教會查經情況惡化

[Daniel_Cheung]

今期胡志偉在《時代論壇》寫的〈「好」術厭道〉裡提到，

二○○四香港教會普查反映恆常參與主日學或聖經教導的信徒只有30.8 %（九九年為32.8 %），有一百廿四間堂會不設有主日學或聖經教導的聚會（佔全港教會10.5 %）。筆者預期○九年香港教會普查有關數據將進一步下跌，教會整體的聖經教導嚴重不足；而大多信徒只安於聽道，卻不能「自我餵養」，可自行查經成長。

http://christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=49353&Pid=2&Version=1101&Cid=573&Charset=big5_hkscs
（收費文章）

我在海外也有點共鳴。原因是這裡每年都有香港學生來，其中自然有些是基督徒。然而，二、三十人裡，我找不到一個是懂得帶查經，或懂得自行查考聖經，然後教導別人的。其中有幾位研究生，在華人教會裡擔任重要領導角色，雖然他們在自己科目裡知識多，但說到聖經知識就平平無奇。最令人氣餒的是習非成是，人人以為胡說八道地東拉西扯，是「正常」的查經手法。我雖然不多參與那教會，但看到一些初信有心人被這些「查經」所折磨，就禁不住請他們讓我一個月帶一次。而信徒愛做的事奉，大都是敬拜隊、領詩、搞遊戲之類，一去到帶查經，稍有自知之明的都不敢碰了（當然有很多是沒有自知之明的）。

不知這類情況在各位的教會是怎樣的呢？

[sbchan]

看來我的教會很得神的帶領，沒有這樣的情況。團契主要的項目都是查經，帶查經的弟兄姊妹一般也很有質素，也有良好的討論。主日學有至少四五班，各種不同的項目也有，我今個學期便參加了希臘文班. :d

[nkcwong]

今期胡志偉在《時代論壇》寫的〈「好」術厭道〉裡提到，

二○○四香港教會普查反映恆常參與主日學或聖經教導的信徒只有30.8 %（九九年為32.8 %），有一百廿四間堂會不設有主日學或聖經教導的聚會（佔全港教會10.5 %）。筆者預期○九年香港教會普查有關數據將進一步下跌，教會整體的聖經教導嚴重不足；而大多信徒只安於聽道，卻不能「自我餵養」，可自行查經成長。

http://christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=49353&Pid=2&Version=1101&Cid=573&Charset=big5_hkscs
（收費文章）

我在海外也有點共鳴。原因是這裡每年都有香港學生來，其中自然有些是基督徒。然而，二、三十人裡，我找不到一個是懂得帶查經，或懂得自行查考聖經，然後教導別人的。其中有幾位研究生，在華人教會裡擔任重要領導角色，雖然他們在自己科目裡知識多，但說到聖經知識就平平無奇。最令人氣餒的是習非成是，人人以為胡說八道地東拉西扯，是「正常」的查經手法。我雖然不多參與那教會，但看到一些初信有心人被這些「查經」所折磨，就禁不住請他們讓我一個月帶一次。而信徒愛做的事奉，大都是敬拜隊、領詩、搞遊戲之類，一去到帶查經，稍有自知之明的都不敢碰了（當然有很多是沒有自知之明的）。

不知這類情況在各位的教會是怎樣的呢？

(I can't type Chinese with this computer.) This is really a serious problem. I guess those who like to 查經 need to understand the place of Scripture in their lives. Many still believe that they can find clear answers to every single moral (as well as political) issue in the Bible. It's no wonder that people get tired of 查經 after a while because they are not going to get one to many of such issues.

[clement]

我在海外也有點共鳴。原因是這裡每年都有香港學生來，其中自然有些是基督徒。然而，二、三十人裡，我找不到一個是懂得帶查經，或懂得自行查考聖經，然後教導別人的。

其中有幾位研究生，在華人教會裡擔任重要領導角色，雖然他們在自己科目裡知識多，但說到聖經知識就平平無奇。最令人氣餒的是習非成是，人人以為胡說八道地東拉西扯，是「正常」的查經手法。我雖然不多參與那教會，但看到一些初信有心人被這些「查經」所折磨，就禁不住請他們讓我一個月帶一次。而信徒愛做的事奉，大都是敬拜隊、領詩、搞遊戲之類，一去到帶查經，稍有自知之明的都不敢碰了（當然有很多是沒有自知之明的）。

不知這類情況在各位的教會是怎樣的呢？

不如大家也說說怎樣比較算得上懂得帶查經吧。
　
按我所理解，一般人所理解的「懂得帶查經」，就是張國棟所說的「正常」的查經手法。不過，

若說有質素的話，也就是（１）對原文方面有專研，或者起碼懂得比較不同中文翻譯，或者比較不同英文翻譯；（２）不會望文生義，不會斷章取義，懂得察覺每章每書都有不同側重，不同主旨，不會用同一套大而空洞的概念框架來硬套在經文中（若是這樣，其實都什麼經也沒分別）。

若是引發良好討論，則可能只能夠引發參與者的共鳴，或者能夠聯繫上一些深入的經歷感受。。。
　

　
　

[callmejeanwong]

若說有質素的話，也就是（１）對原文方面有專研，或者起碼懂得比較不同中文翻譯，或者比較不同英文翻譯；（２）不會望文生義，不會斷章取義，懂得察覺每章每書都有不同側重，不同主旨，不會用同一套大而空洞的概念框架來硬套在經文中　

(2) is more important than (1). If people can do (2) thoroughly and objectively, then they will most likely have interpreted the bible very accurately, even without resorting to (1). In contrast, even for those who are experts in Greek, Hebrew, and the comparison of bible translation, if they don't do (2), their biblical interpretations will most likely be wrong. Of course, I acknowledge that (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive.

[pilgrim]

In my opinion, it is very hard to do quality bible studies if the study leaders do not possess at least the following skills:

1. Having a good overall knowledge of the OT and NT and their histories. Someone who passes a university level OT and NT survey course, or someone who goes through those same materials will a good understanding will be a good standard.

2. Being familiar with basic exegetical / hermeneutical principles

3. Knowing something about group dynamics and how to lead a discussion

As such, in my experience I've found bible studies done in the Chinese evangelical churches tend to be deficient and boring most of the time. There are some good leaders out there of course but their supply is limited.

[callmejeanwong]

（２）不會望文生義，不會斷章取義，懂得察覺每章每書都有不同側重，不同主旨，不會用同一套大而空洞的概念框架來硬套在經文中　

I want to elaborate on this point. Although asking 5W 1H (What, When, Where, Who, Why, How) is a very basic technique in interpreting the bible, many people just don't do it thoroughly and objectively. It is not difficult to do that at all. A lot of the answers come straight from the bible text. A lot of time, the answer comes from the same verse or just a verse in front or after. People just need to answer each question very carefully. They should support their answer by pinpointing the exact wordings in the text. But people can give very weird answers. They don't use the exact wordings in the bible. Instead they use terminology and concepts that they learn from books or sermons. Of course, those sources may give people the correct interpretations of the bible, but then they are not reading the bible using their own judgment. Then why do those people read the bible in the first place, especially when the passage is not that long? (When I asked people to use the exact words from the text, some people just couldn't do that. Even worse, I felt that some people might even think that I was very annoying to ask them to do so. Why didn't I just let them use the terminology that everybody uses. The terminology sounds "great". Everybody always interprets those verses in that way. Why did I ask for the exact words?)

Besides not looking for answers in nearby verses, some people even gave me answers by quoting a different passage. (That doesn't make sense at all: If people want to know what I mean by 5W 1H, would they check my post written one year ago? No. Of course, that is sometime necessary, but a lot of time it is not.)

There is another kind of people. They pay very close attention to the exact wordings, but they overlook the context. For example, in one verse there is the word "because" between two clauses. Then to these people, the second clause must be an explanation or reason to the first clause. However, they overlook the fact that the second clause is only small part of the context, which is further elaborated in the next several verses. Although I appreciate that these people take the wordings very seriously (I prefer these people than those who don't pay attention to the wordings at all), understanding the context is very important too.

By understanding the context, I am not talking about "Having a good overall knowledge of the OT and NT and their histories", as proposed by pilgrim. Of course, such knowledge can enhance the accuracy of the interpretation of the bible, but a fairly high level of accuracy can readily be achieved by just reading the bible carefully like I suggest. (I am no expert in interpreting the bible. I would love to hear from you all what can be achieved by just reading the bible text carefully.)

[Daniel_Cheung]

In my opinion, it is very hard to do quality bible studies if the study leaders do not possess at least the following skills:

1. Having a good overall knowledge of the OT and NT and their histories. Someone who passes a university level OT and NT survey course, or someone who goes through those same materials will a good understanding will be a good standard.

2. Being familiar with basic exegetical / hermeneutical principles

3. Knowing something about group dynamics and how to lead a discussion

As such, in my experience I've found bible studies done in the Chinese evangelical churches tend to be deficient and boring most of the time. There are some good leaders out there of course but their supply is limited.

關於(1)，我沒有上過那些課，不知道究竟要求有多高，但覺得這個條件可能太苛刻。我比較強調讀經者的思考能力，包括能否保持一定程度的客觀，和判斷推理恰當與否的小心求證態度（就如 callmejeanwong 所講的）。有了這些，即使未懂原文或未看很多書，但至少會知道要向甚麼正確方向尋找答案，和知道怎樣才算是好的查經。有了這些正確的標準，即使未達到，都不會自我欺騙說自己做得很好。今天我覺得有點恐怖的是，很多信徒習非成是，以為那些胡亂來的查經才是真正的讀聖經，完全不覺得差到要救急，或不知要改變成怎樣才是好。

但我對(1)又未至於不認同。那些常常強調他們每週／每月聚會都必定會讀聖經的教會，多數是福音派教會，他們愛用這個來嘲笑「自由派」教會的人只愛搞社交活動，批評別人不尊重聖經。但平心而論，他們自己卻這樣隨便地胡亂讀聖經，並且想盡方法驅使信徒每週／每月都要用這方式來讀聖經，倒是對聖經一個很大的侮辱。我有時覺得，跟他們口中那些不讀聖經的教會（事實是否如此我暫不置可否），整體上對聖經也同樣是不尊重。年年月月地用壞鬼（聖經）神學來教壞信徒，跟那些很少向信徒教導聖經的做法，沒有甚麼優越，甚至可能對世界帶來更多壞處。

[信義宗小學徒]

台灣的情況大概也相去不遠吧！
當然有些一定規模的教會透過成人主日學的聖經課程，持續穩定教導信徒聖經。不過教會中主動安排查經小組，或是會友自發性成立查經小組，的確是逐漸式微當中。

[pilgrim]

關於(1)，我沒有上過那些課，不知道究竟要求有多高，但覺得這個條件可能太苛刻。

Perhaps it is harsh. But I have a "theory" for this. If we are talking about a group of Christians with university level of education and beyond, they would have spent 20 to 30 years studying other subjects in school. Is it too much to ask these people (at least those who lead) to spend one-tenth of that time studying subjects related to the Bible and theology (concept similar to tithing)? In other words, they would be spending 2 to 3 years studying theology. They could spend their time in formal training like doing an MA or M.Div or in informal self-education, reading, taking courses and training. (I am talking about those people who do not live under poverty or dire family situations where this becomes impossible.)

