林慈信牧師：華人福音派神學的六大趨勢及應對

神學的世俗化﹕華人福音派神學的六大趨勢

SECULARALIZATION OF THEOLOGY:
SIX TRENDS AMONG CHINESE EVANGELICALS 
(Excerpt from: “Authority of the Expert: The Secularization of

Chinese Christian Scholarship”, Chinese Around the World, September 2000)

 

當代一部分華人的「福音派」神學正朝著非福音/非正統信仰的方向走。

Theological trends and methodologies have been adopted as “commonplace”, which lead the Chinese church down a slippery path to heterodoxy – away from her historical, biblical roots. Much of this stems from a sincere effort to speak to the contemporary world, to listen and to understand contemporary humanities. However, in this process, experts in various academic fields assumed an autonomous kind of authority in re-interpreting the Christian faith. Evangelicals, in seeking to respond to the contemporary challenges in the world, imbibed a spirit of secular scholarship which was autonomous – theology and the humanities were explored with an increasingly weak link with the historical foundations in biblical doctrine. Let me cite several such trends. 

 

一。在解經上不加批判地採用當代語言學和解構主義的理論。

1. An uncritical acceptance of contemporary theories of linguistics and deconstructionism in Bible interpretation. Some of the prominent postmodern ideas are now accepted by many Chinese “evangelical” Bible scholars. We have traveled a long way since the days when the historical-grammatical (even “literal”) interpretation of the Bible was the evangelical consensus. Today, postmodernism says: words are arbitrarily assigned to things. There is no text, no author, no reader. There is no text (no stable meaning to any text—including the Bible): all is interpretation. There is no author: the author “died” and lost control of his text once the text is written. There is no reader: there is only the contemporary canons of language usage interpreting the text (the reader also died). Thus texts have no stable, intended meaning. In journals published by Chinese seminaries, scholars promote these ideas with little critique. These views go directly against the traditional method of historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible. It undermines the fact that God has sovereignly chosen to use language – words – to reveal himself, and that His revelation is clear and authoritative. Where is hermeneutics going in the church? 

 

二。偏愛聖經研究﹐而貶低係統神學(教義) 的重要性。

2. A preference for Biblical studies which is in fact hostile to the study of systematic theology. Some Bible scholars, in seeking to prevent theological biases to affect (or infect) Biblical interpretation, often say: “Let the Bible speak for itself”. While this sounds pious (indeed we need to study the Bible seriously on its own terms), it is in fact not so neutral as it seems. What some of them are really saying is: “There is no use in the study of systematic theology.” Biblical study is all; doctrines are to be gleaned from biblical studies, not theological formulation. This is a widespread, subtle way of undermining the system of truths taught in Scripture (because it is done in the name of Scripture). In an earlier generation, evangelical theologians would agree that sound Biblical interpretation, and orthodox doctrinal theology should support and reinforce one another. However with the dominance of secular scholarship, evangelical theologians imported the great divide between biblical studies and systematic theology. This is tragic. Two thousand years of doctrinal development are reduced to the level of a museum – with no relevance to biblical studies. Pastors are being trained with little or no doctrinal foundation – they are not equipped to handle the intellectual challenges in areas such as epistemology, the openness-of-God theology (God is finite), and contemporary developments in the doctrine of Christ and the Holy Spirit, to name a few. 

 

三。在聖經學術研究上﹐學者們往往在不同的課題上偏離傳統保守的觀點。

3. A trend in Biblical interpretation among evangelicals which consistently leads the student of Scripture away from a conservative stance on various issues. There is an almost deliberate reaction against the historic stand taken by evangelicals. In the past, evangelicals (from a variety of persuasions – Baptist, dispensationalist, Wesleyan, Reformed, and others) sought to study all the viewpoints on an issue, and worked hard to respond to non-evangelical views. (The works of Donald Guthrie is a good example.) This is no longer true today. Evangelical scholars are quite appreciative of secular academic schools of thought in Biblical interpretation, and have taken the strategy of assimilating themselves into the wider body of Biblical scholarship. Many are finding employment in non-evangelical seminaries (something which an earlier generation could not even imagine), making contributions to theology as insiders of the academic establishment. Some Chinese evangelical theologians seem to aim at becoming known and published in non-evangelical theological circles. The unique evangelical stand in biblical studies and in theology is becoming more and more blurred. For example, did Genesis chapters 1 and 2 teach that God created the world out of nothing at the beginning of history? Such issues are skirted in the name of newer methodologies in Old Testament scholarship. Result: we can no longer discern clearly the line of demarcation between orthodox, Bible-believing scholarship and secular scholarship. 

