90后第二代：看上帝如何更新社会(含音频)

Original 北美动态编辑部北美动态

点击关注“北美动态”

——播报基督信仰视角下的北美社会

上帝如何更新社会

文 | 胡晟宇筱益译婷婷校

北美动态专稿

编者按：本文作者胡晟宇（Sheng Hu）4岁半来美国。大学毕业工作几年后，于2015年蒙神的呼召就读三一神学院，获得道学（MDiv）学位；现于土桑华人基督教会英文堂事奉。

本文为作者的“种族问题浅谈”系列文章之四，为筱益弟兄翻译，婷婷姊妹审校，英文原文附后。本文也将在本教会的网页及教会微信公众号“旷野沙漠之州”发表。（参教会网页：http://www.tcccaz.org/race_issue-series_overview/?）本刊允准播发，特此致谢。

目前华裔年轻的第二代对“社会公义”、“种族歧视”等议题，与第一代的父母亲可能持不同观点。作者身为在美国长大的90后青年传道人，力求从圣经角度出发来探讨今天年轻人所遇到的挑战。相信他的文章及证道，会对同代人有启发，有帮助。

欢迎各位读者将此文转发给您的子女或教会中的第二代。

请阅读作者“种族问题浅谈”系列文章：

1.帮助亚裔第二代认清真相(请点击本文左下方的“阅读原文，即可读到这篇文章）

2.华裔90后传道人呼吁：当举目仰望(含音频)

以下音频为胡晟宇传道6月28日证道信息（英文），其中内容比文章更加丰富，敬请转发给读英文的亲友：

以下音频是本文内容，由昊宇弟兄朗读：

上帝如何更新社会

SOCIAL RENEWAL GOD’S WAY

(后附英文原文)

我不希望读者误解我前几次写的，说我不关心我所属的团体的福祉，即使她要被毁了，也任她被毁。我不是这个意思。我想说的是圣经的方式会让社会变得更好，能为所有族群增添属灵的、经济的、教育和物质的福祉。请不要忘记，领导废奴运动的是基督徒，创办这个国家主要学府的是基督徒，建造非洲绝大部分医院的是基督徒，为我们的道德体系注入人权理念的是基督徒；建立孤儿院和社会福利项目的先驱是基督徒；废除奴隶买卖，从而避免了政治革命，为西方社会做出巨大贡献的也是基督徒。

然而，许多基督徒不明白也不想明白，这些是遵行大使命的副产品，却不是目标。打个比方，一位运动员要想拿奖杯，就得冲过终点线。终点线是目标，奖杯是奖品。如果运动员为了拿奖杯而直接冲向奖台，就要被取消参赛资格。赛跑要冲终点跑；赢了自然拿奖；不能冲奖品跑，那样会被取消参赛资格。

我们讨论任何形式的社会改革，都必须认定这个属灵原则。这个世界恰恰相反，是在“改变体制就能改善生活”的框架内运作。这种观念根子上错了，因为它否认了人的罪性。根据圣经原则，社会繁荣的最大障碍不是法律的不完善，而是人的罪性。

就拿以色列说，上帝赐给他们的摩西律法是完美的（诗篇19：7-9）。凡不符合上帝标准的道德行为、宗教规范和公民社会的期待都被禁止了。以色列是个神权国家，她的法律具有属灵和政治双重性，在这两方面都完美无缺。如果你是基督徒，就不能否认这点。可是，一代过去，一代又来，以色列的历史就是一部背道史，道德堕落史和灾难史。为了解决灾难，他们改变政治架构，不行就换人做王，再不行就改朝换代，还不行就换盟友。什么都试了，什么都行不通。律法救不了他们。尽管他们拥有完美的律法，却从来没有过一个公义的社会。追根溯源，问题不在体制，不在机构，而在人的心里。人心里的罪是一切问题的根源。

这就是为什么耶稣要来，还要死在十字架上。无论过去还是将来，上帝一直希望人有一个公平与公义的社会。为了建立一个公平的社会，上帝先要解决人的罪。耶稣来了，在十字架上为我们的罪付上代价。随后圣灵使我们重生成为义人，才能真正的守住上帝的律法。

世俗的社会改革之法是从上到下。世人认为，只要改好法律和结构，社会就欣欣向荣。而圣经改变社会的方法是从下到上。福音改变着一个又一个的个人，再改变家庭，然后是社区、城市、州和国家。不先做好砖头，怎能建好房子？

因此，传福音救人灵魂与社会改革并不抵触。我们传福音，使人重生。越多的灵魂悔改归向基督，得以成圣，越多正面的社会改革就随之而来。但，我们要确保我们追求的是目标，而不是目标所产生的结果。

