山道期刊
总第四十六期(2020年12月)
主题: | 政教关系 包括专题文章六篇、讨论文章一篇及书评五篇 |
页数: | 240 |
售价: | HK$100 |
编者的话
邓绍光
三一上帝在基督里借着圣灵所建立并持续地构成的教会群体,一直活在世界之中;这样一来,她就无可避免地要跟世界之中的国家或政权交往。今期《山道期刊》以「政教关系」为主题,邀请了不同学者就着新约圣经、教会历史、系统神学等各个范畴,探讨这个重要的课题。
梁俊豪和吴国杰分别撰写〈「帝王崇拜」与保罗的教会〉和〈君士坦丁与君士坦丁主义:历史论据的重检〉,分别澄清「帝王崇拜」及君士坦丁对教会的影响。梁氏指出近年兴起的「保罗反帝国修辞」进路很大程度影响了保罗研究,学者们认为保罗书信中隐含着反帝王神学。但是梁氏表示,虽然「帝王崇拜」或「罗马帝国意识形态」在保罗时代十分普遍,但却没有充分证据显示,初期教会在信仰上或生活上受到极大的压力或威胁,并且在保罗书信之中也没有意思明确的经文足以证明这种看法,而且以隐藏文本的方式阅读保罗书信,亦叫人难以信服。
吴国杰一文梳理君士坦丁与君士坦丁主义之间的关系,从而澄清君士坦丁与君士坦丁主义并无任何关系。神学家尤达(John H. Yoder)提出君士坦丁主义来指涉西方教会的转变,把教会之背道归因于君士坦丁归信基督之后的举动。吴氏衡量莱泰赫(Peter J. Leithart)着的《维护君士坦丁》(Defending Constantine)及罗夫(John D. Roth)编的《重检君士坦丁》(Constantine Revisited)两者的论据,并根据个人研究作出判断,重新厘清君士坦丁与君士坦丁主义的关系,帮助读者有更为确切的了解。
罗永光的文章〈「在地若天」――主祷文与极权政治〉讨论二十世纪「第三帝国」时期的两种政教论述,分别是《安斯巴赫忠告》(Ansbacher Counsel)和《巴冕神学宣言》(Theological Declaration of Barmen),前者是基于改革宗的「基督的君主权」,后者则立足于路德的两国论,双方的焦点都集中于地上国度的位置。罗氏在此提出第三种看法,发掘主祷文中的政治含意:既没有否认地上国度,也没有排斥基督;耶稣是天父在地上的真正代理人,祂的国是那要指引所有地上王国遵行天父旨意的国。
郑仰恩则带领我们历时性地回顾及评价改革宗传统的政教态度及观点。他的〈改革宗的政教态度与观点:一个历时性的回顾与评价〉,一方面铺陈改革宗历来一些展现其对政教关系看法的代表性事件,包括宗教改革时期瑞士的日内瓦、法国的预格诺派、尼德兰的改教运动、苏格兰的盟约派、英格兰和北美殖民地的情况,以及当代南非的处境。另一方面,郑氏整理了近年历史学者对改革宗政教观点所作的诠释,从而发现其发展是具有多元要素,并且层次丰富:政治环境的驱迫和形塑、参与行动者(圣徒)的公民意识、法理上证成抵抗的责任或权利、宗教礼仪及社会行动上「破除偶像」的论述和抗争、抵抗神学的全面建构、以当代的信仰告白来激发政治行动。
至于杜锦满的〈从历史角度看香港浸信会之政教关系(1842-1970)〉,他指出虽然浸信会一向强调及持守政教分离的原则,但是香港的浸信教会长久以来,就教会应否领取政府资助来推动教会事工,议论不休。这篇文章透过历史回顾,一方面展示香港的浸信教会怎样理解「政教分离」这个议题;另一方面也整理出应用这原则时碰到的问题,而在教会办学方面,最终出现了实用主义胜过理论主义的结果。
最后一篇是刘振鹏的〈初探「政权」在尤达的政教观的意义〉,集中探讨尤达的政教观中有关「政权」(state)的意义。作者指出尤达对政教的看法,是基于他的「基督的统治」这大前提。在基督的统治下,教会是有意识地知道并成为基督的仆人,而政权却是不自觉地成为基督的仆人。接着,刘氏探讨尤达神学中政权的授权问题,指出政权的属天授权在于运用邪恶手段,制衡邪恶,使邪恶不致失控,以维持「相对的秩序」。最后,文章谈论尤达对政权的功能及其限制的分析,指出政权乃为了维持社会秩序,让世界认识福音,其正义并不等同上帝自己的正义。
除了专题文章之外,这一期《山道期刊》收录了一篇讨论文章,就是笔者的〈潘霍华的六种抵抗方式――德容格的整理与分析〉,主要是讨论德容格( Michael P. DeJonge)就潘霍华(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)对抵抗方式及其背后的思想所作的全面整理。读者可以视之为专题文章的延续。此外,还有五篇书评值得大家细阅,既有圣经研究,也有神学讨论。深愿三一上帝使用这些学术研究的成果,造福教会群体,让弟兄姊妹对信仰有更深入和开阔的理解。
编者的话 | 点击查阅 | |
专题文章 | ||
梁俊豪 | 「帝王崇拜」与保罗的教会 | Abstract |
吴国杰 | 君士坦丁与君士坦丁主义:历史论据的重检 | Abstract |
罗永光 | 「在地若天」――主祷文与极权政治 | Abstract |
郑仰恩 | 改革宗的政教态度与观点:一个历时性的回顾与评价 | Abstract |
杜锦满 | 从历史角度看香港浸信会之政教关系(1842-1970) | Abstract |
刘振鹏 | 初探「政权」在尤达的政教观的意义 | Abstract |
讨论文章 | ||
邓绍光 | 潘霍华的六种抵抗方式――德容格的整理与分析 | Abstract |
Emperor Worship and the Pauline Communities
LEUNG Chun Ho Bernard
