Choosing an Appropriate Platform

Definition of platform: A place, means, or opportunity for public expression of opinion
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/platform)

There is a platform for every opinion to be aired. It is when you have chosen a wrong platform to express yourself that turns others away and that limits your form of expression.

In choosing the appropriate platform, you must have the target audience in mind, as well as the types of feedback you desire to inspire you further and to point out the loopholes in your structure and form of expression. So long as loopholes continue exist, these will render parts of your structure as incoherent. We always strive to build a structure that is as thoroughly coherent as possible. A coherent structure offers one an adequate framework to interpret reality and to react accordingly to it.

How do we then recognize which platform is appropriate for our form of expression?

First, we have to ask who our audience is. If I am seeking to express political dissatisfaction, I should seek to air it in a political media dedicated to political expression. It is pointless for me to express my political view to a group of teenagers whose primary passion is in computer games, unless I don’t desire any feedback to my form of expression.

Second, in addressing it in the appropriate platform, I should also be aware of the existing protocol and to adhere to it. The protocol will govern how I should address myself, the title I should use in addressing other parties, the structure of my message and the vocabulary I should utilize. It is meaningless to explain the derivation of kilowatt-hour to a group of politicians in technical terms. I should instead illustrate the relationship of kilowatt-hour and the cost and usage of using electrical energy in layman terms and more importantly, how it will influence the politicians in making informed decisions on policy.

Third, I must ask myself the desired outcome that I seek to achieve and whether the amount of tolerance or allowance for my views to be modified during the feedback process. The feedback process it thus crucial as it may help to close the loopholes in my structure or even thoroughly reform my structure by tearing it down and rebuild from the ground level. If I think that there are too many Electronic Road Pricing setups on the road such that travelling in a private transport is considered a form of expensive lifestyle, I may come up with proposals to justify why the cost of the ERP should be adjusted and why some sections of the road should not have ERP. I must then be prepared for a feedback from the Land Transport Authority or from the general public, depending on where I send my message to. I must be prepared to examine my argument if those in authority or other commuters can point out why the imposed fee is justified and how it benefits a larger community which I fail to perceive at my level. It would then be unscrupulous of me to hypothesize a conspiracy from those who are in disagreement with me and when I could no longer seek recourse to a better argument to debunk the opposing argument. The worst is when I addressed my unfounded hypothesis to a group of ignorant people and flamed their unwarranted emotion by empathizing with me and to garner support for me in this cross-fire between myself and those in disagreement with me.

(Written on 24Apr06)

Book Review- A History of God, From Abraham to the Present: the 4000-year Quest for God

Title: A History of God, From Abraham to the Present: the 4000-year Quest for God
Author: Karen Armstrong
Pages: 511, Pub: Vintage, 1999

　　The author has helped me to appreciate the history of Jews, Christianity and Islam from different points of view. The introduction in 1st paragraph contains an extract from The Origin of the Idea of God, first published in 1912, by Father Wilhem Schmidt: "In the beginning, human beings created a God who was the First Cause of all things and Ruler of heaven and earth. He was not represented by images and had no temple or priests in his service. He was too exalted for an inadequate human cult. Gradually he faded from the consciousness of his people. He had become so remote that they decided that they did not want him any more. Eventually he was said to have disappeared." This paragraph has whetted my appetite for the book. The self-introduction by the author as an ex-Catholic nun who has somehow distanced herself from the faith promised the book to be different from what I have been exposed to.

　　The book is organized in chronological order and the glossary at the end of the book comes into use frequently. The historical lineage of the monotheism faith has been traced to Abraham and the author has shown how the name El and Yahweh have come about. The comparison between this God and the transcendent emphasis of Buddhism has been made from point to point throughout the whole book. The author has made a convincing case of the validity of Graf-Wellhasuen's JEDP document theory. The author has adopted the theories espoused by New Testament liberal scholars on the mythical Jesus. However, the author did not make good use of the current archeology findings to question the premise of the adopted narrative on the biblical characters throughout the book. F. F Bruce's The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable? and Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ have argued a good case for Christians to believe the Jesus in the gospel tradition. The fact of the empty tomb, the sacrifice of the apostles' life for the gospel, the radical change from to the Trinity God from Jewish' traditional view of God are strong arguments for the fact of the resurrection, but these have been ignored by the author.

