and ways of living—just like us!
在华尔街日报的皮尤研究中心的一份报告中显示：百分之五十三的美国新教教徒对马丁路德是宗教改革的发起人这事一无所知。奇怪的是，犹太人，无神论者，和摩门教徒却更熟悉路德。事实上，“只有不足十分之三的白人福音派基督徒能够因相信Sola fide的教义（即因信称义）而被认定为新教教徒。”
The
Wall Street Journal reports a Pew study in which 53 percent of US Protestants
couldn’t identify Martin Luther as the one who started the Reformation.
(“Oddly, Jews, atheists, and Mormons were more familiar with Luther.”) In fact,
“Fewer than 3 in 10 white evangelicals correctly identified Protestantism as
the faith that believes in the doctrine of sola fide, or justification by faith
alone.”1
今天许多自称是宗教改革继承者的人士，反而更像是当年激进的重洗派（Anabaptists）的后裔。事实上，我想用一个古怪的建言来做一个测试：我们是否可以把现代社会理解为，至少在某程度上说成是激进派的胜利？这听起来几乎毫无根据；毕竟，重洗派是那个时代最受迫害的一个群体——不仅受到来自教皇的迫害，还受到信奉路德宗和改革宗的地方官员地迫害。此外，今天的重洗派是和平主义者，他们通常避免与外界交往，他们也不像托马斯·闵采尔（Thomas Müntzer）那样的革命煽动者去组织暴乱并试图建立末世的共产主义乌托邦（革命者则扮演救世主式的统治者角色）。
Many
today who claim the Reformation as their heritage are more likely heirs of the
Radical Anabaptists. In fact, I want to test the waters with an outlandish
suggestion: Our modern world can be understood at least in part as the triumph
of the Radicals. At first, this seems a nonstarter; after all, the Anabaptists
were the most persecuted group of the era—persecuted not only by the pope, but
also by Lutheran and Reformed magistrates. Furthermore, today’s Anabaptists are
pacifists who generally eschew mingling with outsiders, rather than
revolutionary firebrands such as Thomas Müntzer, who led insurrections in the
attempt to establish end-time communist utopias (with themselves as messianic
rulers).
我指的并不是在宾夕法尼亚州农村的阿米什（Amish）社区。事实上，我并没有想到具体的一个对象，比如亚米念浸信会等等。我更多思考的是关于激进的重洗派，尤其是早期的那一批人，他们更像是爆发于中世纪晚期的一股神秘主义革命，而不是宗教改革的一个分支。我心里想到的是一种追求“内在之光”的、乌托邦式的、革命性的、类似诺斯底主义的宗教，它影响了基督教世界的所有分支。宗教改革人士视这种虔诚为“狂热主义”，但它却像迷雾一般渗透到了我们的一切传统信仰当中。
I’m
not talking about Amish communities in rural Pennsylvania. In fact, I don’t
have in mind specific offshoots, like Arminian Baptists, as such. I’m thinking
more of the Radical Anabaptists, especially the early ones, who were more an
eruption of late medieval revolutionary mysticism than an offshoot of the
Reformation. I have in mind a utopian, revolutionary, quasi-Gnostic religion of
the “inner light” that came eventually to influence all branches of
Christendom. It’s the sort of piety that the Reformers referred to as
“enthusiasm.” But it has seeped like a fog into all of our traditions.
