Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos
新教致命的基因缺陷：唯独圣经与新教混乱的解经
作者： Robert Arakaki
译者：何文龙
During the 1960s a book Double Helix came out that described Francis Crick and James Watson’s discovery of the double helix structure that made up DNA. This was a landmark discovery for it enabled scientists to understand how living organisms were able to replicate themselves from generation to generation. DNA functioned as a unique blueprint for each human being: a set of instructions about the color of our eyes, the shape of our nose etc. In the 1980s scientists discovered the presence of telomeres, little bits of DNA located at the end of the chromosome chain. Telomeres function to keep DNA intact each time a cell splits in half — very much in the same way that the little plastic ends of a shoe lace keeps the laces from unraveling (See Gorman 1998).
20世纪60年代，《双螺旋》一书问世，描述了弗朗西斯·克里克和詹姆斯·沃森发现了构成DNA的双螺旋结构。这是一个里程碑式的发现，因为它使科学家们能够理解生物是如何一代一代地自我复制的。DNA对每个人来说都是一个独特的蓝图：一套关于我们眼睛颜色、鼻子形状等的指令。在20世纪80年代，科学家们发现了端粒的存在，端粒是位于染色体链末端的一小块DNA。端粒的功能是在每次细胞分裂成两半时保持DNA的完整性，这与鞋带的塑料小末端防止鞋带解开的方式非常相似（见Gorman 1998）。
The same principle applies to social organizations. Organizations, like living organisms, need a set of core values in order to reproduce. The worldwide franchise of McDonald’s hamburgers is a good example of consistent social reproduction. The process of social reproduction is based upon the repetition of concepts and practices constitutive for the group. In sociology this has been referred to as “recipe knowledge” (Berger and Luckmann 1967:65). In classical theology these core beliefs are known as the regula fidei or Holy Tradition (#1). For the first thousand years Holy Tradition enabled the Church to be united in faith and worship.
同样的原则也适用于社会组织。组织就像活的有机体一样，需要一套核心价值观才能繁衍后代。麦当劳汉堡包的全球特许经营权是持续的社会再生产的一个很好的例子。社会再生产的过程是建立在重复的概念和实践的基础上的。在社会学中，这被称为“配方知识”（Berger和Luckmann 1967:65）。在古典神学中，这些核心信仰被称为信仰规范或神圣传统（1）。在最初的一千年里，神圣的统使教会能够在信仰和崇拜上保持合一。
In contrast to the early Church, what is so striking about Protestantism is its inability to consistently reproduce itself. The sheer number of mutations in Protestantism’s 450 years, in contrast with the stability and unity of the first 1000 years of Christianity, is staggering. It is as if over time Protestantism does not reproduce itself, but rather mutates into a confusing array of motley beliefs. Peter Berger observes:
与早期教会不同的是，新教的惊人之处在于它无法持续地自我复制。新教450年来的突变数量之多，与基督教最初一千年的稳定和合一形成鲜明对比，是惊人的。似乎随着时间的推移，新教并没有自我复制，而是变异成一系列混乱的混杂信仰。彼得·伯杰观察到：
Revisionism is possible in all traditions, but Protestantism has, as it were, a built-in revisionist tendency (1979:128).
修正主义在所有的传统中都是可能的，但是新教有一种内在的修正主义倾向（1979:128）。
It is as if McDonald’s franchisees began to argue over the menu, changing the menu from week to week, and then broke up into rival hamburger joints all competing against each other.
这就好像麦当劳的加盟商开始为菜单争论，每周更换菜单，然后分拆成竞争对手的汉堡店，所有的汉堡店都在互相竞争。
Using the analogy of DNA and the telomeres, Protestantism’s inability to consistently reproduce itself — its tendency to fragmentation and theological innovations — seems to mirror some kind of unraveling of its genetic code. In this paper I argue that it is sola scriptura that is the underlying cause of Protestantism’s hermeneutical chaos. In the early Church the Bible and Holy Tradition were seen as forming a unified whole. Holy Tradition safeguarded the Bible by providing a proper and consistent interpretation — very much in the same way telomeres ensured consistent reproduction by protecting the integrity of the DNA. In contrast to the patristic regula fidei, the Protestant Reformers proclaimed Scripture alone to be the “only rule of faith and practice” (Osterhaven 1984:962). Scripture became detached from Tradition. When it discarded Holy Tradition as binding and authoritative, Protestantism threw out the basis for a consistent and proper reading of Scripture (#2). Thus, Protestantism’s sola scriptura has resulted in its DNA code (the Bible) being stripped of its telomeres (Holy Tradition).
利用DNA和端粒的类比，新教无法持续地自我复制——其分裂倾向和神学创新——似乎反映了某种程度上对其遗传密码的破解。在这篇论文中，我认为唯独圣经是新教的解经混乱的根本原因。在早期教会，圣经和神圣传统被视为一个统一的整体。神圣传统通过提供一个适当和一致的解释来保护圣经——非常类似于端粒通过保护DNA的完整性来保证一致的复制。与教父的信仰准则不同，新教改革者宣称只有圣经是“信仰和实践的唯一准则”（Osterhaven 1984:962）。圣经与传统脱节了。当它抛弃了神圣的传统，否认它具有约束力和权威性时，它就抛弃了一贯正确地解读圣经的基础。因此，新教的唯独圣经已经导致其DNA密码（圣经）被从端粒（神圣传统）剥离。
Methodologically, in this paper I take a sociology of knowledge approach to understanding sola scriptura. It complements my earlier critiques, one which addressed sola scriptura from a biblical exegesis approach and another which took a historical/genealogical approach.
在方法上，本文采用认知社会学的方法来理解《唯独圣经》。它补充了我之前的评论，其中一个从圣经解经的方法来处理唯独圣经，另一个采取历史/系统的方法。
Sola scriptura resulted in the rise of a host of rival interpretations of the Bible and no effective means of arbitrating these differences. It is this that constitutes Protestantism’s fatal genetic flaw. It is ‘fatal’ in the sense that Protestant Christianity, lacking the capacity to consistently replicate itself, mutates into ever more bizarre and aberrant forms that bear little if any resemblance to the original Reformation churches (to say nothing of the early Church). It is ‘fatal’ in the sense that Protestant Christianity being broken up into rival camps is unable to present a unified witness to the world. And, it is ‘fatal’ in the sense that being cut off from its past Protestantism has lost its sense of direction to guide it into the future.
唯独圣经导致了一系列相互对立的圣经解释的兴起，没有有效的方法来仲裁这些分歧。正是这一点构成了新教致命的基因缺陷。它是“致命的”，因为新教基督教缺乏持续自我复制的能力，变异成越来越怪异的形式，与最初的宗教改革教会几乎没有相似之处（更不用说早期的教会了）。这是“致命的”，因为新教基督教被分裂成对立的阵营，无法为世界提供一个合一的见证。而且，它是“致命的”，因为与过去的新教断绝联系，已经失去了指引它走向未来的方向感。
The Faultlines of Protestantism
新教的断层
Martin Luther’s defiant “Here I stand” at the Diet of Worms struck the Roman Catholic Church like a bolt of lightning. It shattered the religious unity that held together medieval European society and it gave rise to a very different social milieu. Luther’s defiance of the collective authority of the Church on the basis of Scripture constitutes a watershed event in the history of Christianity. Luther’s paradigm shift created a religious community whose hermeneutics was detached from Tradition, i.e., Tradition in the form of historical continuity and conciliar authority.
马丁路德在沃木斯会议时的公然抗议—“这是我的立场”像闪电一样击中了罗马天主教。它打破了维系中世纪欧洲社会的宗教统一，并产生了一个非常不同的社会环境。路德在圣经基础上对教会集体权威的蔑视，是基督教历史上的一个分水岭。路德的范式转换创造了一个解经学与传统分离的宗教共同体，而传统是以历史连续性和大公会议权威的形式存在的。
At the core of the Protestant Reformation are two principles: sola scriptura — Scripture alone; and ecclesia reformata sed semper reformanda — the church reformed yet always reforming. The Reformers believed that sola scriptura would provide them with the means by which they would reach their goal of a church reformed. The “sola” in sola scriptura does not exclude all other authorities but considers them “helps and assistants, human and fallible, not as divine authorities” (Ramm 1970:1, see also Mathison 2001). The principle sola scriptura contained within it a certain paradoxical double-edged quality that the original Reformers had to struggle with. Nathan Hatch observes:
新教改革的核心是两个原则：唯独圣经和归正教会，一直不断地归正。改教家相信《唯独圣经》将为他们提供一种手段，使他们能够达到归正教会的目标。《唯独圣经》中的“唯独”并不排斥所有其他权威，而是认为它们是“帮助和助手，是属人的和易犯错误的，而不是神的权威”（Ramm 1970:1，另见马蒂森2001）。《唯独圣经》的原则包含了一种矛盾的双刃剑，这是最初的改教家不得不面对的。内森·哈奇观察到：
Protestants from Luther to Wesley had been forced to define very carefully what they meant by sola scriptura. They found it an effective banner to unfurl when attacking Catholics on the right, but always a bit troublesome when common people began to take the teaching seriously (1982:61).
从路德到卫斯理，新教徒被迫非常仔细地定义他们所说的“唯独圣经”。当攻击天主教徒时，他们发现这是一个有效的旗帜，但是当普通人开始认真对待该教导时，总是有点麻烦（1982:61）
Sola scriptura also created a hermeneutical dilemma for Protestants. Jaroslav Pelikan notes that the theology of conservative Protestants rests upon a somewhat paradoxical basis, being both radical and conservative at the same time.
唯独圣经也为新教徒创造了一个解经的困境。雅罗斯拉夫·佩利坎指出，保守派新教徒的神学建立在一个有点矛盾的基础上，既激进又保守。
The supporters of the sole authority of Scripture, arguing from radical hermeneutical premises to conservative dogmatic conclusions, overlooked the function of tradition in securing what they regarded as the correct exegesis of Scripture against heretical alternatives (1971:119).
圣经是唯一权威的支持者，从激进的解经学的前提到保守的教义结论，忽视了传统对圣经的正确解释，以及反对异端解释（1971:119）方面的作用。
Protestantism has long functioned on the basis of an implicit regula fidei which has helped it maintain a certain degree of stability and continuity. But at the same time the implicit nature of Protestantism’s regula fidei made it vulnerable to external pressures from society.