　　As history continues to unfold, Islam comes into the picture. From the history of the responses of people who had been approached by angels, I question the possibility of a person who have might be unsure when such incident did happen. However, knowing that Muslims have the duty to create a just, equitable society where the poor and vulnerable are treated decently makes me feel appreciative of this religion. The history of Islam occupies a bigger share than the other two monotheism faiths in the book; hence the evolution of the early Islam is clearer than that on Judaism and Christianity. The political struggle portrays in the early Islam world will help one to acknowledge the fact that politics has intricate relationship with religion, irregardless of Islam or Christianity. It also chronicles the period of political weakness and decline of the military might of the Roman Empire and the stalemate of technological and intellectual progress and breakthrough in Europe.

　　As the book progresses, the readers will see how the religious faith interact with philosophy and how the main stage of philosophy is shifting from the Middle East back to the Europe Continental. The flowering of mysticism has added spices to the religious outlook in the monotheistic faith and the author has made an effort to compare with the Tibetan Buddhism. The Reformation received a brief treatment in the book and John Calvin received an unfair assessment from the author by saying that "In 1553 he had the Spanish theologian Michael Servetus executed for his denial of the Trinity". More adequate information on the background will reveal that had Calvin not intervened for a lighter sentence, Servetus would have suffered the normal death sentence for being a heretic by being burnt on a stake by the authority in Geneva. The Enlightenment period in the subsequent chapter shows the reader how religion and humanism were segregated and religion was eventually replaced by the Death of God climate in the 19th century. I think the whole picture on the future of God would be more balanced if the last chapter had included the following:
i) The gaining of battleground by Christianity in the 20th century, which was lost to the intellects in the 19th century;
ii) The conflict in Middle East leading to a militant Islam and;
iii) The pressure faced by the Israel nation since their miraculous come back in 1948.

　　In all, the book is highly readable and I would recommend it to those who are interested to know a brief history of the relationship of the three monotheistic faiths.

(Written in Oct 2002)

阅读分享－What is an Evangelical?

书名: What is an Evangelical? (91pages) 出版社: Banner of Truth Trust
作者: D.M. LLOYD-JONES

本书是作者1971年, 在 Schloss Mittersill 的 IFES Conference 的三堂讲道的讲义。

　　首先, 作者让我们看到为什么要给‘福音派’ 一个范围的定义。他提醒我们如果给福音派下一个狭窄的定义会导致纷争。但是如果给太广泛的定义,就好象不给定义一样。他也警惕我们一些认为 ‘灵的洗比一切都重要’ 的危险观念。最后在第一堂的讲道里, 他也让我们知道有些宗派或教会反对 Ecumenical [1] movement 的理由不是建立在福音性立场 (evangelical grounds)。 在结束之前, 他的其中一句话给我流下深刻的印象: “ The church, though she has been reformed, must be constantly re-formed, semper reformanda. Always reform! … You must not assume that because the church started correctly, she will continue so.”

在第二堂讲道里,他描述了福音派的四个指导原则(Guiding Principles)。
第一, 保持福音（Preservation of the Gospel)。这也是以 ‘唯独圣经’(Sola Scriptura) 为基础。
第二, 从历史学习 (Learning from History)。他这里不是指被历史捆绑或我们做历史的奴仆, 而是从历史学习, 并 避免以前的人所犯的错误。
第三, 有一个 ‘不接受’的立场 (Maintaining Negatives)。这是指一个信徒不只要知道所信的是什么, 也要知道所不能接受的是什么。第四, 不可剪除或加与真理 (No Subtractions or Additions) 。 他认为要知道一位传道者是否是福音派 (Evangelical preacher) ，我们可以观察他所不说的什么。就用直接用作者的话: “… the point was that he had not said certain things that an evangelical always must say; he had left them out.”这四个指导原则就是福音派的大体特征 （general characteristics）。