Over a century ago, the German philologist Adolf Deissmann observed that there arose a “polemic parallelism” between the uses of Christological titles in the early church and the political titles attributed to the Roman emperors. This sheds a new perspective on the reading of the Pauline epistles as “anti-imperial,” ie Paul wrote subtly and polemically to counter the influence of Roman imperial ideology prevalent at that time in the cities of Paul's ministry. The most ubiquitous and far-reaching instrument for the diffusion of imperial ideology was “Emperor Worship” (or “Imperial cults”). However, did the institution of “Emperor Worship” in provincial settings put political pressure on the Pauline communities to take part in the cult as a civic and religious duty, so that Paul needed to response to the crisis in a hidden way? This article, firstly, aims to investigate the scope and complexity of “Emperor Worship” in the early Roman Empire. This step is crucial for the interpreters of the Pauline epistles to comprehend correctly the significance and functions of “ Emperor Worship” in the social-political life of the Roman cities in which the early Christians might be affected. Secondly, this article will (1) assess the prevalence of “Emperor Worship” in the Roman provinces and cities where Paul established the Christian communities ; (2) evaluate the claim that “Emperor Worship” caused social and religious tensions to the Pauline communities; and (3) comment on the trend for “anti-imperial rhetoric” in the reading of Paul.
Constantine and Constantinianism: A Revisit of Its Historical Arguments
Nathan K. NG
The fourth-century Roman Emperor Constantine had long been regarded as a hero who liberated the church from severe persecutions. However, this traditional view has recently been challenged by some Christian scholars, especially John Howard Yoder and the Yoderians. They even criticize what they called Constantinianism or Constantinian Shift as the root of the disavowal and apostasy of the church. However, did the Yoderian Constantinianism correctly reflect the historical church and state relationship during the reign of Constantine? Today, the Yoderian view has been condemned in Peter J. Leithart's 2010 publication named Defending Constantine as historically questionable, oversimplified, misleading, one-sided and even wrong.
This article evaluates the views and arguments of both sides. As a result, both the Yoderians' so-called New Ecclesiology and New Eschatology are found to be historically unsustainable. The assertion that the church began to fall in the rule of Constantine does not accurately convey the historical reality. If the emperor Constantine was not responsible for the Yoderian critique of the nowadays so-called Erastianism or Caesaropapism, is it still appropriate to call it “Constantinianism”? All modern Christian ethicists, especially the Yoderians, should rethink the issue .