新教长期以来一直是在一种隐含的信仰准则上运作的，这有助于它保持一定程度的稳定性和连续性。但同时，新教信仰的内在本质使其容易受到来自社会的外部压力。
The dysfunctional character of sola scriptura became manifest almost from the start. One of the earliest schisms in Protestantism took place over the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli believed that the Lord’s Supper was just a memorial, whereas Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. This controversy over the real presence between Luther and Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529 was basically a split over hermeneutics. The failure of the two reformers to reach a shared understanding of Christ’s words, “This is my body,” presaged the hermeneutical chaos that would plague Protestantism.
《唯独圣经》的功能失调特征几乎从一开始就显现出来了。新教最早的分裂之一发生在圣餐论上。慈运理相信圣餐只是一个纪念，而路德相信基督在饼和酒中的真实存在。1529年在马尔堡学术讨论会上，路德和慈运理之间的争论基本上是解经上的分歧。两位改教家未能就基督的话“这是我的身体”达成共识，这预示着解经的混乱将困扰新教。
The Protestant Reformers sought to reform the Catholic Church, but the unintended consequence was the shattering of church unity. The initial Protestant Reformation was split into four major camps: Lutheran, Reformed, Zwinglian, and Anabaptist. A short time later the Church of England with its unique Catholic/Protestant hybrid of via media emerged as a result of Henry VIII’s break from Rome. One of the tragic consequences of the Protestant Reformation was the religious division of Europe and the religious wars between Protestants and Catholics. The religious wars took a heavy toll on Europe until the adoption of the principle of cujus regio, ejus religio at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 (#3). This arrangement had several consequences: (1) it gave recognition to the new religious pluralism in Germany, and (2) it continued the practice of linking the church with the state. This arrangement while supporting religious pluralism also gave it a measure of structural stability in Europe. Later when Christianity became disestablished in America one of the key factors that inhibited change in European churches was removed giving American churches their distinctive tendency for innovation and fragmentation.
新教改教家试图改革天主教会，但意外的结果是破坏了教会的合一。最初的新教被分成四大阵营：路德宗、改革宗、慈运理派和重洗派。不久之后，由于亨利八世脱离罗马，英格兰教会以其独特的天主教/新教混合体出现。新教改革的悲剧后果之一是欧洲的宗教分裂和新教徒与天主教徒之间的宗教战争。宗教战争给欧洲造成了巨大的损失，直到1555年在奥格斯堡和平会议上采用了君主有权决定自己国家国民信仰模式的原则。这一安排产生了几个后果：（1）承认了德国新的宗教多元化；（2）继续了将教会与国家联系起来。这种安排在支持宗教多元化的同时，也给了它某种程度上的欧洲结构稳定。后来，当基督教在美洲被从国教中废除时，阻碍欧洲教会变革的一个关键因素被取消，这使美洲教会有了独特的创新和分裂倾向。
The Rise of the American Church
美洲教会的兴起
Christianity in America was significantly influenced and shaped by the English Reformation, especially Puritanism, of the mid 1600s (Ahlstrom Vol. I 1975:169). The instability caused by the religious upheavals in England hindered the government’s regulation of migration to the New World. This resulted in large numbers of religious dissenters emigrating, giving rise to a social order based on a radical break from the past. While the Puritans affirmed sola scriptura, they radicalized it through the regulative principle which stipulated only what was mandated by Scripture was allowable for worship (Ahlstrom Vol. I. 1975:170). They also pursued moral purity, i.e., individual and general conformity to the ethical teachings of the Bible. Another way that Puritanism radicalized the Reformation was its emphasis on conversion narratives. Unlike Anglicanism and Catholicism, the Puritans did not believe that all who resided in a given parish should be full church members. Because the “pure” church was comprised of the elect only those who could bear witness to a personal experience of divine grace were allowed into full membership (Ahlstrom Vol. I 1975:194). This emphasis on subjective grace would give rise to the Half-way Covenant controversy in the late 1600s and the Great Awakenings of the mid 1700s and the early 1800s.
美洲的基督教深受17世纪中叶英国宗教改革，特别是清教主义的影响和塑造（Ahlstrom Vol.I 1975:169）。英国宗教动乱造成的不稳定阻碍了政府新大陆的移民监管。这导致大量持不同政见的宗教人士移居国外，形成了一种基于与过去彻底决裂的社会秩序。虽然清教徒肯定了s唯独圣经，但他们通过限定性原则使其激进化，该原则只规定了圣经所规定的东西在崇拜中允许的（Ahlstrom第一卷，1975:170）。他们还追求道德的纯洁，即个人和一般的遵守圣经的道德教诲。清教主义激化改革的另一种方式是强调重生叙事。与圣公会和天主教不同，清教徒不相信所有居住在某个教区的人都应该是正式的教会成员。因为“纯洁”的教会是由选民组成的，只有那些有见证神恩典的个人经历的人才被允许成为正式成员（Ahlstrom Vol.I 1975:194）。这种对主观恩典的强调，会在17世纪末和18世纪中期和18世纪初的大觉醒中引发《半路圣约》的争议。
When the radical exegesis entailed in the Puritan regulative principle and the subjectivity of the conversion testimony are brought together, the foundation is laid for what Mathison labeled solo scriptura. Unlike the classic Reformation doctrine sola scriptura which allowed for creeds, ceremonials, and other extra-biblical practices even while the primacy of Scripture is affirmed, the innovative doctrine solo scriptura shunned extra-biblical practices. The radical subjectivity in Puritan spirituality also laid the groundwork for a highly individualistic approach to salvation that: (1) denigrated membership in established churches, (2) promoted an independent reading of the Bible without the aid of an educated clergy, and (3) allowed for the founding of churches free of the “traditions of men.” In short, the Reformers adherence to the normative principle of worship — what Scripture does not prohibit is permitted — allowed for the retention of historical memory. However, with the widespread acceptance of the regulative principle of worship — what Scripture does not enjoin is prohibited — combined with a radically subjective and individualistic understanding of conversion, the Protestant principle of sola scriptura underwent modification resulting in a genetic mutation: solo scriptura.
当清教解经原则中的激进内容与重生见证的主观性结合在一起时，马蒂森为其贴了一个独奏圣经的标签。独奏圣经成为基础。与经典的宗教改革的教义唯独圣经（sola scriptura）不同，宗教改革的唯独圣经允许信条、仪式和其他圣经外的实践，即使在圣经的首要地位得到确认的情况下，独创性的独奏圣经教义避免了圣经以外的实践。清教徒精神中激进的主观性也为高度个人主义的拯救方法奠定了基础：（1）诋毁已建立的教会成员资格；（2）在没有受过教育的神职人员的帮助下促进独立阅读圣经，（3）允许建立不受“人的传统”影响的教会。简而言之，改革者坚持敬拜的基准性原则——圣经没有禁止的是允许的——允许保留历史记忆。然而，随着对敬拜的规范性原则的广泛接受——圣经没有允许的就是禁止的内容——再加上对重生的极端主观和个人主义理解，新教的《唯独圣经》原则经历了修改，导致了基因突变，变成了独奏圣经。
America in the 1800s was one vast laboratory for social and religious experimentation. With the winning of the Revolutionary War and the establishment of the Constitution there was a widespread sense of optimism as the new era began. The constitutional separation of church and state was a momentous development, marking a break from the traditional state-church pattern found in Europe. In this new situation the two fundamental tenets of the Protestant Reformation — sola scriptura and ecclesia reformata sed semper reformanda — achieved a new level of intensity. Sola scriptura degenerated into an unmediated reading of Scripture to the exclusion of Tradition, the Papacy, or the Creeds. Under the influence of Restorationaism ecclesia reformata sed semper reformanda led to radically new forms of church structures as people sought to recreate the idealized primitive church (#4).
19世纪的美国是社会和宗教实验的巨大实验室。随着革命战争的胜利和宪法的确立，新时代开始时人们普遍感到乐观。政教分离是一个重大的发展，标志着对欧洲传统的国家教会模式的突破。在这种新的形势下，新教改革的两个基本信条——唯独圣经和改革教会——达到了一个新的高度。唯独圣经堕落为一种不经中介的阅读圣经，从而排除了传统、教皇或信条。在复辟主义的影响下，改革教会导致了全新的教会结构形式，人们试图重建理想化的原初教会（4）。
Sola scriptura took on new meaning out on the frontier where the pioneers attempted to leave behind their past and start all over again from scratch (#5). Many endeavored to be Christian with only the Bible guiding them. Out on the frontier a revivalist and populist Christianity emerged with a strong streak of anti-traditionalism. The revivalists called upon people to flee from religious tradition and traditional learning. The Restorationists attempted to read the Bible alone apart from all other sources in the belief that by doing this they would be able to replicate the early church. This gave rise to Protestants who had no knowledge of John Calvin or any of the other great Protestant Reformers.
唯独圣经在拓荒者试图抛开他们的过去，重新从头开始的新大陆地区有了新的含义。许多人努力成为基督徒，只有圣经指引他们。在新大陆，一个复兴主义和平民主义的基督教出现了，带有强烈的反传统主义倾向。复兴派号召人们逃离宗教传统和传统学习。复辟主义者试图把圣经与其他资料分开阅读，他们相信这样做可以复制早期教会。这就产生了对约翰·加尔文或其他伟大的新教改教家一无所知的新教徒。
The American frontier also gave rise to the “believers’ church” — the church as a voluntary association of like-minded individuals. The believers’ church is very American and very modern. It is strongly influenced by Lockean liberalism which makes the individual the most important social unit. The believers’ church diverged significantly from the historic understanding of the catholicity (universality) of the Church. Unlike the state church in Europe which enjoyed a stable monopoly, the disestablished churches in America were forced to compete for adherents. This gave rise to a kind of religious entrepreneurialism (#6).
美国的疆土也产生了“信徒教会”——一个志同道合者自愿联合的教会。信徒教会非常美国化，非常现代。它受到洛克自由主义的强烈影响，这种自由主义使个人成为最重要的社会单位。信徒教会与历史上对教会的大公性（普遍性）的理解有很大的分歧。与欧洲国家教会享有稳定的垄断地位不同，美国废除国教的教会被迫去竞争信徒。这就产生了一种宗教企业家精神。
Another innovation was the rise of denominations. Denominations began as groups of people gathered around the interpretation of a particular preacher or bible teacher. As more conflicting interpretations arose, more new denominations were formed. The growing number of denominations mirrored the growing doctrinal chaos of American Protestantism. Denominational specialization can be seen as embodying not only particular interpretations of the Bible but also as creating adaptive niches in a competitive religious market. The rise of denominationalism shattered the classical parish system. The individual congregation no longer mirrored the whole spectrum of society, only a part of it (Ahlstrom Vol. II 1975:323).
