作者:
Gary L.W. Johnson 譯者: 誠之
英國的改教家修拉提摩（Hugh
Latimer）曾說過，「我們絕不可把合一看得如此重要，以至於為了合一的緣故而放棄神的道。」這是發自一位被燒死在火刑柱上，而不是妥協福音的真理的人所說的智慧的話。
Pastor’s
Perspective
The
English Reformer Hugh Latimer once remarked, “We ought never to regard unity so
much that we would or should forsake God’s Word for her sake.” Wise words from
a man who went to the stake, rather than compromise the truth of the gospel.
對那些稱自己是基督徒，卻只關心表面有形的合一的人，拉提摩的決心顯得非常沒有吸引力的。持守這個信念的人一再告訴我們，教會最主要的錯誤就是缺乏有形的合一，這是很可悲的。他們一再訴諸主耶穌在約翰福音17章所說的話，而把那些沒有參與這種合一的努力的人，都描繪成是嚴重地違背了基督的教訓！他們宣稱，缺少有形的合一，是我們最大的罪。什麽是導致這種可惡狀況的原因呢？教義——或更明確地說——是教義的特點。現今，他們說宗教改革時期對唯獨信心的理解，對替死代贖（penal
substitutionary atonement）的教義，以及特別是無盡刑罰這個可憎的概念，以及唯獨借著基督得救的排他性，對建立有形的基督徒合一，都是障礙（譯按，這似乎是在指Emergent
church的主張，因為這些都是EC反對的教義）。然而，這個有形的合一的觀念究竟是不是主耶穌在約翰福音17章所作的大祭司的禱告的意圖呢？如同Robert
Lewis Dabney 在上一個世紀所指出的，我們的主所關心的，是屬靈上的合一。要求有形的合一，本不是那段經文的意思，按照Dabney的話說，是一個巨大的錯誤。事實上，這是一個偶像，目的是要窒息任何合法的異議，並且，容我加上一句話，對教會的健康與福祉，是極為致命的（positively
deadly）。我想到一個世紀前著名的英國哲學家和議員Francis
Bacon的一段話：「為了權宜之計所形成的合一，實際上，是把根基建立在完全的無知上。如同每個人都知道的，所有的色彩在黑暗中看起來都是一個顏色。」時代在改變，許多人告訴我們，我們需要和時代一起改變。如果我們不做改變，我們就會被看作是落後，不合時宜的。
To
those whose only concern is the appearance of visible unity among all who call
themselves Christians, Latimer’s resolve appears most unattractive. We are
repeatedly told by those of this persuasion that the church’s major fault is
its deplorable lack of visible unity. Appeal is constantly made to the words of
Jesus in John 17, and those who do not join this effort are portrayed as being
in serious disagreement with Jesus! This abominable lack of visible unity, they
claim, is our greatest sin. And what is chiefly to be blamed for this heinous
state of affairs? Doctrine — or to be more precise — doctrinal distinctives.
Nowadays we are told that things like the Reformation’s understanding of sola
fide, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, and, particularly, the
distasteful notion of endless punishment and the exclusivity of salvation
through Christ alone are an encumbrance to establishing visible Christian
unity. But is this notion of visible unity what Jesus intended in His high
priestly prayer in John 17? Our Lord’s concern, as Robert Lewis Dabney pointed
out last century, is for spiritual unity. The demand for visible unity is not only
quite foreign to the text, it constitutes, in the words of Dabney, an enormous
blunder. It is, in fact, an idol that is used to stifle any legitimate dissent,
and, let me add, it is positively deadly to the health and welfare of the
church. I am reminded of the remark of Francis Bacon, the noted English
philosopher and statesman of a bygone era: “Unity that is formed on expedience
is, in reality, grounded upon an implicit ignorance. As everyone knows, all
colors will look the same in the dark.” Times have changed and we are
frequently reminded that we need to change with them. If we don’t, we’re going
to be perceived as backward and outdated.