On Earth as It Is in Heaven –The Lord's Prayer and Totalitarianism
Pilgrim WK LO
The Third Reich appeared in Germany, which has a long tradition of Christian culture and a rich theological heritage. During Hitler's reign, a great schism took place between the church leaders. There were contradictions between German Christians and the Confessing Church; there were fierce debates between the group of “pro-Hitler theologians” like Emanuel Hirsch, Paul Althaus and Werner Elert who presented the Ansbacher Counsel, and the group of “anti-Hitler theologians” who signed the Theological Declaration of Barmen drafted by Karl Barth.
The theological framework of the Ansbacher Counsel is based on Luther's doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, while the Theological Declaration of Barmen is based on the Reformed “Royal Lordship of Christ.” The focus of the dispute is obviously on the issue of “the positioning of the Earthly Kingdom.” This article attempts to explore the political significance of the Lord's Prayer. It uses the theological paradigm of the Lord's Prayer –”From the Father to the Son ” – to deal with the shortcomings of both the Ansbacher Counsel and the Theological Declaration of Barmen. The Lord's Prayer does not deny the kingdom on earth, nor does it exclude the Christ. We can explain it as follows:
Why is the Lord's Prayer called the Lord's Prayer?
Because this is the prayer taught by the Lord Jesus.Why is it the Lord Jesus, and not others, teching about the Kingdom of God?
Because only the Lord Jesus knows and can tell us the mysteries of God (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11; Lk 8:10).Why can only Jesus tell us the mysteries of God?
Because the Father gave His Kingdom to the Son.Why can we also know about God's Kingdom and pray to the Father in the Lord's Prayer?
Because the Lord Jesus gave us the Kingdom he received from the Father (Lk 22:29-30Jesus is not the king of the earth, but the Kingdom of God came to the earth through the Son. However, the kingdom of the Son is not a kingdom established by the Israelites, nor is it any kingdom based on politics, but a kingdom that guides all kingdoms on the earth to do the will of the Father.
Reformed Attitude and Perspective on Church-State Relations: A Diachronic Review and Evaluation
CHENG Yang-en
This article offers a diachronic review and evaluation of the attitudes and perspectives on church-state relations in the Reformed tradition. The first part depicts representative Reformed communities which responded in a timely fashion and subsequently constructed their church-state attitudes and perspectives in their particular contexts , including Calvin's Geneva, the Huguenots in France, the Reformed camp in the Netherlands, the Covenanters in Scotland, the Puritans in England and in Colonial America, and the anti-Apartheid campaign in present-day South Africa. Then, in the second part , this article offers a diachronic review and short evaluation of the elaboration and development of the interpretation of the Reformed perspectives on church-state relations, adopting a methodology similar to the theory of the History of Effect (wirkungsgeschichte) developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer and Ulrich Luz. The interpretative notions developed over time include theories such as inherited concepts of resistance shaped and adapted by political environments, “revolution of the saints” acting as modern “citizens,” justification of resistance from “ as duty” to “as right,” resistance as “war against the idols,” the development of a rightful “theology of resistance,” and obedient “political actions” triggered by “confession of faith in response to emergent and challenging situations” (status confessionis).
Hong Kong Baptists' Views on Church-State Relationship: A Historical Perspective (1842-1970)
Alex K. TO
Baptists have long been proud of themselves in upholding the principle of the separation of church and state. Since their first establishment in Hong Kong in 1842, Baptists have been involved and entangled in church and state relationship. The colonial government provided a free grant of land and government officials donated money to build the first Baptist church in Hong Kong. Due to the British traditional belief that churches operated better schools, Baptists in the early days of Hong Kong received government subsidies to run a church school.
In the mid-twentieth century, the change of political situations in Mainland China led to a large influx of refugees, resulting in a sudden demand for various social services such as education, medication, and housing in Hong Kong. Seeing churches would share the same idea of anti-communism, the colonial government continued to rely on churches to provide services to meet the needs. Due to some historical reasons, Baptists were singled out as the most reliable partner among different churches and religious groups. As a result, Baptists built the first resettlement housing, the Pok Oi Estate, on government land for the fire affected refugees in 1950, and operated a number of schools with free land grants, interest free loans, and building fund subsidies from the government. Apart from primary and secondary schools , Baptist cooperation with the government extended to include Baptist College, Baptist Hospital, and other social service institutions. To save public expenditures, the government welcomed Baptist participations in providing these services. Baptists were also pleased to be able to do outreach through these institutions.
