作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

前言

「对我来说，有关奥迹神学的最初意念，是我在举行和庆祝礼仪的时候渐渐悟出来的，生命只能源于生命，又当我研究圣犹斯定(St. Justin) 时更加肯定这个发现(...) 真实神圣的泉源，就是礼仪庆典本身，(...) 真正智慧的最终源头并非只是学术研究，而是在奥迹的氛围里活生生地投入基督生命的时辰。」?这是礼仪运动期间一位风云人物贾西尔(Odo Casel + 1948) 的自白，(1) 礼仪影响了他的研究，成为他治学的泉源，拓展了他神学的领域。

圣事是一个礼仪行动，具有仪式、标记、言语、行动敬礼天主的庆典，一份与神密切的交往和活生生的经验，它像音乐一般，有人弹唱它时就存在，并使人有特别的感受，但事前它需要人去准备，事后又导人进入新的境界、新的展望、新的生活。上世纪的礼仪运动正是朝这方向去更新教会的团体，使礼仪与生活融合一起，而这更新的运动本身既能引发很多思潮的涌现，同时也需要有活泼和创新的神学去延续，为给予深入的动机和远大的前景。事实上，在礼仪运动期间，所带动出来的圣事神学，直至今日非常丰富，(2) 本文主旨有两个，其一是尝试对整个礼仪运动的过程和同期的神学思想作概括的描写，其二是介绍一些主要的书目，以供参考。

1. 礼仪运动

《礼仪宪章》(sacrosanctum concilium = SC) 说明：「促进并革新礼仪的努力，理应视为天主上智为我们这时代安排的记号，好像是圣神在自己教会内经过一样」(SC43)，其实这句话源于教宗庇护十二世1956年的话，他当时在首届国际牧民礼仪大会中向与会者致词：「礼仪运动是(…) 天主上智为我们这时代安排的记号，好像是圣神在自己教会内经过一样。」(3) 既然教会的训导将「礼仪运动」视为这时代的事件，我们就尝试找出它的来龙去脉。

1.1 礼仪运动的前奏

学者引用「礼仪运动」一词表达近代教会往十九世纪末期礼仪更新的现象，可是要厘定何时开始这现象却不容易。(4)

暂且撇开上主安排的一面不谈，礼仪运动也像其他人类精神运动一般，是从一些文化思潮涌现出来的。

首先我们要谈脱利腾大公会议之后，教会在神学方面推崇经院学派(Scholasticism) 所提出的「形质论」(matter-form theory) 去诠释圣事，在牧民方面很看重圣事的「事效性」(Ex opere operate)，只要有「合法」和「有效」的礼仪，自然就会产生无形的恩宠，正确的经文(form) 和指定的标记及仪式(matter) 成为中心，而疏忽了信友的参与，故此举行圣事变得相当物质化和具有魔术的意味，再加上巴洛克(Baroque) 文化的影响，使外在的礼仪变得十分铺张，神职人员穿着华美的礼服，在圣所中，穿来插去，四周的陈设、画像、灯火更使人有目不暇给之感。

新兴的启蒙运动(Enlightenment) 受到新哲学思维的洗炼，经历过一班哲人笛卡儿、休谟、康德等人的带动，开始打击传统的形上学，在认知论方面又失去往日在信仰和理智之间一贯的平衡，因而推崇人的理性、科学方法，有关人生、群居、伦理、艺术和宗教等都纳入杜会观点而论，对教会提出的传统答案不再感兴趣，这种潮流自然令教会中一些当权人士感到不安，甚至导致他们过份敏感，而变得反为更保守。

不过在教会中，也有一些人感到礼仪太拘泥于外表和法定的形式，便急于寻求其他的出路去改革，启蒙运动却帮助他们解除了思想的桎桔，而采取较开明的态度，他们对墨守成规和华而不实的礼仪都会抱有不同的态度，由存疑到激烈的反感都有。

当时教会也兴起一些牧者，特别关心信友在礼仪上的参与，在这方面重要的贡献计有：毕斯多亚议会(Synod of Pistoia 1786)；穆拿多利(L. A. Muratori +1750)；西肋(J. M. Sailer +1832) 等。他们将礼仪的问题从教会的边缘再带回核心，礼仪与教会自身是分不开的事实，建立教会，就不能疏忽大力改善天主子民的礼仪生活，使他们既能意识，又能实践礼仪的内在意义。

这种牧民的挂虑和启蒙运动的思想开放，正好为十九世纪的神学带来积极的一面，他们在理论力面积极地重申正统的信仰，在牧民上复兴原有教会的面目，重要的影响有来自承于西肋(J. M. Sailer) 路线的学者(如：J. B. Hirscher +1865, M. A. Nickel +1869)，在德国杜平根大学(Tubinger University) 于1817年创立的天主教神学系，及其中一些重要的学者(如：J. A. Mohler +1838, F. A. Staudenmaier +1850等)，和英国的牛津运动(Oxford Movement 1833-45) 及其领导人(如：J. Keble, E. B. Pusey, J. H. Newman等)，他们已能在整个文化气候中，和藉历史的追溯，体会到礼仪更深层的内涵，及其对教会的关系。(5)

1.2 本笃会隐修院

与此同时，在本笃会的寺院中，又兴起一班学者，直接触发了礼仪运动。先是由法国的梭冷团体(Solesmes) 开始，由当时的院长祁朗佑(Dom Gueranger +1875) 领导，一直延展到德国的波隆(Beuron) 和比利时的玛力素(Maredsous) 和蒙凯撒(Mont-Cesar)。祁氏的抱负是要复兴本笃会的隐修精神，同时深感礼仪该是修士们神修的中心和泉源，可是当时的礼仪风气都很表面化，而追求内在心灵经验的人便诉诸热心神工：朝拜圣体、退省、默想等，祁氏便追本溯源，寻根究底地找出礼仪原有的精神。他是一个多产作家，笔调流鸭，大受欢迎，重要的着作有《礼仪制度》(Institutions Liturgiques, 3 vols., 1840-51) 和《礼仪年》(L' Annee Liturgique, 9 vols., 1841-66)，虽然书中的内容并非无懈可击，但却开宗明义地说出这些作品是要引起有心人士的注意，减少礼仪上的陋习，和重返早期原有的礼仪精神。这是一个有系统和长线的计划，重回基督徒神修、礼仪的泉源。(6)

在波隆(Beuron) 的隐修院，在1863年创院时，两位创院的胡尔德兄弟(Mauro和Placido Wolter)，他们受到祁氏的影响，将礼仪视为隐修生活的中心，这就促使毛禄．胡尔德专注他的礼仪着作。(7)

在比利时的蒙凯撒(Mont-Cesar)，又出现了另一位礼仪运动的主将玻度恩(Dom Lambert Beauduin)，他在未进隐修院前，曾受教宗良十三委派为工人的指导司铎，入修院后极力主张礼仪要走牧民的路线，1909年九月廿三日在玛林(Malines) 召开的全国天主教行动大会中，他说了句颇具历史性的话：「礼仪必须深入民间」(II faudrait democratiser la liturgie)，不少的人认为这次大会是礼仪运动的发韧之始。(8)

玻氏既以牧民为主，就不着眼过去，而致力将过往活出来的礼仪精神，重新发挥，建立今日的教会。不久蒙凯撒和玛力苏等地就成为推广礼仪的中心。(9)

在比利时，出版了不少有关礼仪的重要刊物，重辑过往的典籍，有系统地收集以前的手抄本，并加以诠释，这些对礼仪圣事神学都有重大的贡献。由于大部份的书已不用拉丁文而是用通行的法语写的，故此有相当普及的影响力。(10)

德国的礼仪复兴也是源于本笃会隐修的环境，不过他们有机会接触到大学的知识分子和政界人物，最主要的里仪运动中心是玛利亚拉克(Maria-Laach)，当时的院长是希维坚(I. Herwegen)，联合莫尔伯(K. Mohlberg) 和贾西尔(O. Casel) 两位会士，卦丁尼神父(R. Guardini) 及两位教授多尔格(Fr. J. Dolger) 和布士特(A. Baumstark) 等人，专注礼仪学术的工作，却不乏牧民的意识。(11)

除了在隐修院外，还有其他的公教团体推动礼仪。信友在这些团体中，已有机会积极地参加所谓「团体弥撤」(Gemein-schaftsmesse)，对礼仪有更进一步的明瞭和欣赏。(12)

在奥国有奥思定会的会士柏殊(Pius Parsch 1884-1954)，他也受到贾西尔(Casel) 的礼仪神学影响，决心专注于「大众化的礼仪」，他的着作和所主编的杂志，大部份都是阐释一年中的弥撒、日课经和礼仪等季节的意义，企图将教会祭礼的行动与平信徒参与的层面拉近。(13)

意大利的礼仪运动在当年也有重要的贡献，1914年在斐纳皮亚(Finalpia) 的本笃会修院创办了《礼仪杂志》(Rivista Liturgica)，即时受到好几位主教的欢迎和支持，杂志的好几位主编也协助出版了为教友适用的礼仪书。(14) 当时也有些神父专门以礼仪培育为宗徒工作的，在热那亚的莫利亚(Moglia di Genova) 为青少年唐努路(Tonolo) 专注堂区的礼仪，慈幼会会士高鲁素(Grosso) 和威士玛拉(Vismara) 受到梭冷团体的影响，在慈幼会的堂区、院校大力推行礼仪运动；在学术研究方面有理卡笛(Righetti)。(15) 在罗马有斐纳皮亚(Finalpia) 所支持的圣安瑟谟宗座礼仪学院，其中所出版的学术书刊(Studia Anselmiana) 及礼仪杂志(Ephemerides Liturgicae) 对学术贡献尤深。

西班牙的礼仪运动也是源于本笃会的蒙杜拉(Montserrat)。(16)

美国方面有本笃会圣若望的修院(St. John, Collegivile－Minesota) 也不甘后人、相继致力推广礼仪运动。(17)

1.3 教会官方的训导

教宗庇护十世(1903-1914) 上任后，便顺着礼仪运动发展的气势，正式从事重要的改革，并厘订方针。他的基本信念是：要建立真正基督徒的精神，其首要和不可或缺的泉源就是积极参与神圣的奥迹和教会公共和隆重的祈祷。他提出的文件有：

□1903年《关注的事件中》(Tra le sollecitudini) 论述礼仪音乐。

□1905年《脱利腾大公会议》(Sacra Tridentina Synodus) 鼓励信友参与弥撤时去勤领圣体。

□1910年《何其独特》(Quam Singulari) 劝勉小孩子到了运用理智的年龄初领圣体。

□在每日礼赞方面，教宗也特别推崇圣咏的祈祷，但同时体会牧者的工作日益繁重，订立新的规矩，减少诵念的圣咏篇数，两年后，又着手改革日课经，厘订一年的瞻礼，经考证后，拣选圣经、教父和圣师的诵读，和重修圣人传记。于是在1911年颁布《圣神默启》(Divino Afflatu) 宗座谕令及《两年前》(Abhinc duos annos) 手谕，都是为改革日课经而颁布的。

教宗庇护十二世(1939-1958) 也大力支持礼仪运动，并相当直接和全面地检讨一些礼仪上的争论，在礼仪神学的反省上建立了新的里程碑，直接影响梵二的改革。

□1943年，在其《奥体》(Mystici Corporis) 通论中，教宗肯定了礼仪运动，并说明礼仪该配合对基督和教会的反省。

□同年的《圣神默感》(Divino Afflante Spiritu) 提到礼仪与圣言密切的关系。

□1945年颁布《每天的祷告》(In cotidianis precibus) 手谕，有关日课经。

□1946年成立「礼仪改革小组」革新礼仪年历和每日礼赞，但已觉察到有作全面修改的需要。

□1947年颁布《天人中保》(Mediator Dei) 通谕，全面性地提及礼仪的更新。这文件一方面推扬礼仪运动，并承认其影响力，尤其在欧洲的走势，法国和德国的贡文献，另一方面也指出和纠正一些极端的观点，在神学方面打好了基础。

随着《天人中保》之后，德国几个主要礼仪活动中心联结起来，创立了在「礼仪学院」(Liturgisches Institut)，并在1950年举行了德国的礼仪大会，在意大利的《礼仪杂志》也组织了一个「礼仪行动中心」(CAL : Centro Azione Liturgica)，并得到主教们的支持，在1949年一连串的研讨周(Settimane liturgiche nazionali)，回应《天人中保》的指示；1943年法国已有「礼仪牧民中心」(CPL : Centre de Pastorale Liturgique)，在那里云集了不少突出的人物，其后在1945年创立《天主庭院》(La Maison-Dieu) 的杂志，和其他系列的书：Lex Orandi, le Sessioni CPL和le Settimane nazionali Versailles，又在里昂举行首届里仪大会(1947)，主要是促使欧洲的礼仪学家能彼此沟通。与此同时，有些地方也渐渐尝试将地方用语或歌曲引进礼仪之中。虽然欧洲正经历两次大战的余波，但仍能因着礼仪的缘故，联合起来，甚至在1956年意国亚西西(Assisi) 地方举行了首届国际礼仪牧民大会。

与此同时，教廷也渐渐作了开放的尝试，如：1952年有新的复活守夜礼，1955年使用圣周的新礼规，1955年颁布《圣乐》(Musicae Sacrae Disciplina) 通谕，引起人们注意礼仪音乐在历史沿革和神学上的问题。不过，在梵二前最重要的一步，就是教宗若望廿三所颁布的「新礼典」(Novum Codex Rubricarum) 手谕，将一直以来的重要问题交给大公会议去处理。(18)

1.4 梵二的礼仪改革

《礼仪宪章》的出现是礼仪运动其中的一个成果，同时又意味着有系统的改革。在梵二文件中的初稿中最为完备的就是《礼仪宪章》，于1959年开始谘询，再起草及教长们的讨论，及至1963年十二月四日才正式批准，最后的总投票是在2151票中以2147票赞成通过，宪章并没有定出繁琐的礼规，但却给予神学的基础和礼仪改革原则，当然这文件会影响后期文件的路向和神学，这意味着整个教会的新春将会在祭献天主的大礼中诞生。

文件中的神学特色是着重生活与棺仪的关系、基督的临在、救世工程、信友的主动参与等等，而且在整顿礼仪方面(De sacrae instauratione liturgiae)，也给予地方教会相当的权力作适应(aptatio)，这意味着福音传播本位化的开始(Inculturation)。

有关圣事神学方面，梵二着重从礼仪生活范畴去探讨圣事，同时透过旧约的选民经验去体会基督的逾越奥迹，从这奥迹教会的圣事得以诞生，(19) 因此，基督经常联系着教会。(20) 基督在礼仪中有不同的临在，透过标记，使人得到圣化，(21) 教会作为主奥妙的肢体，经常呼求基督，并通过祂向天父呈奉敬礼。(22) 为此，礼仪是教会行动的顶峰，同时也是一切教会力量的泉源。(23) 圣事的目的是为圣化人类、建设基督的身体、以及向天主呈奉敬礼。(24) 教会是一个司祭的团体，并因着圣事和德行实践出来。(25) 圣事因着外在的标记要求人以信德的眼光去领受，(26) 不过这些标记亦能产生培育滋养的功效，(27) 同时又具有先知性的功能，预示将来的新天新地。(28) 圣事与圣仪有别，后者是教会模仿圣事而设立的标记，使人准备承受圣事的特效。(29)

为更能落实推行礼仪改革，教宗保禄六世在1964年颁发《神圣礼仪》(sacram liturgiam)手谕，成立「礼仪宪章执行委员会」(consilium ad exsequendam constitutionem de sacra liturgia)，委员会一方面关注牧民的需要，但同时也抱着相当客观、严谨的学术态度工作，他们创办了一份杂志《Notitia》，发表他们工作、活动的消息或刊登一些礼仪稿件，直至今日，仍然非常有用。1969年教廷将礼仪圣部分为两部份，并与圣人列品部平排设立圣礼部，1975年圣礼和圣事合为一部。自1968年至1973年全面修订圣事礼典(ordo)，每日礼赞及礼仪年历。

完成了新礼仪书的出版，并不表示了结礼仪的改革，反而开了新的领域，就是使礼仪「生活化」的问题：不是将人生局限于礼仪，而是以礼仪提升人生，在今后的牧民措施中，就须更注意礼仪植根本地文化的工作，要「本位化」就需要更多神学理论的支持。(30)。

1.这是 O. Casel致函其同会兄弟E.Dekkers中的话，引用A.HOUSSIAU, La Redecouverte de la liturgie par la theologie sacramentaire (1950-1980), in La Maison-Dieu (=MD) n149(1982) 27-55, 这里27。

2.参阅最近廿年来的探讨：(按年份排列)　

E.RUFFINI, I grandi temi della teologia contemporanea dei Sacramenti, in Rivista Liturgica (=RL) 54(1967) 39-50;　

J-M.R.TILLARD, Le nuove prospettive della teologia sacra mentaria, in Sacra Doctrina 45(1967) 37-58;　

Y.CONGAR, L'idea di sacramenti maggiori o principali, in Concilium 1(1968) 613-717;　

E.SCHILLEBEECKX－B.WILLEMS, La teologia dei sacramenti oggi, in Concilium 1(1968) 13-15;　

K.RAHNER, Was ist ein Sakrament?, in Stimmen der Zeit n188(1971) 16-25;　

M.NICOLAU, Teologia del segno sacramentale, Roma 1971;　

P.M.GY, Problemes de theologie sacramentaire, in MD n110(1972) 124-142;　

D.GRASSO, La teologia dei sacramenti, in Evangelizzazione e sacramenti, Torino 1972, 35-59;　

H.DENIS, Les sacrements ont-ils un avenir?, Paris 1972;　

J.ESPETA, Para una renovacion de la teologia sacramental, in Ciencia tomista 63(1972) 217-257;　

C.TRAETS, Orientations pour une theologie des sacrements, in Questiones Liturgiques 53(1972) 97-118;　

C.E.O'NEILL. I sacramenti, in Bilancio della teologia del XX secolo. III, Roma 1972, 263-313;　

G.COLOMBO, Dove va la teologia sacramentaria?, in Scuola Cattolica 102(1974) 673-717;　

J-C. DIDIER, Principes generaux de theologie sacramentaire a la limiere du temps present, in Esprit et vie 84 (1974) 611-615;　

C. VAGAGGINI, Fede e sacramenti oggi, in Annunzio della parola e liturgia, Roma 1974, 68-102;　

F. MONFORT, Les sacrements, pour quoi faire? Paris 1975;　

G. LUKKEN, La liturgie comme lieu theologique irremplacable. Methodes d'analyse et de verification theologiques, in Questiones Liturgiques 59 (1978) 193-212;　

M. TAYLOR (ed.), The Sacraments: Readings in Contemporary Sacramental Theology, New York 1981;　

L. della TORRE, Un cammino verso la comprensione dei sacramenti, in Rivista di pastorale liturgica 5 (1985) 3-12;　

S. MARSILI, Punti di teologia sacramentiaria, in I segni del mistero di Cristo. Teologia liturgica dei sacramenti = Bibliiotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae : Subsidia 42, Roma 1987, 17-25; 作者于1983年过世，这是遗作。

A. SCHILSON, Erneuerung der Sakramententheologie im 20. Jahrundert, in Liturisches Jahrbuch 37 (1987) 18-41;　

D. SARTORE, Alcuni recenti tratti di sacramentaria fondamentale, in RL 75 (1988) 321-339;　

A. M. TRIACCA, Per una trattazione dei sacramenti in prospettiva liturgica, in RL 75 (1988) 32-339.　

一些最近总论圣事的神学书：(按作者姓氏字母排列)　

AA. VV., LA Liturgia, i sacramenti : teologia e storia della celebrazione = Anamneses. Introduzione storico-teologica alla liturgia 3/1, Roma 1986 ;　

W. BAUSCH, A New Look at the Sacraments, New York 1983 ;　

L-M. CHAUVET, Symbole et sacrement. Une relecture sacramentelle de l'existence chretienne = Cogitatio fidei 144, Paris 1987 ;　

B. COOKE, Sacraments and Sacramentality, New York 1983 ;　

J. FINKENZELLER, Die Lehr von den Sakeamenten im allegemeinen = Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte IV / 1-2, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1980-81 ;

J. MARTOS, Doors to the Sacred, New York 1982 ; ID., The Catholic Sacraments, Wilmington 1982 ;　

K. B. OSBORNE., Sacramental Thelolgy. A General Introduction, New York 1988 ;　

L. OTT, Fundamentals of the Catholic Dogma, English trans. By LYNCH P., Dublin 1966, 325-349 Chinese translation is available;　

K. RAHNER, Foundations of Christian Faith. An introduction to the Idea of Christianity. English trans. By DYCH W. V., London 1978, 402-430 ;　

C. ROCCHETTA, Sacramentum fondamentale. Dal ''Mysterion'' al ''Sacramentum'' = Corso di Teologia Sistematica 8, Bologna 1989.　

J. SARAIVA MARTINS, The Sacraments of the New Alliance = Subsidia Urbaniana 22, Roma 1988 ;　

J. SCHANZ, Introduction to the Sacraments, New York 1983 ;　

E. SCHILLEBEECKX, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, New York 1963 ;　

M. SCHMAUS, Dogma 5 : The Church as Sacrament, London 1975, 3-42.　

Th. SCHNEIDER, Segni della vicinanza di Dio. Compendio di teologia dei sacramenti, Brescia 1983 ;　

L. SEGUNDO, The Sacraments Today, New York 1974 ;　

H. VORGRIMLER, Sakramenten Theologie = Leitfaden Theologie 17, Dusseldorf 1987 ;　

R. VAILLANCOURT, Toward a Renewal of Sacramental Theology, Collegeville 1976.　

中文方面的有：

赵一舟，《我们的圣事》，台北　1980;

刘赛眉，《圣事神学》，台北　1977；

罗国辉，《礼者，履也》，台北　1988，95－164。

3.参阅La Liturgia. Insegnamenti Pontifici (Rome 1962).

4.「礼仪运动」一词首先出现在德国A. SCHOTT主编的Vesperale 1894，是用来描写当时教会内的一个现象，后来才被视为时代征兆，有关的资料，请参阅：

B. BOTTE, Le mouvement liturgique. Temoignages et souvenirs, Louvain-Paris 1973 ;

A. FAVALE, Abbozzo storico del movimento liturgico, in AA. VV., La costituzione sulla sacra liturgia, Torino 1968, 内有很丰富的参考书目。

A. L. MAYER, Die Liturgie in der europaischen Geistesgeschichte, Darmstadt 1971 ;

B. NEUNHEUSER, Movimento Liturgico, in Nuovo Dizionario di Liturgia (= NDL), Roma 1984 904-918 ;

O. ROUSSEAU, Storia del movimento litergico, Roma 1961 ; ID., I Movimento liturgico da Dom Gueranger a Pio XII, in A. G. MARTIMORT (ed.), La Chiesa in preghiera, Roma 1966, 59-66.

吴新豪(编译)，《天主教礼仪发展吏》，香港　1983，34－63。

5.参阅B. NEUNHEUSER, Movimento Liturgico, in NDL 904-908.

6.参阅P. GUERANGER, Institutions liturgiques, I, Le Mans 1840, xii-xxi.

7.参阅M. WOLTER, Praecipua ordinis monastici elementa, Bruges 1880 ;　

ID., Psallite sapienter, 5 vols, Freiburg 1871-1890 ;

8.参阅 B. FISHER, Das《Mechelner Ereignis》vom 23 Sept. 1909. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der liturgischen Bewegung, in Liturgisches Jahrbuch 9 (1959) 202-214.

9.那里的学术工作有：1912年举办《礼仪研习周及讲座》(Semaines et conferences liturgiques), 每年的课程都会印发出来，自1913年则以另一名称出版：Cours et conferences des semaines liurgiques, Mont-Cesar, Louvain；此外尚有其他专刊：《礼仪生活》La Vie liturgique 1909-1913；在1924-1939以同一名称成为不同教区的刊物；《礼仪问题》Les Questions liturgiques 1910-1918；其后易名为《礼仪问题与本堂》Questions liturgiques et paroissiales (1919-1969)，然后又在1970年转回《礼仪问题》Questions liturgiques。1911-1914 出版《礼仪与本笃会杂志》Revue liturgique et benedictine, Maredsous, Namur；其后易名为《礼仪与隐修会杂志》Revue liturgique et mnoastique, 1919-1939。自1919-1945有《礼仪与本堂通讯》Bulletin paroissial liturgique, 1946年易 名为《本堂与礼仪》Paroisse et liturgie，自1919年，为操法兰达语之比国人有Tijdschrift voor Liturgie (Abbey of Affligem)。

10.例如

F. CABROL-H. LECLERCQ, Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie, 15 vols, Paris 1907-1953 ; IIDEM, Monumenta ecclesiae liturgica, 6 vols, Paris 1900-13 ;　

CAGIN为教廷写了如何翻译古时的音乐礼仪典籍(Paleologie musica1e) 并重辑了台阶咏 (Graduale Romanum) 及每日礼赞的对经(Antiphonarium romanum) ;　

LEROQUAIS, Les sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits, 4 vols, Paris 1924:　

ID., Les breviaires manuscrits, 5 vols, Paris 1934 ;　

ID., Les pontificaux manuscrits, 4 vols, Paris 1937 ;　

ID., Les psautiers manuscrits latins, 2 vols, Macon 1940-41;　

DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chretien. Etude sur la Liturgie latine want Charlemagne, Paris 1889 (1925) ;　

BATIFFOL, Lecon sur la Messe, Paris 1916 (1920) ;　

ID., Histoire du breviaire romain, Paris 1893 (1911) ;　

F.CABROL, Le livre de la priere antique, Paris 1900 ;　

ID., La messe en Occident, Paris 1932 ;　

R.AIGRAIN, Liturgia, encyclopedie des connaissances liturgiques, Paris 1931.

11.他们的着作都有很大的推动力： K.MOHLBERG, Die Augfaben der liturgischen Forschung in Deutschland. Vorschlage und Anregungen, in Theologique Revue 17(1918) 145-151 ; 由I.HERWEGEN主编的《祈祷的教会》(Ecclesia oraas)系列，第一本是R. GUARDINI, Vom Geist der Liturgie，他的文笔虽仍有相当浓厚的神学色彩，却能直接落实到牧民的层面去，这种做法成为德国礼仪运动的模式。K.MOHLBERG和A.RUCKER也合作主编《礼仪历史的资料》(Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen)系列，专门刊印过往礼仪的资料，第一本是K.MOHLBERG, Das frankische Sacramentarium Gelasianum 1918。此外还有K. MOHLBERG和Fr J. DOLGER合编的《礼仪历史的探索》(Litrugiegeschichtliche Forschungen)系列，第一本有关其目标及工作K.MOHLBERG, Ziele und Aufgaben der liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 1919, 这两套系列到1939年共出了31本，后来由O.HEIMING主编，并将两系列合而为一《礼仪学上的资料和探索》(Litrugiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen)，到1973共辑58本。1921年O.CASEL与A.BAUMSTARK和R.GUARDINI合编《礼仪学年刊》(Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft)，第一本出版后，R.GUARDINI退出，A.L.MAYER替上，直到1949年共出版了15本，主要都是O.CASEL的研究，自1959年后，由两位较CASEL年轻的会士先后(H.EMONDS然后E.V.SEVERUS)当主编，并改名为《礼仪学档案》(Archiv fiir Liturgiewissenschaft)，每年出版两册。

12.当时有F.X.Munch和Landmesser一起组织的「天主教学人联会」(Katholischer Akademiker-Verband)对从礼仪学术研究和推扬都有很大的帮助。其后也有青年活动(Jugendbewegung)，尤其是R.Guardini所领导的"Quickborn"，组织非常好的礼仪让青年明白和更容易参与。这些活动都有详尽的报导和评价：F.HEINRICH, Die Bunde katholischer Jugendbewegung. Ihre Bedeutung fur die liturgische und eucharistiche Emeuerung, Munchen 1968 ; B.NEUNHEUSER, Die 《Krypta-Messe》in Maria Laach. Ein Beitrag zur Fruhgeschichte der Gemeinschaftsmesse, in Liturgie und Monchtum 28(1961) 70-82.

13.Parsch的生平与着作可参看Lexikon fur Theologie 8, 1963。他最具影响力的系列有《慈恩之年》(Das Jahr des Heiles)1923年始，解释礼仪年的意义，每年都加增一些资料，另外尚有1926年创刊的《圣经与礼仪》(Bibel und Liturgie)。

14.E.CARONTI本笃会会士是《礼仪杂志》(Rivista Liturgica)的创刊人和主编，同时也以大众化的格调创立和主编《礼仪通讯》(Bollettino liturgico)，其代表作品有：La pieta liturgica, Torino 1920 ; ID., Il sacrificio cristiano, Vicenza 1922 ; ID., Il messale quotidiano. Vicenza 1929. 另一位《Rivista Liturgica》的主编是 I.SCHUSTER，他后来做了米兰的枢机主教，他对推行礼仪运动也有很大的贡献，其作品有：Liber sacramentorum. Note storiche e liturgiche sul messale romano, 9 vols, Torino 1919-1928。

15.参阅

S.MARSILI, Storia del movimento liturgico italiano, in ROUSAU, Storia del movimento liturgico, Roma 1961, 263-369 ;

E.M.VISMARA, La partecipazione del popolo alla liturgia, Vicenza 1920 ;

St. KUNCHERAKATT, The Origins of the Liturgical Renewal in the Society of St. Francis of Sales from its Founder till 1916 = Doctorate Dissertation presented the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico, Roma 1971 ;

A.CUVA, Fons vivas, Miscellanea liturgica in memoria di Don E.M. Vlsmara, Zurigo 1971。

有关M.RIGHETTI的作品：La settimana santa, Monza 1915 ;

ID., Il ciclo liturgico natalizio, Monza 1916 ;

ID., Le origini della liturgica romana, Monza 1917 ;

ID., Il tempo pasquale, Monza 1919 ;

ID., Storia liturgica, 4 vols, Milano 1944-1959.

16.参阅Th.BOGLER, Liturgische Emeuerung in alter Welt, Maria Laach 1950, 82-90.

17.Virgil MICHEL是当时的院长，他先创办了《弟兄们祈祷吧》(Orates fratres) 的杂志，其后在1950再革新，并命名为《祭礼》(Worship)。参阅P.B.MARX, V.Michel and the Liturgical Movement, Collegeville 1957 ; Th.BOGLER, Liturgische Emeuerung in alter Welt, Maria Laach 1950, 104-114.

18.参阅B.NEUHEUSER, Movimento Liturgico, in NDL 915-916.

19.SC 6: sacramenta, circa quae tota vita liturgica vertit ;　

SC 5 : divina magnalia in populo Veteris Testamenti praeluserant(...) per suae beatae Passionis, ab inferis Resurrectionis et gloriosae Ascensionis paschale mysterium ;　

SC 5 : de latere Christi in cruce dormientis ortum est totius Ecclesiae mirabile sacramentum ;

20.SC 7 : Christus Ecclesiae suae semper adest, praesertim in actionibus liturgicis. Praesens adest in Missae Sacrificio cum in mimstri persona (...)　

SC 7 : Christus Ecclesiam, sponsam suam dilectissirnam, sibi semper consociat

21.SC 7 : Liturgia habetur veluti lesu Christi sacerdotalis muneris exercitatio, in qua per signa sensibilia significatur et modo singulis proprio efficitur sanctificatio hominis.

22.SC 7 : quae (Ecclesia) Dominum suum invocat et per ipsum Aeterno Aeterno Patri cultum tribuit.

23.SC 10 : Liturgia est culmen ad quod actio Ecclesiae tendit et sirnul fons unde omnis eius virtus emanant.

24.SC 59 : Sacramenta ordinantur ad sanctificationern hominern, ad aedificationem Corporis Christi, ad cultum denique Deo reddendum.

25.LG 11 : Indoles sacra et organice exstructa communitatis sacerdotalis et per sacramenta et per virtutes ad actum deducitur.

26.SC 59 : Fidem non solum supponunt, sed verbis et rebus etiam alunt, roborant, exprimunt ; quare fidei sacramenta dicuntur.

27.SC 59 : quae (sacramenta) ad vitam christianam alendam sunt instituta.

28.LG 35 : Sacramenta Novae Legis, quibus vita et apostolatus fidelium alitur, coelum novum et terram novarn praefigurant

29.SC 60 : Sacramentalia (...) Ecclesia instituit. Quae sacra sunt signa quibus, in aliquam Sacramentorum imitationern, (...). Per ea homines ad praecipuum Sacramentorum effectum suscipiendum disponuntur.

30.有关礼仪「本位化」的问题，参阅

A.AMATO (ed), Inculturazione, Contestualizzazione, Teologia in Contesto. Elementi di bibliografia scelta, in Salesianum 45(1983) 79-111 ;

A.J.CHUPUNGCO, Cultural adoption of the liturgy, New York 1982. Adattamento, in NDL 1-15 ;

ID., Adattamento all'indole e (die tradizioni dei vari popoli. Relazione del Convegno Liturgico per la commemorazione del ventennio della《Sacrosanctum Concilium》il 25 ottobre 1984, in L'Osservatore Romano (29 ottobre 1984).

P.FERNANDO (ed.), Inculturation in Semincuy Formation (Pune 1980).

GIOVANNI PAOLO II, Catechesi Tradendae, Vatican 1979.

HON TAI FAI, Adattamento liturgico e formazione liturgica. Qualche puntualizzazione per una Strategia Formativa nel Seminario di Hong Kong, in Portare Cristo all'uomo. Congresso del ventennio dal Concilia Vaticano II. Vol I Dialogo = Studia Urbaniana 22, Roma 1985, 971-979.

C.H.KRAFT, Christianity in Culture. A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-cultural Perspective, New York 3rd printing 1981 ;

P.POUPARD. card., Chiesa e culture. Orientamenti per una pastorate dell'intelligenza = Verifiche e progetti 2, Milano 1985.

D.N.POWER, Liturgy and Culture, in East Asian Pastoral Review 21(1984) 348-360 ;

A.A.ROEST CROLLIUS, Inculturazione della fede : la problematica attuale, in B.GENEO (ed.), Inculturazione della fede. Saggi Interdisciplinari, Napoli 1981, 13-32.

A.M.TRIACCA, Adattamento liturgico : Utopia, velleita o stiumento della pastorale liturgica? in Notitia n150 (1979) 26-45 ;

ID., Inculturazione e Liturgia. Traccia per una chiarificozione, in A.AMATO－A.STRUSS (eds), Inculturazione e Formazione Salesiana. Dossier dell'incontro di Roma, 12-17 settembre 1983, Roma 1984.

更多的参考书目可阅：Pontifical Missionary Library of the Congregation for the evangelization of peoples, Bibliographia Missionaria.