另一个创新是宗派的兴起。宗派起源于一群人聚集在某个传道人或圣经老师的讲解周围。随着越来越多的相互矛盾的解释产生，更多的新宗派形成。越来越多的宗派反映了美国新教日益混乱的教义。宗派专业化不仅体现了对《圣经》的特殊解读，也体现了在一个竞争激烈的宗教市场上创造了适应性的市场定位。宗派主义的兴起打破了传统的教区制度。个别的会众不再反映整个社会，只能反映其中的一部分（Ahlstrom Vol.II 1975:323）。
As America became an urban society the local parish underwent a significant change in nature. Where before the local church had only two primary functions: worship and the regulation of the morality of its members, American Protestant churches underwent structural differentiation becoming “social congregations” with diverse goals and manifold activities (Cherry 1995:39). Urban churches began to sponsor Sunday schools, concerts, church socials, sewing circles, soup kitchens, employment bureaus, libraries etc. All this laid the groundwork for the rise of a spiritual marketplace in which the local church became the purveyor of spiritual goods and the individual Christians as the consumer. The church became a kind of department store that attempted to address a wide range of needs — educational, entertainment, rehabilitative — in addition to the spiritual.
随着美国成为一个城市社会，当地教区的性质发生了重大变化。在地方教会以前只有两个主要功能：崇拜和规范其成员的道德，美国新教教会经历了结构分化，成为具有不同目标和多种活动的“社会会众团体”（Cherry 1995:39）。城市教会开始赞助主日学校、音乐会、教会社团、缝纫界、救济院、就业局、图书馆等。所有这些都为属灵市场的兴起奠定了基础，在这个市场中，当地教会成为了属灵产品的提供者，而基督徒则成为了消费者。教会变成了一种百货商店，除了属灵上的需求外，还试图满足各种各样的需求——教育、娱乐、康复。
Another major innovation was revivalism’s emphasis on the personal conversion experience which radically redefined how people understood faith. Where faith had been understood as assent to a certain body of doctrine, it now took on a more subjective and emotional sense. This new understanding of faith resulted in widespread indifference to doctrine. Ahlstrom writes:
另一个主要的创新是复兴主义强调个人重生经验，从根本上重新定义了人们对信仰的理解。当信仰被理解为对某一部分教义的赞同时，它现在变得更加主观和情感化了。这种对信仰的新理解导致了对教义的普遍漠视。Ahlstrom写道：
Because revivalists so often addressed interdenominational audiences, moreover, nearly all doctrinal emphases tended to be suppressed, not only by famous spellbinders, but by the thousands upon thousands local ministers and now-forgotten regional itinerants. Gradually a kind of unwritten consensus emerged, its cardinal articles being the infallibility of the Scriptures, the divinity of Christ, and man’s duty to be converted from the ways of sin to a life guided by a pietistic code of morals. Revivalism, in other words, was a mighty engine of doctrinal destruction (Ahlstrom Vol. II 1975:321).
因为复兴派经常向不同教派的听众发表演说，而且，几乎所有的教义重点都倾向于被压制，不仅是著名的受欢迎的讲道人，还有成千上万的地方牧师和现在被遗忘的地区巡回讲道人。渐渐地，一种不成文的共识出现了，它的主要条款是圣经的绝对正确性，基督的神性，以及人从罪恶的道路转变为以虔诚的道德准则为指导的生活的责任。换句话说，复兴主义是教义毁灭的强大引擎（阿赫斯特罗姆第二卷1975:321）。
The radical emphasis on individual piety effectively undermined the notion of the Puritan Commonwealth and the basis for classic Calvinism’s predestination (Ahlstrom Vol. II 1975:320-321).
对个人虔诚的激进强调实际上破坏了清教徒联邦的概念和古典加尔文主义的预定论基础（Ahlstrom Vol.II 1975:320-321）。
The 1800s was a formative period for the American Protestant church. It was during this time that many of the distinctive features of Evangelicalism have their origins. The altar call, the evangelistic rallies and revival meetings all originated in the 1800s. Dispensationalism with its emphasis on the Second Coming of Christ and a literal millennium became widely popular displacing the long-standing amillennial and postmillennial beliefs of Protestantism (#7). Also influential was the Holiness Revival with its emphasis on perfectionism (#8) and the separatistic “come-outism.” The temperance movement led many churches to use grape juice in the place of wine in Holy Communion (a practice with no historical precedent in church history).
19世纪是美国新教教会的形成时期。正是在这一时期，福音派的许多显著特征都起源这个时期。献身呼召、福音派集会和复兴聚会都起源于19世纪，以基督第二次降临和字面意义上的千年为重点的时代论取代了长期存在的无千和后千禧年的新教信仰而广受欢迎。同样具有影响力的还有圣洁复兴，它强调完美主义和分离主义的“出来主义”。禁酒运动导致许多教会在圣餐中用葡萄汁代替葡萄酒（这是教会历史上从来没有过的先例）。
Although Evangelicalism claims to be Protestant in origin, much of it roots can be traced to the 1800s. This was a period when numerous innovations were introduced that distanced Evangelicalism from its roots in the Protestant Reformation. The startling transformations in American Protestantism can be considered a case of ecclesia reformata sed semper reformanda gone amok.
尽管福音派声称起源于新教，但其根源大部分可以追溯到19世纪，这是一个引进了许多创新的时期，使福音派远离新教宗教改革的根源。美国新教令人震惊的转变可以被认为是教会变得疯狂的一个案例。
Protestantism Unravels
新教教义崩溃
Even more radical changes were to enter American Protestantism towards the end of the nineteenth century. It was here that I found the roots of the tragic conflict between the Liberals and Evangelicals in my former denomination, the United Church of Christ (UCC). This conflict mirrors Protestantism’s twofold interaction with modernity (#9). Using the analogy of the double-helix structure of DNA, I would argue that under the pressures of modern culture Protestantism’s internal genetic code began to split apart into two separate rival strands: Evangelicalism and Liberalism. Both are essentially syncretistic adaptations to modernity. Where Liberalism is the outcome of Protestantism’s interaction with high culture and the Enlightenment, Evangelicalism reflects Protestantism’s interaction with popular culture and capitalism (#10). This resulted in more historic forms of Protestantism becoming a forgotten remnant relegated to the margins of the religious market. Protestantism’s susceptibility to modernity is due to its being deeply rooted in modernity (#11).
在十九世纪末，更为激进的变革进入了美国新教。正是在这里，我发现了自由派和福音派之间悲剧冲突的根源，在我以前的宗派，基督教联合会（UCC）。这种冲突反映了新教与现代性的双重互动。利用DNA的双螺旋结构的类比，我认为在现代文化的压力下，新教内部的遗传密码开始分裂成两条独立的对立链：福音派和自由派。两者本质上都是对现代性的融合适应。自由派是新教与高等文化和启蒙运动互动的产物，而福音主义则反映了新教与大众文化和资本主义的互动关系。这导致更多的历史形式的新教成为一个被遗忘的残余势力，沦落到宗教市场的边缘。新教对现代性的敏感是因为它深深植根于现代性之中。
Liberalism’s orientation to high culture can be seen in the liberal seminaries’ attempt to adapt theology to “higher criticism” originating from European universities. It can also be seen in Liberalism’s close relationships with political liberalism. Evangelicalism’s orientation to low culture, or popular culture, can be seen their openness to adapting worship to popular styles of entertainment, the ease with which they applied modern marketing techniques to their evangelistic campaigns, as well as their often cozy relationship with political conservatives. This orientation to popular culture and modern capitalism can be found going back to D.L. Moody (Moore 1994:184 ff.). The commodification of religion affected not just the conservatives but the theological liberals as well (Moore 1994:209).
自由主义对高等文化的取向，可以从自由派神学院试图将神学与源自欧洲大学的“高等批判”相适应。这也可以从自由派与政治自由主义的密切关系中看出。福音派倾向于低文化，或者说通俗文化，可以看出他们对适应流行娱乐方式的崇拜的开放性，他们将现代营销技术应用到他们的福音运动中的容易程度，以及他们与政治保守派之间的关系。这种对流行文化和现代资本主义的倾向可以追溯到D.L.穆迪（Moore 1994:184 ff.）。宗教商品化不仅影响了保守派，也影响了神学上的自由派（摩尔1994:209）。
Liberalism and Evangelicalism held contrasting attitudes towards modernity. One openly embraced it while the other shunned it. Liberalism’s infatuation with modernity can be seen in the blatant motto adopted by the World Council of Churches in the 1960s: “The world sets the agenda for the church.” Evangelicalism and its Fundamentalist predecessors hold to a more suspicious view of modernity. Despite its denunciation of modernity Evangelicalism’s pragmatism has unwittingly allowed itself to be shaped by the marketing mentality of modern capitalism. Thus, although Evangelicals and Liberals view each other as enemies, both sides are actually closely related.
自由派和福音派对现代性持有截然不同的态度。一个公开拥抱，另一个却回避。自由派对现代性的迷恋可以从20世纪60年代世界教会理事会（World Council of Churches）通过的一句明目张胆的座右铭中看出：“世界为教会设定议程”。福音派及其基要主义的前辈们对现代性持怀疑态度。尽管它谴责现代性，福音派的实用主义在不知不觉中让自己被现代资本主义的市场心理所塑造。因此，尽管福音派和自由派都把对方视为敌人，但双方实际上是密切相关的。
The Rise of Liberalism
自由主义的兴起
The rise of Liberalism in America can be traced to the Industrial Revolution and to the German Enlightenment. The Industrial Revolution wrought major changes in American society. A new economy emerged eclipsing the more traditional agricultural and crafts based economy. A new elite emerged (e.g., the Robber Barons) rivaling the older traditional elite situated on the Eastern Seaboard. Liberal Christianity emerged as an adaptive response to the shifting social landscape. Rather than take a defiant stance and beat a retreat (as did Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), Protestantism in America embraced the new social reality. This syncretistic adaptation was designed to enable the mainline denominations to maintain their standing in society rather than be ostracized and marginalized.