 

四。在神學上﹐仰慕以人為中心﹐以經驗為中心﹐存在主義式﹐辯証的神學模式。

4. An admiration for the man-centered, experience-oriented, and paradox-filled perspective as one engages in theological formulation. According to this tradition, one should not try to build a system of doctrine; rather, the task of the theologian is to “reflect on religious experience” (very similar to the approach taken by Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of modern liberal theology). These Chinese evangelical theologians are often hostile to a coherent, reasoned system of doctrine deduced from Scripture. All “systems” are suspect. God is an actor rather than one who revealed through words. “Word” and “act” in special revelation are put over against one another. Salvation is encounter rather than justification and propitiation; theology promotes “relationships” rather than “truths.” Result: the church becomes weaker when faced with secular intellectual challenges. 

 

五。不加批判地採用(19世紀的) 社會科學理論﹐以致把信仰也從相對的角度去理解。

5. An uncritical adoption of methodology from 19^th century sociology of knowledge and 20^th century thought, as one seeks to “integrate” theology and culture. Involved in this process is the relativizing of all cultural forms, including theology. As one observes the development of Chinese evangelical theology, a critical study of methodological assumptions is urgently needed. One may discover that the methodologies presupposed in current Chinese evangelical scholarship are quite similar to the methodologies presupposed by liberals in a previous generation! Where are we going? On what foundation are we building our scholarship in Chinese seminaries? 

 

六。不加批判的採用儒道哲學。

6. An uncritical appreciation and respect for Chinese thought and culture (especially Daoism, Neo-Confucianism and New Confucianism) which is in fact a deliberate mystical reaction against the sanctified use of the mind. In promoting the Dao De Jing, a form of “Christian” irrationalism or mysticism is presented in the form of “theology for China.” God is said to have revealed to the Chinese people through the Dao De Jing (the Taoist classic text). God’s general revelation is equated with philosophy (fallen man’s response to God’s general revelation). Or in efforts to promote dialogue with the philosophers of New Confucianism, one is prone to dilute the historical stand on the uniqueness of Christ and the absolute claims of Scripture. Studies on spirituality put Confucian self-cultivation and Christian prayer on the same level (something which liberal missionaries did in the 1890s, and liberal Chinese theologians did in the 1920s). In exploring issues in epistemology, a more “circular,” non-linear method of thinking is preferred. The process of discovering knowledge is part of that knowledge – is clear, certain and authoritative knowledge possible any more? Evangelicals are losing their “cutting edge” as they become more familiar with Chinese philosophy. 

 

 

回應﹕呼籲華人教會重新認信正統教義

A RESPONSE AND A CALL:
METHODOLOGY, CONFESSION AND SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

 

 It is time for the Chinese church to recognize that our theologians have traveled a long way toward secularizing our theology. It is time for us to do some serious reflection, and return to the historic, orthodox roots of our faith. 

 

牧師必須講教義式的解經講道。

The Chinese church need to renew the vision of the pastor-scholar. Pastors must not simply learn skills and methods for church growth. Pastors must be trained, and given the time and tools to study doctrine – biblical, sound doctrine. Pastors must be encouraged to develop doctrinal preaching alongside expository preaching. The historic beliefs of the church concerning the sovereignty of God, His attributes, the deity of Christ as well as his humanity, the image of God and the fall of man, sin and repentance, etc. must directly impact the content and structure of sermons. Only in this way will Chinese pastors build a strong foundation for their laity; the laity is demanding a biblical relevance from their pastors, and trendy scholarship will not meet the hunger and thirst in their hearts and minds. …  

 

教會領袖們必須恢復教會「認信」 真理的呼召。

… Leaders must recover the vision of the church as a confessing church: the church publicly professes what she believes to her members, and to the watching world.  We need to be bold and allow our biblical, historic and evangelical convictions to be understood by our “cultured despisers.” They will respect us more for it. Rather than hiding behind the canons of contemporary secular scholarship, evangelical theologians and church leaders need to publicly take a stand on what we truly believe – and pay the cost of opposition and ridicule. The church will be stronger; our laity will ultimately more effective as salt and light. 

 

The Chinese church is going down a slippery slope toward heterodoxy. The church is allowing the world to teach her what to believe. This trend need to be reversed. While this trend came from the secular, academic west, the solution does not lie in a reaffirmation of Asian philosophy and religion. A truly indigenous church must look to the doctrine of system taught in Scripture for the ultimate authority, and to two thousand years of church history (the Holy Spirit did not lack his witnesses throughout history) for guidance, as she builds and communicates her doctrinal convictions. May God be gracious to the Chinese church to stand on, and defend, the truth “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). 

 

（林慈信，原著刊登於華福中心出版的Chinese Around the World. 2001.）