2. 当代神学的反省

稍为涉足于礼仪运动的人，很快就发觉这是牵一发而动全身的问题，早期在隐修院推行礼仪的时候，已觉察这一点，不过他们的着作较为偏向历史研究，或者牧民上的应用，正因为他们开始了这两方面的反省，就发展到更全面的圣事神学观。(31) 让我们介绍出几个创新的神学路向，它们都能与礼仪运动相辅相承的：

2.1 圣事与「奥迹」

贾西尔(Odo Casel) 可说是第一位以他的历史研究为基础发展了一套新的构思，与传统经院圣事神学的表达方式不同。

他认为要明瞭圣事就该着眼于救恩史的来能去脉，他从保禄的「奥迹」去阐明救恩史的高峰在于基督的救世大业。今日延续基督的救世大业就是在于举行教会的圣事，基督永恒不朽的生命使救恩在人类历史中绵延不绝地存留下去。人与天主关系的最高境界是人的「崇拜」。

崇拜就是步入基督的奥迹中参与祂的祭相。基督的祭祀一方面光荣天主，另一方面圣化人类(救世大业)，圣事就是重演基督的救世大业。祭祀的奥迹并非在于某些特殊恩宠的应用、源于昔日基督的某些个别行动，而是以圣事行动的方式使整个救赎工程临现在神圣的标记中，并在这临现中产生救恩和敬礼天主的效果。

为贾西尔，整个圣事神学的精髓就是「奥迹的临现」(Mysteriengegenwart作者将这一词解作代表性的临现)。他应用了希腊早期外教的「奥秘祭祀」(mystery cult) 作为模式，引申这种祭祀与圣事的行动有相仿之处：就是大家都用标记和仪式来「代表」隐藏着的奥迹，过往发生的事再一次藉着标记临现，因为基督在世所经历的死亡与复活既发生在历史中，同时又超越历史，故此，基督的救世工程方能使圣事有一种救恩的效能。这就是他理论的骨干。(32)

有人同意贾氏的看法，即圣事是在祭礼中奥迹的重演，却感到贾氏对临现的诠释即奥秘宗教那种征象性的临现应用在圣事上过于牵强。在当时的「现代主义」(modernism) 着重人自然理性的气氛中，这种以教外的「奥秘宗教」作为他理论的模式，较诸今日来说，就显得危言耸听了。

也有人认为这理论似乎将圣事贬为一种物质性的复制品，与其说他的理论源于一种历史的分析，倒不如说是来自一个相当有启发性的直觉。(33) 不论怎样，他的学说引起很多人的兴趣和他弟子日后的研究。(34)

2. 2 圣事、基督?教会、圣神

礼仪运动一方面促进信友的积极参与，但同时亦需要加强其神学上的理由，(35) 很自然地就会反省到教会的本质，因着教会学的更新，(36) 圣事神学的内容也变得更丰富了。

圣事是天主选择与人交往的方式，而人可藉此与神相遇，而教会正是天人交往的地方，很多学者以不同的方法发挥这个意念，认为教会是具有一种「基本的圣事性」，在教会内包含各种形式的圣事行动和标记，只要能促进天人交往的事情，都是圣事性的，都是源于基本圣事(外文：protosacrament, primordial, radical, great, total, universal etc.) 当然，教会称为「圣事」是因为她与基督新郎结合一起。(38)

森明路(O. Semmelroth) 将圣事与教会的关系比作手和手指的关系，它们彼此有着不可分割的联系，手没有手指就不成手了，反过来说也一样。举行圣事就是将教会的圣事性彰显出来、实现救恩，即天主在耶稣基督内实现的救恩，是祂曾使教会得到生命的开始，并能不断滋养她成为天人交往的信仰团体。拉内(K. Rahner) 在差不多同样的脉络里，特别论证了两点：1. 教会是(个别) 圣事的团体，2. 个别的圣事就是教会的自我实现。

从这两点他想尝试再解释圣事「建立」和「效能」的问题。在第一个问题中，他认为在寻找圣经章节去「证明」之前，必须承认在基督建立教会的时候，在隐含的方式下，祂已将所有的圣事一同赐予教会，因为圣事就是教会本质的彰显，换言之，在举行圣事时，天主凯旋的恩宠通过基督的奥体，神妙地临现于基督徒某些生命重要的时刻中，因而基督就在那时刻中藉圣神的力量提升那信徒生命的层次；基督「建立」圣事，并不只是说祂在某个时空的场合表达了人需要某某圣事的心愿，更重要的是说祂愿意透过一些神圣的标记，临现和提升信徒重要的生命时刻。在第二个问题上，他首先检讨了传统的「产主因」的说法，然后将圣事的效能联系到基督的临在，是祂早已将恩宠永不反悔地赐给教会?直至末世，然后每次教会藉礼仪标记举行圣事时，就是基督在行动，再一次将恩宠赐予领受的人。基本上，他认为圣事的恩宠是与相应的标记有「自然」和密切的关系。(39)

这些意见的内涵受到很多学者的欣赏、并影响了梵二对教会、圣事神学的立场，不过，梵二更进一步指出除了基督在教会内的行动外，还有圣神的工作，「教友们藉圣洗圣事加入教会，因着圣神作基督徒的宗教敬礼(...) 因坚振圣事，他们与教会更密切地连结起来，享受圣神的特别鼓励」(LG11)，「再者同一圣神不仅用圣事及职务圣化领导天主子民，并以圣德装饰它，而且把自己的恩宠随其心愿，分配给每一个人」(LG12)，「天主圣神通过服务的职责和圣事，已经在做着圣化天主子民的工作」(AA3)。现代神学的反省集中在：

□圣事作为主基督的行动如何成为圣神在教会内一种特殊的恩临？

□圣神如何活化整个天主子民，使他们更深化圣事庆典中真切的存在经验，领受圣神的恩赐，从而建立教会？

□而圣事庆典就外在标记和仪式又如何成为圣神触动人心的经验，使人更认识和爱慕圣神？

□在礼仪中呼求圣神祈祷经文有何深远的神学意义？

□由于圣神能真实地使教会合而为一，故此，感如何顺应圣神而促进大公的运动。(40)

2.3 圣事、人位和征象

另外我们想介绍史勒拜克斯(E. Schillebeeckx) 的论文《圣事的救恩工程》(De sacramentele heilseconomie 1951)，(41) 全书本来分两册有关圣事总论，上册出版了后，而下册却从未面世。

上册是从圣经和教父开始论及「奥迹」(Mysterion) 的观念，并指出在历史中圣事神学的反省不断在演变。然后他深入阐明圣事中的礼仪幅度，特别标榜圣事的象征性和探索圣事的重要课题，诸如：本质，施行者及领受人的意向，圣事的印号，个人的准备与圣宠的领受。

下册本来是属思想的整理，以基督学作基础，谈论圣事因的问题、圣事的特性，圣事的救恩工程和世界、末世、圣体的关系。不过，有关这题目，他出版了《与基督的相遇是天人相遇的圣事》(De Christusontmoeing als sacrament van de Godsontmoeting 1957)，后来在第四版，他另取名为《基督天人相遇的圣事》(Christus sacrament van de Godsmoeting 1960)。

他的圣事观可这样表达：

□启示本身是透过神圣标记彰显出来的事件，故此本质上是圣事性的。启示中最伟大的标记就是天主降生的奥迹，祂忠于人历史的现实，由无形可见的神体降生成为有血有肉 的人?耶稣基督。

□基督的宗教就是为了使人能与天主相遇。

□耶稣基督就成了最完美的圣事：是天主与人的相遇又是人与天主的相遇，祂是根源的圣事，为整个人类带来救恩。

□教会是基督的基本圣事：光荣的主基督来到教会中，透过祂所建立的神圣标记和行动?圣事?接触我们。

□圣事就是复活的主在教会内的行动，它们本身是祭祀的行动，兼且又能圣化人灵；故此，圣事是天主救援的恩赐，这恩赐透过同时潜存在有形可见的标记内，因而成为具体和历史性的事实。

□由于基督是天主，祂的行动就有一种末世性?一次而又能永恒地延续下去，由于祂又是人，祂的行动就有一种现世性?具体地在人的历史中发生，由于祂也是教会的头，祂的行动就要在教会内和透过教会延续下去，故此，圣事就是以标记和征象的形式，源于基督的奥迹，发挥属主、属人、属教会的的特殊价值。

史氏提出基督是天人相遇的圣事，而相遇是指「真切的位际关系」，而「真切」(authentic)一词是具有「属己、个人、亲密」的意思那么七件圣事也该是构成这种关系的标记(sign)。于是，这后来也引起神学家们反省人位(person) 与征象(symbol) 的内在关系。

人追求生命意义、一个统摄一切经验和值得吾人委身的讯息，人经过反复思索后，便用征象将之表达，所谓征象包括一切形之于外的标记，意在指涉(refer to) 某种未被直接给与的事物，换言之，征象所显示的事实是超出征象自身的外在形态，又由于吾人心灵有天赋的能力去体会征象所指涉的事实，征象便成为吾人精神生活交流的媒介，心灵通过征象可到达另一个心灵，心灵的沟通又令吾人体认征象的能力提高，甚至会运用新的征象，或创造一种新的征象系统，由此可见征象在人生中可起多层次的作用：

□征象作为媒介具有公共和约定俗成的特色，可维系某一个社团，同时成为这个社团的特色，如：国旗，信经(symbolum fidei)。

□征象像有机组织物具有某种的架构和规律，正因如此，人才能通过征象建立和维系某种恒常的关系，如：音乐本身具有规律，并可用来传意或抒情。

□征象有制定人行为的功能，如：军装、制服确定某些人的任务或立场。

□征象可助长人与人之间的联系，使他们能彼此交流和共融，如：祝贺咭，甚至是一些宣言或某政治党纲。

□征象可成为一种生活背景，由此而可解释某种行为或事件的意义，如：握手表示一种善意和接受。

基于这种种作用，在人的心灵表达之路上出现了不同的语言、哲学系统、艺术作品、文物制度等等，甚至会用人间的神话、仪式来表达其宗教经验。可是从启示的角度，天主在基督身上的彰显却用了天上的人话，由于基督以人的方式生活了天主的内涵，祂本人就成为一个活生生的标记，人通过祂可往天主那里，但由于基督是真人，祂为维系与人的关系，创立了教会的团体，使之成为祂的标记，同时为这个信仰的团体建立七个神圣的标记，圣事从标记来说是人间的征象，但从效果来说却是天上的事。那么，神学的反省该按征象与人生的关系，去深入和活化圣事中那来自天上的内容。(42)

2. 4 圣事、信仰和圣言

近年来，信仰和圣事在神学反省中，亦引发出一些礼仪神学认知论的问题，就是有关：「崇拜律制定信仰律」(legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi) 的问题。

这句话收集在第六世纪的教律文献中，并说明是出自教宗圣赛勒西一世(Pope Celestine I 422-432)，「崇拜律」是指宗徒传下来要教会为众人祈祷的劝谕 (弟前2：1－6)，其次是指整个教会所用的礼仪祈祷经文，所以后期lex supplicandi 又改称为lex orandi。「信仰律」当时是指教会正统的、活生生的道理或教义。

最近这句话曾七次出现在教宗的训导文件里，教宗西斯都五世(Sixtus V) 为反对释经家李察西满(Richard Simon)，在其《永远天主的伟业》(Immensa aeterni Dei 1587) 应用了主显节的集祷经为证明三位贤士已意识到耶稣的天主性，同时引用教宗圣赛勒西一世(Celestine I 422-432) 的权威，说明「礼仪律制定信仰律」(Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi)。其他六次在1854至1950年之间，刚好是礼仪运动的期间，1854年教宗庇护九世在《不可言谕的天主》(Inefffabilis Deus 1954) 钦定圣母始胎无染原罪的教义时，就采用了这句话，即这教义的成立过程实有赖于历代教会对圣母的敬礼，当时祁朗赭(Gueranger) 就以这句话作为礼仪运动的基础，认为礼仪祈祷经文(lex orandi) 可制定教义(lex credendi)。

可是在1947年，庇护十二世在1947年的《天人中保》(Mediator Dei) 通谕中，为针对当时的「现代主义」(modernism)，尤其是泰勒(G. Tyrrell) 的偏见，他将个人的宗教感觉，不论其内容正确与否，都视为信仰的标准，并认为lex orandi 是指这种宗教感觉的实际表现，而lex credendi 纯属观念上的教义，教宗为避免将公共、客观信仰的宣认只立足于个人及主观的感觉上，便阐明传统的句可倒过来说「信仰律制定崇拜律」(lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi)，教宗是指教会的礼仪须按着正统的信仰而制定，不能按个人喜好而随便自创礼仪。

当然，教宗的话并没有影响教义，但却引起神学家在认知方面的争论，究竟礼仪在神学中只有「佐证」(confirmation) 的功能，还是有「泉源」(source) 的功能。大部分的神学家都走中庸之路，声称两者并不互相排斥，有些人则引入第三个原则「生活律」(lex vivendi)，意即生活经验?追求生活和谐、理智和信仰的协调、敬礼天主、美化人生。「生活律」可发挥里仪的「泉源」功能，就是：视礼仪为活生生的事实，捕捉礼仪庆典的启示内容，活化信仰，并透过诠释法将礼仪的祈祷语言转变为陈述及阐释的语言，礼仪成为神学的泉源，就是以虔诚礼拜天主的态度作为认知的始点(credo ut intelligam)。「生活律」同时又可发挥礼仪的「佐证」功能，就是：视礼仪为一种宣认信仰的经验及承传，成为教义、神学的佐证。从事礼仪神学不只是做文字的功夫，也要兼顾生活上真切(authentic) 的礼仪经验，尤其圣事神学须由「圣事庆典」作为首先和不可或缺的开始点。(43)

有关圣事、圣言和信仰彼此相互的关系是源于活生生的经验和牧民的反省，由于很多人去领受圣事时，却不了解所庆祝的事情，有见及此，一些袒仪神学家便推行一种意识唤醒，1946的礼仪杂志《天主庭院》(La Maison-Dieu) 就是这样开始的。它的对象本来是向神职人员和牧民工作者，但不久就发觉需要在以更科学和客观的态度，重新找回圣言、信仰和圣事彼此关系的历史沿革，故此，这本杂志出了不少文章都是有关圣经和教父的泉源和礼仪的沿革。

在这方面的研究中，以L. Villette的《信仰和圣事》(Foi et sacrement) 最有代表性，这个着作共分两册，上册是加上副题《由新约到圣奥斯定》(Du Nouveau Testament a saint Augustin, Paris 1959)，顾名思义，是由在这段时期内，找出很多的证据，阐明信仰和圣事的关系，不论是早期教会的做法，或后期遇有争论时，如异端教徒的付洗、婴孩领洗等问题，圣事总不能与教会的信仰分割。下册副题为《由圣多马斯到巴德》(De saint Thomas a K Barth, Paris 1964)，作者将圣多玛斯和圣文德的神学立场、及其对教会训导的影响阐明，然后又将宗教改革直至今日的基督教的重点陈述出来，结束时又「圣言和圣事」为题介绍天主教和基督教的神学立场。

与此同时，信仰和圣事经已成为圣事神学的议程，很多学者继续发挥这点，将圣事视为一个信仰的事件，是天人的相遇点。另一条几乎同时进行的脉络是「圣言和圣事」，大概在六零年初学者们就这题目发挥了不少，而且影响梵二的革新。

这些学者都有些共同的看法，其中两个特色较为明显的：

第一是「历史上」的特色：在宗教改革期间，天主教和基督教之间引起的纷争导至后来圣言和圣事几乎完全分割，一种极不自然的分割，将他们视为两件平衡互不相交的事，甚至称基督教为「圣言的教会」，天主教为「圣事的教会」。这种不自然、人为的分割该重新修正过来，再回顾圣经、教会的传承使两者能再结合起来。

第二是「神学上」的特色：即在神学的反省中找出圣言和圣事之间的协调和互补的作用，其宾「圣言」本身就是「导致救恩」的事件，在某程度上，已是圣事性的，同理，圣事本身也是透过标记、行动，宣告了天主在耶稣基督内最后的(或末世的) 胜利，这种「宣告」是旅途教会中最隆重和最富救恩力量的宣告，它涉及了人的、教会的、基督的「宣告」行动。

圣言非只是一种从「事效性」(ex opere operate) 的角度对圣事的解释，就像对所举行的圣事再添上一个额外的、可有可无的宣告，而圣事无需圣言的宣告就可自行发生的事，其实，圣言本身就是一个圣事的行动，透过文字、宣读、聆听的行动，宣告那透过神圣标记而实现的天主救恩，事实上，举行圣事所用的「形」(Form) 和「质」(Matter) 是指祝圣经文和标记及仪式，经文就是浓缩了的圣言，可见圣言是圣事的基本要素，可是「浓缩了」的圣言只满全最低和不可或缺的条件，在牧民和唤醒意识方面尚须多加发挥。

梵二有见及此，也就在更新礼仪时，特别着重「宣告」的层面。首先圣事标记及仪式要十分清晰、容易明白，不但可采用地方语言，也可添上本土文化的气息，加强庆典的感觉，「读经」方面是不容忽视，而且给予大量的题材，让人们因时制宜作适当的选择，务使圣事庆典成为一个「宣告」，圣言的宣告成为圣事的庆典。

2.5 圣事 、救恩史 、纪念和庆典

在五零年代，有些神学家开始从救恩史的角度开始他们的反省，又从教父的着作里找到不少有关的资料，将救恩的展示和延续视为神人共同的历史(oikonomia)，这个重新发掘出来的土地，非常肥沃，使神学的发展有相当的丰收，并照明了很多信仰上的课题。(45)

在这脉络作圣事神学反省的以达尼老(J. Danielou) 的着作最为突出。他应用了教父们的圣事观，将个别的圣事看作为在教会的时期内「天主美妙的化工」(Mirabilia Dei)，一方面延绩旧约和新约中天主的奇工伟业，同时又预示了末世的人生终向。

他介绍了教父们神学背景和世界观，尤其取材于当年慕道团体所用的要理教授，其中很多是教父以叙述形式，来表达救恩史中的伟大事迹(narratio plena)，并将之视为整个神人历史时期的界定(articuli temporis)，又将入门圣事与天主在以色列选民和基督的奥迹作相互的对照，使慕道者渐渐悟出他们的入门过程其实是整个救恩史的缩影、是一个旅程有不同的阶段，踏上这路上的人，就不断地让天主的妙工重演在他们具体的生命上，逐步引领他们进入天主的奥迹内、那恩许的福地。

另一方面，作者亦指出这条救恩史的脉络是圣事神学其中一个不可或缺的主干，因为正如新约的作者多次引用了旧约的事迹表达天主在基督内的救恩行动，那么圣事也具有同样的动力，因为是同样的基督在圣事内实现天主的救恩，并使人预先品尝将来末世的福乐。每次举行圣事，就是天主对人、对世界、对教会采取救援的行动，因为万有都要「总归」(recapitulate) 于基督内，藉着祂和圣神的大能，迈向天父。

有些作者阐明救恩史的终极已在复活的基督身上提前实现，祂就是人类终向最后的结局(eschaton)，祂升天之后，就开始了「宣告」和「庆祝」的时期，使人也因此而分沾到这救恩的事实，教会的诞生就是要延续天主在基督内对人的「新造化」，这次是藉着圣神的大能，使基督完人更深刻地、更明颇地成为历史上每个人的「肖像」，然后在恩宠和自由约合作下成为天主的「模样」，在基督内达致圆融。(47)

其后，另一位学者提雅(J-M. R. Tillard) 更深入地描写圣事的庆典与救恩史的关联，他从三方面入手：

□圣事是一个救恩的事件

□圣事是一个救恩的事件，同时又是一个标记和信仰的表达

□圣事是一个救恩的事件、一个标记和信仰的表达，而且是在感观的世界中实现出来

他不厌其烦地引用圣经和教父，阐明圣事在救恩史的延续中，使独一无二的巴斯卦事件、那令教会诞生的事件，在时空中临现，基督徒在举行圣事之时，就投入基督、巴斯卦的转化过程里，这项伟大的临现能在教会内实现，就是藉着天主圣言的宣告，并将所宣告的活化在标记中，圣事的标记就成为天主圣言的「预许」和「实现」，又是教会和参与者的信仰表达。有关巴斯卦事件能在现世的标记中「实现」，作者是采用了多玛斯的「工具因」的诠释，到最后现世的标记能产生天上恩宠的能力，是因为天主降生成人的奥迹，是耶稣的人性活出了天主的荣耀。祂的人性是圣事建立的基础，所活出天主的荣耀就是祂恩临人间的结果。(48)

还有些作者较喜欢用「纪念」(anamnesis) 来表达圣事「实现」救恩史(oikonomia) 及其终极(eschaton) 的意念。基督徒在礼仪上所作的「纪念」在现世中同时有三个时间的幅度：将过去的事件，活生生地重演在此刻中，又同时伸延到将来。(49)

「纪念」(anamnesis) 是透过标记和仪式实现出来，但其中有一个极重要的成份，就是，它基本上是信徒团体的庆典(Celebration)。庆典是吾人一个生命的经验，它欢乐的特色帮助吾人从繁忙的生活中释放出来，摆脱刻板生活的压迫感，一方面可藉此再一次体会生命的意义，加深处事做人的动机，检讨遗忘了的目标，另一方面又加强团体的共融、归属感和彼此的关系，而这些成份刚好又能更清晰地界定和彰显这团体的特色。

宗教的庆典通常是一个神圣时刻，其形式具有戏剧、演艺和仪式的性质，从宗教历史的角度看，这些庆典的背后往往源于一些宗教经验，所庆祝的主题是有关发生在过往的一件事，这事对某一个民族产生一些好处，诸如：得到解放，或者意外的丰收，人们深感这是来自神的照顾，同时极想将这些事情的效果延续下去，或再次重复，便透过一些仪式纪念这过往的事，一方面提醒人们齐心求神，另一方面提醒神要像昔日一般照顾他们现在的需要。

圣事中的庆典源于拉丁文：celebrauo，意谓集结一起成为一个群体。它欢庆的特色意味着从人生的困境中解脱出来，达至一个兄友弟爱、心灵自由、充满慈爱的世界。其过程透过仪式、标记和征象纪念巴斯卦的事件，这是基督徒经验中最重要的事件，它既是历史时空上发生的事，又是超越历史时空的事，成为所有人提升和转化的推动力和典范，故此称为奥迹，作为纪念仪式，圣事庆典导人进入逾越奥迹，作为推动力可使庆祝的团体产生新的转化，作为典范，可使人寄望将来的荣耀。事实上，从诠释礼仪典籍的研究中，亦可找到丰富的神学思想。(50)

31.由祁朗赭(Dom Gueranger) 开始，已有不少礼仪神学家，从历史研究和牧民方面，提出不少新的神学意念，如：R.Guardini, O.Casel, I.Schoster, L.Duchesne, J.A.Jungmann, E.Leclerq, F.Cabrol等人，请参阅：

L.BOUYER, La vie de la liturgie, = Lex Orandi 20, Paris 1956 ;

J.A.JUNGMANN, Gewordene Liturgie, Innsbruck 1941 ;

ID., La liturgie des premiers siecles = Lex Orandi 33, Paris 1962 ;

C.VAGAGGINI, Il senso teologico della liturgia, Roma 1965 ;

有关Mysterion－Sacramentum字源学的历史研究：

BORNKAMANN. Mysterion, in Theological Dictionary of New Testament IV, Michigan 2nd printing 1975, 803-828 ;

H.U. von BALTHASAR, Le mysterion d'Origene, in Recherches de Science Religieuse 26 (1936) 513-562 ; 27 (1937) 38-64 ;

P.TH.CAMELOT, "Sacramentum". Notes de theologie augustinienne, in Revue Thomiste 57 (1957) 429-449 ;

C.COUTURIER, Sacramentum et mysterium dans l'oevre de St. Augustin, in H.RONDET (ed.), Etudes Augustmiemes, Paris 1953, 163-332.

J.DANIELOU, Le mystere du culte dans le sermons de s. Gregoire de Nysse, in Vom christlichen Mysterium : Gesammelte Arbeiten zum Gedachtnis von O.Casel, Dusseldorf 1951, 76-93 ;

De GHELLINCK (and others), Pour l'histoire du mot sacramentum, 1 : Les anteniceens', II : Patristique et Moyen Age, Spicilegium sacrum lovaniennse, Louvain 1924 / 1927 ;

C.MOHRMANN, "Sacramentum" dans le plus anciens textes chretiens, in The Harvard theological Review 47 (1954) 141-152 ;

E.RUFFINI－E.LODI, "Mysterion" e "sacramentum". La sacramentalita negli scritti dei padri e nei testi liturgici primitivi, Bologna 1987 ;

P.VISENTIN, "Mysterion-sacramentum". Dai padri alla scolastica, in Studio Patavina 4 (1957) 394-414.

32.有关O.Casel的生平和着作，参阅V.WARNACH, Odo Casel, in P.VANZAN－H.J.SCHULTZ (ed.), Lessico dei teologi del secolo XX = Mysterium salutis / supplemento 12, Brescia 1978. 305-310.　

参阅O.CASEL, Il mistero del culto cristiano (Torino 1966), Tr. It. from the 4th ed. of DOS christliche kultmysterium (Maria Laach 1931, 1960) ;　

ID., DOS Mysterienged'achtnis der Messliturgie, in Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft 6 (1929) 113-204.　

ID., Neue Zeuegnisse fur das Kultmysterium, in Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft 12 (1935) 99-171.　

ID., Glaube, Gnosis und Mysterium, in Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft 13 (1936) 155-305.

33.参阅

C.E.O'NEILL, I sacramenti, in Bilancio della teologia del XX secolo III (Roma 1972) 263-309 ;

E.RUFFINI, Sacramenti, in Dizionario Teologico Interdisciplinare III (Torino 1977)尤其191-201.

34.参阅

V.WARNACH, Il mistero di Cristo. Una sintesi alla luce della teologia dei misteri (Roma 1982) ;

B.NEUNHEUSER, Introduzione e Note aggiunte alla IV edizione, in O.CASEL, Il mistero del culto cristiano, pp. 15-20 ; 154-160 ;　

ID., Mysterio, in NDL 863-883.

35.尤其是有关参与弥撒的问题，参阅

A.VONIER, A key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, London 1925 ;

E.MASURE, Le sacrifice du Chef, Paris 1932.

36.对于这课题，在上世纪末期，德国杜平根大学早开始历史的研究，请参阅

J.A.MOHLER, Die Einheit der Kirche oder das Prinzip des Katholizismus, Tubinger 1825 ; 法文翻译为L'unite del'Eglise ou le principe du Catholicism d'apres l'esprit des Peres des trois premiers siecles = Unam sanctam 2, Paris 1938 ;

ID., Symbolic oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensatze der Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihrenoffentlichen Bekenntnisschriften, Mainz 1832 (Eng. Tr. 1843) ;

为认清那年代教会学更新的简介，参阅

E.MENARD, L'ecclesiologie hier et aujourd'hui, Pruges-Paris 1966 ;

Y.CONGAR, Un peuple messianique = Cogitatio fidei 85, Paris 1975.

37.第一个着作，从一种直觉将圣事与教会的圣事性连系在一起，就是H. de Lubac在1938年出版的《公教教义》(Catholicisme)，然后教宗庇护十二也在其通谕《奥妙身体》(Mystici Corporis 1943)也推广同一个意念，其后，庇护十二其中一个专家也特别写两册论述这个课题S.TROMP, Corpus Christi quod estecclesia, Rome 1946 and 1960.

38.参阅

O.SEMMELROTH, Die Kirche als Ursala-ament, Frankfurt 1953 ;

K.RAHNER, Kirche und Sakrament, Freiburg 1961 ;

P.SMULDERS, Sacramenten en kerk, m Bijdragen 17 (1956) 319-418 ;

ID., Die sakramentat-kirchliche Struktur der christlichen Gnade, in Bijdragen 18 (1957) 333-341 ;　

ID., La chiesa sacramento di salvezza, in　

G.BARAUNA (ed.). La chiesa del Vaticano II, Firenze 1965, 363-386 ;　

B.WILLEMS, La necessita della chiesa per la salvezza, in Concilium n1 (1965), 161-180.

39.参阅

O.SEMMELROTH, Die Kirche als Ursakrament, Frankfurt 1953.

K.RAHNER, Kirche und Sakrament, Freiburg 1961.

40.有关圣神与礼仪的参考书目，请参阅

M.J.FANCISCO, Lo Spirito santo e i sacramenti. Bibliografia, in Notitia 13 (1977) 326-335 ;

C.ARGENTI, Le Saint-Esprit et les sacrements, in Amitie 4 (1973) 14-24 ;

J.CASTELLANO CERVER. Presenza e azione dello Spirito Santo nella liturgia, in Lo Spirito Santo nella vita spirituale, Roma 1981, 113-142 ;

F.LAMBIASI, Lo Spirito santo: mistero e presenza, Bologna 1987 ;　

J.M.POWERS, Spirit and Sacrament, New York 1973 ;　

C.ROCCHETTA, Lo Spirito santo e ie "meraviglie di Dio", in Lo Spirito Santo nella vita spirituale, Roma 1981, 95-112 ;　

A.M.TRIACCA, Spirito Santo e liturgia. Linee metodologiche per an approfondimento, in Lex orandi, lex credendi. Miscellanea in onore di C-Vagaggini, Roma 1980, 133-164 ;　

ID., Spirito santo e liturgia, in NDL, 1405-1419 ;　

ID., La presenza e l'azione dello Spirito santo nella celebrazione dei sacramenti, in Liturgia 19 (1985) 26-62 ;　

为大公运动，请参阅

Lo Spirito santo, la chiesa e i sacramenti. Documento ecumenico del Gruppo di DOMBES, in Enchiridion oecurnenicum. Documenti del dialogo interconfessionale, Bologna 1986ss ;

东方教会的礼仪亦特别从「奥迹」(mysterion) 引申礼仪泉源和圣神的关系，请参阅：

J.CORBON, Liturgia alla sorgente, Roma 1982 ;　

中世纪也有些作者对圣神与礼仪有很独到的看法，请参阅：　

HON TAI FAI, Torrens Voluptatis in Septem Flumina. Towards a Pneumatological Perspective of Rupert of Deutz based on his De Operibus Spiritus Sancti, Roma 1988.41.

有关Schillebeeckx的生平和着作，参阅B.WILLEMS, Edward Schillebeeckx, in P.VANZAN-H.J.SCHULTZ (ed.), Lessico dei teologi del secolo XX = Mysterium salutis / supplemento 12, Brescia 1978, 698-705.

42.有关征象与人生，参阅P.ANDES, La fonction sotenologupie des sacrements, in Stadia missionalia n30 (1981) 89-111 ;

L.BOUYER, Le rite et l'homme, Paris 1962 ;

CH.BERNARD, Symholisme et theolope, Roma 1974 ;

ID., Teologia simbolica, Roma 1981 ;

L-M.CHAUVET, Da symbolique au symbole. Essai sur les sacrements, Paris 1979 ;

ID., Symbole et sacrement. Une relecture sacramentelle de l'existence chntienne, Paris 1987.;

M-D.CHENU, Pour une anthropologle sacramentelle, in MD n119 (1974) 85-100 ;

ID., Anthropologie de la liturgie, in J-P., JOSSUA－Y.CONGAR (eds). La Liturgie apres Vatican II, Paris 1967 ;

M.NICOLAU, Teologia del segno sacramentale, Roma 1971.

K.RAHNER, The Theology of Symbol, in Theological Investigations V, London 1966, 221-252 ;

ID., The ontology of symbolic reality in general, in Theological Investigations IV, London 1960, 222-235 ;

ID., What is a sacrament, in Theological Investigations XIV. London 1976. 135-148 ;

ID., Foundations of Christian Faith, New York 1978 ;

P.RICOEUR, Poetica e simbolica, in B.LAURET－F.REFOULE (eds.), Iniziazione alla pratica della teologia, vol 1, Brescia 1986, 35-63.

A.M.ROGUET, I sacramenti segni di vita, Milano 1970 ;

R.VAILLANCOURT. Toward a renewal of sacramental theology. Montreal 1979, 67-79.

A.VERGOTE. La realisation symbolique dans l'expression cultuelle, in MD nil 1(1972), 110-131 ;

ID., Le rite: expression operante, in Interpretation du langage religieux, Paris 1973, 119-215 ;

D.SARTORE, Segno / Simbolo, in NDL, 1370-1381

43.参阅

P.DECLERCK, "Lex orandi, lex credendi". Sens originel et avatars historiques d'un adage equivoque, in Questiones Liturgiques 59 (1978) 193-212 ;　

K.FEDERER, Liturgie und Glaube. "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi". Eine Theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung, Freiburg 1950 ;

HON TAI FAI, On the Journey of Faith of the Adult-Catechumens, in Ephemerides Liturglcae 103 (1989) 3-41, 161-220, here, 3-7.　

A.HOUSSIAU, La Redecouverte de la liturgie par la theologie sacramentaire (1950-1980), in MD n149(1982) 27-55 ;　

M.LOEHRER, Il modello gnostico-sapienziale della teologia. La prospettiva di has della metodologia teologica di C. Vagaggini, in G.J.BEKES－G.FARNEDI (eds.), Lex orandi lex credendi. Miscellanea in onore di P. C.Vagaggini = Studia Anselmiana 79 / Sacramenta 6, Roma 1980, 19-47.　

G.UJKKEN, La liturgie comme lieu thwlogique irremplafable. Methodes d'analyse et de verification theologiques, in Questiones Liturgiques 59 (1978) 193-212 ;

H.SCHMIDT, Introductio in liturgiam occidentalem, Roma 1960, Cap.IV, lex orandi lex credendi, 131-139.

A.M.TRIACCA. "Liturgia" "locus theologicus" o "theologia" "locus liturgicus"? Da un dilemma verso una sintesi, in Paschale Mysterium. Studi memoria di S.Marsili (1910-1983), Roma 1986, 193-223 ;

G.Tyrrell, Lex orandi, on Prayer and Creed, London 1904 ;

ID., Lex credendi. A sequel of Lex orandi, London 1906

ID., Through Scylla and Charybdis, on the Old Theology and the new London 1907 ;

C.VAGAGGINI, Il sense teologico della liturpa, Roma 1965, 477-508 ;

ID., Fede e sacramenti oggi, in Annunzio della parola e liturgia, Roma 1974, 68-102 ;

ID., Teologia, in Nuovo Dizionario di Teologia, Roma 1979, 1597-1711 ;

44.参阅

L.BOUYER, La parole de Dieu vit dans la liturgie, in Parole de Dieu et liturgie, Paris 1958 pp.l05-127 ;　

ID., Parole, eglise et sacrements dans ie protestantisme et le catholicisme, Paris 1960 ;　

B.COOKE, Ministry to word and sacraments (Philadelphia 1976).　

J.DANIELOU, Bibbia e liturgia. La teologia biblica dei sacramenti e delle feste scondo i padri della chiesa, Milano 1958 ;　

W.KASPER. Wort und Sakrament, in M.GRUNEWALD (ed.), Martyria. Leitourgia. Diakonia. Festschrift H.Volk (Mainz 1968).　

C.E.O'NEILL, Meeting Christ in the sacraments. New York 1965 ;　

K.RAHNER, Wort und Sakrament, Munchen 1966 ; ID., Was ist ein Sakrament?. in Stimmen der Zeit 188(1971) 16-25.　

ID., Sakrament, V : Systematik, in Lexikon fur Theologie Kirche IX 228 ;　

ID., The Word and the Eucharist, in Theological Investigations IV, London 1965,　

J.P.SCHANZ, Introduction to the Sacraments, New York 1983, 60-97.　

A.M.TRIACCA, Celebrazione liturgica e Parola di Dio. Attuazione ecclesiale della Parola. Contributo alla pastorate e alta spiritualita liturgica, in G.ZEVINI, (ed.), Incontro con la Bibbia. Leggere－pregare－amuciare, Roma 1978.　

E.SCHILLEBEECKX, Parole et sacrement dans l'eglise, in Lumiere et Vie 46(1960) 25-45 ;　

O.SEMMELROTH, Teotogia della parola, Ban 1968.

45.参阅

J.DANIELOU, Christianisme et histoire, in Etudes n254 (1974), 166-184 ;

CH.JOURNET, D'une philosophic chretienne de l'histoire et de la culture, in Revue Thomiste 48 (1948) 33-61 ;

O.CULLMANN, Christus und die Zeit, Zurich 1946 ;

G.THIS, Theologie de l'histoire, Paris 1949 ;

L.MALEVEZ, La vision chretienne de l'histoire, in Nouvelle Revue Theologique 71 (1949) 113-134, 244-264 ;

J.MOUROUX, Le mystere du temps, Paris 1962 ;

H.U. von BALTHASAR, Theologie der Geschichte. Ein Grundriss, Einsiedein 1959 ;

46.参阅

J.DANIELOU, Essai sur le mystere de l'histoire, Paris 1953 ;

ID., Sacramentum futuri, Paris 1950 ;

ID., Bible et liturpe, Paris 1951 ;

ID.. Sacraments and Parousia, in Oratres Fratres 25 (1950-51) 400-404 ;

ID., L'histoire du salut dans la catechese, in MD n20 (1952), 19-35 ;

ID., Sacraments et histoire du salut, in Parole de Dieu et liturgie, Paris 1958 ;

ID., Histoire du salut et formation liturgique, in MD n.79 (1964) 28-39 ;

ID., L'entree dans l'histoire du salut : bapteme et confirmation, Paris 1967.

47.参阅

C.ROCCHETTA, I sacramenti e la storia della salvezza. Dai "magnalia Dei" ai "sacramenta fidei" nel pensiero teologico del card. J.Danielou, Roma 1976 ;　

A.ROGUET, Les sacrements signes de vie, Paris 1952 ;　

C.J.GEFFRE, Dai "mirabilia Dei" ai "sacramentum fidei", in Rivista di pastorale liturgica n.13 (1965) 537-551 ;　

P.Y.EMERY, Histoire du salut et sacrements, in Oihonomia, Hamburg 1967, 310-321.　

M.MAGRASSI, Dai "mirabilia Dei" ai "sacramenta fidei", in Rivista di pastorate liturga 13 (1965) 537-551 ;　

R.POU RIUS, Perspectivas actuates en Teologia de los sacramentos, in Phase 12 (1972) 433-488.

48.参阅

J-M.R.TILLARD, Le sacrement evenemente du salut, in Etudes religieuses (1964) 全册；

ID., Principes pour une catechese vrai, in Nouvelle Revue Theologique 84(1962) 1044-1061 ;

ID., Le nuove prospettive della teologia sacramentaria, in Sacra Doctrina n.45 (1967) 37-58 ;

ID., I sacramentidella chiesa, in Iniziazione alla prarica della teologia III Dogmatica, Brescia 1986, 397-482 ;

P.BONY, La parole de Dieu dans l'Ecriture et dans l'evenements, in MD n.99 (1969) 94-123 ;

P.TENA, La celebration liturgique entre l'evenement et les evenements, in Paroisse et liturgie 53 (1971), 129-139 ;

F.RAURELL, Le jugemente prophetique sur les evenements, in Paroisse et liturpe 53 (1971), 99-113 ;

J.A.GARCIA, Evenementes et eucharistie dans les liturgies anciennes, in Paroisse et liturgie 53 (1971), 115-128 ;

49.参阅

O.CASEL, DOS Ged'achtnis des Heirn in der altchristlichen Liturgie, Freiburg 1918 ;

J.JERMIAS, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, Gottingen 1935, 1967 ;

N.A.SAHL, Anamnesis, in Studia Theologica Lundensia, n.1 (1948), 69-95 ;

S.MARSILI, La Liturgia, momento storico della salvezza, in AA.VV., Anamnesis I, Torino 1974, 31-156 ;

S.SCHURMANN, Der Abendmahlbericht Lucas 22 : 7-38, Paderborn 1957 ;

M.THURIAN, L'eucharistie, memorial du Seigneur, Neuchatel-Paris 1959.

B.NEUNHEUSER, Memoriale, in NDL, 820-838

A.M.TRIACCA, "Celebrare" il matrimonio cristiano. Suo significato teologico-liturgico (Anamnesis－Methods－Epiclesis), in Ephemerides Liturgicae 93 (1979) 407-456.

A.M.TRIACCA, "Liturgia" "Locus theologicus" o "theologia" "locus liturgicus"? Da una dilemma verso una sintesi, in Paschale mysterium. Studi in memoria di S.Marsili (1910-1983), Roma 1986, 193-223.

50.有关庆典，请参阅：

A.CAPRIOLI, Linee di ricerca per uno statute teologlco della liturgia, in Communio n41 (1978) 35-44 ;

D.DROSTE, "Celebrare" in der romischen Liturgieschen. Eine liturgie-theologische Untersuchung, Munchen 1963 ;

R.VAILLANCOURT, Toward a renewal of sacramental theology, Collegeville 1979, 102-113 ;

C.ROCCHETTA, Sacramentaria fondamentale. Dal "mysterion" al "sacramentum", Bologna 1989, 515-546 ;

J.P.SCHANZ, Introduction to the sacraments. New York 1983, 130-274 ;

N.SODI, Celebrazione, in NDL, Roma 1984, 231-248 ;

笔者也曾经诠释过《成人入门圣事礼典》(Ordo Initiaionis Christiae Adultorum－Editio Typica－Reimpressio emendata 1974)，从而引申出，慕道「信仰旅程」的神学基础及前景，参阅拙作

HON TAI FAI, On the Journey of Faith of the Adult-Catechumens, in Ephemerides Liturgicae 103 (1989) 3-41 161-220.

小结

现代的神学有赖其他学科的贡献，如：哲学，诠释学，宗教现象学，释经学，历史研究，教父学，教义发展史，语意学等，而演变得更丰富和多姿多釆，令人对基督、教会和自身的奥迹有更深切的了解，圣事神学亦不甘后人，在助人整理人生观的道途上建立新的里程碑。但如果圣事神学不能应对生活的需求，亦不曾发展起来。礼仪运动为圣事神学带来丰收的时代，正因为信友们渴求在礼仪与生活重新整合，从而更新教会，这种渴求需要神学的理论支持。

今日圣事神学的走势是整合各种观念和生活经验，企图将礼仪庆典、生活价值及学术知识融会贯通，为达至一套有系统和普遍论证形式的意义架构，使其足以剖析及整顿吾人对圣事的经验(fides quaeres intellectum)。另一方面，圣事神学亦须顾及吾人的文化背景，将圣事的标记融入文化中，将之提升，使信奉在举行圣事庆典之余，体会到自己的文化亦具有一种类比的「圣事性」，因为它既隐含又彰显和实现天主的救恩(fides quaerens culturam)。综合上述，我觉得这种严谨的反省可分为三部份，而且它们该彼此相辅相承：

1. 本体性的理解

即透过启示内容中最基本、最关键的讯息，产生对圣事经验的认识和价值体会。这些最关键的讯息，如：救恩史，奥迹，崇拜，纪念，重演，庆典，征象，宣告，相遇等就像一些普遍性的原理可解释具体的圣事经验。理解的内容有两部份，一方面吾人深入了解圣事本身的意义，另一方面要体会其价值，进而在意志上、灵修上对其作肯定及生活的委身。

2. 知识性的探索

主要是做知性的诠释学，以启示作为准则，诠释活生生的圣事庆典，及一切有关庆典的人生经验及文化因素，故须研究礼仪庆典的历史沿革，剖析礼仪典籍的内容，尽量找出其共同之处，从而引申一些普遍原理，藉此整顿圣事与人生的经验。

3. 语言性的表达

神学作为学问本身是知性语言，用作阐释和传递理念的，较为抽象的，通常当然是以文字为主；圣事是包括标记、仪式和经文的行为语言，用作「纪念」和「重演」奥迹的，属象征性的，并非以文字为主，圣事神学的语言一方面是延申思想的媒体，另一方面也该是思想转化为行动的媒能，为应用在礼仪上时，更能迎合人的需要，植根于本地文化，适应现代人的生活，而且使礼仪真正成为教会团体行动的「泉源」和「顶峰」。

「问渠那得清如许，为有泉头活水来。」礼仪运动告诉我们，在教会内从事神学反省的人，也须以礼仪为泉源，这样的圣事神学必使人生更为丰盛。

作者：周景勋

乾坤揭主荣．碧空布化工?