值得注意的是，早期的重洗派与通常被称为正统的宗教改革有着千丝万缕的关系。重洗派的主要领袖是路德和慈运理的学生，但他们自己的神学课程的设置方式，是以一种中世纪后期的神秘主义的激进形式，特别是梅斯特·埃克哈特（Meister Eckhart，德国神秘主义神学家）和德国神学。这种带有泛神论倾向的神学体系，更接近古代的诺斯底主义，而不是主流的基督教教义；这既不是罗马天主教的教义，也不是宗教改革运动的教义。他们也受到了十二世纪的神秘主义“先知”，菲里奥的约阿希姆（Joachim of Fiore）的影响。他对《启示录》的注释中把历史分为三个时代：父上帝的时代，是与律法有关并要求人们婚配；这一切最终是为了通向“圣子的时代”，即对福音的承认和对圣职的呼召。但是约阿希姆认为，那一天即将到来——也许很快——即“圣灵的时代”将降临在历史当中，表现形式就是新约替代了旧约。在圣灵的时代，每个人都会立即、直观、直接地来认识上帝。不需要讲道的人，甚至不需要圣经、信条、教义或圣礼。事实上，外在可见的有形教会本身将不复存在，因为整个人类将构成一个属上帝的大家庭。约阿希姆的假说使得中世纪在经过了一段革命的苦难时期后，充满了一种乌托邦式的期望。早期重洗派教徒明确表示，他们正在实现约阿希姆的愿景。
It is
important to note that the early Anabaptists had a precarious relationship to
what is usually called the magisterial Reformation. Its main leaders were
erstwhile students of Luther and Zwingli, but their theological course was set
by the Radical forms of late medieval mysticism, especially Meister Eckhart and
the German Theology. This pantheistic-leaning system bore a closer resemblance
to ancient Gnosticism than to mainstream Christian teaching, whether Roman
Catholic or Reformation. They were also influenced by the twelfth-century
mystical prophet Joachim of Fiore, whose interpretation of the book of
Revelation divided history into three ages: the Age of the Father, associated
with the law and the order of the married, would eventually give way to the Age
of the Son, identified with the gospel and the order of the clergy. But the day
is coming—perhaps soon, Joachim argued—when the Age of the Spirit will dawn
within history, rendering the new covenant as obsolete as the old. In the Age
of the Spirit—that is, the order of the monks—everyone will know God
immediately, intuitively, and directly. No need for preachers or even for
Scripture, creeds, and doctrines that divide religions or for sacraments. In
fact, the external, visible church itself will be no more, as the whole human
race will become one family of God. Joachim’s speculations impregnated the
medieval era with expectations of utopia after a time of revolutionary
suffering. The early Anabaptists said explicitly that they were fulfilling the
visions of Joachim.
早期的重洗派也表现出了对“唯独因信称义”教义 （即“sola
fide”）的不感兴趣。从本质上说，“与神合一”与“义的归算”有很大的区别。事实上，按重洗派历史学家的说法，他们在这些问题上甚至与罗马天主教没有任何不同，因为救赎的全部意义就在于如何通过极端的操练达到与上帝的联合。他们几乎不能算是“唯独圣经”（sola scriptura）这教义的拥护者，因为他们甚至比教皇更确信，同时代的先知是受到上帝新的启示的人间代理人。所以，讽刺的是，重洗派教徒比激进的新教徒更激进。加尔文在1539年给红衣主教萨德尔托的信中说:“我们受到两个教派的反对：教皇和重洗派。”他承认，乍一看，这种比较没有什么意义，因为这些政党处于截然相反的两个极端。然而，实际上，他们在一个重要的方面是共通的：“因为他们都隐瞒了上帝的真道，为了给他们的虚谎腾出空间，” 他们声称当下的启示的权威要大过于由先知和使徒所定下的教训，凌驾在圣经之上。
The
early Anabaptists also showed no interest in the doctrine of justification,
sola fide. Becoming essentially one with God was a big jump from the imputation
of an alien righteousness. In fact, according to Anabaptist historians, they
were if anything further removed from Rome on these questions, since the whole
point of salvation was to attain union with God through extreme discipline.
They were hardly fans of sola scriptura, since they were even more convinced
than the pope that contemporary prophets were inspired agents of fresh
revelation. So, ironically, the Anabaptists were more radically papist than
Radical Protestants. This strange claim was made by Calvin in his famous 1539
letter to Cardinal Sadoleto: “We are opposed by two sects: the pope and the
Anabaptists.” At first glance, he acknowledges, the comparison makes little
sense, as these parties were at opposite extremes. Nevertheless, they are
actually united in an important way: “For both bury the word of God in order to
make room for their falsehoods,” claiming the authority of modern vehicles of
revelation over the express teaching of the prophets and apostles of canonical
Scripture.2
改教家不一定就是革命派，路德和加尔文认为教会确实已经明显偏离了正道，但仍然能够被挽回。他们当然相信神迹和启示，但不是说今天仍有先知和使徒能带来启示。他们当然相信律法的重要性，但他们相信教皇和重洗派教徒基本上已经把福音变成了新的律法。改教家坚信基督是这个世上国度和教会的主。但就像天主教一样，早期的重洗派想要将前者转化为后者，在地上建立一个上帝的国度，就像旧约中的神治政权一样。
Reformers
rather than revolutionaries, Luther and Calvin believed that the church had
been blown off course significantly but that it could still be called back.
