Translate
建道新消息

戰爭與和平──衝突、暴力與和平的神學反思
陳韋安 主編  2016年7月出版 / HK$80

簡 介﹕
本期學刊結集本院2015年10月舉行的「戰爭與和平國際學術研討會」兩篇主題文章和八篇回應文章,從聖
經和神學角度探討人類在衝突與和平之間的掙扎,以助讀者深入思考基督信徒在這方面應持的立場。

專文包括:

  1. 君特‧湯瑪斯(Günter Thomas):〈在滿布衝突的世界中尋覓基督的和平〉
  2. 小原克博(Katsuhiro Kohara):〈犧牲、宗教、國族——恐怖時代下建立和平的核心要素〉
  3. 曹腓利:〈戰爭與和平——看米示拿對比以色列人爭戰亞瑪力人和摩西舉銅蛇〉
  4. 高銘謙:〈滅迦南七族——一個關於舊約聖戰的神學詮釋〉
  5. 張雲開:〈耶利米與約瑟夫:投降與投誠之間的迷思〉
  6. 辛惠蘭:〈啟示錄中的暴力語言與非暴力抗爭〉
  7. 陳禮裕:〈犁頭與刀劍——前尼西亞教會的戰爭倫理觀〉
  8. 陳韋安:〈「願你的國降臨」——比較侯活士與巴特的終末政治倫理以作為香港抗爭神學的建構基礎〉
  9. Stephen Palmquist, “Kantian Theocracy as a Non-Political Path to the Politics of Peace”
  10. 麥耀光:〈南非「真理與和解委員會」——信仰與心理學探討〉

 

在滿布衝突的世界中尋覓基督的和平
SEARCHING FOR PEACE IN A WORLD RIDDLED WITH CONFLICTS

君特‧湯瑪斯  Günter Thomas         

撮  要

本文位處三種同時出現的場景:(1)耶穌基督復活;(2)冷戰後和德國歷史的政治狀況;(3)一種「時代思潮」(Zeitgeist)的場景,其特色是生機主義、對悲劇的堅忍接受、過度伸張的理性與挽救的強大暗流。

在這背景之下,本文勾勒正義戰爭論、正義和平與宗教反戰主義概念的強處與弱處。接續探索積極參與和平,並喚召讀者留意保羅的信、愛、望三結合,來處理縈繞心頭與滋生衝突的過去。

最後,本文辯說一種神學與道德的現實主義。鑒於基督復活的現實,沒有正義戰爭。同時,反戰主義者亦沒法避免擔負罪愆。在對與錯的雙重選項以外,在一個與神復和,但尚沒完全得贖的世界,和被視為合理的戰爭與正義和平主義的場景下,基督的教會尋求和平。基督徒即或依然盼望神的靈的轉化和救贖力量,但仍要面對為遏制邪惡而利用軍事武力的挑戰。

 

ABSTRACT

The essay places itself in three simultaneous contexts: (1) in the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (2) in the political situation after the cold war and the German history, and (3) in the context of a “Zeitgeist” characterized by the strong undercurrents of vitalism, a stoic acceptance of tragedy and an overstretching of both reason and redemption.

Against this background the essay sketches out the strengths and weaknesses of the just war theory, of the concept of just peace and of religious pacifism. In a next step it explores the role of national state for the work of peace in the sphere of civil society. For the Church’s active engagement for peace it calls attention to the Pauline trials of faith, love, and hope – i.e. for dealing with haunting and conflict generating pasts.

The essay eventually argues for a theological and moral realism. In view of the reality of the risen Christ, there is no just war. At the same time, even the pacifist cannot escape becoming guilty. Beyond the dualistic alternative of right and wrong, justified war and righteous pacifism and in a world reconciled with God but not yet fully redeemed the Christian Churches search for peace. Christians are facing the challenge of using military force in order to keep at bay greater evil – even while they are still hoping for the transforming and redeeming power of God’s spirit.