我们要把不合圣经的思想拿来用吗？

这就引出另一个问题：基督徒要支持或认同反圣经的机构的方法与价值观吗？（因为他们毕竟确定了对的东西。）具体地说，“黑人的命也是命”组织(BLM)。

我的回答：断乎不可！

认同黑人生命宝贵，应该待他们像待所有人一样，予以尊严与尊重，每个基督徒都应该理所当然地认同；这是一码事；而支持BLM这个组织则是另一码事。要是你细察他们的官网，就会发现各种各样的反圣经的观点和信念，是基督徒无法认同的。我举几个例子。

1. 他们要拆除“异性恋思想与观念”。也就是说，他们反对将异性恋的观念与生活方式当正常，也反对把同性恋的生活方式当不正常。

2. 他们要拆毁核心家庭结构。BLM宣称，这是“西方”的社会架构。我不晓得有几个亚洲人、拉丁美洲人或非洲人读了这话会不皱眉头。

3. 更有甚者，也许因为我中国历史读的多了点，怎么觉得BLM的宣言中的遣词造句不太对劲儿。比如，“带来美好生活的斗争”，似乎在暗示政治与种族斗争是历史的必然，是达到社会平衡的必须。还有“同志”一词。开什么玩笑，在美国谁用“同志”这个词？我在美国生活了二十多年，从来没听过谁用这种称呼。听起来像他们直接照抄毛主席语录。

眼下一种常见的观点是，只要某个运动中有基督徒认可的一些观点，我们就可以支持这个运动。比如，BLM支持所有人都有自由与公义的权利。基督徒要不要支持这种价值观？表面上看，要。但是，这个宣告并非自成一体，它出自与基督信仰不相容的Marxism。我们不能单看一种价值观或行为本身，还要弄清它的根源出自何处。

举个圣经上安息日的例子。使徒保罗有时禁止守特殊的日子（歌罗西书2：16），有时又允许（罗马书14：5-6）。为什么前后的做法不同？前者，假教师混进歌罗西教会，教导世俗的理念，与基督教的理念不相容。守特殊的日子，包括安息日，仅是世俗理念的一项具体要求。歌罗西人要是守特殊的日子，等于顺从世俗的理念，否定耶稣的救恩。后者跟罗马基督徒的生活习惯有关。有些基督徒，通常是犹太人，从小到大守惯特殊日子，成了文化习俗，归信耶稣后，仍保留了这些习俗。保罗不让他们把这些习俗当成得救的必须条件强加给外邦人，但允许他们在圣经范围内守安息日。这种情况下，守安息日不是实践世俗的理念，仅仅是个人的喜好，并没有妥协基督徒的世界观。取决于不同的背景，守安息日有完全不同的意义。一种背景下，它没有挑战基督徒的世界观，没问题。另一种背景下，守安息日表达了一种反基督教的世界观，那就不能接受。

同样，论到种族平等，支持“BLM”表面上看是合适的，没的说。但是，如果我们把“BLM”放在它的背景下仔细分析，其意义与我们的理解大相径庭。他们倡导的种族平等并不仅仅是关乎对警察行为的立法改革，后者是一个问题，但不至引发如此的对抗。今天所鼓吹的“平等”是要实践Marxism。如果我们要倡导平等，可以在不同的背景下去做。但若我们要简单地迎合时下世俗的“平等”，那就不仅是支持某个议题，而是在支持它背后的整个理念。

有人可能批评我话说得太重。让我换个方式来说：假设新纳粹党明年开始得势，他们肯定异性婚姻，反对堕胎，支持宗教自由，但也相信所有有肤色的人都是劣等人种，不能有选举权，也不可参政。你要不要支持这种运动？我猜支持这种政党的人不多。其中的一些观点可以支持，但整个运动背后的思想却是反圣经的，因为认同它的部分观点而支持它，等于完全支持它。

预计有人会提出反对意见，我列出一些常见问题，试着解答一下。

1.我们不可能支持一个政党的所有观点。最终，我们必须选择什么对我们最重要，抓住要点，不必顾虑我们不能认同的那些观点。

2.每个运动都有好人坏人，都有好的例子坏的例子，好的议题坏的议题。这是难免的。我们不能单挑坏的例子，以偏概全。否则，我们什么运动都支持不了。

关于第一种反对意见，确实，我们永远不能认同一个运动所代表的一切。事实上，即使在教会里，无论哪个宗派，也很少有人同意那个宗派所有的教导。但是，我们可以把议题划分成主要的，次要的，更次要的。谈起BLM运动，它深层的Marxism绝不是小问题，那是明明摆在眼前却被人们忽略的事实。说到LGBTQ (字母分别代表女同，男同，双性，变性，不确定）和核心家庭的问题，同样的道理。（我们讨论问题，不能抛开背后的深层的理念。）