纪尔松从「天主的荣耀」谈中世纪哲学的精神




一．引子

在阿波罗十一号太空船登陆月球时，其中有一位太空人居然背诵出圣咏第八首最精彩的诗句来：

诸天现光彩，妙手运阴阳。

瑞景灿中天，星光耀灵光。

人类处其中，碌碌无所长。

乃蒙主拔擢，圣眷迥异常。

(引自吴经熊圣咏初稿译－－(1))

在一个晨烯初露的早上，天边一道带有睡意的橙红光芒，引领我安祥宁静地坐在上主的圣殿中默祷，光芒射透了圣殿彩色的玻璃窗，照着殿中的圣经－－光的祝福；我的心灵被圣经中的三圣童颂摄吸着，无言却是一默如雷般的将我震撼，使我感悟这三位站在死亡烈焰中的圣童－－那一份超越生死的赞词：

上主，我们祖先的天主．你是可赞美的，应交称赞，应受颂扬，直到永远！

你光荣的圣名，是可赞美的，应极受称赞，极受颂扬，直到永远！……

上主的一切化工，请赞美上主，歌颂称扬他，直到永远﹗……

愿大地赞美上主，歌颂称扬他，直到永远！……

普世人类，请赞美上主，歌颂称扬他，直到永远！……

因为他由阴府中救出了我们，

从火焰中拯救了我们。

你们要称谢上主，因为他是美善的

因为他的仁慈，永远常存！

(引自思高圣经：达尼尔先知书三：52－90)

实在的，给我揭开了生命悦乐的奉献，犹似庄子「不悦生、不恶死」的逍遥心境，使我－－无我地唱出心底的赞颂：

干坤揭主荣，碧空布化工。

朝朝宣宏旨，夜夜传微衷。

(咏十九：2，3吴经熊译)

　

　　*****************************



当我们谈论「天主的荣耀」时，我们不期然地会想到这是信仰的问题：神学中的讨论课题或灵修学中生命历程的礼赞。然而，我们在研究中世纪哲学时，我们不能忽略「基督徒哲学」(Christian Philosophy) 的存在；反之，我们肯定「基督徒哲学」从圣奥斯定的思想开始，清楚地表达了「哲学是通往神的道理」，他将「神学」和「哲学」联系起来，相辅相承地互相补充，故有「你明白，好使你相信」的哲学言语，以及「你相信，好使你明白」的神学言语的体验。其后，「基督徒哲学」发展到圣多玛斯而发扬光大，当时更有「哲学是神学的婢女」之说，故多玛斯从经验常识开始，经过理智的抽象作用而得到的知识，到达形上学境界，更以类比的方式肯定「人」的生命是分享天主的存在。(2)

由是，「基督徒哲学」的探讨虽从「信仰」开始，然而其内有着一个理解的知识型态，即「启示」与「理性」产生着一个内在的关系；其后，就是「人」能面对面地瞻仰天主；因此，圣文德(St. Bonaventura) 在「心灵迈向天主的旅程」(Opusculum Doctoris Seraphici ： Itinerarium Mentisin Deum) 一书中强调人生命的终向乃一个心灵的旅程，在这旅程中，人透过：「天主的痕迹」、「天主的肖像」瞻仰天主；且由「存有」瞻仰天主的「至一性」，以及在「美善」内瞻仰天主。又在「神学乃万学之宗」一文中提出：「为使心灵因了天主在内心所讲的言语而认识祂，心灵必须与『是天主光荣的反映，是天主本体的真正肖像，并以自己大能的言支撑万有』的祂(希一：3)，结合为一。……依循这样的路线亦可对自然哲学做出同样的思考。」(3) 这实在是一种「自然与理性皆向超性开放」的观念的哲学。然而，纪尔松(Etienne Gilson) 更清楚地说：「我所谓的基督徒哲学，是一方面保持理性与启示在形式上之差异，但另一方面，亦视基督徒的启示是『理性无可或缺的助力』的任何一种哲学。」(4) 所以，纪尔松在「中世纪哲学精神」一书中，将「天主的荣耀」(造化宣主荣) 列为哲学精神的探讨的内容或课题。而在谈论「天主的荣耀」时，我们不能骤然地讨论，必须先了解内容的来拢去脉。



1.吴经熊著，《内心悦乐之源泉》，东大图书公司　民74年7月4版　一．中国哲学之悦乐精神　25，26。

2.邬昆如编著，《西洋哲学史》，正中书局　民60年，参阅《教父哲学中的奥古斯丁》　227-269，《士林哲学全盛期：圣多玛》　309-327。

3.文德圣师著(韩山城译)，《心灵迈向天主的旅程》，安道杜会学杜出版　民63年，参阅(1)「旷野中微贱者的沉思」8-66，(2)「神学乃万学之宗」69-88。

4.Etienne Gilson, Translated by A.H.C. Downes ： The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy (New York ： Charles Scribner's Sons 1940) 36-37双叶书店发行，参阅沉清松译，《中世纪哲学精神》　第2章「天主教哲学」概念的澄清，国立编译馆　30-31。

二．来龙去脉谈「天主的荣耀」

在哲学的探讨中，当讨论到最后的终极问题时，哲学家们不期然便会提出「绝对」与「无限」的思想领域，这实在有别于人的有限与相对的世界；于是，在哲学的领域中，自然地产生两种论说：「有神论」和「无神论」。

倘若我们从历史中仔细地审察一下，便会清楚地了解，历来的哲学家都对「有神」与「无神」的问题有所争论，但却不否认有绝对或无限的思想终极的存在，好像「绝对」或「无限」是与「有神」与「无神」无关一样。然而哲学史上有名的哲学家，如柏拉图、亚里士多德、普罗丁、奥斯定、多玛斯、笛卡儿、斯宾诺莎、莱布尼兹、康德、黑格尔，以及怀德海等，都确切地承认有「神」(上帝、天主) 的存在。至于今日的辩证唯物论者：共产主义哲学，他们虽然极力否认有基督宗教的天主(上帝) 存在，但却满怀热情地主张此世界是无限的、永恒的、无穷的、和绝对的；更甚者，他们表现的态度，就某种观点言之?心灵投向「主义」的高下深浅的拥护和固执?其实正是一种典型的宗教。(5)

因此，在谈论「天主的荣耀」之先，我们必须肯定且相信「天主」(神、上帝) 的存在，而「天主」是绝对者和无限者，更是创造者。而「基督徒哲学」(Christian Philosophy)从下列所谈的意涵和原由来显扬「天主的荣耀」：

１．天主的创造

天主创造了世界．和世界中一切的万物，特别创造了「人」，并宣布：一切都是善的?「天主看了认为善(好)」(创世纪第一章)。

因此，基督徒哲学肯定：每一本性皆来自天主，且本性皆是「善」的?乃存在内在善性的原则。所以，如果受造物失去本性的「善」，就是离开创造的行动，必定会步向消亡。既然一切万物皆藉创造行动而完成，故必须有着持续创造而继续存在的适然性，便万物在变化中避免堕入消亡；故，这存在上的适然性，可视为万物变化的根源。

２．恶的产生

恶可分为「物理恶」和「道德恶」两种。(6)「物理恶」乃指事物的存在当是完整的或完善的，但其有所缺失，也就是说事物的存在是一种较差或不完整的「善」，其适然性不足够。然而这种较差的善，总还是一种善，因有所缺失的事物也是一种「存有」。

「道德恶」乃理性存在的「人」在觉察到自己的命运，而为此受苦，也因着行为与伦理道德的法则不相合所形成的缺失，使之必须面对悲惨的命运。在哲学上乃指人滥用了意志的自由。在基督徒哲学的系统中，第一个道德恶乃人误用了自由?事实上，自由意志是善的?反抗了自由意志，故有其特殊的名称?「罪」，且扩而充之亦用在其余出自第一个道德恶的其它罪恶上。基督徒使用「罪」这个字时，所要传逢的是他所瞭解的一种道德上的恶，透过自由意志的行动，而进入受造物的宇宙中，直接损及受造物对于天主的基本依赖关系。故圣经上有言：「因一个人，罪恶进入了世界；因着罪恶，死亡进入了世界。」(罗五：12) 道德恶所做成的「罪」带来了「死亡」，但天主赐下了恩宠，透过救赎以弥补罪恶。

****************

基督徒哲学所强调的「罪」乃属「道德恶」的层面，不是「物理恶」的层面，而「道德恶」所涉及的乃伦理学的问题；故圣奥斯定(St. Augustine) 肯定一切罪恶都从意志而来，意志并非被创造为恶，相反的，意志被造为善的，这善的意志只要能继续行善，便可以获致圆满的福乐；但意志若是软弱，便会使人离开善而进入腐化中，于是便产生了恶。然而圣奥斯定确信人的本性是善的，罪恶没有能力毁灭本性，但圣奥斯定却没有清楚地说明。圣多玛斯(St. Thomas Aquinas) 却从三个可能性的解释中清楚说明了罪恶不能抹杀和削减人性的善：

1.「人性的善」可以意指被组成因素所限定，并且被定义为「有理性的生命体」的人性本身，就是说「本性」是人的本质，罪恶不能抹杀和消减的。

2.「人性的善」可以意指人向善之自然倾向，若无此种自然倾向，人甚至无法继续生存下去，因为一般的「善」，其中还包括人自己的善。即是说人性中的善只是人性的一部份，罪恶只能削减，不能抹杀。

3.「人性的善」可以意指人原始的正直，此一正直乃天主造他时所赐，也是他所领受的恩宠。故，人本性中的善不是属于本性的部份，是从外加的；所以，罪恶可以摧毁。

圣多玛斯的立场很清楚是赞成第一点，即人性的善乃人的本质，罪恶无法抹杀或削减的，因为否认这点就等于假定人可以同时是人又不再是人，陷入矛盾中。(7)

另一方面说，基督徒哲学强调：人是灵魂与肉体的结合体，灵魂使肉体成为实体，肉体使灵魂生存。(8) 故圣奥斯定以肉体为一个宝贵的所在，因以照料灵魂，并由灵魂来带给秩序，统一和美丽。因此，基督徒不会逃避肉体，基督徒也不会轻视自然。诸天传述天主的光荣，穹苍宣扬天主的化工，人怎能轻视天主无限智慧和慈善的创造呢？在圣咏中，基督徒特别可以感受到天主的伟大和慈悲，且在三圣童颂(达尼尔先知书三：52-90)中，更体验三圣童在燃烧的热炉内所唱的赞颂歌?「你们要称谢上主，因为他是美善的；因为他的仁慈，永远常存。」这种赞美天主荣耀的歌声，一直在基督徒的心中，从古至今不间断，即使天地陷于罪恶中，依然赞美主荣；即使天地要过去，赞颂上主荣耀的歌声是不会过去的。



5.J. M. Bochenski 著(王弘五译)，《哲学讲话》　第10讲「绝对」，鹅湖出版杜　民75年5版　101-102。

6.张振东著，《士林哲学的基本概念(二)》，辅仁大学出版　民70年　220。

7.参阅同(4) 第6章「乐观的人生」　123-138。

8.参阅同(4) 第9章「人类学」　202。

三．「天主的荣耀」的反省

若我们从形上学的角度作反省，我们可以说：一切存有物皆由天主所创造，也为天主而存在。故天主是万物的因果，我们所做所为都是出于天主的创造；因此，在基督徒哲学所言的受造的宇宙中，每一个存在者的存在对于天主都有一种彻底的「存有学上的依赖」(Ontological relation of dependence)；于是，受造物由于天主而存在，也因天主而得以继续存在；因为受造物的本质出自天主，万物的存在与实体性都是天主所造的善。同样地，只有在天主内，我们才有生命，运动和存在，也就是在天主内，我们才真正拥有这一切；假若我们忘记了我们是出自天主，就等于「罪」又重现于我们内心，即是我们离开了「善」的本性，也离开了天主。「罪恶」本是虚无的，但为人来说，就是人离开了天主－－善的本源，与自我在被创造时分受天主所赋予的「善」本性，因而有所欠缺。基督徒哲学就在「创造论」，与「善」的德性上反省「天主的荣耀」。

纪尔松(Etienne Gilson) 在谈「天主的荣耀」时，提出了圣奥斯定和圣多玛斯两哲士的学说，他们思想上的符合正是「天主的荣耀」这个观念的历史的两个关键性的要点。本文也就根据纪尔松所提出的内容与意见，从圣奥斯定和圣多玛斯的思想中，对「天主的荣耀」作反省与综合说明。

１．圣奥斯定哲学的反思

圣奥斯定的哲学充满一股自我生命超越的力量，从生命的软弱和堕落里，跳入坚强和觉醒中，藉以把握生命终极的天主，尤其从他的「归依的宗教经验」里，导出「皈依的形上学」(Metaphysic of Conversion)，这可以从他所写的「忏悔录」中清楚地了解：如何从自我生命的堕落中，寻觅了上主；改变了自己的生活，感悟上主的恩宠，以致在「忏悔录」的最后目标指向，就是「赞美和光荣天主的伟大」说：

哦，主啊！永恒之君，你对我说的，是一无所知呢，或者你在时间里面看见时间中所发生的一切？那么我为何还向你倾诉这一切？当然并非为了叫你知道，而只是为了使我的心和读书的心提升到你的跟前，使我们全体称颂：『伟大上主，至可赞美』。(9)

对圣奥斯定来说，承认天主就是承认天主的伟大，并赞美一切彰显天主之伟大的美妙化工；因为在「归依的经验」中，圣奥斯定体验到：万物是多么的无能！多么的有欠缺！于是人若无天主的恩宠，便什么都不能做；故受造物(人) 在超性生活上和本性生活上都有赖天主的恩宠，诚如纪尔松(E. Gilson) 所说：「从奥斯定开始，基督徒才致力于指出本性的一种虚空(emptiness)，唯有天主才能填满。这虚空出现在我们身上，证明我们需要天主，我们自己越是不足，便越需要天主。……人类的可怜比人类的伟大，更能证明天主的荣耀。因为后者表示我们的自足，前者却催迫我们寻求天主。」(10)

由于人在空虚中需要天主，也在体验到自我的可怜中必须寻求天主，圣奥斯定为了解决这些问题，便认为宇宙依赖天主创造的行动，且引用斯多亚学派的古老的理性种子学说，将之与创造观连起来：

－天主在创造每一「存有」时，也创造了万物的种子，以及数字的原则，在时间中统治万物种子的发展。这在新的存有产生时，创造这个事实便彰显出来，也就是说在可见的受造物身上，显示出天主在其内的工作：「我父到现在一直工作，我也工作。」(若五：17)

－万物是分受天主的恩宠而存在，故必努力模仿天主。因此圣奥斯定认为每一个真理的判断都预设了：心灵从天主赋予的恩宠中得到「本性的光照」(natural illumination)，天主更透过祂的「圣言」来丰渥我们的思想，即天主的话如同生活的种子，进入思想的胎中，与之结合，使怀孕而产生真理。

－天主丰育人的灵魂，不单使之产生真理，更重要的是产生「德性」。因为「德性」乃奠基在理性的真实判断之上，使能知道且明白：「应该是什么？」「应该做什么？」更好说，人应选择「善」，逆守秩序，爱正义，这便是真理，故「德性」是行善的定习。

其实，圣奥斯定所要肯定的，乃说明天主亲密地临在我人的心中，因智慧之光照耀我们；由于，天主在我们内丰渥我们心灵，故我们心灵的一切空虚即可证明天主的满盈，我们的可怜与伟大一起称扬天主的荣耀。这种深刻的生命感受，实在表现于「恩宠」的层序中，既真实而必然的。但是，若在本性的层序中，则是否必然呢？对这个问题的解答，纪尔松认为有另一方面的说法(expression)，也是对「天主的荣耀」的意义的另一个说法－－多玛斯的思想反思。(11)

２．圣多玛斯思想的反思

圣多玛斯用「自然因」(natural causality) 的观念来判断：「理性种子、光照(真理)、与德行」三个论题；因为天主无限的慈爱，绝不会只以赐给万物存在便不管，祂一定会赐给万物由存在而来的因果力量，所以圣多玛斯根据：「第一因根据其至高美善，不只赐给其它万物以存在，而使其成为原因」这一原则，逐一修正圣奥斯定派有关「理性种子说和真理与德性的光照说」的三个论题。

　

－圣多玛斯承认理性种子，乃以「潜能」(potency) 方式存在物质中；因此，必须有一个第二因(second cause) 使之实现出来；而第二因不会创造，只能使潜在的事物变成实在的事物。

－圣多玛斯修改了圣奥斯定派简约的光照说，而赋予它一种新的意义，却仍然保存光照说的基本论点：　

圣多玛斯和奥斯定派都相信－－人只能在理相(即神性的观念) 中，透过圣言(道) 所给我们的光照，才能认识真理。　

圣多玛斯认为：光照是天主创造人时所赋予的恩典；奥斯定派则认为：理智的能力足以产生真理。　

于是，圣多玛斯提出：人拥有一种本性的光明，即主动理智(active intellect) 的光明。这主动理智之光，在接触到感性经验之后，产生几个第一原理，透过第一原理之助，可以逐步建立知识的体系，然主动理智只有分受真理本身之时，才能产生自己的各种真理。所以说，主动理智是一个生而具有真理之光的理智，这理智本身乃用类比的方式，分受之途径，变成了真理之光。

－有关「德性」之探讨，圣多玛斯清楚地肯定：

「德性」是我们与生俱来的。

「德性」是来自天主。

因此，我们是透过理智作媒介抵达天主的观念，且分受天主性的肖像，其意义乃说：

当有人问：「谁向我们显示美善？」

圣咏作者答说：「上主，你在我们身上显示了你圣容的光辉。」

圣多玛斯要说的是：「藉着神性之光在我们内心所铭刻之印记，我们得以认识一切。」(12)

３．综合谈「天主的荣耀」

诸天称述上主的荣耀，穹苍宣扬祂手的化工，日与日互递消息，夜与夜知识相传。(咏十九)

这美丽的心灵表达乃出自圣咏作者的信仰感受。对于圣奥斯定和圣多玛斯来说，在信仰的体验中都是一样的。「诸天称述上主的荣耀」，其乃因为诸天带有天主的肖像。圣多玛斯更以工匠与作品来比喻创造者和受造物之间的关系：我们可以透过作品的伟大，得以认识工匠的伟大。我们若以「物似主人型」的形容比拟，则作品往往是按着工匠的心意塑造的，故作品是工匠的心意的流露，其必定与工匠有密切亲近的关系。我们若回到因果的原则上言，创造性因果的适当效能，在于赋予存有；存有实际上是最共同的第一个效果，必然较任何一切都更为亲近创造者，故受造物?效果常肖似原因－－创造者，故万物只有藉着「存有」才得与天主类比，即万物在「本性」上相似天主，故万物越有本性，便越相似天主。还有，万物不但在存有上，本性上肖似天主，而且在因果行动上亦肖似天主。按照圣多玛斯的思想：「任何物朝向自己的完美，便朝向与天主相似。」万物的运动都是为了获得存有的满盈，因此把自己的本性带到完美的地步，就是使自己更完美地肖似天主。同时，因为天主是至高的善，祂所造的一切也一定尽善尽美；天主也把自己的善传达给万物，使每一物皆有能力把从天主那里禀受的善，再传布给其它物；这也是将天主的肖像－－「善」传达，而使天主的名在普世受颂扬。所以，我们可以说是成为天主的造化工具：「参赞天地的化育」，做天主的合作者，圣保禄说得好：「我们是天主的助手。」从圣多玛斯的思想中，我们可以看出，强调受造物的美好与效能，不但不损害天主的光荣，反而，抬高受造物是在举扬天主的光荣。(13)



9.参阅同(4) 第7章「造化宣主荣」　146-147。

10.同上

11.同上　147-151

12.同上　151-153

13.同上　153-157

四．结语

纪尔松在讲论哲学思潮的演变中，有一段动人的叙述：「亚里斯多德的纯粹思想已经过时，代之而起的是一位天父，祂的创造力的照耀，一直普及到田里的野草最微小的叶子。在柏拉图的世界里，正义之律自行把善人同善人聚在一起，恶人同恶人聚在一起，历经持续存在之无限循环，现在，却变成一种慈父般的惦念，从无中创造万物，以显示神的荣耀，并使万物同自己结合。」(14)

纪尔松的思想实在代表了「基督徒哲学」的一个新路向，他着重人的地位与价值，强调人本性的善，是天主的肖像，分受天主的至善，故将「基督徒哲学」的路向汇合起来以「宣扬天主的荣耀」：

－天主创造万物，皆是为了祂自己的光荣，也将这份光荣分受给万物。

－受造物以天主的荣耀为乐，基于以自己的光荣为乐。

－天主的光荣真正是万有的目的，正如同天主的光荣亦是它们的起始一般。而且，假如宇宙的目的在于达到一种光荣的地位，这都是为了肖似至高的善而被造。

－受造物为要获得这种福境，实现这种荣耀，不但要求存在，而且要求行动。但一切行动，无论有意识或无意识，无论好坏，都有贡献于天主的光荣，因为我们的行为虽可以不善，但没有一件事会泯除天主的光荣。(15)

若从另一个层面来看天主的荣耀，那就是「天意」的思想，纪尔松认为由「天主的荣耀」的观念结果产生了「天意」的观念，以及其中圆满丰富的意义，而肯定人类的卓越在于能够分享天主的美善，得到天主的眷顾。因此，引伸出：

－天主创造，安排万物，有一目的：这目的就是天主自己。

－我们说天主的眷顾照管世界，就等于是说天主藉着自己的知识和爱情，安排万物朝向天主自己。

－一切万物，无论任何一个，都是被天意所安排，朝向天主。因为，天主既是万物的原始，也就是万物的终向。(16)

由此可见，纪尔松的哲学思想将「基督徒哲学」，更好说是将「士林哲学」展示于一个辽阔无尽的天空中，只见蔚蓝清澈的晴天，「万里无云万里晴」，再将这美丽的意境投入人心，使人感悟创造的伟大，以及天主的光荣，亦以「千江有水千江月」地反映人之分享天主的创造、肖像、和光荣，好能做天主的助手：「赞天地之化育，与天地参」。因此，人的存在必须扩展天主所赋予人的善－－人有爱德的生命，故必须「亲亲仁民，仁民爱物」，使人人能结合于天主的爱中，以提升人的杜会与文化，不断更新、不断超越，以迈向真、善、美的根源－－天主。



14.沉清松著，《存有与人性?祁尔松论中世纪哲学精义》第15卷第9期　哲学与文化月刊172，民77年9月1日　30-31。(亦可参阅《中世纪哲学精神》一书　第8章「天意观」，同(4) 168)。

15.同(9) 157

16.同(4) 第8章「天意观」　176。

作者：叶庆华


引言

这篇文章主要是就詹德隆神父所着之《基本伦理神学》一书之第二章和第十一章所作的反省，内容亦是针对该两章所述的基督徒伦理生活之本质及其最后基础，希望从救恩论的立场再去探讨这两个题目，好能在一个更广阔的脉络中去看伦理生活，确定它在整个天主救恩计划中的地位。至于本文所持之救恩论立场，基本上是参考温保禄神父着之《救恩论入门》一书。

「救恩」的含意与 「全福」

若要从救恩入手去反省伦理生活，当然要清楚我们所说的「救恩」到底是什么一回事。在温保禄神父的书中，他以人的经验结合人学的进路去了解「救恩」的含义。(1)

如果「救恩」是所有人都需要的，对一切人都有意义的话，那么「救恩」便是指人性的必然渴求，一种绝对和普遍的需要，这需要与人的存在息息相关，值得人耗其一生，不惜任何代价去追求，因此，它实在涉及整个人生的意义和价值。寻得它，足以使人真正的心满意足。然而，从「救恩」一词的意义中，我们可以知道它不是人能够藉自己或集体力量所能获得的，否则，便不需用个「救」字，只有人在关乎自己整个存在的终极关怀的问题上无能为力时，才需要「救」，须要借助人以外的力量去帮助自己达到目的。不过，在未证明人是否真的无法凭自己满足这需要时，温保禄神父认为最好不用「救恩」、「救援」等字眼，而用「全福」来表示那使人性得以完全满足的东西。

人确实渴求全福

上述的讨论只属理念上的探讨，即例如每个人都需要「救恩」的话，它必定是如此这般的，但人性中到底是否有此必然追求，则仍需者究。在这问题上，温保禄神父用「超验的方法」企图找出人性的基本活动而从中得到答案。

根据他的研究，人的活动虽然繁多，但本质上都企图包容三个要素，由于这三个要素统摄支配所有人类的活动，故此是人类活动之必然目标，亦即人性之必然和本能的渴求。第一样是幸福：每个人都追寻幸福，甚至会不惜牺牲眼前的享乐。第二样是意义：人无论从事任何活动，必欲知其意义，希望明白一切发生的事情，愈能掌握意义，人生愈会积极，愈觉幸福。第三样是善：(2)任何人所追求的，都定是自己认为是好的，几时他认定某事物是好的，他总会选择最好的方法和计划去将之获得，尽管客观地，那目标和方法可能是坏的。由是观之，人性确有必然的渴求，而「全福」可从这三方面去理解。

「全福」的特色

从上述的三个层面，我们可以再进一步认识「全福」的内涵。 首先，当人追寻幸福的时候，他必定希望所得的幸福是永恒，不会失去的。当人寻求意义时，他不会满足于只得到部份事物的意义，他总期望一个可解释全部人生的意义。当人找寻善的时候，他定想觅得绝对无限的善，同时，人性对这三方面是有同样强度的渴求的，只有完全符合这三个条件的东西才会被认为是全福。所以幸福、意义、善、真是人之唯一必然追求之三个幅度，而不是三种互不相干的追求。此外，人在追求「全福」时，他必然追求自我的「全福」，这是人对自我的根本的爱的表现。

「全福」既为人人所必然争取者，那么，它对人的存在到底有什么裨益呢？要回答这个问题，得从人的存在结构入手。人是具关系性的存有，人只透过与对象的关系认识自己，这关系愈深，存在感愈大，这关系若改变，势必影响个人，而对象之存在状态亦因此而与个人有密切关连，人之杜会性一面，由是显明。再者，人是自由的，有自由的意志，又有身体，可与对象沟通。

这样看来，全福若具满全人之存在之特性，它必能在上述各方面使人臻至圆满，即它必将人与人，人与杜会，人与万物，甚至人与神之间的关系，推至最深最广之处，又会提升人之自由，亦会改造人的肉身，因为会腐朽的身体不能承受永恒的全幅。

由以上的分析可知，人所必然寻觅的「全福」，实即人繁复本性的图满实现的境界，蕴含永恒、无限等特色。

人的困境

人性追寻永恒、无限、冀求获得属永恒、无限的「全福」，可是这样的「全福」是否会为人所得到，这个问题却不是任何个人或整体人类合作可以提供真正答案的，因为要了解有关无限、永恒的事，必先要具备无限的智慧，永恒的生命，否则无从把握无限、永恒的动向，故人凭自己的力量实无法确知无限、永恒之「全幅」是否必会为人所得，然而这是个关乎整体人类的存在意义的问题，若找不到答案，足以使人失去存在的意愿，甚至走上自我毁灭之途。为此，人必须在历史中找寻来自人以外的属于永恒、无限界的启示。(3)

救恩的临现

基督徒相信天主，相信祂是慈爱的，在爱中，祂创造了一切，祂必不会忍心让人在世上盲冲瞎碰，凭信仰，基督徒相信天主会在历史中启示这关乎人性深处问题的答案。同时，在信德的光照下，人进一步瞭解他所渴求的「全福」，其实就是天主的生命，天主就是无限美善，永恒福乐，在祂内，可以获得整个宇宙的意义，人性的渴求可以得到完全的满足。

天主的启示，最彻底的就在耶稣基督身上，祂是降生的天主，天主透过祂启示了自己，启示了自己是无限、永恒的爱，在基督的一生中天主让人知道，无论人在任何境遇中，祂的慈爱都不离开人，亦不计较人的罪过。另一方面，在基督身上，天主揭示了祂的整个创造计划，诚如默示录所说：基督是元始，又是终结，(默廿一：6) 祂是人的典型(archetype)，是天主创造人时的构想；亦是人的终向，只要人朝着基督，改造自己，即如基督一样，在一切境况中都不失其爱人之心，最后，人必如基督一样，在复活的肉身中获得天主永恒无限的生命。

这来自天主的许诺，犹如黑夜海上的明灯，使沮丧的人类再次燃起希望。藉着对基督的信仰，人尽管仍无法把握理解永恒，却可以放心大胆地踏上基督所开展的爱的道路，(弗三：12) 深信在末日，肉身复活时，人会相似基督，进入天父永恒的生命。这使人自此放心的许诺其实正具救恩意义，因其使人不再迷悯，并使人因确知全福可得而享受「开始性的全福」。(4) 为此，我们称基督为救主，祂为世界带来的救恩是使人确知「全福」可得之许诺。至于「圆满性的全福」，人性的图满实现，仍有待肉身的复活。

复活的身体与伦理生活

全福是永恒的，无限的，不朽的，与我们现今有限的，会死的，会腐朽的身体毫不相称，现有的身孻，虽然不是属于「全福」的，这里要求一彻底改造了的身体，即一永恒的身体，属神的身体。(格前十五：44) 在基督身上，我们可以知道「全福」，天主的永恒生命，只会在复活的身体出现。于是，人性的圆满实现和肉身的复活，便只是同一事实的两面而已。

在讨论全福和人的存在的关连时，我们曾经提过，全福出现时，人存在的所有幅度都会处于图满状态，即人与其他人，与天主的关系，人的自由，人的肉身都将是完美的。复活的肉身不会腐朽，它会让人完全自由的投向天主，让人与一切对象感通无隔。的确，复活的属神的身体是完全转化提升了的身体(totally transfigured body)，(5) 是完全为天主之神控制的身体。(6) 既然天主是爱，(若十四：7，8) 是人间的爱所以可能的条件，那么复活的身能便是通透的爱的身体，藉着它人才可以自由地离开罪恶，与天主与人与万物合而为一。然而，肉身的改造，现在便应开始，因为真诚的爱本质上根本不容许人担搁时间，否则肉身复活只会永远属于将来。「那导守祂命令的，就住在他内，天主也住在这人内。」(若十三：24a) 所以，改造的方法便是以爱为基础的伦理生活，透过不断的祈祷，人在具体的生活中，让爱的根源?天主?藉着基督耶稣所启示的一切去支配我们和人的所有接触，换句话说：伦理生活就是每个具有自由意志的人改造生命，使之导向永恒，以承受「全幅」，分享天主无限生命的唯一道路，(若十四：6) 是实现新天新地，天国理想的不二法门。这样，伦理生活在救援工程中所占的角色实在不可或缺。

「召唤」与 「回应」

在詹德隆神父着之《基本伦理神学》一书中，他强调天主先爱了我们，在启示中「召唤」了我们去与祂共融，而道德生活就是我们回应这召叫的「答覆」。(7) 在该书的第二章中，他更特意从新旧约圣经的角度，反覆申明这思想。「召唤」与「答覆」诚然是一对很好的概念去表达伦理生活的本质，但是若不同时强调天主的「召唤」和人性的密切、必然的关系的话，「召唤」很容易会被误以为是人性以外的东西，如是，则作为「答覆」的伦理生活的必须性就难以显出，而道德行为便会成为可有可无的东西了，所以，我觉得有需要去从人性论入手，从救恩的立场去为「召唤」与「答覆」作一注脚。

首先，我认为天主的召叫和祂的爱是分不开的，天主召叫人就是祂爱人的事实，二者是一而不是二。天主对人的召叫，内在于人，并不是人之存在以外的，故不可能被视为可外加于人之存在之上的东西，人之存在本身便是天主召叫的结果，是天主的爱的流露，天主在其丰盈的爱中，创造了人，使人也成为爱的存有。我的意思是：由于人的存在是天主的存在的肖像，(创一：27) 而天主就是爱(爱与天主不可分)，所以几时我们说人存在时，便等如说人分享了天主的生命，即爱的生命。可是这分享只是初步的，圆满的分享仍有待于未来。

藉着基督的启示，天主是爱和天主无条件永远爱人，愿意完全地跟人分享祂生命的性格得以显明。同时人也更清楚自己为爱所生，本身是爱的存有，所以如果人喜爱自己，渴望回到自己的根源去，投入无限的爱的生命，必先由实现自己的爱的能力开始。

于是人生就是人实现爱的能力的过程，当人朝着这目标，在天主的恩宠引导下，得享圆满的爱的生命时，这也是天主的创造大功告成的时刻。这其中，天主虽然让人自由选择是否归向祂，但明智的人会明白：除了走爱的道路归回爱的根源之外，根本没有其他途径可真正满足人心，所以我们常常说真正的自由，是能够时时选择天主，人最圆满的境界?「全福」，「会使人在最严密的必然性内发挥其自由；也会使人在最深度的自由内，承受并接受其本性的必然性」。(8) 由此可知道德行为在人性中有其独特的必须性。总的来说，人存在，人已分享了天主的生命，人需要去爱的渴求是人面对自己的存在时所发现的「已经」的一面，亦是伦理生活的起点。这渴求指出了人存在的目的，即充份地发挥自己的爱的能力，好能仗恩宠更深更广地参与天主的生命，在自由中让天主在自己身上的创造得以完成。这是人的存在的「尚未」的一面，又可说是根源于人性内的天主的「召唤」，亦是伦理生活的内容。伦理神学，就是要研究在具体实在的人生境况中，藉着基督的启示和在教会内的圣神的指引，人如何可以找到实现自我，迈向全福的正确路途。因此，天主的「召唤」，实是人性内的必然渴求，是天主在爱中创造我们的结果，而找寻正确的途径，以满足这渴求，即度伦理生活，便是向这「召唤」的「答覆」。

为幸福论辩护

在《基本伦理神学》一书中，在讲及伦理生活的最后动机时，詹德隆神父分幸福论为社会的幸福论和个人的幸福论。(9) 他批评杜会的幸福论易助长独裁统治，只为少数人带来利益，至于个人幸福论，他认为这尽管是个很好的理想，但基本上却是以自我为中心，故不能成为伦理生活的最后动机。其论据固多发现，但从字里行间，我感到他所理解的幸福和我的颇有出入，为免混淆，我觉得有需要澄清一下。

我对幸福的理解，主要承接本文前部份「全福」的思想。(10)「全福」包含幸福、意义、善三个幅度，彼此不但不排斥，更是互相融摄的一个整体，只有善的，有意义的事物才会令人幸福，在幸福中，人必会寻得善和意义，故此它们不能绝对独立地讲。三者之中，幸福往往不是具体行为的直接目的，而直接目的通常是寻求意义和善。幸福是人的必然追求，是在反省中追认的事实，人一旦意识到自己幸福时，即会觉得那是值得追求的，但很奇怪，它很难当作直接目的去寻求，几时人这样做，总不能得到真正的幸福。真正的幸福是人在发挥潜能，追寻善和意义时的灵性状态。人生必然追寻善，在各种善的事物中，人能最深刻体会的莫过于自己的存有，对其他存有的善，人其实知得很少，于是人对其本身的善的爱惜、欣赏，实在是人爱惜、欣赏其他善的基础。一个人如果不懂得发掘、实现自己的存有的善，亦无从认识、爱慕那远远超越他理解的无限善(天主)。我同意詹德隆神父所说「人的最后动机似乎在于超越自己，不只是实现自己」。(11) 然而人实现自己不只是超越自己的必经阶段，超越自己更是实现自己的必然结果。赖天主的爱，人成为爱的存有，他的自我实现全在于他不断地在具体境况中发挥自己的爱心，不断地在爱中扩展潜能，创造生产，当爱彻底渗透他的每样发展时，人其实已走出了自己，和其他人和天主共融合一去了。的确，天主的爱是无条件的，白白施与的，几时人走向祂 (即走向爱)，必会发现他早已站在那里等我们了。我虽然不能强逼别人必定爱我，但假如对方愿意真心爱我，他有些事情是必定会对我做的。一个爱自己儿女的爸爸必定尽一切力使孩子快乐。同样，爱我们的天主亦必会将自己的生命，赏赐给寻求祂的人。爱当中，就是有这种奇妙的必然性，所以几时人在爱的实现中超越自己，必得享天主的生命。(12) 除此之外，在爱中的人更能获得存在的意义，这些意义绝不是冷眼旁观的科学方法可以效劳，相爱的两人，会比任何一个旁人更认识了解对方；一个时时能爱人如己的基督徒又会比普通人更明白天主。最高层次的意义，往往只有在爱中才能发现，这样的幸福论，横可以通人，纵可以通神，其实亦合符詹德隆神父对伦理生活最后动机的要求，即要一方面肯定天主，一方面肯定世界。　(13) 于是，自我实现便是人生最庄严的事情，个人幸福亦不再是自私了。

幸福、意义、善圆满俱足者为「全福」，此时亦正是一切人与天主共融无碍的境界，这境界就是天国，是每个人必然渴求到达的境界，詹德隆神父亦认为实现天国就是基督徒伦理生活的基本目标。(14) 我强调自我实现，正因为这是具自由意志的人要达到这目标的必然途径。但当我这样强调时，很可能会有人问：那么白痴，植物人又怎样？他无法实现自我啊！这确是个很难回答的问题，需要在苦罪专题上才能得到较全面的处理，不过，顺着现有的论题，仍可以这样说：困难之所以出现，是因为我们一向都是从正面去讲天人合一的途径，即从一个具有自由意志的人的立场去研究他应如何运用自由去实现自我，回归天主。但当我们从反面看时，白痴、植物人若真不能行使自由意志(是否真的不能仍是个值得深究的问题)，则他们根本不会运用自由去离开天主。在信德的眼光中，天主始终和他们一起。构成他们存有的物质虽然有缺陷，致令他们丧失本来可以有的能力，但形式上(formally) 我们仍不能否定他们作为天主根据自己肖像所造成的爱的存有的身份。

结论

当代天主教神学在卡．拉内神父(Karl Rahner) 的影响下，都重视从人学(anthropology)入手，并采用由康德所开展的超验方法(transcendental method)，从最彻底的层面去探索人未完全自觉意识、但却必然地支配着每样活动，并为其所以可能的基础的趋向，然后，从这里开始讨论人神间的关系。在研究伦理生活的本质及动机时，我觉得亦可依从这进路。当人了解真我及其必然趋向，又知道只有实现自己爱的生命才能止息真我的渴求时，为什么我要做好人，便不会再是个问题，道德价值亦会成为更接近我们的存在的东西，而不是些从天而降，强加于我们的规条。同时，由人的实现开始去讨论超越界的事物亦合乎我国传统的思维方式：「不怨天，不尤人，下学而上达，知我者其天乎！」(论语宪问篇)「尽其心者，如其性也；知其性，则知天矣。」(孟子尽心篇) 这种「下学上达」，「知天」的思想在历史上很早已流行。尽管当代新儒家仍然质疑「天」之人格，但基本上仍不会否认天人之可沟通性，只要大家继续从这方面保持交谈，互相取长，一定会有更美好的成果。

　

1.温保禄，《救恩论入门》，台北：光启　民74年。本文关于人对救恩的渴求的部份取自第2章。

2.温保禄　44。原文为真善美，但看其文意及所引的资料，作者所指的其文只是「善」，而且这「善」是形上义的「善」，而非道德的「善」。

3.温保禄　72。Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (New York : Paulist Press 1977) 136.

4.温保禄　66，72

5.Leouardo Boff, Jesus Christ Liberator (London : Spck 1978) 137。关于身体的意义，见135 : "Body refers to the whole human being (body and soul) as person in relationship with others. Body refers to human beings in their capacity for communication."

6.Boff, 136 : "The human being as body is transforned from carnal to spiritual (that is, God-filled) existence." Kasper, 151 : "...a body entirely directed by the spirit of God."

7.詹德隆，《基本伦理神学》，台北：光启　民75年　62。

8.温保禄　58

9.詹德隆　180

10.在论及人对幸福的追求时，温保禄神父似乎并没有为幸福下一个明确的定义　42，在该段文字中，幸福的意思颇为笼统。

11.詹德隆　182

12.参阅Joseph F.Donceel, The Searching Mind (Indiana : University of Nonre Dame Press 1979) 146.