作者也提出其他的福音派特征。一，顺服圣经。二，警醒。三，理智的位置。理智是我们的佣人，不是我们的主人。四，理智不是决定我们信什么，而是教我们怎样去信。五， take a particular view with regard to the sacraments . 六， 晓得以评论的角度(critical view) 来看历史与传统。 七， 愿意在所信的立场上，有一定的行动 （always ready to act on his beliefs). 八，always to simplify and to make things clear. 九，关注 教会的教义（doctrine of the church)。 之后，作者也强调了福音派信徒( Evangelicals)应当注重重生，并且有一个纯正与正确的信仰 (true and a correct evangelical belief)。但，还不能停留在这里，需要读经、解经和祷告。一个信徒决不可缺祷告。福音派信徒要注意怎样把信仰活出来。他需要关注复兴 (revival) 还要非常注重传道 (always give primacy to preaching)。最后,作者提醒我们: 福音派信徒是时时都关注传福音的 (always concerned about evangelism)。

让我们了解到什么是福音性之后, 作者在第三堂讲道讨论了一些关注的课题,
如: Foundational and Secondary truths, Justifying a vital distinction, the necessity of opposition to doctrinal indifferentism, Scripture: The Only and Full Authority, Creation, not evolution, The Fall and Evil, One way of salvation, The Church: Contemporary issues 及 Secondary Truths not essential to unity.

（我有许多不晓得翻译成中文字的地方，请读者包涵）。

以下是小弟的读后感：
　　上面有几处使我有很深的体会。若你也象我一样觉得好象只有在使徒行传 (Apostles) 时期和改革宗(Reformation)的基督徒们对国家和社会带来深厚的影响，但之后的基督徒们就似乎没有达到象他们那样深厚的影响，你或许会象我一样会问：为什么？以上你看到一句话： The church, though she has been reformed, must be constantly re-formed…. You must not assume that because the church started correctly, she will continue so. 我们怎么知道教会是否还是紧紧地跟随着圣经的教导? 除非我们本身也了解整本圣经在说什么!当时的使徒保罗怎么会在其他的犹太人的藐视和逼迫下继续地传福音? 当时的 马丁路德 (Martin Luther) 和 加尔文 (John Calvin) 怎么知道当时具有非常大权威的罗马天主教的教导是错的呢? 当时的 John Knox 怎么会做这样的祷告: “Give me Scotland or I die”? 我相信这些先辈们都是对上帝的话语有深厚的认识, 也透过对上帝的认识和圣灵的感动,不惜代价地把整个信仰给活出来。

　　若看看现今的状况,我们可能会发现一些基督徒对上司说过的话还会比上帝说过的话还清楚好几倍。一些信徒信主多年, 看过的书本加起来比圣经至少还要厚十倍, 但就是圣经还不曾看完一遍。一些信徒在教会事奉多年，尤其是在领袖皆层的，可能都不清楚教会的教义(doctrine)或信条(creed)是什么。或许有些人不认为教义或信条很重要，但是你只要尝试向别人或是自己把你所信的给讲出来，你一定脱离不了教义或信条。或许你不知道, 在1924年，美国有超过1200　Presbyterian ministers 签署了一份文件 (Auburn Affirmation) 。这文件否定了圣经是完全准确 (Inerrancy of Scripture)，还宣称耶稣由童贞女所生 (Virgin birth), 基督为我们罪而死 (Atonement) 及 复活 (Resurrection) 都不是基督信仰必要的。

　　启示录 3: 15-17 说: 我知道你的行为,你也不冷也不热;我巴不得你或冷或热。你既如温水, 也不冷不热, 所以我必从我口中把你吐出去。你说: 我是富足,已经发了财, 一样都不缺。却不知道你是那困苦、可怜、贫穷、瞎眼、赤身的; … v19 我所爱的, 我就责备管教他; 所以你要发热心, 也要悔改。
有些信徒忙于工作, 忽略了与上帝的关系, 渐渐的也对上帝不冷不热，可能也开始不参 加团契，甚至教会，但却还以为自己很富足。只有上帝能完全知道人的需要及提供人的需要。基督徒应是基督的门徒,一个生命受到改变的门徒。不是一个不冷不热，不讨上帝喜悦的门徒。所以弟兄姐妹们，若我们是个不冷不热的门徒，就会‘从口中吐出来’。若我们是个不冷不热的门徒，就要悔改，求上帝让我们做一个发热心, 注重重生的门徒。