 

犧牲、宗教、民族—— 恐怖時代下建立和平的核心要素
SACRIFICE, RELIGION AND NATION
Essentials for Peace-building in the Age of Terror

小原克博  Katsuhiro Kohara      

撮  要

當我們討論戰爭與和平具體的方面時,需要認真思考其中一個關鍵詞「犧牲」,因為犧牲的概念往往被利用來鼓動民族主義與正義戰爭。有些時候,為一些高尚原因而死,被視為合理。事實上,在戰爭中為國陣亡的人,會受表揚為犧牲高尚。同樣,為神而死的人受歌頌為烈士。國家與宗教信奉為某些高尚使命而死的邏輯。這共通之處往往導致民族主義和宗教的結合。換言之,宗教的作用可以補充一個國家所需的犧牲邏輯。回應這樣一種犧牲邏輯,和平主義應當比純粹理想主義更具體充實。反戰者必須冷靜分析戰時眾多犧牲背後的邏輯,並根據從歷史學到的功課而採取行動,包括道歉與復和。筆者在這篇論文裏,將集中在「犧牲」這關鍵詞,討論國家、宗教與戰爭之間的關係,並會檢視用來合理犧牲的崇拜偶像邏輯,和提供我們必須採納的角度來達致和平。

 

ABSTRACT

"Sacrifice" is one of the keywords that require serious consideration when discussing specific aspects of war and peace, because the concept of sacrifice has often been used to raise nationalism and justify war. The act of dying for some noble cause is sometimes regarded as justifiable. In fact, people who died for their country during war were praised for their noble sacrifices. Similarly, people who die for God are praised as martyrs. The logic in praising death for some noble mission is embraced by both nations and religions, and this commonality has often led to the combination of nationalism and religion. In other words, religions can serve to complement the logic of sacrifice required by a nation. To address such a logic of sacrifice, pacifism should be more substantial than mere idealism. Pacifists must calmly analyze the logic behind a great many sacrifices during wartime and start to take action based on the lessons learned from history, including offering apologies and reconciliation. In this paper, I will discuss the relationship among nations, religions and war, centering on the keyword of "sacrifice." I will also examine idolatry as a logic used to justify sacrifice, and offer perspectives we should adopt to achieve peace.


 

戰爭與和平——看《米示拿》對比以色列人爭戰亞瑪力人和摩西舉銅蛇
WAR AND PEACE
Interpretation of the Fight between Israelites and Amalekites and the Bronze Serpent in Mishnah

曹腓利    Philip Y. Cao    

撮  要

在口傳猶太宗教傳統的《米示拿》中,為了清楚說明履行宗教責任,不僅只是外在的聽和執行,更重要的是,對上帝的態度要正確;於是在《米示拿‧新年篇》三章8節中,分別將出埃及記十七章9至13節,摩西在山上舉手,百姓即在爭戰中得勝的事件,與民數記二十一章4至9節,百姓被火蛇咬傷後,因着仰望銅蛇而得到醫治的事件,進行詮釋上的關聯,最終成為端正態度的證據。《米示拿》對希伯來聖經的關聯與詮釋,不僅在宗教行為上給予指導,也為道德倫理課題——戰爭與和平,提供了獨特的看法和觀點,這也是本文注重探討的層面。

 

ABSTRACT

As the most important oral tradition, Mishnah is not only playing as the liturgical orders which are carried out in normal lives by the Jewish people, but also emphasizing on the attitude to God and standpoint of ethical issues. In Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 3.8, the event, which was from Exodus 17:9-13, about when Moses arose his hands on the mount, the Israelites overcame Amalekites, was interrelated and interpreted with the event, which was from Numbers 21:4-9 about when Israelites were wandering in the desert and bitten by the venomous snakes, but the peoples were saved by looking upon the bronze snake hung up on the pole. Therefore, the interrelated interpretation in RH 3.8 inspired the Israelites to understand the proper attitude to God; furthermore, it provided them a unique view to deal with the ethical issue-war and peace. This is the main point of what this article is seeking to explore. 


