以善意來判斷對方的用意 The Judgment of Charity 我每次讀福音書時，都會注意到一件事，就是耶穌無論走到哪裡，總是會被人弄到讓他落在一種不得不與人發生爭議的狀況下，而每次我都不禁會被耶穌如何能夠以不同的方式處理爭議而大感讚歎。耶穌並沒有像前紐約巨人隊的經理人 Leo “The Lip” DeRosier 那樣，對待他所遇到的每一個人都一視同仁。雖然耶穌期望每個人都按照同樣的法則規矩行事，但他在牧養各人的時候，則是各按所需的。 舊約聖經對好牧人的描繪是：牧人手上是既拿杖又拿竿的，因為他的責任既包括引導羊群，也包括保護羊群，使之免受陰險餓狼的吞噬的（詩23:4）。在福音書中，我們就看到耶穌怎樣使用他保護的竿——通常是對準文士和法利賽人揮過去的。當耶穌對付這些人時，他不跟他們討一分錢，也不讓他們半分餘地；當他當眾向他們宣布上帝的審判時，他用的是“禍哉”這種神諭式的咒詛，就好像舊約的先知一樣：“ 你 們 這 假 冒 為 善 的 文 士 和 法 利 賽 人 有 禍 了 ！ 因 為 你 們 走 遍 洋 海 陸 地 ， 勾 引 一 個 人 入 教 ， 既 入 了 教 ， 卻 使 他 作 地 獄 之 子 ， 比 你 們 還 加 倍 ”（太23:15）。 耶穌之所以會對當時的宗教領袖如此地兇猛強硬，無他，只因他們心中所存的，盡是剛硬的屬靈虛偽。而至於其他那些承認自己是罪人並且為自己的罪感到羞愧的人，耶穌對待他們時，則是充滿慈愛和鼓勵的。試看約翰福音四章中所記述的那個來到井邊打水的撒瑪利亞婦人，耶穌先在井邊坐下來，然後主動跟她說話。按照當時的社會，猶太人對婦女和對撒瑪利亞人乃是存有相當的歧視的。一個猶太拉比如此行，是在當時聽都沒聽過的事。耶穌卻是很有耐心地慢慢引導對方認罪，然後向對方揭曉他身為彌賽亞的身份。耶穌對待這個女人好像對待壓傷的蘆葦和將殘的燈火一般，雖有溫柔的對質，卻不讓對方受挫（太12:15-21）。 耶穌給我們樹立的榜樣，當然有許多地方是我們可以學習的。但在這些諸多的功課中，我認為其中一項就是，我們應當學習如果對待那些與我們意見不合的人。有時我們需要強而有力、有時則需溫柔和氣——對才狼兇猛、對耶穌的羔羊溫柔。 我們常有跟人發生意見不合的時候，有時對方是我們的弟兄，有時對方是披著羊皮的才狼。而這種才狼對基督羊群的安全、健康、利益永遠是帶有一種迫在眼眉的危害，因此我們對待才狼時，不應留有半分餘地。但是當我們在處理一些不觸及到基督教信仰之正統性的範圍時，主乃是要我們以一種溫柔的心來對待那些與我們意見不一的人。 要知道何時應當強而有力、何時應當溫柔和氣，乃是一件讓成熟的基督徒感到最難分辨的事情之一。我手上並沒有什麼秘方好讓大家拿去隨意運用，但起碼有一點我是知道的，就是我們在處理紛爭或分歧時，上帝永遠是要求我們在善意，也就是在愛心，的基礎上行事的。 愛德華茲在他所寫的《善意與善意的果子》一書中對哥林多前書十三章所作的闡釋，要數我所讀過的釋經書中，最深刻的了。他說： "一個真正謙卑的人，沒有一件事情是他無法以彈性處理的，除了對他的主、對他的上帝的事情以外，也就是關乎到真理與美德的事情上以外。在後者這些地方，他寸步不讓是因為上帝與他的良心都對他有絕對的要求。但在一些次要的事情上，一些不涉及到他作基督徒的原則的問題上，一些只關乎到他個人的利益的事情上，他則是非常樂意隨時謙讓於別人的。" 愛德華茲在這裡所說的謙卑，就是所有基督徒在遇到彼此意見不合時所應當運用的原則。在教會歷史中，人們所說的“善意判斷”（judgment of charity）一詞，就是指大家各自以謙卑的心態彼此相待。以善意去判斷他人的意思大致是這樣運作的：當我們發現我們彼此不認同對方的觀點時，我相信身為基督徒，上帝要我們先假設對方的動機是純正的。這種以善意來判斷的態度是我們必須要有的，尤其是當我們發現一些熱愛聖經、並非企圖更改聖經教導的主內人士的解經跟我們不一樣時。而這種的人都是不會肯對基督教信仰的基本真理做出任何妥協的。 當然，善意的判斷乃假設了，在一場基督教信仰的爭論中，與我們爭論的弟兄姐妹乃是以誠實、抱着清潔的良心與我們辯論的。我在這兒就想到了我的好朋友John McArthur。如果我對John 的什麼論點表示不同意的話——不管是什麼——我們常常會一同席捲而坐，好好談論一番。而John不是不會改變主意的——無論改變主意需要他付出多大的代價——只要我能說服他，聖經的教導是與我所提出的立場相吻合，而非他所堅持的立場，他就會立即改變他的立場。那是因為，忠於上帝的話語對他來說比什麼都要緊。 這就是我所說的以善意來判斷對方的用意的意思了。我們不要胡亂猜測對方的動機，在與人爭論時，不要老把對方往壞處想。我們要學習分辨什麼是最好的分析推論結果，什麼是最壞的分析推論結果。我們身為罪人，活在如今這個尚未完全脫離罪惡的光景中，我們的問題就是，總是愛把最好的分析推論結果歸給我自己，而把最壞的分析討論結果加諸到弟兄姐妹的的頭上。而這與聖經所要求我們謙卑，恰恰背道而馳。 （2013年7月4日） Virginia Yip 譯 自 The Judgment of Charity by R.C. Sproul Every time I read the Gospels, I am struck by how Jesus seems to have found Himself in the middle of controversy wherever He went. I am also struck by how Jesus handled each controversy differently. He did not follow the example of Leo “The Lip” DeRosier, the former manager of the New York Giants and treat every person He encountered in the same manner. Although He expected everyone to play by the same rules, He shepherded people according to their specific needs. The Old Testament depicts the Good Shepherd as One who carries both a staff and a rod, for His responsibility is both to guide His sheep and to protect them from ravenous wolves (Ps. 23:4). In the Gospels, we see Jesus exercise His protective rod most often against the scribes and Pharisees. When Jesus dealt with these men, He asked no quarter and gave none. When He pronounced the judgment of God on them publicly, He used the oracle of woe that was used by the Old Testament prophets: “Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte [convert], and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). Jesus dealt with many of the religious leaders of His day so forcefully because of their hard-hearted hypocrisy. Other people who were cognizant of their sin and ashamed of it—these He addressed with love and encouragement. Consider the woman at the well (John 4). Jesus sat and talked with a Samaritan woman, which was unheard of for a Jewish rabbi in those days because of common biases against