They certainly believed in miracles and revelation, but not that there were
still prophets and apostles bringing inspired revelation today. They certainly
believed in the importance of the law, but they were convinced that the pope
and the Anabaptists alike had basically turned the gospel into a new law. And
the Reformers insisted that Christ was Lord over both the kingdoms of this
world and the church. But like the pope, the early Anabaptists wanted to
collapse the former into the latter with one kingdom of God, like the Old
Testament theocracy.
改教家称这种思想为“狂热主义”（Enthusiasm）。字面的理解就是“上帝内住主义”（God-within-ism）。他们哀叹道，这种将自己与上帝混淆的倾向，一直是一种常在的试探。马丁路德在他的施马尔卡登信条第三章（Smalcald Articles）中提到，他认为亚当是第一个狂热主义者（first enthusiast）。他的观点是，人类渴望将我们内心的声音认为是从神而来的话语，而不是遵从外在的经文和教导，这正是原罪的重要组成部分。
The
Reformers had a name for this: “enthusiasm.”
Meaning literally “God-within-ism,” this penchant for confusing ourselves
with God was a perennial temptation, they lamented. In his Smalcald Articles
(SA III. 4–15), Martin Luther argued that Adam was the first enthusiast. His
point was that the craving to identify the word of God with our own inner
voice, rather than heed external Scripture and preaching, is part and parcel of
original sin.
我们都是狂热主义者（enthusiasts）。闵采尔(Müntzer)和其他激进分子声称（现在仍然声称）圣灵直接与他们对话，有时甚至与圣经中已经显明的相矛盾。改教家们追问：这难道不正是罗马教皇的所做的吗? 狂热主义的表现是由内自外的（内在经验、理性和自由意志的外化表达），而神是由外及内的（通过圣道和圣礼）。“因此，我们应该并且必须不断地坚持这一点，”路德说道，“上帝只愿意藉着圣道和圣礼来对待我们。凡在圣道和圣礼以外被尊崇为圣灵的，便是魔鬼本身。”（施马加登信条，第三部第8条10-11）。
We’re
all enthusiasts. Müntzer and other Radicals claimed (and still claim today)
that the Spirit speaks directly to them, above and even sometimes against what
he has revealed in Scripture. The secret, private, and inborn “word” was
contrasted with the “outer word that merely beats the air.”3 The Reformers
pressed: Is this not what the pope does? While enthusiasm works from the inside
out (inner experiences, reason, and free will expressed outwardly), God works
from the outside in (the word and the sacraments). “Therefore we ought and must
constantly maintain this point,” Luther thundered, “that God does not wish to
deal with us otherwise than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments. It is
the devil himself whatsoever is extolled as Spirit without the Word and the
Sacraments” (SA III. 8.10–11).
对于重洗派来说，柏拉图式的物质和精神之间的二元论（Platonic dualism
between matter and spirit），被映射到新约中关于肉体和精神的对比上。一切外在的、有序的、普通的、有组织的、正式的东西都是“人为的”，而与之相对的，圣灵内住的证明都是内在的、自发的、超凡的、非正式的、个人性的。
For
the Anabaptists, the Platonic dualism between matter and spirit was mapped onto
the New Testament contrast between the flesh and the Spirit.4 Everything
external, ordered, ordinary, structured, and official was “man-made,” as
opposed to the internal, spontaneous, extraordinary, informal, and individual
testimony of the Spirit within.