　　若我们没有好好地读上帝的话，那我们与上帝的关系面临很大的危机。 若我们不清楚我们所信的是什么, 我们就好象使徒保罗所说的小孩子, 会中别人的诡计, 和欺骗的法术，被一切异教之风摇动，飘来飘去，就随从各样的异端。（弗 4: 14) 若我们要影响周围的人, 使整个团契和教会流露基督的香气, 我们的生命必须先受上帝的影响。不要以为团契提供的查经就足够使你认识上帝的话, 生命被造就。最重要的还是自己好好地研读上帝的话语，让上帝的话语来改变你。我们要注意怎样把信仰活出来,并建立一个稳固的根基。

　　我们长老会继承了加尔文思想和接纳了 Westminster Confession of Faith[2]。 Westminster Confession 是在 1643年开始，由 Westminster Assembly 经过了五年半的时间，(还特别每个月一天附上禁食祷告的过程) 才写成的。此信条反映出了加尔文神学思想。 Westminster　Confession 的内容丰富，一共有 35个信条(Creeds) 。这些信条有助于你认识及肯定圣经所该有的地位、上帝的属性、计划、一次得救永远得救、等等信念(beliefs)。这些信条还附上圣经经节以方便你查考。 Westminster Confession 可通过教会购买。最好不要一口气看完，因为这样可能会很乏味。能一天看完一个 信条，35天就可看完 Westminster Confession of Faith,　就会更明白自己在长老宗所信的是什么。其实我们当中还有许多书本、录影带、卡带及激光唱片, 正等着我们去发掘内中的宝藏，若不好好利用，实在是太可惜了。希望读者们也藉着书本来更认识自己的信仰，那我们在面对其他教义及思想冲击时，有更好的装备也会站立得稳。象以上所说的，我们除了要有纯正与正确的福音派信仰 (true and a correct evangelical belief)还需要注重读经、解经和祷告。

　　最后, 此书的确提醒我要严谨的读经, 认识上帝的话并一定要实践于生活。尤其是在这个时代, 有不少的独立宗派和独立教会,再加上其他宗教已开始自我提倡, 甚至还反基督教, 我们更应该知道我们所信的是什么。

　　新的一年即将到来，有什么新的计划吗？你对圣经熟悉吗? 若不, 何不尝试　1/2/3 年内读完整本圣经？若能与其他弟兄姐妹一同计划，那会更好。清楚知道自己所信的是什么吗? 若不, 何不挑战自己 1/2/3 月内看完一本属灵书籍？如果大家能一起来讨论信仰课题，那也有助于我们对上帝的认识。相信上帝赐给我们的团契还有许多发挥的空间。但愿上帝帮助我们认真地来读圣经，让我们在灵命上，也在属灵的知识上有所长进。

许瑞龙弟兄
(写于12月1999年）

[1] The meaning of "ecumenical"
…Perhaps the best-known definition is that formulated by the WCC(World Council of Churches)'s Central Committee, meeting at Rolle, in 1951:
It is important to insist that the word [ecumenical], which comes from the Greek word for the whole inhabited earth [oikoumene], is properly used to describe everything that relates to the whole task of the whole church to bring the gospel to the whole world.

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/cuv-e.html#ecumenical

[2] 新加坡长老宗的 Westminster Confession 有 35个信条。有些国外的共有33个信条, 少了 Chapter IX: Of the Holy Spirit 及 Chapter X: Of the Gospel.

