吹着空调的地狱：自由派神学是如何产生的（附英文原文）
吹着空调的地狱：自由派神学是如何产生的（附英文原文）神学自由派不打算破坏基督教，而是为了拯救它。事实上，神学自由派的动机恐怕可以描述成为了辩护的缘故。神学自由派的模式是非常清楚的。神学自由派绝对肯定基督教必须从其自身得到拯救。
自由派：从其自身中拯救基督教
二十世纪早期的传统自由派，经常被称为现代主义者。他们指出社会将有一个巨大的理性层面的改变，并且声称基督教若不变革就会消亡。正如历史学家威廉·罗伯特·哈金森（William R. Hutchison）所解释的：“现代主义的标志就是坚持神学必须采取认同世俗文化的态度，并且应该有意识地努力与之调和。”
与世俗文化的妥协调和深深植根于始于启蒙运动的理性解放之中。新教自由派可以追溯到欧洲的来源，但它到达美国却是非常得早——可能远远早于我们所知道的今天的福音派。自由神学在一神论占主导的地方，以及其他许多领域，都占了统治地位。
不久，在美国革命之后，自由派神学更是以有组织形式地出现，革命和思想自由还加以催化。神学家和宣教士开始质疑正统基督教的教义，声称诸如原罪、全然败坏、神的主权以及代赎等这些教义都违反了道德感。颇有影响力的一神论者威廉·埃勒里·钱宁（William Ellery Channing）讲了许多在他那个年代关于教授正统基督教的事，用他的话说就是，“震动了我的道德感”。
虽然一些重要信条及核心教义遭到了自由派的修改或者断然拒绝，地狱的教义是被抗议和否定最厉害的对象。
考虑到地狱及其相关教义，公理会牧师华盛顿·格拉登（Washington Gladden）宣称：“教导关于神的这种教义给宗教带来可怕的伤害并颠覆道德的根基。”
虽然自从新约以来，地狱已经成为基督教神学不可分割的一部分，但它变成了一种神学的仇恨（odium theologium）——被大部分文化所憎恶的教义，现在只有那些自视自觉地认信正统神学的辩护者才牢记它并为之辩护。
小说家戴维·洛奇（David Lodge）指出地狱最后将消亡于20世纪60年代。“在二十世纪六十年代的某个时候，地狱消失了。没人能肯定这事什么时候发生。起先，它在那儿，然后它不在了。” 芝加哥大学的历史学家马丁·马蒂（Martin Marty）看到这转变很简单，并且到时候就真实发生了，很难观察到。“地狱消失了。没有人注意到，”他断言。
那些轻而易举丢弃地狱的自由派神学家和传道人没有否认圣经关于这教义有清楚的教导。他们只是声称文化的道德意义占更高的优先级。为了将基督教从这教义造成的道德及理性损害拯救出来，地狱只是不得不被舍弃。许多人满腔热血地拒绝这教义，宣称负有要更新一个新的理性时代的使命。其他人只是让这教义进入休眠状态，在彬彬有礼的场合里只字不提。
今天的福音派怎么样呢？尽管有些对“地狱火与硫磺”的老一代福音信息的古板嘲讽，事实上大多数教会成员可能对地狱的讲道闻所未闻——甚至某福音教会的全体会众都没听过。地狱在福音派里也进入休眠了吗？
修改地狱的教义：一块判断是否滑向自由派的试金石
有趣的是，地狱的教义是一个非常好用的判断是否滑向自由派的试金石。这种滑落的模式看起来是这样的。
第一，从被提及的方面看教义的滑落。随着时间的推移，教会的讲台上从不讨论或传讲它。大多数会众甚至都没错过过对这教义的提及。随着时间的推移那些人提得越来越少了。这教义被大大地拒绝，人们忽略它，对它敬而远之。是的，那已被基督徒相信的教义，它仍被承认，然而却不再是非要强调的事儿了。
第二，教义修订并且简化形式地保留。历史上基督徒相信地狱一定是有好的理由的。然后一些神学家和牧师愿意证实有一个要保留道德的核心主张，可能有点像鲁益师（C. S. Lewis）所谓的“道”。教义被削弱了。
第三，教义受到了一种奚落。因其“积极思想”的信息而被人所知的水晶大教堂的罗伯特·舒勒（Robert Schuller），有次说到他根据调整“产生信任和积极的希望。”的神学而重新阐述的动机，他的方法是直指救恩并且需要“成为积极的思考者。”积极思考并没有强调从地狱中逃离，“无论那是什么意思还是它在哪儿。”
“无论那是什么意思还是它在哪儿。”这话嘲讽了地狱的教义将之排挤在外。舒勒建议别再担忧地狱啦。尽管很少有福音派人士愿意效法类似的嘲讽，很多人还是会虚构捏造更柔和的话把地狱的教义边缘化。
第四 ，为了消除理性及道德冒犯，教义被改写。福音派就地狱的教义臣服于此策略已经多年。有人否认地狱是永恒的，用灵魂幻灭说或有条件的灵魂不朽说来争论。还有人否认地狱是一种真实的折磨。约翰·威翰（John Wenham）说：“无止境的折磨在我看来是施虐，这不公平。”一些人说神并不把任何人都送进地狱，地狱只是人类在世上所做决定的总和。神不真是一个做决定的法官，而裁判官会制定一些需要人遵守的规则。