因此，当伊曼努尔·康德（Immanuel Kant）说：我们真正可以信任的启示是我们内心的理性和良心的道德法则时，他并不是在追随路德，而是在追随狂热主义所说的“灵”。当他赞美“真正的宗教信仰”——即有责任遵循我们所熟知的普遍性准则——而不是“教会式的信仰”，用他们独特的信条、要求、教义和宗教仪式，他基本上是遵循诺斯底主义和受中世纪激进主义分子影响的早期重洗派教徒的教导。我们都是狂热主义者，不愿意听从一个外在的讲道，被外在的圣礼所标记，不愿意服在一个有形教会的外在纪律之下。我们想要自己做主，从我们自己的自由意志、行为、理性和主观经验的小宝座上扩展我们的领域。若不是神得胜的恩典，我们永远不会允许我们自己是借由上帝的律法和福音而被告知我们本相究竟如何的。
So
when Immanuel Kant said that the revelation we can really trust is that which
is inside us—reason and “the moral law within”—he was not following Luther but
the “spirit” of enthusiasm. When he extolled “true religion”—namely, duty to
the universal law we know deep down—over against “ecclesiastical faiths” with
their particular creeds, miraculous claims, doctrines, and rituals, he was
basically following the script of the Gnostics and the Radical medieval sects
that led to the early Anabaptists. The enthusiast in all of us does not want to
hear an external word, confirmed by external sacraments, submitting to the
external discipline of a visible church. We want to be autonomous, extending
our domain from the little throne of our own free will, works, reason, and
subjective experience. Apart from God’s conquering grace, we will never allow
ourselves to be told who we are by God in his law and gospel.
同样的，内在和外在的对比支配着自由主义化的新教。那在人心里的才是耶稣，而不是一位历史上的、外在的、拯救世人的耶稣：祂是通过圣经、布道、洗礼和圣餐而为人所知。即使在某些信仰上存在重大差异的地方，保守的新教徒也表现出相同的思维和生活方式。几个世纪以来的自由主义所描绘的同样的对立画面出现在五旬节派的宣言中:“我们……寻求如何改换那些僵死的形式和信条…以一个活泼且实用的基督教取而代之。”
The
same contrast between inner and outer dominates liberal Protestantism.5 It is
Jesus in my heart—not the external, salvific Jesus of history who is known
through Scripture and preaching, baptism, and the Eucharist. Even where
important differences exist on particular beliefs, more conservative
Protestants exhibit the same categories of thinking and living. The same
antithesis drawn by centuries of liberalism appears in the manifesto that
launched Pentecostalism: “We are . . . seeking to replace the dead forms and
creeds. . . with living, practical Christianity.”6
但是相同的对比在非五旬节派的福音派中也一样明显。例如,浸信会神学家斯坦利（Stanly Grenz）支持一个敬虔派信徒的奋兴运动，这根本上是与宗教改革和后宗教改革运动的核心理念截然相反的，他说：“近年来，我们已经开始将我们对焦在教义上的注意力转移开来，进而关注什么才是真命题? 这有利于我们重燃对于构建独特的、福音性的灵性异像的兴趣。” 其他类似的对比观点出现在他的个人书籍《对福音派神学的修正》(Revisioning Evangelical Theology)中：“以信条为基础”对比“敬虔”，“宗教仪式”对比“做耶稣会做的事”，优先考虑“我们每天的灵修”（daily walk）多过“主日礼拜的出勤”，以及个人及其内在的承诺，多过共同的身份。“一个人来教堂不是为了得到救赎，而是为了得到在日常生活中不断前进的动力。” 他补充说:“我们实行洗礼和圣餐，但我们需要谨慎地思想这些仪式的意义。与其说它们具有永久的价值是因为它们是神赐给领受者的恩典管道，不如说是因为它们提醒参加者和整个团体，上帝的恩典是需要内在领受的，是“顺服的回应”的一部分。
But
the same contrasts have long been evident in non-Pentecostal evangelicalism.
For example, Baptist theologian Stanley Grenz encouraged a retrieval of the
movement’s Pietist roots over against the Reformation and post-Reformation
emphases: “In recent years, we have begun to shift the focus of our attention
away from doctrine with its focus on propositional truth in favor of a renewed
interest in what constitutes the uniquely evangelical vision of
spirituality.”7 Other familiar contrasts
appear in his Revisioning Evangelical Theology: “creed-based” versus “piety”
(57), “religious ritual” versus “doing what Jesus would do” (48), with priority
given to “our daily walk” over “Sunday morning worship attendance” (49), and
individual and inward commitment over corporate identity (49–53). “A person
does not come to church to receive salvation,” but to receive marching orders
for daily life (49). He adds, “We practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but
understand the significance of these rites in a guarded manner.” They are
“perpetuated not so much for their value as conduits . . . of grace from God to
the communicant as because they remind the participant and the community of the
grace of God received inwardly” and are part of “an obedient response” (48).