我们的‘眼镜’

序言: 以下所写的,是小弟在大学第四年下半学期, 看了“Worldviews in Conflict” (Ronald H. Nash 著)这本书而产生的感想,再加上小弟听了苏文峰牧师的讲座 ‘跨越后现代’的感想。后半部的文章，尝试接前半部所要引导的方向。所以，参考了唐牧师所讲有关于‘道’的这本书。在这非常简短的文章里，我尝试探讨什么是世界观,并希望能与大家一同思考我们的世界观是否站立得住脚。（如果是,那么我们的生活应该怎样反映出我们的世界观？)最后，本文章尝试邀请非信徒一同来探讨咱们的世界观。
我们的‘眼镜’

　　每一人看这个世界都戴着一副 ‘眼镜’。随着经验及知识的累积,这眼镜 包含了许多色彩,也就构成了我们的世界观。我们的世界观也包含了我们的人生观及价值观。当某某事情发生时,我们就会从我们所戴 ‘眼镜’来解释, 使整个局面符合我们的思想架构。有时,当一个人的思想或行为不符合我们所认为的 ‘正常’时,我们就会把他列为 ‘怪怪’的。但是,如果不是一个人,而是一大群人都象那人一样时,我们就会调整我们的 ‘眼镜’,使我们的世界看起来似乎是合理的。换句话说,那样的思想或作风不再是 ‘怪怪’的,而是我们所能接受的另一套看法,说不定有一天我们还可能继承那样的思想或作风。如果不是一大群人,而是我们与那人相处之下,若是自己的世界观做了些调整, 我们或许会认为‘他就是这样子的’。但如果他的思想及举动不符合我们的世界观,他就是‘有问题’的,还是避开他比较好。

　　如果说不是一个人,而是另一种世界观,是我们从来没接触过的,那带给我们的冲击会更大,我们现有的人生观及价值观将受到很大的挑战。我们若马上排斥我们现有的人生观及价值观,那我们就会遗失了我们的自我身份(self-identity)。如果我们的世界观不只一次,而是好几次都受到严厉的考验,而我们也开始看到我们的世界观开始站不住脚,那我们很可能再一次地调整我们的世界观以让我们能再解释我们的周遭环境。就打个比方,某某人小的时候认为说谎话是不对的。随着年纪的增长,他发现只要说谎不被别人知道,并能带给他更大的利益时,说个谎话并不要紧。他的世界观已受到改变了。当然，这并不意味着我支持这某某人的看法。其实我们会看到在我们的成长过程,我们的世界观时不时的都在面临挑战。就拿另一个例子,若是一个唯物论主义者来说,他的理性告诉他这世界只是个物质的世界。当深夜来临时,周围又没人时,再加上当晚停电,他就在那时候开始害怕他所看不到的东西。那不是与他的世界观起了冲突吗?有时我们人就是这样子,要等到一些事件临到时,才会去加以斟酌。

　　的确,有些问题还会改变我们的人生观及价值观,倒如: 这世界有其他空间 (another dimension,异度空间?) 的存在吗? 难到人真的有灵魂? 这世界是怎么来的?时间有一个开始吗? 人活着究竟有什么意义? 如果我一而再,再而三地遭受痛苦、挫折,那我为什么还要追求幸福?我干吗不干脆就接受人生本来就是痛苦的,而坚持要相信人生是有最终幸福的? 我离开世界后,还会去哪里? 若我离开这世界后, ‘我’就不存在了,那我这生做好事或坏事又有什么关系? 反正好人也不一定有好下场,而坏人也不一定有坏的下场。 难道有所谓的 ‘老天有眼’?怎么‘老天’也有感情,有正义感?

　　有时我们忙到盲, 不知道自己到底在做什么。只有在我们安静下来的时候, 才会慢慢的去思考。有些人不知读书是为了什么, 而是看到人群都朝这方向走, 也开始跟着人群走。又忙又盲地跟着人群走, 渐渐的就失去了自我身份(self identity) 。有些人活着也不知为了什么, 把自己的世界建立在别人的损失和物质的拥有上。当一夜之间损失了许多, 才发现自己已经一无所有, 人生就这样失去了意义。有些人为了要得到有身份的地位, 有物质方面的享受,甚至把道德 (moral)以价值(value)来取代。只要这价值是对自己有利益的, 什么都不要紧。

　　相信人生还有好一些课题是值得探讨的。探讨时, 自己的价值观及人生观可能会受到一些冲击。这时,自己才知道自己的世界观是否站立得住脚。难到只有符合自己的世界观的东西才是事实? 其实我们任何一个人目前所知道的, 在这世界的总知识里头, 只是那么的一小部分。难道要以所知道的那么一点点来否定其他的可能性吗?