塔尔萨牧师埃德·冈戈尔（Ed Gungor）最近写道，“人们不被送到地狱，他们去那里。”换言之，神尊重人的自由到一个程度，以至他会不情愿地让人按他们的意愿决定是否下地狱。
为地狱的教义道歉：新福音派的腐蚀
近年来，逃避福音的新模式已经浮出水面。新教自由派和二十世纪现代主义者对地狱的教义不屑一顾，已经拒绝了圣经的真实性。所以他们并没有精心试图争辩圣经没有相关教义——他们只是忽略它而已。
虽然这种模式在一些自称福音派的人士中找到，但这并非最常见的福音派妥协的模式。现在，一种新的道歉倾向在部分确实坚信圣经无误以及新约圣经关于地狱教义真实性的神学家及传道人中变得明显。可以肯定，这种新运动更加隐蔽。在这运动中的传道人只是说些这种话：
“我很遗憾地告诉你，关于地狱的教义是圣经的教导。我相信这一点。我相信，因为圣经就是这么写的。这不是能重新商量的。咱们只能领受它并且相信它。我确实相信。我希望现实能相反但不是那样。”
类似这样的说法揭示了很多事情。圣经的权威显然是肯定的。发言人肯定了圣经的的内容并且拒绝调和。截止目前一切都好。问题是如何将这主张提出并解释。在一个道歉的姿态里，这教义实际上就是在哀叹。
关于神这是怎么说的呢？关于神的真理这意味这什么意思？一个圣经中清楚显明的真理是对我们没有任何益处的吗？圣经中所讲的关于地狱的知识，正如它告诉我们关于罪及审判的知识一样：这些事我们最好都知道。神向我们启示这些事为我们的益处以及我们的救赎。有鉴于此，这些知识都是给我们的恩典。为教义道歉无异于指摘神的性情。
我们是否相信地狱是神的公义之完美的一部分？倘若不信，我们的神学问题比那些局限于地狱的问题更严重。
几年前，有人自作聪明地建议了一个许多现代基督徒想要的“吹着空调的地狱”。这种努力仍在继续。
请记住自由派和现代主义者做出了道歉的动机。他们意欲挽救基督教，使之成为在现代社会中的切题信息，删除了那些看着令人反感且不必要的教义的可恶障碍。他们想要从其自身拯救基督教。
如今，一些诸如新兴教会的运动，为着相同的原因，认可相同的行为。我们还会为地狱的圣经教义感到尴尬吗？
如果是这样，这一代福音派将面临后继无人的尴尬。当前的学术处境几乎不存在对基督教福音排他性主张的任何尊重人类罪的本性、圣经中关于人类性别的教导，以及任何圣经中启示的其他教义。自由派神学的教训是清楚的——“尴尬”就是神学妥协及否定的真正诱因。
可以肯定的是：吹着空调的地狱是不会停止的。
尾注
威廉·罗伯特·哈金森（William R. Hutchison）编，《自由主义时代的美国新教思想》（美国大学出版社，马里兰州兰汉姆，1968年），第4页。
加里·杜礼仁（Gary Dorrien）《美国自由神学的形成：想象里的进步宗教，1805-1900年》（路易斯维尔：威斯敏斯特/约翰·诺克斯出版社，2001年），第18页。
杜礼仁，第275页。
马丁·E·马蒂（Martin E. Marty） “地狱消失了。没有人注意到。一个市民的说法，”《哈佛神学评论》，78（1985），第381-398页。
参见鲁益师，《人的拆除》（旧金山：HarperOne出版社，2001年）。
罗伯特·舒勒，《我的旅程》（旧金山：HarperCollins出版社，2001），第127页。
舒勒，第127-128页。
舒勒，第127-128页。
约翰·温翰，《面对地狱》（伦敦：主祷文出版社，1998），第254页。
埃德·冈戈尔（Ed Gungor），《基督教里最烦我的东西》（纽约：霍华德图书，2009年），第196页。
参见“吹着空调的地狱，”《新牛津评论》，58期（1998年6月3日），第4页
作者 Albert Mohler
阿尔伯特•莫勒（R. Albert Mohler Jr.）是美南浸信会神学院（The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary）校长，也贡献了大量著作。
【英文原文】
Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens
Theological liberals do not intend to destroy Christianity, but to save it. As a matter of fact, theological liberalism is motivated by what might be described as an apologetic motivation. The pattern of theological liberalism is all too clear. Theological liberals are absolutely certain that Christianity must be saved…from itself.