 

滅迦南七族—— 一個關於舊約聖戰的神學詮釋
RIVE OUT THE SEVEN NATIONS
A Theological Interpretation of the Holy War Tradition in the Old Testament

高銘謙   Ko Ming-him

撮  要

本文嘗試為申命記七章1至8節進行神學詮釋,指出這段經文滅迦南七族的吩咐應以「耶和華是一主」的神學確信(申六4~5)來理解,主張我們應以喻意的解釋來詮釋申命記七章1至8節的吩咐,說明「耶和華是一主」的信仰理應佔據人的心,並藉剷除心中的偶像表明這信仰的不能妥協性。首先,筆者將會簡單總結學術界對命記七章1至8節的不同理解,為本文的研究定位,之後便以經文的上下文說明其文學位置,再以申典神學的向導,論證滅七族的象徵性解釋比較可取。喻意以色列民作為神的選民必須履行示瑪及「滅絕淨盡」的要求,除去心中一切的偶像,停止與外邦人結盟,好讓他們只尊耶和華為聖,反照出神聖的光輝。

 

ABSTRACT

This paper offers a theological interpretation for Deuteronomy 7:1-8, and contends that the commandment of driving out the seven nations should be interpreted within the theological framework of "one Lord" (Deut 6:4-5). We should employ a metaphorical approach in interpreting the commandment of Deuteronomy 7:1-8, and conclude that the theological conviction of "one Lord" should occupy the heart of Israelites, so that the idols in one's heart must be eradicated at any cost. First, I offer a brief literature review on this subject matter. Second, I elucidate the literary position of Deuteronomy 7:1-6 within the Deuteronomistic framework, pointing out that metaphorical approach should be the best way to interpret the text. Finally, I contend that Israelites, being the people of covenant, should exercise the Shema and the requirement of Deuteronomy 7:1-8, rooting out the idols in their hearts, so that they can worship Yahweh as the Holy One.


 

耶利米與約瑟夫——投降與投誠之間的迷思
"SURRENDER" OR "BETRAYAL"?
Reading Jeremiah and Josephus in Defeat

張雲開    Paul W. Cheung        

撮  要

耶利米和約瑟夫都被視為是十分複雜的人物,兩者都在其民族面對強大軍事威脅時作出勸降的言論和出降行動,但後代對耶利米和約瑟夫的行為卻有截然不同的看法。本文審視和比較耶利米和約瑟夫的投降言論,分析他們投降的動機和結果,指出後世對兩者態度的分歧是基於一系列的因素,其中投降的場景、投降後的際遇和對形勢的估計準確與否都是決定性的。

 

ABSTRACT

Jeremiah and Josephus are compared for their responses to the threat of imperial military annihilation of their own people. Although both surrendered to the enemies and urged his compatriots to capitulate, Jewish posterity regards them very differently. This paper looks at the reasons they gave for surrendering and the consequences of their surrender, with some suggestions as to why Jeremiah is considered a patriot while Josephus a traitor by Jewish posterity.


 

啟示錄中的暴力語言與非暴力抗爭
VIOLENT LANGUAGE AND NON-VIOLENT  RESISTANCE IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

辛惠蘭    Joyce W. Sun   

撮  要

本文從啟示錄的體裁和整體寫作目的出發,探討作者運用看似暴力的語言和圖象的修辭目的,繼而從作者和讀者的共同神學觀點,分析這些語言對讀者所產生的效果和影響。

文章指出,啟示錄的目的是要透過顛覆性的喻象和語言,刺激讀者以另類眼光來理解周圍的政治現實,放棄眼前的政治經濟好處,持守忠心見證,堅持最後效忠上主。書卷提及的審判和對仇敵遭報的盼望,只在表達邪惡最終得以清除、公義得着伸張、上主主權得着彰顯的願景。在邪惡自招苦果的同時,亦看見上主的憐憫和慈愛,和祂最後要讓世界達至真正和平的美意。

當人普遍靠賴武力脅迫來達成自己的目標,書卷卻將基督徒構思成以耶穌十架上的示範為藍本,藉賴順服和自我犧牲而得勝的另類羣體。

 

ABSTRACT

This essay starts from the genre and the overall purpose of the Book of Revelation to investigate the rhetorical purpose of its apparently violent languages and images. The effects and influence of these languages on the readers will then be analyzed from the common theological perspectives shared by the author and his readers.