　　当我们观察这世界, 我们会发现这世界是在万变的过程中。一颗树今天生长在这里, 只有那么高, 年后竟高过我了。再多十年,可能被人砍伐了。我今天住的政府组屋再多五十年就可能不在了。今天我在世上还有一口气, 有一天我也会不在这世上了。在这万变中, 是可观察到一定的规律存在。例如: 这颗树虽然不在了, 但它撒下的种子也会在生长起来取代它的位子；一天, 这座组屋不在了, 人还是会藉着同样的建筑思想结构 (这结构是建立在一定的规律上, 如: 下面的那一层一定要有足够的力量来承受上面的重量), 但可能产生不同的设计；我和其他人一样, 有一天也不会在这世上, 但之后的人还是一样会生、老、病、死。(可能 Human Genome Project 将改变这事实?) 五百年前是这样, 五百年后也是这样；春天之后, 就是夏天, 之后就是秋天, 再后是冬天。五百年前是这样, 五百年后也是这样。这是自然界中的道。这世界有一定的真理, 有道的存在。既使你现在要否定, 你也是假设了有更好的概念存在,以致你能够相信。我们其实有一个绝对标准概念的影子在我们里面,使我们能够批判谁的比较好, 谁的比较不好。即使今天有谁又出卖了谁, 即使又有谁向谁宣战, 之后灭掉了谁, 这道还是仍然地存在。我们的孔子与老子也曾提过这‘道’, 让我们来听听他们怎么说。

　　孔子说: “道者也, 不可须臾离也”。意思是 ‘道’重要到一个地步, 你片刻离开它都不能! 这表示说, 你的存有是建立在 ‘道’的根基上面。你问，孔子啊，‘道’既是那么重要，那请问这个‘道’到哪里去找呢？他说：“朝闻道夕死可也”。意思“我也不知道。因为如果有一天早上，我听闻并明白了道，那天晚上就是死我都甘愿”。他也说：“君子谋道不谋食”。孔子实实在在、名副其实的盼望寻找 ‘道’，找到了‘道’，他做人的目的就达到了，就是死他也甘愿；寻不到 ‘道’，死不甘愿。但是哪一天才能找到呢？他也没告诉我们。[1]

　　老子说：“道可道，非常道，名可名，非常名”。他正表达一个永恒东西在非永恒东西中间所受到的限制，以及人在追求永恒中间，受非永恒东西的限制，使他在道的面前无能为力的境界。人的生命有涯，人的学问无涯，差不多那个意思。在这有限的生命中间，怎能找到无限的道呢？在这个有物质范围限制的生命中间，怎能够表达出无限的道的本体呢？但是道是什么呢？ 孔子没有讲。老子说，你也不能讲；你要讲也讲不出来，因为能讲出来的道，就不是永恒的道；永恒的道不是在你口中,永恒的道不在你思想中, 永恒的道也不在你文笔中。[1 ]

　　道德经在二十五章提到: “有物混成, 先天地生。寂兮寥兮, 独立而不改, 周行而不殆, 可以为天地母。”
　　有物混成: 物, 指 “道”。混成: 浑沌质朴的状态。寂兮寥兮: 既没有声音, 也没有形体。寂: 无声音。寥:空无形。 独立而不改: 不靠外力而存在, 永不改变, 永不衰竭。形容 “道”的绝对性和永恒性。 周行而不殆: 循环往复、环绕运行而永不停息。周: 周遍、环绕。不殆:不息。[2 ]
　　有一个我暂时称它为 ‘物’的, 那不是物质界的物, 是有其物的 ‘物’,这个存有, 是先天地生。老子不用 ‘造’这个字, 而用 ‘生’,是自然的生成的, 或者是从生命的果效产生的, 反正就是生。[1 ]

