你如果在Goole輸入「贖罪」(atonement) 和「新興教會」(Emergent Church，譯註：美國近幾年興起的一個教會群體，對古典系統神學有不同的詮釋) 這兩個英文詞，電腦螢幕的熱度立刻飆高。新興教會陣營對贖罪論的看法，多少像桃樂斯•戴漪 (Dorothy Day) 六十年前的誇張形容：「上帝想要滅絕所有人，但是祂的報復施虐因為自己的兒子雖然無辜，卻被釘十字架，所以是個極其引人的受害者，所以祂得到充分滿足。祂現在只滅絕那些不跟隨基督，或是從來沒有聽聞過祂的人。」新興教會與捍衛古典贖罪論的人士已經展開一場激烈，而且間或不太有風度的辯論。
自從耶穌在兩千多年前受死，神學家諸如俄利根、安瑟倫、亞伯拉德、加爾文都提出了理解贖罪的方法：付給撒旦的贖價；神要求的犧牲；對人性的道德影響；代替人類承受當得的刑罰等等。有些訴諸於獻祭或是神的震怒的理論，對於現代人則難以消受。
十字架是基督教的核心象徵，沿用小說家歐康娜 (Flannery O’Connor) 的說法，是個活生生的證明，世界「容或罪大惡極，但是上帝卻認為值得為其而死。」不過神學家還是要解釋，耶穌的死與其他偉大領袖的死有何區別。耶穌的死何以是必要的，而且究竟如何影響了我們與神的關係？
在復活節的前一週，我思索的不是贖罪的理論根據，而是贖罪的實質果效。在那一週我有三個感想：
(1) 十字架使人得以與上帝有新的親密關係。三卷福音書提到，當耶穌死亡的那一刻，聖殿裡的厚重幔子由上而下裂開，暴露出至聖所。根據傳統，一年只有在贖罪日，大祭司才可以進入令人戰兢的至聖所。事先要有禮儀性的沐浴、穿上特別的衣服、獻五種不同的祭牲，但是祭司依然帶著疑慮進入至聖所，生怕自己觸犯了什麼過失。他的袍子上有鈴鐺，腳踝上綁著一條繩子，如果沒有鈴鐺聲，其他祭司就把屍體拖出來。
希伯來書呈現一個生動的對比：作者說信徒如今可以「坦然無懼地來到施恩的寶座前」(四6)。對敬虔的猶太人，大膽闖入至聖所可謂驚世駭俗，莫此為甚。所以希伯來書作者下結語說：「就當…來到上帝面前」(十22)。因著耶穌，我們不再需要保護的幔子；上帝已經賜給我們一位永世的中保。
卡爾•巴特1962年訪美，有人打破沙鍋問他，到底是在什麼時候得救，他回答說：「是在主後34 年，耶穌死在十字架。」愛能夠有方法克服一切阻礙，不計代價與所愛的對象聯合。
(2) 十字架顯出人類成就的局限。保羅寫道：「既將一切執政的、掌權的擄來，明顯給眾人看，就仗十字架誇勝」(西二15)。本丟彼拉多以三種語言張貼耶穌的「罪狀」——猶太人的王，明褒暗貶被人嘲諷的正義。當高尚的宗教權威群起撻伐一個無辜的人，並且由當時最負盛名的司法體系執行判決，這的確是個奇觀。
作者湯瑪斯•牟敦說到「沒有人目睹復活。每個人都目睹了釘十字架。每個人都親眼看見釘十字架。十字架遍佈於每個地方。」我們應該駐足，好好思想這個矛盾的記號。我們很容易求助於政治或科學，解決人性根深柢固的問題。但是基督卻揭發了那些我們引以為傲，或是希望所繫的權勢與能力，無非是虛假的神祇罷了。
(3) 十字架點出神性中出人意料的一個特質：謙卑。保羅在腓利比書第二章說：「你們當以基督耶穌的心為心：他本有神的形像，不以自己與神同等為強奪的；反倒虛己，取了奴僕的形像，成為人的樣式；既有人的樣子，就自己卑微，存心順服，以至於死，且死在十字架上」(5~8節)。那些貧窮、居於劣勢的人，自然而然更夠親身體會這一點：且看美國清苦的阿伯拉契山區教會，或是拉丁美洲基層社群傳講的信息。小說家也知道。格雷安•葛林、貝納諾士 (Georges Bernanos)、席羅內 (Ignazio Silone) 在他們最優秀的作品中，皆以紀念耶穌受死的聖禮為重點。
不論我們個人看法如何，贖罪履行了猶太思想的原則，亦即只有被傷害的才有寬恕的的能力。在加略山上，神選擇被傷害。
| .. | Google the words atonement and emergent church together, and your computer screen will soon heat up a few degrees. A lively (and not always civilized) debate has broken out among those who defend classical theories of the Atonement and those who see them as some variation of the caricature Dorothy Sayers drew 60 years ago:
God wanted to damn everybody, but his vindictive sadism was sated by the crucifixion of his own Son, who was quite innocent, and, therefore, a particularly attractive victim. He now only damns people who don't follow Christ or who have never heard of him.