13.詹德隆　186

14.同上注。

＊　本文为笔者神学一年级时所作。

作者：林荣钧

天国与正义社会的关系－－顾氏(Gustavo Gutierrez) 的理解




一．导言

香港社会从八二年开始，在政治上急剧发展，英首相戴卓尔夫人在八二年前往北京与中国领导人商谈有关香港前途问题，八四年中英双方签署联合声明，香港将于九七年回归中国成为高度自治的特别行政区。随之而来的是香港政府的政制改革和基本法的制定。香港社会从政治冷感逐渐成为政治化，教会身处这时代，面对很大挑战和冲击。因着九七问题所带来的移民问题，及近年大量的越南难民涌进香港，和八九年北京民运六四事件，在催迫教会不得不关注政治及社会事件，从前政教分离的原则已不足回应时代的挑战，教会不得不重新反省自身与政治的关系，究竟教会与世界应保持甚么关系？参予政治及社会行动是否违反传福音使命，假若可以参政及关社，那么它的程度和限制是怎样的？面对时代征兆，如何作信仰反省和发展本地神学？

在有关教会与政治的问题上，近代拉丁美洲的解放神学有着举足轻重的影响。顾氏(Gustasvo Gutierrez) 是解放神学的创始人，在思想和方法上均有重大的突破和贡献，本文在探讨教会与政治的问题上，特别研究他在这方面的理解。由于教会与政治的问题很广泛，本文选择探讨天国与正义社会的关系，因为这是问题的中心，在厘清教会与世界的关系后，我们才能进一步计划牧民行动。

本文除导言外，正文分为三大部份，第一部份从历史发展看教会与世界的关系，第二部份探讨顾氏从信望爱看天国与正义社会的关系，第三部份是批判分析。希望在了解及分析顾氏的思想后，有助本地教会反省和指出发展本地神学的方向。

二．教会与世界关系的历史发展

按顾氏的理解，教会与世界的关系可分三个发展阶段：(一) 教会升平后，所谓基督国(Christendom) 心态时期；(二) 十六世纪宗教改革后至十九世纪的新基督国时期；(三) 近代的分别层面(Distinction of Planes) 时期。(1)

1. 基督国 (Christendom)

在教难以后基督宗徒得君士坦丁大帝接受，教会得以发展，及至公元380年被立为罗马国教，教会更进一步影响社会，当时教会在社会及政冶上占有举足轻重地位，更直接与政权有密切联系。教会自身了解自己为得救的唯一途径。一言蔽之，当时神学上认为「教会以外无救恩」，在此思想下，现世当然缺乏其独立性及价值，一切只是过渡，整个生活是受信仰影响，人类生存的目的是加入教会，获得救恩。现世历史在救恩计划中并未占有一席位。教会相对于现世而言是一切救世工程的中心。基督徒参予社会政治事务只有一个目的?为教会直接利益。所谓基督徒政治只是为保护教会利益而已。这时期的政教关系是合一时期，教会高于社会，社会是为教会服务，这心态(或思想) 一直延至十六世纪。(2)

2. 新基督国 (New Christendom)

十六世纪的宗教改革及十八世纪的法国大革命，对教会产生重要影响，兼在理性主义、人文主义、科学等思潮急剧发展的背景下，教会开始走上一条新的道路。十九世纪玛利坦(Maritan) 尝试在理论上将信仰与社会生活分开，他基本上是随从圣多玛斯的思想，认为恩宠并不压抑或取代人性，相反是便之达到完美。这思想为在世之政治活动开出一条独立自主的路，不需依旁与信仰或教会的关系。与前期不同的是：参予政治活动不是为了教会利益，而是为建立一基于正义、尊重人权及人类弟兄友爱的社会。在这时期，教会理解到自身所活动(管治) 的范围，对现世事务不再加以干预，让其保留独立自主。虽则如此，教会仍自视为救恩的中心，依旧比世界高。政治活动不为教会的直接利益，但是为教会提供在世活动的有利条件。换言之，教会希望在世建立一个受基督信仰所启导的社会。在具能生活上教友拥有双重身份：一为教会成员之一，作为教友自身(Christian as such) 代表教会；另一为受基督信仰所启导的个体，需对自身行为作个人负责。这种双重身份使教友在个人身份上有较大自由度参加政治。他们的任务是要在现世建立基督王国(Profane Christendom)。为有效地达到目的，他们需要加入受基督信仰启导的组织，使自身能逐步受到熏陶及支持，以基督徒身份参予建设社会。

这时期基本上教会与政权是分开的，教会作为信仰团体不应参政，但作为公民则有政治责任。虽然世界的价值提高及加增了独立自主，但她依然需依附教会才可达到完满。(3)

3. 分别不同层面 (Distinction of Planes)

这时期的发展动机是希望在天主计划的合一上分别教会与世界的关系。世界在发展上与教会分开，有其独立目标，而教会不独在本质上与世界分别及分开，兼且在使命上，除了在有关伦理问题上，她不干预现世事务。但她也不是直接干预伦理问题，而是透过基督徒的良心实践这使命。此时期教会明认自身有两大使命：(1) 传扬福音；(2) 作现世的启导者。换言之，教会是属此世以外(order apart) 的团体，她在此世，实践其继续基督救世工程及导人成圣的使命，教会可说是人类社会的灵魂，教会既然如此理解自身使命，因此建设社会便不属其使命范围。教会与世界分别是为天国服务，只是途径不同而已。这种划分使神职与教友的使命划分也作如是观。神职人员的使命是履行教会使命，即传福音与作现世秩序的启导者。教友则直接参予建设世界，同时负起建设教会的责任。在此过程中，他们会与非基督徒合作，共同建设一个更正义、更合乎人居住的社会，使人能更自由地回应上主的召叫。这样看来，世界是有其完全独立自主的目标。而教友在建设社会过程中是完全尊重她的自主性。但教友参政的底线是不能超越教会使命：即传福音及作现世的启导者。(4)

简单地介绍了三个时期的发展后，顾氏认为第三阶段分别不同层面仍未完善，在具体实践上大部份的教会成员没有参予，因为教会有意识或无意识地被现存社会秩序所束缚。未能发挥及实践她的使命。此外，教会内部的保守势力在发展过程中方不断阻挠，对渴望改革的基督徒加增不少压力。第三阶段的发展，在拉丁美洲遭到很大考验，顾氏认为在牧民及神学上均对这思想提出挑战。

在牧民上因为分层的思想规限教友对社会和政治的参予不能超越教会使命，但实际情况却迫使某些教友组织冲破这限制。这些教友组织认为假如不能清楚地及更深地投入这奋斗行动便不能表达教会的临在。(5) 教会成员愈清楚所处环境的痛苦情况，便不能逃避为穷人奋斗的责任。分层的思想只是为那些支持现存社会制度的教会人士辩护。在拉丁美洲，情况如此恶劣，人民被压迫及剥削的环境下，教会是否还能诚实地说不干预现世事务呢？当教会表现沉默或是与现存的独裁及压迫人民的政府有亲密关系时，她是否在满全其纯宗教角色？(6) 随着拉丁美洲教会成员更多及更深地参予政治活动，分层思想显得力量不足，它已不能负起指导作用。故此在牧民上正需要一新的指导思想出现。

此外，在神学反省上，随着俗化思想(Secularization) 的发展，人性及人在现世努力的价值不断提高。人作为受造主体，创造的管治者，有责任将现世加以发展。因而教会与世界的关系亦有所改变，从前认为世界附属于教会，现今却认识到教会需要透过世界了解自己。除了俗世思想影响外，欧洲神学也有大的发展，对自然与超自然的关系，有新的了解，玛利西尔(Marechal) 认为人对天主有一无限开放的渴望，这渴望深植人性，每一认知活动均隐含地包括认识上主的渴望。人只有与天主共融合一，才能得到满全，这种了解使自然与超自然合而为一。拉内(Rahner) 将玛利西尔这抽象及本质性(essentialist) 思想转为历史及存在性的范畴。拉内的无名基督徒思想更表达出全人类共同的召叫?天人合一。梵二后的全人发展的理论也强调这共同召叫(convocation) 的思想。

不论是俗世思想或是拉内的神学，均对分层思想带来冲击，这些思想迫使我们重新注解教会与世界的关系。综观教会与世界关系的历史发展，内里包含几个概念的关系：天国、正义和平社会、教会本质与使命、世界的本质与使命。对这些概念的不同了解形成不同时期的政教关系。

天国是耶稣基督宣讲的中心，在传教之初，祂宣布：「时期已满，天国临近，你们悔改，信从福音吧。」(谷1：15) 基督一生，以言以行，印证天国临现，最后更以死亡复活将天国实现。从此天国是已经来临，但尚未完满。天国是人所力争达到的目标，教会是继续基督的救世工程，是为天国服务，是便天国临现的工具和标记。

同样，正义和平社会是人类奋斗的目标，世界的使命是让这目标能实现。世界一词包含人类社会、政治、文化等意义，世界是人类奋斗的舞台，或说是，达到目标的途径。由于教会是在现世中执行任务，她同时是与人类同行。教会与世界两者的使命如何协调？所奋斗的目标是否等同？教会与世界的权力及价值孰高孰低？这些问题在讨论政教关系中无可避免地需要面对。

综合而言，不同政教关系是基于教会对信仰不同程度的理解，或说是对救恩(人的满全)有不同的了解，因而构成对现世有不同的价值观；也影响教会如何实践使命，以及在实践过程中所担当的角色。拉丁美洲的境况促使解放神学思考救恩与人类解放的历史过程的关系。简言之，即思考天国与建立正义和平社会的关系。



1.Gutierrez G., A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1973) 53-58

2.同上 53-54

3.同上 54-56

4.同上 56-58

5.同上 64

6.同上65

三．从信望爱看天国与正义和平社会的关系

1. 信：解放与救赎

1.1 只有一个历史

政教关系的发展乃基于不同时期对「救恩」的理解及诠释。究竟「救恩」是什么？它为人有什么意义？救恩是基督信仰的中心主题，对它的埋解在历史上有了从量到质的发展。传统的救恩观，教会面对异教徒及外邦人的得救问题时，只关注他们是否领洗加入教会而已。而救恩具体便是罪的赦免及获得来世的永生。这种救恩观将救恩与生活割离，并造成至少在理念上似乎有两个历史：一为人类历史；另一为救恩史。救恩只在来世才得到实现。今日这观念已有所转变，得救不再是在于「量」而在「质」。救恩观是：「假如人向神及他人开放，便可得救，纵使他未必清楚意识自己所做的是什么。」(7)人的存在基本上是对神的接纳或拒绝。与量化救恩观不同，质化救恩观不再认为救恩只是来生的事，现世只是一个测验场所以决定人来世是否得到救恩。质化救恩观认为：「救恩是人与神及人与人的共融，它涵盖所有人类存在境况现实，并将之转化，且在基督内达到满全。」(8) 因此，这种救恩观认为，不应分有「神圣」及「世俗」的历史，历史只有一个，因为人类只有一个目的地，而救恩史是人类历史的中心，天主的救赎行动是人类存在发展的基础。所以只有一个历史，一个「基督终向」的(Christofinalized) 历史。

顾氏为阐释他的「只有一个历史」的思想，他从圣经出发，举出圣经两大主题：创造与救赎，以阐明人类历史与救恩史的关系。

1.1.1 创造与救赎顾氏指出，旧约圣经透过以民在历史中所发生的出谷和解放经验连结了创造与救赎。创造不是一独立事件，与救赎分割。创造本身是第一个救赎行动。其实在先知书及圣咏中均有提到天主同是创造主及救赎者。(9) 顾氏曾引用(弗1：3－5) 说：在永恒计划中天主的创造已指向在基督内人类的救赎。创造是指向救赎。这种创造与救赎相连的观念，在以民历史性的出谷事件中具体地表现。出谷不单纯是在以民信仰中的一件宗教事件，它同时是在历史中发生的政治解放事件，是从奴役走向建设正义社会的事实。

「这是从掠夺及悲惨的境况中突破，进而建设一个正义与友爱的社会。这是在压制扭曲了的秩序中重新创造一个新秩序。」(10)

顾氏理解创造不是一件在宇宙诞生之初所发生的事件，它是一件不断发生的事。在出谷经验中以民体会到，创造是要与救赎一起了解的。出谷因此不是纯然解放的救恩事件，也是一创造事件。创造成为一历史性的救赎事实是构成以民信仰的因素，是便以民具体感受天主的爱的事件。

顾氏要阐明创造、救恩和解放三者的关系。顾氏一方面说明创造与救赎是相连的，而出谷的解放事件亦包合有创造与救赎的意义。但这三个观念要动态地了解。顾氏认为出谷(政治解放) 是人的自我创造，是天主带引他们离开奴役之地，在旷野中使他们明白要建立正义友爱的社会。这建设便是人的自我创造。在这不断创造的过程中，人逐步走上救恩的满全。为以民历史来说是指向与天主所订立的盟约：「雅威政治性地解放犹太人是为使他们成为圣洁的民族

... 盟约赋予出谷完满的意义... 盟约与出谷是同一行动的不同面，均是指向与天主相遇结合。」(11)

事实上顾氏认为整部旧约的中心便是以民的出谷，及走向福地的旅程。在旅途中，以民不断建设正义社会，直至到达福地达至完满。当然在顾氏思想中只有在基督内，创造与救赎才得到完满。顾氏反省以民历史，认为人不单通过劳动，也透过人不断建设正义和平社会的努力，继续上主的创造工程。因为不是凡劳动均有助于人的自我创造，假如劳动不能为人的好处，不指向人的解放及团结合一，劳动是没有价值的。人为解放自由所作出的挣扎和努力，才是人的自我创造。因此顾氏的理解是：解放、创造、救恩均是动态地连结一起向前迈向完满，历史上的解放行动只是开始而已。创造就是人不断建设正义和平社会所作的一切救赎行动的一部份。(12) 救恩为顾氏而言是一份礼物，是上主完全地、自由地赠予的，救恩的内容便是人神及人与人的共融。救恩作为人类自我创造的内在动力，它包含整个人及所有人类历史，而同时救恩也是整个人类行动趋向的满全。(13)

顾氏认为创造与救赎是相连的，人类历史只有一个，天主救恩是在具体历史中实现，他的用意是指出建设正义和平社会是人类的自我创造，它是救恩行动使人迈向救恩的满全，使为穷人争取解放，指正不公义等行动有一神学基础及信仰意义。救恩不是来世才实现，而是在每天的争取解放行动中逐渐实现的。但如何保证这救恩能完全实现呢？假若只观察旧约以民的历史是不完整的，而教会文宪多次提及世界的发展与天国临现是不同的。救恩是否只是政治解放呢？

1.2 基督与整体解放

顾氏十分反对将信仰只保留在精神层面，(14) 福音变成只是个人信仰所需，换言之，信仰只是个人得心灵平安的灵药。顾氏认为，福音中的耶稣与当时的政治有密切关系，天国不单是个人的皈依，也包含社会革命。我们可从三点看耶稣公开生活的政治性：(15) (a) 耶稣提到要猛力擢取天国，祂驱逐商人出圣殿均与热诚者所作相近，但也有相异的地方，耶稣的使命是普世性的，而热诚者发则是狭隘的民族主义，耶稣使人对法律有一灵性的自由，热诚者则极之维护字面地导守法律。耶稣认为天国是一份礼物，热诚者认为天国是自身努力的成果。最后耶稣所带来的解放是普遍而又整合的，超越民族国家界线，直接打击不义与剥削的基础。(b) 耶稣更挑战犹太人的权威，公开指责他们。祂认为真正的崇拜包含个人纯正意向，创造真正的弟兄友爱，对有需要人仕作真正投身并与贫穷人站在一起。(c) 耶稣的公开传教言行触怒了当时权贵，最后死在这些政治权威手上。祂所受之刑罚是十字架，表示受刑者犯了政冶罪行。祂被称为犹太人的君王，此举正威胁到罗马人的统治者。最后耶稣以政治犯的名义死在十字架上。从以上三点看，耶稣的公开生活是与政治有关，而耶稣也因政治罪名被钉在十字架上。

耶稣深知自己的使命是摧毁罪恶，让人从罪恶的奴役中解放出来。祂的使命及公开传教虽有政治幅度，但并不表示天国等同正义和平社会。天国的临现是在于摧毁罪恶的根源?人的自私。顾氏认为罪恶不是个人或私人或纯粹内在的现实，罪本身也是社会及历史事实。具体表现于人际间缺乏弟兄友爱，人与神之间有一鸿沟阻碍人神建立友谊。(16) 罪可说是基本的疏离，是不义与剥削境况的根源，是植根于人的自私。(17)

罪恶不只是个人的私事，它也是一个境况，是人拒绝天主的境况。基督的解放就是让人脱离罪的境况。罪是人拒绝天主及拒绝其他人为我们的兄弟姊妹。因此基督的解放是让人与神，及人与人得到团结共融。这解放不能化为政治解放，虽然它是临在于具体历史及政治解放事件中。在此顾氏提出三种不同的解放，这三者是相连的：(18) (I) 政治解放，(II) 在历史中的解放，(III) 从罪中解放并与天主共融。顾氏明白到政治解放不能替代基督的解放。耶稣摧毁罪的根源使人得到真正的自由，天国即在于此。天国来临是一份恩赐，非人力所能挣到的，现世的发展只是延续创造，及连结救恩的工程。天国并不等同建立正义和平社会，但也并非表示对社会无动于衷。既然天国临现是天主的恩赐，正义和平社会便不能成为天国临现的必然条件。那么两者的关系是怎样的呢？

基本上，顾氏也认为两者是不能等同的。但天国的逐步发展与正义和平社会的基本预设条件是相同的，那便是基督的解放。天国的临现与发展成长长不同的，宣讲天国是帮助社会渴望公义及协助人发现新的幅度及途径，推动人改革社会，对抗剥削及割离，努力建设正义社会。这是人部份的解放，它不是全部。天国发展是一个过程，是具体地在历史的解放事件中实现的，因此没有历史的解放事件便没有天国的发展。但没有天国的临在则不能摧毁不义和压迫的根源。综合而言，历史政治的解放是天国成长的某种表现，虽然是一救恩行动，但不等同天国临现及救恩的完满。(19) 最后顾氏提出耶稣基督的救赎与政治解放的必然关系，基督展现天父对人的爱，而在历史生活中具体表达时，无可避免地会指责不公义及剥削压迫等事件，因这些现象是扭曲了作为天主肖象的人性，(20)因而导向政治性的解放。

2. 爱：在历史中与主相遇

2.1 人性：天主的圣殿

解放过程是指向新的创造，现今在拉丁美洲，教会与人民共同挣扎，一起争取解放，这过程是否为人有意义，使人迈向新的创造呢？挣扎，为解放奋斗等行动是人类的自我创造，但同时也是爱的行动，这爱人的行动如何与爱主结合呢？

顾氏提出圣言不单启示有关天主及有关人的奥秘，最特别的是圣言成为人生活在我中间，因此，人类历史成为与主相遇的地方。

在古经中，早已记述天主如何寓居在以民中间，而天主寓居的方式正显示人神关系的演进。因此概览寓居方式的演进便可了解人神关系的发展。首先天主的寓居是临在西乃山上颁布十诫(出19；14：12；16－17；申10：1)。然后天主寓居的方式转至会幕及约柜。当撒罗满兴建圣殿后，天主便寓居在圣殿(撒下7：5；列上3：1－3)，天主与人的距离逐渐拉近，天主不再藉雷电临在西乃山上，而是在圣殿中与人交往。虽然如此，以民并不认为天主就寓居在圣殿内，他们明白没有任何圣殿能约束雅威，他们相信雅威到处都在。因此与天主交往若囿于外在崇拜时常受到先知的谴责，先知指出雅威所悦纳的不是祭献而是人的内心皈依，及至古经后期的先知书，明显地说天主的神寓居在人心中(则36：26－27；耶31：33)。天主寓居的高峰是天主子降生成人，若望福音序言说出圣言成了血肉，寄居在我们中间，天主寓居人心完全在耶稣身上实现，耶稣基督是新的圣殿(若2：19－20)，是天主寓居之处，是人神相遇的地方。保禄更进一步说，在基督内基督徒成为圣神的宫殿，圣神寓居是天主的恩宠，是救恩的效果(格前3：16－17；6：19)，最后在宗徒大事录记载中，了解到天主不单寓居在基督徒心中也在所有人心内(宗10：45，47；11：16－18；15：8；若14：23)。综合而言，因着天主子降生成人，人性、历史、每一个人、均成为天主生活的圣殿。(21)

顾氏列出天主寓居方式的演进，最后因着基督，天主寓居在人心内是为连结他的思想：「认识天主便是实行公义。」

为犹太人，认识不单属于理性层面，也包括行动，所以认识天主即爱天主，与人建立合乎公义的关系。既然天主寓居在我们中间，我可透过具体爱德行为与主相遇。基本上人类受造是指向与主与人共融。(若一4：7－8) 犯罪便是拒绝去爱，福音中善心撒玛利亚人的比喻便说我们要成为特别有需要者的近人，我们便离天国不远了。(路10：29－36) 既然我们受造和救赎均是以爱和共融为目标，那么我们如何在现在开始这行动呢？顾氏说行爱德不是抽象的概念，它是因着天主的爱在我们心中推动我们，使我们有能力去爱和建设一个正义和友爱的社会，(22) 因为天主的爱在我们心中所以一切爱德成为可能，天主的爱不是强要我们跟从祂，而是尊重和接纳，让我们是一个人地去爱和被爱。真正对天主的爱只有透过真正具体对人的爱才可实现。面对爱主及爱人两者的应有关系，只是说两者是不可分的是不足够的。顾氏相信对主的爱是无可避免地透过爱近人才可表达，意即在近人身上天主被我们所爱。顾氏更引用龚格的名言：「近人的圣事」(Sacrament of our neighbor) (23) 来说明通过爱有形可见的近人到达爱那无形可见的天主。爱近人并不是手段或工具，爱近人的意义被对主的爱赋予更深的意义。顾氏以人性为天主圣殿来连结爱主爱人的行动的意义，两者不是如何平衡，而是如何合一。他唯恐这份爱只停留在个别的你我关系上，于是再次强调爱近人是包含政治性爱德行动，即包括社会改革，(24) 使爱近人成为与他人共同挣扎求取解放，具体地在历史生活中展现。(25)

2.2 转向近人：与贫穷人站在一起

天主寓居在人心中，把人心作为祂的圣殿，因此爱人同时是爱天主。但为何教会要对贫穷人情有独钟呢？顾氏认为博爱全人类是抽象和普遍性的，这份爱须要从个别的爱开始，或说是透过对个别人的爱进入到博爱的境界。因此他说要优先与贫穷人站在一起(preferential option for the poor)。但这种优先取向是否会导致排除富人得救的机会？顾氏再三强调，这优先取向只是表达次序而非本质上排拒富人，福音是为全人类的，可是福音也有指出对贫穷人的特别关注。而且对富人传福音方式及劝喻也有所不同，教会劝喻有钱人的心切勿依附财富，要悔改皈依以从自我中心及罪恶束缚中解放出来。顾氏坚持孟德连(Medellin) 与普尔保拉(Puebla) 两个主教会议的，就是优先取向与贫穷人及与他们团结一起，因为这是与所有人真诚团结的条件，只有透过个别的爱才能到达普遍的博爱，从而踏进正义与仁爱的国度。(26)

为顾氏而言，贫穷是指在物质上、社会政治上、及人性尊严上有所缺乏。玛窦福音第廿五章清楚表示：对最小兄弟所作的便是对基督所作的，因为基督第二位圣子空虚自我，降生成人，成为最贫穷的人，与贫穷人连结一起，我们服侍身边贫穷的弟兄姊妹便是服侍贫穷的基督。所以照顾穷人不只是慈善事业，也包括为他们争取公义及人权。福音对贫穷人的眷爱在真福八端的第一端中深刻地展露：「贫穷的人是有福的，因为天国是他们的。」(路6：20b) 很多人将这里所指的贫穷局限在精神及宗教意义，但顾氏认为这端真福是包含物质及精神的贫穷。它有两个特点，一点是神学的，它告诉我们天主是谁，另一点是人学的，它强调聆听圣言后的灵性倾向的重要性。整篇真幅八端均是指向物质贫穷，这境况是使人认识天主是谁，天主以祂的自由和恩宠爱贫穷人，而天主这样作并非因为贫穷人好，较其他人美善，只因为他们是贫穷的，(作为天主肖像，钟爱的子女) 他们的境况是对天主的羞辱，而第二点灵性倾向是接受天国启示的条件，太早将贫穷精神化是将天主「人」化，其实，我们所面对的是一个奥迹；是天主先爱了人类，祂召唤我们回到祂的怀抱成为祂的子女，而人的回应便是第二点的灵性倾向，所以第一点的无条件的爱是最能展现天主是爱。

本文前面曾提到解放的三个层面：(一) 政治解放；(二) 在历史中人的解放；(三) 从罪恶中解放与主共融，这三店面也可从关系上了解，即是：(一) 与世界的关系(人作为其主人)；(二) 与其他人成为兄弟姊妹；(三) 与天主是父子关系。这三个层面是整合的，只能分辨不能分开，因此要成为天主子女必然包括实行正义，及转化现存不公义的社会，使天主的公义临现，而人际间才有真正弟兄姊妹的共融。

教会作为基督的跟随者，为延续基督救赎解放的工程，本身要活出这奥迹，要有这三种解放，而三者是共融整合的。基督的命运是教会的命运，因此教会为活出这份为人舍生的爱在生活中应为贫穷的弟兄姊妹交付生命，在死而复活的基督内建立希望，因为祂已战胜死亡及罪恶。在传扬福音过程中，教会固然是要活出这奥迹，而贫穷人是福音的接受者，但贫穷人的生活也是对教会的挑战，因在他们身上展露了福音的价值，如团结，服务，简朴，向主开放，接受恩宠等，贫穷人的生活要求教会悔改皈依，因此贫穷人也是福音的使者。他们提醒教会传福音的首要条件是一如她的师傅基督，活出福音中的贫穷。当我们生活贫穷和服侍贫穷人，我们便不断的皈依及净化，我们便日益与贫穷的基督结合，生活贫穷是表示对主的信赖，因为传扬福音不是靠人间的权威而是靠天主的德能，因此教会一无所依地继续基督的使命正是其应有的面貌。

爱德行为使我们在历史中与主相遇，因为主就寓居在人心，进一步优先爱贫穷人更是主的意愿，我们的爱更具体，也在爱德中展现天主对人的爱，我们的爱是对近人的爱也是天主对人的爱，因为我们是基督的跟随者。此外基督也在受苦的弟兄身上，爱他们便是爱基督，最后向穷人传福音的使命也使教会更肖似基督，贫穷人既是接受福音者，也是使者。顾氏非常强调与贫穷人站在一起，祂整个神学也是以此为出发点，因为在投身于这奋斗过程中，我们会与主与人更共融合一。(27)

3. 望：末世论与政治

3.1 末世性许诺

我们投身于创造正义社会，创造新人类时，预设了对未来的信心，在此我们讨论在信仰光照下未来新世界的意义。首先探讨圣经内许诺的意义，许诺是圣经重要主题之一，一些圣经学者指新约是将旧约许诺精神化，(28) 旧约许诺的实现只在精神层面。但顾氏认为救赎不是灵性或是世俗的，它是两者相连的，现世所实现的许诺是部份的指向末日全部的完成。现在与将来是相连的，对将来许诺实现的希望使我们转化现在的历史现实。事实上只有在现世历史事件里才可开创未来整体的满全。在现世社会中消除悲惨及剥削是天国临现的标记。争取及建立正义社会，使社会中再没有压迫、痛苦、疏离等也是表现着天国的来临。换言之，为正义奋斗便是为天国奋斗。

3.2 信仰、乌托邦(Utopia) 与政治行动

许诺是否乌托邦呢？乌托邦按一般人了解它是一个幻想，不切实际及非理性的。但近代却有新的了解，它是一个建设新社会的历史计划，并且表达了对建立人际新社会关系的渴望。乌托邦会剌激人转化现存社会，它有三点特性需要注意：(a) 与历史现实的关系；(b) 在投身实践中验证；(c) 它的理性本质。

(a) 与历史现实的关系：理想不是空想，也不脱离现实。作为未来的蓝本，它与现实有非常紧密的联系。这联系表现于它对现存制度的指责，及宣告未来应走的路。作为未来的理想，它必然与现实有冲突，要铲除罪恶的根源，所以乌托邦不是改革者而是革命者。除了指责外，乌托邦宣告那主的未来新秩序新社会，宣告未来新社会推动历史前进，使现在所渴望能在将来实现。

(b) 没有在历史中承担、指责与宣告，乌托邦便不会实现，它仍旧是空想而已。乌托邦之能够推动历史前进及革新现存秩序是在于它的历史实践。乌托邦理想国是否结出果实关键在这提出未来目标与现在实践的关系是否紧密。

(c) 乌托邦属于理性秩序的，但一般人的理解始终认为乌托邦是非理性的。顾氏引用Blanguart 的见解(29) 阐释乌托邦不但不是非理性，违反科学，相反，它却构成科学的原创性及能力。有些时候，当现存科学理论到达极限时，要开创新领域便得依靠富创造力的想象(creative imagination)，而Blanguart指出，在政治上的创新想像便是乌托邦。它与意识型态不同，因为意识型态局限在历史当中，它只能达到保存现存秩序的功能，然而乌托邦带领人类进入一真实及富有科学知识的领域，进入具体实践中，以改变现存的秩序。(30) 因此乌托邦虽与科学不同，但它却是科学的内在动力。

经过阐释乌托邦的概念及功能后，我们再检视信仰与政治行动的关系。在谈论爱德时，我们曾以整合解放的三层面分析，现在探讨望德，我们仍尝试从这三层看。首先经济，社会政治的解放是对应科学的理性，它支持有效的政治转化行动，第二层之解放指向在新的团结社会中创造新人类，它属于乌托邦的层面，有推动及改革的功能，至于第三层从罪恶中解放进入主与人共融，这层的解放属信仰层面，简言之，三层分属历史现实、未来乌托邦及信仰等不同范畴，但它们是紧密地相连。

从望德的角度看信仰与政冶行动的关系，顾氏认为必须从与现存不同的社会内创造新人类的努力了解，这个创造新人类是政治解放与信仰的共同目标，(31) 信仰的目的是使人成为更自由更实现人性的人。而政治解放目的也是这样。乌托邦使政治参予者不会成为空想家，相反，推动他们更积极参予及使他们的行动不会出卖自己的原意。解放行动的乌托邦作为目标能加增人们的社会醒觉，了解现存秩序不妥的地方进而创造新人类，使社会转化到一团结共融的社会。顾氏认为这创造便是政冶解放与全人类与主共融的汇合点。(32) 为达到全人类与主共融必需使人从罪恶中解放。信仰便是指出这个可能性，人的确可以消除一切不义、压迫、剥削而进入友爱的社会境况，一切政治解放的努力不会白费，因为天主召叫我们为此而努力。祂同时亦给予协助及保证，我们一定会成功的，信仰进一步指出未来新人类的创造不是空等待的，它要求我们今天开始，虽然我们明白到现在的只是过渡，但我们仍得努力，信仰为我们启示历史的深层意义，未来是掌握在我们手中，今日的行动是指向建立一个更公义的社会，且在过程中我们与主与人共融合一。(33)



  7.同上 151

8.同上 151

9.包括依42：5－6；43：1；54：5；亚4：12；5：6；耶10：16；27：5；32：17；33：25；拉2：10；咏74；89；93；95；135；136

10.同上 155

11.同上 157

12.同上 159 顾氏不断强调工作能转化世界，使人成为一个真人，建立人类团体。因此每一行动均成为救恩行动。

13.同上 159 在全书中，顾氏每提及救恩必引出这内容。

14.同上 167

15.同上 225-232

16.Gutierrez G., The Power of the poor in History (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1983) 136.

17.Gutierrez G., A Theology of Liberation 175.

18.同上 176

19.同上 177

20.同上 232

21.同上 189-192

22.同上 199

23.同上 201

24.同上 202

25.同上 203

26.Gutierrez G., The Power of the poor in History 125.

27.同上125-148

28.Gutierrez G., A Theology of Liberation 165.

29.同上 234

30.同上 235

31.同上 236

32.同上 237

33.同上 238

四．批判分析

1. 对天国与正义社会的关系的理解

1.1 顾氏的理论基础：救恩史与人类历史的关系

顾氏所身处的拉丁美洲社会是不公义的，财富落入少数人手上，大部份人受到剥削压迫，生活贫穷。这样的社会境况实在与福音背道而驰。六十年代初期，顾氏从欧洲学成返国后，在大学任教及出任主教团的顾问，期间不断反省信仰在这社会境况的意义，及教会在世界的使命。受到梵二及孟德连(Medellin) 主教会议的影响，他在1971年出版「解放神学」一书，有系统地阐释他的思想和那突破传统及回异欧洲神学的方法论。基本上他将拉丁美洲神学从发展(Development) 转为以解放(Liberation) 为中心。顾氏以社会分析找出拉丁美洲社会问题的征结?在于殖民主义及强国的经济侵略。「发展」的思想，只是加强现存社会结构，不能救人民于水火之中。只有全面的革命才能使社会有新的面貌。圣经中解放的讯息，正好贴合今日拉丁美洲的境况。此外，在检视历史中教会与世界的关系时，顾氏发觉到现时的分层思想(Distinction of Planes) 已不能在拉丁美洲应用，这思想认为教会与社会是分开的，教会只负责传扬福音及作现世的启导者，教友虽然参与建设社会但不能越出这界线。信仰要求教会在面对社会不公义时有所回应，但碍于这种理解，教会不能参予政治，另一方面教会称自己为穷人的教会，应优先与穷人站在一起，顾氏身为神学工作者，不得不再思考信仰在投身打击不义的人身上的意义。如何将建设正义社会与天国相连？

在顾氏心目中，建设正义社会的目标是新人类的创造。但在圣言的光照下，对抗及打击不义社会与新人类的创造有什么意义？从神学方面来看，是找寻救恩与在历史中人类解放过程的关系。因此顾氏便得反省救恩的意义。他阐释救恩从量到质的转变，救恩的目标是解放，而解放则有三层意义，包括：(I) 社会政治的解放，(II) 历史的解放，(III) 罪恶中的解放。结合这三层解放的基础是新的历史观。

传统的历史观将人类历史与救恩史分开，救恩史是人类历史以外的事物，使救恩只成为人死后的永生。恩宠与人性是对立的，自然与超自然也是二分的。但顾氏认为历史只有一个，「救恩史是人类历史的中心，天主的救恩行动是所有人类存在的基础，人性的历史终向必然要肯定地放置在救恩的领域上。」(34) 他的基本肯定是因为只有一个基督终向的历史(Christo-finalized history)。(35)

为顾氏而言，历史是人类不断自我创造的过程，不断体现人的自由，他承接着黑格尔及马克思的思想，认为人是自己生命目标的主人，人是不断意识体现自由，透过工作去改造世界，以决定自己的命运，寻求自由，好能自由地去爱。正如潘霍华所说：「解放的完满意义，在于完全地、自由地与主与人共融。」(36) 而历史便是这实践过程。但在阐释历史只有一个时，他并没有借用哲学或意识型态(ideology)，他只引用圣经的两个主题去说明，这两个主题是创造与救赎的关系和末世的许诺。他从圣经出发，明显地从信仰眼光看历史，以色列民的历史是其真实实的人类历史，但在信仰下，它同时是天主拯救人类和人类回应天主的历史。这种解释是十分生活及存在性的，让人投入在生活中体会。无疑，这种阐释方法让人容易了解两者的合一性，但却无法清楚表明分别性。顾氏承认他受到狄鲁白(Henri de Lubac)，拉内(Rahner)，庞丹尔(Blondel) 有关自然与超自然合一的思想影响，(37) 特别是拉内的超自然存在架构(Super natural existential)，因为人的生命是不断地、终极地回应或拒绝天主，或可说是天主赠予的恩宠，所以历史只有一个。但顾氏并没有采用欧洲的神学语言，他只用圣经和文献，因此便缺乏在概念上澄清两者的可分别而不可分开性。而且，所谓合一，不是等同，由于他没有进一步说明，容易使人误会，以为他将救恩史等同人类历史，换言之，是将天国等同正义社会。因为人类历史与救恩史的关系是作为向明天国与正义社会关系的基础，顾氏这方面的不足难免会招致批评。虽然他在论及天国与正义社会的关系时多次说明两者是分别而不是等同的，(38) 但由于圣经语言是存在性的，文献是原则性的，所以不能达到概念上的澄清。而拉内(Rahner) 在论及人类历史与救恩史关系时，则以他一贯的哲学语言及从人学到神学的方法论将两者关系有系统地作概念澄清，其实，从拉内对人的了解已暗示出人性与超性的不可分，所以论及人存在的问题同时是救恩的问题，拉内指出人本质上有超自然存在结构(Supernatural existential) 使人不断自我超越以及对天主的自我通传自由地接纳或拒绝，另一方面人的存在结构也是历史性的，他说：「人作为超验和自由的位格存有也是同时作为在世界、时间、历史中的存有。」(39) 因此人是不可能脱离历史，他更准确地说：「人的无限制的超越性的主体性本质是历史性地在他的知识及自由的自我实现中传介于他的。」(40) 既然人的自我超越与历史性同时是人的存在结构时，两者是可分别而不可分开的，人的超越性需要历史传介(mediated)，而历史本身时常是这超越的事件。我们可以这样说，有关历史本身的终极事实便是人超越性的历史。按垃内的用语，历史内包含两个层面：一为超越性的(Trancendental)，另一为范畴性的(Categorical)。超越性的历史可称为救恩史，范畴性的称为人类历史，两者并不等同。按照拉内的理解，因为历史中包含人的罪过，拒绝天主，即相反救恩，所以并不等同救恩史，他采用「同周延」(Coextensive) 一词，他说救恩史与世界历史是同周延的。(41) 拉内曾专文探讨救恩史与世界历史的关系，更详细说明两者的异同。他说出救恩史是在世界历史内进行的，然而它的内容及现实却存在于世界历史背后，因此我们并不能透过历史事件明显地认识救恩史，拉内更细致地说明虽然两者是共同伸展但仍有异同，两者是形式上(formally)而非物质上(materially) 分别，(42) 此外救恩史赋予世界历史意义，虽然救恩史必然要透过人类历史展现，但现世终必过去，救恩史促使人的眼望向永恒，而在基督内完成一切。

拉内在理论阐释上，概念的分辨比顾氏精细，使人十分清楚救恩史与世界历史的关系，但落实在天国与正义社会的关系时，显然只能说两者有着辩证性的关系，而在具体历史中实在很难分辨，拉内只能定下底线，上限为不能只强调救恩史或天国致使成为精神或灵性主义(Spiritualism)，下限为不能只强调世界历史或建设正义社会使成为化约主义(reductionism)。(43) 顾氏虽然用圣经语言但似乎也是达到同样结论，而且也只能作如此程度的分别。波夫(Boff) 提出四个模式去阐释天国与正义社会的关系。他强调两者不是完全地共同伸展的，它们是有所重好，我们可以说它们是在对方内肯定自己的身份，而非与对方完全等同。他采用的四个模式是(I) 加釆东模式；(II) 圣事模式；(III) 爱(agapic)；(IV) 人学模式。综合而言，四种模式借用类比作阐释，如在加釆东模式中的耶稣基督的天主性和人性的关系，在圣事模式中天主恩宠与历史标记或媒介的关系，在爱的模式中的爱主爱人的关系，人学模式中的灵魂和肉身的关系，比拟出救恩与历史解放的互相关连，但非绝对等同，两者不可混淆，不可分割。波夫指出这些模式只能比拟地描绘两者的关系，因为内含奥秘的特性。在这末世期间，建设正义社会与到达天国满全时刻保持着一种张力，(44) 波夫的模式系统颇能够将顾氏与拉内的思想综合。

综观三位神学家及近代哲学思潮，(45) 基本在理论阐释上已很清楚说明历史只有一个，天国和正义社会的关系是不可混淆，但也不可分割。各人所用的语言不同，进路不同，互相补足。但在处理实际牧民计划时似乎未能有所直接帮助，仍然是止于原则性指导及清晰概念。比较上顾氏也很明白这困难，因为在具体行动中是很难辨别这两种幅度，所以他最后说出不是靠理论而是靠个人及牧民经验，在具体环境及事件上反省体会。(46)他所提供的出路正是他方法论的特色，这点将在第三部份详细分析。

2. 信理上的不足

2.1 创造与工作

顾氏在反省以民历史时，指出人不单通过劳动，也透过人不断建设正义社会的努力，继续上主的创造工程，因为不是凡劳动均有助于人的自我创造，假如劳动不能为人的好处，不指向人的解放及团结合一，劳动是没有价值的。人为解放自由所作出的挣扎和努力，才是人的自我创造。(47) 顾氏受到马克思的思想影响，对历史和社会转化及人的劳动价值与教会传统演译有所不同。

顾氏理解历史为人争取解放的过程，自由是历史争斗的战利品，因此历史的目标不只是为改善生活条件，在架构上彻底改变，及引动社会革命，更重要的是不断的创造，永不休止，是一种做人的新径，一个永久革命。(48) 劳动或创造是指向这目标的工具，正如上述，劳动不能为人的好处便没有价值。马克思的理论重点在劳动实践。因着劳动，人才能实现本质，改造自然。为马克思而言，认识是不能与通过工作改造世界分开的。(49)环境的改变和人的活动的一致，只能被看作是并合理地解释为革命的实践。(50) 但实践和目标及劳动主体并没有本质上的关连，实践或劳动只是工具，它自身的价值是工具价值，顾氏所指是在不义社会下的劳动是没有价值的，因为不能让人自由解放。在这点上顾氏未有说明劳动自身的价值。劳动并不是源出于人的本质。

梵二教会在《现代世界牧职宪章》阐明：「赖以生产、交易及提供经济服务的人的劳动，远驾乎经济生活的其他因素之上，因为其他因素只是工具而已。人的劳动，无论出诸自动或由他人推动，直接发源于人的人格。…人可能以劳动实行真正的爱德并提供合作，以完成天主的化工，而且，人将劳动奉献天主，便是参予耶稣基督的救世大工。」(No.67)文献指出劳动源出人格，而且并没有什么是没有价值的劳动，此外，劳动更是参予天主创造与救赎的工程。假若按顾氏所说，便得划分有价值与没有价值的劳动，但人是否身处不公义的或有罪的境况便不是人。当然顾氏深深体会到拉丁美洲是一个非人(Nonperson) 的境况，(51) 纵使人努力工作，仍然未能挣得温饱，如何说劳动实现人性呢？劳动自身又有什么价值呢？所以他说有些劳动是没有意义的。