自由主义在美国的兴起可以追溯到工业革命和德国启蒙运动。工业革命使美国社会发生了重大变化。一种新经济的出现使传统的农业和手工艺经济黯然失色。一个新的精英阶层（如强盗贵族，指19世纪下半期对一些美国商人的蔑称）出现了，与位于东海岸的老的传统精英阶层相抗衡。自由主义基督教的出现是对社会格局变化的一种适应性反应。美国的新教不是采取一种挑衅的姿态和打退堂鼓（正如教皇庇护九世的错误教学大纲一样），而是接受了新的社会现实。这种融合性的适应旨在使主流教派能够保持其在社会中的地位，而不是被排斥和边缘化。
In the early period of American history higher education was centered around the divinity school. Many of America’s premiere institutions of higher learning like Harvard and Yale were originally established for the training of an educated clergy. However, all that changed with the Industrial Revolution. Industrial capitalism required a new kind of university, one that was built upon the natural sciences and social sciences. American universities patterned themselves after the German model. They adopted the principle of academic freedom. The tenure system was adopted which enabled professors to openly criticize traditional beliefs. Autonomous departments were created and preference given to the natural sciences. The divinity schools fell by the wayside as America raced ahead to become the world’s leading economic and military power.
在美国历史早期，高等教育是以神学院为中心的。许多美国首屈一指的高等学府，如哈佛和耶鲁，最初是为了培养有教养的神职人员而建立的。然而，随着工业革命的到来，一切都改变了。工业资本主义需要一种新的大学，建立在自然科学和社会科学的基础上。美国大学效仿德国模式。他们采纳了学术自由的原则。实行终身教职制度，使教授们能够公开批评传统信仰。建立了自治部门，优先考虑自然科学。当美国争先恐后地成为世界领先的经济和军事强国时，神学院就被搁置一旁了。
The Industrial Revolution did not change the seminaries directly but it created structural pressures making seminaries and churches more open to change. With the emergence of the modern university, the seminaries were in danger of becoming marginalized. Conrad Cherry’s Hurrying Toward Zion (1995) provides an insightful analysis of the Protestant seminaries struggle to find a place in the modern university. Prior to the Civil War clergymen made up ninety percent of the college presidents, however a hundred years later clergymen would be virtually absent among college presidents (Cherry 1995:130). Another indicator of the marginalization of the American clergy was the fact that increasing numbers of clergy were receiving their education in small denominational colleges rather than the more prestigious universities and divinity schools (Cherry 1995:130). To prevent their marginalization some seminaries began to insist on their students being grounded in the natural sciences than in the humanities. Others began to insist on hiring professors trained in the higher critical methods of German scholarship.
工业革命并没有直接改变神学院，但它产生了结构性压力，使神学院和教会更愿意改变。随着现代大学的出现，神学院面临着被边缘化的危险。康拉德·切里（Conrad Cherry）的《匆匆走向锡安》（1995）对新教神学院在现代大学中寻找一席之地的斗争进行了深入的分析。在美国内战之前，牧师占大学校长的百分之九十，然而一百年后，牧师在大学校长中几乎不存在（Cherry 1995:130）。美国神职人员边缘化的另一个指标是，越来越多的神职人员在小教派学院接受教育，而不是在更著名的大学和神学院接受教育（Cherry 1995:130）。为了防止他们被边缘化，一些神学院开始坚持让他们的学生以自然科学为基础，而不是人文学科。另一些人开始坚持聘请受过德国学术界更高批判方法训练的教授。
The second key factor to the rise of Liberal Christianity in America was theGerman “Enlightenment.” As influential as the Industrial Revolution was, it was the introduction of new theological ideas from Germany that would transform the doctrinal landscape of American Protestantism. Theological Liberalism was in large part a university based movement, not parish based. Many of the leading theological liberals held posts at major universities: Schleiermacher at the University of Halle and University of Berlin; Hegel at the University of Berlin (#12); Ritschl at Bonn and Göttingen; Baur at Tübingen; Strauss at University of Zurich (#13); and Wellhausen at Göttingen (#14); Troeltsch at Heidelberg then Berlin; and von Harnack at Berlin (see Latourette Vol. II 1953:1120 ff.). The prestige of German scholarship was such that many of the seminary faculty in America received their degrees from Germany (Cherry 1995:297, 358 no.1).
自由派基督教在美国兴起的第二个关键因素是德国的“启蒙运动”，与工业革命一样具有影响力的是，从德国引进的新神学思想将改变美国新教的教义面貌。神学自由主义在很大程度上是以大学为基础的运动，而不是以教区为基础。许多主要的神学自由主义者在主要大学任职：哈勒大学和柏林大学的施莱马赫；柏林大学的黑格尔（12）；波恩和哥廷根的里施尔；蒂宾根的鲍尔；苏黎世大学的施特劳斯（13）；哥廷根的威尔豪森（14）；海德堡的特罗尔茨，然后是柏林；和冯哈纳克在柏林（见拉图雷特第二卷1953:1120页及其后）。德国学术声望如此之高，以至于许多美国神学院的教员都从德国获得了学位（Cherry 1995:297358 no.1）。
There were a number of sociological factors that contributed to the rise of Liberalism. Seminaries that became theologically liberal tended to be located near major urban centers — the major centers of power and higher education. The first seminaries that went liberal were those had strong ties with major universities (Harvard Divinity School, Yale Divinity School, Chicago Theological Seminary). Both the seminary and the university are educational institutions which means that there is a certain affinity between them that facilitates the transmission of new ideas. Economic class was also involved. The leading seminaries at the time produced clergy for denominations whose membership came from the middle and upper classes. Adapting seminary education to the modern university setting was a pragmatic move that enabled populist denominations like Methodism make the transition from the rustic hinterlands to the middle-class urban mainstream (Cherry 1995:268). It is no surprise then that the university-based seminaries would be the principle transmitter of Liberalism.
有许多社会学因素促成了自由主义的兴起。神学上自由化的神学院往往位于主要城市中心附近——主要的权力中心和高等教育中心。最早开放的神学院是那些与主要大学（哈佛神学院、耶鲁神学院、芝加哥神学院）有着紧密联系的神学院。神学院和大学都是教育机构，这意味着它们之间有某种亲和力，有助于新思想的传播。经济类移民也参与其中。当时主要的神学院为来自中上层阶级的教派培养神职人员。使神学院教育适应现代大学环境是一个务实的举措，它使像卫理公会这样的平民宗派能够从乡村腹地过渡到中产阶级的城市主流（Cherry 1995:268）。因此，以大学为基地的神学院将成为自由主义的主要传播者也就不足为奇了。
The Rise of Fundamentalism
基要主义的兴起
By the late 1800s seminaries were divided between professors who supported the use of higher critical methods and those who held to the commonsense reading of the Bible (#15). The conservatives recognizing the inherent dangers of Liberalism’s naturalism refused to revise their theologies (#16). Tensions grew until churches and even whole denominations were engulfed in controversy.
到了19世纪末，神学院的教授分为支持使用更高的批判方法的教授和坚持常识性阅读圣经的教授。保守派认识到自由派的自然主义的内在危险，拒绝修改他们的神学。直到众多教会，甚至整个宗派都陷入了争议，紧张气氛才逐渐加剧。
Things came to a head in the 1920s when the conservatives lost control of many denominations and were ousted by the liberals (#17). This loss was a traumatic one. Fundamentalism acquired a shrill combativeness and anti-intellectual rigidity not found among its Protestant antecedents. Joel Carpenter writes of the origins of Fundamentalism:
20世纪20年代，保守派失去了对许多宗派的控制，被自由派赶下台。这是一次痛苦的损失。基要主义获得了一种不依不饶的战斗性和反智的刚性，这在它的新教前身中是不存在的。乔尔·卡彭特写了基要主义的起源：
Fundamentalism’s intellectual legacy is at least two-sided as well. On the one hand, the movement was heir to a campaign in the late nineteenth century to repopularize the gospel, which led many evangelical leaders of Moody’s day to neglect their intellectual responsibilities. The result was a near-abdication of any voice in academe at a time when the intellectual foundations of Judeo-Christian theism were being questioned as never before. Fundamentalist leaders were caught unprepared to respond to the critiques of scientific naturalism, whether applied to natural history or the study of the Bible. They fought with rusty intellectual weapons and very often resorted to anti-intellectual ridicule or the use of disreputable ideas and theories, such as those of the young-earth creationists. They left an enduring legacy of populist intolerance of ideas that cannot be explained in layman’s terms and impatience with disciplined thinking in general (Carpenter 1997:243-244).
基要派的思想遗产至少也是双面的。一方面，这场运动继承了十九世纪末一场重新普及福音的运动，这导致穆迪时代的许多福音派领袖忽视了他们的学术责任。其结果是，在犹太教-基督教有神论的知识基础受到前所未有的质疑之际，学术界的任何声音都几近退位。基要派领袖们对科学自然主义的批评毫无准备，无论是应用于自然史还是圣经研究。他们用生锈的智力武器作战，经常诉诸反智力的嘲笑或使用名声不好的思想和理论，例如神创论-年轻的地球神。他们留下了一个持久的遗产，即民粹主义者对无法用外行的术语解释的思想的不容忍，以及对一般受训思维的不耐烦（Carpenter 1997:243-244）。
The price that many Evangelical schools have had to pay was high. In their attempt to preserve their theology intact, they acquired an insularity that cut them off from mainstream American culture (#18). Mark Noll gives a more sophisticated analysis of Evangelicalism’s anti-intellectualism in his Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994).
许多福音派学校不得不付出高昂的代价。为了保持神学的完整性，他们获得了一种与美国主流文化隔绝的孤立性。马克诺尔在他的《福音派思想丑闻》（1994）中对福音派的反智进行了更为复杂的分析。
Fundamentalism is basically a strategy of retreat from modern culture and a self-imposed ghettoization in order to maintain theological orthodoxy. Fundamentalism is probably best described as a sub-culture of Protestants who rejected much of modern science and modern culture in their attempt to maintain their belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. It is important to keep in mind that many theological conservatives did not leave their denominational homes. Having lost the battle for the “commanding heights” of their denominations, they laid low in the pews while remaining active in the local parish or channeled their energies into parachurch ministries (See Cherry 1995:171-172).