Too many bible studies I've experienced were simply creative reading in disguise. And I agree with you in saying, "Is this how you treat the Bible that you consider to be the very word of God?"

As to the requirements of passing an entry level OT / NT survey course, they are not particularly strenuous -- just like any 100 level course. Usually the course involves reading one or two textbooks on Intro to OT or NT, doing a paper or two and a couple of exams or projects. No Greek or Hebrew is necessary.

I agree that being a critical thinker is as important. It is included in my point of 2.

[yanlaptak]

且從另一角度看這問題：香港教會是不是又太著重查經呢？30.8％的數字是不是全球比較來說是較高，以至最高的呢？

或者，更根本的問題是，我們該怎樣對待聖經呢？查考聖經與誦唱聖經，是不是就有一個比另一個高級呢？

[if_chf24]

坦白說, 也要看看參與者的水平吧. 我一直不參與倫敦的華人教會的查經班, 因為免得我的出現 會 為他們帶來爭論, 為帶查經的人帶來麻煩, 我還是自己消失算了. 反正, 我去查經班, 從來都無法問自己想問的問題(免得「叫別人跌倒」), 其他人也無能力回答我的問題....

[Daniel_Cheung]

且從另一角度看這問題：香港教會是不是又太著重查經呢？30.8％的數字是不是全球比較來說是較高，以至最高的呢？

或者，更根本的問題是，我們該怎樣對待聖經呢？查考聖經與誦唱聖經，是不是就有一個比另一個高級呢？

我比較關心的不是有多少次人們會搞一些聲稱是「查經」的活動。如果新教強調的是對聖經有深入認識－－而非把聖經當作誦唱歌譜，不管那是叫高級、低級抑或無法分類，我們便可批評今天很多新教的教會其實沒有朝向這方向做甚麼，甚至福音派教會那些「查經」是自欺欺人的。

[callmejeanwong]

從來都無法問自己想問的問題(免得「叫別人跌倒」)

I don't ask questions because that makes me look like I am trying to take over the role of the bible study leader. But I express my alternative views nevertheless even though they may be controversial and unpopular. Although those views did sometimes provoke arguments, I think they were constructive. I think it was unlikely that the arguments 叫別人跌倒. Bible studies have frequently become repetitive and run out of new insights anyway, so I guess they can use some controversies.

[tkhwong2005]

以下是我的意見：

觀察而言，中文的聖經資源被幾十年前多。然而，信徒對查經／主日學的渴求相對地下降。為何會發展至今天的地部？從個人觀察而言，我發現...
1. 當人初信主時，我們就沒有幫助初信者養成研讀聖經的習慣，沒有別他們真正重視聖經是信徒生命的根基、亦沒有幫助他們經歷到聖經內的偉大及超過「四律」的屬靈智慧。
2. 許多時候，有心的查經組長／主日學老師都是裝備不足、空槍上陣。同時，無心的人也上陣作此事奉。這也構成這些聚會發輝不到效果。
3. 牧者及領袖都被各種事情而忙，這使他們沒有在講壇及教室中作榜樣，亦同時未有定下培養信徒的整全計劃，使教會成為很忙卻使人生命也「亡」的地方。

這是我的觀察

[clement]

關於(1)，我沒有上過那些課，不知道究竟要求有多高，但覺得這個條件可能太苛刻。我比較強調讀經者的思考能力，包括能否保持一定程度的客觀，和判斷推理恰當與否的小心求證態度（就如 callmejeanwong 所講的）。有了這些，即使未懂原文或未看很多書，但至少會知道要向甚麼正確方向尋找答案，和知道怎樣才算是好的查經。有了這些正確的標準，即使未達到，都不會自我欺騙說自己做得很好。今天我覺得有點恐怖的是，很多信徒習非成是，以為那些胡亂來的查經才是真正的讀聖經，完全不覺得差到要救急，或不知要改變成怎樣才是好。

但我對(1)又未至於不認同。那些常常強調他們每週／每月聚會都必定會讀聖經的教會，多數是福音派教會，他們愛用這個來嘲笑「自由派」教會的人只愛搞社交活動，批評別人不尊重聖經。但平心而論，他們自己卻這樣隨便地胡亂讀聖經，並且想盡方法驅使信徒每週／每月都要用這方式來讀聖經，倒是對聖經一個很大的侮辱。我有時覺得，跟他們口中那些不讀聖經的教會（事實是否如此我暫不置可否），整體上對聖經也同樣是不尊重。年年月月地用壞鬼（聖經）神學來教壞信徒，跟那些很少向信徒教導聖經的做法，沒有甚麼優越，甚至可能對世界帶來更多壞處。

我們對於何謂好的查經，似乎沒有太大的爭議。這是就查經的素質而言。

但「查經」這種形式到底有甚麼作用和目的呢？換個角度來說，查經是否真正重視聖經的主要方式甚至唯一方式？重視聖經是否就意味著需要日日讀呢？不查經的話，就等於不真正重視聖經了？有沒有別的方法代替？

又或者說，有甚麼東西是能夠或者不能從「查經」這種形式得出呢。例如我們會否期望一切關於信仰的屬靈知識都能從查經而得出？
　
　　
　
　
　

[Daniel_Cheung]

我們對於何謂好的查經，似乎沒有太大的爭議。這是就查經的素質而言。

但「查經」這種形式到底有甚麼作用和目的呢？換個角度來說，查經是否真正重視聖經的主要方式甚至唯一方式？重視聖經是否就意味著需要日日讀呢？不查經的話，就等於不真正重視聖經了？有沒有別的方法代替？

又或者說，有甚麼東西是能夠或者不能從「查經」這種形式得出呢。例如我們會否期望一切關於信仰的屬靈知識都能從查經而得出？
　
　

十分同意你的觀察。我認為尊重聖經和學習聖經的方式並不一定是查經，甚至不應該是查經。當然，這裡要定義清楚，我指的「查經」是一群信徒在指定的一小時或半小時內按著一些議程來讀某段經文，主要目的之一是找出生活應用意義。如果有一些信徒一坐下來就討論某段經文的意思，隨手拿出各類參考書，大家用一個開放態度面對經文會說的話，甚至沒有期望一定要每次（每半小時內）獲得某些「屬靈教導」，整個過程儼如大學裡學生就某論文進行討論和研究，配以一位有學識的導師在旁指引，若這叫做查經，我沒有甚麼批評。我不能認同的只是虛假和自欺欺人的學習。

[信義宗小學徒]

我指的「查經」是一群信徒在指定的一小時或半小時內按著一些議程來讀某段經文，主要目的之一是找出生活應用意義。如果有一些信徒一坐下來就討論某段經文的意思，隨手拿出各類參考書，大家用一個開放態度面對經文會說的話，甚至沒有期望一定要每次（每半小時內）獲得某些「屬靈教導」，整個過程儼如大學裡學生就某論文進行討論和研究，配以一位有學識的導師在旁指引，若這叫做查經，我沒有甚麼批評。我不能認同的只是虛假和自欺欺人的學習。

我目前也固定在一個大學團契擔任輔導，我們每學期也安排有小組查經的聚會。成員都是大學生（少數有研究生），有的信主較久，有的是初信，不過普遍都不太可能自己有「參考書」，所以多半是我在自製的查經材料中，提供基本的一些重要字詞資料，然後設計一些討論問題，提供給參與者討論。（某份自製查經材料 (http://service.fhl.net/~pharisee/bible/1John.pdf)）
當然我還是有一些基本期待：「知道經文說了些什麼，以及這對我有何意義」，不過我也認同上面所說的：「透過研討，而非講解」。

[pathos]

坦白說, 也要看看參與者的水平吧. 我一直不參與倫敦的華人教會的查經班, 因為免得我的出現 會 為他們帶來爭論, 為帶查經的人帶來麻煩, 我還是自己消失算了. 反正, 我去查經班, 從來都無法問自己想問的問題(免得「叫別人跌倒」), 其他人也無能力回答我的問題....

同感。

唉﹐提出某些質疑對某些帶領人來說的確是[太叛逆]了。我試過被一位老牧師當眾責罵﹐要求我道歉。這位陳牧師的[歸納法]解經實在是太膚淺了。甚至解錯經(例如﹐耶穌問彼得﹕你愛我嗎﹖ -> 用?原文-愛? 解出每個[你愛我嗎]的不同層次) ....

結果﹐我屈服了﹐向所有人道歉﹐真沒[種] :mad: 之後﹐加上其他因素﹐我也被一班[謙卑]的領袖們對付.... 我至今依然後悔當初的道歉。

幸好去年來了一位聖經底子不錯的牧師﹐用了一年時間努力地去提升查經班的水準。他也嚴厲地要求帶領查經班者至少參考六本釋經書﹐如果作不到﹐就放棄帶領。之間﹐牧師也開始了舊約概論課程。最近﹐他也舉辦了一次簡易釋經課程﹐嚴厲指責[歸納法]查經的不足(原因是有領袖實在太崇尚此法了﹐不是指此法一無是處)和一些查經常犯的錯謬。明天﹐他將在昆士蘭大學舉辦第二次簡易釋經課程。原本牧師要求我分享一些心得﹐甚至一部份習作(因我曾在神學院讀過)﹐但我謝絕了 .... 免得再被人判為驕傲﹐show-off, 是我太灰了嗎﹖:o

[Daniel_Cheung]

看 if_chf24 和 pathos 兄的分享，發現原來我都算幸福。這幾年在美國的西人教會的查經活動裡，組裡有人願意問一些不太「正統」的問題，而其他們也願意思考和回應。在和華人教會裡的香港人查經活動裡，我甚至被視為最有聖經學識的那個，所以可以放膽講論不同的事（當然也不是毫無顧忌的）。而香港母會裡的人，也喜歡深入點討論聖經。

[tkhwong2005]

同感。

唉﹐提出某些質疑對某些帶領人來說的確是[太叛逆]了。我試過被一位老牧師當眾責罵﹐要求我道歉。這位陳牧師的[歸納法]解經實在是太膚淺了。甚至解錯經(例如﹐耶穌問彼得﹕你愛我嗎﹖ -> 用?原文-愛? 解出每個[你愛我嗎]的不同層次) ....