「工作」通谕给工作的定义是：它是一转移及物的行动(Transitive activity)，即是说，一个行动从人类主体开始，指向外在客体，这里预设一由人对大地的特定的主权，在工作中更肯定和发展这主权。(No.4) 人是通过工作达到管理大地的目的。在通论中有数点是论及工作的本质：「决定工作价值的基础主要不是在所作的工作种类而在于工作的是人(person)，工作尊严的来源主要来自于主体幅度而非客体。…因此，工作是为人而非人为工作。」(No.6) 通论指出工作应有的本质和意义，工作与人格的内在关系，工作的价值在于主体而非客体。但如何使训导内容应用在拉丁美洲？虽然我们很难向被压迫剥削，不得温饱、贫苦的弟兄姊妹解释工作的意义，使他们重拾人性尊严。但另一方面，我们却不能为此而只强调工作的客体价值。

其实顾氏的思想和通论的分歧在于两者不同的社会境况和神学方法论，以及各自不同的反省层面。但分析顾氏思想时，由于他受到马克思的思想影响，所以强调劳动的客体价值。事实上这正是顾氏的神学的不足，因为所采用的语言和受到具体环境的偏向影响，他往往受到限制而只能突出某一点，如劳动和创造的客体价值。

劳动既由主体出发，必有其启示意义，即一主体活动只要按启示和良心，必有益于主体发展，人的存在已有价值，只是在劳动过程中人发挥理性与自由意志使人更成为人。这里并不是脱离现实而是在罪的境况中，人依然可活出他的尊严，人能将劳动结合受苦的基督，共同参予救赎工程。在此我们一方面不走极端，只重视灵性一面，让人满足于心灵层面，但在不否定现世改革的价值下依然要肯定灵性的一面，肯定劳动自身(work-in-itself) 的价值，作为主体活动的价值。另一方面，却不能强调现世改革而将劳动贬为工具。

2.2 末世论与政治

顾氏以信望爱看天国与正义社会的关系，在信爱两个范畴，他均引用圣经及文献作反省及支持他的思想，但在「望」的范畴内讨论末世论时，圣经与意识型态的比重却有所失衡。而且在篇幅及内容比较上，明显地比信、爱两范畴少。顾氏采用新马克思主义者博克(Bloch) 的思想来说明未来的梦想是为推翻现在，使将来的乌托邦与现在连上关系。(52) 他引用库尔门(Cullmann) 的分析去了解政治在耶稣生命中的意义，虽然耶稣的行径与热诚党人相似，他经常公开挑战当权的法利塞人及经师等，最后更以政治理由被处死，但他无意改革社会秩序。按照库尔门的了解，耶稣因为感到天国逼近，他所关心的只是个人的悔改。但这种态度应随着时代改变，因为末日已不再像从前感觉那么逼近，所以社会改革有助于个人悔改，(53) 但顾氏不同意这结论，关心社会改革的原因并不在此，而应是耶稣的先知角色，祂指责以民只着重形式的祭献而罔顾社会正义，顾氏归结到政治是耶稣的讯息核心，宣讲天国是向社会揭示对正义社会的渴望，及导致发现新的途径及新的幅度。

顾氏认为政治是耶稣所宣讲的讯息的核心，这是很危险的，虽然他马上补充天国与社会改革的关系，(54) 但仍然予人一种失衡的感觉。明显地，顾氏希望突出耶稣使命的政治幅度，但耶稣宣讲的中心无可置疑是天国，祂的逾越奥迹所摧毁的是罪恶，他的使命超越以色列的政治默西亚观，故不在于复兴以色列国，祂宣讲：「时期已满，天国临近，你们悔改，信从福音吧。」(谷1：14) 是邀请人悔改，当人悔改后以基督的心及眼光看所处的政治境况，弟兄姊妹们承受着罪恶的后果，因而积极投入改革社会及继续邀请人悔改，所以重点在于人心的悔改而导致社会改革，在改革过程中使更多的人悔改。政治不是耶稣使命的中心讯息，而是其中所牵涉的一个幅度而已。

2.3 三层解放

「解放」是顾氏思想的中心，他将拉丁美洲神学思想从「发展」转为「解放」，他并不是笼统地说解放，他的思想承接教会文献的训导，特别是「民族发展」通论及孟德连主教会议，他所说的是整体的解放(Integral Liberation)，内含三个层面。他最初阐释第一层是那些被压迫的社会阶层所渴望的解放，第二层是应用于对历史的了解上，因着解放，人被视为是对自身生命目的有意识地负责，第三层是从圣经启发人在历史中的临在及行动的解放，那便是从基督而来的解放，使人脱离罪恶与主共融。(55) 从信望爱看天国与正义社会的关系的阐释中，他贯彻地表达对解放的理解。(56) 综合而言，第一层是社会政治解放；第二层是人从历史所有束缚中解放，导引人在团结的社会内共同创造新人类；第三层是从罪中的解放，使人与主共融，与人成为兄弟姊妹。顾氏透过阐释信望爱时说明这三层解放的内容，并且在每次论及这整体解放时，总不厌其详地重覆述说三层的互相关系，三者的彼此相连，可分别而不可分开的特性，彼此不可取代，三者共同构成整体的解放，当然中心思想是以基督为基础，一切解放才成为可能。但在仔细分析下，虽然顾氏一再说明不可将基督的解放化为政治解放，但我们所见的只是解放的团体幅度，社会政治解放及历史的解放均是团体性的，顾氏所说是否意味社会结构及人类意识的改变会导致个人的皈依？还是由于要反对欧洲的神学及信仰培育太强调个人皈依，因此走上只强调社会改革及人类皈依的团体幅度？波夫(L.Boff) 在阐释救恩与解放的关系时，也只是处理社会及政冶解放与基督解放的关系。(57) 此外，与「解放」同时成为顾氏中心思想的是「罪」，无可否认，顾氏及孟德连主教会议对罪的理解有所贡献，传统上只强调罪的个人幅度，但他们则转为突出罪的团体幅度。他们称之为「结构性的罪」(Structural or Institutional Sin)，但正由于这种转向，他们的思想便欠缺提到个人的罪。因此顾氏所提到的皈依及解放便只有结构性和团体性的罪，而予人轻忽个人的罪的印象。

面对这些挑战，顾氏在后期的着作中开始补充有关罪、解放的个人与团体幅度的关系。「人心的皈依与社会改革是互为作用的，相互依靠，两者是一体的，我们不能机械地想结构的改革会自动带来人心的皈依，或者个人的改变能保证社会转化，两种设想均是不真实和天真的」，(58) 他在最近期(1990年) 的着作中详细地补充了罪和解放的个人幅度。(59) 这项有关罪的个人幅度是放置在第二层解放内，而人的自由是这层面的主要概念。根据梵二教会在《现代世界牧职宪章》的记载「…新的人文主义的诞生，而这主义的内容便是：人的意义是从他对其弟兄及历史所负的责任来界定。」。(No.55) 这意味着社会政治改革是不足够的，还需要个人的皈依及从历史束缚中的解放。顾氏认为社会的基础不单在正义，也在于自由。人的自由包含内在幅度，人所渴望的解放不只是外在的社会政治解放，人同时寻求内在的解放，这是心于心理层面的，是个人性的，而这种个人自由是属于所有人的，顾氏引用信理部文件(Libertatis Conscientia)：「完成解放过程只能创造行使自由的环境，假若解放缺乏涉及行动者的个人自由是首先要被指责的。」(No.31：另参考No.26) 个人自由是不可或缺的，它是连接基督解放与社会解放的中介。

在论到罪的概念时，顾氏认为罪是拒绝天主爱的赠予，它是个人的自由行为，虽然孟德连和普尔保拉会议均强调罪的境况，但无意抹煞罪的个人性。他重申在不义的架构背后包含有个人和集体对之负责的意愿，一种拒绝天主与近人的意愿。由于罪是与神与人分裂，彼此缺乏爱与团契的关系，因此，罪是内在及个人的缺裂。事实上，社会性或结构性的罪是引申的第二义，社会只是一集体概念，存在的是个人，因此社会的罪是由个人所负责和承担。

基督所带来的解放，使人从个人内心罪的束缚及社会罪的境况中解放出来，基督是首两层解放的中心和基础，内在于这层解放中，正因罪包含个人和团体的幅度，解放也同是个人和团体性的。

顾氏的补充使他解放的思想更完整和平衡，这是十分重要的，因为解放是拉丁美洲神学的中心，在理解和阐释上若有欠平衡整合，便会导致整个神学成为化约主义或灵性主义。(60) 顾氏在这方面的贡献是肯定的。他在说明三层解放时，用了加釆东模式(Chalcedon Model of Liberation)，指出三者关系是一体而可分辨的，三者不是按次序排列先后，而是互相依靠。我们知道拉丁美洲神学是为面对实际牧民问题而产生的，因此如何在实践中体会这三层解放的关系是很重要的。但上述三层解放的关系在神学反省上只能在形式概念上分辨，及指出关系的特点，至于内容及具体境况的体会和分辨，则未有说明，这是顾氏神学的欠缺。

若比较信理部文件Liberatis Conscientia与顾氏的「解放」，思想内容上是一致的，文件所提出要注意的地方，如避免化约主义，顾氏也有重覆解释，但在方法论上，则各有不同，文件的方法论是传统的，从圣经出发，强调启示，以基督为中心，从信仰到生活实践，从个人皈依到爱德行动。但顾氏阐释次序是由社会政治解放到基督的解放，他的神学方法论回异欧洲神学，是从实践(Praxis) 到批判反省，再到行动。顾氏认为神学是在圣言光照下对解放实践的批判反省，假若这神学是与行动脱节的话，那么顾氏的神学便没有意义了。

3. 方法论上的突破

3.1 新的突破

顾氏于六十年代初期从欧洲学成返国后，在大学任教，但一连串的冲击及反省，使他感到欧洲神学及拉丁美洲的「发展神学」不能回应当代的需要。欧洲神学面对的是一个非信徒的世界(Pagan World)，欧洲承接着十六世纪启蒙时期思想的影响成为一个强调理性、个人自由、俗化的世界。教会为在当代继续其使命，拋弃过往护教作风，六十年代召开梵二，教会尝试与非信徒对话，承认无神论的存在。但由于理性主义的影响，教会在演译信仰时是从认知及概念上着手，借助哲学，致使信仰蒙上形上色彩，与现实脱节，信仰培育也在个人主义影响下使信仰私人化(Privatization)。顾氏觉得梵二对社会问题只作一般性评论，对资本主义的垄断经济及剥削穷人却没有加以强烈批评，整体太依靠「发展」的概念，特别是「发展」的政治含意。梵二无疑达到与现代世界对话的目的，但却没有正视这个不和谐及充满对立的社会，(61) 因此在备受殖民主义和跨国经济侵略的拉丁美洲，欧洲神学显得格格不入，与信友生活脱节。

于是顾氏重新思考，他的神学不仅在内容上从「发展」转为「解放」，兼且在方法上和对神学理解上作重新演译。

在了解顾氏的神学方法前，先要注意对他有深远影响的人物和思想，Bartolome de Las Casas 是在拉丁美洲殖民时代的一位主教，他主张与受压迫的美洲印弟安人站在一起，共同对抗当时的压迫者，他的神学方法是从行动中开始，他的神学是投身和参予印弟安人的行动的一部份，救恩与建立正义社会连在一起。(62) 因为他深信基督在印弟安人中间向我们说话，与受苦者在一起奋斗。在受苦者中辨认基督成了顾氏神学的基础。Jose Carlos Mariategui 是秘鲁社会学家及新马克思主义者，对顾氏思想主要有三点影响：(I) 寻求本地化社会主义，尝试从本地受苦阶层去重新演译生命；(II) 以阶级斗争作为主要演译工具；顾氏接受拉丁美洲是一个阶级斗争的事实，教会不能避免选取其中阶级，因此顾氏主张优先与贫穷人站在一起；(III) 理论与实践的结合，顾氏引用Mariategui的话：「只有充足，广阔，丰富及强烈的革命实践，连同不同意见人士的参予，才能为成功的理论创造优良的条件。」(63) 以上三点均在顾氏思想中占有中心位置。(64) 1972年顾氏在西班牙与一群解放神学家聚会，为他带来新的思想，他觉得「爱你的近人」的意思不是等待近人出现而是要走出自我，走进对方的世界，去寻找你的近人。他发觉穷人是一个社会阶级，他的结论是：服务穷人便是参予政治行动。(65)

综合不同的影响，顾氏的神学从参予穷人争取解放行动出发，在过程中体会及认识天主。他十分强调历史实践。(66) 在实践中，以穷人的眼光重读圣经，读经的原则是以基督为中心，在信仰内从自己所处的历史环境重读圣经，重要的是在行动中出发并指向继续行动，他称之为Militant-reading，神学反省是对信仰的理解，神学是内在于信仰生活的，它尝试成为在教会团体内真实、完整的信仰思考。因此神学是在教会的历史发展中产生的。(67) 顾氏对神学所下的定义是：「神学是在圣言光照下对解放实践的批判反省」。顾氏的神学方法完全回异于欧洲，并非先思考理论再作实践，而是先投身再反省然后再投身行动，他借用马克思社会分析，找出社会问题的症结，对现实有所了解才作神学反省，使神学不致与生活脱节，将信仰与政治行动相连。此外，以穷人眼光和在争斗中重读圣经的做法为信仰带来新的面貌和更丰富的内容。但这种方法同时亦是他的缺点，为配合实践境况，他变成有选择地抽取圣经讯息。解放无疑是圣经的重要讯息但并非是全部，而且解放不只是指逃离埃及的奴役，也包括西乃山的盟约，先知谴责不义并非是为推翻压迫者和进行革命，而是叫个人及团体悔改，履行正义。(68) 他引用释经时是借用欧洲圣经学家的意见如Von Rad及Cullmann等，此外，他是部份地抽取适用的章节，如论及创造与救赎时只引用依撒意亚先知书，事实上圣咏也不乏这些思想。(69)拉丁美洲在释经方面未有很大发展，他们可借用欧洲的圣经研究结果，但必须发展本地的诠释原则(Hermeneutic Principles)，免致在释经上流于主观及片面。

由于顾氏要连结信仰与政治行动，以解放实践作反省对象，强调信仰不是相信一些信条，而是相信耶稣基督并愿意以生命回应，因此跟随基督是一种生活方式，是在生活中了解信仰，这生活不是别的，正是与贫穷和被压迫者站在一起，共同打击不义，参予解放运动，所以他阐释信理时，并没有用哲学语言，而用存在性的圣经语言，证明人在生活中体会及认识真理，所以他没有像欧洲神学般系统化及概念清晰，这是他的方法论使然。

历史解放实践是顾氏神学的出发点，但实践是否真理的来源及标准？这是一个知识论的问题。顾氏的神学从实践到神学反省再回到实践，而实践和理论反省是处于不同秩序(Order)，其中如何连系？

3.2 历史实践 (Historical Praxis)

实践是马克思的重要思想，特别是早期马克思，他说：「人的思维是否具有客观的真理性，这并不是一个理论的问题，而是一个实践的问题。人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量，亦即自己思维的此岸性。…环境的改变和人的生活的一致，只能被看作是并合理地理解为革命的实践。…社会生活在本质上是实践的。」(70) 顾氏借用马克思的实践思想，在他的神学里强调信仰不是信条而是生活实践，目的是要转化世界，神学是在圣言光照下对解放实践的批判反省。在实践中所得到的真理是对信仰的了解。实践不是神学真理的判别标准，因为实践属于存在秩序(Existential Order)，而神学则属于认知秩序(Epistemological Order)，两者不能混淆，因此不能以实践作为神学真理的判别标准。(71) 但如何检定实践所得的真理性？顾氏却没有清楚说明。信仰属于存在秩序，信仰是人神的关系，人对神的认识和投身，是人存在的问题，因此信仰不是信条，是活生生的存在交往经验。圣经是有关以民的信仰经验记录，更是天主启示和救赎的见证，所以圣经才是真理的判别标准。(72) 这当然是指救恩真理而言。按照教会的训导，圣经既是信仰团体生活的反省记录，须在圣神内与教会生活对照才能了解其中讯息和继续生活这信仰。

信仰、圣经、神学、实践是连合一起的，神学是反省，是第二行动，神学的功能在于解释，说明及赋予认知意义于被启示所打开的意义世界内所获得的秩序。这是神学的「理论性」功能，它在于阐释，澄清已信的事实。实践是对信仰的回应及实现，它成为团体的信仰经验。(73) 实践(Praxis) 的字义是「行动」，也可指「生活行动」，以民是先有信仰经验，然后圣经作者再对之作信仰反省，从中体会及认识天主的启示和救恩，而反省目的在于使人在生活中认识上主。所以圣经是信徒最早对生活实践所作的神学反省，圣经既是基本启示，它便是今日神学和信仰的判别标准，但启示是奥秘，随着时代及生活经验，人对启示加深了解，使信仰有一新的面貌。

圣经所描绘的信仰经验是团体性的，神学内容也是普遍性的，但实践却是个别性的，神学属于认知秩序，实践属于存在秩序，假若人只是在神学原则指导下，个别地在具体环境实践信仰以回应天主，那么信仰成了信条指导生活，两者是分割的。为了连接神学与信仰生活，或对应拉丁美洲而言是连接神学与解放实践，灵修成了一条出路，因为灵修使实践成为信仰行动，神学与信仰生活(实践) 是动态地辩证地相连，神学所反省的对象是信仰，天主是一个活生生的天主，信仰生活是人每天自由地回应天主，因此每天的信仰经验便成为解释对象及给予神学新元素的所在。

3.3 解放灵修 (Liberation Spirituality)

顾氏早期作品以历史实践作为出发点，虽然是在圣言光照下作反省，但他认为神学的目的是为转化世界，对信仰经验较少描述，(74) 故此，他遭人批评：以历史实践作为真理判别标准。(75) 但他的后期着作明显地作为出发点的历史实践已结合成为一种新的灵修经验，他说：「由于解放实践是从与贫穷受压迫者团结出发，因此它实在是爱的实践…这是爱近人的实践，为基督在近人身上作爱的实践…它根源于父那白白的及自由的爱，而将它在与人类团结成为具体事实。」(76) 因着信仰，我们体会到天父无条件的爱和基督宣讲及实现的解放，福音的中心讯息是父那救赎和解放的爱的完满，这份爱在历史中透过在生活中与贫穷受压迫的弟兄姊妹连结一起而表达。这是新的灵修经验，是集体性的，在斗争中与主相遇的经验，在其中有沉默和喜乐，是反抗不义的沉默和复活的喜乐。顾氏明白，在他面前的工作，对解放实践作神学反省，是为走向更深的领会贫穷人的天主的意义，天主成为穷人的天主，天主在穷人身上显示祂的慈爱。(77) 他清楚说明，解放神学的方法论就是它的灵修，是正在走向完满实现的生命历程，而新灵修的基本要素是祈祷和庆祝。(78) 在近期的着作中，顾氏已没有早期的激进，虽然仍旧是强调行动投身，但已注入灵修幅度。默观和投身，或是默观语言与先知语言，成为解放神学的共同出发点，其实两者是合一的，换言之，历史实践便是信仰经验。(79)

顾氏不是用马克思的认识论去肯定历史实践(Praxis) 的功用，相反他是以灵修去连系神学与行动，因为神学是反省信仰，而实践是信仰经验，在实践中皈依及更深地认识真理。解放神学并不是将欧洲神学换上拉丁美洲面貌，而是从解放行动中去体会认识天主的奥秘，顾氏的方法论不断强调从受压迫者的角度重读圣经便是这个意思，所以解放神学才能成为真正的本地神学。

圣经和教会生活在解放神学中占有重要位置，但如何保持圣经讯息的客观及主观幅度，及避免使教会生活反省变成主观、片面及情绪化，将是解放神学家的重要工作，顾氏作为解放神学之父，其贡献不容置疑，但正由于他是在开创阶段，他只是为解放神学奠下基础，处理某些基本问题，如自然与超自然的结合，历史只有一个，基督为解放者等。





  33.同上 238

34.GUTIERREZ G. A Theology of Liberation 153, The Power of the Poor in History 31

35.顾氏在「解放神学」书中180页指出不同进路可得出同一结论即历史只有一个，他并且加以批评Rahner在此思想较为含糊。

36.A Theology of Liberation 29-36.

37.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1990) 22.

38.A Theology of Liberation 168, 231.

39.RAHNER K., Foundations of Christian Faith (New York 1978) 40.

40.同上 140

41.同上142

42.RAHNER K., "History of the World and salvation History" Theological Investigation Vol. 5. 97-114.

43.RAHNER K., The Christian Commitment.

44.BOFF L & C, Salvation and Liberation 56-64.

45.吕格尔(Ricoeur) 的"Christianity and the Meaning of History", History & Truth及马库色(Marcuse) 的"The concept of Essence", Negation的历史观虽然进路不同，但基本上也同意没有分两个历史，历史只有一个内含两个幅度或演译而已。

46.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 23.

47.A Theology of Liberation 159.

48.同上 32

49.同上 29

50.「关于费尔巴哈的提纲」，《马克思恩格斯选集》17。

51.The Power of the Poor in History 193.

52.A Theology of Liberation 216.

53.同上 230

54.同上 231

55.同上 36-37

56.有关信德在A Theology of Liberation 176；望德在235；爱德在The Power of the Poor in History 144.

57.BOFF L & C. Salvation and Liberation (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1988) 43-56.

58.GUTIERREZ G., The Power of the Poor in History 47.

59.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 132-138.

60.GUTIERREZ G., The Theology of Liberation 237.

61.GUTIERREZ G., The Power of the Poor in History 171-185.

62.GUTIERREZ G ., The Power of the Poor in History 174-196.

63.GUTIERREZ G., A Theology of Liberation 90.

64.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 27.

65.同上 33

66.在A Theology of Liberation 6-11, 顾氏列出各种理由赋予历史实践丰富意义。

67.GUTIERREZ G., A Theology of Liberation 3.

68.McGovern A.F., Liberation Theology and Its Critics, Toward an Assessment (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1989) 51, 有关欧洲方面的批评。

69.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 46-48.

70.「关于费尔巴哈的提纲」，《马克思恩格斯选集》第一卷 人民出版杜 16-19。

71.Boff C., Theology and Praxis, Epistemology Foundations (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1987) 199.

72.MCGOVERN A.F., Liberation Theology and Its Critics 99.

73.BOFF C., Theology and Praxis 199-200.

74.顾氏在A Theology of Liberation书中论及神学定功能时太强调其先知功能，6-15.

75.MCGOVERN A.F., Liberation Theology and Its Critics 99.

76.GUTIERREZ G., The Power of the Poor in History 50.

77.同上208-209

78.同上103, GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 5.

79.GUTIERREZ G., The Truth Shall Make You Free 3, 16-17. 默观与投身两者兼备使解放神学避免走上灵性主义或行动主义的极端 。而BOFF也同意解放神学的出发点是信仰经验，Salvation and Liberation 64-66.

五．总结

在探讨教会的参政问题，我们选择了天国与正义社会的关系，为使教会能更清晰自己在世界中的角色和使命，拉丁美洲的解放神学在这方面的研究是站在最前的，顾氏是解放神学之父，探讨他的思想有助对这方面的了解。

顾氏的方法论以历史实践出发，按着是在圣言光照下对解放实践作批判反省，他早期着重解放实践到后期注入默观灵修元素，使实践成为信仰灵修经验，更能配合他整个思想。他认为神学是认识信仰，而信仰不是外在于生活，而是与生活共成一体，信爱望是基督徒生活的三个主要德行，所以他采用信爱望三个范畴去处理天国与正义社会的关系。

首先在信的范畴，救恩观从量到质的演变带出只有一个历史的思想，自然与超自然，人类历史与救恩史是同周延的。他引用圣经两个主要讯息：「创造与救赎」和许诺阐释因着解放行动，在步向许诺完满的阶段，人要不断自我创造，成为新人类，建设正义社会，而基督是我们的拯救者，因着祂的救赎人才能从罪恶中解放，从此天国已临现人间，只是尚未完满，人的努力可促进天国的发展，天国临现是基督的礼物，而天国发展则需要人的努力。按着是讨论爱的范畴，因着基督降生成人，完成逾越奥迹，使人成为圣神的宫殿，爱人与爱主的行动合而为一。而基督特别与穷人认同，而穷人也是基督和教会优先所受。望德范畴是探讨末世论与政治，乌托邦与现世的关系，乌托邦不是幻想和空中楼阁，相反，它是推动指责现世不义和宣讲天国的动力。

因为顾氏的方法论着重「实践」，所以在语言上未能清晰及有系统地表达救恩史和人类历史的关系，此外，也太强调耶稣使命的政治幅度和创造劳动的客观价值。由于他的立场已优先选取与穷人在一起，故他的神学并非中立的。以穷人眼光重读圣经也会有危险变成主观，如何利用圣经研究的贡献去发展本地诠释原则，便需继绩努力。无疑，顾氏在思想和方法上为拉丁美洲神学奠定基础，但在基督论和教会论上则尚待发展。

但他对历史实践和社会境况的分析，神学的批判反省，及教会的牧民实践三者关系的连系，作出相当的贡献，在研究方向和原则上踏出一步，对其他地方教会发展本地坤学有启发作用。

参考书目
BOFF L & C.. Introducing Liberation Theology (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1987).

-- Salvation and Liberation (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1988).

BOFF C.. Theology and Praxis, Epistemological Foundation (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1987).

BROWN R.A., Guslavo Gutierrez, An Introdution to Liberation Theology (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1990).

CHOPP R.S., The Praxis of Suffering, An Interpretation of Liberation and Political Theologies (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1986).

DORR D., Spirituality and Justice (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1984).

EDWARDS D., What are They Saying about Salvation (New York : Paulist Press 1986).

FERM D.W., Third World Liberation Theologies, An Introductory Survey (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1988).

GUTIERREZ G., A Theology of Liberation, History, Politics and Salvation (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1973).

--"Liberation Theology and Proclamation", Concilium 1974 Vol.6, No. 10.

--The Power of The Poor in History (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1983).

--We Drink From Our Own Well, The Spiritual Journey of A People (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1984).

-- On Job, God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1987).

-- The Truth Shall Make You Free (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1990).

LANE D.A., Foundations for a Social Theology, Praxis, Process and Salvation (Dublin, Gill and MacMillan 1984).

MACRIDIS R.C.. Contemporary Political Ideologies, Movements and Regimes (Scott, Foresman and Company 1989).

MARCUSE H., Negations, Essays in Critical Theory (London : Free Association Books 1988).

McGOVERN A.F., Liberation Theology and Its Critics, Toward An Assessment (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1989).

"Medellin Documents : Justics, Peace. Family and Demography, Poverty of the Church" The Gospel of Peace and Justice, Presented by J. Gramillion (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1976).

MORENO F., Moral Theology from the Poor, Moral Challenges of The Theology of Liberation (Quezon City, Philippines: Claretian Publications 1988).

RICHARD P., "Liberation Theology: A Difficult but Possible Future." The Future of Liberation Theology ed. by Marc H. Ellis & O. Maduro (Maryknoll. NY : Orbis 1989).

PIERIS A., S.J., An Asian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1988).

RAHNER K., S.J., Foundations of Christian Faith (New York : Crossroad Publishing Company 1978).

--"History of The World and Salvation-History."

Theological Investigation Vol.5.

--The Christian Commitment (New York : Sheed & Ward 1963).

--The Shape Of The Church To Come (New York : A Crossroad Book. The Seabury Press 1974).

RICOEUR P., History and Truth transl. by Charles A. Kelbley (Evanston : Northwestern University Press 1965).

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith : "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation." Liberation Theology A Documentary History ed. by Hennelly A.T. (Maryknoll, NY : Orbis 1990) 393-414.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith : "Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation." Liberation Theology : A Documentary History ed. by Hennelly AT. (Maiyknoll, NY : Orbis 1990) 461-447.

马克思，"关于费尔巴哈的提纲"《马克思恩格期选集》第一卷，人民出版社　1975.

Teotonio R. de Souza, S. J.著 蔡惠民、孙英峰合译

在座中可能大部份人很希望知道，一个历史学家可以怎样帮助香港教会去策划和准备自己面对将来。因为在一般人心目中，历史是一门以过去为取向的工作，它对于这个以将来为取向的研习会可能贡献不大。因此，在我们未直接进入这次研习会的主题?信仰小团体前，若先瞭解甚么叫做包涵先知角色的「真实活出历史」将会有所裨益。这概念一旦弄清，一个历史学家主持这研习会的可信性便不成问题，甚至是非常需要。

历史通常是指一个民族的生活中，经济、政治、文化等重要事件的记载。这些事件发生的先后次序，形成了一个客观进程，让历史学家去辨别和整理它的内在演进定律。这种历史观的背后，是一个量的时间观念，它包括过去、现在和将来三个互不相容的阶段。这三个阶段中，过去的阶段被认定为历史科学的特定研究对象。在这种观点下，时间是同质的，是一种共有元素。在时间里，所有存有，从无机物到人类，都有其开始和终结。这种时间与历史的观点，虽有其自身某种程度的真理存在，但却无法揭示历史本质上是人类的现象。深层的反思会指出时间和历史是建基于绝对的存有，只有人类才拥有和分享这种存有。以下的时间，我会尝试指出历史性是人类存在的一个构成因素，这因素同时又怎样与先知性的远景和希望吻合。在讲解的过程中，我会大量采用Kappen源自Heidegger的创新性思想，虽然我的思想路线在多方面偏离了他们。

此时此刻作为历史性的基础

所有低于人类的存有无论是有机体或无机体，自身都有一定程度的完整。他们是什么就是什么，无论任何时刻都不会增长。人类则不一样，他们的本质超越现在的存有。意思是说，只有人类才能离开存在，走出自身以外，到达一个未曾出现的前方。这种指向将来的生活并不是心理上对某种特定状况的渴求，而是本体上构成人之所以为人的因素。那一点是这指向将来的终结呢？死亡？从根本的意义来说是对的，因为人在死亡中发现不存有是他的外在极限。但是，死亡不是纯然消极的，它不只是一个被动的行为，同时也是主动，是一个将自己所有完全交付给后人的行动。就是这切实的传承行动确保了历史的延续性。

如果死亡是传承的最后行动，那是因为生命自身是一个传承。人刚生下来就开始死亡、开始将他的光荣、权力，和羞耻传下去。他的言行举止都会成为传承的内容，对后人造成或好或坏的后果。

那为个体是真实的，为团棋同样是真实。个体将自前人承受下来的传授给后人。为团体来说也是一样，生活就是死亡，死亡就是将自己交付出来，因而构成了历史的流转。我们先前提出的问题现在再重现：人类团体的将来是指向什么呢？这问题的答案不能来自理性，只能来自希望。希望会告诉我们，人生旅程的终结是天人合一的圆满，即神性的圆满显示在人性的圆满中。不过，天人合一的圆满能够成为人类团体的将来，除非圆满汇聚了它的个体和整体的过去。

从这角度看，每个人的存在就好像一个策划，一个由很多可能性构成的整体，他的最后实现将与人类的绝对将来结合。可是，个体从那里获得这些有待将来成熟的可能性呢？就是从他诞生时所承受下来的。人的存在是介乎诞生与死亡这两个限度之间。不过，一如透过把完成的传给后人，人超越了死亡；同样，透过接纳传下来的遗产，人超越了诞生。在承受这些传下来的可能性同时，人亦接受伴随着诞生在某一特定家庭，某一特定团体，某一特定历史时机所带来的限制。这些可能性和限制是先于我们的任何自由选择。为个体来说，这是我们命运；为团体来说，这是我们的终向。

我们就是在这种承先启后的精神下，将自己切合于目前。但过去的可能性不会未经批判而原原本本地被接受，每一个世代因而产生它自己的「世界观」，即一套塑造他们去面对人、事物、和大自然的意义。同样，每一世代相对地让世界以一个为他们独特的方式揭示自己。

从以上的反思我们可以明白到时间的三个境况?过去、现在和将来是彼此内在于其中的，因而构成了人存在的此时此刻。

在承先启后的同时，我们赋予目前一个超乎此时此地的意义，这使我们的存在和行动立时变得救赎性和再造性。几时我们为将来而收集和保存过去的真实可能性，那就是救赎几时我们因此而为将来天人合人的完满揭示而铺路，那就是再造。几时我们能将过去、现在和将来彼此内在的态度生活出来，那就是其实活出历史。

在这意义下，活出历史同时是宿命的和自由的。宿命是因为我们所承受的都不是出于我们，而是先决的。自由是因为我们所选择我们所承受的。同样道理，为团体亦是真确的。在策划将来的同时，我们必须依赖过去所注定的可能性。在命运与目的地之间所铺切的，就是十字架苦路。

不真实的活出历史

不真实的活出历史可以是涉及过去、现在和将来方面，可以是不真实的。通常很多人在其中一方面不真实。

在没有忠于将来方面，可以是否认或绝对化将来。无论谁否认将来，乃因害怕死亡。人尝试将自己囚禁在此时此地，以逃出死亡的视野。这类人的生活格言是：「今朝有酒今朝醉」，这是自己对后人所负责任的否认。因为他没有接纳死亡作为自己对人类团体的切实交付，却把死亡委托给潜意识作为那不知名的「他们」的部份命运。这末世性张力失去的后果是个人无能力去创造性地干预历史。

忘记将来很多时是与唯灵论同时存在的。当生命的终极目标被视为不沾人间烟火的极乐世界，灵魂在那里可以享见那同样是不取肉身的神时，那便是唯灵论。唯灵论的一个直接后果是对物质世界以及一切与物质相关的，如肉体、性、婚姻和大地的贬抑。更甚者，就是这天堂一旦达到，文化和历史便被贬为必须超越的罪恶，必须折取的支架。还有，整个创造为天主子女的释放而发出的痛苦呻吟就是沮丧。纵使在今天，这种天神主义仍孕育了主导不少基督徒思想的「灵修」。

在没有忠于过去方面，人同时可以设想两个相对的立场，两者都引致不同的不真实存在形式。第一种包涵在文化失忆内，例如：忘记过去对于出生、童年、低下出身等损伤性经验的反应，或受一个外来文化殖民于脑海的回应。无论是什么成因，后果为个体或团体都是破坏性的。因为没有过去，就没有将来的酝酿，亦没有一个有意义的现在。几时一脉相承的过去被切断，创造力便自然凋谢。这解释了印度的基督徒为什么在文学、戏曲、绘画、音乐、雕塑方面没有生育。与他们的过去切断后，他们失去一个不意识的神话和标记水库，没有这水库、美的创作和意义的感性表达都无可能。

对过去的否定很多时引发它的对立?对过去的崇拜，它的表达形式是其要主义或复古主义。两者都视过去为神人的最高揭示，传统中每个因素都视为天主的默感，因此是万古常有的真理。奇怪的是，对过去的崇拜实际上是对过去的否定，因为过去的不准成为过去，已死的不让成为死去，反被树立为永恒的真理。在讨价还价中，稚气主义支配了大局，眼前的真实挑战则被忽略。这是否香港基督徒的真实情况？

脱离过去或将来的一个无可避免后果，就是对现在的疏远。那里有过去和将来受到光荣，目前则为了反刍这光荣的过去或梦想、虚幻的极乐将来而筋疲力倦。保守主义和将来主义都使现在失去历史的本质。另一个使现在变成不真实的情况是把它绝对化。这情况的发生是过去和将来都被分割，个体或团体只顾现在，并将自己囚在其中，断绝与回忆和希望的关连。目前的一刻成为终结，它的价值在于它能否给予快乐。人的存在因此化为一连串无相关的经验，有些是快乐的，有些是烦恼的。这种存在与意识裂成碎片的结果，在资本主义这形式下成为一种普遍性现象。一方面，它摧毁传统文化，另一方面，为将焦点放在即时的消费而牺牲了人类整体将来的福祉。这是否再次是香港目前的真实情况？

从历史反思到历史学

钩画出有系统的活出历史怎样构成人类个体或集体的存在后，我们现在可以瞭解历史学，或历史科学。「每门科学都是由主题整理所构成」。主题整理的意思是便一些隐含地意会的东西变得有条理。历史学整理的主题是一个民族的历史生活。它的角色是展示一个民族怎样对将来寄以希望，怎样吸取过去的资料，以及怎样创作性地活出目前的一刻。这有别于发掘普遍的历史进程定律或描述和按序接连过去的事件。

但为什么要展示前人的历史生活？因为无论是个体和团体，为活出将来，每个人都须要承受前人的传统，好去满全目前的使命。每个人借助自己的历史本质不意识地进行的，历史学家则依循方法有系统地去进行。但他进行时，必须是团体一份子和代表着整个团体。团体透过他才能返回前人的世代，在那里前人曾活出将来，为使他们刻在声音、木器和石器的财富传下去。

因此，历史学家是深深投入他所尝试展示的内容中。在展示一个民族的生活时，他承受的遗产就如一笔可观的可能性，这些可能性将会形成他的团体的存在策划，意即历史学家是他将要阐释的历史的一部份。换句话说，在阐释历史时，他同时在创造历史。在这过程中，没有主体和客体的分别，而是一个无所不容的原始整体。这点就是历史学与自然科学的分野，自然科学家经常与他的研究对象是保持中立的。

由历史学到预言

我们在活出历史和历史学里发现的过去、现在和将来的三合一结构，也适合用来介定预言。先知就是那些见证人类将来和盼望它来临的人。希伯来先知以新天新地去形容那将来，在那里豺狼与黑羊同饲。耶稣则以天国，佛教则以达摩规条，传统宗教则以上天去形容。在先知性的神视中，将来被视为圆满的来临和过去的复兴。这观念的背后指出，历史不一定是一个向着人类圆满境况进发的进程，在多方面亦是一个从起初圆满境况的倒退和自我疏远。一个清楚的例子就是耶稣有关梅瑟离婚法律的宣讲。耶稣反对离婚是因为希伯来人的绝对性，以及在起初，在创世的时候，天主造了男女，男女因此结合成为一体。其实，在人类过去任何重大突破的根源，人都可以尝试在其中重新发现一些在起初已有的事物。为盼望将来与复兴过去，先知批判性地和创造性地生活于目前。因此，耶稣这位最伟大的先知，不单无情地批判他当时的宗教和杜会，同时也开展了一个反文化和反团体。

基督徒在历史的临在

作为「耶稣的同伴」，如果说基督徒的使命就是继续祂在历史中的先知性干预，相信无人会争辩。但先知性的意思就历史性的完整意义，即为渴望将来的实现，我们从过去中吸取可能性、引导进入一个「新世界」，同时亦指出大地的更原始面貌。

为能满全这使命，教会领袖应撕去困着他们大多数的不真实的活出历史方式。主要不真实的方式是天神主义、文化失忆和工作主义。

天神主义将灵魂的得救投射为生命的终极目标，它的显着面就是对物质世界的轻视。这看法背后的灵魂肉身二元论源于希腊文化，为耶稣原本的传统是陌生的。在希伯来人心目中，灵魂就是肉身的内向幅度。由于这一体的观念被遗忘，因而引致「灵修学」的扩散。在宣讲救灵魂的同时，「灵修学」意味大地的厄运。我们今日所面对的生态危机便证明了这点，对精神事物的寻求合法化了对地球侵略性的开发。苍天和大地因此被非圣神化，目前的挑战就是扭转这潮流，以及重新发掘大地的神性。这需要与那些在犹太?基督宗教传统中，从先知时代已被指与信仰不符的古代生殖力崇拜交谈。

文化失忆是过往曾受殖民地统治的基督徒的命运。作为一个基督徒，意即将自己接在一颗仍未扎根在中国土壤的快乐树上。基督徒一如其他中国人是大地的儿女，这是真的。但分别在于中国人将承自大地的看作自己的财富，基督徒则否定，以及将之与自己的信仰分割。就如乌龟一样，普遍的基督徒将自己囚禁在信仰和教义的硬壳里，导致对过去的呼声无动于衷。或许为很多由或基督徒领袖来说，这点是真实的。虽然他们也尝试信仰本地化，但他们只将中国的过去看成研究的对象。若没有了他们的声音，过去不能说话；若不是在他们内并透过他们，过去不能成为一个「主体」。

天神主义和文化失忆的后果就是一个缺乏意义和创造性张力的目前。对目前疏远的形式是因循主义和工作主义，前者注视过去，后者则注视将来。因循主义的特色，显露在教会机构的工作人员必须符合那循环不息的活动、礼仪和庆节上。在因循主义支配的地方，人开始和结东的位置经常一样。后果是完全失去所有的独特性，此时此刻除了沉闷外别无其他。有别于文化失忆，工作主义的来源是比较近期的。这是工业科技杜会送给教会的礼物。这不是简单的疾病，而是一个有不同表达形式的复杂综合病症。教会中的工作主义者只埋首于器材，他们渴望成果并希望即时得到，他们不顾天国和它的光荣，也不需要过去的激励，因为救恩只来自此时此地可见的成果。成果的生产就是技巧的问题，因而造成对最新心理学，仿宗教、辅导、安慰、沟通、管理、驱魔和分辨神恩等技巧的疯狂追寻。由于非常害怕自己的技巧落后或自己落伍，他们定期到外国参与进修或更新课程。一如他们在工业界上的版本，工作型的教会领袖尖锐地意识到时间的价值。他们瞭解到时间不单是金钱，对天主和人亦很有帮助。他们毫无疑问是忙碌的，为众多的约会而东奔西走。在个别事件的劳役下，他们的过的生活只是工具而无目标，只有专家而无智慧。这是否香港基督徒领袖的缩影，他们正带领天主子民面对一个从马槽开始，在十字架上结束的将来。

by Teotonio R. de Souza, S. J.