基要派基本上是一种从现代文化中退却的策略，是为了维持神学的正统性而自我强加的隔离。基要派可能最好被描述为新教徒的一种亚文化，他们拒绝接受现代科学和现代文化，试图保持他们对圣经无误的信仰。重要的是要记住，许多神学保守派并没有离开他们的宗派家园。他们在争夺各宗派“制高点”的战斗中失败后，在长椅上低头，同时仍活跃在当地教区，或将精力集中到教会辅助事工（见Cherry 1995:171-172）。
Among the prominent social institutions of Fundamentalism were bible colleges, bible camps, and bible conferences all of which inculcated the literal reading of the Bible and disdained critical scholarship. In their retreat from mainstream American culture, the Fundamentalists established bible colleges in an attempt to create a parallel educational system untainted by the heresies of modern science: Darwinism, literary source criticism, etc. Another significant social institution of Fundamentalism was the parachurch ministry. The effectiveness of parachurch organizations lay in their being based upon highly motivated volunteers, their broad non-denominational theology, and their single-minded mission. Through the parachurch organizations — Young Life, Youth for Christ, Billy Graham Crusades, Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship — Evangelicalism exerted a powerful influence on the mainline denominations at the grassroot level (#19). The parachurch organizations provided safe havens for Evangelicals enabling them to retain membership in mainline denominations while affirming their more conservative theology and spirituality.
在主要的基要派社会机构中，有圣经学院、圣经营会和圣经会议，所有这些机构都灌输从字面阅读圣经和蔑视批判性学术。基要派在退出美国主流文化的过程中，建立了圣经学院，试图创建一个没有受到现代科学异端，如达尔文主义、文学来源批评等影响的平行教育体系。基要派的另一个重要社会机构是教会辅助机构。教会辅助组织的有效性在于它们建立在高度积极的志愿者、广泛的非宗派神学和他们专心致志的使命的基础上。通过教会的辅助组织-青年生活，青年为基督，葛培理十字军东征，校园十字军为基督，校际基督教联谊会-福音派对主要宗派的基层一级施加了强大的影响（#19）。教会辅助组织为福音派信徒提供了安全的庇护所，使他们能够保留主流宗派的成员资格，同时肯定他们更保守的神学和灵性。
After World War II there emerged a new spirit among Fundamentalists who rejected the earlier world rejecting stance and who believed that it was possible to combine a strong commitment to Scripture with solid scholarship. This new Evangelicalism represents an attempt to establish a via media between Fundamentalism’s rejection of modern culture and Liberalism’s embrace of modern culture. Evangelicalism’s move to a more open stance to mainstream culture is probably best captured by Richard Quebedeaux’s The Young Evangelicals (1974) and The Worldly Evangelicals (1980). George Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism uses the founding of Fuller Seminary for a detailed case study analysis of the transition from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism. However this venture was a gamble that one can retain one’s Evangelical identity while engaging with modern culture. The mixed results of the new Evangelicals’ embrace of modernity can be seen in The Coming Evangelical Crisis (John Armstrong, ed., 1996).
第二次世界大战后，基要派中出现了一种新的精神，他们拒绝接受早期的反对世界的立场，他们相信有可能把对圣经的坚定委身与扎实的学术结合起来。这种新的福音派代表了在基要派拒绝现代文化和自由派拥抱现代文化之间建立一种媒介的尝试。福音派对主流文化采取更为开放的立场，这可能是理查德·奎贝多（Richard Quebedeaux）的《年轻福音派》（The Young Evangelals，1974）和《世界福音派》（The Worldly Evangelicals，1980）最能体现这一点的。乔治·马斯登的《改革基要派》以富勒神学院的成立为例，详细分析了从原教旨主义向福音主义过渡的过程。然而，这项冒险是一场赌博，一个人可以在接触现代文化的同时保留自己的福音派身份。在即将到来的福音派危机中，可以看到新福音派拥抱现代性的好坏参半的结果（约翰·阿姆斯特朗编辑，1996年）。
Post-Modernity’s Threat to Protestantism
后现代对新教的威胁
In recent years Western culture has made a shift from modernity to post-modernity. Modernity is based upon the assumptions of the superiority of scientific reason, the possibility of objective knowledge and the unity of knowledge. Post-modernism is hostile to claims of objective knowledge, universal truth, and moral absolutes (#20). The shift to post-modernity probably began in the 1960s and 70s as American society became deeply divided politically and culturally over the Vietnam War, Watergate, and rock-n-roll. An anti-authoritarian attitude emerged suspicious of political and cultural authorities. Popular confidence in the goodness of science was shaken by the threat of a nuclear holocaust or ecological disaster from pesticide poisoning. In the 1980s another shift towards post-modernity took place as people began to lose an unquestioning respect for modern science. People were unsettled by shifting and conflicting findings by scientists: e.g., Saccharine has been found to cause cancer, saccharine has been found not to cause cancer. Revelations about how the tobacco industry has sponsored “scientific” research to advance its corporate interests has made many cynical about the objectivity of scientific research.
近年来，西方文化从现代转向后现代。现代是以科学理性的优越性、客观认识的可能性和知识的统一性为前提的。后现代反对客观知识、普遍真理和绝对道德的主张。向后现代的转变可能始于20世纪60年代和70年代，当时美国社会在越南战争、水门事件和摇滚乐等问题上在政治和文化上产生了严重分歧。一种反独裁的态度出现了对政治和文化权威的怀疑。人们对科学美好的信心被核毁灭或农药中毒造成的生态灾难的威胁所动摇。20世纪80年代，随着人们开始对现代科学失去不容置疑的尊重，又发生了一次后现代的转变。科学家们的不断变化和相互矛盾的发现使人们感到不安：例如，糖精被发现会致癌，糖精被发现不会致癌。对“烟草行业赞助科学研究”的“客观性”有多少启示。关于烟草业如何赞助“科学”研究以提高其公司利益的启示使许多人对科学研究的客观性持怀疑态度。
It would be claiming too much to say that America has left behind modernity. It might be more accurate to say that American society has entered into a post-modern situation marked by an increasingly diverse and fragmented cultural landscape and the passing of a public sphere dominated by Protestantism (#21). The decline of denominationalism represented a clearing of the deck that allowed for a rearrangement of the religious market (Wuthnow 1988:11). The anti-authoritarian atmosphere of the 1960s took a toll on the religious sector. Confidence in traditional religious values weakened and religious experimentation became more common. An American student would try on different religious personae — a Presbyterian one year, a Buddhist the next, then a practitioner of Transcendental Meditation (Cherry 1995:113). Protestant seminaries were finding increasing numbers of seminarians were uncertain about their vocational goal and in seminary to “find themselves” (Cherry 1995:113).
如果说美国已经抛弃了现代，那就太过分了。可以更准确地说，美国社会已经进入了一个后现代的时代，其特点是文化景观日益多样化和支离破碎，公共领域由新教主导（21）。宗派主义的衰落代表了一个清理的甲板，允许重新安排宗教市场（Wuthnow 1988:11）。20世纪60年代的反独裁气氛给宗教界造成了损失。对传统宗教价值观的信心减弱，宗教实验变得更加普遍。一个美国学生会尝试不同的宗教角色——一年是长老会信徒，下一年是佛教徒，然后是超验冥想的实践者（Cherry 1995:113）。新教神学院发现越来越多的神学院学生不确定他们的呼召目标，在神学院“找到自己”（Cherry 1995:113）。
The transition to post-modernity can be seen in the shifts in the location of truth in public space. In the Puritan commonwealth the public truth was located in the pulpit, i.e., the minister’s preaching of Holy Scripture. With the Industrial Revolution the locus of truth shifted to modern science. Now public truth is located in the university, i.e., the university classroom or the scientist working in his laboratory. The modern “It has been scientifically proven ….” superseded the pre-modern “The Bible teaches us ….” More recently public truth has shifted to the television and mass media, i.e., to the celebrity. A recent Christianity Today article describes how Oprah Winfrey, one of America’s leading talk show celebrities, has come to be one of America’s spiritual leaders (see Taylor). In this post-modern situation, the celebrity outranks the Christian minister and the modern scientist as cultural authorities. The irony is that Evangelicalism has paved the way with its practice of using sports heroes and other celebrities to share the gospel message rather than the ordained minister. Post-modernism constitutes a major challenge against Protestantism — whether Liberal or Evangelical. The emergence of a post-modern and a post-Christian society threatens to render Protestantism culturally irrelevant.
公共空间中真理定位的转变可以看出后现代的转变。在清教徒联盟中，真理的就在讲坛上，即牧师传讲圣经。随着工业革命，真理的中心转向了现代科学。现在真理定位于大学，即大学课堂或在实验室工作的科学家。现代的“它已经被科学证明……”取代了前现代的“圣经教导我们……”最近，真理转向了电视和大众媒体，即名人。《今日基督教》最近的一篇文章描述了美国著名脱口秀名人奥普拉·温弗瑞如何成为美国精神领袖之一（见泰勒）。在这种后现代的情况下，名人的地位超过了基督教牧师和现代科学家作为文化权威。具有讽刺意味的是，福音派为这一做法铺平了道路，他们利用体育英雄和其他名人来分享福音信息，而不是按立的牧师。后现代主义是对新教的一个重大挑战，无论是自由派还是福音派。后现代和后基督教社会的出现，使新教在文化上变得无关紧要。
The Demise of Liberalism
自由主义的消亡
Liberalism functioned as well as it did largely because of its ability to adapt to the cultural assumptions of modernity. Yet Liberal Christianity paid a heavy price for its syncretistic embrace of modern culture. After enjoying a brief religious boom in the 1950s, mainline denominations suffered significant membership losses from the 1960s to 1990s. Membership losses have been attributed to several factors. One has been the attempts by liberal theologians in the 60s to transform the church into a vehicle for challenging social injustice. These attempts to politicize the local church alienated many lay people causing many to leave (Hadden 1969). The decline of mainline denominations has also been attributed to the loss of its youth who find it unappealing or irrelevant, preferring Evangelicalism instead (Hutcheson 1981:47 ff.).
自由主义之所以能发挥如此出色的作用，很大程度上是因为它能够适应现代性的文化假设。然而，自由派基督教为其融合现代文化付出了沉重的代价。在经历了20世纪50年代短暂的宗教繁荣之后，20世纪60年代至90年代，主流宗派的成员数量大幅减少，这主要归因于几个因素。其中之一是60年代自由派神学家试图将教会改造成挑战社会不公的工具。这些试图将当地教会政治化的企图疏远了许多非专业人士，导致许多人离开（Hadden 1969）。主流宗派的衰落也归因于其年轻人的流失，年轻人发现这一点不吸引人或无关紧要，而是更喜欢福音派（Hutcheson 1981:47 ff.）。
The recent decades have been just as cruel to the mainline seminaries. Membership losses in the mainline denominations have had a serious impact on the funding of denominational programs. In the 1990s the financial base for seminaries shrank to the point of putting them at risk. Surprisingly many of the seminary leaders saw cultural relevancy as the greatest challenge they had to face, not finances (Cherry 1995:289-292).