考虑到狂热主义的历史，社会学家韦德·克拉克·鲁夫（Wade
Clark Roof）的发现并不令人惊讶。他讲到，“精神”和“机构”之间的区别对今天的灵性追求者来说是非常重要的。“精神是宗教内在的、经验性的形式；机构是宗教的外在的、既定的形式。”他补充道：“直接经验总是更值得信赖，除非因为有别的原因，否则它所体现出的‘内在灵性’（inwardness）和‘内心景况’（withinness）——这两种品质在如今日益追求高度自我表达和自恋式的文化下，将变得越加被欣赏。” 不容忽视的讽刺现象是：现代的世俗化与其说是无神论的产物，不如说是一种盲目的“狂热主义”的产物。这种“狂热” 持续不断地将其自身严谨的宗教内核给剥离出去。当种人们说他们是“属灵的，而不是属宗教的”时，他们的脑袋里所揣想的正是这种空洞的神秘主义。
Given
the history of enthusiasm, sociologist Wade Clark Roof’s findings are hardly
surprising: “The distinction between ‘spirit’ and ‘institution’ is of major
importance” to spiritual seekers today.8 “Spirit is the inner, experiential
aspect of religion; institution is the outer, established form of religion.”9
He adds, “Direct experience is always more trustworthy, if for no other reason
than because of its ‘inwardness’ and ‘withinness’—two qualities that have come
to be much appreciated in a highly expressive, narcissistic culture.”10 The
irony is not to be missed: modern secularization is the product less of atheism
than of a fanatical “enthusiasm” that is perpetually being stripped of its
explicitly religious reference. It is the type of vapid mysticism people have
in mind when they say they are “spiritual, not religious.”
正如约阿希姆（Joachim）所预言的，圣灵的时代，就是上帝的国度，现在地上的有形教会及其使命已经被废止了。“社会福音”之父，沃尔特·劳森布施（Walter Rauschenbush）断言：“耶稣总是提到上帝的国。在经文里中只有两句话提到“教会”这个词，而这两段话的真实性都值得怀疑。可以肯定地说，耶稣从未想过要建立“教会”这样一个组织机构，而这个组织后来却声称是为了要服侍祂的。劳森布什认为：随着那本该属于上帝国度的转而从属了教会，而教会与生俱来那种对教义、崇拜仪式、讲道和圣礼的执着，才导致中世纪教会的腐败和新教对社会结构改革的失败。
Just
as Joachim prophesied, the Age of the Spirit, identified with the kingdom of
God, has now rendered the visible church and its ministry obsolete. The father
of the Social Gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch, asserted, “Jesus always spoke of
the Kingdom of God. Only two of his reported sayings contain the word ‘Church,’
and both passages are of questionable authenticity. It is safe to say that he
never thought of founding the kind of institution which afterward claimed to be
acting for him.”11 With the subordination of the kingdom to the church,
Rauschenbusch argued, came the eclipse of ethics by an ingrown focus on
doctrine, worship, preaching, and sacraments—hence, the corruptions of the
medieval church and the failure of Protestantism also to reform the structures
of society.12
天主教神学家马修·莱弗林(Matthew Levering)引用了宗教学者戴安娜·艾克(Diana Eck)的例子。艾克避开谈及教会是“基督的身体”的层面，而支持“一家人”（household）的观点。她宣称：“天下一家的根基就是，世界最终将变成为多元文化的社会。”对此，莱弗林进一步将其学说变得合理化，他说：“这个受神祝福的国度的疆界，会比教会要宽广得多。领受上帝祝福的是祂的国度，而不是基督教的教会。”
Catholic
theologian Matthew Levering refers to the example of religion scholar Diana
Eck, who eschews the image of “the body of Christ” as hierarchical in favor of
“household.” “The underlying foundation of the world household will finally
have to be pluralism,” she claims.13 Further, “this kingdom of divine blessing
‘is much wider than the church. It is the Kingdom of God, not the Christian
Church.’” Levering properly judges,
艾克这种人类世界大同的异像忽略了我们需要被宽恕和怜悯的这一事实，而这正需要永活的上帝用他历史性的行动来弥合我们对他人所造成的破碎和伤害。我们需要仁慈的上帝，在耶稣基督和圣灵里，来医治我们被遗弃的状况，并通过改变世界的爱（这一礼物）为我们建立“爱”和“公义”的关系。更进一步，对于艾克来说，死亡就是一切的终结；因此，我们唯一的指望就在今生。一切神圣的东西，包括圣灵和上帝的国度，都被简化归入到一个普遍框架内——换句话说，它被世俗化了。
Eck’s
vision of a world-unity based on the recognition of our common humanity
neglects the human need for forgiveness, for mercy, which requires the
historical action of the living God to overcome our brokenness and the harm
that we have done to others. We need the God of mercy, in Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit, to heal our alienated condition and establish for us a
relationship of love and justice by a transformative gift of love.14 Further, for Eck, death is the
end; thus our only hope lies in this life.15 Everything sacred, including the
Spirit and the kingdom, has been reduced to the immanent frame—in other words,
it has been secularized.