結果﹐我屈服了﹐向所有人道歉﹐真沒[種] :mad: 之後﹐加上其他因素﹐我也被一班[謙卑]的領袖們對付.... 我至今依然後悔當初的道歉。

幸好去年來了一位聖經底子不錯的牧師﹐用了一年時間努力地去提升查經班的水準。他也嚴厲地要求帶領查經班者至少參考六本釋經書﹐如果作不到﹐就放棄帶領。之間﹐牧師也開始了舊約概論課程。最近﹐他也舉辦了一次簡易釋經課程﹐嚴厲指責[歸納法]查經的不足(原因是有領袖實在太崇尚此法了﹐不是指此法一無是處)和一些查經常犯的錯謬。明天﹐他將在昆士蘭大學舉辦第二次簡易釋經課程。原本牧師要求我分享一些心得﹐甚至一部份習作(因我曾在神學院讀過)﹐但我謝絕了 .... 免得再被人判為驕傲﹐show-off, 是我太灰了嗎﹖:o

Well...I do not know the dynamics of your church, it is hard to comment. Yet, if you think this pastor really help the church to build up other biblically, why not give him/her a help :D

[pathos]

Well...I do not know the dynamics of your church, it is hard to comment. Yet, if you think this pastor really help the church to build up other biblically, why not give him/her a help :D

You are right. I am assisting my pastor in the [ backdrop ] ... gathering new resources for bible exegesis and OT overview study, giving comments and suggestions, writing pastor desk..... and reading Richard Baxter's << The Reformed Pastor >> and share some pastoral experiences (mainly learning from him - semi apprentice :) ) .... what i am still hesitated now ... is sharing in front of certain church leaders ....

Trying to stay low profile now .... we are still recovering from the past wounds 2 years ago(almost healed)... we continue to stay on, reconciling with those that hurt us and sought forgiveness from those that we might had hurt .... we believe in the healing power of the Church, not because of the people but of Christ.... may be the good outcome are: we learn to forgive (to erase memory is impossible... right?), learn to be patient, learn to take initiative in reconciliation despite all the difficulties, learn the reality of our sinful nature, our hypocrisy ...

To change even one Chinese church takes tremendous time and efforts ... right? We once seeking for exoneration ... but for the leaders to give us one ... also imply that they wrongly judged us in the past ... this never happened :mad: :mad: We accepted it .... it's partially Chinese culture and our sinful nature.

Now, I am in the core working committee (brought in by pastor and hence no one objected ....) and I choice not to be outspoken now through my mouth .... but suggestions in email and verbally to my pastor,.... anything he deem good, he will try to share and comment in next meeting .... this relationship works well :p

I am giving a chance to share behind the pulpit the Sunday before Christmas .... still thinking of the sermon title.

Lastly, we thank God for giving us the strength and wisdom to stay on ..... to leave might be easy for us ... but to stay, we learn some most precious treasure of our life.

[小兔黑黑]

You are right. I am assisting my pastor in the [ backdrop ] ... gathering new resources for bible exegesis and OT overview study, giving comments and suggestions, writing pastor desk..... and reading Richard Baxter's << The Reformed Pastor >> and share some pastoral experiences (mainly learning from him - semi apprentice :) ) .... what i am still hesitated now ... is sharing in front of certain church leaders ....

Trying to stay low profile now .... we are still recovering from the past wounds 2 years ago(almost healed)... we continue to stay on, reconciling with those that hurt us and sought forgiveness from those that we might had hurt .... we believe in the healing power of the Church, not because of the people but of Christ.... may be the good outcome are: we learn to forgive (to erase memory is impossible... right?), learn to be patient, learn to take initiative in reconciliation despite all the difficulties, learn the reality of our sinful nature, our hypocrisy ...

To change even one Chinese church takes tremendous time and efforts ... right? We once seeking for exoneration ... but for the leaders to give us one ... also imply that they wrongly judged us in the past ... this never happened :mad: :mad: We accepted it .... it's partially Chinese culture and our sinful nature.

Now, I am in the core working committee (brought in by pastor and hence no one objected ....) and I choice not to be outspoken now through my mouth .... but suggestions in email and verbally to my pastor,.... anything he deem good, he will try to share and comment in next meeting .... this relationship works well :p

I am giving a chance to share behind the pulpit the Sunday before Christmas .... still thinking of the sermon title.

Lastly, we thank God for giving us the strength and wisdom to stay on ..... to leave might be easy for us ... but to stay, we learn some most precious treasure of our life.

Good to know that things turn much better from last time we met :em2:

[tkhwong2005]

You are right. I am assisting my pastor in the [ backdrop ] ... gathering new resources for bible exegesis and OT overview study, giving comments and suggestions, writing pastor desk..... and reading Richard Baxter's << The Reformed Pastor >> and share some pastoral experiences (mainly learning from him - semi apprentice :) ) .... what i am still hesitated now ... is sharing in front of certain church leaders ....

Trying to stay low profile now .... we are still recovering from the past wounds 2 years ago(almost healed)... we continue to stay on, reconciling with those that hurt us and sought forgiveness from those that we might had hurt .... we believe in the healing power of the Church, not because of the people but of Christ.... may be the good outcome are: we learn to forgive (to erase memory is impossible... right?), learn to be patient, learn to take initiative in reconciliation despite all the difficulties, learn the reality of our sinful nature, our hypocrisy ...

To change even one Chinese church takes tremendous time and efforts ... right? We once seeking for exoneration ... but for the leaders to give us one ... also imply that they wrongly judged us in the past ... this never happened :mad: :mad: We accepted it .... it's partially Chinese culture and our sinful nature.

Now, I am in the core working committee (brought in by pastor and hence no one objected ....) and I choice not to be outspoken now through my mouth .... but suggestions in email and verbally to my pastor,.... anything he deem good, he will try to share and comment in next meeting .... this relationship works well :p

I am giving a chance to share behind the pulpit the Sunday before Christmas .... still thinking of the sermon title.

Lastly, we thank God for giving us the strength and wisdom to stay on ..... to leave might be easy for us ... but to stay, we learn some most precious treasure of our life.

I can totally understand your situation. In this case, do it slowly and healing is taking time. I think at least your church is willing to give a shot of moving from the darkest day to the better time. I wish you and your church is going well. Brother, you are very brave :em1:

[tkhwong2005]

我們對於何謂好的查經，似乎沒有太大的爭議。這是就查經的素質而言。

但「查經」這種形式到底有甚麼作用和目的呢？換個角度來說，查經是否真正重視聖經的主要方式甚至唯一方式？重視聖經是否就意味著需要日日讀呢？不查經的話，就等於不真正重視聖經了？有沒有別的方法代替？

又或者說，有甚麼東西是能夠或者不能從「查經」這種形式得出呢。例如我們會否期望一切關於信仰的屬靈知識都能從查經而得出？

I believe bible study is one aspect of growing faith, yet it is not the only way of growing the faith of believers. Different teaching-learning methods have their own strength and weakness. I believe a healthy bible study can be fostered from the context that church provides and encourage the overall, well planned and mulitple learning approach of faith formation.

[Daniel_Cheung]

原諒我來這裡吐一吐苦水。這幾天很不快。我寫一封電郵給一些團友說女性講道的問題不是那麼直接黑白分明，然後提供十篇八篇持正反意見的文章給他們看。我的用意是，我想他們下一點苦工才好自以為有一個很堅定的立場。

但有一個人，總是愛說他有一個堅定的立場。並且說，他不喜歡看扁女性的，但他只能遵守聖經教訓。這個我可以尊重，但他連最最基本的，用二、三百字表達他的立場和理由，都做不到，甚至有些字句是自打咀巴的，三、四遍電郵重重覆覆的我指出一些問題，他就不知答了甚麼。答不到呢，卻又堅定他一定對，說他尚未遇到一個人有能力指出他的錯。

我覺得這是福音派教會一個很嚴重的與查經有關的問題，就是理性思考的全面崩潰，自欺地說他讀過聖經。福音派教會的人太愛自命擁有真理，又同時堅持真理簡單易明，人人都可以有一個立場。結果，就像這個人，連寫幾段文字都做不到，思考能力完全與他的學歷不符（他讀音樂的，可以體諒），卻反對這樣那樣，被人問起來，就 ad hoc 地東拉西扯，創作一些古怪的理由，還以為自己口若源河。至於我提供的文章，他一眼都沒有看過，動輒就說那些神學不重要，重要的是他讀過聖經。:em12: :mad:

這種人，再多遇幾個，我恐怕要心臟病發了。

用知識論來說，持甚麼立場也好，但請以一個合理的方式去堅持。若無法做到，請不要僭用真理或理性的名義來包裝自己的立場。

[pilgrim]

原諒我來這裡吐一吐苦水。這幾天很不快...
但有一個人，總是愛說他有一個堅定的立場。並且說，他不喜歡看扁女性的，但他只能遵守聖經教訓。

Just a suggestion, Daniel: Why not invite two speakers who know what they are talking to present their two opposite views on women and church leadership to the congregation with Q&A at the end. Then hold a consultation meeting with the congregation a week after to let the members discsuss which view they are more convinced of. Let them go home and think and pray over the matter for a couple of more weeks and then let the members vote on it. The congregation has to agree beforehand what constitutes a winning vote: simple majority or two-thirds majority, etc.

This way the congregation takes ownership of their decision and whoever doesn't like the decision may choose to leave or stay.

[Daniel_Cheung]

Just a suggestion, Daniel: Why not invite two speakers who know what they are talking to present their two opposite views on women and church leadership to the congregation with Q&A at the end. Then hold a consultation meeting with the congregation a week after to let the members discsuss which view they are more convinced of. Let them go home and think and pray over the matter for a couple of more weeks and then let the members vote on it. The congregation has to agree beforehand what constitutes a winning vote: simple majority or two-thirds majority, etc.

This way the congregation takes ownership of their decision and whoever doesn't like the decision may choose to leave or stay.

謝謝回應！很可惜，我不屬於那教會的領導層，而他們似乎想在追求和睦的大前提下減少人們理性討論的機會。按我了解，他們就是不想看到有一天有這樣一個大會，決定是否接受女傳道人，以致某些人不滿而離去。（但這其實變相即是要附和那些反對女性講道的人，不管他們人多人少。）某些人既想別人改變看法，但又不選擇理性對話的方式，在我看來這樣做只會越搞越壞。

另外，按我有限了解，除某執事外，其餘的人根本談不上有自己的立場（用我上面的定義，是一個深思熟慮過的立場，而不是人云亦云，讀一兩遍聖經就說的那種）。看，連我提供十篇八篇文章給他們，都可以有人一眼也不看就說自己的立場是最正確。那麼，他們只能邀請外來講員，甚至可能要是講英語的講員。這個，他們可能會有點抗拒。

以下是我寫給某執事的信，可反映我的心態和處境，所以貼出來：

As I said, I don't really care anymore whether most people in [this church] are against female pastors. After all, I'm leaving this town very soon. And many Christians in the world make decisions when they are very poorly informed (though at the same time they think they are most rational and faithful to the bible). But as a teacher, if I still have time and energy, I have to tell people that they cannot claim to have a biblical view when they have not done enough reading and thinking. Anyway, poor but unconscious reasoning is going to hurt the church at large in future. My concern is the bigger Christian world, not the decision of a particular church. I mean no trouble here.

基本上我放棄了那教會的了，作為一個半熟的人，根本無能力用甚麼人際關係手腕來改變人的思想，開講座之類他們又不肯。我只會對願意聽我教導的人說話，目的是為了他們個人成長，和他們日後在別的教會不會誤人子弟。

[callmejeanwong]

結果，就像這個人，連寫幾段文字都做不到，思考能力完全與他的學歷不符（他讀音樂的，可以體諒），卻反對這樣那樣，被人問起來，就 ad hoc 地東拉西扯，創作一些古怪的理由，還以為自己口若源河。至於我提供的文章，他一眼都沒有看過，動輒就說那些神學不重要，重要的是他讀過聖經。:em12: :mad:

I think churches, or any religious organizations in general, should provide trainings on critical thinking, for example through Sunday schools or seminars. For Christians claim they have the truth and refute others' religions. They also frequently discuss issues on morality and some may even advocate for changes in social policies. If they don't have basic trainings in critical thinking, they are not looking for the truth efficiently, they may make wrong moral decisions for themselves and others, and even worst, they will make a fool of themselves to others outside of the Christian circle.