道德经继续在四十二章提到: “道生一, 一生二, 二生三, 三生万物。” ‘一’是最先的吗? 不是。老子说 ‘一不是开头’。这是违背数学定律的。老子说 ‘道生一; 一也不是自己来的, 从道来的。’所以真正万有的开头不是一，真正万有的开头是道。一不能自存的， 一要从一个东西出来。那个自存的产生一。那个本体是自存而独立不改的道，才是一的源头。[1 ]

　　基督教的圣经中也提到 ‘道’。在约翰福音 第一章一节至三节 :“太初有道, 这道与上帝同在, 道就是上帝。这道太初与上帝同在。万物是借着他造的;凡被造的, 没有一样不是借着他造的。” 使徒约翰告诉我们在宇宙的开始就有这道的存在。这 道是超越时间的空间的, 是无始无终。既是独立的, 就不须靠其他外在因素生存, 应是自有永有的。在约翰福音 第一章十四节:“道成了肉身,住在我们中间, 充充满满的有恩典有真理。”使徒约翰也告诉我们这道曾经进入我们时间的空间, 来到我们人类当中。他就是耶稣基督。

　　在人类的历史上, 有一位伟人及大家都公认的圣人, 耶稣基督, 讲过这样的一句话: “我是道路、真理、生命; 若不借着我, 没有人能到父那里去”。(约 14: 6) 从来没有人这样介绍自己的。让我们来分析说这句话的人的几个可能性。
(一) 他不知道自己在讲什么。换句话说, 他是疯子。
(二) 他知道自己在说什么, 却是在骗人。那么他就是骗子。
(三) 他知道自己在说什么, 这也是真的。他就是道路，真理，生命。

　　有看过圣经的四福音书的人都可以观察到耶稣是个有智慧, 有爱心, 富有创意感的人。他能看透人的心及所说的话。这些都不能在疯子身上找到的。如果说他是骗子，那他最后也为了这谎言被钉在十字架上。一般的骗子编造谎言的目的是为了自私的理由，如：钱，名誉，声望，权利。但耶稣却放弃了荣华富贵，甚至是自己的性命。他遭受别人的怀恨，误解，拒绝，逼迫，甚至是折磨与死亡。他说谎的动机又是什么？简直是不可能坚持自己的谎言。而且，他被钉于十字架前，早已经知道自己将面临怎样的苦楚与死亡。耶稣的门徒们多数都为了耶稣的缘故而最后也受死，死前也未有一个承认这是一场骗局。那所剩下的很高可能性就是耶稣的确是那位来到我们中间的道路、真理、生命。

您是否愿意一同与我们一同来探讨这事实呢？

许瑞龙
（写于6月2000年）

-----
“人若喝我所赐的水, 就永远不渴; 我所赐的水, 要在他里头成为泉源,直涌到永生。”(约 4:14)

[1] 取自：唐崇荣 著,《神的道与人的信仰》, 人人书楼。
[2] 顾悦 译注 《道德经》, 西安市临潼印刷厂印刷。

An Appreciation of Faith Seeking Understanding

I have come across a few books on philosophy and theology for the past few years. There were some philosophers who actually argued about the nature of God without the Bible or what we called the special revelation. One of them by the name of Plato (427 BC–347 BC) theorized that there is a world of Form from which everything in this world is made of. The natures of goodness, beauty, truth are all pointing to the world of Form. He uses an allegory of a group of prisoners bounded in a cave who were facing away from the Sun and who could see only their shadows and the shadows of the objects outside the cave being projected on the wall. One day, one of the prisoners managed to break free and ventured out in the world and discovered that the shadows formed were actually due to the Sun and he could see everything in the world as they are. Plato used this allegory to illustrate that we are actually the prisoner in the cave and the real world is the Form from which we are made of. Then Aristotle (384 BC –322 BC), another Greek philosopher, deduced that there has to be an Unmoved mover that is the first cause of movements in the world.