但是，这种狂热主义的精神在罗马天主教的文化圈子里也很明显，莱弗林也承认这一点。上帝的国度(是普遍的，是内在的)是与教会相对立的(是特殊的，是由外在的话语所创造的)。理查德（Richard P. McBrien）在《我们需要教会吗？》一书中写道：“教会不再被认为是上帝拯救计划的中心。并不是所有人都被呼召成为教会的会员，教会成员的身份既不是当下得救赎的标志，也不是将来得救赎的保证。救恩是通过参与到上帝的国度当中，而不是通过加入基督教会来实现的。他又说:“所有人都会进入天堂，因为福音向所有人都有效。” 但是得救的生活并不一定与可见的、有组织的基督教团体的成员身份相关。托马斯·希恩(Thomas Sheehan)的《第一次降临：上帝的王国如何成为基督教》(The First Coming: How The Kingdom of God Became
Christianity)(兰登书屋出版社，1986年)是当今罗马天主教圈中国度与教会对立的又一个例子。
But
this spirit of enthusiasm is evident in Roman Catholic circles as well, as
Levering also recognizes. The kingdom of God (which is universal and inward) is
set over against the church (which is particular and created by the external
word). In Do We Need the Church? Fr. Richard P. McBrien writes, “The church is
no longer to be conceived as the center of God’s plan of salvation. Not all men
are called to membership in the Church, nor is such membership a sign of
present salvation or a guarantee of future salvation. Salvation comes through
participation in the Kingdom of God rather than through affiliation with the
Christian Church.”16 He adds, “All men
are called to the kingdom, because all men are called to live the gospel. But
the living of the gospel is not necessarily allied to membership in the
visible, structured Christian community.”17 Thomas Sheehan’s The First Coming:
How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (Random House, 1986) is yet another
example of the opposition between the kingdom and the church in Roman Catholic
circles today.
要我提供所有详细的说明是不可能的(尤其是在这么短的篇幅内)。但我的论点是，我们现代世俗化的世界的主要特点，一部分程度上说，正是由于我们将那位在在历史中真实的对我们说话，对我们有着绝对权威、既审判我们也拯救我们的上帝，偷换成一种“内住的上帝”的概念，实质是把自我内心的声音当成我们的至高统治者。甚至像保罗·悌利希（Paul Tillich）这样的自由派神学家也承认启蒙运动在某种程度上是激进的狂热主义的胜利：“启蒙运动所说的‘内因’（inner reason of the Enlightenment）实际上就是贵格会信徒所说的‘内在光照’（inner
light of the Quakers）。”
It is
impossible (especially in such a short space) to offer any detailed account.