[nkcwong]

I don't mean to suggest that we should be contented with the status quo, but due to the diversity of the educational, economic, social and cultural backgrounds of its members, the church is oftentimes compelled to aim at the lowest common denominator: sermons have to be "scaled down" in such a way that even restaurant workers can understand. In that regard, contentious debates such as those we are engaging here have to be avoided. You can't possibly ask waiters, waitresses, carpenters and taxi drivers to do biblical exegesis the way seminarians do or to talk about God the way philosophers of religion do.

A church that opens its door to the public cannot say that only individuals with masters degree or above are welcome. As a pastor, you may only be in a position to encourage intellectual discussion on a small scale, but allowing debates within the church about such hot-button issues as abortion, homosexuality, women's role in church, or even the upcoming US election could be divisive, and even destructive. The church cannot spend all the time in contentious debates of issues where there are deepseated convictions on both (or all) sides. Doing this could be counterproductive to the church's mission of evangelism. After all, a church is not an intellectual community. We should be wary of not turning it into one.

To be quite honest, I'm more interested in (or optimistic about) building Christian communities that are open-minded (but not necessarily liberal) from the ground up than attempting to change the culture of existing Chinese churches. SHC is prototypical of such a community--although SHC is not a church.

[Daniel_Cheung]

I don't mean to suggest that we should be contented with the status quo, but due to the diversity of the educational, economic, social and cultural backgrounds of its members, the church is oftentimes compelled to aim at the lowest common denominator: sermons have to be "scaled down" in such a way that even restaurant workers can understand. In that regard, contentious debates such as those we are engaging here have to be avoided. You can't possibly ask waiters, waitresses, carpenters and taxi drivers to do biblical exegesis the way seminarians do or to talk about God the way philosophers of religion do.


辦些主日學課程之類的，願者就來，這個可以與大眾化主題兼容的。而且，可以叫那些無機會讀太多書的人不要那麼「驕傲」，某些決定應由教會裡的精英去決定。我在這方面的確是有精英主義的，因為實在受不了，教會的未來不能讓一群不學無術的人去掌握。

[kcjeremy]

......我在這方面的確是有精英主義的，因為實在受不了，教會的未來不能讓一群不學無術的人去掌握。

I agree with "精英主義", however, the public in general don't even have the ability to determine who are really the "精英"!

[Daniel_Cheung]

基本上我放棄了那教會的了，作為一個半熟的人，根本無能力用甚麼人際關係手腕來改變人的思想，開講座之類他們又不肯。
這可能是太普遍了，人們習慣了說服別人的手段是人際關係手腕（可想想那些友誼佈道法等），而不是理性思辯。如此，到教會要面對一些立場取態時，總會有一些人在想怎樣在最和諧的情況下令某些人覺得某些觀點也是可以接受的，而不是簡簡單單的弄一些研討會，讓人們了解不同觀點。

[Daniel_Cheung]

I agree with "精英主義", however, the public in general don't even have the ability to determine who are really the "精英"!

也是的。於是教會圈子裡出現一種叫做「基督徒學者」的角色，就是那些不知怎地被教會認為是學者而又有資格或認受性向教會講各類學問的人。然而，他們是否很有料子的學者，在教會外的學界有沒有人尊重，卻很成疑問。為甚麼他們才有資格或認受性向信眾講學，但同樣是基督徒、又有同樣學歷的人卻可以沒那資格或認受性？究竟那個教會資格／認受性由誰去認證？過程中的考慮是否原來又是人際關係和教內政治作主導？

以香港的處境為例，我頗質疑這是否另一種（更高明的）自欺欺人做法。一些有學位的人說一些大家愛聽的話，大家就安樂地說：我們都是很理性的。

[nkcwong]

辦些主日學課程之類的，願者就來，這個可以與大眾化主題兼容的。而且，可以叫那些無機會讀太多書的人不要那麼「驕傲」，某些決定應由教會裡的精英去決定。我在這方面的確是有精英主義的，因為實在受不了，教會的未來不能讓一群不學無術的人去掌握。

I beg to differ. You could end up excluding certain groups from participating in positions of leadership, if not turning them away from church altogether. For instance, if those leading Bible studies have to go through rigorous exegetical training beforehand, I'm afraid no restaurant workers or taxi drivers could ever be up to the challenge. The church is not an academy but a body committed to loving each other in spite of educational and social differences simply because of Christ's redemptive love. You can't set the bar too high intellectually speaking.

I'm not opposed to 辦些主日學課程之類的，願者就來，這個可以與大眾化主題兼容的。I'm just skeptical of having church-wide debates about such issues as abortion, homosexuality and politics, in which people have strong convictions on either side of the spectrum. Some people just can't deal with these issues in virtue of their backgrounds.

On the other hand, I have no problem with creating para-church communities like SHC where certain intellectual standards are expected on the part of each member, because we are not a church body here.

[Daniel_Cheung]

I beg to differ. You could end up excluding certain groups from participating in positions of leadership, if not turning them away from church altogether. For instance, if those leading Bible studies have to go through rigorous exegetical training beforehand, I'm afraid no restaurant workers or taxi drivers could ever be up to the challenge. The church is not an academy but a body committed to loving each other in spite of educational and social differences simply because of Christ's redemptive love. You can't set the bar too high intellectually speaking.

I'm not opposed to 辦些主日學課程之類的，願者就來，這個可以與大眾化主題兼容的。I'm just skeptical of having church-wide debates about such issues as abortion, homosexuality and politics, in which people have strong convictions on either side of the spectrum. Some people just can't deal with these issues in virtue of their backgrounds.

On the other hand, I have no problem with creating para-church communities like SHC where certain intellectual standards are expected on the part of each member, because we are not a church body here.

我不知你想反對的跟我想講的有何關係。我沒有說教會要變成academy ，我提及精英主義，就是為了認同教會大部份人都無法進入 academy 。這既確保教會有一些 well-informed and well-thought-out 的立場，又不會要求人人都變成學者。（似乎好過教會領導層完全無能，然後倚賴 para-church community 。）

可能你是 react to 我說那華人教會的情況，但那裡有點不同，他們全都是大學生，甚至博士生，若那裡是教育程度底的教會，我不會期望他們讀幾篇文章才說話，或搞全教會討論大會。

[clement]

I beg to differ. You could end up excluding certain groups from participating in positions of leadership, if not turning them away from church altogether. For instance, if those leading Bible studies have to go through rigorous exegetical training beforehand, I'm afraid no restaurant workers or taxi drivers could ever be up to the challenge. The church is not an academy but a body committed to loving each other in spite of educational and social differences simply because of Christ's redemptive love. You can't set the bar too high intellectually speaking.

這樣看又如何呢。 "Well-informed" 並非一個標準，而是一個指導原則，regulative principle。即便是凡夫俗子，他們也可以有一個自知不足的意識，可以的話，也願意虛心求學問（自己做閱讀也好，向有關人士詢問也好）。。。

學問並非只是屬於讀書人的，任何人肯去追求，（原則上）都會逐步有所得著。這樣便不怕會排走一些人了。我想這也是普及化的另一層意思。
　
　
　
　
　

[pilgrim]

In that regard, contentious debates such as those we are engaging here have to be avoided. You can't possibly ask waiters, waitresses, carpenters and taxi drivers to do biblical exegesis the way seminarians do or to talk about God the way philosophers of religion do.

I often hear people who are involved in pastoral ministries express this concern. Perhaps you (BTW, are you a pastor?) or others in the pastoral field can explain to us some of your concerns.

For the sake of argument let's use, as our scenario #1, a hypothetical church similar to the one Daniel is affiliated with. It is congregationalist and virtually all its members are either in the process of getting a degree in a university or already have university degrees.

Q1: Is it still counter-productive to have open forums and panel discussions for the congregation to participate in so that they can come to terms with an issue they are struggling with? Mind you, the issue is not something that is written in its constitution and therefore does not violate its founding principles or its core beliefs.

Q2: If so, why is this counter-productive?

Q3: Is the cost of not having such discussions less than having them? Is it better simply to let the congregation vote on the issue without providing them with good information? Being congregationalist, the decision such as whether to hire a female pastor can be (if not should be) made by its members.

Scenario #2: same kind of church as described in #1, only that its members have a more diverse educational background. How would you answer the above questions (Q1 toQ3)?

[clement]

I believe bible study is one aspect of growing faith, yet it is not the only way of growing the faith of believers. Different teaching-learning methods have their own strength and weakness. I believe a healthy bible study can be fostered from the context that church provides and encourage the overall, well planned and mulitple learning approach of faith formation.

我覺得你這樣想不錯。但我會想，信徒們的查經觀未必是這樣謙虛。他們可能覺得，這是上帝跟他們說話，這是聖經的真理要釋放出來。換句話說，查經是獲得屬靈真理的主要渠道，如果不是唯一渠道的話。

參考我另一個這個回應：

在以前教育不那麼普及的年代，一般華人信徒不容易直接接觸從外國傳來的基督教，必須依賴教士的傳講，最初是西教士，後來是自傳的華人教士包括牧者。他們可能連字也不認識，需要牧者用非常淺白非常簡單實用的方式去聯繫信仰與生活。也就是說，一切屬靈真理都通過牧者而來。
　
後來好了，文盲減少，教育普及，信徒們可以自發查經起來。「查經」成了一種（講道／主日學之外）主要理解信仰真理的主要方式。雖然查經是自己查，但查經的方式、目的等等都是因循某套信仰的規範，並非真的無限制地自由。也就是說，查經必須在講道／主日學的信仰框架底下進行，以免落入「異端」。當時，可沒有什麼查經書，基Ｘ書樓，外國書籍更是罕見，能夠善用原文以及具備豐富的背景知識（文化，哲學，語言，教會史）的幸福信徒更是少之又少。信徒間自己查來查去，遇到任何可能爭議，最終還是牧者來解決。在這種轉變了的條件地下，一切屬 靈真理最終仍然都是通過牧者而來。
　
當然，這可能是四五十年前的事情，但這種意識形態一旦形成，也就能夠影響到今天，以致很多本身學歷條件優厚 的人士，他們的聖經觀信仰觀也就跟四五十年前的光景差不多。
http://s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?p=54952#post54952　


我懷疑，某種固定的查經觀是跟過去的教會處境直接有關聯。　

　
　
　

[clement]

或者換個角度來說，說查經是屬靈成長的其中一個方式，這樣說頗健康，不封閉。

但恰恰這種頗健康、不封閉的查經觀，怎麼能夠解釋例如張國棟所勾勒的不太健康、不怎開通的情況呢？
　
　
　

[nkcwong]

I often hear people who are involved in pastoral ministries express this concern. Perhaps you (BTW, are you a pastor?) or others in the pastoral field can explain to us some of your concerns.