women and Samaritans. He patiently drew a confession of sin out of her and revealed His Messianic office to her. Jesus treated her as a bruised reed and smoldering wick, tenderly confronting but not crushing her (Matt. 12:15–21). Among many other things, I think Christ’s example teaches us how we are to deal with those with whom we disagree. Sometimes we must be forceful and sometimes we must be gentle—forceful with the wolves and gentle with Jesus’ lambs. There are disagreements we have with our brothers, but also disagreements we have with those who claim to be our brothers but who may, in fact, be wolves in sheep’s clothing. Such wolves always represent a clear danger to the safety, health, and well-being of Christ’s sheep. No quarter can be given to wolves, but we are called to exercise gentleness toward those whose disagreements with us do not touch the heart of Christian orthodoxy. To know the difference between when to be gentle and when to be forceful is one of the most difficult matters for mature Christians to discern. I don’t have a formula that is easily applied, but I do know that we are always called to deal with the disputes and disagreements we have on the basis of charity, that is, love. Charity and Its Fruits by Jonathan Edwards is the deepest exposition of 1 Corinthians 13 that I know of. I’ve read it at least half-a-dozen times, probably more. In this work, Edwards writes: A truly humble man, is inflexible in nothing but in the cause of his Lord and master, which is the cause of truth and virtue. In this he is inflexible because God and conscience require it; but in things of lesser moment, and which do not involve his principles as a follower of Christ, and in things that only concern his own private interests, he is apt to yield to others. The humility of which Edwards is speaking here is a humility that must be brought to every disagreement that erupts among believers. It is a humility that brings to the fore what in church history many have called the judgment of charity. The judgment of charity works something like this: When we disagree with one another, I believe that we are called as Christians to assume the motives of the person with whom we disagree are pure motives. This is the approach we are to have with those with whom we have an honest difference in biblical interpretation but who love the Bible and aren’t trying to change what it teaches. Such people are unwilling to compromise the essential truths of the Christian faith. Now, the judgment of charity assumes in a Christian dispute that the brother or sister with whom we are disagreeing is disagreeing honestly and with personal integrity. Here I think of my friend John MacArthur. If I disagree about something with John—I don’t care what it is—and we go to the mat and talk about it, John will change his position—no matter the cost— if I can persuade him that the Bible teaches my view and not his. That’s because what he wants more than anything else is to be faithful to the Word of God. That’s what I mean by the judgment of charity. We don’t impugn people’s motives and don’t assume the worst of them when we disagree with them. We make a distinction between best-case and worst-case analysis. The problem we all have as sinners on this side of glory is that we tend to reserve best-case analysis to our own motives and give worst-case analysis to our brother’s and sister’s motives. That’s just the opposite of the spirit we’re called to have in terms of biblical humility.
Posted on: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 12:56:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015