关于第二种反对意见，确实，任何运动都不能被参与运动的个体所定义。一些暴力抗议者不能代表所有的抗议者，也不能定义整个BLM运动。这话不假！但是，BLM在其官网上明文昭告他们的信仰，这总能代表这个运动吧。BLM领袖公开宣告他们是“受过训练的Marxists”，Marism是此运动的基本理念，这应该完全能说明这个运动的性质。

总之，作为基督徒，我们要不要支持所有人都享有公义权，符合圣经的公义？当然！我们要不要追求并享有我们社区乃至整个国家的繁荣与福祉？当然！我们要不要支持所有肤色的人同享为人的尊严？当然！但是，正确的方式不是参与、支持或随从反圣经的运动。上帝早有方案，来解决人内心的渴求。我们应当专注通过传福音使人的灵魂得重生。如果不是从上帝之井喝这生命之水，我们将发现不仅我们的工作缺乏效率，而且长远看，那些思想会摧毁教会的合一与教义的完整。

SOCIAL RENEWAL GOD’S WAY

By Sheng Hu

I do not wish readers to interpret my writings as saying that I do not care about the welfare of my community at all and if it burns down, then so be it. There is a biblical manner to change society for the better and increase the spiritual, economic, educational, physical welfare of all peoples. After all, let us not forget that Christians were primary leaders in the abolitionist movement. Christians created all the major educational institutions in this country. Christians were responsible for having built almost all of the hospitals in Africa. Christians were responsible for instilling the notion of human rights in our moral system. Christians were pioneers in the establishment of social welfare programs and orphanages. Christians have done such services for society as ending the slave trade to staving off political revolutions.

However, what many Christians do not understand, or refuse to understand, is that these are side-effects of the Great Commission, not the goal of the Great Commission. To give you an analogy: a runner who wants the trophy must run to the finish line. The finish line is the goal, the trophy is the prize. If he were to run to the trophy table where the trophy is in an attempt to obtain the trophy, he would be disqualified from the race. You run to the goal and get the prize as a result. You do not run to the prize, you would get disqualified.

Spiritually, this principle must be recognized in our conversation about social reform of any kind. The world right now operates within the framework of “change the system, and you can make life better.” This is fundamentally flawed because it denies the sinful nature of man. Biblically speaking, the greatest obstacle to societal flourishing is not inadequate laws, but the sinful nature of man.

Take Israel, for example, The Mosaic Law given to Israel was perfect (Ps. 19:7-9). It has proscribed moral behavior, religious norms, and civil-societal expectations. Israel was a theocracy; thus, her laws were spiritual and political. And all of it is perfect – as a Christian, you are not allowed to disagree with this. And yet, Israel’s history is one of apostasy, moral corruption, and calamities – generation after generations. They changed their political structure. They changed dynasties. They changed kings. They changed political allies. And yet they failed over and over again. The law was not able to save them. Even though they had a perfect set of laws, they still never had a just society. The problem was not ultimately the system or the institutions, the problem was the sin in the heart of man.

That’s why Jesus had to come and die on a cross. God had always been, and he always will be, concerned about having a just and righteous society. But in order to establish a just society, he needed to deal with the sin of the people in the society. Jesus came and paid for our sins on the cross. The Holy Spirit then regenerates our hearts so that we can be the kind of righteous people who will actually obey the law.

The worldly way of changing society is top-down. It thinks that by changing laws and structures, society will flourish. The biblical way of changing society is bottom-up. The gospel changes individuals one by one. Then families, then neighborhoods, then cities, states, and nation. You cannot build a house without first making individual bricks.

That is why preaching the gospel and saving souls is not incompatible with social change. We preach the gospel and seek individual regeneration. The more individual souls converted and sanctified, the more positive societal changes will follow as a natural result. But we must make sure that we pursue the goal and not the result.

SHOULD WE APPROPRIATE UNBIBLICAL IDEOLOGIES?

This brings me to another question: should Christians affirm or appropriate antibiblical organizations’ methods and values, even if there are some things that they affirm? In particular, I have in mind the organization Black Lives Matter (BLM).

My answer: most definitely not.

It is one thing to affirm that the lives of black Americans are important and to be treated with dignity and respect, just like everybody else – and all Christians should affirm this; this should be taken for granted. It is altogether another thing to affirm the organization that is BLM. A survey of their official website shows various anti-biblical positions and beliefs that no Christian can affirm. Among these include

1)Their desire to dismantle “heteronormative thinking and beliefs,” which would seem to mean that they object to the notion that heterosexual beliefs and way of life should be considered normal and homosexual lifestyles abnormal.

2)Their desire to dismantle the nuclear family structure. According to BLM, it is a “western” social construct. I don’t know how any person from Asia (or Latin America or Africa) can read this without scratching his or her head.