For the sake of argument let's use, as our scenario #1, a hypothetical church similar to the one Daniel is affiliated with. It is congregationalist and virtually all its members are either in the process of getting a degree in a university or already have university degrees.

Q1: Is it still counter-productive to have open forums and panel discussions for the congregation to participate in so that they can come to terms with an issue they are struggling with? Mind you, the issue is not something that is written in its constitution and therefore does not violate its founding principles or its core beliefs.

Q2: If so, why is this counter-productive?

Q3: Is the cost of not having such discussions less than having them? Is it better simply to let the congregation vote on the issue without providing them with good information? Being congregationalist, the decision such as whether to hire a female pastor can be (if not should be) made by its members.

I have never formally pastored any church, but I served in various capacities that resemble in certain ways those of a pastor. I was a "deacon" in charge of evangelism in a student church at one point in my life. My wife and I also led a university student fellowship. We didn't just teach them the Bible and spiritual life; we cared about them as pastors did.

In principle I'm not opposed to having open discussion in this scenario, but yours is an ideal or atypical scenario. In a small student church, that may be the case, but we should not take student churches as paradigmatic cases. My experience has been that student churches are "transitional churches," serving the needs of migrant students or scholars. Once when people get a job, get settled, have children or move to metropolitan areas, diversity necessarily increases. You are going to have people from different walks of life with diverse cultural backgrounds--I'm not talking about multicultural churches; I'm just talking about Chinese churches. Of course, if you keep talking about theology and philosophy on the pulpit every Sunday or in Sunday school, waiters and waitresses, carpenters and taxi drivers will definitely stay away. Your congregation could be doing just that as a matter of fact because the overwhelming majority has higher education, but there is still the ought question: Ought your congregation to keep doing that with the result that some groups of people are excluded? Shouldn't God's church welcome everyone regardless of backgrounds?

If every church pushes their members to engage in rigorous intellectual thinking in the name of "elevating" the quality of their faith, then who is going to reach out to waiters and waitresses, carpenters and taxi drivers? Does it mean that the latter should just form their own churches, while we indulge ourselves in high-flying philosophical and theological ideas of Moltmann, Kant, Augustine, etc. within our own comfort zone? We have enough balkanization within Chinese churches, don't we?

Unless you don't involve in real-life ministries, intellectually speaking sacrifices are inevitable for the love of Christ.


Scenario #2: same kind of church as described in #1, only that its members have a more diverse educational background. How would you answer the above questions (Q1 toQ3)?

The answer to Q1 is: very likely. Personal anecdote: I remember I attempted to initiate a discussion about abortion with some Christians from mainland China in the same church--they are well educated, but I couldn't go beyond a couple of exchanges before emotions flared.

The answer to Q2 is: already explained in the foregoing response.

The answer to Q2 is: the cost is greater.

P. S.: My view is that if there is a genuinely public sphere for Christian churches such as Christiantimes to debate controversial issues, I don't see why we have to risk divisions by doing it within the four walls of a local church that involves everyone.

[Daniel_Cheung]

我已說了我的關注跟 nkcwong 這裡說的不太相同，所以對他的看法我已沒有太多意見。只有以下少許：

關於 "I'm just talking about Chinese churches. Of course, if you keep talking about theology and philosophy on the pulpit every Sunday or in Sunday school, waiters and waitresses, carpenters and taxi drivers will definitely stay away. Your congregation could be doing just that as a matter of fact because the overwhelming majority has higher education, but there is still the ought question: Ought your congregation to keep doing that with the result that some groups of people are excluded? Shouldn't God's church welcome everyone regardless of backgrounds?"
和 "Personal anecdote: I remember I attempted to initiate a discussion about abortion with some Christians from mainland China in the same church--they are well educated, but I couldn't go beyond a couple of exchanges before emotions flared."

我之前想說的正是，為甚麼連一些有高深教育的人（或知道怎樣才是作出正確判斷的理性步驟的人）都拒絕平心靜氣地討論？為甚麼要假設在教會場境這就是不應該或不對，甚至再進一步假定在一個所謂 para-church 的場景這就變成對或可行的呢？

問題並不是因為教會要大眾化，教會不應該強逼所有人思考得太深入（這裡應沒有人贊同要這樣強逼的），所以無法容許信徒討論較複雜的課題，而是教會出現一些不必要和不正確的文化，窒息了這類討論，連半點這類討論都幾乎被封殺。正如 Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? (http://s-h-c.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=64) 那書的作者說，當代社會的人對理性討論的規避，已嚴重到一個地步大學生也拒絕辯論，甚麼都說 whatever 就算，英國教育部門要求學校確保學生不會受到 confrontation （昔日這種建立理性批判思考的必經之路，是被視為正常和應該的），社會裡政界不再辯論，只是不斷進行赤裸裸的權力鬥爭－－看看今屆美國總統大選有多少論述是實質辯論和有多少論述是抹黑和popaganda 就可以一斑。

同一現象出現於教會，任何嚴肅地指出這是對那是錯的討論，就會被視為傷害弟兄姊妹感情，於是「各人有各人的領受」、「教會最重要是和諧」、「他們是屬靈嬰孩，不要碰呵」、「大家對聖經詮釋不同」等籍口不脛而走。越有堅持的人，若碰巧堅持的立場不是主流容許的立場（主流會多是人云亦云的，例如華人教會主流愛說一次得救永遠得救），就越不受歡迎，任何人提出來，都不會成功與別人溝通到甚麼的。

當教會流行著這些拒絕講道理的氣氛，把盼望寄託於《時代論壇》之類的 para-church 平台，其實是無用的，甚至自欺。儘管那裡可以有一個好像是理性的討論，那裡的討論對各教會的影響，卻微乎其微，可能是一百分的力，才能得到一分的成果（所以我不說「事倍功半」了）。因此既然教會絕大部份信徒已無能力講道理，即使有一份像《時代論壇》的東西給他們看，看了結果也是無補於事。大部份的信徒只會說，「信心超越理性，信心不是辯論，我信聖經講的預定論／女人可以講道／教會要反對反性傾向歧視法，你怎樣辯論我都不會聽的，你們這些只是讀神學讀壞腦的人，被這世界的小學欺騙了的可憐信徒。我會為你們好好祈禱。請不要叫我再讀多一兩本書，我信聖經，這就足夠。再會。」

至於對教會有期望，認為應該可以多點重視教會內的理性溝通，這不是不切實際的 ideal case ，正如人對別人有道德期望，也不是一種對 ideal case 的不切實際想像。但現在很多教會的問題是，連這是一些值得期許的願景都否認。因此，關鍵不在於是否要求大部份人去做一些他們無能力做的事，而是他們不再覺得那些是他們無能力去做的事，或不再覺得那是他們要去做的事。這點，其實 clement 已指出了：

這樣看又如何呢。 "Well-informed" 並非一個標準，而是一個指導原則，regulative principle。即便是凡夫俗子，他們也可以有一個自知不足的意識，可以的話，也願意虛心求學問（自己做閱讀也好，向有關人士詢問也好）。。。

學問並非只是屬於讀書人的，任何人肯去追求，（原則上）都會逐步有所得著。這樣便不怕會排走一些人了。我想這也是普及化的另一層意思。
　

[nkcwong]

To Clement and Daniel:

No offense. You guys are speaking primarily from the perspective of scholars, while I have been putting on the hat of a pastor and speaking from my own experience of having to deal with complex interpersonal relations and politics pragmatically in the semi-pastoral roles that I played in the past.

If I were to pastor a big church with diversity, I would certainly allow capable members of my congregation to teach classes in philosophy and theology, but I would still be wary of having open churchwide discussion about issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Doing it on a small scale is fine, but doing it on a large scale could be destructive, because not everyone is in the same page or at the same level of intellectual or spiritual development.

You can't turn a church into a seminary or an academy. For those of us who are used to working with ideas, we have to recognize that in real-life ministry we are working with people more than ideas.

[Daniel_Cheung]

To Clement and Daniel:

No offense. You guys are speaking primarily from the perspective of scholars, while I have been putting on the hat of a pastor and speaking from my own experience of having to deal with complex interpersonal relations and politics pragmatically in the semi-pastoral roles that I played in the past.

If I were to pastor a big church with diversity, I would certainly allow capable members of my congregation to teach classes in philosophy and theology, but I would still be wary of having open discussion about issues such as abortion and homosexuality.

我多次說我根本沒有要求和期望教會大部份人都要上甚麼哲學課、思方訓練班、甚麼大型辯論會云云。你好像不知道我在說甚麼似的，在攻擊稻草人。我上帖已指出，為甚麼教會裡人際關係因素變成那麼重要，到一個地步一些受過教育的信徒都寧願不討論不看書，談一談就變得情緒化（你那個談墮胎的例子），問題是整體社會有這類趨勢，而教會的人多少也跟著走，亦有一些教會裡容易出現的籍口在強化這趨勢。但你的那個所謂 pastoral perspective 就 bite the bullet ，不檢討為何現在的人會這樣面對事情，只堅持既然現在的人是這樣面對事情，那就不應該對他們有甚麼強求（事實上我的觀點具體地在要求甚麼，我仍未說出來）。No offense，你的回應有點牛頭不撘馬咀。得罪了，我不談了，有事要做。

[nkcwong]

我多次說我根本沒有要求和期望教會大部份人都要上甚麼哲學課、思方訓練班云云。你好像不知道我在說甚麼似的，在攻擊稻草人。我上帖已指出，為甚麼教會裡人際關係因素變成那麼重要，到一個地步一些受過教育的信徒都寧願不討論不看書，談一談就變得情緒化（你那個談墮胎的例子），問題是整體社會有這類趨勢，而教會的人多少也跟著走，亦有一些教會裡容易出現的籍口在強化這趨勢。但你的那個所謂 pastoral perspective 就 bite the bullet ，不檢討為何現在的人會這樣面對事情，只堅持既然現在的人是這樣面對事情，那就不應該對他們有甚麼強求（事實上我的觀點具體地在要求甚麼，我仍未說出來）。No offense，你的回應有點牛頭不撘馬咀。

You are way out of line! I'd better stop here. It's not good for either of us.

Simply because I say: "If I were to pastor a big church with diversity, I would certainly allow capable members of my congregation to teach classes in philosophy and theology, but I would still be wary of having open discussion about issues such as abortion and homosexuality," why do you have to be so sensitive as to jump to the conclusion that I imply that you要求和期望教會大部份人都要上甚麼哲學課、思方訓練班云云. Can't I just make a general statement? I'm just saying "wary of", meaning just caution here. Can't I just put in a word of caution? Do I have to clarify or qualify my intention every time I make a statement?

You said: 但你的那個所謂 pastoral perspective 就 bite the bullet ，不檢討為何現在的人會這樣面對事情，but your accusation is hasty. Why do you suppose I bite the bullet? Have you bothered to ask further or to give my view even the semblance of a charitable reading? My view of changing the church is incremental and developmental. That's why I allow for discussion of contentious ideas starting on a small scale. You need to be careful when you accuse others or imply others 不檢討XYZ or你好像不知道我在說甚麼似的，在攻擊稻草人. That kills off what has been a good discussion thus far.