LIBERALISM: SAVING CHRISTIANITY FROM ITSELF
The classic liberals of the early twentieth century, often known as modernists, pointed to a vast intellectual change in the society and asserted that Christianity would have to change or die. As historian William R. Hutchison explains, “The hallmark of modernism is the insistence that theology must adopt a sympathetic attitude toward secular culture and must consciously strive to come to terms with it.”
This coming to terms with secular culture is deeply rooted in the sense of intellectual liberation that began in the Enlightenment. Protestant liberalism can be traced to European sources, but it arrived very early in America—far earlier than most of today’s evangelicals are probably aware. Liberal theology held sway where Unitarianism dominated and in many parts beyond.
Soon after the American Revolution, more organized forms of liberal theology emerged, fueled by a sense of revolution and intellectual liberty. Theologians and preachers began to question the doctrines of orthodox Christianity, claiming that doctrines such as original sin, total depravity, divine sovereignty, and substitutionary atonement violated the moral senses. William Ellery Channing, an influential Unitarian, spoke for many in his generation when he described “the shock given to my moral nature” by the teachings of orthodox Christianity.
Though any number of central beliefs and core doctrines were subjected to liberal revision or outright rejection, the doctrine of hell was often the object of greatest protest and denial.
Considering hell and its related doctrines, Congregationalist pastor Washington Gladden declared: “To teach such a doctrine as this about God is to inflict upon religion a terrible injury and to subvert the very foundations of morality.”
≥Though hell had been a fixture of Christian theology since the New Testament, it became an odium theologium—a doctrine considered repugnant by the larger culture and now retained and defended only by those who saw themselves as self-consciously orthodox in theological commitment.
Novelist David Lodge dated the final demise of hell to the decade of the 1960s. “At some point in the nineteen-sixties, Hell disappeared. No one could say for certain when this happened. First it was there, then it wasn’t.” University of Chicago historian Martin Marty saw the transition as simple and, by the time it actually occurred, hardly observed. “Hell disappeared. No one noticed,” he asserted.
The liberal theologians and preachers who so conveniently discarded hell did so without denying that the Bible clearly teaches the doctrine. They simply asserted the higher authority of the culture’s sense of morality. In order to save Christianity from the moral and intellectual damage done by the doctrine, hell simply had to go. Many rejected the doctrine with gusto, claiming the mandate to update the faith in a new intellectual age. Others simply let the doctrine go dormant, never to be mentioned in polite company.
What of today’s evangelicals? Though some lampoon the stereotypical “hell-fire and brimstone” preaching of an older evangelical generation, the fact is that most church members may never have heard a sermon on hell—even in an evangelical congregation. Has hell gone dormant among evangelicals as well?
REVISING HELL: A TEST CASE FOR THE SLIDE INTO LIBERALISM
Interestingly, the doctrine of hell serves very well as a test case for the slide into theological liberalism. The pattern of this slide looks something like this.
First, a doctrine simply falls from mention. Over time, it is simply never discussed or presented from the pulpit. Most congregants do not even miss the mention of the doctrine. Those who do become fewer over time. The doctrine is not so much denied as ignored and kept at a distance. Yes, it is admitted, that doctrine has been believed by Christians, but it is no longer a necessary matter of emphasis.