3)To top that off, maybe I’ve read too much Chinese history, but there are too many phrases and words in their statement that makes me uncomfortable. “Beautiful struggle that is restorative?” That seems to imply that the political/tribal struggle itself is a necessary part of history and social equilibrium. How about the term “comrade?” Seriously, who uses the word “comrade” here in America?! I have literally never heard this term used vernacularly in my 20+ years of being in this country. This sounds like something taken straight out of Mao’s Little Red Book.

Now a common argument is that we can support a movement as long as it has items that we as Christians can agree with. For example, BLM affirms freedom and justice for all. Is that a value to be affirmed as Christians? At face value, yes. However, that statement does not stand by itself. It grows out of a Marxist ideology that is incompatible with Christianity. You cannot analyze a value or an action by itself without identifying where it is growing out of.

Take the biblical example of the sabbath. Paul at times forbade keeping special days (Col. 2:16). At other times, he allowed it (Rom. 14:5-6). What accounts for this divergent practice? In the former case, false teachers had infiltrated the Colossian church and were teaching worldly ideologies. These ideologies were incompatible with Christian ideology. Keeping special days, including Sabbath, merely became one of the applications of this worldly ideology. In submitting to special days, the Colossians would be submitting to the entire false ideology wholesale, which is to deny Christ. However, in the latter case with the Roman Christians, some Christians kept it because they had grown up with it (usually Jews), and thus it was a cultural habit that they kept with them even after they converted to Christianity. While Paul did not allow them to force it upon other Gentile Christians as necessary for salvation, there was a place where they could practice Sabbath-keeping within biblical bounds. Thus, the Sabbath-keeping was not an application of a worldly ideology, but simply one of personal preference that does not compromise or challenge the Christian worldview. Sabbath-keeping takes on different significance depending on the context. In contexts where it does not challenge the Christian worldview, it is fine. But when it is practiced as part of an expression of an anti-Christian worldview, it is unacceptable.

Similarly, when it comes to racial equality, the affirmation that “black lives matter” is, at face value, appropriate and non-negotiable. But when we analyze the context in which it is affirmed, the meaning takes on a whole new dimension. The kind of racial equality being advocated today does not just pertain to legislative reforms on police conduct – which can appropriately stand as an issue in a less polarized conversation. The advocacy of “equality” today is an application of Marxist ideology. If we are to advocate for equality, we may do so in a different context. But if we simply capitulate to the current worldly idea of “equality,” we do not just affirm one specific issue, but the entire ideology behind it.

Some may criticize my analysis as being too heavy. Let me just put it this way: if a Neo-Nazi party started to gain political momentum next year and they affirm heterosexual marriage, they oppose abortion, they support freedom of religion, but they also believe that all people of color are inferior and should not be allowed to vote or hold office. Should you support such a movement? I do not know too many people who would affirm such a party. There are things you can affirm, but the overall movement has an ideology behind it that is anti-biblical, and to support the movement in part will de facto support it as a whole.

I anticipate some familiar objections at this point, so let me try to identify them and then address them.

1)We cannot affirm everything a party stands for, so at the end of the day, we must pick and choose which are important and not worry about the one’s we disagree with.

2)There are good and bad cases/items/individuals in every movement. It is inevitable. Let’s not take bad examples and normalize them. Otherwise, we cannot ever support a movement.

Regarding the first objection, it is true that we will never agree with everything in a movement. In fact, even in the church, rarely do individuals in a denomination agree with everything taught in that denomination. But there are primary, secondary, and tertiary issues. In regard to the BLM movement, the underlying Marxist ideology is not a small issue, it is the elephant in the room. The same can be said regarding the issue of LGBTQ and nuclear family structure.

Regarding the second objection, it is true that any movement cannot be defined by the individuals in the movement. Some violent individual protesters do not define every protester or the BLM movement as a whole. That is true. However, when you have a website with the movement’s official statement of beliefs clearly written out, that is very representative of the movement. When the leaders of BLM publicly affirm that they are “trained Marxists” and that the underlying ideology of the movement is Marxist, that is very representative of the movement.

In conclusion, should we as Christians affirm justice – biblical justice – for all peoples? Yes. Should we rejoice and desire the welfare and flourishing of our own communities and nation as a whole? Yes. Should we affirm the dignity and humanity of people of every color? Yes. But the proper approach is not to be found in participating, supporting, or even “going along with” anti-biblical movements. God already has a plan to address all of these issues that we as humans deeply long for. We need to focus on the regeneration of souls, which comes through the preaching of the gospel. If we instead drink from other wells, not only will we find our efforts ineffective, but in the long run, these ideologies will destroy both the unity and doctrinal integrity of the church.