Since Jesus' death nearly 2,000 years ago, theologians such as Origen, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, and John Calvin have proposed ways of understanding it: as a Ransom paid to Satan, a Satisfaction required by God, a Moral Influence for humanity, a Penal Substitution for the punishment due to humankind. Some of these theories, referencing animal sacrifices and God's wrath, can make for a hard sell for many in modern times.
The Cross is the central image of Christianity, and gives us vivid proof that, in novelist Flannery O'Connor's words, the world "has, for all its horror, been found by God to be worth dying for." Yet theologians must somehow explain how Jesus' death differs in essence from the death of any great leader. What made it necessary, and exactly how did it affect our relationship with God?
During Holy Week last year, I found myself reflecting not so much on the theoretical rationale for the Atonement as on its practical outworking. Three insights from that week:
(1) The Cross made possible a new intimacy with God. Three of the Gospels mention that at the moment of Jesus' death, a thick curtain inside the temple tore from top to bottom, exposing the Most Holy Place. Traditionally, only once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), could the high priest enter the fearsome Most Holy Place. Preparations involved ritual baths, special clothes, and five separate animal sacrifices, and still the priest entered with apprehension about committing an offense. He wore bells on his robe and a rope around his ankle so that if the bells fell silent, other priests could retrieve his body.
The Book of Hebrews draws a vivid contrast: the author says believers can now "approach the throne of grace with confidence" (4:16). No image could be more shocking for devout Jews than charging boldly into the Most Holy Place. Therefore, concludes the author of Hebrews, "let us draw near to God" (10:22). Because of Jesus, we need no protective curtain; God has provided a sufficient Mediator for all time.
While visiting the United States in 1962, theologian Karl Barth faced a questioner intent on pinning down exactly when he had been saved. Barth replied, "It happened one afternoon in A.D. 34 when Jesus died on the cross." Love finds a way to overcome all obstacles to uniting with the beloved, no matter the cost.
(2) The Cross reveals the limits of human achievement. Paul wrote, "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col. 2:15). Pontius Pilate had Jesus' "crime"—King of the Jews—posted in three languages, in ironic tribute to the travesty of justice. A public spectacle it was indeed when the most refined religious authorities of the time ganged up on an innocent man, and the most renowned justice system carried out the sentence.
Writer Thomas Merton points out that "no one saw the Resurrection. Everyone saw the Crucifixion. Everyone does see the Crucifixion. The Cross is everywhere." It should give us pause, this sign of contradiction, when we are tempted to look to politics or science to solve the deepest problems of humanity. Christ exposed as false gods the very powers in which men and women take most pride and invest most hope.
(3) The Cross brings to light an unexpected quality of the Godhead: humility. As Paul expressed in Philippians 2: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing … he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!" (v. 5-8). The poor and disadvantaged respond by instinct to this personal identification: witness the sermons in Appalachia or the base communities in Latin America that center on the Cross. Novelists know it too: Graham Greene, Georges Bernanos, and Ignazio Silone all made the sacrament commemorating Jesus' death the centerpiece of their finest works.
Whatever else we may say about it, the Atonement fulfills the Jewish principle that only one who has been hurt can forgive. At Calvary, God chose to be hurt. |
|
|
|
|
轉寄
基督教網站文章
about