The essay argues that by employing these subversive imagery and language, the purpose of the Book of Revelation is to provoke the readers to understand the surrounding political reality through alternative lens. It is hoped that the readers will give up what seems to be politically and economically advantageous at the moment so as to maintain their faithful witnesses and to uphold their ultimate allegiance to God. The hope for final judgment and revenge on enemies, as evinced in the Book, is no more than an expression of the vision for the final removal of evil, fulfillment of justice and revelation of God’s sovereignty. While evil meets its end, God’s mercy and love, as well as His goodwill and purpose for the world to achieve true peace can also be seen.

While human beings generally rely on violence and might to achieve their own goals, the Book of Revelation perceives Christians as an alternative community conquering through obedience and self-sacrifice basing on the example of Jesus on the Cross.


 

犁頭與刀劍——前尼西亞教會的戰爭倫理觀
THPLOUGHSHARES AND SWORDS
The Ethics of War in the Early Christian Church

陳禮裕     Tan Loe Joo     

撮  要

本專文乃探討早期基督教教會對戰爭所持的態度,特別是君士坦丁時代之前的這段時期。此時期的看法日後被奧古斯丁(Augustine)倡導的正義戰爭(Just War)理論的卓越發展所取代,但本身仍具有其神學思想的價值。專文旨在發掘早期教會對軍事參與的回應的先行根源,尤其考慮到此一回應乃發生於「國家」的現代概念尚未成形以前。許多學者都聲稱儘管早期教會承認戰爭的合法性,但他們大體上均以非戰主義(pacifism)回應軍事參與,並堅決反對各種形式的軍國主義。本文將根據前尼西亞教父的作品,主張他們反對主要的理由大多出於牧養和倫理上的考量過於神學上的論說,而且當時整個情景是比一般所呈現的更為複雜與微妙的。雖然教父沒有嘗試為評價戰爭提出一個完整的神學和倫理架構——這任務日後將由安波羅修(Ambrose)與奧古斯丁加以承擔——早期的基督徒如特土良(Tertullian)、俄利根(Origen)、亞歷山大的革利免(Clement of Alexandria)、希玻律陀(Hippolytus)、拉克坦提烏斯(Lactantius)等誠然展示了以當時代處境為考量的形形色色的觀點,對我們今天的時代或也有所啟發。

 

ABSTRACT

The paper examines the attitudes of the early Christian church towards war, particularly in the pre-Constantinian age that was later superseded by the distinct development of Augustine’s Just War theory. It seeks to uncover the antecedent roots of the church’s response to war especially its attitudes to Christians joining the Roman army, taking into context that this took place before the modern concept of the state was developed. Most scholars have asserted that the early church registered a largely pacifist response and opposed militarism in all its forms even though it recognized the legitimacy of war. It will be argued, based on the writings of the Ante-Nicene church Fathers, that while their main reasons were not so much theological but rather pastoral and ethical, the picture is more complex and nuanced then has usually been presented. While the Fathers did not attempt to present a complete framework for the assessment of wars and Christians joining the army – a task that Ambrose and Augustine would undertake later – the early Christians, such as Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus, and Lactantius, did display a diversity of views that took into account the circumstances of their day, and which may be instructive in our own times.