HISTORIOLOGY AS PROPHECY



In what way can a historian help the Church in Hong Kong to plan and prepare itself for its future? History is commonly understood as a past-oriented exercise, and as such it would seem to have little to offer in reference to a topic that is future-oriented, namely, small faith communities and the future of the Church in Hong Kong.

The relevance of history in this matter lies in its prophetic role, implied in what I would like to call "authentic historizing". Once this is established, the credibility of a historian to help in a consideration of this topic may appear less questionable, even essential.

History is generally taken to mean the story of the significant events－economic, political, cultural－in the life of a people. The sequence of events goes to form an objective process, and it is up to the historian to identify and formulate its internal laws of motion. Underlying this conception is a quantitative notion of time with its mutually exclusive moments of past, present and future. Of these three moments, the past is set up as the specific object of the science of history. Time, in this perspective, is homogeneous and is the common element in which all beings from inorganic things to humans have their beginning and their end. This way of viewing time and history has its own level of truth but fails to reveal the essence of history as a human phenomenon. Deeper reflection will show that time and history are grounded in the kind of being which human beings have and are. In what follows I shall try to show that the historical is constitutive of human existence and how it dovetails with prophetic vision and hope. In doing so, I shall draw largely on the seminal reflections of Sebastian Kappen, or more originally of Martin Heidegger, though on many issues my line of thinking will be found deviating from both.

Temporality as the Ground of the Historical

All sub-human beings, whether organic or inorganic, have a certain completeness in themselves. They are what they are at any given moment and nothing more. Not so human beings. These are essentially more than what they actually are. In this sense human beings alone ex-ist, that is, stand outside and ahead of themselves, in the not-yet. Living from the future is to be understood, not psychologically in the sense of longing for some definite state of being, but ontologically as constitutive of humanness itself. What is the point of arrival of this tending ahead? Death? In a fundamental sense, yes. For with death humans find their outer limit in non-being. But death is not negativity pure and simple. It is not merely passion but also action. It is the act of surrendering all one has to the generations yet to come. It is that definitive act of tradition (from the Latin verb tradere which means "to hand over") which ensures the continuity of history.

But if death is the final act of tradition, it is because life itself is a handing over and a handing down . For no sooner are human beings born than they start dying, hanging down the power and the glory and the shame that was theirs. Every deed done, every word uttered, goes to swell the planetary stream of life for good or for bad.

What is true of the individual is true of the community as well. What it has received from the generations gone by it hands down to the generations to come. For the community, too, to live is to die, and to die is to give itself away, thus constituting the flux of history. Now the question we raised earlier crops up again: What is that to which the human community is tending? The answer can come not from reason but only from hope. And hope will say that the human caravan has for its goal theandric plenitude, the full revelation of the Divine in the full revelation of the human. But theandric fullness can be the future of the human community only if it gathers into itself the past, individual as well as collective.

Seen from this angle, every individual exists as a project, as a structured whole of possibilities, whose ultimate realization merges with the absolute future of mankind. But whence do individuals draw the possibilities that await maturation in the future? From the heritage they were born with. Human existence stretches between two finitudes, birth and death. But just as, by handing down what has been accomplished to coming generations, one transcends the finitude of death, so too, by appropriating the heritage handed down, one transcends the retrospective finitude of birth. In drawing upon the possibilities handed down, one also accepts the limitations accompanying one's birth in a particular family, in a particular community, at a particular historical juncture. These possibilities and limitations are anterior to any choice on our part and go to make up our fate as individuals and our destiny as a collectivity.

Living from the future and talking over the heritage of the past, we comport ourselves in the present. The possibilities of the past are never taken over just as they are found but are subjected to a critique. That is why each generation has its own "world", understood as the structure of meanings that mould our dealings with the environment of humans, implements, and nature. Correspondingly, each generation lets the earth reveal itself in a way unique to it.

It follows from these reflections that the three ecstasies of time－past, present, and future－are immanent in one another thus constitute the temporality of human existence.

Where we live from the future and draw upon the heritage of the times gone by, we invest the present with a meaning that overflows the bounds of the here-and-now and renders our being and acting at once redemptive and re-creative: redemptive, in so far as we gather into, and save for, the future the authentic possibilities of the past; re-creative, in so far as we thus prepare the way for the full revelation of the human and the Divine. To live out in this manner the reciprocal immanence of the future, the past, and the present is to historize authentically.

Historizing in this sense is at once fateful and free: fateful, because the possibilities we take over are not of our own making but pre-given; free, because we choose what we have inherited. This holds true of the community as well. In projecting a future, a community has to rely on the possibilities the past has destined. Between the destiny and the destination (the realm of freedom) lies the way of the Cross.

Fall from Authentic Historizing

Historizing can be inauthentic in relation to the future, the past or the present. And most people most of the time are inauthentic in one way or another.

One can be inauthentic in relation to the future either by denying it or absolutizing it. Whoever denies the future does so for fear of death. One tries to flee from the prospect of death by imprisoning oneself in the here-and-now. Such a one lives by the motto, "Eat, drink and make merry, for tomorrow we die". This is to disown one's responsibility to future generations. For, instead of accepting death as the definitive handing over of oneself to the human community, one consigns it to the subconscious as part of the fate of the anonymous "they". The resulting loss of eschatological tension renders the person incapable of creative intervention in history.

Forgetfulness of the future often coexists with its spiritualization. This happens when the ultimate goal of life is conceived as an overworld of disincarnate souls enjoying the beatific vision of an equally unfleshed divinity. A direct consequence of this is the devaluation of matter and all that is connected with it－body, sex, marriage and the earth. What is more, civilization and history are debased to the level of a necessary evil to be transcended, a scaffolding to be dismantled, once the heaven above is reached. And creation's groaning in travail for the liberation of the children of God is frustrated. Angelism of this kind is what gave birth to the kind of "spirituality" that rules the hearts and minds of most Christians even today.

In regard to the past, too, one can assume two contrary stances, each leading to its own form of inauthentic existence. The first consists in cultural amnesia, i.e. forgetfulness of the past in reaction to the traumatic experiences associated with one's birth, early childhood or lowly social origins, or in response to the colonization of one's mind by an alien culture. Whatever be the cause, the consequences are ruinous to the individual and the community. For without the past there is no incubation of the future nor any meaningful presence in the here-and-now. Where the umbilical bond with the past has been severed, creativity withers away. This explains the sterility of, for example, Indian Christians in the field of literature, drama, painting, music, sculpture, and so on. Shorn of their past, they have no unconscious reservoir of myths and symbols, without which no creation of the beautiful, no sensuous revelation of meaning, is possible.

Negation of the past often provokes its own opposite, namely cult of the past, which, in turn, manifests itself either as fundamentalism or as revivalism. Both look to the past for the supreme revelation of the human and the Divine. Every element of tradition is seen as divinely inspired and, for that reason, valid for all times. Curiously, the cult of the past is, in effect, the negation of the past. For, the past is not allowed to be past, the dead is not left to remain dead but set up as eternally valid. Into the bargain, the real challenges of the present are ignored and collective infantilism holds sway. True of the situation of Hong Kong Christians?

An inevitable consequence of the alienation of the past and the future is the estrangement of the present. Where the past and the future are glorified, the present exhausts itself either in chewing the cud of "one's glorious past" or in dreaming up some illusory bliss yet to come. Both conservatism and futurism dehistoricize the present.

Another way of rendering the present inauthentic is to absolutize it: the past and the future are repudiated and the individual or the community falls back on the present and encases itself in it. Delinked from memory and hope, the present becomes an end in itself and is valued in terms of the pleasure it can give. Human existence is thus reduced to a series of disparate experiences, some pleasing, others annoying. The resulting fragmentation of being and consciousness has become a universal phenomenon under capitalism which, on the one hand, destroys traditional cultures and, on the other, focuses on immediate consumption at the cost of humankind's global, future well-being. Again true of present-day Hong Kong?

From Historizing to Historiology

Having delineated the structured movement of historizing as constitutive of human existence, individual as well as collective, we are in a position to understand the nature of historiology or the science of history. "Every science is constituted by thematizing." To thematize means to render explicit what we are implicitly aware of. What historiology thematizes is the historizing of a people. Its role is to disclose the manner in which a people, placing their hope in the future, draws upon the resources of the past and creatively lives out the here-and-now. This is something different from either discovering the universal laws of motion of history or describing and serializing past events.

But why disclose the historizing of individuals and communities that are no more? Because to be in the future, one's own and that of the community, demands that each one of us human beings appropriate the traditions of our forbearers in order to fulfill our task in the present. What we each do unreflectively in virtue of our historical essence, the historian does methodically and systematically. But he does so as one sharing his being with, and representing, the community. Through him the community reaches back to the past generations who in their day reached out to the future in order to hand down the wealth of what they had wrought in sound, wood and stone.

It follows, then, that the historian is deeply involved in what he is trying to disclose. In disclosing the life of a people, he is appropriating his legacy as a sum of possibilities, which will go to shape his and his community's existential project. This means that the historian is part of the history, he is making it. Here the familiar distinction between subject and object breaks down in favour of an encompassing primordial unity. This is what distinguishes historiology from the natural sciences where the scientist remains neutral (?) to the object of his research.

From Historiology to Prophecy

The triune structure we have discerned in historizing and historiology also defines prophecy. The prophet is one who bears witness to the absolute future of humankind and places his hope in its coming. The Hebrew prophets spoke of that future in terms of the new heaven and the new earth where wolf and lamb shall feed together; Jesus, in terms of the kingdom of God; the Buddha, in terms of the rule of dharma', and traditional religion, in terms of the heaven above.

In the prophetic vision, the future envisaged is also the fulfillment and recovery of the past. Underlying this is the conception that history is not necessarily a progression to ever more perfect modes of human existence but is in many respects a regression and self-estrangement from an original state of wholeness and fullness. A clear instance is Jesus' pronouncement concerning the Mosaic law of divorce that it was made because of the obtuseness of the Hebrews and that "in the beginning, at creation", God had made humans male and female so that they might join together and become one flesh. In fact, at the root of every significant break-through made by humankind in the past, one can find an attempt to recover some state of affairs that obtained "in the beginning". Anticipating the future and recovering the past, the prophet lives the present critically and creatively. Thus Jesus, the prophet par excellence, not only ruthlessly criticized the religion and society of his day but also initiated a counter-culture and a counter-community.

Christian Presence in History

None would contest that, as a follower or "companion" of Jesus, the mission of a Christian is to continue his prophetic intervention in history. But to be prophetic is to be historical in the fullest sense of the term, that is, so to live from the future hoped for that we, drawing upon the possibilities of the past, help usher in a new "world" and bring about a more primordial revelation of the earth.

But in order to be able to fulfill this task, Christians must tear themselves away from the inauthentic forms of historizing in which so many of them are caught up. Chief among such inauthentic forms are angelism, cultural amnesia, and activism.

Angelism, which projects the salvation of the soul as the ultimate goal of life, has for its obverse side the devaluation of matter and of everything material. The underlying dualism of matter and soul is foreign to the original Jesus tradition and is of Hellenistic provenance. To the Hebrew mind, the soul was nothing more than the dimension of inwardness specific to the human body. It is forgetfulness of this holistic conception of the human that led to the proliferation of "spiritualities". While claiming to save the soul, "spirituality" spells doom for the earth. This is bore out by the ecological crisis we are facing today. The pursuit of matters spiritual served to legitimize the aggressive exploitation of the earth as factor of production. The earth and the heaven were thus desacralized and disenchanted. Now the challenge is to reverse this trend and rediscover the divinity of the earth. This calls for dialogue with the fertility cults of old, which the Judeo-Christian tradition has, from the time of the prophets, denounced as incompatible with true faith.

Cultural amnesia has been the lot of Christians in all former colonies. Being a Christian means to have had one's being grafted on to an exotic tree which has not yet struck deep roots in the native soil. True, Christians are as much sons and daughters of the earth as others of the same land. But, whereas the latter make their own the treasures the earth has handed down, the former disown and repudiate them as contrary to their faith. Tortoise-wise, the average Christian imprisons himself in encrusted beliefs and dogmas which makes him immune to the voice of the past. Perhaps this also holds true of many Chinese ecclesiastical leaders, despite their attempts at inculturation? Do they relate to their Chinese past only as an object of study? The past does not speak through their voice, becoming a "subject" in and through them.

The end-result of angelism and cultural amnesia is a present devoid of meaning and creative tension. The estrangement of the present takes the form of cyclicism or activism. The first looks back to the past; the second to the future. Cyclicism characterizes the life of church people working in institutions where they have to conform to the ever recurring cycle of functions, rites, and festivals. Where it holds sway, one always ends where one began, and begins where one ended. Emptied of all uniqueness, the here-and-now offers nothing but boredom.

Unlike cultural amnesia, activism is of comparatively recent origin. It is the industrial-technocratic society's gift to religion. It is not so much a single malaise as a complex syndrome with varied manifestations. The activist ecclesiastic takes after the machine. He wants results and wants them immediately. The Kingdom and its glory begin to take second place. So. too, do promptings of the past. Salvation comes in the here-and-now in the form of tangible results. And producing results is a matter of technique. Hence the frantic search for ever new techniques, psychological as well as para-religious: techniques of counselling and consoling, techniques of communicating and commanding, techniques of conjuring up and monitoring charisms. Mortally afraid of his techniques becoming obsolete and himself among with it, he must at regular intervals go abroad to the Meccas of technicized religion for updating sessions and refresher courses. Like his industrial counterpart, the activist Church leader is acutely aware of the value of time. He knows that time is not only money but also favour with God and man. No wonder he is always busy, hopping from appointment to appointment. Tyrannized by the particular, he lives a life of means and no ends, of expertise and no wisdom. Can such an activist be a leader for the ordinary Christian of Hong Kong, who has to prepare for a future that may begin in a mangerand end on the Cross!

by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.

MARK'S COMMUNITY



I. The setting of Mark's Gospel

1. When and Where ?

A considerable number of scholars have held that Mark's Gospel was written for predominantly Gentile Christians at Rome shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70 A. D. and in the aftermath of Nero's persecution.(1) But a growing number of scholars propose that the Gospel was composed in or near northern Palestine (Galilee - Syria) around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

The manner in which Mark writes about Galilee, and the way he describes Galilee as the place of Jesus' activity, and other data within the Gospel appear to indicate that, for the Markan community, Galilee, and perhaps the sea of Galilee, had special significance. The Markan Gospel summons Christians to the land of Galilee, where the risen Lord will soon return. Galilee becomes a Christian Holy Land (Willi Marxsen).(2)

Mark was probably written in close chronological proximity to the first Jewish revolt, in all likelihood before it came to an end with the capture of the city and the destruction of the temple.(3)

2. The Socio-Economic, Political Situation

Palestine, and in a special way Galilee, was an occupied country. Herod the Great was permitted to be king of the Jewish people under the auspices of Rome. However, he was not accepable to many Jews, partly because of his non-Jewish ancestry and partly because of his cruelty and his oppressive taxation. When he died, in 4 B. C., revolts occurred and continued sporadically until the outbreak of war in 66 A. D.

In addition to trouble during and after the reign of Herod the Great, there were other causes of unrest. The main ones were:

(1)occupation by foreign troops;

(2)class conflicts, which included anticlericalism;

(3)social banditry;

(4)religious fanaticism and the concept of God as a divine warrior;

(5)revolutionary prophets and messianic pretenders;

(6)misconduct on the part of Roman officials;

(7)strife between the various factions of Jewish revolutionaries;

(8)taxation, both by the Romans and by Herod and his successors;

(9)the bitter hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans.(4)　

The Latinisms found in Mark, often referred to in support of the Roman hypothesis, indicate rather the expected linguistic penetration in the socio-economic and administrative spheres of the colonized culture of Palestine. A socio-political description must, then, focus upon conditions in agrarian Palestine, which were very different from those in urban Hellenism.(5)

In Palestine, the majority of an estimated population of seven hundred and fifty thousand was peasant. A very small independent artisan and bureaucratic class, and a tiny aristocracy, made up less than one-half of one percent. The local ruling class after Herod was increasingly urban-based, and tended to accommodate the colonial forces culturally and economically. The rural peasantry on the other hand experienced hellenization as further economic marginalization and cultural isolation, especially in Galilee. The main socio-economic conflict was the economic threat to the traditional agrarian way of life posed by the urban oligarchy, due to the economic vulnerability of small landholders and tenant workers.(6)

For the Galilean peasantry, the perennial burden of the imperial tribute, the social pressure of the nearby Hellenistic cities, and the repeated experience of retribution at the hands of Roman legions, would have been more than enough to sow deep-seated alienation. At the same time there would have been a natural class alienation from the native aristocracy, whom the peasant saw not as leader but as collaborator and landlord. This double antipathy could have translated into solidarity with the local social bandits and subsequently the Zealots, and for many it did, but the evidence indicates that this was a minority. We know, for example, that in Galilee the organized insurrection collapsed early, and that Josephus complained bitterly of the difficulties of trying to organize resistance there.

What if a prophet arose who advocated a strategy that disdained the collaborationist aristocracy and Romans equally, and who repudiated Qumranite withdrawal and Pharisaic activism on the grounds that neither addressed the roots of oppression in the dominant symbolic order? We know that uneducated peasants, largely unable to articulate their dissatisfaction, often looked to those able to express in popular discourse a populist vision. It is not difficult to imagine such a prophet invoking the Deuteronomist vision of a just redistributive system, and appealing to the subversive tradition of the great prophetic social critics of Israel. A pedagogy could have been developed to help the peasants unmask the oppressive economic self-interest of the Jerusalem leaders. There is no a priori reason why an alternative to the reformists and rebels could not have been proposed that addressed peasant grievances more concretely. And although it would have been remarkable, it cannot be ruled out that such a prophet might have taken the logic of solidarity among the poor so far as to challenge the artificial gulf that kept the oppressed Jew and Gentile segregated.

There was ample social, economic, political, and cultural justification for a strategy that delegitimized both the Roman presence and the authority of the Jewish aristocracy as it was embedded in the debt and purity systems and reinforced in the temple cult and the dominant interpretation of the Torah. We can only conclude, without further evidence, that the determinate social formation of Palestine in the 60s A. D. produced conditions which render such an "alienative, confrontative and nonaligned" ideology hypothetically plausible. If such an outlook manifested itself as literature which we know to have come from this period, this should be accepted as concrete evidence for a unique social movement which must be evaluated on its own terms.

Mark's Gospel may be such a document, articulating a grassroots social discourse which is at once subversive and constructive. This document was probably written during the Roman reoccupation of Galilee, between the first (66-67 A. D.) and the second (69-70 A. D.) Roman sieges of Jerusalem. The immediate and specific issue occasioning the Gospel was the challenge of rebel recruiters in Galilee, who were trying to drum up support for the resistance around Palestine, and no doubt demanding that Mark's community "choose sides." Though sympathetic to the socio-economic and political grievances of the rebels, Mark was compelled to repudiate their call to a defence of Jerusalem. This was because, according to his understanding of the teaching and practice of a Nazarene prophet, executed by Rome some thirty-five years earlier, the means (military) and ends (restorationist) of the "liberation" struggle were fundamentally counterrevolutionary.(7)

Mark's concern is not only liberation from the specific structures of oppression embedded in the dominant social order of Roman Palestine; it also includes the spirit and practice of domination ultimately embedded in the human personality and corporately in human history as a whole. The struggle against the powers and the individual and the collective will to dominate, is articulated over and over again in different ways throughout the story. This strategy of repetition represents an apocalyptic characteristic of the Gospel: the narrative device of "recapitulation." First in his miracle stories and again in a cycle of visions, Daniel dramatized a single point: the imperative and possibility of resistance to the Seleucid state. So too does Mark restate the discipleship of the cross in a variety of ways. His focus upon the cross set him against those who used apocalyptic symbols to legitimate a militant practice of "holy war" against their enemies. By anchoring the story of discipleship firmly in the lived world of his audience, he stood against those who used heavenly visions to legitimate a withdrawal from political struggle into gnostic communities.(8)



  
1.Cf. Frank J. Matera, What Are They Saying About Mark? (New York: Paulist Press, 1987)7-11.

2.Ibidem, 11-12.

3.Howard C. Kee, Community of the New Age. Studies in Mark's Gospel (London: SCM Press, 1977) 100.

4.J. Massyngbaerde Ford, My Enemy is My Guest (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1984) 2-12, 65-95.

5.Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man. A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1988) 41.

6.Ibidem, 50-51.

7.Ibidem, 85-87.

8.Ibidem, 103-104.

II. The Community of Disciples in Mark

To ask about Mark's understanding of discipleship in community is to speak about Mark's understanding of the church. However, this task is made difficult by the absence in Mark of specifically ecclesiological language. Unlike Matthew (Mt 16:18; 18:17) and Luke (in Acts 8:1; 9:31, for example), Mark never uses the term ekklesia and lacks the kind of incipient picture of church office which Matthew gives in the story of Peter (esp. Mt 16:18-20) or Luke in the depiction of the authority of apostles (Acts 1:26; 2:42; 4:37).

However, there is one set of related terms which Mark shares with other parts of the New Testament and which were used very early by the church to describe itself: the language associated with household and family. Recent studies have shown the importance of this language for understanding both the theology and social setting of an important early Christian community. There has also been a resurgence in New Testament studies dealing with early Christian "house churches." In the following we select four passages in Mark where household language becomes a prism through which we can see different shades of his understanding of discipleship as life in community.(9)

1. Mk 3:20-35: The True Family of Jesus

This rather complex section of Mark consists of:

a.an attempt by those of Jesus' company (hoi par' autou) to restrain him because they think he is "beside himself (Mk 3:20-21);

b.a charge by scribes from Jerusalem that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul, along with Jesus' response to them in the parables of the divided house and the divided kingdom and his pronouncement that the sin against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin (Mk 3:22-30);

c.a statement by Jesus on who constitutes his true family (Mk 3:31-35).

What unites the section is the location of all three incidents in the house mentioned in Mk 3:20, as well as the use of household and family imagery (Mk 3:25, 32, 34-35). The whole section also uses the technique of intercalation: a narrative is begun (Mk 3:20-21), interrupted by another narrative (Mk 3:23-30) and then resumed (Mk 3:31-35), so that the two narratives interpret one another.(10)

The Jesus who is thought by his family or close associates to be out of his mind and by his opponents to be possessed is actually the strong one. From Mk 1:7 the reader knows that Jesus is "the stronger one" predicted by John, and the early exorcisms (esp. Mk 1:21-28) depict Jesus as one who despoils the kingdom of Satan. This same Jesus, as master of an undivided household, can determine who will be the true members of his family. Thus the intercalation of the two narratives functions in the service of Christology and discipleship. What concerns us most is the response which comes during the third incident, when the mother and brothers of Jesus are outside and "seek" him (zetousin), a term which in Mark generally has a pejorative connotation (Mk 3:32; cf. 1:37; 11:18; 12:12). When the crowd informs Jesus that his family is calling to him and seeking him, he replies, "And who are my mother and brothers?" He then turns to the crowd sitting around him (the standard position for disciples listening to a teacher) and says: "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother" (Mk 3:34b-35).

An initial entree to the significance of this text is provided by the context of the whole section, Mk 3:13-6:6, beginning and ending with the choosing and the sending of the Twelve respectively. The context and the relation of the saying on the true family to other parts of the Gospel sheds light on its meaning. Jesus is the one who calls those he wishes and his activity precipitates opposition and rejection by his natural family. However, Jesus forms a new family which will be constituted by those whom he explicitly calls (the disciples) as well as those who gathered around him to hear his teaching and are summoned to do the will of God and thus become members of a new family.

At this point the Markan Jesus does not indicate what in the concrete doing the will of God involves. However, later on Mark offers a key to its meaning: in Gethsemane, immediately prior to those events where the divisions which Jesus causes will come to a head in his final rejection by his own people and his abandonment by his disciples. In his agony Jesus prays: "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what you will" (Mk 14:36). Jesus is portrayed here fulfilling the conditions of discipleship which he himself has stated earlier in the gospel. The disciple is to pray to God with faith which believes that God will bring about what is sought (Mk 11:23-24). The disciple is also to become like a child in order to enter the kingdom of God (Mk 10:15). Here Jesus uses the familiar and familial language of a child to a father in addressing God as Abba, and as one to whom all things are possible. However the radical disposition of Jesus is to accept the will of God, even while praying that it could be otherwise. Therefore, "doing the will of God" (in Mk 3:34) and becoming a member of Jesus' family is in its most radical sense being willing like Jesus to accept even suffering and rejection as being willed by God. It is this which Peter fails to do in Mk 8:32, when Jesus characterizes him as "thinking human thoughts", not "the thoughts of God" (Mk 8:33). Solidarity with Jesus makes of one a brother, sister or mother to Jesus, who himself is truly Son of God when he can address his father in faith and trust before his impending cross. Such solidarity also involves membership in a new human family. This perspective emerges most clearly in the next text we will discuss.

2. Mk 10:29-31: The New Family

The interrelationship of household and family language, discipleship and suffering, brings us to the second major text of Mark which sheds light on his understanding of community. In response to the statement of Peter, "Look, we have left everything and followed you," Jesus says:

Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life (Mk 10:29-30).

As in the case of Mk 3:31-35, this text must first be consider in its larger context before its importance to the whole Gospe1 can be assessed.

The overriding context of this passage is the great middle section of Mark, the transition between the Galilean ministry and the Jerusalem Passion (Mk 8:22-10:52). This section is structured geographically around references to Jesus being "on the way" (Mk 8:27; 9:33; 10:32). This phrase suggests both the way of Jesus to suffering and death and the way of discipleship which he will teach during this journey to Jerusalem. The section mostly deals with Jesus instructing his disciples. Furthermore, the whole section is bracketed by two stories of Jesus healing blind men (Mk 8:22-26; 10:46-52), the latter of whom tries to follow Jesus on the way (Mk 10:52). All of this suggests that Jesus is engaged in giving insight to blind disciples.(11)

The section is also structured around three passion predictions of Jesus (Mk8:31;9:31;10:33), followed by three misunderstandings on the part of the disciples, which evoke further instruction by Jesus.

Despite the fact that many commentators hold that the overarching theme of this whole section is the necessity of suffering and the failure of the disciples to understand the message of the cross, it is actually only after the first passion prediction that Jesus gives any extended instruction on the necessity of taking up one's cross to become his follower (Mk8:34-38).

After the second and third passion predictions the instructions are much more about the demands of a life of service or diakonia in contrast to the squabbles of the disciples over positions of prestige. In fact the whole material between the second passion prediction and the final words of Jesus in the section is bracketed between two sayings on such service, both addressed to the twelve and both capturing an essential component of discipleship in community for Mark:

If anyone wants to be first of all, let that one be last of all and servant (diakonos) of all (Mk 9:33). Whoever wishes to be great among you, let that one be your servant (diakonos) and whoever wishes to be first among you, let that one be the slave of all (Mk 10:43-44).

Therefore, the imagery of household service (diakonia) is to characterize the way of discipleship.

The proximate context of Mk 10:29-31 is at the conclusion of a long instruction on discipleship which follows the second passion prediction. It has been noted that, especially in Mk 10, Mark has incorporated much traditional material which deals with the kinds of social concern manifest in other first century religious communities, e.g., questions of marriage and children, wealth and riches, rank and order in the community.

The immediate context of the saying under consideration is the private instruction Jesus gives his disciples after the pericope of the rich young man (Mk 10:17-31). The one who leaves many possessions will have these a hundredfold and will also receive that eternal life which the rich man sought by observing the law.

Leaving family and home to follow Jesus is a well established part of the tradition of the sayings of Jesus. But in Mk 10:29-31 we find interesting variations of the motif.

First, Mark is alone in joining to the command to leave one's family the promise of a new family described as the hundredfold "now in this time (kairos)". Matthew, who follows Mark closely at this point, simply says that such people will receive a hundredfold (Mt 19:29), and Luke states simply that they will receive "manifold more" (Lk 18:30). While all three evangelists promise eternal life, only Mark states that the family which has been left behind will be replaced by a new family. The hundredfold, which the Markan reader knows from Mk 4:20 is the fruit of hearing and doing the word of God, is a new family based not on natural kinship but on the power of God. Such language should not be considered merely as a metaphor, since in the early church the sense of community was expressed in familial language. Paul speaks of Onesimus as his child (Philemon 10) and tells the Corinthians that he became their father through the gospel (1 Cor 4:15). He compares his work among the Thessalonians to a nurse caring for children (1 Thess 2:7), and calls the mother of Rufus his mother (Rom 16:13).

Second, while the second part of the saying, the description of the new family, parallels the first part in virtually every detail, there is a significant omission. Though the disciple is said to leave "home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children ...", the disciple will receive "homes and brothers and sisters and mothers and children." Expected but omitted is the reception of a new father. Possible explanations for this would be that for Mark the only father is God, whom both the Christian community and Jesus are to address as such in prayer (Mk 11:25; 14:36). Equally possible is that the Markan version of the statement embodies an "anti-patriarchal" stance and indicates the radically egalitarian nature of the Markan community, a perspective which is in tune with the general context of Mk 9:30-10:45.(12) Mark's community is one where people are to be last of all and servants of all (Mk 9:35; 10:42-45), where children, who often symbolize the powerless, are to be accepted and embraced (Mk 9:36; 10:13-16), where husbands and wives cannot treat each other as property to be discarded (Mk 10:1-12), and where wealth and the social divisions it causes make it virtually impossible to enter the kingdom (Mk 10:17-27). Mark's new family is to be characterized by the renunciation of dominating power and by mutual service.

Third, the final element of this saying which evokes comment is the curious addition of "with persecutions" to the new family. In form the phrase breaks the rhythmic parallelism of the verse and in content it relativizes the reward of the new family. One rather convincing explanation is that Mark wants to convey that one who leaves family for Jesus' sake and for the sake of the gospel will necessarily be involved in following the way of the cross. Another intriguing explanation is offered by the literary analysis which views the addition as an ironic joke. The reader is said to be caught up in the prospect of rewards which far exceed the sacrifice. The addition creates a humorous incongruity which like all jokes debunks our pretensions by suggesting that the final reward (the hundredfold) does not absolve one from engagement with the contingencies of history (persecution).

While both these explanations have much to recommend them and provide an example of a text open to multiple interpretations, we would like to propose a less theological or literary interpretation which reflects the realities of Mark's community. The conjunction of the new family with persecution is in accord with other statements in Mark about family relationships. As we have seen in Mk 3:20-35, it is misunderstanding between Jesus and his natural family which evokes Jesus' statement that the new family is constituted, not by natural ties, but by doing the will of God. In Mk 6:1-6, Jesus is himself rejected by his own kin and household. In Mk 13, which may mirror actual recent experiences of the community, one of the sufferings is that "brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death" (Mk 13:12). For Mark, life in the new community very often involves persecution by the old one.

We would also suggest that this juxtaposition of family and persecution sheds light on the social setting of the Markan community. It has been shown in the case of 1 Peter that household language is a key not only to the ideology of self-definition of a community but to its actual situation." We would stress the positive aspect of this in terms of the internal strength and coherence it gives to the community. Mark's use of household language serves a similar function. It also indicates one of the reasons why the new family may have evoked persecution.

In Mark's time Jewish, Hellenistic and Roman perceptions of family life are quite conservative. Strong family bonds were supported not only by social pressure but by a host of laws governing marriage, inheritance and relation of different members of the natural and extended family. A Christian community which evoked a saying of Jesus to claim that doing the will of God is more important than loyalty to the natural family would naturally provoke suspicion and persecution. It has been suggested that the statement of Tacitus (Annals 15:44), that Christians were persecuted during the time of Nero because of "their hatred of the human race", meant that for Tacitus Christians were a disruptive social phenomenon. Leaving parents, abandoning occupations and the pursuit of wealth, observance of Jesus' teaching on divorce, consideration for children－all these would bring Christians into conflict with the prevailing ethos and values and evoke that kind of suspicion and hatred which meant that the possession of new mothers, brothers and sisters would exist only "with persecution."

3. Mk 10:42-45: A Community of Service

The third text which offers insight into Mark's understanding of discipleship in community comes at the end of the middle section (:22-10:52). After the third passion prediction, the disciples again engage in a dispute over power and precedence; in this case, James and John request positions of authority with Jesus "in your glory" (Mk 10:37). Jesus responds with a counter question asking them whether they are prepared to follow him on the way of suffering. James and John respond that they are and Jesus predicts their future martyrdom, but says that it is not his to grant positions of power and authority but these are for whom such positions are prepared by God (Mk 10: 40). Rather subtly, the Markan Jesus responds to a question about power and glory by starting his own limitation in face of God's plan. This part of the discussion then concludes.

In the second part of the dialogue the other ten are indignant at the request of James and John, manifesting that same concern for power and precedence which appeared in Mk 9:34. Jesus then responds in three sayings which sum up both the ethics and Christology of the whole middle section of Mark. In the first saying (Mk 10:42-43a) Jesus contrasts the expected behavior of his followers with those who are supposed to rule over Gentiles and lord it over them, and with their great men who exercise authority. It shall not be so among Christians. Jesus thus rejects the mode and manner in which power is exercised in the surrounding environment as acceptable in a community of disciples. The second saying describes the way precedence and authority is to exist in the community: "whoever would be great among you must be your servant (diakonos) and whoever would be first among you must be the slave of all" (Mk 10:43b-44).

The use of servant (diakonos) to characterize Christian behavior provides the point of contact between this section and the household / family theme. Though it is used figuratively and even becomes a term for an office in early Christianity (Phil 1:1), diakonos never loses its root meaning of a table servant or household lackey. This Markan perspective of mutuality rather than dominance is in contrast to that of other religious communities of the time. For example, at Qumran there was great concern for precedence and the proper seating of leaders of the community at the communal meals. Paul indicates that one of the problems at Corinth seems to be that important people in the community manifested their power in the way they celebrated the Lord's supper (1 Cor 11:17-34). Mark's image of the community leaders as table servants rather than as those sitting in the places of honour is a clear affront to the social norms of the time and again conveys the radically egalitarian ethos of the Markan community.

The final saying of Jesus in this section, "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many," picks up this language of table service but extends it to an understanding of his whole life and crystallizes the meaning of suffering which has permeated this section. As the reader knows from Mk 2:10, Jesus is the Son of Man who possesses authority on earth. As Son of Man he will suffer, die and be raised up (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33), and as such he will come in glory (Mk 8:38). And yet this same Son of Man is to be the servant who performs the ultimate service by giving his life that others may be free ("a ransom for many"). For Mark, then, the ethics of discipleship is possible only when combined with a Christology of redemptive liberation. The community is one which has been freed by Jesus, but freed for a deeper level of mutual service in solidarity with Jesus, who by the paradoxical renunciation of power became the source of liberation for others.

4. Mk 13:33-36: A Watchful Community

The final use of Markan household language which we will treat provides a brief underscoring of the perspective we have developed. At the end of the long eschatological discourse of Mk 13, Mark appends two parables which tell his church how to live during the period prior to the return of Jesus. The certainty of the end is as assured as the coming of summer follows the spring budding of the fig tree (Mk 13:28-29). However only the Father knows the exact time or hour and in the intervening time the Christian posture is to watch (Mk 13:32-33). The final verses of the discourse are a virtual allegory of life in the Markan community. Their life is that of servants who are waiting for the master to return (Mk 13:34-46). The man who goes on a journey leaves his house (oikia) and gives to his servants (doulois) authority (exousia) and an assigned task (ergon). The posture of the whole community waiting for the return of the "lord of the house" (kyrios tes oikias) is watchfulness, that is active waiting. Behind this allegorical language are clear references to the situation of the Markan church. We have already seen that the community are to be servants of each other (Mk 10:43-44). Like the servants in the parable, the disciples of Jesus possess the exousia (authority) which he gives (Mk 6:7). The community exists in a period between the resurrection and the parousia of Jesus, which the parable describes as the return of the "lord of the house." We would claim that this allegory reflects the experience of a Markan house church, assembled in mutual service and watchfulness, which recognizes only Jesus as the lord of the house and waits for his return.

5. Conclusion

Mark is writing principally for believers and describing the consequences of discipleship, not its conditions. Mark presents a narrative picture of the implications of the faith they share with each other and the engagement with the mystery of Christ which results from their baptism. As such, Mark is a narrative expansion of the journey of commitment and recommitment that is to characterize Christian life.

Such a life is to hear again the proclamation of Jesus, "be converted and believe in the good news" (Mk 1:15). To believe, however, is to be called by Jesus in the midst of one's ordinary activity, to leave an old way of life and to follow a new path of companionship with Jesus and with others who have heard this call. The call is also an empowerment for mission and a life doing the things of Jesus. To share the life of Jesus in its most radical dimension involves trust in God even in the midst of undeserved suffering and a willingness to give one's life so that others may be free. Those who are called must be ready to leave old sources of identity and 0security, family and possessions, but will become members of a new family. This new family will be characterized by mutual service and the renunciation of the desire for power and prestige which is the way of the Gentiles and not of the Son of Man.

We would claim that such a vision of discipleship was for Mark not simply an ideal, but was meant to describe the religious life of his house churches. While at this point the exact setting of Mark's theology of discipleship cannot be specified, we would claim that it is in a house church that the Markan Christians live out their story of Jesus, Mark's good news. It is a community trying to be hearers and doers of the word (Mk 4:20). It is also a community which recognizes the good news of Jesus as its sole authority. Those who attempt to appropriate the authority of Jesus are called "deceivers" (Mk 13:6, 21-22).

Mark's community seems to be radically egalitarian in nature and the only visible structure of authority seems to be that of mutual service. At the same time it is not a sectarian community dedicated only to inner nurture. The one called to be with Jesus is also called to mission. The members of Mark's church, like Jesus, are to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile. Exclusivism is also to be avoided. The one who is not against Jesus is for him and the stranger who gives a drink of water will receive a reward. The major ethical posture of the community is the twofold command of love of God and neighbour (Mk 12:28-34).(14)

Mark's vision of discipleship has a dual setting. The primary one is the historical setting where as prophet and pastor Mark brings the teaching of Jesus and the traditions of his church to bear on the concerns of the community. Mark's understanding of discipleship and life in community seems not to have had a great influence. Matthew and Luke alter Mark's picture of community life, as characterized by solidarity, mutuality and service, by showing more concern for issues of institutionalized authority and ministry. In later New Testament writings such as Colossians, the Pastorals and 1 Peter, household language is used to support structured authority and subordination, rather than to describe a situation in which those in authority are to be ministers (diakonoi) and servants (douloi) as in Mark.(15) While such a development may mirror a necessary stage in the evolution of a religious movement or may reflect varied responses of diverse groups to different social pressures, it does stand in tension with Mark's vision.

Mark's vision also has a setting in the canon of the Christian scriptures. In canonizing Mark as an independent book, the church sanctioned a dynamic and prophetic vision of discipleship and community which stands in tension with other New Testament perspectives and with that very institutionalized ethos out of which canonization emerges. To return to Mark's story of discipleship is not simply to recapture the experiences of a transient New Testament community; it is to recapture a picture of Jesus and what it means to respond to his call, which the church says should never be forgotten or glossed over by other more appealing or more relevant pictures.

It is our task today as a community of disciples to hear again Mark's old story and to transform it by our lives into a better story for our age than the ones people live by. Such transformation into an individual and community style of life based on Mark, which renounces the striving for prestige and power over others, and at the same time confronts the evil forces which oppress our society, will bring with it suffering and persecution, as it did for John the Baptist, for Jesus and for Mark's community.