[Tim]

．．．我之前想說的正是，為甚麼連一些有高深教育的人（或知道怎樣才是作出正確判斷的理性步驟的人）都拒絕平心靜氣地討論？為甚麼要假設在教會場境這就是不應該或不對，甚至再進一步假定在一個所謂 para-church 的場景這就變成對或可行的呢？

問題並不是因為教會要大眾化，教會不應該強逼所有人思考得太深入（這裡應沒有人贊同要這樣強逼的），所以無法容許信徒討論較複雜的課題，而是教會出現一些不必要和不正確的文化，窒息了這類討論，連半點這類討論都幾乎被封殺。．．．

．．．甚麼都說 whatever 就算．．．

．．．討論．．．傷害弟兄姊妹感情，於是「各人有各人的領受」、「教會最重要是和諧」、「他們是屬靈嬰孩，不要碰呵」、「大家對聖經詮釋不同」等籍口不脛而走。越有堅持的人，若碰巧堅持的立場不是主流容許的立場（主流會多是人云亦云的，例如華人教會主流愛說一次得救永遠得救），就越不受歡迎，任何人提出來，都不會成功與別人溝通到甚麼的。

．．．《時代論壇》．．．無能力講道理．．．「信心超越理性，信心不是辯論，我信聖經講的預定論／女人可以講道／教會要反對反性傾向歧視法，你怎樣辯論我都不會聽的，你們這些只是讀神學讀壞腦的人，被這世界的小學欺騙了的可憐信徒。我會為你們好好祈禱。請不要叫我再讀多一兩本書，我信聖經，這就足夠。再會。」

至於對教會有期望．．．不切實際．．．
教會在今日這個時代所扮演的角色應是甚麼呢？是敬拜、相交、學習的地方？

昔日，精英領導全體。當時的討論過程，只求全體能接近精英的預設答案。當討論過程走出預設範圍，就用信心超越理性等論調來修正討論。或者感情論調來平息討論。

要討論較複雜的課題，教會是否能提供合適的平台呢！

討論如有所謂勝出者，在面對懶於思考的信徒（也許是整體社會的現象），會有怎樣的一個情況出現呢？對既得利益者（如有）來說，會有何感受呢？

[Daniel_Cheung]

教會在今日這個時代所扮演的角色應是甚麼呢？是敬拜、相交、學習的地方？

昔日，精英領導全體。當時的討論過程，只求全體能接近精英的預設答案。當討論過程走出預設範圍，就用信心超越理性等論調來修正討論。或者感情論調來平息討論。

要討論較複雜的課題，教會是否能提供合適的平台呢！

討論如有所謂勝出者，在面對懶於思考的信徒（也許是整體社會的現象），會有怎樣的一個情況出現呢？對既得利益者（如有）來說，會有何感受呢？

多謝回應！

回第一段：我之前說過，我認為今天某類教會在今天社會的紛雜下有很大壓力要回應社會。這問題或許應該問那類教會，他們想怎樣。

回第二段：我太相信精英會為了劃一意見而要求不服信用「信心超越理性」來自我安慰。

回第三段：我不覺得教會必定要提供這類平台，但我認為現在是這類平台在教會變成不可能。這裡有的地方出錯了。

回第四段：首先，公平點說，任何辯論，敗方總會難受，即使學貫滿車的人也不會因為習慣了學術討論而感受上無動於衷。甚至，讀書多的人才不肯承認自己搞錯。我覺得在感受上敗了會難受抑或無所謂，讀書多和讀書少並沒有必然關係，那只是性格問題。其次，回到第一段所講的，現在不某些精英高壓強逼其他信徒聽一些無聊複雜的課，而是絕大部份信徒不斷要求要回應社會，回應ＸＸ思潮，和維護信仰純正，但諷刺地，他們又拒絕用比較認真和嚴格的思考去處理。那些精英的無奈是，要求高呢，信徒不會聽，要求低呢，只會讓教會不斷自欺。

[Daniel_Cheung]

You are way out of line! I'd better stop here. It's not good for either of us. 你自己忍不住又寫，那麼我又回應。

Simply because I say: "If I were to pastor a big church with diversity, I would certainly allow capable members of my congregation to teach classes in philosophy and theology, but I would still be wary of having open discussion about issues such as abortion and homosexuality," why do you have to be so sensitive as to jump to the conclusion that I imply that you要求和期望教會大部份人都要上甚麼哲學課、思方訓練班云云. 甚麼？你說了那麼多遍你反對搞甚麼大型討論會和 academy ，批評我和 clement （和其他人）太學術，大家都看到的，現在你竟反問我為甚麼我敏感到跳到這結論？又，誰說我 simply because 你說了那一句，我就批評？你為何如此武斷？Can't I just make a general statement? I'm just saying "wary of", meaning just caution here. Can't I just put in a word of caution? Do I have to clarify or qualify my intention every time I make a statement?這些話只是意氣，不回。

You said: 但你的那個所謂 pastoral perspective 就 bite the bullet ，不檢討為何現在的人會這樣面對事情，but your accusation is hasty. Why do you suppose I bite the bullet? Have you bothered to ask further or to give my view even the semblance of a charitable reading? My view of changing the church is incremental and developmental. That's why I allow for discussion of contentious ideas starting on a small scale. You need to be careful when you accuse others or imply others 不檢討XYZ or你好像不知道我在說甚麼似的，在攻擊稻草人. That kills off what has been a good discussion thus far.問題似乎不是你這樣描述的。你自己的觀點，根本沒有好好表達過，我不斷說我沒有說這個那個，但你卻繼續針對著那些。你說《時代論壇》那類para-church 可以解決問題，我說那不成功，你就沒再談。這反映出你也未想通你想建議甚麼。我本想多點 charitable reading ，但你卻重重覆覆地批評我，到我說你 talking past me ，你就不高興。如果你想 develop your own view ，你不用用一個批評別人的語氣和方式來 develop ，以致別人在你未 develop 好時批評，你就不高興。

[nkcwong]

You are way out of line! I'd better stop here. It's not good for either of us. 你自己忍不住又寫，那麼我又回應。

Simply because I say: "If I were to pastor a big church with diversity, I would certainly allow capable members of my congregation to teach classes in philosophy and theology, but I would still be wary of having open discussion about issues such as abortion and homosexuality," why do you have to be so sensitive as to jump to the conclusion that I imply that you要求和期望教會大部份人都要上甚麼哲學課、思方訓練班云云. 甚麼？你說了那麼多遍你反對搞甚麼大型討論會和 academy ，批評我和 clement （和其他人）太學術，大家都看到的，現在你竟反問我為甚麼我敏感到跳到這結論？又，誰說我 simply because 你說了那一句，我就批評？你為何如此武斷？Can't I just make a general statement? I'm just saying "wary of", meaning just caution here. Can't I just put in a word of caution? Do I have to clarify or qualify my intention every time I make a statement?這些話只是意氣，不回。

You said: 但你的那個所謂 pastoral perspective 就 bite the bullet ，不檢討為何現在的人會這樣面對事情，but your accusation is hasty. Why do you suppose I bite the bullet? Have you bothered to ask further or to give my view even the semblance of a charitable reading? My view of changing the church is incremental and developmental. That's why I allow for discussion of contentious ideas starting on a small scale. You need to be careful when you accuse others or imply others 不檢討XYZ or你好像不知道我在說甚麼似的，在攻擊稻草人. That kills off what has been a good discussion thus far.問題似乎不是你這樣描述的。你自己的觀點，根本沒有好好表達過，我不斷說我沒有說這個那個，但你卻繼續針對著那些。你說《時代論壇》那類para-church 可以解決問題，我說那不成功，你就沒再談。這反映出你也未想通你想建議甚麼。我本想多點 charitable reading ，但你卻重重覆覆地批評我，到我說你 talking past me ，你就不高興。如果你想 develop your own view ，你不用用一個批評別人的語氣和方式來 develop ，以致別人在你未 develop 好時批評，你就不高興。

You win! Are you happy now? It's impossible to carry on an open-ended conversation exploring ideas together with you except by clarifying everything and getting labeled in the process one way or another.

[竹本口木子]

我染上了严重的＂厌听道症＂。一去教会坐上不足半小时就混身不自在。听人家引述经文讲属灵话语更会产生欲呕感觉。

说真的，我好像没办法回到以往的教会生活了。

查经，啥来的？

从我见识过的许多查经，大概可算是宗教家家酒活动的项目之一。为了作秀而祈祷，为了作秀而唱诗，为了作秀而讲道，为了作秀分享见证，查经当然也是其中一场秀。当教会充斥着用上帝的话语包装的连篇鬼话时，所谓讲道、查经，仿佛让这些宗教消费人把圣经一页又一页的撕下，用来擦干净那沾满＂牛屎＂的屁股。

对不起。我无法原谅。实在无法原谅。

[竹本口木子]

多元化不是容易的事情。我不认为可以怎么去期望一种＂成功的多元化模式＂。不过，最起码的，就是要实际。而实际的范畴，应该是尝试在所能的范围内实验所需的文化符号，以采用最恰当的方式去教导、栽培。这就好像尝试使用一个词汇中没有＂罪＂这东西的部落语言，去解释基督教所谓的＂罪＂到底是什么东西。

即使只有小学程度的蓝领人士，只要经过适当的教导，他们一样可以善用哲学。可惜，在一些社会，学识水平已经变成一种公认的阶级符号。既然已经是常态，自然不可能指望多数人能够＂看破＂这种现象。故，对缺乏教育背景的草根人士说一些包含术语的语言，很可能让人家感到被歧视、狗言看人低，即使发言者完全没有这种意思。

理性讨论，因此，是否也因着这种缘故而披上阶级色彩？

＂讲理＂、＂就事论事＂，扫街阿叔和摆摊阿婶难道就不懂吗？在研究疾病开发药品领域，当然要使用生化术语。而，给生病的阿叔阿婶问症开药，难道也必须采用术语才能把人医好吗？

[clement]

昔日，精英領導全體。當時的討論過程，只求全體能接近精英的預設答案。當討論過程走出預設範圍，就用信心超越理性等論調來修正討論。或者感情論調來平息討論。


我懷疑，改教之後，信徒皆祭司，已經談不上有所謂「精英領導全體」了。

不錯，在農村裡，牧師可能受教育最高。但這裏的牧師也主要是指受過神學訓練，不是指具備通才知識的精英。
　
　

[clement]

我染上了严重的＂厌听道症＂。一去教会坐上不足半小时就混身不自在。听人家引述经文讲属灵话语更会产生欲呕感觉。

说真的，我好像没办法回到以往的教会生活了。

查经，啥来的？

从我见识过的许多查经，大概可算是宗教家家酒活动的项目之一。为了作秀而祈祷，为了作秀而唱诗，为了作秀而讲道，为了作秀分享见证，查经当然也是其中一场秀。当教会充斥着用上帝的话语包装的连篇鬼话时，所谓讲道、查经，仿佛让这些宗教消费人把圣经一页又一页的撕下，用来擦干净那沾满＂牛屎＂的屁股。