But my contention is that many of the principal features of our modern,
secularized world are driven in part by this shift away from a God who speaks
authoritatively, judging and saving us, outside of us in history, to the “god
within”—meaning that our own inner voice is our sovereign ruler. Even a liberal
theologian such as Paul Tillich recognized that the Enlightenment was to some
extent the triumph of Radical enthusiasm: “The inner reason of the
Enlightenment is really the inner light of the Quakers.”18
我们也同样看到了类诺斯底主义思想（quasi-Gnostic）对现代宗教、文化和政治改革的冲击。埃里克·沃格林（Eric Voegelin）的工作帮助我了解到诺斯底主义是如何对这个世界充满了敌意，这可以体现在两个形式上：要么是诺斯底主义者在纯粹的精神层面一意孤行地摧毁这个世界，并且彻底改造它；或者诺斯底派会干脆避世不出，在一小群将自己从不虔的世界中分离出来的纯粹主义者的群体中寻找安全感。我们可以在无数的社会运动中看到这两种形式的出现，这些运动的基本动机总是带有深刻的宗教色彩或精神烙印——即使是无产阶级取代了上帝。把这个世界夷为平地，从零开始建立一个新的文明。历史正在走向终点，要么是预言的末日灾难，要么是建立乌托邦，而我们将成为这个天选之人。正如卡尔·洛维斯（Karl Löwith）所解释的，现代主义学说的进步就是基督教末世论的世俗化(Christian eschatology secularized)。历史的高潮不在于历史的终点，而是在中间，不是通过基督的再来，而是通过我们的团结奋斗。
We
also see the quasi-Gnostic impulse in the modern obsession with religious,
cultural, and political revolutions. Eric Voegelin’s work has helped me to
understand how the Gnostic’s hatred of the world can take two forms: either the
Gnostic insists on destroying it and remaking it all over again in the form of
pure spirit, or he recoils from the world altogether and seeks security in a small
group of purists who isolate themselves from the godless. We can see both
approaches in countless movements that are always deeply religious or spiritual
in their basic motive—even when the proletariat replaces God. Raze this world
to its foundations and build a new civilization from scratch. History is moving
toward an endpoint, either of apocalyptic disaster or utopia, and we are going
to be agents of this providential destiny. As Karl Löwith explains, the modern
doctrine of progress is Christian eschatology secularized. The climax of
history is to be found not at the end of history but in the middle—not by
Christ’s return but by our collective striving.
我们也在各种形式的福音派基督徒与政治的接触过程中看到了诺斯底主义的两种形式。在20世纪上半叶，基要保守派倾向于将自己从这个不信上帝的世界中分离出来，但在20世纪80年代，他们开始参与政治活动。然而，他们的基本态度仍然不变：一如既往地敌视文化、科学、艺术、特别是日益增多的诺斯底左派“精英”，就好像摩尼教（Manichean）将光明与黑暗分庭抗礼，那圣徒和堕落之人,自由革命的代言人与邪恶势力的同谋之间，也是如此。但是，如果“自主”的理念——即作为个体对自我拥有绝对主权——是现代世俗主义的核心，那么它的血统可以很容易地追溯到文艺复兴时期的占星师（Renaissance magus）和激进的新教徒，他们被内在自我的概念塑造成神圣的闪光。
We
also see the two approaches of the Gnostic in various forms of evangelical
engagement with politics. For the first half of the twentieth century,
fundamentalists tended to separate themselves from the godless world but then
became politically engaged in the 1980s. Their basic attitude toward the world,
however, remained constant: a relatively hostile view of culture, science, the
arts, and especially of “elites” who increasingly were themselves Gnostics of
the Left—the same Manichean divide between light and darkness, the saints and
the reprobate, agents of revolutionary freedom versus coconspirators with the
forces of evil. But if the idea of autonomy—the self as sovereign—is at the
heart of modern secularism, then its genealogy can be easily traced back to the
Renaissance magus and the Radical Protestants who were shaped by that concept
of the inner self as a spark of the divine.
如果我的论文是正确的话，并且我们现今的世代，也并不像是莱辛（Lessing，德国批评家）所说的“人类教育”理念所主张的：平和的理性战胜了假定性的启示,科学战胜了迷信,世俗化的和平胜过了宗教的暴力，那么实际上它是一个激进的基督教神秘主义的世俗化版本。事实上，莱辛自己也曾说过，约阿希姆对圣灵时代的憧憬并没有错，只是时机不成熟，只是需要等到启蒙运动的到来。
If my
thesis is anywhere close to being right, then the story of our modern age is
not so much Lessing’s idea of “the education of the human race” and the gradual
triumph of reason over presumed revelation, science over superstition, and
secular peace over religious violence, as it is a secularized version of
Radical Christian mysticism. In fact, Lessing himself said that Joachim of
Fiore’s visions of an Age of the Spirit were not wrong, only premature,
awaiting the arrival of the Enlightenment.