And yet this is not the final word. To hear the final word we must take our stand with the women before the door of death, now emptied of its power and hear again "he has risen; he is not here" (Mk 16:6).(16)





  
9.John R, Donahue, The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1983) 31-32.

10.John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973) 58-63.

11.Ernst Best, Following Jesus. Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1981) 58-63.

12.Elizabeth Schuessler-Fiorenza, "The Biblical Roots for the Discipleship of Equals", Duke Divinity School Review 45 (1980) 87-97.

13.John Elliott, A Home for the Homeless. A Sociological Exegesis of I Peter (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 165-237.

14.John R. Donahue, "A Neglected Factor in Mark's Theology", Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982) 578-581.

15.Daniel Harrington, "The 'Early Catholic' Writings of the New Testament: The Church Adjusting to World History", in: Light of All Nations: Essays on the Church in New Testament Research (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982) 61-78.

16.Donahue, Theology, 32-56.

by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.

MATTHEW'S COMMUNITY



1. Introduction

During his ministry, Jesus seems to have been the leader of a kind of rural and village-based sectarian faction of wandering charismatics.(1) However, within a few decades a gradual change took place. Those followers of Jesus who before had been mobile were becoming sedentary or house-based. A transition was being made from the rural and village culture of Palestine to Greco-Roman city culture, from an ethnically homogeneous constituency which was largely unlearned, relatively poor, and of low social status, to an ethnically heterogeneous one that included people more educated, more financially secure and successful, i.e., persons of higher status.

It is generally held that the Gospel attributed to Matthew was written around 80-90 A. D. for just such an audience living in an urban setting. Some scholars have located this urbanized community more exactly at Antioch in Syria. That Matthew's community, at least in comparison with Mark's, was more urbanized seems evident from an analysis of various words in the two gospels. While Mark used the word polis, "city", eight times and the word kome, "village", seven times, Matthew uses "village" only four times but "city" at least twenty-six time. Furthermore, Matthew often connected houses (oikoi) and city (polis) (Mt 10:14; 12:25; 17:24-25; 23:28; 26:18). Thus socio-historical data as well as text criticism point to Matthew's community as more urbanized. Consequently it can be called both a "household church" and a "city church."(2)　

Urbanization led to a degree of prosperity and it has been argued on various grounds that Matthew's audience was a generally prosperous community. Indeed, if we take, for example, the three terms "silver," "gold," and "talent," we discover that they occur in Matthew's gospel no fewer than twenty-eight times, compared with the single occurrence of the word "silver" in Mark and the four in Luke.　

While Matthew's house churches had a degree of material security, the historical reality of urbanization and increasing exploitation of the poor would have introduced deepening economic polarities, and possibly even conflicts. Yet the special Matthean material (M) contains very few sayings about wealth or problems connected with wealth. Where they are found, they do not reveal the kind of severity toward possessions that can be observed in the other gospels.(3) Where Matthew does make redactional comments about wealth, we can conclude:

An examination of Matthew's treatment of sayings about wealth shows that such changes as there are usually seem slight. On the other hand the tendency of the redaction seems clear. Matthew does not intensify the severity of the sayings about riches, but rather he makes such sayings somewhat less severe. This tendency may be related with the fact that the economic circumstances of Matthew's church seem to have been less harsh than those of the earlier Christian communities.(4)

Although the majority of its households were generally financially secure, Matthew's community also seems to have contained a significant group of poor. But rather than making a futile and misplaced call to his community to be poor, Matthew's gospel offered a challenge for it to be just toward the poor. Matthew's use of dikaios ("just") more than all other gospels combined, reinforces this conclusion (Mt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:22). While Luke's has been called the gospel of the poor, Matthew's has often been called the gospel of justice.

Some features of Matthew's community are tolerably clear. He writes in Greek for a Greek-speaking church, probably in an eastern city; most scholars think this was the great metropolis of Antioch in Syria, sometime in the last quarter of the first century. There may have been many small household groups of Christians in Antioch at that time, however, and quite likely there was a certain diversity among them. Not all may have shared the history and perspectives that Matthew assumed.(5)　



  
1.Gerd Theissen, The First Followers of Jesus. A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1978).

2.Michael H. Crosby, House of Disciples. Church, Economics and Justice in Matthew (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1988) 36-40.

3.But see Thomas E. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 121-134.

4.David L. Mealand, Proerty and Expectation in the Gospels (London: S.P.C.K.,1980)16.

5.Wayne Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1986) 137.

2. Concrete Situation

The concrete situation addressed by Matthew's Gospel can be described as follows:

First, Matthew wrote for a group of predominantly but not exclusively Jewish Christians.

Secondly, his work can be dated about fifteen years after the Jewish war which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Thirdly, he and his community were situated in a place where recent developments within Judaism, especially the growth of Jamnia Pharisaism, largely determined the religious environment.

Fourthly, the evangelist faced confusion, tension, conflict, and the destructive influence of false prophets within the community.

To substantiate these statements, we must look at the Gospel of Matthew itself. How does it mirror and hence reveal this situation?

Matthean scholars broadly agree that the Christians in Matthew's community were largely, but not exclusively, converts from Judaism. They argue from the obvious "Jewishness" of the first gospel. The Matthean Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of David, promised in the Old Testament, and eagerly awaited by the Jews. Furthermore, Matthew rooted Jesus' origin and his ministry of teaching, preaching, and healing in the Jewish past through several explicit quotations, of the Old Testament and even more indirect allusions. He is also more concerned than the other evangelists with the Christian attitude toward the religious institutions of Judaism, especially the law and the cult. Consequently, the Christians for whom Matthew wrote his Gospel must have had the religious and cultural background necessary to understand his portrayal of Jesus and the disciples. They must have, for example, been familiar with the Old Testament and the practices of Jewish piety. In a word, they must have been to a large extent converts from Judaism.

Even though the Jewish War (A. D. 66-70) and the destruction of the Temple (A. D. 70) did not profoundly influence Christianity as a whole, these events did in fact have a profound impact on Matthew and his community. Matthew directly refers to these events in Mt 22:7: "The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. " Again, in his indictment of the scribes and Pharisees: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... your house is forsaken and desolate" (Mt 23:37-38). Other indications also reveal Matthew's concern with the city of Jerusalem (Mt 16:21; 21:10-11; 27:53; 28:11). All these data suggest that the Gospel was written at a time when the events of the Jewish War, especially the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, had already caused Matthew's largely Jewish Christian community to reflect on their identity.(6)

Central to the Matthean Community's struggle to understand themselves as Christians in a changing world was the question of how they should relate to recent developments within Judaism, especially the emergence of Jamnia Pharisaism. At Jamnia the Pharisees assumed exclusive power after discrediting the Sadducees and containing the traditionally powerful priesthood. They transferred a part of the Temple ritual to the synagogue, and linked the synagogue service to that of the now defunct Temple. They concentrated on the problem of the canon of Scripture and instituted the Rabbinate as the authoritative interpreter of the law. They also consciously confronted Christianity.

Such dramatic changes in Judaism profoundly disturbed the Matthean community. Their self-understanding had been rooted in Jewish tradition. But now they were forced to question their relation to Judaism and even their own identity. Matthew wrote his Gospel in large part to awaken in them a new self-understanding in the light of recent circumstances. He wrote in dialogue with the recent developments in Jamnia, to show his community what it meant to be Christians in the changing milieu of postwar Judaism.

Within the community confusion and doubt prevailed; for what the Matthean Jesus predicts as future events describes the present experience of Matthew's community: "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most people's love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved" (Mt 24:9-13). Matthew and his community, then, had to confront important issues: persecution from non-Jewish sources, scandal caused by mutual betrayal, hatred between members, the divisive influence of false prophets, and widespread wickedness causing love itself to grow cold.

In dialogue with Jamnia Pharisaism and in response to these tensions within his community, Matthew retold and translated the story of Jesus. He so selected, arranged and composed his material that his readers might find and recognize themselves in the narrative. He created a distinctive portrait of Jesus, his followers, and his opponents. Members of the community could identify with the disciples and see the opponents as surrogates for the sages at Jamnia. Matthew could address them through the words and actions of Jesus.



  
6.Eugene A. LaVerdiere and William G. Thompson, "New Testament Communities in Transition: A Study of Matthew and Luke", Theological Studies 37 (1976) 571-572.

3. Four Concerns

Matthew stressed four themes:

First, and above all, he presented his community with a new understanding of their mission. They had been sent to "the lost sheep of Israel." But now they should devote themselves to the wider Gentile mission.(7)

Secondly, to carry out that mission, he urged them no longer to understand themselves as a sectarian group within Judaism. Recent developments indicated that they should accept their separation from Jamnia Pharisaism and claim an independent identity with roots in Jesus Christ and through him in their Jewish past.(8)

Thirdly, Matthew urged reconciliation, forgiveness, and mutual love within the community; for the Gentile mission would never succeed unless the community learned how to manage the confusion, tension and conflict that divided them one from another.(9)

Finally, as motivation for the Gentile mission, Matthew assured his community that, when the Son of Man comes, he would judge not only them but also the Gentiles to whom they were sent.(10)

4. New Understanding of Mission

During his ministry, Jesus stated explicitly: "My mission is only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 15:24). He sent his disciples on mission with the same directive (Mt 10:5b). The vision seemed clear: Jesus came to work for the salvation of Israel. This does not mean that Jesus had no contact with the Gentiles. The Gentile Magi recognized him at his birth (Mt 2:1-12), and the faith of the Gentiles had, at times, amazed even Jesus (Mt 8:10; 15:28). During his preaching, moreover, Jesus had hinted that changes would come. The parables of the two sons, the wicked tenants, and the marriage feast (Mt 21:28-22:14) had all focused on the infidelity of the Jews and the passing of salvation to others (Mt 21:34).

By the time Matthew wrote, the mission to the Gentiles had become a major issue of Church policy. When describing the end of the world, only Matthew's Jesus states explicitly that "this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world as a witness to all the nations. Only after that will the end come" (Mt 24:14). Matthew calls his Church to an extended mission, reminding them that the end will not come until the mission to the Gentiles is accomplished. Although limited to Israel during the life of Jesus, Christian mission in the post-Easter period is a broad, all-embracing commitment to all nations of the world. The risen Christ, endowed with full authority, commands and missions his followers to make disciples of the whole world (Mt 28:19). Exegetes have long recognized that the final commission "to make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:16-20) dominates Matthew's historical and theological perspective.

As Matthew's community struggles with its own sense of identity and purpose, Matthew unites them in a common sense of ministry to the world. His call and vision imply a new sense of Church, and energize his followers to corporate action.

As Matthew's community began to consolidate and expand, it became profoundly aware of its own authority, and struggled to identify structures through which that authority could be channeled.

Composed of several groups, each with its own value system, Matthew's community needed him to call them all to a spirit of reconciliation and a sense of communion.

As a reaction to outside pressures and persecution, the faith of many weakened. The Church needed to be called back to an appreciation of the centrality of Jesus and the need for a living, fruitful faith in him.

Finally, in the changing world of the post-Easter Church, the loss of a sense of purpose and direction needed to be challenged. Matthew focused his community's commitment, launching out to a visionary mission of world conversion.(11)

5. A Community in Transition

The Gentile mission could never be successful if the Matthean community did not learn to manage their internal confusion, tension, conflict, and the divisive influence of false prophets. Hence, the Matthean Jesus invites his disciples, and at the same time the evangelist invites his community, to deepen their faith. Jesus calls them "men of little faith" (Mt 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20).

The episodes in which the need for greater faith is most strikingly taught are the calming of the storm at sea (Mt 8:18-27) and the walking on the water (Mt 14:22-33). Prior to the first storm, the Matthean Jesus commands the crowd around him to go over to the other side of the lake, but only the disciples will follow him into the boat. Who are these disciples, and how are they different from the rest of the crowd? Matthew identifies them as those who are ready to share all that is implied in the fact that their master has no place to lay his head, and to put familial piety in second place when it conflicts with their commitment to follow Jesus (Mt 8:18-22). With the meaning of their action understood, the disciples follow Jesus into the boat. A storm rises, but Jesus is asleep. The disciples awaken him with an appeal for help: "Save, Lord; we are perishing." Jesus responds with the question, "Why are you afraid, 0 men of little faith?" (Mt 8:26). The disciples' inadequate faith refers to their lack of confidence in Jesus' power over the storm. But Matthew's readers, swamped by waves of opposition and conflict and with some beginning to lose heart, would easily identify with the disciples. Matthew calls for a deeper faith in Jesus' power over the evil symbolized by the storm at sea.

Similarly, when Jesus walks through the storm to the disciples in the boat, he invites Peter to come to him on the water. Peter gets out of the boat, begins to walk toward Jesus, but becomes afraid and begins to sink. Jesus catches him with the words, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Mt 14:31). Once they are safe in the boat and the storm has ceased, the disciples worship Jesus: "Truly you are the Son of God" (Mt 14:33). Once again Matthew intends his community to see their situation mirrored in the storm at sea, and their fears and doubts expressed in Peter's hesitation. He invites them to join the disciples in their renewed faith in Jesus as the Son of God.

Also through Jesus' instructions to his disciples Matthew address the confusion and conflict that was dividing his community. The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1-7:28) and the Communitarian Discourse(Mt 17:22-18:35) are the clearest examples. In the Sermon the disciples and the crowd are called "blessed" when they experience persecution and all kinds of evil (Mt 5:11-12). In the first antithesis they are warned against divisive anger and urged to reconciliation (Mt 5:21-26). In the fifth they are taught not to resist an evildoer (Mt 5:38-42). In the final antithesis Jesus instructs them to love their enemies (Mt 5:43-48). The need for mutual forgiveness is expressed as a petition in the Our Father (Mt 6:12) and elaborated at the end of the prayer (Mt 6:14-15). Finally, in the epilogue to the Sermon, Jesus warns against false prophets (Mt 7:15-20) and against those who would claim a place in the kingdom of heaven on the basis of mighty works in his name (Mt 7:21-23). Matthew's community could easily apply these instruction to their own confusion and conflicts and to the divisive influence of false prophets in their midst.

In the communitarian discourse in chapter 18, Matthew addresses the same issues, but against the background of Jesus' prediction of his own passion, death, and resurrection (Mt 17:22-23). His instructions concern attitudes and behaviour among the disciples. If they would enter and achieve greatness in the future kingdom of heaven, they must now humble themselves like the child in their midst (Mt 18:1-4). Under no circumstances are they to weaken the faith of a fellow disciple through scandalous behaviour (Mt 18:5-9). Instead, they should care for the one going astray and do everything possible to reconcile a brother or sister who has wandered into sin (Mt 18:10-20). Finally, they are to forgive personal offenses without limit (Mt 18:21-35). Once again through these instructions Matthew teaches his community how to cope with their internal situation.(12)

6. Final Judgment

Given his ideas about the Gentile Mission, it is not surprising that in the final sections of his eschatological discourse, Matthew has Jesus describe the judgment of the disciples and the Gentiles.

The Matthean Jesus exhorts his disciples to vigilance (Mt 24:36-25:30). He stresses the fact that, as the Son of Man, he will certainly come (Mt 24:37, 39, 43, 46; 25:6-7, 19), but also that his coming will be delayed (Mt 24:48; 25:5). Since the exact day and hour cannot be known, the disciples should watch and remain alert, like the faithful servant in his master's household or the virgins waiting for the bridegroom (Mt 24:36. 42, 44, 50; 25:13). When the Son of Man comes, however, the disciples will be divided one from another, like the men in the field or the women at the mill, like the faithfill from the wicked servants, like the wise from the foolish virgins, or like the servants to whom the talents had been entrusted (Mt 24:40-41, 45-49; 25:2-4, 16-18).

Matthew addressed Jesus' words to his community in the aftermath of the Jewish war to correct the false impression that the end had already arrived and to call them to constant vigilance and readiness. He also wanted to motivate them to carry out the mission to all nations. Merely belonging to the community would not guarantee entrance into the kingdom of heaven; for they will be judged on how well they used their different talents in the common task of "making disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:18). When Jesus returns he will not judge them according to their abilities but according to how well they carried out their tasks with love and respect for one another.

Jesus ends this final discourse by describing the judgment of the nations to whom he sends his followers (Mt 25:31-46). When he returns as the triumphant Son of Man, Jesus will separate the nations into sheep and goats. He will invite the sheep to possess the kingdom of heaven; he will condemn the goats. Both sheep and goats will be surprised. Then Jesus will explain the criterion for judgment: how well or ill the nations treated the least of his brethren. Jesus declares that he will reward or punish Jews and Gentiles according to whether or not they gave them food and drink, clothed and sheltered them, and visited them when sick or in prison. Without the nations knowing it, they encountered Jesus himself in these little ones because he sent them to announce the good news about God."



  
11.Leonard Doohan, Matthew. Spirituality for the 80's and 90's (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Bear & Company, 1985) 38-39.

7. Matthew's Community and Us

Matthew's community was not a group of withdrawn ascetics, but rather a community that had participated and was participating in significant historical events. Reactions to some of the major events, both religious and social, had divided Matthew's people into all shades of conservative and liberal. His community showed not only pluralism, but at times even contradictory positions on important issues. Matthew, while probably not agreeing with them, left the differences intact. He strove for reconciliation, renewal, and a corporate sense of mission.

Matthew's community lived at a turning point in Christianity, and had to make decisions which brought them hardship and social persecution. Our Christian communities of 1990 have many of these same characteristics. Matthew presents Jesus to us to calm the storms of our communities, reminding us that divisiveness is a sign of little faith. Christianity's place is still in the midst of world events: the tragedies, oppression, joys and hopes of humankind. There will always be differences among us, but if we are constantly committed to reconciliation, renewal, and a sense of mission, they can be at least controlled and managed. Like Matthew's community, we need maturity and objectivity to face our differences.(14)

Our problems and needs are not unlike those of Matthew's community, and his creative responses to their problems can still be valuable to us. All genuine Christian life must be rooted in the saving events of Jesus, and Matthew is diligent in identifying these sources and establishing them as the foundation for faith. But Christian life does not merely repeat a literalist and fundamentalist version of Jesus' life. Authentic Christian commitment requires a living and life-giving interpretation of those historical events in every generation and in every culture. Only such rooting and interpreting guarantee the genuineness of faith.(15)

Uncertain times can prompt us Christians to ask important questions about our faith and our place in the world: How are we to live as Christians? What are we to do? Where do we turn to find truth and meaning? What does following Jesus mean? What values do we want to foster in ourselves and others? How do we make right decisions and design concrete strategies for action which can create a better world for ourselves and the coming generations? Such questions troubled Matthew and his community. We also ask them today.

Confusion can move us, as it moved Matthew and his community, to reflect on our roots－the persons and experiences from which we have come as individuals and families, as Christian communities, and as a society. As we recall our heritage, we remember significant persons and we relive the events which have shaped our identity. We try to recapture the vision and recover the values of those who founded our communities. As we tap into our roots, we may gain new perspectives from which to view our present times.(16)

Matthew and his community worked with inherited traditions, attended to their present experience, and responded to their surrounding culture. We must do the same. Matthew's story is our inherited tradition. As we listen to it in personal or community settings, we also listen to our present experience and our contemporary culture. We, too, must let what we hear come together in reflection and prayer so that we can discover how God through Matthew's story might be enabling us to live as Christians in our uncertain times.(17)



  
12.LaVerdiere and Thompson, art. cit. 578-580.

13.William G. Thompson, Matthew's Story. God News For Uncertain Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1989) 127.

14.Doohan, op. cit. 49.

15.Ibidem 161.

16.Thompson, op. cit. 15-16.

17.Ibidem 53.

by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.

THE "HOUSE CHURCH" IN PAUL'S LETTERS



Introduction

The repeated New Testament use of the term oikos (112 times) and oikia (94 times) indicates the contextualization of the epistles and gospels within this "house" environment. Historically, "household" and related terms described the foundation and context of the Christian movement.

Religiously, this movement originated in and owed its growth to conversion of entire households or of certain individuals within households. Generally speaking, cultic activities like the Eucharist took place in the house.

Economically, the household constituted the context for the sharing of resources among believers as well as with the wandering charismatics.

Socially, the household provided a practical basis and theoretical model both for Christian organization and for its preaching.(1)

While we translate the expressions oikos, oikia by terms meaningful to us, "house", "home", "household", we must be careful not to read into these words the meanings which the English words have for us. Words change with each generation and sometimes with each writer. What Paul meant by the "house church" depended on the Hellenistic culture of his time, with both its Gentile and Jewish components.

I. Hellenistic Background

l. The Household

The two words Paul uses, oikos and oikia, meant roughly the same, namely, the household with its persons and property. Classical Greek maintained some distinction between the two words: oikos brought to mind especially the idea of wealth, possessions, or a physical room, whereas oikia suggested more the relatives, servants, or even clients of a household. Both words were used for the dwelling, the family, or kin.

Paul's Greek, however, shows much more affinity with the Greek of the Septuagint [LXX]. The translators of the Septuagint needed to translate the Hebrew word bait. Bait in different contexts meant a room in a building (Esther 2:3; 7:8); the whole family, including father (Gen 50:8; 1 Sam 1:21), wife, second wife, sons, daughters (Gen 36:6), dependent relatives (Gen 13:1), servants (Gen 15:2-3), attendants (Gen 14:14), and slaves (Gen 17:13, 27); relatives who formed a group between the immediate family and the tribe (2 Sam 9:7); household possessions, including wealth, tools, slaves, and cattle (Ex 20:17; Est 8:1). Without any apparent distinction, the LXX translators chose both oikos and oikia to express the broad concept of bait. The only perceived difference between the two Greek words is the greater frequency of oikos over oikia.

Considered from either its Hellenistic or its Jewish roots, the concept of oikos is thus considerably wider than our concept of "family". Even the word "household" does not do justice to the extension of the Jewish/Hellenistic concept.

A comment by the Roman orator and poet Cicero about one's hierarchy of duties reflects his understanding of a "household". Our duties, he says, begin with one's country, then one's parents, "next come children and the whole household (domus), who look to us alone for support and can have no other protection; finally our kinsmen".(2) Besides one's immediate family, Cicero has in mind unattached relatives, slaves, freedmen, hired workers, sometimes tenants, business partners and clients.

Cicero defines the domus or household by a relationship of dependence, not kinship. In fact the family or household was constituted by the reciprocal relationships of protection and subordination. At the top of the pyramid was the paterfamilias, the family father or other "head of the house", whose power extended at times to that over the life and death of his children. At the bottom of the structure was the slave, who nevertheless could exercise considerable responsibility in his household duties. Supporting this authority was the subordination of the members of the household, who by this subordination enjoyed a sense of belonging and security not provided by any other social or political structure of the time.

Were all the members of the household expected to share the same religious practices? Although our information about this expectation is scarce, we can probably presume that all members, especially those of the smaller households, felt some pressure to share in the household cults. Yet the religious solidarity characteristic of the old agrarian society gave way under the pressures of urbanization. In imperial times, Romans became more laissez faire about the religion of their slaves. This latitude regarding religion appears in the strongly Romanized cities more than in the Greek East.(3)

2. The Jewish Household

Where we find household religiosity dominating and where we find the closest background to the Christian house church is in the Jewish household. In the Jewish world at the time of the New Testament, the family was the primary place for the transmission of the faith. The family prayed in common daily, mornings and evenings, and especially at the blessings of the mealtime.

The preeminent family feast was Passover. This feast was the high point of the year and during New Testament times was held in the homes. As Philo wrote concerning Passover, "each house at this time took on the character of the holiness of the Temple. " We still know very little about the life of the ancient Jewish household with its multiplicity of customs and its inner piety. This silence and privacy concerning the Jewish home, however, was its strongest asset. Whenever external difficulties threatened the public practice of Jewish worship, the Jewish home could assume full responsibility for the practice of religion. As long as the Jewish household maintained itself, Judaism as a religion was protected from any threat.

The writings of the Essenes discovered at Qumran have shed great light on the New Testament, providing as they do expressions and evidence for practices in striking parallel to those of the early Christians. These writings frequently use the term "house" to designate the community, much the way the Old Testament spoke of Israel as a house. The ancient Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo, however, tell of communities of Essenes throughout Palestine numbering as many as 4,000. These Essenes outside of Qumran apparently lived and assembled in private homes. Josephus refers to a "house" where they met for meals and instructions, while Philo speak of them sharing their houses. Such home-based communities would be close parallels to the Christian house churches.(4)

3. Hellenistic Private Cults and Social Associations

In New Testament times, the local church had an important parallel in the Hellenistic clubs and cults which existed in the ever widening social space between the order of the individual households and the public life of the state. These voluntary associations filled an important vacuum in Greco-Roman life. As political power was concentrated in the hands of fewer people for longer periods of time, many citizens experienced a general disenchantment with the polis ("city"). The alternative to closing oneself simply in one's oikos was to become involved in some voluntary and private organization.

Some of these associations were fundamentally cultic, others were predominantly social. Most groups formed around households and their meetings took place in private houses, but they included more than one family. They became, as it were, a community around a family.

The analogies between these Hellenistic clubs and the early church are striking. It does not appear, however, that Christian Groups consciously modeled themse1ves on these clubs. Nevertheless we should not underestimate the more or less spontaneous and diffused influence of these associations on the early Christians.(5)

4. The Jewish Synagogue

The influence of Hellenistic associations on the early Christians may have occurred through the Jewish institution that by far shows the closest parallels to the Christian ekklesia, namely, the Jewish synagogue. Recent studies have detected very specific influence of the Hellenistic associations on Jewish counterparts.

The origins of the Jewish synagogue remain obscure and are generally thought to be rooted in the Babylonian exile experience. The earliest inscriptions evidence their existence from the third century B. C. In New Testament times we have the references in the gospels to the Galilean synagogues (Mt 4:23; 9:35; Lk 4:15, etc.). Philo refers to Diaspora synagogues as "prayer houses".

In the earliest synagogues uncovered by archaeology, we have the same pattern of a Jewish community beginning with a private house, probably using that home for religious purposes, then at a particular point renovating the home to develop a special assembly area, and finally redoing the whole building to build a dedicated synagogue.(6)



  
1.Michael Crosby, House of Disciples (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988) 33.

2.(De Officiis, 1, 17, 58).

3.Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 30. Vincent Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989) 36-38.

4.Branick, op. cit. 45-46.

5.Ibidem 46-49.

6.Ibidem 52-55.

II. The Christian Household in Paul's Theology of the Church

1. Introduction

"Aquila and Prisca with their house church send abundant greetings in the Lord," Paul writes to the Corinthians from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19). Some three years later writing to Rome, Paul again states, "Give my greetings to Prisca and Aquila ... and to their house church" (Rom 16:3,5). Writing from prison toward the end of his career, Paul sends a note to his friend Philemon. Opening the letter in his conventional way, Paul greets Philemon, his wife Apphia, Archippus, possibly their son, and "your house church" (Phim 2). Finally in the Letter to the Colossians, we find greetings to Nympha in neighbouring Laodicea and "to her house church" (Col 4:15). The four greetings are the four instances in which Paul speaks explicitly of house churches, assemblies of Christians that formed in and around a private household.

These greetings remind us that the earliest Christians met in private homes. For them the household with its family setting was the church. The private dwelling functioned for the church on two levels. It formed the environment for house churches strictly speaking, gatherings of Christians around one family in the home of that family. On the second broader level, the private dwelling formed the environment for gatherings of the local church, the assembly of all the Christian households and individuals of a city. For such a group, the home functioned as a house church, since the building remained the domicile of the host family.

For about a century the private dwelling shaped the Christians' community life, forming the environment in which Christians related to each other, providing an economic substructure for the community, a platform for missionary work, a framework for leadership. Above all the private home and specifically the dining room provided an environment that corresponded remarkably with the Christians' earliest self-identification, reflecting Jesus' own choice of an "upper room" for his last supper, his choice of "non-sacred space" as the environment of his work, and his insistence on familiar ties among believers.

Sometime in the second half of the second century, some Christians began to dedicate their homes to church assembly. The building ceased to be a residence. Modifications to the structure turned the dining room into a larger assembly hall. Other rooms assumed community functions. Although resembling a house, the building became a church. Eventually Christians were allowed to rebuild their churches from the ground. In A. D. 314, a year after the Edict of Milan, the first of the basilicas appeared.

The Christians meeting in the dedicated churches and basilicas showed an understanding of themselves different from that of the Christians meeting in the house churches. Leadership became concentrated in fewer hands, the hands of a special class of holy people. Church activities became stylized ritual. The building rather than the community became the temple of God. Whether environment determines ideology or ideology determines environment, the link between the two is clear when we examine the shift from the house church to the dedicated church.

In this paper we are interested mainly in the times when Christians met exclusively in private households. More specifically we will focus on the times and churches of Paul. We will look at the connections which appear between the household setting for the churches and the self-understanding and activities of these churches. Of particular interest will be the relationship between the private house church and the local church. Following the lead of Paul, this paper will refer to the smaller unit as "house church" and to the larger unit, which also met in private houses, as the local or city-wide church.(7)

2. Family and Household Terminology in Paul

The frequency of family and household terminology in Paul for the Christian community is striking. He addresses his fellow Christians as brothers or sisters, exhorts them "as a father to his children" (1 Thess 2:11), and even sees himself as a pregnant mother giving birth to the Galatians (Gal 4:19)! When he speaks of "building up" the community (1 Thess 5:11, etc.), he generally uses the Greek word oikodome, derived from the Greek word for "house." oikos.

This household and familial terminology has its roots in the Old Testament and the Judaism in which Paul grew up. Israel was a "house" or "household" (Amos 5:25; Jer 38:33). Household and family terminology used for a religious group thus precedes Paul and his application of this terminology to the house church experience. The frequency and pervasiveness of this language in Paul, however, indicates that for him the words were not empty religious formulas. Paul is an apostle and a father to his communities who are families. The practical necessity of meeting in private homes clearly blended with Paul's theological understanding of the Christian community.

Paul lived this family relationship with his co-workers and communities and he wanted them to live the same. Given the family character of the Christian community, the homes of its members provided the most conducive atmosphere in which they could give expression to the bond they had in common.(8)

3. The Household in Mission Strategy

Most probably the conversion of a household and the consequent formation of a house church formed the key element in Paul's strategic plan to spread the gospel. If we follow Acts in this matter, it would seem that Paul had little success preaching in the synagogues. His method then shifted to establishing himself with a prominent family, which then formed his base of operations in a given city (Acts 16:13-34; 17:2-9; 18:1-11).

It is not surprising then to see frequent mention of baptisms, not just of individuals, but of whole households. Paul mentions such a conversion once (1 Cor 1:16). Acts makes such a household conversion almost a theme in itself (Acts 10:2; 16:15; 16:33;18:8).

Hospitality was the key to the mission. Paul's work was characterized by mobility and travel. In order to accomplish his mission, he depended on an extensive network of social relationships, centered on households. Hospitality to Paul meant not only material support but also attachment to his gospel. It meant sharing his work. Such ideological support appears especially in Paul's reflection on the Philippians' financial subvention of his work (Phil 4:14-18; 2 Cor 8:1-5).

Paul frequently refers to "receiving" his co-workers and "sending" them on their way (Rom 16:1-2; Phil 2:27-29). These words are part of an almost technical language describing the local group's part in the mission. The local group was to accord hospitality to Paul's emissary and then provide that person with enough assistance to return to Paul or to reach the next station.(9)

4. The House Church in the Larger Community

The house church on the one hand, and the household gathered in prayer on the other, did not simply coincide. This is clear from Paul's own writings. Not every member of a family became Christian when the head of the house did. Until he fled his master and met Paul, Onesimus, the slave of Christian Philemon, was not a Christian (Phim 10). Paul lays down precise guidelines for families where the spouses are not both believers (1 Cor 7:12-16).

This lack of perfect coincidence between the "house church" and the household lay at the basis of the openness of the Churches to each other, the networking of "house churches" into some form of city-wide federation we can call "the local church." The relationship between "the single family church" and "the local church" was not clear-cut and finely drawn. Paul makes no attempt to relate "house church" to "local church." From the start a "house church" of a particular family could well have involved others from non-Christian households. Likewise for some time a single "house church" of a particular family may have been the only church of a locality. Only gradually, as "house churches" multiplied in a locality, would the reality of "local church" take on a distinct definition. Yet because the meeting of a "local church" would take place in a "house church", the larger unit would still reflect the smaller.

On the whole Paul seems to emphasize the formation of the "local church", allowing the "house church" of the individual family to recede into the background. Given the strategy of the early missionaries and the constraints against meeting in other places, the appearance of the "single family house church" was to a degree a natural development. The networking of these "house churches" into a "local church" appears to be the object of a special effort on the part of Paul.

Paul's most frequent use of the term "church" refers to a local, i.e., city-wide group of Christians. This meaning is clearest where he attaches the name of a city to the word. He twice greets "the church of God which is in Corinth" (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Similarly he greets "the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess 1:1).

Paul refers to the city-wide church with the expression, "the whole church," the counterpart of a "house church". The English cognate "catholic" employs the Greek expression kath' hole, but the church kath' hole for Paul was the city-wide or local assembly, not some world-wide organization. Thus Paul speaks of the situation in Corinth of an outside entering the assembly "when the whole church (he ekklesia hole) is gathered in the same place" (1 Cor 14:23). Again, writing from Corinth to the Romans, Paul sends greetings from Gaius and distinguishes him as "host to me and to the whole church" (Rom 16:23).

In Paul's two references to "the whole church," the stress on the plenary character of the gathering suggests something special about the event. "The whole church in the same place" sounds like an important event. Likewise, the redundancy of the expression, "to gather in the same place," seems to point to a special assembly. If the plenary assemblies of the Corinthian church were special, we can infer the existence of sub-groups that met at other times. The picture of more than one "house church" within a city appears also in the descriptions of Antioch and Jerusalem (as found in Acts).

Paul envisions apparently a kind of confederation of several "house churches" forming a "local church". The Pauline "local church" existed thus on two levels, both connected with the households; first, a household assembly of an individual family and those associated with that family, and second, a city-wide level meeting in a private home but consisting of several families.

In gathering the "house churches" together for a city-wide assembly and calling this city-wide assembly an ekklesia, Paul most probably had in mind the city-wide assemblies of the Greek cities, which were also called ekklesia. This ekklesia was the town meeting of the free citizens who gathered to decide matters affecting their welfare.(10)

5. Church as Gathering

The parallel between Paul's use of the term ekklesia and the Greek municipal ekklesia brings out another important aspect of the Pauline church. The Greek ekklesia was an assembly. It came into existence and went out of existence as the citizens were gathered and dismissed. The emphasis of the word is on the gathering itself as an activity rather than on some permanent institution.

This meaning as "gathering" is clearest in the descriptions of "church" found in 1 Cor 11-14. A clear linguistic parallel appears between Paul's expressions, "When you assemble as church" (I Cor 11:18) and "when you assemble in the same place" (1 Cor 11:20). Paul is speaking of the same event in both verses.

In 1' Cor 12-14 Paul repeatedly urges "building up the ekklesia." This admonition applies much more clearly to the actual gathering of the Christians than to any institutional existence of the same group. He never uses the term to refer, as we do today, to local assemblies seen as part of a larger unit. He never, of course, uses the term to refer to the building or the physical setting of the assembly, whether on the household level or the city level. The physical setting of the assembly was a home, a building which functioned outside of "church time" as a private residence.(11)

6. A World-wide Church?

The cohesion of the individual "house churches" into the local church arose for Paul because of the larger unifying context. This larger context gives hints of a world-wide perspective, a gathering that never gathers as such but which also bears the name "church".

When Paul refers to the Christians of a geographical area larger than the city, he does so usually by using the plural form, "churches." When referring to a teaching or rule observed universally by Christians, he again normally uses the plural form of "churches" or a distributive from which implies the plural.

Nevertheless he at times uses the singular "the church" to designate what appears to be more than a local church. It is particularly in his expression "the church of God" that we hear resound a larger than local church (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13).

What echoes in the background in Paul's use of "church" here is the Old Testament phrase qehal yhwh, "assembly of the Lord," translated by the Greek Bible as ekklesia tou Kyriou. This is the description of all the tribes of Israel gathered at Sinai by God to receive his law (Deut 23:2-4). The Sinai assembly, often designated as an ekklesia, was of importance in late Judaism, the Jewish filter that passed the Old Testament to Paul and the early Christian church. The great assembly shows up in the writings of Qumran as the final or eschatological assembly.

Paul pictures the Christians as the true Israel or at least as the new growth on the true Israel (Rom 9:6; 11:17), which has by the Spirit inherited the promises and the covenant (2 Cor 3:6). Unlike the old Israel, however, Christians are not to think of ethnic limits. Christians could apply to themselves the international consciousness of Israel yet push it to even greater universality. Paul would thus expect the local church to have a real sense of belonging to a world-wide people.(12)



  
7.Ibidem 13-16.

8.Robert Banks, Paul's Idea of Community. The Early House Churches in Their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 61.

9.Branick, op. cit. 18.

10.Banks, op. cit. 34-37.

11.Branick, op. cit. 27-28.

12.Ibidem 29-31. Helen Doohan, Paul's Vision of Church (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989).

by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.

I. Setting, Date, Authorship

1. Setting

The issue of the setting of the Fourth Gospel is really a kind of condensed history of a particular Christian community in the first century. The best efforts to reconstruct that history result in at least a three-stage view.

At the first stage, the Johannine community constituted a part of a Jewish synagogue. That is, the earliest Johannine Christians were Jewish Christians who believed that the Christian faith was continuous with the Jewish faith and who were content to live within the context of a Jewish community. At this first stage we may suppose that their beliefs were not radically different from Jewish beliefs. Their view of Jesus was that he was the Messiah who had come and then promised to return to fulfill the hopes of the Jews as well as the Christians.

The second stage of this history brought the split between the Christians and the Jews of the synagogue. It appears that the Johannine community experienced an expulsion from their religious home in the synagogue for at least two reasons.

First, their increasingly successful missionary efforts among their colleagues in the synagogue began to pose a threat to the leadership of the synagogue, and an earlier emphasis on what the two groups had in common was steadily giving way to an emphasis on the differences. Involved in this may also have been the effective missionary work of the Johannine Christians among Samaritans (Jn 4).

The second reason for the expulsion was the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in A. D. 70 and the resulting crisis of faith. The destruction of the temple brought a kind of identity crisis for the Jews－what is Judaism without a center of sacrificial worship?－and may have resulted in purging sympathizers of Jesus of Nazareth from some synagogues. (In three places in the Gospel the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogue is echoed－Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). This informal and localized expulsion of the Christians (like those remembered in the narratives of Acts, e.g., 19:8f.) was possibly (later) formalized and made a common practice by the Council of Jamnia (ca. 90 A. D.).

This expulsion had a mighty effect on the Christian community, producing a trauma of faith of major proportions. It was amid this crisis that the fourth evangelist gathered the traditions of the community and interpreted them so as to address the needs of the newly isolated community. It was then that the major themes of the Gospel took shape, providing the Johannine Christians with assurance and confidence in the midst of the uncertainty of their recent experience of deprivation. Furthermore, it was in the subsequent, and perhaps violent, debate with the members of the synagogue that the Gospel found its setting (e.g., Jn 16:2).

The third stage of the history of the community was close to, if not identical with, the setting for the publication of 1 John. While the crisis of the expulsion from the synagogue had been resolved and the community was an independent Christian body, there appeared some internal conflicts over the interpretation of the original Gospel of John in general, and proper belief and practice in particular. Moreover, relationships with other Christian communities had become important (cf. Jn. 21). Certain additions to the Gospel appear to address this situation.(1)

2. Date and Authorship

The task of dating the gospel has become a question of dating the stages in the history of the Johannine community and in reality has become less important for the interpretation of the document than its setting.

For the most part, scholars still date the gospel in the last decade of the first century. Those who hold that the expulsion of the Johannine Christians from the synagogue was a result of the formal decree of the Council of Jamnia (ca. 90 A. D.) must date it within a few years after that council. The first stage of the history of the community sketched above should be dated 40-80, the second 80-90, and the last 90-100.

The identity of the fourth evangelist is hopelessly lost in anonymity. He was not an eyewitness and is not to be identified with the "beloved disciple." It is more likely that the evangelist (whom we shall continue to call John for the sake of convenience) writes of a revered founder of the community whose witness is the basis of the community tradition. The writer speaks of this honoured figure as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." While some scholars have attempted to identify this figure with someone known to us from the gospels (most often John, son of Zebedee, or Lazarus), it seems wiser to admit that we do not know.(2)



  
1.Robert Kysar, John. Augsburg Commentaries (Minneapolis : Augsburg Publishing House, 1986) 14-15.

