福音派心智真正的丑闻 （附英文原文）

几年前，我和保罗·海姆（Paul Helm）共同编辑一本有关圣经教义的论文集。在即将截稿之际，有人在某重要福音派神学会议上提到并攻击了这个集子，说它是企图在当代恢复华菲德(B. B. Warfield)的神学教义。没过几天，论文集的一个投稿人就给我发来邮件，表示不想参与这个项目了。我说服了他，让他明白该论文集并非试图捍卫华菲德(B. B. Warfield)的立场，只是要探讨圣经的“可信性”这个观念，涉及华菲德(B. B. Warfield)是因为他的立场与神和圣经都相关。这位绅士终于放心，放弃撤稿。这件事大大加深了我心中长久以来的一点怀疑：很多福音派学者想拥有且享用自己的蛋糕。他们想要敬虔，或是福音的讲台，他们同时也混迹高校，想在大学资深学者当中拥有一席之地。

当然，问题是一个人不能事奉两个主：正如某人（即耶稣，译者注）说过的，他若不是恨这个爱那个，就是忠于这个轻视那个。

奇怪的时代和圆滑的神学

我们生活在一个奇怪的时代。年年都有些会议在某处召开，这些会议都是关于福音派教会之前景的，有至少一个或者是长串的发言者。而这些发言者所代表的神学，可以说，恰恰就是那种令教堂变空，讲道变空，信仰变空的神学。

我见过一个类似会议的宣传单，会议拟在纪念一位福音派思想家和批评家，他生平最厌弃圆滑神学，但会上一位主旨发言人却正是那种圆滑神学的代表人物。真是一个奇怪的时代。

到底为什么？为什么如此怯懦地渴求被更多人接纳？

为什么福音派学者如此盼望属世的接纳？

我想，原因是多层次的。首先，福音派的概念是混乱的，甚至福音派自己都不知道究竟何为福音派。它是一场基于经历（新生）的运动，一种神学立场，还是各种超教会机构？那么，问题来了：第一种观点（经历说）如果不和第二种观点（神学立场说）相联系，就难免沦为主观神秘论。第二种观点在福音派成员中分歧甚大，他们甚至就彼拉多“真理是什么”那一问都无法达成共识。第三种观点（超教会机构说）常常给界定第二种观点带来麻烦；在美国，它已经变得更像是个人崇拜的工具而不是教会事工。埃里克•霍弗(Eric Hoffer)曾经说过，每一项伟大的事业都始于运动，随后变成生意，最终沦为喧嚣的的社交活动。此第三种关于福音派的观点极易成为这种批判的对象。

其次，如果一场运动是糊涂的，它对同道人和局外人的区分定是不尽人意的。而对一场运动的界定，最终也是根据它以何人为伍，又拒斥何人。初期教会史上有个例子，亚流，尽管他把基督看得很高，却也仅止于把基督看为被造而不是全然的神，如此一来，界限就清楚了，他不属于基督徒运动。把福音派身份界定问题和当下迎合众人的文化嗜好结合起来，一场大灾难便酝酿成功。只要说说关于耶稣的好听话，烛光被点亮时由衷地感到温暖，做到对祖母和气——嘿，这就够了——你是基督徒了，还可以说是福音派呢。于是，我们当中有人否定刑罚替代，否认圣经权威，否认基督独一的救赎，否认本乎恩，因着信的称义，否认救恩的独特。没关系：只要强调耶稣是个有趣的好人，讲一些公认的美言佳词，带着投入的激情讲话，那你也可以获取成员资格加入一场演讲会。前文提到的那些会议之所以方兴未艾，就是因为我们总是听信这些花言巧语。

再次，福音派当中似乎盛行着自卑情结。这里指的是，我们不想拒斥任何人，却总是担心被人排斥。的确，对于福音派学者来说，在如今这个难说清楚的世界，能少一事则少一事，就令人尴尬的教义立场保持沉默，都是诱人的处事哲学。因为这样可以换来在外界更多的影响，更大的讲台。这些东西对福音派圣经学者和系统神学家诱惑尤甚。他们所在的大业界往往对超自然力和传统的真理表述难以容忍，可这些恰恰是他们所在的教会群体被建立的基础。我们会自欺地说自己在为主做工，因为我们在某期刊或媒体发表了文章。其实，我们是在助长神学院里的不信文化。并非这些事不好、不值得做——我自己也做这些事——而是我们实在不能把专业上的学术成就和圣徒建造或在神的国得奖赏混为一谈。

的确（如詹姆斯·巴尔James Barr多年前就指出的），福音派学者往往只有在最罔顾福音的时刻才获得学术界的尊敬。学术责任和智识正直是不同的。对于基督徒来说，后者取决于相信神和对神的话语虔诚；在学术界的规则中它常常变味儿了。