让我们把它从形而上学的层面，带到我们大多数基督徒每天生活的地方。一个最受欢迎的基督教书籍和传教士的粗略目录讲述了这个故事。比起神自己和祂创造、护理、救赎、称义、成圣、荣耀、身体复活的工作，更注重自主的自我内在的能力，许多灵修书籍是“心灵鸡汤”。许多信徒认为，花时间与神单独祷告，聆听“祂今天对我说了什么”，比去教堂与其他罪人聚会，聆听上帝的话语，接受上帝的圣礼更重要。我们是在屈服于内心的声音而不是外在的。当我们可以从内心寻找答案的时候，为什么要和其他人一起遵循困难的讨论、叙述、教义和命令呢?
Let’s
bring this out of the clouds and down to where most of us live every day as
Christians. A cursory inventory of the most popular Christian books and
preachers tells the tale. Focusing more on inner empowerment for the autonomous
self than on God himself and his work of creation, providence, redemption,
justification, sanctification, glorification, and the resurrection of the body,
much of the spiritual diet is “chicken soup for the soul.” Many believers consider spending time alone
with God in prayer, listening for “what he is saying to me today,” as more
important than going to church to gather with other sinners and hear God’s word
proclaimed and receive his sacraments. We are on our home ground doing it
ourselves rather than submitting to something external to our inner voice. Why
try to follow difficult arguments, narratives, doctrines, and commands together
with other people when we can basically look within to find the answers?
随着基督教的发展转移到南半球，一些形式比他们更自由的北部对手更忠诚。非洲的圣公会教徒常常困扰，想知道他们与美国圣公会有什么可能的精神联系。然而，美国人的“狂热主义”继续以奋兴主义、五旬节派和“成功神学”的极端形式如野火般蔓延。保守的新教徒已经非常善于快速辨别自由主义，但是我们不太善于识别更多的原教旨主义的诺斯底派狂热主义（fundamentalist varieties of Gnostic enthusiasm），即使我们正完全被这样的环境包围。
As
the growth of Christianity shifts to the Global South, some forms are more
faithful than their more liberal northern counterparts. Anglicans in Africa
often scratch their heads, wondering what possible spiritual connection they
have with the Episcopal Church in the United States. And yet American
“enthusiasm” continues to spread like wildfire in extreme forms of revivalism,
Pentecostalism, and the “prosperity gospel.” Conservative Protestants have
become quite adept at detecting liberalism miles away. But we’re not very good
at recognizing more fundamentalist varieties of Gnostic enthusiasm, even when
we are swimming in it.
那么，在宗教改革运动500周年之际，我们究竟在庆祝什么呢？我们所喜悦的是教会教义和敬拜的改革，从以人为中心的宗教转向以三位一体的神和祂在基督里的救恩福音为中心的信仰吗？还是我们实际上在庆祝激进的狂热主义，因为我们的文化把它错误地定义位宗教改革：把它视为个体自主、个人主义、自由意志、内在经验和内在理性?
So
what exactly are we celebrating in this year of the Reformation’s five
hundredth anniversary? Are we rejoicing in the reformation of the church’s
doctrine and worship, away from human-centered religion to a faith centered on
the Triune God and the gospel of his saving grace in Christ alone, received
through faith alone, communicated through the word and the sacraments alone? Or
are we celebrating the Radical enthusiasm that our culture mistakes as the Reformation:
the autonomous self, individualism, free will, and inner experience and reason?
今年许多人都在争论宗教改革是否已经结束，而我的想法是：它真的开始了吗？是的，一开始，福音有一个奇妙的恢复，我们完全依赖神和祂在耶稣基督里的恩典。在世界许多地方，人们仍然强烈地感受到这种复苏的影响。但在现代文化中，主流的宗教改革在左、右两派的狂热分子面前已然节节败退。既然我们已经尝试了“激进的”新教好几个世纪，那么庆祝宗教改革最好的方式就是给它一个再次被听到的机会。
While
many people are debating this year whether the Reformation is over, my thought
is this: Did it really ever get off the ground? Yes, at first, there was a
marvelous recovery of the gospel and a sense that we are utterly dependent on
God and his grace in Jesus Christ. In many parts of the world, the effects of
that recovery are still being powerfully felt. But in modern culture generally,
the magisterial Reformation lost ground to the enthusiasts of the Left and the
Right. Now that we have tried Radical Protestantism for several centuries, the
best way of celebrating the Reformation would be to give it a chance again to
be heard.
Michael
S. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and
Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido.
迈克尔·霍顿 是加州威斯敏斯特神学院（Westminster Seminary California in Escondido）的系统神学和护教学教授。