 

「願你的國降臨」——比較侯活士與巴特的終末政治倫理以作為香港抗爭神學的建構基礎
THY KINGDOM COME
A Comparison of Eschatological-Political Ethics between Stanley Hauerwas and Karl Barth as a Theological Construction of Widerstandstheologie in Hong Kong

陳韋安    John W. Chan  

撮  要

巴特在尚未出版的《教會教義學》(Kirchliche Dogmatik)第四冊第四部分(後來修訂成為《基督徒生活》[Das Christliche Leben]一書)以主禱文的第三句「願你的國度降臨」展示一套教會政治神學的倫理—— 教會的禱告與抗爭行動並沒有相衝突,反而是在終末的角度下被視為不可分割的事情。在政治倫理的課題上,侯活士(Stanley Hauerwas)在2007年出版的寫作《馬太福音神學詮釋》中,同樣提及「願你的國度降臨」在政治倫理上關聯,並且在其他著作上建構出一套獨有的教會政治倫理。本文在「願你的國度降臨」這禱告—行動的框架上,比較巴特與侯活士政治倫理的差別,並嘗試找出兩位神學家在政治倫理在終末向度上的差異—— 上帝國度、上帝公義與人的國度、人的公義之間的張力如何在「願你的國度降臨」的禱告中被理解?筆者相信,正正基於兩者政治倫理的終末導向的不同,造成巴特與侯活士對教會抗爭立場上的不同。筆者更希望,這討論能夠有助當代香港教會抗爭神學(Widerstandstheologie)的建構。

 

ABSTRACT

Karl Barth's unpublished portion of Kirchliche Dogmatik, § 78 The Struggle for Human Righteousness, constructs a political ethics based on the third petition of the Lord's prayer "Thy kingdom come" — the prayer of the church and the action of resistance do not contradict, but should not viewed as one in an eschatological perspective. Stanley Hauerwas's Matthew wrote in 2007 also provides a political-ethical meaning for "Thy kingdom come," with which Hauerwas develops his own political ethics of the church. In this framework of the action-prayer relationship of "Thy kingdom come," this paper aims at comparing the difference of political ethics between Hauerwas and Barth — how should the tensions between the kingdom of God and humanity, the righteousness of God and humanity be understood in the prayer "Thy kingdom come"? I believe: the discrepancy of the standpoints between Hauerwas and Barth on "resistance" is based on of the eschatological difference of their political ethics — the clarification of this issue would help to construct and develop a Widerstandstheologie of Hong Kong. 


 

KANTIAN THEOCRACY AS A NON-POLITICAL PATH TO THE POLITICS OF PEACE
引向和平政治的非政治路徑的康德神治觀

Stephen R. Palmquist     龐思奮     

 ABSTRACT

Kant is well known as one of the founding fathers of modern liberal democracy: his political theory reaches its climax in the ground-breaking work, Perpetual Peace (1795), which sets out the basic framework for a world federation of states united by a system of international law. What is less well known is that two years earlier, in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1793/1794), Kant had postulated a very different, explicitly religious path to the politics of peace: he presents the idea of an "ethical community" as a necessary requirement for humanity to become "satisfactory to God." While many recent scholars have noted the importance of Kant's concept of the ethical community, few recognize the force of his argument that such a community is possible only if it takes the form of a church; as a result, the precise status of his proposal remains unclear and under-appreciated. He argues in Division One, Section IV, of Religion's Third Piece that the idea of this community can become a reality only through a "church" that is characterized by four rational requirements: unity, integrity, freedom, and the changeability of all church rules except these four unchangeable marks. Prior to Section IV, Division One portrays this ethical community as having a political form, yet an essentially nonpolitical matter. Kant compares it with Jewish theocracy, but observes that the latter failed to be an ethical community because it was explicitly political. Whereas traditional theocracy replaces the political state of nature (which conforms to the maxim "might makes right") with an ethical state of nature (which conforms to the maxim that I call "should makes good"), or attempts to synthesize them, non-coercive theocracy transcends this distinction through a new perspective: it unites humanity in a common vision of a divine legislator whose only law is inward, binding church members together like families, through the law of love. Whereas the legal rights supported by democracy and a system of international law can go a long way to prepare for world peace, Kant's conviction is that it will be ultimately impossible without support from healthy religion.