Second, a doctrine is revised and retained in reduced form. There must have been some good reason that Christians historically believed in hell. Some theologians and pastors will then affirm that there is a core affirmation of morality to be preserved, perhaps something like what C. S. Lewis affirmed as “The Tao.” The doctrine is reduced.
Third, a doctrine is subjected to a form of ridicule. Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral, known for his message of “Possibility Thinking,” once described his motivation for theological reformulation in terms of refocusing theology on “generating trust and positive hope.” His method is to point to salvation and the need “to become positive thinkers.” Positive thinking does not emphasize escape from hell, “whatever that means and wherever that is.”
That statement ridicules hell by dismissing it in terms of “whatever that means and wherever it is.” Just don’t worry about hell, Schuller suggests. Though few evangelicals are likely to join in the same form of ridicule, many will invent softer forms of marginalizing the doctrine.
Fourth, a doctrine is reformulated in order to remove its intellectual and moral offensiveness. Evangelicals have subjected the doctrine of hell to this strategy for many years now. Some deny that hell is everlasting, arguing for a form of annihilationism or conditional immortality. Others will deny hell as a state of actual torment. John Wenham simply states, “Unending torment speaks to me of sadism, not justice.” Some argue that God does not send anyone to hell, and that hell is simply the sum total of human decisions made during earthly lives. God is not really a judge who decides, but a referee who makes certain that rules are followed.
Tulsa pastor Ed Gungor recently wrote that “people are not sent to hell, they go there.” In other words, God just respects human freedom to the degree that he will reluctantly let humans determined to go to hell have their wish.
APOLOGIZING FOR HELL: THE NEW EVANGELICAL EVASION
In recent years, a new pattern of evangelical evasion has surfaced. The Protestant liberals and modernists of the twentieth century simply dismissed the doctrine of hell, having already rejected the truthfulness of Scripture. Thus, they did not enter into elaborate attempts to argue that the Bible did not teach the doctrine—they simply dismissed it.
Though this pattern is found among some who would claim to be evangelicals, this is not the most common evangelical pattern of compromise. A new apologetic move is now evident among some theologians and preachers who do affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and the essential truthfulness of the New Testament doctrine of hell. This new move is more subtle, to be sure. In this move the preacher simply says something like this:
“I regret to tell you that the doctrine of hell is taught in the Bible. I believe it. I believe it because it is revealed in the Bible. It is not up for renegotiation. We just have to receive it and believe it. I do believe it. I wish it could be otherwise but it is not.”
Statements like this reveal a very great deal. The authority of the Bible is clearly affirmed. The speaker affirms what the Bible reveals and rejects accommodation. So far, so good. The problem is in how the affirmation is introduced and explained. In an apologetic gesture, the doctrine is essentially lamented.
What does this say about God? What does this imply about God’s truth? Can a truth clearly revealed in the Bible be anything less than good for us? The Bible presents the knowledge of hell just as it presents the knowledge of sin and judgment: these are things we had better know. God reveals these things to us for our good and for our redemption. In this light, the knowledge of these things is grace to us. Apologizing for a doctrine is tantamount to impugning the character of God.
Do we believe that hell is a part of the perfection of God’s justice? If not, we have far greater theological problems than those localized to hell.
Several years ago, someone wisely suggested that a good many modern Christians wanted to “air condition hell.” The effort continues.
Remember that the liberals and the modernists operated out of an apologetic motivation. They wanted to save Christianity as a relevant message in the modern world and to remove the odious obstacle of what were seen as repugnant and unnecessary doctrines. They wanted to save Christianity from itself.
Today, some in movements such as the emerging church commend the same agenda, and for the same reason. Are we embarrassed by the biblical doctrine of hell?
If so, this generation of evangelicals will face no shortage of embarrassments. The current intellectual context allows virtually no respect for Christian affirmations of the exclusivity of the gospel, the true nature of human sin, the Bible’s teachings regarding human sexuality, and any number of other doctrines revealed in the Bible. The lesson of theological liberalism is clear—embarrassment is the gateway drug for theological accommodation and denial.
Be sure of this: it will not stop with the air conditioning of hell.
金灯台团契分享组
页:
[1]