在我們這個後現代的時代中，「寬容」（tolerance）被看成比真理的價值高，而真理，如同美，是由持有者的眼光來決定的，這是每個人都應該有的看法，只有那些令人討厭，吹毛求疵在闡述真理的人除外，也就是那些堅持絕對真理，或者是那些用神學語言來表達真理，想要維持歷史正統性的人。很不幸的，許多稱自己是福音派的人，當談到為他們的信仰作定義時，往往興高采烈地擁抱一個獨特的不要教義的思維方法（non-doctrinal
mentality）。這個可悲的景況，一部分原因可以追溯到這個騙人的、完全天真的假設上，就是我們周圍的文化是價值中立的，因此是無害的。這顯明在一個觀念上，就是說既然所有的事物主要都是屬於個人的偏好（例如不同的生活形態），那麽，我們應該要熱烈慶祝這種多樣性，擱置個人的判斷，“你好，我好，大家好”！相信這種說法的基督徒沒有想到的，是當我們這樣做的時候，就違反了保羅在羅馬書12：2的勸誡：「不要效法這個世界」。雖然這種中立主義強調的是多樣性，但是它只是一個幌子。思想的一致性（conformity）才是它實際的動力。中立主義所要尋求的思想一致性，其標準是人類的自主性，目標很單純，也很簡單。這並不會讓人感到意外，這種對思想一致性的要求，在基督教圈子內有一個顯著的平行說法——要求有形的合一。
In
our postmodern times, “tolerance” is valued over truth, and truth, like beauty,
is in the eyes of the beholder and as such must be extended to everyone, except
those disagreeable and critical exponents of truth who hold to absolutes, or,
to put it into theological language, those who seek to maintain historical
orthodoxy. Tragically, many professing evangelicals are embracing in
celebratory fashion a distinctively non-doctrinal mentality when it comes to
defining their faith. In part, this sad state of affairs is traceable to the
gullible and blatantly naïve assumption that the surrounding culture is
value-neutral and thus harmless. This manifests itself in the notion that since
all things are primarily a matter of personal preferences (such as different
lifestyles), then we should celebrate diversity by suspending judgment only to
live and let live. Christians who end up buying into this idea fail to
recognize that by doing so they are violating the apostle Paul’s admonition in
Romans 12:2: “Do not be conformed to this world.” Despite the fact that this
kind of neutralism accents diversity, it does so in name only. Conformity is
actually what drives it. The standard around which neutralism seeks conformity
is human autonomy, pure and simple. Not surprisingly, this desire for
conformity has a noticeable parallel in Christian circles — the demand for
visible unity.
最近，這個「行為比教義重要」（deeds
over creeds）的座右銘再一次擄獲了福音派世界的想象。雖然這聽起來很有吸引力，但是這卻需要付出很高昂的代價。怎麽會這樣呢？根據這個說法，你的標簽是什麽（羅馬天主教，東正教，五旬節派，或浸信會）是無關緊要的。很顯然，重要的是我們對耶穌的愛——其他的都不重要。這不是我們第一次聽到這種訴求。一個世紀以前，「守約者」（Promise
Keepers）也步向同樣的道路。在它1994年在波特蘭舉辦的「抓住這個時刻」（"Seize
the Moment）研討會中，創辦人Bill
McCartney說，「守約者不在乎你是否是一位天主教徒。你愛耶穌嗎？你是否是神的靈所生的？」當時守約者的總裁Randy
Phillips接著說，「無論你的標簽是什麽，都不應該使我們分裂……我們歡迎所有的人，無論他是浸信會，五旬節派，或羅馬天主教。如果你在基督的身體內，那麽，我們就歡迎你。」（Albert
James Dager, Media Spotlight, "Promise Keepers: Is What You See What You
Get?" p. 20）但問題是，這不只是個標簽的問題。如果事情是如此，那麽，摩門教（末日聖徒教會）的官方立場就不是我們需要關心的問題。如果個別的摩門教徒說他們愛耶穌，也是聖靈重生的，他們為什麽要被排除在外呢？
Recently,
the motto “deeds over creeds” has once again captured the imagination of the
evangelical world. As attractive as this may sound, there is a very steep price
to be paid here. How so? According to this notion, it really doesn’t matter
what your label is (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, or Baptist).
All that matters, apparently, is one’s love for Jesus — everything else is of
little concern. This is not the first time we’ve heard this appeal. Over a
decade ago, the Promise Keepers marched down this same path. At its 1994 “Seize
the Moment” conference in Portland, founder Bill McCartney said, “Promise
Keepers doesn’t care if you’re Catholic. Do you love Jesus? Are you born of the
Spirit of God?” One-time PK president Randy Phillips continues: “…whatever the
labels are should not divide us. …all men are welcome, whether you’re Baptist,
Pentecostal, or Roman Catholic. If you are in the body of Christ, then you should
certainly be welcome” (Albert James Dager, Media Spotlight, “Promise Keepers:
Is What You See What You Get?” p. 20). But it was not simply a question of
labels. If that is the case, then the official position of the Church of
Latter-day Saints should not be a concern. If individual Mormons claim they
love Jesus and are born of the Spirit, why should they be excluded?
許多福音派的人，如今都在打著相同的鼓聲：行為比教義重要。但是結果是，教義真的很重要。按照目前這種強加在我們身上的合一，也就是不管教義，不需要教義所構成的合一，注定要產生出一種被不純正教義所汙染的合一。恰恰是這種汙染，在經過全面的審查後，會造成對福音真理的妥協。這就是為了有形的合一所要付出的高昂代價。
Many
evangelicals are now banging the same drum: deeds over creeds. But as it turns
out, creeds really do matter. Any unity like the kind now being urged on us
that is formed apart from creeds and the need for them, is doomed to produce the
kind of unity that is polluted by doctrinal impurity. It is the kind of
impurity that in the final analysis ends up compromising the truth of the
gospel. This is too steep a price to be paid for the sake of visible unity.