Eventually when Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, some Christians borrowed the concept of Form and Unmoved mover to fit the concept of God. In the medieval age, Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033- 1109) used Platonism concept to describe God as a Being which there is no greater being we can ever conceive. Then came along Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who merged Aristotle’s philosophy and Christian theology. He also pointed out that our language is inadequate in describing God. He correctly emphasized that our language essentially divides the world up into parts and categories of things. For e.g.: when you say `This fruit is orange in colour', you are picking out a class of things — fruit — a class of colours, of which orange is one, and saying that there is an object which possesses the properties of being a fruit and being orange. Essentially, we are dividing the world up into objects and lists of properties which objects may or may not possess in our language. In conclusion, our language just does not fit God; it is quite inadequate to the task of describing God. So, we use analogy when describing God. This is termed as the doctrine of analogy. Many people misunderstand that God really is something like people or partners or things we can imagine, whereas in fact what Thomas Aquinas was saying is that God is nothing like anything we can imagine. His doctrine of analogy says that, though God is not like what we think, it is correct for us to speak of God as good and wise and, if not actually a husband, does relate to us as a really good husband should. On the other hand, these things are not true of God in the sense that we understand them.

Saint Thomas Aquinas has changed the way that I should understand God. Then when I continue to read more on philosophy, even my concept of God was shattered by a philosopher by the name of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He advanced the theory that our sensory organs can only be used to assess data in our time and space dimensions. Just like a camera is used to record pictures, not to be used to listen to a radio. When we received data, we processed it within our framework and concept which are bounded to time and space. Therefore, when we try to process data which is beyond our dimension, it is essentially impossible. Hence, no one can prove that the God which transcends our dimension exists and neither can any one prove that God does not exist. Even when we received the data, we are receiving it in the form of phenomena. The real form is what he called noumena. This means we may never know the noumena. It is just like when we are wearing red-coloured lenses, we will always see things in red. Our concept inherent within us is the lenses we are wearing in the interpretation of data. However, he argued that the concept of God is still necessary for moral reasons.

Because of his theory, I was stupefied and started to question how I can know God and whether it is valid to speak of God, even if by analogy. My faith in God was shaken. At that point, I am still convinced that Jesus Christ has incarnated in flesh and has died for our sins partly because of the overwhelming evidences I knew from some apologetics books (e.g. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft). At that point, I have already rejected the classical arguments for Christian God. E.g. the design in this world might point to a grand designer, but it is not the Christian God. Even the argument using design is debatable from an evolution point of view. The argument of existing for a purpose or designed with a need for eternity advocated by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity also does not lead to the Christian God.

I realized that I can only come to know the Christian God through the Bible. I was reminded of a story told by an Enlightenment philosopher of a father who had a ring but had three sons. In order not to disappoint the sons, he fabricated two other rings and gave the three rings individually to each son and convinced them that they had the real ring. In the end, the three sons believed that they each had the real ring and they lived happily so long as they continue to believe so. Could the Bible be fabricated by people who believe in a supernatural being and behaved as though it is true? Is it valid if the Bible authenticates itself as the word of God? I was trapped in an intense agony and doubts for about two weeks in the month of January.

Thank God that I have a chance to converse with a preacher during a brother-in-Christ’s wedding. He reminded me that Christian faith is ‘Faith Seeking Understanding’. I believe in order to understand. We have to accept by faith that our Bible is indeed inspired word of God. Later on, when I read a book by the name of Systematic Theology by Millard Erickson, he highlighted that there are many things which even the scientists have to take on by faith. For e.g. they have to believe that the data they perceived is speaking of the real world, i.e. the phenomena is the noumena. Erickson went on to illustrate why we can accept Bible as the word of God and how mistaken Immanuel Kant was when he assumed that the God who transcends our dimensions could not communicate to us.

Gradually, I started to realize that our Christian faith’s starting point has to be based on faith. We have to believe that our Bible is indeed and truly God-breathed word (from 2Tim 3:16, NIV) and from there we can believe that our God is indeed who He said He is and that He has revealed Himself in our human history. We can never know this God through our own concepts and means. Our Christian God is neither the god of the philosophers (just to echo Pascal's sentiment) nor the god who exists in abstract concept. He is the God with feelings, who has a relationship with us and who transcends our time and space dimensions. It is valid to talk about God because He has revealed Himself to us and the greatest revelation is through Jesus Christ.

Indeed, our faith is ‘Faith Seeking Understanding’ and I am starting to appreciate it.