 

撮  要

康德是現代自由民主的創建者之一。他的政治理論在其富突破意義作品 Perpetual Peace (1795) 達致高峰。該作品展陳一個由多國組成的世界聯邦基本框架,這聯邦由一套國際法律系統所連合。在這作品面世前兩年,康德在其知名度略遜的 Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1793 / 1794) 一書,假設一條相當不同的明確宗教路徑,引向和平政治,提出一個「倫理社羣」的理念,作為人類達致「令神滿足」的所需條件。儘管不少新近學者留意到康德的倫理社羣概念的重要,但少宥曉得康德辯說的力量,就是只有採納教會的形式,才可構成這樣一個社羣。因此,康德提議的準確地位依然模糊,並且不容易讓人明白。康德在Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason 第三部第四段落第一主段辯說,只有透過具備四種理性條件——連合、一貫、自由,以及所有教會規條可以改變(除了這四個標誌外),倫理社羣的理念才得以實現。在第四段落之前,第一分段勾勒這個倫理社羣具有政治形式,可是,在基本上卻是非政治。康德把這個倫理社羣與猶太的神治,卻察覺後者未能成為倫理政體,蓋因其政治意味明確。傳統的神治以自然的倫理國度(從服筆者所稱的格言「應當令事情變得良善」)取代自然的政治國度(從服「或可令事情正確」格言),或嘗試整合兩者。非強制的神治透過新的向度,超越這區別﹕透過愛的律法,以神的立法者基本遠象,來結合人類。這位神的立法者的唯一法律,就是內聚連結彼此像家庭的教會成員。民主與國際法律系統所支持的合法權利,為準備世界和平,得走漫漫長路。康德的信念卻是,缺乏健康的宗教支持,終究沒可能作此準備。


 

南非「真理與和解委員會」—— 信仰與心理學探討
THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION OF  THE SOUTH AFRICA
Faith and Psychological Perspectives

麥耀光    Joshua Y. Mak           

撮  要

二十世紀八十年代,南非採取種族隔離政策,而南非白人教會卻支持國家的制度。被關二十七年的反對種族隔離領袖曼德拉於1990年釋放,並於1994年當選第一任民主選舉的黑人總統。面對政權轉移,曼德拉做了一個舉世矚目的行動,他成立「真相與和解委員會」,並由當時大主教屠圖任主席,目的乃是和解。

屠圖主教的職責,一方面是在政權轉移時,如何妥善處理過往歷史的問題, 另一方面,為了帶出和解,他選擇了第三條路線,就是避免紐倫堡大審和無條件大赦這兩個極端方案的另一選擇,這引來多方面的批評。

本文嘗試從基督教信仰和心理輔導學角度來看「真相與和解委員會」要處理真相、公義、和解及寬恕等議題。文章首先交代一點點南非種族隔離的背景後,便介紹「真相與和解委員會」的成立和其任務。第二部分就按幾個議題作出反思。

 

ABSTRACT

In the eighties of the twentieth century, the South Africa adopted an apartheid policy which the white church had supported it. After being prisoned for 27 years, the leader of the anti-campaign, Nelson Mandela (1918 - 2013), was released in 1990. Mandela was the first elected president of the democratic election. During the transition of political power, Mandela set up The Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the purpose of healing national trauma.

Arch Bishop Tutu was appointed to direct the Commission. He had dual duties. On the one hand, Tutu needed to settle the historical problems; on the other hand, he had a task to bring reconciliation in the nation. He faced three options. However, he refused to follow the footstep of Nuremberg Trial or unconditional amnesty. He had chosen a third alternative.

This paper tries to look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from the faith and psychological perspectives. We need to examine key issues such as truth, justice, reconcile and forgiveness. The first part of the paper outlines briefly the South Africa’s apartheid policy. After surveys the aims and tasks of the Commission, we will look at several issues with comment.