While enjoying the benefits of partnering with the government, these practices aroused the concern of Southern Baptists, who were the principal supporter of Baptist ministries in Hong Kong. Worrying that the receipt of government money would infringe on the Baptist principle of church and state separation, the Foreign Mission Board of Southern Baptists warned that they would stop funding Hong Kong Baptists if they continued to accept government subsidies. However, what constituted government subsidy could not be clearly defined by the Foreign Mission Board despite their repeated attempts. In fact, the same issue also troubled Baptists in the United States when deciding whether to accept government subsidies for their higher education institutes.
Facing this situation local Baptist leaders voiced their opinions through Baptist Monthly, the denomination newsletter, and held special meetings in the 1960s to discuss the subject matter of whether to accept government subsidies to operate Baptist schools. Those who supported the idea of accepting subsidies took a pragmatic view and argued that it would help them evangelize and serve the community more effectively. Their opponents, who took a theoretic view, believed it was an obvious infringement of Baptist teaching and wrong to use worldly money for God's work. In the end, the pragmatic approach prevailed. However, the issue was far from settled . Opinions continued to be raised and discussions went on in the following years.
A Preliminary Exploration of the Concept of “State” in John Howard Yoder's Church-State Discourse
Vincent CP LAU
Constantinianism is one of the core concepts in John Howard Yoder's theology and it continues to be a controversial concept in academia. Yoder considers Constantine as the main architect of the age, but not its sole architect. Moreover, those theologians who adopt the concept of Constantinianism mainly regard it as a theological concept, not a concrete historical reality. It is a description of a period of time rather than a particular Roman emperor's merit.
One of the major features of Constantinianism is so-called marriage of church and state. In order to have a better understanding of Yoder's concept of church-state, a clear definition of the terms “church” and “state” is crucial. This essay will discuss the notion of “state” in Yoder's thought. First, the concept of “the reign of Christ” will be examined, as it is considered as the theological foundation of Yoder's church-state discourse. Second, the mandate of the state will be expounded. Finally, the functions and limits of the state will be analysed.
Bonhoeffer's Six Types of Resistance: The Analysis of Michael P. DeJonge
Andres S. TANG
This paper aims to give an extended review of Michael P. DeJonge's little book Bonhoeffer on Resistance: The Word against the Wheel. In the past, the discussion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's political resistance does not focus much on the theology behind the action. However, for DeJonge, Bonhoeffer has a systematic, differentiated, and well-developed vision of political activity and resistance. He does not only offer an analysis of Bonhoeffer's six types of resistance but also outlines his political thinking on resistance.
To put it precisely, DeJonge does not give a straightforward account of the six types of resistance but constructs it in the context of Bonhoeffer's theological thinking of Luther's understanding of state and church, two kingdoms, preservation toward redemption, law and gospel, and justification. In other words, DeJonge reads and constructs Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking in the context of Bonhoeffer's own understanding of Martin Luther. This way of reading consists of two steps: first, reading Bonhoeffer's political thinking on resistance in the context of his understanding of Luther's political thinking; and second, reading Luther's political thinking in the context of Bonhoeffer's understanding of the center of Luther's theology. For DeJonge, Bonhoeffer is thinking of resistance in a Lutheran way so it is a kind of Lutheran political resistance theology.
Indeed, DeJonge wrote another book Bonhoeffer's Reception of Luther in 2017 before publishing this little book in 2018. Based on the research findings in his Bonhoeffer's Reception of Luther, he gives a systematic yet accessible analysis of the six types of resistance and the underlying political thinking of Bonhoeffer. This paper includes five sections: discussion of Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking in the context of Luther's theology, the features of Bonhoeffer's on Resistance, showing the Lutheran theology behind Bonhoeffer's resistance thinking, analysis of Bonhoeffer's six types of resistance in terms of Luther's two kingdoms, and conclusion.