近几十年来，对主要的神学院也同样残酷。主要宗派的会员流失对教派计划的资助产生了严重影响。上世纪90年代，神学院的财政基础萎缩到了让它们面临风险的地步。令人惊讶的是，许多神学院的领袖们认为文化相关性是他们必须面对的最大挑战，而不是财政危机（Cherry 1995:289-292）。
The attempts by mainline seminaries to avoid marginalization by adapting itself to modernity has by and large been a failure. Under the auspices of modern scientific research, the modern universities sought to replace the traditional seminaries with departments of religious studies (#22). Some major seminaries even faced the danger of extinction. The Harvard Divinity School in the 1940s and 50s was in danger of being shut down and having its resources transferred to the department of religion (Cherry 1995:276). Thomas Oden, a professor at a liberal Methodist seminary, writes: “The seminary that weds itself to modernity is already a widow as we enter the era of post-modernity” (1994).
主流神学院试图通过适应现代性来避免边缘化，但总的来说是失败的。在现代科学研究的支持下，现代大学试图用宗教研究系取代传统的神学院。一些主要的神学院甚至面临灭绝的危险。20世纪40年代和50年代，哈佛神学院面临着被关闭的危险，并将其资源转移到宗教系（Cherry 1995:276）。托马斯奥登，一个自由卫理公会神学院的教授，写道：“当我们进入后现代时代时，与现代结合的神学院已经是一个寡妇”（1994年）。
Liberalism’s attempts to avoid marginalization through conformity to modern thought has backfired. Liberal theology, for all its attempt to influence society, has remained an elite ideology. It never succeeded in its attempt to reshape the theological outlook of the laity. There is a certain irony in the fact that public opinion polls in the 1980s found the majority of Americans still holding to beliefs that Henry Emerson Fosdick would have found backward and unenlightened (Cherry 1995:172). Thomas Oden made a similar finding:
自由主义试图通过顺应现代思想来避免边缘化，结果适得其反。自由主义神学，尽管它试图影响社会，仍然是一种精英意识形态。它试图重塑俗人的神学观，但从未成功。具有讽刺意味的是，上世纪80年代的民意调查发现，大多数美国人仍然坚信亨利·艾默生·福斯迪克会发现自己落后和无知（Cherry 1995:172）。托马斯·奥登也有类似的发现：
Finally my students got through to me. They do not want to hear a watered-down modern reinterpretation. They want nothing less than the substance of faith of the apostles and martyrs without too much interference from modern pablum-peddlers who doubt that they are tough enough to take it straight (1990:14-15).
最后，我的学生们说服了我。他们不想听到被淡化的现代重新解释。他们只想要使徒和殉道者的信仰的实质，而不受现代小贩的太多干涉，这些小贩怀疑他们是否足够坚强，可以接受（1990:14-15）。
With the emergence of post-modernity Liberalism may suffer a double tragedy of being out of touch with contemporary culture and out of touch with historic Christianity. In other words, liberal mainline denominations have become sidelined denominations — relegated to the fringe of society unmoored from their past and facing a very uncertain future.
随着后现代主义的出现，自由主义可能会遭遇与当代文化脱节和与历史基督教脱节的双重悲剧。换言之，自由主义的主流宗派已经变成了边缘化的宗派——被排挤到社会的边缘，对他们的过去毫不在意，面临着一个非常不确定的未来。
The Coming Evangelical Crisis
即将到来的福音派危机
Despite the recent rash of books predicting a bright future for Evangelicalism, a dark future lies ahead. Evangelicalism faces the triple threat of pluralism, relativism, and subjectivism.
尽管最近有很多书预测福音派的光明未来，但黑暗的未来就在眼前。福音派面临着多元主义、相对主义和主观主义的三重威胁。
Pluralism can be seen in the emergence of post-denominational Christianity. Post-denominationalism has brought about a blurring of confessional identity, cafeteria style Christianity, and frequent church hopping. Ironically, post-denominationalism can be attributed to Fundamentalism (see Carpenter 1997:240). When the Fundamentalists were forced out of the mainline denominations, they responded by forming rival denominations and parachurch agencies. Many Evangelicals became acclimated to organizational pluralism after being forced to leave a liberal denomination or through participation in several parachurch ministries. The vitality of parachurch ministries was such that the local church seemed stodgy and ineffective in comparison leading to a weakening of loyalty to the local church (#23).
多元主义可以从后宗派基督教的出现中看到。后宗派主义带来了认信身份的模糊，自助式的基督教，以及频繁的换教会。讽刺的是，后宗派主义可以归因于基要主义（见Carpenter 1997:240）。当基要派被迫退出主流教派时，他们的反应是形成反对宗派和教会辅助机构。许多福音派信徒在被迫离开一个自由派教派或通过参与几个教会辅助机构的事工后，逐渐适应了组织多元化。教会辅助机构的事工的活力如此之大，以至于当地教会显得呆板而无效，这导致了对当地教会的忠诚减弱（23）
Relativism was an unintended consequence of Evangelicalism’s growing pluralism. The proliferation of counter-denominations and parachurch groups weakened denominational loyalties to the point where denominational distinctives became irrelevant for many. Being task-oriented and interdenominational parachurch organizations tended to frame their doctrines broadly. This resulted in a minimalist approach to core doctrines, blurring of denominational differences, and the avoidance of any discussion about ecclesiology: sacraments, liturgy, creeds, and polity (#24). In No Place for Truth, David Wells laments what he calls the “disappearance of theology” within Evangelicalism. Wells writes, “The anti-theological mood that now grips the evangelical world is changing its internal configuration, its effectiveness, and its relation to the past” (1993:96). This anti-theological mood can be seen in the following anecdote:
相对主义是福音派日益多元化的一个意外结果。相对的宗派和教会辅助团体的扩散削弱了宗派的忠诚，以至于宗派的区别对许多人来说变得无关紧要。作为以任务为导向和总共派间的教会辅助组织，他们倾向于宽泛地制定自己的教义。这导致了对核心教义的极简主义方法，模糊了教派的差异，避免了任何关于教会的讨论：圣礼、礼拜、信条和制度（24）。大卫·威尔斯在《无处可寻真理》中哀叹他所说的福音派“神学的消失”。威尔斯写道，“反神学情绪现在掌握着福音派世界正，在改变其内部结构，其效力，以及它与过去的关系”（1993:96）。这种反神学的情绪可以从以下轶事中看出：
…I heard of a modern pastor who visited a neighboring pastor, and in the course of their conversation, he bemoaned the shameful divisions that exist within Christendom. The neighboring pastor replied that such had not always been the case. ….. He proceeded to suggest that the pastors of the area get together and address the critical issues that divided them.
“Oh!” said his visitor. “It would not be good to discuss doctrine among ourselves. Doctrine divides! We need to stay away from controversy and just get to know each other through prayer.” (Hardenbrook 1996:1978).
……我听说一位现代牧师拜访了一位邻近的牧师，在他们交谈的过程中，他哀叹基督教世界存在的可耻的分歧。邻近的牧师回答说，情况并非总是如此。….. 他接着建议该地区的牧师们聚在一起，解决使他们分裂的关键问题。
“哦！他的客人说。“我们之间讨论教义是不好的。教义使教会分裂！我们需要远离争议，只需要通过祷告了解彼此。
Although many Evangelical will deny the charges of theological relativism, many find it hard to articulate the essential core doctrines of Christianity or the Protestant Reformation.
虽然许多福音派人士否认神学相对主义的指控，但许多人发现很难阐明基督教或新教宗教改革的基本核心教义。
Subjectivism is a third threat facing Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism’s drift into relativism and subjectivism has been facilitated by the whole scale abandonment of confessional standards. Or as sociologist Peter Berger put it more vividly, under the shock of pietism Protestantism underwent a meltdown of its dogmatic structures (1967:157). What matters is not so much what you believe but whether you had a “born again” experience. It was also abetted by a spiritual pragmatism found in attitudes like: “What helps you grow spiritually” or “Go where you feel God is leading you” or “I have a peace in my heart about this.” Among charismatic preachers it is quite common to hear them say: “The Lord spoke to me….” or “The Holy Spirit laid it on my heart to….” Faith has shifted away from doctrine to subjective experiences.
主观主义是福音派面临的第三个威胁。福音派向相对主义和主观主义的转变，得益于对认信标准的全面放弃。或者正如社会学家彼得·伯杰（Peter Berger）更生动地描述的那样，在敬虔主义的冲击下，新教的教义结构发生了崩溃（1967:157）。重要的不是你相信什么，而是你是否有过“重生”的经历。它也受到了一种属灵上的实用主义的教唆，这些态度包括：“什么能帮助你在属灵上成长”、“去你觉得上帝在引导你的地方”或“我内心对此感到平静”。在富有魅力的传道人中，经常听到他们说：“上帝对我说话了……”或“圣灵把它放在我的心上”信仰已经从教义转向主观经验。
Evangelicalism, unlike Liberalism, can be expected to enjoy numerical growth in the near future. This is because, unlike Liberalism, Evangelicalism is more in tune with popular culture. However, that may prove to be a hollow victory. For by that time Evangelicalism may have mutated to the point where it will bear little resemblance to its Protestant roots. This is a warning given by George Barna, Evangelicalism’s leading pollster. In The Second Coming of the Church, he writes:
与自由派不同的是，福音派在不久的将来会有数量上的增长。这是因为，与自由派不同，福音派更符合大众文化。然而，这可能被证明是一个空洞的胜利。因为那时福音派可能已经发生了变异，以至于与它的新教根源几乎没有相似之处。这是一个警告，乔治巴纳，福音派的主要民调专家。在《教会的第二次降临》中，他写道：
Evangelism will suffer in the first decade of the new millennium as Christians shrink from the aggressive questioning of the nonbelieving public. Without a visible witness to the contrary, the mass media will continue to portray churches and Christianity negatively, while giving positive affirmation to the new strains of religions and religious leaders competing for America’s souls. Christian doctrine will be sliced and diced beyond recognition–and few will know, even fewer will care (1998:208, emphasis added).