对不起。我无法原谅。实在无法原谅。

我沒有記錯的話，你是在大馬的信徒吧，那邊的中文神學資源似乎比較少。

有趣的是，現在不少港台神學院喜歡幫忙內地神學單位，送書呀，搞神學講座，搞暑期班呀，感覺上反而跟大馬的交流似乎不太多。
　
　
　
　
　
　

[竹本口木子]

我沒有記錯的話，你是在大馬的信徒吧，那邊的中文神學資源似乎比較少。

有趣的是，現在不少港台神學院喜歡幫忙內地神學單位，送書呀，搞神學講座，搞暑期班呀，感覺上反而跟大馬的交流似乎不太多。
其实，不是没有资源，而是资源被滥用，暴殄天物。

我如今住在首都附近一带的市镇。这里可说是主要宗派／派系大牌堂会的聚集之地。时不时搞几场什么大型培灵会、大型讲经会等等，满足一大班的讲座超圣拥趸的欲望，觉得藉着听几场舶来名牌讲员的指点迷津就变得＂更加属灵＂。于是，这些人就四处张扬他们学到的术语、名词，仿佛没见识过这些术语的就不算是＂获得上帝的喜悦＂。嚣张自大得要死。

有时觉得，希望那些港台或欧美的名牌讲员最好全都不要来，让那些朝圣者饿一下，饿死也不要紧。饿死了才会重生嘛。

我甚至怀疑那些整天到处忙着＂喂养海外华侨＂的港台名家到底懂不懂人家国家社会的景况，还是一味习惯性的搞属灵活动而已。之所以这么说，是因为好一大批依赖港台资源的教会人士，对自己国家社会发生的事简直就是全然麻木，甚至还厚颜的说什么＂政教分离＂、＂仰望主再来的日子＂。他们的讲道、查经，就是不断的往这方面＂努力造就＂。

吐血。

[clement]

其實我也有關注意識形態和教會生態的。我大概明白你的意思。但如果不討論一下－－我指的是邀請不同背景立場的人（學者也好，行動家也好，醫生律師也好，牧者也好，社工也好，紫藤也好）搞個輕鬆座談會，大家交談下－－，信徒的視野怎樣可以擴闊，思考怎樣可以深入些（深入不是指很深入很學術，是指不會太非黑即白）？
　
座談會也許不是人人都適合，但那麼你有甚麼正面的做法可以提出呢？
　
　
　
　
我其實沒有將教會變作學院的意思，也不是要高舉觀念貶低人。我們都能同意，人（的生命）比觀念要多，但這又如何呢，怎樣跟當前的墮胎同志問題發生關聯呢。（當例如文化大革命發生，到底是人作祟還是觀念（信仰）作祟，我懷疑不容易這樣區分。同樣地，某些信仰主張，不也是某種斷言，某種信念？）括號內的話，也許我表達得不好。

我的意思是，當問題涉及到墮胎、同志問題，信仰信念往往是一個重要因素，（當然情緒、關係、甚至生命也是一個重要因素）。如果說，聖經認為「同志必須徹底改變，同志是萬惡之惡」，那麼這肯定會決定性地影響到其他人的方面。如果信仰信念前提不改變，如果意識形態依然發生著效用，強調「人」其實也不見得很有效，畢竟「人」很脆弱（反而批判思維可以使人堅強，不至人云亦云，集非勝是），「人」很容易受到擺佈。

當然，我也不是天真地認為，講座有用，時代論壇有用。因為我也深明教會意識形態的深刻影響。不過，我也很懷疑，如果信仰信念前提不改變，關注人的生命、人的關係在這個問題上會有甚麼改變作用。（我也不認為「進入體制才能改變體制」是個好方法；一旦經濟上跟體制掛勾，產生依賴關係，就沒有什麼獨立自由可言。）

「生命改變生命」，這個我不懷疑，但問題是意識形態往往也很決定性，甚至壓制著生命交流。「生命改變生命」，這個我不懷疑，但信徒封閉起來，根本不肯跟例如同志發生生命交流，可以怎樣？當你的生命、你的信念不同於教會執事，他們根本不會取信於你，根本不會發生交流；就算交流信任建立了，一旦有甚麼異動，這種交流信任也會立刻終止。於是，有良心的學者／牧者根本不能說出甚麼話來（聽過有牧者提過，就是去到某個神學院，才能比較坦白地跟神學生比較開心見誠地討論，以前二十年在別的神學院，在別的教會，根本不可能）。



雖然如此，我仍然會做好研究教育講座的工作，因為畢竟眾人當中，還是可能有一兩個人聽得入耳。




No offense. You guys are speaking primarily from the perspective of scholars, while I have been putting on the hat of a pastor and speaking from my own experience of having to deal with complex interpersonal relations and politics pragmatically in the semi-pastoral roles that I played in the past.

If I were to pastor a big church with diversity, I would certainly allow capable members of my congregation to teach classes in philosophy and theology, but I would still be wary of having open churchwide discussion about issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Doing it on a small scale is fine, but doing it on a large scale could be destructive, because not everyone is in the same page or at the same level of intellectual or spiritual development.

You can't turn a church into a seminary or an academy. For those of us who are used to working with ideas, we have to recognize that in real-life ministry we are working with people more than ideas.

[clement]

Originally Posted by clement View Post
這樣看又如何呢。 "Well-informed" 並非一個標準，而是一個指導原則，regulative principle。即便是凡夫俗子，他們也可以有一個自知不足的意識，可以的話，也願意虛心求學問（自己 做閱讀也好，向有關人士詢問也好）。。。

學問並非只是屬於讀書人的，任何人肯去追求，（原則上）都會逐步有所得著。這樣便不怕會排走一些人了。我想 這也是普及化的另一層意思。這點，其實


我覺得，重點是培養某種意識，而不是直接傳達理論知識，所以說我們希望將教會學院化便是抓錯用神了。當然，培養某種意識往往是通過輕鬆地生活化地傳達理論知識來進行，例如搞搞輕鬆座談會。
　
信徒需要懂得判別哪些是人話，哪些是真話，哪些是謊言；他們不需要直接學邏輯學，但他們也需要實踐地掌握這種能力。他們需要有這種實踐能力，但不需要將實踐能力反思變成理論知識。
　　

[Daniel_Cheung]

You win! Are you happy now? It's impossible to carry on an open-ended conversation exploring ideas together with you except by clarifying everything and getting labeled in the process one way or another.

I am not happy because you don't see that it is your temper and misconception that caused it. 一開始你就根本無需要且不應該說你在 beg to differ ，我早就說我們不似在談同一課題，我從來亦沒有說要逼全體教會上甚麼訓練班，把教會變成 academy ，你自己卻三番四次地說這點，彷彿這是意見分歧的焦點；後來，竟然還改口說你沒有這意思，只是我讀入。到我指出了來，你已變得如此情緒化。

你若不相信，請你問問一些旁觀者的意見和觀感。

[Tim]

我懷疑，改教之後，信徒皆祭司，已經談不上有所謂「精英領導全體」了。

不錯，在農村裡，牧師可能受教育最高。但這裡的牧師也主要是指受過神學訓練，不是指具備通才知識的精英。

信徒皆祭司，一方面使領導淡化，但卻使信徒多了做Show。有大Show也有小Show。

既然做Show，那，每個信徒都有不同角色，有的扮演精英，有的扮演無知的全體。有時我真的不太相信，信徒真的如此無知嗎！其實應該不是無知，而是讓這Show繼續演下去而已。

．．．為了作秀而祈禱，為了作秀而唱詩，為了作秀而講道，為了作秀分享見證，查經當然也是其中一場秀。當教會充斥著用上帝的話語包裝的連篇鬼話時，所謂講道、查經，彷彿讓這些宗教消費人把聖經一頁又一頁的撕下．．．

[Daniel_Cheung]

我覺得，重點是培養某種意識，而不是直接傳達理論知識，所以說我們希望將教會學院化便是抓錯用神了。當然，培養某種意識往往是通過輕鬆地生活化地傳達理論知識來進行，例如搞搞輕鬆座談會。
　
信徒需要懂得判別哪些是人話，哪些是真話，哪些是謊言；他們不需要直接學邏輯學，但他們也需要實踐地掌握這種能力。他們需要有這種實踐能力，但不需要將實踐能力反思變成理論知識。
　　

同意，若要具體實行出我（和這裡很多有分享的朋友）的願景，很可能並不會是把將會變成 academy 。我甚至認為「輕鬆座談會」也不必要。我相信一個有我們這類關懷和同時又有見識的查經組長，可以用四、五年帶小組查經、領詩、講道來影響信徒。他不用搞甚麼特別座談會，在他的平日教導裡已能把一個「意識」帶到信徒那裡。當然，有時候是要搞座談會的，我之前提到要在教會裡討論問題，正是因為在那特定處境裡，教會有足夠有能力討論和看書的人，而那教會有需要早日有個共識。（如果那裡少數信徒覺得自己不是讀書討論的材料，本來是沒問題的，他們不隨便說他有一個很理性、無人能打破的立場便是了。他們大可以說：「我覺得你們比較適合去替教會做決定，我沒有意見。」）

我懷疑，改教之後，信徒皆祭司，已經談不上有所謂「精英領導全體」了。
　

至於精英制，我覺得新教仍可以有的，我是指那些大宗派的智囊或立場委員會之類的建制。新教徒人人都要反省，不能盲從權威，但可以是，有很多（平）信徒自知無時間無能力了解那麼多，就信任教內有相關知識和具認受性的人／團體。

其實今天很多人聽明光社陣營說話，多少也是這心理，很多信徒不是完全無能力思考的人，但香港工作太辛苦，哪裡有時間看那麼多書和新聞？如此，有一些自稱很學術的人替他們找到一個方案，first impression 聽來有道理，明光社陣營那個表現自己為學術－－因此有發言權力－－的 show 做得成功，那就有教會信徒支持。這個例子用了堂會外的para-church ，但其實一理通百理明，有些信徒明知自己無時間（甚至無能力）研究異端，那麼教會長老和牧師說某教派是異端，他們聽到一個兩個簡單的理由便接受。

我之前提及精英制，大意是：教會也有大有小的，大的可以是整個宗派，人才極多，也有制度，那麼，要出現這些會內有公信力的 think tank 並不困難；在那些獨立的小堂會，或宗派沒有共同意見的堂會（很多福音派都是這類），他們要 come up with a think tank or something like that 就很困難。然而， supply 雖少， demand 卻大，因為社會和思潮越來越複雜，而福音派又特別愛說回應社會思潮，並且又對學術採取懷疑立場，甚麼都要重新考究，甚至弄些福音派版本的ＸＸ學。因此不是少數精英壓逼多數人，而是多數人覺得有很多東西要去回應，而精英說「回應要有規矩的，你不肯或沒空去學習，很難做到正確和恰當的回應。請不要自欺。」

（在這精英制構想下，其實我看不出我的意見跟 nkcwong 說的 incremental change 有甚麼大分別，我只是反對有人拒絕思考但卻經常堅持自己擁有無人能破的真理，甚至說那是教會立場，但我沒有說解決方案是把教會變成academy。具體要怎樣做，我當然關心，但我的確未有講過甚麼。）