我们的学者之所需：野心…此野心非彼野心

最后，我们几乎没有胸怀野心的福音派学者。这么说也许听起来奇怪：得到大学里的终身教职，在某刊物发表文章，在某学术大会上发言，和业内风云人物交谈——这些不是很多学者的野心宏愿吗？然而，真正的“野心”，基督徒“野心”，是源于且朝向教会建造的，是定睛于服事属神的人，而这也是福音派学者显然无为之处。福音派学者在学院派中的影响充其量也是微不足道的，并且，很明显，他们的投稿（贡献）都是和福音无关的。设若将这些时间和精力投入圣徒建造，教会面貌该有多大改观啊！

尖端学问也并非因此成为福音派学者的禁区，信众的即时需要也不是评判学者工作相关与否的标准；只是，所有的神学研究工作都应该以建造圣徒为终极目标，挫败福音的敌人，鼓励弟兄。福音派神学者能获得的最高成就不是精英会的资格身份，而是在通过地方教会参与拓展神国和巩固教会的工作时得到的宝贵知识。

日子到了，福音派中的文化界和学界精英——机构也好，个人也罢——必须做出取舍。我看到危机降临在这两个紧密相联却截然不同的阵营之间。很快，或许已然，相信圣经是神的话语，是圣灵感动人写的，是有权柄的，是全然的真理的观点将会成为学术自杀，至少也是心理疾病的记号。很快，任何反对同性恋的言论都将被视作和“白人至上论”或虐待儿童一样的伦理不韪。到时候，选择会很清楚。选择基督阵线的会显而易见，试图事奉正统教会和学术两个主人的，终将发现任何智力柔术都无法拯救他们。被扯上和华菲德(B. B. Warfield)有关联将是最不足为虑的事了。

数年前，马可·诺尔（Mark Noll）写过一本书：《福音派心智的丑闻》（The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind）。在书中，他认为，福音派心智的丑闻是福音派根本没有心智可言。就福音派学者和学术而言，我不同意他的观点：真正的丑闻并不是没有心智可言，而是现如今几乎没有福音了。

作者 Carl Trueman

卡尔•楚曼，是威斯敏斯特神学院历史系教授，宾夕法尼亚州安布勒柱石长老会的牧师。

【英文原文】

The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

A few years ago I edited a volume of essays on the doctrine of Scripture with Paul Helm. Just before the deadline for submissions, the project was “named and shamed” by a speaker at an influential evangelical theological conference as being a modern attempt to reaffirm B. B. Warfield’s doctrine of Scripture. Within days, one of the contributors emailed me, concerned that his name was going to be associated with such a project. I was able to reassure him that the project was not intended as a defense of Warfield’s position but as an exploration of the notion of trustworthiness as it connects both to God and to his Word. The gentleman was reassured and remained on board, but the incident simply served to confirm in my mind what I had long suspected: too many evangelical academics want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the piety, and perhaps the platform, which evangelicalism provides them, but they also want to be accepted by those who hang around the senior common room in the university.

The problem, of course, is that one cannot serve two masters: as someone once said, one ends up hating one and loving the other, or being devoted to one and despising the other.

STRANGE TIMES AND SLIPPERY THEOLOGY

We live in strange times. Hardly a year goes by without some conference on the future of the evangelical church somewhere having at least one speaker, or sometimes even a slate of speakers, who arguably represent precisely the kind of theology that has emptied pews, castrated preaching, and disemboweled commitment to the gospel.

I saw a flyer for just such a conference recently, honoring a great evangelical thinker and critic, where one of the keynote speakers represented precisely the kind of slippery theology which the honoree had devoted his life to debunking. Strange times, indeed.

What is going on? Why this craven need for acceptability by the wider world?

WHY DO EVANGELICAL ACADEMICS CRAVE WORLDLY ACCEPTANCE?

I suspect there are a number of reasons for this problem. First, the context of evangelicalism lends itself to just such confusion. Evangelicalism really does not understand what it is. Is it a movement based on an experience (the new birth), or on theological commitments, or on parachurch institutions? Yet here’s the rub: The first (experience) will degenerate into mere subjective mysticism if not connected to the second (theological commitments). The second is now highly disputed among evangelicals, who cannot even agree on the answer to Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” And the third (parachurch institutions) too often either forms part of the problem of defining the second, or, in the USA in particular, becomes less a ministry and more a vehicle for a cult of personality, vulnerable to the kind of criticism made by Eric Hoffer, who said that every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and ends up as a racket. Evangelicalism is a sorry mess, neither pure nor simple.