在新千年的第一个十年里，当基督徒对不信教的公众的攻击性质疑退缩时，福音派将会受到影响。在没有明显相反的证据的情况下，大众媒体将继续负面地描述教会和基督教，同时积极肯定新的宗教流派和宗教领袖争夺美国的灵魂。基督教教义将被分割成碎片，难以辨认——很少有人知道，甚至更少人会在意（1998:208，重点补充）。
Barna’s alarm at Evangelicalism’s plight is shared by John Armstrong who edited The Coming Evangelical Crisis (1996) which describes the faultlines fracturing Evangelicalism in the 1990s: doctrine (e.g., biblical inerrancy, process theology, annihlationism), methodology (e.g., postmodern approaches to knowledge), worship (e.g., seeker friendly services), eschatology (progressive dispensationalism), ethics (e.g., homosexuality, abortion, divorce), and ministry (women’s ordination). These findings confirm the warning given by James Davidson Hunter in his Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. Hunter’s survey research in the 1980s showed significant opinion shifts already well underway among Evangelicalism’s upcoming generation. Hunter talks of the “loss of binding address” among Evangelicals (1987:210 ff.) which is a very apt way of describing Evangelicalism’s dire straits.
约翰·阿姆斯特朗（John Armstrong）与巴纳一样对福音派的困境感到震惊，他编辑了《即将到来的福音派危机》（1996年），该书描述了1990年代破坏福音派的断层线：教义（例如，圣经无误、过程神学、灭绝论）、方法论（例如，后现代知识方法）、崇拜（例如，对寻求者的友好服事）、末世论（渐进时代论）、伦理学（如同性恋、堕胎、离婚）和牧师（按立女性担任圣职）。这些发现证实了詹姆斯·戴维森·亨特在《福音派：下一代》中提出的警告。亨特在20世纪80年代的调查研究显示，新一代福音派中已经发生了重大的观点转变。亨特谈到福音派信徒中的“失去有约束力的发声”（1987:210及其后），这是描述福音派困境的一种非常恰当的方式。
In conclusion, Evangelicalism’s threefold crisis of pluralism, relativism, and subjectivism is not due to an unfortunate accident of history but is deeply rooted in Protestantism. The damning indictment for Evangelicals is that they are just as modern and syncretistic as the Liberals. This is the warning given by Peter Toon in The End of Liberal Theology: “American Evangelicals have tended to be blind to the effects and dangers of modernity because their own identity is actually tied to modernity” (1995:211 ff.). The recent Evangelical crisis shows the powerful cultural forces of post-modernity pulling the Evangelical strand of the Protestant genetic code in all directions rendering it theologically incoherent.
综上所述，福音派的多元主义、相对主义和主观主义的三重危机并不是由于一个不幸的历史意外，而是深深扎根于新教。对福音派的谴责是他们和自由主义者一样与现代和融合。这是彼得·图恩在《自由神学》一书中提出的警告：“美国福音派教徒往往对现代性的影响和危险视而不见，因为他们自己的身份实际上与现代联系在一起”（1995:211 ff.）。最近的福音派危机表明，后现代性的强大文化力量将新教遗传密码的福音派链向各个方向拉，使其在神学上不连贯。
The Crisis of Sola Scriptura
唯独圣经的危机
Sola scriptura won’t work because it can’t work. It can’t work because Scripture was never intended to be understood by itself but in the context of Holy Tradition. Furthermore, sola scriptura can’t work because it is not biblical — nowhere does the Bible teach sola scriptura. Furthermore, church history shows that sola scriptura hasn’t worked in practice. The historical consequence of sola scriptura has been Protestant denominations numbering in the hundreds and thousands. Another historical consequence of sola scriptura has been the bewildering array of doctrines on just about any topic. Protestantism’s hermeneutical chaos has rendered it theologically incoherent. This incoherence has made Protestantism unable to present a unified witness to the world. Thus, sola scriptura,rather than being the foundation for Protestantism, is actually its fatal genetic flaw that results in innumerable doctrinal and ecclesiastical mutations.
唯独圣经不起作用，因为它行不通。它之所以行不通，是因为圣经从来没有自己解释自己，而是在神圣传统的背景下得以解释。此外，唯独圣经行不通，因为它不合乎圣经—圣经没有任何地方教导唯独圣经。此外，教会的历史表明，唯独圣经在实践中并不起作用。唯独圣经的历史后果是新教分类城数十万的宗派。唯独圣经的另一个历史后果就是在任何话题上都有令人困惑的教义。新教的解经混乱使得它在神学上不连贯。这种不连贯性使得新教无法为世界提供一个合一的见证。因此，唯独圣经，与其说是新教的基础，不如说实际上是其致命的遗传缺陷，导致无数的教义和教会的突变。
In recent years sola scriptura has become the source of a major theological crisis for Protestants. Alister McGrath provides an apt description of the conundrum embedded within sola scriptura:
近年来，唯独圣经已经成为新教徒一个主要的神学危机的根源。Alister McGrath恰当地描述了唯独圣经中的难题：
If the intellectual origins of the Reformation are to be explained in terms of the return to scripture as the source of Christian theology, the considerable divergence within the movement over the question of hermeneutics raises serious questions concerning the viability of this approach (1987:172).
如果说解释宗教改革的思想渊源是以回归圣经作为基督教神学的源头，那么宗教改革运动在解经问题上内部产生的巨大分歧就提出了关于这种方法的可行性的严重问题（1987:172）。
McGrath remains a Protestant but many have grappled with sola scriptura with devastating consequences. Scott Hahn, a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Presbyterian seminary professor, was dumbfounded when a student asked him: “Professor, where does the Bible teach that ‘Scripture alone’ is our sole authority?” This question eventually led him to Roman Catholicism (Hahn 1993:51). It is only recently that Evangelicalism has begun to address this crisis. Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura (2001) marks a serious attempt by a Protestant to address this problem. (See my review of Mathison’s book here.)
麦格拉斯仍然是一个新教徒，但许多人已经与唯独圣经的破坏性后果斗争。斯科特·哈恩（Scott Hahn）是戈登·康威尔神学院的毕业生，也是长老会神学院的教授，当一个学生问他：“教授，圣经在哪里教导‘唯独圣经’才是我们的唯一权威？“这个问题最终导致他进入罗马天主教（哈恩1993:51）。直到最近，福音派才开始解决这一危机。基思·马蒂森（Keith Mathison）的《唯独圣经的形状》（The Shape of Sola Scriptura，2001年）标志着一位新教徒严肃地试图解决这个问题。（请参阅我对马蒂森书的评论。）
The tragedy of Protestantism’s hermeneutical chaos has been further compounded by the widespread tendency to ahistoricism. Modernism’s belief in progress has resulted in a kind of chronological arrogance — the attitude that the modern present is superior to the primitive backward past. Respect for the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils is practically nonexistent among Protestants, whether Evangelical or Liberal. Indifference to church history has had a terrible effect on Evangelicals and Liberals alike. It has resulted in their obliviousness to how far they have drifted from the historic Christian faith. The loss of historical memory among Protestants is analogous to a person suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or attention deficit disorder. This has resulted in groups, even whole denominations, embracing bizarre doctrines, or committing themselves uncritically to the latest fads with dire consequences to their theological integrity.
新教的解经混乱的悲剧由于普遍的无历史主义倾向而进一步加剧。现代主义对过程神学的信仰导致了一种时间上的傲慢，即现代人比原始落后的过去优越的态度。在新教徒中，无论是福音派还是自由派，对教父和普世理事会的尊重实际上是不存在的。对教会历史的漠视对福音派和自由派都产生了可怕的影响。这导致了他们的遗忘，以至于他们远远偏离了历史上的基督教信仰。新教徒对历史记忆的丧失类似于患有老年痴呆症或注意力缺陷症的人。这导致了一些团体，甚至是整个宗派，信奉怪异的教义，或者不加批判地投身于最新的时尚，对他们的神学的完整性造成了可怕的后果。
The Impossibility of Evangelical Renewal
福音派复兴是不可能的
The crisis surrounding sola scriptura has serious implications for Evangelical renewal movements. The goal of these renewal movements is to help mainline denominations move away from the precipice of theological Liberalism back to the historic center (see Hamilton and McKinney 2003). But if Evangelicalism is collapsing into heterodoxy at the same time we are trying to move the mainline denomination back to the doctrinal center then something is seriously wrong. If sola scriptura is fundamentally flawed then Evangelical renewal groups are chasing an impossible dream.
围绕唯独圣经的危机对福音派的复兴运动有着严重的影响。这些复兴运动的目标是帮助主流宗派摆脱自由主义神学的悬崖，回到历史中心（见汉密尔顿和麦金尼2003）。但是，如果福音主义在崩溃的同时变成了异端邪说，我们试图把主流宗派移回教义中心，那么就有严重的错误。如果唯独圣经根本上是有缺陷的，那么福音派复兴团体正在追逐一个不可能实现的梦想。
I was a member of the Biblical Witness Fellowship (BWF), an evangelical renewal group in the United Church of Christ (UCC). The more I wrestled with questions about the fundamental premises of the Protestant Reformation, the more I had questions about the prospect of Evangelical renewal in the UCC. The crisis of sola scriptura became apparent to me in the Dubuque Declaration. The Dubuque Declaration — BWF’s theological charter — is a fine statement crafted by one of Evangelicalism’s leading theologians, Donald Bloesch. I had no quarrel with it theologically, but what was the basis for its authority? Why should we privilege the Dubuque Declaration over the UCC’s 1957 Basis of Union? or the Heidelberg Catechism? or the Westminster Confession? or the Cambridge Platform? The Dubuque Declaration like any other confessional statements is an interpretation of the Bible. Without establishing the proper basis for the authority for a particular confession, we are forced into a kind of arbitrary subjectivism. Why were we in the BWF reinventing the wheel, when we could be using the classic confessions of the Protestant Reformation?
我是圣经见证团契（BWF）的成员，这是基督教联合教会（UCC）的福音派复兴团体。我越是纠结于有关新教的基本前提问题，我就越是对UCC福音派复兴的前景产生疑问。在杜布克宣言中，唯独圣经的危机变得显而易见。《杜布克宣言》——圣经见证团契的神学宪章——是福音派的主要神学家之一唐纳德·布列什（Donald Bloesch）精心制作的一份声明。从神学上讲，我对它没有异议，但它的权威的基础是什么？为什么我们要把杜布克宣言凌驾于1957年的联合声明之上呢？还是海德堡教理问答？还是威斯敏斯特信条？还是剑桥宣言？杜布克宣言和其他任何忏悔声明一样，都是对《圣经》的诠释。如果没有为某一特定认信的权威建立适当的基础，我们就被迫陷入一种武断的主观主义。当我们可以使用新教的古典信条时，为什么我们要在圣经见证团契中重新发明教义？
Another question had to do with the ultimate goal of Evangelical renewal in the UCC. I was stumped because as a church history major I knew of numerous possibilities. Were we aiming for the UCC in the late 1950s when the historic merger took place? the Evangelical and Reformed tradition of the 1800s? the Mercersburg Movement in the 1860s? Congregationalism in the 1700s? or Calvin’s Geneva? These are not two separate questions but represent two sides of the same coin. Sola scriptura has produced in Protestantism hermeneutical chaos as well as organizational chaos. And in this situation the Reformation’s goal ecclesia reformata sed semper reformanda broke down under the weight of sola scriptura.