[Daniel_Cheung]

信徒皆祭司，一方面使領導淡化，但卻使信徒多了做Show。有大Show也有小Show。

既然做Show，那，每個信徒都有不同角色，有的扮演精英，有的扮演無知的全體。有時我真的不太相信，信徒真的如此無知嗎！其實應該不是無知，而是讓這Show繼續演下去而已。

發上帖時未見到這個。我會認為信徒不是如此無知，但（一）卻在教會裡經常被某些人視為無知，（二），有思考能力的人也要有分工，總不能一個人通曉天下事。

所以我講的那種精英制，並不用假設大部份信徒無知和無能，那可適用於有很多 waiters, waitresses, taxi drivers 的教會，也可適用於有很多大學生的教會。

[竹本口木子]

信徒皆祭司，一方面使領導淡化，但卻使信徒多了做Show。有大Show也有小Show。

既然做Show，那，每個信徒都有不同角色，有的扮演精英，有的扮演無知的全體。有時我真的不太相信，信徒真的如此無知嗎！其實應該不是無知，而是讓這Show繼續演下去而已。
我觉得，关键是：知啥来干啥？

就如一个高喊公民社会的平民，很可能是把民主选举当作＂选皇帝＂的玩意儿而丝毫未曾知晓或实践什么公民意识一样，所谓信徒皆祭司的含义，对许多教会人士而言，很可能会是：＂信徒皆可靠着神圣规范召唤／驾驭神祗＂。召唤活动搞得频密或成功，自然不难因着＂灵气逼人＂而赚得个＂属灵＂招牌。既然可以靠着宗教规范搞那么多东西，圣经还需要怎么去了解？

再者，君不见许多宗教消费人的＂研经＂态度，总是把圣经当作summoning manual？

无知嘛，我想，不会。绝对不会。而且很精通、很厉害呢。从讲道、查经，学到的东西，就应用在设计堆砌宗教道德政治陷阱，不管做什么离谱的恶事都可以厚颜扮单纯的说＂这是上帝说的啊，不是我说的啊＂。我所见识过的所谓教会精英，就最厉害玩这种游戏。

真的是＂学以致用＂啊！！:mad:

呜呼！！！时运超低！！！

咱们这里的教会文化，除了崇尚焚书坑儒之外，竟然还培育出一大堆一代又一代的赵高！！

祸哉！！em10

[clement]

我觉得，关键是：知啥来干啥？
就如一个高喊公民社会的平民，很可能是把民主选举当作＂选皇帝＂的玩意儿而丝毫未曾知晓或实践什么公民意识一样，所谓信徒皆祭司的含义，对许多教会人士而言，很可能会是：＂信徒皆可靠着神圣规范召唤／驾驭神祗＂。召唤活动搞得频密或成功，自然不难因着＂灵气逼人＂而赚得个＂属灵＂招牌。既然可以靠着宗教规范搞那么多东西，圣经还需要怎么去了解？


其實這種問題本身就有問題。「干啥」彷彿假定了任何東西都要有某種實效價值才談得上有意義。

但有些問題並非這樣的。我們可以設想類似的問題「讀經來干啥？」答曰：「靈命成長」，再問：「靈命成長來干啥？」「修心養性來干啥？」。但這種問題很難不斷問下去，最終必定會得出：「因為這本身是好的，所以追求之」－－除非我們變得 indifferent，什麼都沒有所謂，什麼都不欲追求。
　
如果「做好人」本身是一個值得追求的價值，那麼就不用去問「做好人來干啥？」的問題了。
　
　
　

[clement]

You win! Are you happy now? It's impossible to carry on an open-ended conversation exploring ideas together with you except by clarifying everything and getting labeled in the process one way or another.

我自問沒有標籤人們。但請想想，你卻有斷言說 "You guys are speaking primarily from the perspective of scholars (while I have been putting on the hat of a pastor and speaking from my own experience of having to deal with complex interpersonal relations and politics pragmatically in the semi-pastoral roles that I played in the past)"。試問，為何要說我們就只是「主要地」從「學人的觀點」出發，彷彿我們的言論跟我們過去現在的教會生活、與不同年經基督徒相處交往之經驗無關。這難道不是已經暗含了一種劃分亦即標籤？

是的，我有用［"Well-informed" 並非一個標準，而是一個指導原則，regulative principle］的字眼，但這是跟你說的，隨後即刻補上非術語。
　
我有點懷疑，當你提到，"I would certainly allow capable members of my congregation to teach classes in philosophy and theology (but I would still be wary of having open churchwide discussion about issues such as abortion and homosexuality.)" 的時候，也容易產生誤會。畢竟張國棟沒有提及到開班，沒有提及到推廣神學哲學的意思。

就好比如果有人說，教會人士的衛生意識太糟糕了，我們大概不會回應說：「在教會跟某些能夠的人開班教醫學當然沒有問題（但在廣大信徒層面討論有關議題就不好了）」，因為提升衛生意識跟開班教醫學畢竟不是同一回事嘛。在這個場合提到醫學，容易產生一點煞有介事的感覺。
　
　
　

[clement]

我多次說我根本沒有要求和期望教會大部份人都要上甚麼哲學課、思方訓練班、甚麼大型辯論會云云。你好像不知道我在說甚麼似的，在攻擊稻草人。

我上帖已指出，為甚麼教會裡人際關係因素變成那麼重要，到一個地步一些受過教育的信徒都寧願不討論不看書，談一談就變得情緒化（你那個談墮胎的例子），問題是整體社會有這類趨勢，而教會的人多少也跟著走，亦有一些教會裡容易出現的籍口在強化這趨勢。

但你的那個所謂 pastoral perspective 就 bite the bullet ，不檢討為何現在的人會這樣面對事情，只堅持既然現在的人是這樣面對事情，那就不應該對他們有甚麼強求（事實上我的觀點具體地在要求甚麼，我仍未說出來）。No offense，你的回應有點牛頭不撘馬咀。得罪了，我不談了，有事要做。
　
我不是要硬銷哲學，但要解答這個問題，我覺得還是需要分析教會的意識形態。我上文已經嘗試了一些。

不需要學習太多理論，只需要多點批判意識。這一點，左派團體頗積極推廣的（甚至可能有點過火），不見得只是屬於少數有能之人的玩意。
　
　
　
　
　

[竹本口木子]

其實這種問題本身就有問題。「干啥」彷彿假定了任何東西都要有某種實效價值才談得上有意義。

但有些問題並非這樣的。我們可以設想類似的問題「讀經來干啥？」答曰：「靈命成長」，再問：「靈命成長來干啥？」「修心養性來干啥？」。但這種問題很難不斷問下去，最終必定會得出：「因為這本身是好的，所以追求之」－－除非我們變得 indifferent，什麼都沒有所謂，什麼都不欲追求。
　
如果「做好人」本身是一個值得追求的價值，那麼就不用去問「做好人來干啥？」的問題了。
对问题的解读，以及对答案的要求，其实是可以因人而异的。

如果以「灵命成长」来回应「读经来干啥」，接下去的追问，即使是「灵命成长来干啥」、「修心养性来干啥」，询问者所质疑的，可能是个别个案/群体对「灵命成长」和「修心养性」所赋予的定义。

如果某些人所谓「灵命成长」的意思是「越来越精通教会术语」、「成为堂会活动朝圣模范生」、「对堂会高层的词说采取绝对顺从」等等，而「修心养性」则是让自己「凡事仰望末日的上帝应许，身边的事情什么都不要理」、「教会的弊病上帝自然会处理，别人的痛苦只怪他们信心不够」，我想，要以「因为这本是好的，所以追求之」为答案也应该不是难事。

而且，「因为这本是好的，所以追求之」，如果只是一种deus ex machina或kneejerk式的八股回应，我不觉得这就不算是一种indifference。

如果「做好人」是值得追求的价值，而「好人」的定义却是因人而异，「做好人来干啥」这问题自然也会在各人眼里有不同的意义。

[Tim]

知道咗，咁又可以點呢！

大家好像要討論教會成長過程中的一個遠境及願境。

假如clement是想提出類似努力加餐飯的正面行為，而竹本口木子相反提出類似飽暖思淫欲等的反面結果。

假如查經的目的，是讓信徒增加更多脂肪，由於信徒由以往的食物不足至現在的選擇過多，查經情況是惡化了的。

但，假如查經的目的是讓信徒面對生活中的體力需要，由於信徒已交個別的工作到專業人才身上，查經情況是惡化了的。（專業人才在考慮成本效益的大前題下，他們本身對查經應該也沒有甚麼興趣。）

假如查經的目的只為健康，那，怎樣才算健康。

我覺得，關鍵是：知啥來幹啥？．．．咱們這裡的教會文化，除了崇尚焚書坑儒之外，竟然還培育出一大堆一代又一代的趙高！！

禍哉！！em10

．．．如果「做好人」本身是一個值得追求的價值．．．

．．．「靈命成長」．．．「好人」的定義．．．

[竹本口木子]

知道咗，咁又可以點呢！

大家好像要討論教會成長過程中的一個遠境及願境。

假如clement是想提出類似努力加餐飯的正面行為，而竹本口木子相反提出類似飽暖思淫欲等的反面結果。

假如查經的目的，是讓信徒增加更多脂肪，由於信徒由以往的食物不足至現在的選擇過多，查經情況是惡化了的。

但，假如查經的目的是讓信徒面對生活中的體力需要，由於信徒已交個別的工作到專業人才身上，查經情況是惡化了的。（專業人才在考慮成本效益的大前題下，他們本身對查經應該也沒有甚麼興趣。）

假如查經的目的只為健康，那，怎樣才算健康。
我认为，其实原则很简单：诚实。

如果不诚实，不管怎么用心设计的策略、体制、规范、礼仪，一样会被滥用，成为宗教道德政治凶器。

当今教会圈子许多人太喜欢以神论事，以致他们严重失去就事论事的common sense。他们所谓的恩典、见证，强调的是对他们皮相的粉刷和拯救。这大概就是为什么那么多人喜欢把「不要论断人」当作他们无所不能的龟壳和地毯。这是一种神皮兽心的宗教文化。

要着手处理这种狡诈，最务实的办法，依然是那古老的原则：认罪悔改。

例如，对人家有成见或不悦就请坦诚承认，然后认真处理这关系，话不投机就别太勉强，千万别把自己的不爽说成是「上帝不喜悦」。「What would Jesus do」原本就是希望信徒可以看远一点，学习一点智慧。但，当人们染上肉成道身的恶习整天幻想自己的官方见解就是上帝的眼光，WWJD就变成了凶器。

认罪悔改如果只是为了死后升天的宗教理由而作秀，无论祈祷得多么漂亮感人，这种仪式也只是废物，相关祈祷也是废话。以废话为重点甚至起点的信仰生活，自然结出一大堆垃圾烂果子。

[clement]

我认为，其实原则很简单：诚实。


這個我很同意。心誠，其實就跟我所說的「因为这本是好的，所以追求之」，是彼此密切相關的。