Second, if a movement does not understand what it is, then it cannot make any really satisfactory determination on who belongs and who does not. The boundaries of a movement are ultimately revealed by the person who comes closest to belonging but who nonetheless does not. Arius is a good early church example. As high and exalted as was his view of Christ, he could still only regard Christ as a creature and not fully God. The boundary was drawn and he was outside of it. Combine the problems of defining evangelical identity with the current cultural penchant for not excluding anybody and you have a heady recipe for total disaster. Say nice things about Jesus, have a warm feeling in your heart when somebody lights a candle, and be kind to your grandmother and—hey presto!—you belong; you too can be an evangelical. Thus we have deniers of penal substitution, of any meaningful notion of biblical authority, of the uniqueness of Christ for salvation, of justification by grace through faith, of the particularity of salvation. No matter: just stress that Jesus was a jolly good bloke, mouth a few orthodox sounding phrases, speak with a bit of engaging passion, and you too can get a membership pass and a speaking gig. And, if the conferences I mentioned above are anything to go by, we fall for such ruses every time.

Third, there would seem to be a pervasive evangelical inferiority complex. This means that, while we do not wish to exclude anybody, we dread being excluded ourselves. Indeed, for the evangelical academic, in a world so ill-defined, it is always tempting to cut just a few more corners, or keep shtum on just a couple of rather embarrassing doctrinal commitments, in order to have just that little bit more influence, that slightly bigger platform, in the outside world. This is particularly the temptation of evangelical biblical scholars and systematicians whose wider guilds are so utterly unsympathetic to the kind of supernaturalism and old-fashioned truth claims upon which their church constituencies are largely built. In so doing, we kid ourselves that we are doing the Lord’s work, that, somehow, because we have articles published in this journal or by that press, we are really making real headway into the unbelieving culture of the theological academy. Not that these things are not good and worthy—I do such things myself—but we must be careful that we do not confuse professional academic achievement with building up the saints or scoring a point for the kingdom.

It remains true (as James Barr pointed out years ago) that evangelical academics are generally respected in the academy only at precisely those points where they are least evangelical. There is a difference between academic or scholarly respectability and intellectual integrity. For a Christian, the latter depends upon the approval of God and is rooted in fidelity to his revealed Word; it does not always mean the same thing as playing by the rules of scholarly guild.

WHAT OUR ACADEMICS NEED: AMBITION…BUT NOT THAT KIND

Finally, too few evangelical academics seem to have much ambition. Perhaps this sounds strange: the desire to hold a tenured university position, to publish with certain presses, to speak at certain scholarly conferences, to be in conversation with the movers and shakers of the guild—these seem like ambitions that are all too common. Yet true ambition, true Christian ambition, is surely based in and directed towards the upbuilding of the church, towards serving the people of God, and this is where evangelical academics often fail so signally. The impact evangelical scholars have had on the academy is, by and large, paltry, and often (as noted) confined to those areas where their contributions have been negligibly evangelical. Had the same time and energy been devoted to the building up of the saints, imagine how the church might have been transformed.

This is not to say that high-powered scholarship should be off-limits, nor that the immediate needs of the man or woman in the pew should provide the criteria by which relevance is judged; but it is to say that all theological scholarship should be done with the ultimate goal of building up the saints, confounding the opponents of the gospel, and encouraging the brethren. The highest achievement any evangelical theological scholar can attain is not membership of some elite guild but the knowledge that he or she has done work that strengthened the church and extended the kingdom of God through the local church.

The day is coming when the cultural intellectual elites of evangelicalism—the institutions and the individuals—will face a tough decision. I see the crisis coming on two separate but intimately connected fronts. The day is coming, and perhaps has already come, when, first, to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired, authoritative, and utterly truthful, will be seen as a sign at best of intellectual suicide, at worst of mental illness; and, second, to articulate any form of opposition to homosexual practice will be seen as the moral equivalent of advocating white supremacy or child abuse. In such times, the choice will be clear, those who hold the Christian line will be obvious, and those who have spent their lives trying to serve both orthodoxy and the academy will find that no amount of intellectual contortionism will save them. Being associated with B. B. Warfield will be the least of their worries.

Years ago, Mark Noll wrote a book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, in which he argued that the scandal was that there was no such thing. When it comes to evangelical scholars and scholarship, I disagree: the scandal is not that there is no mind; it is that these days there is precious little evangel.

延伸阅读（点击即可阅读）

健康教会九标志

长按二维码关注

---

许可声明：你可以各种形式使用、复制与分发本文，但不允许修改文中内容（更正翻译错误除外），不允许收取超过复制成本的费用，并且分发不得超过1000个拷贝。如果要在网络或邮件中转贴，请务必保留译文链接。任何例外需征求九标志中文事工的许可。请在分发时保留本许可声明和以下信息：9Marks网址：http://cn.9marks.org，电子邮件地址：[e-mail]

▼▼更多阅读