另一个问题与基督教联合会福音派复兴的最终目标有关。我被难住了，因为作为一名主修教会历史的学生，我知道很多可能性。我们的目标是在20世纪50年代末历史性的合并发生时成立基督教联合会吗？19世纪的福音派和改革宗？19世纪60年代的默瑟斯堡运动？17世纪的会众主义？还是加尔文的日内瓦？这不是两个独立的问题，而是同一事物的两面。唯独圣经产生了新教的解经混乱以及组织混乱。在这种情况下，宗教改革的目标“改革教会”在唯独圣经的重压下崩溃了。
My Protestant Theology Falls Apart
我的新教神学崩溃了
Much of the collapse of my Protestant theology stemmed from my social location as a theologically conservative Evangelical in the liberal United Church of Christ. I found myself being confronted by theological pluralism from the left as well as from the right. On the one hand I found myself part of Evangelicalism which affirmed the authority of Scripture and yet allowed denominational diversity to flourish, and on the other hand I found myself belonging to a liberal denomination that denied the authority of Scripture and encouraged theological diversity to the point of tolerating outright heresy. The tragedy of the UCC is that it is the oldest Reformed body in America having roots in Puritan New England. I found myself in a quandary when it came to asserting the biblical faith in the face of rampant theological Liberalism. My solution to this dilemma was to combine biblical studies with church history — I argued that the biblical Evangelical position was the same as the historic Christian faith. However, this backfired when my studies as a church history major led me to the discovery that much of Evangelicalism is based upon recent innovations dating back to the 1800s.
我的新教神学的崩溃很大程度上源于我作为一个在基督教自由联合教会中神学上保守的福音派信徒的社会地位。我发现自己面临着来自左派和右派的神学多元化。一方面，我发现自己是福音派的一部分，它肯定了圣经的权威，但又允许教派的多样性蓬勃发展；另一方面，我发现自己属于一个自由宗派，否认圣经的权威，鼓励神学多样性，以至于容忍彻头彻尾的异端。基督教联合会的悲剧在于，它是美国历史最悠久的改革组织，扎根于清教徒的新英格兰。当我面对猖獗的神学自由主义时，我发现自己陷入了一种窘境：当我坚持圣经信仰的时候。我解决这个困境的办法是把圣经研究和教会历史结合起来——我认为圣经福音派的立场与基督教历史信仰是一样的。然而，这适得其反，当我作为一个教会历史专业的研究，使我发现，许多福音派是建立在最新的创新之上，这些创新可追溯到19世纪。
Frustrated and disillusioned by Protestantism’s hermeneutical chaos, I became attracted to the early Church. In my research I was struck by the theological unity shared by all Christians in the first millennium. Irenaeus of Lyons, a second century bishop, wrote:
新教的解经混乱让我感到沮丧和失望，我开始被早期的教会所吸引。在我的研究中，我教会最初一千年里所有基督徒所共有的神学统一性所打动。里昂的爱任纽，一位二世纪的主教，写道：
Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth (Richardson 1970:360).
正如我所说，教会虽然分散在世界各地，但在领受了这一传道和这一信仰之后，却小心翼翼地加以保存，好像住在同一所房子里一样。她相信这些东西[在任何地方]都是一样的，好像她只有一颗心和一个灵魂，并且和谐地宣讲它们，教导它们，把它们传讲给下一代，就好像她只有一张口一样（理查森1970:360）。
The fact that Irenaeus could assert that in his time the Church, from one end of the Roman Empire to the other, held a common faith, stood in stark contrast to modern day Protestantism where a dozen rival denominations could easily be found in the same neighborhood. Moreover, the unity of the Church in the first thousand years stands against the divisions and denominations produced by Protestants in just a few centuries time. As I continued to read Irenaeus, I became even more disturbed. Irenaeus argues that the truthfulness of the Christian faith is validated by its catholicity, i.e., its universality. He writes,
爱任纽可以断言，在他那个时代，从罗马帝国的一端到另一端的教会都有一个共同的信仰，这与现代新教形成了鲜明的对比，因为在同一个街区可以轻易地找到十几个信仰不同的宗派。此外，教会在最初的一千年里是合一的，而新教在短短几个世纪内产生的分裂和教派林立。当我继续读爱任纽时，我变得更加不安。爱任纽认为，基督教信仰的真实性是由其普遍性，即普遍性所证实的。他写道，
But as I said before, the real Church has one and the same faith everywhere in the world (Richardson 1970:362; emphasis added).
但正如我之前所说的，真教会在世界各地都有一个相同的信仰（理查森1970:362；重点补充）。
For Irenaeus the unity of the Church and the veracity of the Christian Faith are integral to each other; the two cannot be separated. As a Protestant Evangelical accustomed to denominational differences, I found this statement to be a shocker. It is shocking because I came to realize that the question is not: “Do I believe in the right doctrine? (which is a Protestant question)” but: “Do I belong to the true Church?” Applying Irenaeus’ theological framework meant that if I did not belong to the true Church then I was a member of a schismatic or worse a heretical body.
对爱任纽来说，教会的合一性和基督教信仰的真实性是彼此不可分割的，两者是不可分割的。作为一个习惯于宗派分歧的新教福音派信徒，我发现这一说法令人震惊。这是令人震惊的，因为我开始意识到问题不是：“我相信正确的教义吗？（这是一个新教的问题）但是：“我属于真教会吗？“应用爱任纽的神学观点意味着，如果我不属于真正的教会，那么我就是一个分裂或更糟的异端团体的成员。
Finding Save Haven
寻找避风港
Becoming Orthodox was like finding a safe haven after a long difficult journey through stormy seas. Being an Evangelical in the UCC was at times a lonely and alienating experience. I could never be sure when I met a UCC minister for the first time if we shared the same beliefs. It was only after asking a few discreet questions that I could determine whether we were on the same side of the fence or opponents. After a while it takes a toll on one’s spirit to be constantly keeping up one’s guard or phrasing one’s beliefs carefully in order to avoid conflict. It was also upsetting to be told to my face by Liberals that it would be better for me to leave the UCC. (I have also met denominational leaders who were open and accepting of Evangelicals, who worked to maintain unity between the Liberals and Evangelicals.) Just as upsetting was finding out about recent decisions made at the national UCC Synods, or the local Aha Pae’ainas or Aha Mokupunis that contradicted the teachings of Scripture (#25).
成为东正教信徒就像是在经历了漫长的艰难旅程之后，在风雨飘摇的大海中找到了一个安全的避风港。在基督教联合会当福音派信徒有时是一种孤独和疏远的经历。当我第一次见到基督教联合会牧师时，我无法确定我们是否有相同的信仰。只有在问了几个谨慎的问题后，我才能够确定我们是站在同一边，还是站在对手一边。一段时间后，为了避免冲突而不断地保持警惕或谨慎地表达自己的信仰，这会损害一个人的灵。当着自由派人的面告诉我，我离开基督教联合会会更好，这也让我很难过。（我也见过那些公开接受福音派的教派领袖，他们致力于维护自由派和福音派之间的合一）同样令人不安的是，他们发现最近在全国基督教联合会会议上做出的决定，或者当地的阿哈·帕伊纳斯（Aha Pae'ainas）或阿哈·莫库普尼（Aha Mokupunis）违背了圣经的教义（25）。
When I became Orthodox, I found it comforting to know that I shared the same faith with my priest or any other priest or bishop that I would meet. What I found in Orthodoxy — to use that delightful phrase by Bellah et al. — was a “community of memory.” It is a community that ties us to the past and turns us towards the future through its “practices of commitment” (1985:152 ff.). Orthodoxy throughout the world is bound together by a common Liturgy, the Nicene Creed, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Moreover, I found the doctrine and worship of the Orthodox Church to be saturated with Scripture references. Because Orthodoxy sees Scripture as an integral part of Holy Tradition, it is far more able to safeguard Scripture than Protestantism with its sola scriptura. Like the telomeres that safeguard the integrity of DNA, so Holy Tradition safeguards Scripture from false readings and ensures doctrinal unity.
当我成为东正教信徒的时候，当我知道我和我的牧师或其他任何我会遇到的牧师或主教都有同样的信仰时，我感到很欣慰。我在东正教教义中发现的——用贝拉等人的那句令人愉快的话。-是一个“记忆的共同体”，它将我们与过去联系在一起，并通过它的“委身实践”将我们转向未来（1985:152及其后）。全世界的东正教信仰都是由一个共同的礼拜仪式、尼西亚信经和七个普世理事会联系在一起的。此外，我发现东正教的教义和崇拜充满了圣经经文。因为东正教把圣经视为神圣传统的一个组成部分，所以它比新教用唯独圣经更能保护好圣经。就像端粒保护DNA的完整性一样，神圣的传统保护圣经不被错误解读，并确保教义上的统一。
My attraction to Orthodoxy is more than an interest in antiquarianism and rituals. Rather, it lies in the quest for the true faith. Orthodoxy, being grounded in the eternal truths of the Kingdom of God, will endure and outlast the challenge of a post-modern and post-Christian culture. In Facing East Frederica Matthewes-Green describes her first visit to an Orthodox service:
东正教对我的吸引不仅仅是对复古主义和仪式。相反，它在于对真正信仰的追求。东正教，以上帝王国永恒的真理为基础，将经得起后现代和后基督教文化的挑战。在《面对东方》中，弗雷德里卡·马修斯·格林描述了她第一次参加东正教仪式：
The truth part was this: the ancient words of this vesperal service had been chanted for more than a millennium. Lex orandi, lex credendi; what people pray shapes what they believe. This was a church that had never, could never, apostatize (1997:xiii).
真相部分是这样的：这个礼拜仪式的古老词汇已经被吟诵了一千多年。如何敬拜就是如何信：人们祷告的内容塑造他们的信仰。这是一个从来没有，也不可能背弃信仰的教会（1997:xiii）。
文章来源：https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/contra-sola-scriptura-part-4-of-4/
发表于 2020-7-23 18:29:13