2.Ibidem 15-16.


II. The Johannine Community

1. Johannine Community Origins (3)

The disciples who follow Jesus in Jn 1:35-51 include names known in the other gospels (Andrew, Peter, Philip); and the titles given to Jesus there are found in the other gospels (Messiah, Son of God, King, Son of Man). It would seem, then, that at least in its origins Johannine Christianity was not too distant from the dominant style of Christianity in the movement centered on Jesus.

In Jn 4, however, Samaritans are being converted (but not by the original disciples of Jesus); and Temple worship in Jerusalem is declared as losing significance (Jn 4:21-24). Here John has departed significantly from the description of the ministry in the other gospels and is closer to the developments described in Acts 6-8. There (without a break of communion) Hellenistic Jewish Christians separate administratively from the Hebrew Christian majority in Jerusalem who are faithful to the Temple observances; and (in the person of Stephen) Hellenist preaching proclaims that God does not dwell in the Temple.

These Hellenist Christians, not Peter or the Twelve, are the ones who convert Samaria. The Johannine community consisted not only of the type of Hebrew Christians whose heritage is preserved in many other New Testament writings, but also of groups similar to the Hellenists, more radical in their attitudes toward Judaism. There were also Samaritan converts. This mixture may have hastened innovative developments in Johannine Christology and made Johannine Christians particularly troublesome in the eyes of Jews who did not believe in Jesus.

In any case, beginning in Jn 5 a dominant theme of the Johannine account of Jesus' ministry is the hatred that "the Jews" have for Jesus because he is making himself God. The divinity of Jesus as one who had come down from God (an aspect of divinity not apparent in the other gospels) is publicly spoken of and attacked. There are long debates between Jesus and "the Jews" that grow increasingly hostile.

What lies beneath the surface becomes apparent in the story of the man born blind (Jn 9).(4) The Jews in anger say, "We are the disciples of Moses; we know that God has spoken to Moses. As for that fellow (Jesus), we do not even know where he comes from" (Jn 9:28-29). The man born blind, who is described by them as one of the disciples of "that fellow", also speaks as a "we": "We know that God pays no attention to sinners .... if this man (Jesus) were not from God, he could have done nothing" (Jn 9:31,33).

The synagogue and the Johannine community are thus alienated from each other as disciples of Moses and disciples of Jesus; and through the medium of struggles in Jesus' own life, the struggles between these two groups are being told. (In other words, the Fourth Gospel narrates on two levels: the level of Jesus' life and the level of the community's life). Just as the man born blind is put on trial before the Pharisees or "the Jews", so have members of the Johannine community been put on trial by synagogue leaders. Just as the man born blind is ejected from the synagogue for confessing that Jesus has come from God, so have the Johannine Christians been ejected from the synagogue for their confession of Jesus (see also Jn 16:2).

To have suffered expulsion from the synagogue because of a belief that Jesus had come from God inevitably sharpened and tightened the adherence of Johannine Christians to their high Christology.(5) Jesus is so much one with the Father (Jn 10:30) that he is not only Lord but also God (Jn 20:28). Over such issues the Johannine Christians were willing to criticize even other Christians. There is contempt in the Fourth Gospel for Jews who believed in Jesus but who were unwilling to confess it openly lest they be put out of the synagogue (Jn 12:42).(6) There is hostility towards Jewish disciples who have followed Jesus openly but who object when it is said that he has come down from heaven and can give his flesh to eat (Jn 6:60-66) or because he is described as existing before Abraham (Jn 8:58).

Such criticism of others suggests that the Johannine Christians must have been extremely controversial because of their Christology, challenged both by Jews who did not believe in Jesus and by Jews who did believe in him. The courtroom atmosphere of the Fourth Gospel with its constant stress on testimony / witness, accusation, and judgment (Jn 1:19-21; 5:31-47; 7:50-51; 8:14-18; etc.) and with its debates over the implications of Scripture texts (Jn 6:31-33; 7:40-43, 52; 10:34-36) reflects the controversies and how they were conducted.

The struggle with the synagogue and the resultant polemic atmosphere are very important in understanding what is present in the Fourth Gospel but also what is absent. The synagogue leaders apparently thought that the Johannine confession of Jesus as God denied that basic faith of Israel: "The Lord our God is one." In response, the evangelist－and his community－defended the divinity of Jesus so massively that the Fourth Gospel scarcely allows for human limitation. Jesus cannot ask a simple question without a Johannine footnote explaining that he already knew the answer (Jn 6:5-6). Jesus cannot choose a follower who goes bad without Johannine insistence that he foresaw this from the beginning (Jn 6:70-71). Jesus cannot utter a prayer of petition without the assurance that he is only educating the bystanders to the truth that the Father always hears him (Jn 11:41-42). Jesus cannot ask that the hour of the passion pass from him (as he does in the other gospels), for his coming to the hour is intentional (Jn 12:27). The passion of Jesus cannot be narrated in a way that would place him at the mercy of his captors, for he has sovereign power to lay down his life and take it up again (Jn 10:18; see 18:6). The entire presentation protects Jesus from whatever could be a challenge to divinity. It is very important to understand that this particular Christology can be understood only when seen in the context of the community's situation.

2. Johannine Relations with Outsiders

The pre-gospel period of distinctive Johannine formation took several decades from the 50s to 80s, and the Gospel was probably written ca. A. D. 90. Universalism is certainly not absent from an outlook that includes the statement: "God so loved the world ... that the world might be saved through him" (Jn 3:16-17). Yet, as we see in the following verses, Jn 3:18-21, dualism is an important modifying factor in this universalistic outlook. The human race is divided into non-believers and believers, into those who prefer darkness and those who prefer light. Since the Johannine community identifies itself with the believers, it is no surprise that those outside the community are looked upon as more or less shadowed by darkness.

No other gospel so lends itself to a diagnosis of community relationships in terms of opposition. Yet if stress on opposition is inevitable, we must not forget the light which shines within the Johannine community of faith and which is the main emphasis of the Gospel. Otherwise we might get the impression that the Johannine community had a negative self-identity. The Fourth Gospel is not an in-group manifesto meant as a triumph over outsiders; its goal is to challenge the Johannine community itself to understand Jesus more deeply (Jn 20:31).

2.1 Non-Believers Detectable in the Gospel

2.1.1 The World

Although the first impression is of a favorable Johannine attitude toward the world (Jn 3:16-17), actually the term "world" becomes more common in the gospel for those who reject the light. It has been proposed that there is a virtual identity in the gospel between the world and "the Jews." Nevertheless, the world is a wider concept. The fact that the opposition to "the Jews" dominates Jn 5-12 while opposition to the world dominates Jn 14-17 suggests a chronology in relationships.

The shift in opposition "the Jews" to the world may mean that now the Johnannine Christians are encountering Gentile disbelief, even as formerly they faced Jewish unbelief. By the time the gospel was written, the Johannine community had sufficient dealings with non-Jews to realize that many of them were no more disposed to accept Jesus than were "Jews", so that a term like "the world" was convenient to cover all such opposition.

2.1.2 The Jews

The expulsion from the synagogues had taken place some time before the gospel was written; but the Johannine Christians were still persecuted and being put to death by "the Jews." That means that, even if they had moved into more contact with Gentiles, they still lived in a place where there were synagogues.

The many references to "the Jews" should not be interpreted in terms of the Fourth Gospel being used as a missionary tract to be used in converting Jews, and containing ample scripture references. There are other reasons for including the Gospel scriptural arguments used in times past.

First, any religious group that has split off from another group will preserve in its arsenal arguments that justify the stance it took. They serve for the education of the next generation lest there be backsliding, even if there is no hope whatsoever that the erstwhile opponents will be convinced by the arguments.

Second, there were believers in Jesus still hidden away in the synagogues (see below); and the Johannine writer seriously desired to embolden these to confess Jesus, even if it meant that they would be thrown out of the synagogues. The arguments in the Gospel gave the Johannine Christians ammunition to be used in winning over those whom they knew to be crypto-Christians.

2.1.3 The adherents of John the Baptist

John portrays the first followers of Jesus as disciples of John the Baptist and the Johannine movement itself may have had its roots among such disciples. Therefore, it is surprising to find in the Fourth Gospel such a large number of negative statements pertinent to John the Baptist. He is not the light (Jn 1:9); he does not antedate Jesus (Jn 1:15, 30); he is not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet (Jn 1:19-24; 3:28); he must decrease while Jesus must increase (Jn 3:30). All this becomes intelligible when we hear in Jn 3:22-26 that some of the disciples of John the Baptist did not follow Jesus (contrast Jn 1:35-37) and jealously objected to the number of people who were following him.

If once more we read the Gospel partly as an autobiography of the Johannine community, we are led to suspect that Johannine Christians had to deal with such disciples and that the negations are meant as an apologetic against them. The fact that they are refuted in the Gospel, not by direct attack upon them as non-believers, but through careful correction of wrong aggrandizement of John the Baptist may mean that the Johannine Christians still held hope for their conversion (compare Acts 18:24-19:7).(7)

2.2 Other Christians Detectable in the Gospel

In the purview of the Johannine writer, clearly there are some who say they believe in Jesus but who, in fact, are no longer true believers.

2.2.1 The Crypto-Christians (Christian Jews within the Synagogue)

John 12:24-43 supplies the clearest reference to a group of Jews who were attracted to Jesus so that they could be said to believe in him, but were afraid to confess their faith publicly lest they be expelled from the synagogue. John has contempt for them because in his judgment they prefer the praise of people to the glory of God. He tells the story of the man born blind in Jn 9 as an example of someone who refuses to take the easy way of hiding his faith in Jesus and is willing to pay the price of expulsion for confessing that Jesus is from God (Jn 9:22-23, 33-38). This man is acting out the history of the Johannine community.

From the Johannine mirror-view of the Crypto-Christians it is difficult to reconstruct the details of their Christology and ecclesiology. We may guess that in their view the Johannine Christians had unnecessarily and tragically brought about the synagogue action against themselves. In their judgment the expulsion of the Johannine Christians may have been just as much the fault of their radicalism as it was of synagogue intransigence.

Attention is drawn to the action of the blind man's parents (Jn 9:18-23). They not only tried to shield themselves from scrutiny but deliberately turned the inquisitors' attention back upon their own son, knowing full well that he will be subject to the very sentence that they themselves are afraid to face. To what extent their behavior reflects actual events in the history of the Johannine community is, of course, impossible to know. But they remind the reader that, in the Johaninne situation, to avoid an open confession had implications not only for the believer fearful of exposure but also for the others who took the risk and allowed themselves to be involved in the process of confrontation. Self-protection involves the betrayal of others; every individual act has communal consequences.(8)

2.2.2 The Jewish Christians of Inadequate Faith

There were also Jewish Christians who had left the synagogue (or had been expelled), who were publicly known as Christians, who formed churches, and yet toward whom John had a hostile attitude at the end of the century. Their existence is indicated by the presence in the gospel of Jews who were publicly believers or disciples but whose lack of real faith is condemned by the author.

The first clear instance of this is in Jn 6:60-66. The immediately preceding discourse was given in the synagogue (Jn 6:59); and there we saw the utterly hostile objection of "the Jews" to Jesus' claim to be the bread of life, whether that be understood as divine revelation descended from heaven (Jn 6:41-42) or as his Eucharistic flesh and blood (Jn 6:53). But then Jesus leaves the synagogue and engages in dialogue with those whom John calls his "disciples." Some of them complain that what Jesus has been saying in the synagogue is hard to take and deserves no attention. Presumably their distress particularly concerns the last things Jesus said, namely, that the bread of life is his flesh which must be eaten, even as his blood must be drunk, so that the recipient may have life. (Clearly in this scene John has moved out of the historical ministry of Jesus into the life of the church). The scene ends with the words: "many of his disciples broke away and would not accompany him any more" (Jn 6:66). The evangelist refers here to Jewish Christians who are no longer to be considered true believers because they do not share John's view of the Eucharist.

Another instance of Jewish Christians of inadequate faith may be the brothers of Jesus mentioned in Jn 7:3-5. They urge Jesus to go up to Judaea to perform his miracles there, instead of doing them in relative hiding. John equates this with an invitation for Jesus to display himself to the world, and so he comments that even his brothers did not believe in him.

2.2.3 The Christians of Apostolic Churches

Distinct from the Johannine Christians themselves, still a third group of Christians may be detected. They are represented by Peter and other members of the Twelve, and for that reason we call them "apostolic." The Johannine choice of Peter and the Twelve to represent a group of Christians suggests that this group was Jewish Christian in origin, but not necessarily still so in constituency. Philip and Andrew are involved in a scene in Jn 12:20ff. where the Greeks come to Jesus, a scene which is symbolic of an opening to the Gentiles. We know that Peter and the Twelve stand for a group of Christians distinct from the Johannine community rather than for all true Christians because of the consistent and deliberate contrast between Peter and the beloved disciple, the hero of the Johannine community.

Incidentally, it is no accident that John speaks of this hero as a disciple, not as an apostle. Discipleship is the primary category for John; and closeness to Jesus, not apostolic mission, is what confers dignity. In five of the six passages where he is mentioned, the beloved disciple is explicitly contrasted with Peter (Jn 13:23-26; 18:15-16; 20:2-10:20:7; 21:20-23). In the sixth passage (Jn 19:26-27), where the beloved disciple appears at the foot of the cross, the contrast is implicit: Peter is one of those who have scattered, abandoning Jesus (Jn 16:23). Such contrasts cannot be accidental, especially since in several scenes John seems to have added a reference to the beloved disciple in order to establish the contrast.

The Johannine attitude toward these Apostolic Christians is fundamentally favorable. Nevertheless, in the Fourth Gospel these disciples do not seem to embody the fullness of Christian perception. The Johannine Christians, represented by the beloved disciple, clearly regard themselves as close to Jesus and more perceptive than the Christians of the apostolic churches.

The one-upmanship of the Johannine Christians is cegtered on Christology; for while the named disciples, representing the Apostolic Christians, have a reasonably high Christology, they do not reach the heights of the Johannine understanding of Jesus. This seems indicated by Jesus' words to Philip: "Here I am with you all this time and you still do not know me?" (Jn 14:9). We may make an informed guess that the precise aspect of Christology missing in the faith of the apostolic Christians is the perception of the pre-existence of Jesus and of his origins from above.

A difference in ecclesiology may also have separated Johannine Christians from Apostolic Christians. Unlike other New Testament writings which show that continuity with Peter and the Twelve was becoming an important factor in church identity and self-security, the Fourth Gospel gives virtually no attention to the category of "apostle" and makes "disciple" the primary Christian category, so that continuity with Jesus comes through the witness of the beloved disciple (Jn 19:35; 21:24).

These Johannine ecclesiological attitudes should not be interpreted as aggressively polemic, for there is no clear evidence that the Johannine community was condemning apostolic foundation and succession, church offices, or church sacramental practices. The Fourth Gospel is best interpreted as voicing a warning against the dangers inherent in such developments by stressing what (for John) is truly essential, namely, the living presence of Jesus in the Christian. No institution or structure can substitute for that.(9)

3. Johannine Internal Struggles

The story of the community of the beloved disciple is continued after the Gospel period in the Epistles. The Second and Third Epistles of John are one-page letters written by the same person, who calls himself "the presbyter. " The author of the First Epistle of John never identifies himself, and his work is more of a tractate than a person note. His dominant concern is to reinforce the readers against a group that has seceded from the community (1 Jn 2:19) but is still trying to win over more adherents. While the Gospel reflects the Johannine community's dealing with outsides, the Epistles are concerned with insiders. If the Gospel is dated ca. A. D. 90, the Epistles might be dated ca. A. D. 100. (10)

The Second and Third Epistles of John were written to different churches at a distance from the author (who intends to visit them), and so we know that the Johannine community was not all in one geographical place. Different cities or towns must have been involved. And since this was the period when Christian communities met in house churches that could not have held very many members, in a given town or city there may have been several house churches of Johannine Christians.

The author of the First Epistle says that a group has gone out from the ranks of his community (I Jn 2:19). It seems that both parties knew the proclamation of Christianity available to us through the Fourth Gospel, but they interpreted it differently. Each of the disputing parties was making the claim that its interpretation of the Gospel was correct. Hence the author's almost frustrated appeal to what was from the beginning (I Jn 1:4; 2:7, etc.) His opponents may sound as if they know the Johannine Gospel, but in his judgment they are distorting it precisely because they are ignorant of the tradition underlying it.

The central issue was apparently christological. The secessionists so stressed the divine principle in Jesus that the earthly career of the divine principle was neglected. They apparently believed that the human existence of Jesus, while real, was not salvifically significant. The only important thing for them was that eternal life had been brought down to men and women through a divine Son who passed through this world. The author challenges the wrong conclusions that his opponents have drawn from the commonly admitted incarnational theology, and so he is careful to accompany statements implying pre-existence with other statements stressing the career of the Word-made-flesh－a stress more formal and explicit than what is found in the Fourth Gospel.

There were also skirmishes on the implications of Christology for Christian behaviour. The author faults the secessionists on three grounds. First, they claimed an intimacy with God to the point of being perfect or sinless. Second, they do not put much emphasis on keeping the commandments. Third, they are vulnerable on the subject of neighborly love.(11)

4. Conclusion

It was within a situation of conflict, crisis and alienation that the Fourth Gospel was written, and against this background it must be understood. The community's traditions about Jesus were powerfully recast in this milieu, reflecting the influence both of forces outside mainstream Jewish piety and of the conflict with the synagogue. This reshaping of an originally independent stream of tradition is what gave the Fourth Gospel its peculiar character, advancing its portrayal of Jesus ever farther from the earlier tradition toward a deeper understanding, in a process perceived by the community as the work of the Spirit of Truth (Jn 14:25-26; 16:12-15).(12)



  
3.Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (New York: Paulist Press, 1984) 102-105.

4.David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1988) 41-48 (on the man born blind).

5.In scholarly jargon, "low" christology involves the application to Jesus of titles derived from the Old Testament or intertestamental expectations (e.g., Messiah, prophet, servant. Son of God )－titles that do not in themselves imply divinity. "Son of God," meaning divine representative, was a designation of the king (cf. 2 Sam 7:14) ; "lord" need mean no more than "master". "High" christology involves an appreciation of Jesus that moves him into the sphere of divinity, as expressed, for instance, in a more exalted use of Lord and Son of God, as well as the designation "God." Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London : Chapman, 1979) 25.

6.Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community 37-41 (On Nicodemus). See also 52-59.

7.Brown, Community 59-71.

8.Rensberger, op. cit. 47-48.

9.Brown, Community 71-88.

10.Ibidem 93-97.

11.Ibidem 97-124.

12.Rensberger, op. cit. 28-29.

by Teotonio R. de Souza, S.J.

BASIC CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES :

From Roman Catholicism back to Early Church Catholicism



Modernization, Democratization, Participation

"Basic Christian Communities" [BCCs](1) are a phenomenon of the early 60s, and they inaugurated a return to the grass-roots communities of the early Christian era. The Brazilian liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff, has even entitled one of his books Ecclesio-genesis: Base communities reinvent the Church. The rapid development of these communities in the Third World is causing large-scale social upheaval and rootlessness. In such a context, a Church at the grass-roots can give to the marginalized poor a hope of life against the developmental trend that exploits the poor and makes them poorer for the benefit of the dominant class or classes, leaving them with no say in shaping their future. Uniformity of mass production and massive political and economic structures that supervise and control the process have brought about a reaction in the form of small communities in which persons recognize one another, assert their individuality, and "have their say".

I see this as a part of the process of "democratization" generated unwittingly by the very system of exploitation. The modern high level of technology demands increasingly higher levels of information on the part of workers. At the same time, the high levels of media exposure have created greater longings and demands for participation in the decision-making process. The capitalist tendency to maximize profits does not concede such demands without hard bargaining, and even without resorting to violent repressive measures, unless they prove too expensive.

It was in such situations, under the military repressive bourgeois regimes of Latin America, that BCCs provided space for resistance and survival. Participants in BCCs could find in the Bible faith and hope in God, Giver of Life. This led them to sociological reflection on the man-created sinful structures that are depriving masses of people of dignity and the means of living. They discovered in the Bible a power for political action, contrary to the traditional Church reading of it that did not allow the Church leaders to feel at home with the poor. As Gutierrez writes: "the Church goes to work in the world of the poor, but it is not really living there. The Church has its home in other social and cultural sectors, where it is at home. The emergence of BCCs is seen as a challenge to the traditional structures of "authority" within the Church, because it cannot promote "democratization" by retaining its "theocratic, divine-sanctioned, top-down" model of authority that has been discarded in most modern societies and is in the process of being discarded wherever it still survives. However, just as the process has been painful in the secular world, it is not going to be otherwise within the Church world. But the rate and intensity of change will be conditioned by the national histories and world developments, as well as by the history of the institutional Church at the centre and in different parts of the world.

What is discernible is a tendency to "control" the BCCs and bring them under "official" Church teachings and clerical supervision. Some conclude that the outcome－the Catholic Church being what it is－can only be "recuperation" or separation. Even though Vatican II opted for "co-responsibility" of all, the switching of models is proving difficult and the process is being sabotaged because of the centuries-old predominance of the authoritarian model and the bringing into operation of the new model is in the hands of people opposed to it. The very nature of the new model does not allow its supporters to use constraint or threats to remove obstacles and to ensure the success of their cause, for they cannot adopt the very methods they object to. The "communitarian-charismatic-prophetic aspect" of the BCCs seems more relevant for promoting a better response to the needs of the masses of the marginalized poor in the modern world. It still needs the institutional expression as a function of the communitarian-utopian aspect, and to that extent the institutional and hierarchical Church is challenged to re-examine its functions in service of the community, and to cease acting as producer and consumer of sacraments.

BCCs have a critique of the ministries in the Church on the basis of a different ecclesiology (not parochiology): if all are one in Christ (not halves, quarters, etc.), then all bear equal responsibility. All need not do everything, but there cannot be some services more important than others. Then, instead of a hierarchy of bishops, priests and laity, with one-sided accountability, all are accountable to each other. Hence, BCCs call for a new social structuring of the Church and to indicate this the term "ecclesiogenesis" was coined on the occasion of the 4th inter-Church meeting of the BCCs of Brazil in 1981. At this meeting it was realized that the new Church cannot be guided only by wise mentors who deny the people the right to meet and work out their own reflections. In the history of the Church, it has been seen that deviations are possible both among people and guides. A mutual apprenticeship is seen as the best means to avoid deviations.



  
1."Basic Ecclesial Communities" are better known as "Basic Christian Communities" [BCCs] in Hong Kong. Hence, BCC is used throughout the edited version of this paper, except at one point where the name "Basic Ecclesial Communities" is necessary to the discussion. [Ed.]

Vatican II and Latin-American Response

This new model of the Church emerging from the grass-roots has not been entirely out of tune with the Church of Rome, even though all its implications and applications are not yet acceptable to the "official" Church. "Vatican II must be seen as a historic cultural turning point for Roman Catholicism. It sanctioned with the highest authority movements for institutional, liturgical, and theological reform that had been resisted if not repudiated for two centuries ... It relativized the normative character of the language and habits of thought with which the Church had legitimated its teachings and activities ... It abandoned the idea of a single normative culture, identified with Western "Christian civilization," and called for an incarnation of Catholic Christianity in the variety of the world's cultures".(2) Until Vatican II, the Catholic Church had regarded the culture that Christendom had created as an unsurpassable ideal, which only needed minor adaptations to be relevant to new historical eras or to newly discovered societies.

For the assumption of local self-responsibility for the Church, the Medellin Conference (1968) had a paradigmatic character. There the Latin American Church reflected on itself both "in the light of the Council" and in the context of "the present-day transformation of Latin America". Medellin and Puebla became models for other Churches to imitate. Africans and Asians have also made their own moves in this direction, but if the results have not received as much notice it is only because the Christian influence for bringing about any major social-political change continues to be weaker in these continents than in Latin America.

It is also important to keep in mind that Latin America had at least nominally a century-long existence of independence even before the decolonization process started in Asia and Africa. Afro-Asian decolonization and the rise of non-aligned consciousness brought more sharply into focus for the Latin Americans their own situation of century-long dependence which was now termed neocolonialism. Particularly since the Great Depression, the Latin-American countries have very severely experienced their dependence on Anglo-American capital, and their efforts to introduce greater industrialization with import-substitution led to labour controls, with populist politics and the corresponding growing popularity of left movements. The Reconstruction of Europe and the Marshall Plan provided wide scope for American investments and for exploitation of cheap labour during the immediate post-war period. The East-West divide and the formation of the Socialist Block with its Comecon demanded new areas for investment for Western capital. Latin America has always been the first to suffer in this connection, because of its proximity to the US.

As well as that, the rest of the Third World in the 1960s was targeted for such investments under the guise of the "development decade". The Church's strong antagonism to Communism was exploited to recruit its services as an international agent of "development". Vatican II did much in this regard, but the political economists and social scientists of Latin America had already developed their own analysis in the form of "dependence theory", which the Latin American Church adopted at Medellin. The "dependence theory" saw in the zeal for development on the part of "metropolitan capital" a way of promoting their own interests through control of "dependent capital" in the underdeveloped countries. This was articulated into a new pastoral methodology in the form of BCCs and the new theological-pastoral framework of Liberation Theology, which based its reflection on the praxis of the people's struggle for an integral liberation, borrowing the Marxist social analysis of class conflicts in society and making a preferential option for the poor.



  
2.Joseph A. Komonchak, "The Local Realization of the Church", in: The Reception of Vatican II, (Washington D. C., 1987) 81.

BCCs : Definition, Methodology, Prospects

Luis Femandes (3) suggests that there is no fixed prescription or formula for starting BCCs. Diverse situations require diverse types of BCCs. He sees as common a faith commitment in the context of a personal and collective commitment to life and action.. This commitment, moreover, does not come by instructions from the hierarchy : it emerges from the reflection of the people with one eye on the Bible and the other on their reality of poverty. Fernandes lists several cases of parish priests going about dividing their large parishes into areas and jobs, and believing that they have founded BCCs.

Despite the difficulty of having a consensus definition of BCCs, and consequently of giving any meaningful estimates of how many BCCs exist or of specifying some definitive programs and activities to which one could point with confidence and say: "This is what BCCs always do", I shall present a skeletal working definition for bringing some clarity into what is said hereafter regarding the theological assumptions and practical consequences of the new reality of BCCs. At a minimum, BCCs are small groups, usually homogeneous in social composition, which gather regularly to read and comment on the Bible. They all originate in some linkage with the institutional Church, and this linkage is maintained in some form. This bare-bone definition highlights three common elements that make up the name "Basic Christian Community" or "Basic Ecclesial Community": a striving for community (small, homogeneous); a stress on ecclesial linkage; they are at the base of both the Church and society. It is this "base" characteristic that makes them suspect and causes unease in the class groupings dominant in the traditional Church structure.

The BCCs are not anti-parish. They are to be seen as living Church cells linked to the parish. Tension often does result where parishes are too centralized, because such a centralization is opposed to the very nature of the BCCs, which believe in the human right to make their own decisions democratically and with wide participation of the lay members. Hence, one bishop suppressed his parishes with a view to giving his 1,600 BCCs great room for manoeuvre.

This does not rule out either the initiative of Church leaders or their constant encouragement and sustenance of the BCCs. "Pastoral agents" (Church leaders) are expected to "accompany" the BCCs, not rule them. Therefore, such pastoral agents should be formed within the BCCs, and their main concern should not be to maintain unity with Rome following the same discipline, the same rites, and the same canon law without exception. The centre of the Church is where the poor are, and the point of departure for theology is not Church doctrine but the grass-roots situation. Salvation is not to be separated from liberation, just as redemption makes no sense without creation. The God of Jesus first gave life, and then chose to give it more abundantly through the Son and the Spirit. Hence, for BCCs the Church has to be a sacrament of life for those who are being denied their God-given life and right to live. This theological approach of the BCCs represents a new Church that refuses to manipulated by the propertied and dominant classes, and to that extent it is bound to face resistance and opposition from the traditional Church and its traditional allies both within and outside.

The BCCs in practice have not been a great attraction for the middle classes, who tend to be individualistic and profit seekers. Apparently, some Europeans who sought to establish BCCs in Latin America often failed because of their life-style, which was more private and individualistic. There was a tendency among them to make their solitude a collective experience, a sort of loners seeking other loners. The BCCs have been popular with the marginalized sectors, and their vision of the world. As such, they have no problem with the official Church. Communists, just like the middle and upper classes influenced by positivist rationalism, fail to understand that there is no advantage in separating the people from the Church or from religion. The very source of people's motivation for political action in the BCCs is the link of faith with life, contrary to the traditional manipulation of religion to put people to sleep. Some surveys have even confirmed a positive link between BCCs membership and higher frequency of sacraments.

The BCCs and liberation theology have been suspected in official Church quarters and in the capitalist countries of making use of Marxist theories. Real Marxists fighting at the grass-roots frequently encourage the BCCs to see Marxism as a popular movement. They act as genuine friends and companions of BCCs, and BCC leaders have had often to share prison cells with Marxists. But the BCCs often speak of the satanic side of Marxism and hold in horror the suppression of the freedom of religion. The problem however remains of BCCs being manipulated by political parties, including left-wing parties, who share more the idealism of the BCCs in favour of the poor. The BCCs and MABs (Movimento dos Amigos de Bairros = Urban Neighbourhood Movements, since mid-70s) do not bind their members to a political party and the members are free to decide their partisan options. At that level, there have been internal tensions calling for more mature reflection and action. The hierarchy in Brazil has encountered such situations, recognized the political inability of its own structures to sustain further political involvement of the MABs and allowed the movements to proceed on their own. This recognition of autonomy with continued moral and even financial support has kept the popular movements close to the Church. The MABs have been strongest where the Church has promoted and supported the BCCs. Grass-roots leaders were thus prepared to enter into the larger arena of town politics and national politics.

When one talks of Basic Christian [Ecclesial] Communities in Latin America it is very important to remember that the BCC is neither a univocal concept nor a model of organization. Furthermore, historical development in Latin America is not a single continuum. Hence both the development and the nature of BCCs in Latin America vary according to the different regional historical developments. One can identify roughly three different models, namely Brazilian-Chilean, Mexican-Colombian, and Central American.

In the first model, the Brazilian-Chilean model, the military-authoritarian regimes allowed space for self-expression only in the Church, and as a result dynamic ties evolved between the Church and the popular movements through the BCCs.

In Brazil, the Church has never grown as a rival to the State, and as a result has had always to depend on popular support.

In Mexico and Colombia, the Church has always succeeded in maintaining its institutional strength despite sporadic challenges and attacks by the State. Against this background, the hierarchy has sought to exercise strict control over popular movements. Polarization within the Church has therefore been far greater and many are forced to function outside the Church.

Finally, in Central America the Church is divided in its support of the popular revolutionary thrust. In this situation, on the doorstep of the USA, no real State exists and the hierarchy has to confront the frustrated peasantry who have lost all hope of reform. Because of strong pressure from the Vatican through the USA, few in the hierarchy or clergy are openly supportive of the revolution.



  
3.Luis Fernandes, Como se faz uma comunidade eclesial de base (5th ed., Petropolis, 1986).

The Church and the Independence of Latin America

After introducing the immediate political, economic and ecclesiastical background that explains the emergence of the BCCs, I wish to link up this emergence with its more distant historical background. It is important to establish such a link for a fuller understanding of the present-day developments and future trends. Such an exercise will need to be done with regard to Asia in general and to Hong Kong in particular. Critical intervention in history at the present for a better future cannot be done without gathering the past.

The struggle for the independence of Latin America was the struggle between the Creoles and the peninsulares [people of Peninsular Iberia] and both sides sought the ideological and economic support of the Church. The nationalist tensions were brought to the fore during the Napoleonic Wars, when the English blockade made supplies from Spain to the Indies difficult. Spain had to decree the ports of the Indies open to neutral shipping to save the situation. North Americans jumped in and almost monopolized the situation.

The Napoleonic invasion of Spain changed the Spanish anti-English stance. The Creoles of the Indies were not against the Monarchy or the Church in Spain as long as they were left to run their own affairs. They wanted no Jacobinism and no Bonaparte. Latin America was shaken by insurrections all over, starting with the newer viceroyships of La Plata and New Granada. There was no general coordination. Only in Mexico was the insurrection more a popular revolt caused by land hunger and led by a priest named Hidalgo, and there the Creoles joined the Spanish viceroy in stamping it out. From 1814-16 the Spanish rule was restored, except in Buenos Aires. Bolivar (Venezuelan liberator) and San Martin (commander of the La Plata army) took up the common cause of Latin America and with patriotic and mercenary forces gained the liberation of the rest of Latin America (1816-25). But the captains could not cooperate and both the leading conquistadors had to leave for exile.

Their followers partitioned the subcontinent and its large viceroyships into different unitary and centralized states. Most of the new rulers were even noisily pious, but they were all unanimous in desiring to restrict the independent political activities of the Church and employ it as the guardian of the new social order. However, things did not work out that way. From the beginning the Church Hierarchy for the most part supported the royalist cause as a natural response to the Patronato real. The overwhelming majority of the hierarchy were peninsulares and identified with the interests of Spain. They also recognized the threat posed by revolution and liberal ideology to the established position of the Church. Bishops whose loyalty to the crown was suspect were either recalled to Spain or effectively deprived of their dioceses. Most dioceses were filled with candidates of unquestioned political loyalty, but there were a few who clearly sympathized with the patriots.

The lower clergy, especially the secular clergy, were predominantly Creole and though divided, like the Creole elite as a whole, were more inclined to support the struggle for self-rule and eventually independence. There was a deep resentment at the virtual monopoly of the higher ecclesiastical posts by peninsulares. Some of the lower clergy played an outstanding role in the struggle for Spanish American independence, and they proclaimed the Virgin of Guadalupe the patron saint of the Spanish American Revolution. By 1815 over 100 priests had been executed in Mexico. At the same time, a substantial number of loyalist priests preached obedience to the Crown. This was particularly the case in the religious orders, where the proportion of peninsulares to Creoles was higher.

Throughout most of the period of the revolution and the wars for Spanish American independence, the papacy maintained its traditional alliance with the Spanish Crown. In his encyclical Etsi longissimo (30 Jan. 1816), Pius VII urged the bishops and clergy of Spanish America to make clear the dreadful consequences of rebellion against legitimate authority. Later the Vatican became more neutral, partly in response to petitions from Spanish America, and partly because of the anti-clerical attitude of the liberal government in Spain after the Revolution of 1820, culminating in the expulsion of the Papal Nuncio in January 1823. However, under Pope Leo XII, a strong defender of legitimate sovereignty, Rome's attitude towards revolutionaries hardened again, and that at a moment when the royalists were about to suffer their final defeat.

The Catholic Church in Spanish America emerged from the struggle for independence considerably weakened as a result of its too close ties with the Crown. The same voices of reason that repudiated absolute monarchy also challenged revealed religion. The architects of independence sought a moral legitimacy for what they were doing, and they found inspiration not in Catholic political thought but in the philosophy of the age of reason, particularly in the utilitarianism of Bentham. As a result the position of the republican State vis-a-vis the Church was not friendly. Under pressure from the Holy Alliance powers, Rome continued adamant in its opposition to the liberal republics, and most dioceses remained vacant for long periods. It was only under Pope Gregory XVI (1831-46) that many vacancies were filled and, beginning with New Granada in 1835, political relations established with the Spanish American republics.

The structure of the Church was much damaged during the post-revolutionary period as a result of the hostile legislation that closed many convents and appropriated their properties and capital. While acknowledging Catholicism as the State religion, the new governments frequently accepted the principle of religious toleration under pressure of Britain. The Inquisition was invariably abolished. The Church for its part, especially during the papacy of Pius IX, increasingly resisted and mobilized in its defence the conservative forces in Spanish American society, including popular forces. As a result, the conflict between the liberal State and the Catholic Church became a central political issue throughout Spanish America in the middle decades of the 19th century, especially in Mexico, where it led to violent confrontation and full-scale civil war in the 1850s and 1860s. The situation was somewhat similar in Colombia.

As was the case elsewhere, the Catholic Church in Central America was a strongly conservative force. In the 1920s, for example, the Nicaraguan bishops paid little attention to the struggle of Augusto Cesar Sandino except to urge his followers to abandon their "sterile struggle" and return to family, work, and religion. In 1942 the archbishop of Managua crowned President Anastasio Somoza's daughter Queen of the Army in a ceremony using a crown from the statue of Our Lady of Candelaria. In 1954 Archbishop Rossell of Guatemala City organized nationwide processions with a popular "black Christ" to stir up anti-communist sentiments, and he cooperated with the US Embassy in the CIA overthrow of the Arbenz government. In general there was the day-to-day reinforcement of a fatalistic world view through popular religiosity, in which the image of God resembles a celestial hacienda owner. As has been frequently stated, the Church was one of the three pillars of society, the other two being the landholding oligarchy and the military.

The situation of the Church in Brazil was somewhat different, as it had neither the institutional strength and political influence, nor the economic wealth and juridical privileges which it had in Mexico or Peru. Under the padroado real, Brazil's one archbishop and six bishops were, like the Spanish American episcopate, appointed by and subordinate to the Crown. The Church hierarchy, however, included many Brazilians and there was much less of a divide－economic, social or ideological－between the hierarchy and the lower clergy. The transfer of the Portuguese court to Brazil in 1807 saved Brazil and its Church from the extreme political and ideological conflicts which beset Spanish America. In the political crisis of 1821-2, the majority of the Brazilian clergy supported the Brazilian faction and eventually the independence of Brazil. There were some pro-Portuguese elements within the Church, some of whom were deported. There were also some extreme liberal and republican priests, but most were moderate liberals and played an important role in the politics of the time.

The first legislature (1826-9) included more priests (26 out of 100 deputies) than any other social group. The relatively peaceful political transition in Brazil and the continuance of the Monarchy ensured that the Church emerged relatively undamaged and was not threatened by aggressive liberal anticlericalism in the period after independence. There were no serious clashes between the Church and the State till the Brazilian hierarchy came under the influence of ultramontanism in 1870s. Today, Brazil is making a most creative contribution to the evolution of the Church in Latin America through its very wide existing network of nearly 150,000 BCCs in 252 dioceses. This is possible in Brazil because of its supportive Hierarchy, unlike elsewhere in Latin America as we shall see in the next section.

Neo-Colonialism : Church Patronage

This phase is marked by the hangover of "colonialism" in the Church. Used to command alongside the State, the Church continues to be burdened by colonial baggage, which it finds difficult to shed, namely clericalization and institutionalization. Burdened in this way, the Church now finds itself confronted with a "Church-people" that is emerging in the form of basic communities and other movements. That is why we have adopted the terminology of "Crown Patronage" and "Church "Patronage" to designate the colonial and neo-colonial phases respectively.

There was an early phase of the Church involvement in the social problems of Latin America, as in the Falange movement in Chile, 1935-1941. This phase, usually known as the "ethical phase", was inspired by Catholic Action. That was a period of idealism and personalism, when it was believed that society could be restructured by preaching social justice. This was followed by the stage of Christian Democracy, which emerged with contributions of CEPAL (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America) and the belief that the movement could join party politics and draw up programmes for change. The development decade of the 60s and massive aid programmes by the transnational commercial banks brought in the militarization of Latin America to protect the investments under the overt and covert backing of the United States.

Neither the ethical perspective nor economic analysis and development showed a way out of the impasse. Revolution, and not development, was felt to be the only way out. Most committed Christians were convinced that the teachings of the Church were insufficient for bringing about change. The Church was seen as limited to correcting abuses in the system, but not ready to raise questions about the system itself. There was a large-scale exodus of Christians in search of Marxist solutions. Camillo Torres, the Colombian priest who met his death in 1966, symbolized the dilemma of involved Christians at this point: either stay with the Church and adopt reformist positions or opt for revolution and leave the Church. Many Catholics, including priests and male and female religious, joined the ranks, while many lay people joined the movements clandestinely.

It was against this background in Latin America and the Third World in general that the Church began changing its attitude and distancing itself gradually from the Right. The Encyclical Mater et Magistra [1961] was the first indicator of the change. Then came the Second Vatican Council. The Council did not mark the beginning of a change, but rather the acceptance of drives for change that had been rejected for too long. This new acceptance saw its implementation by the Latin American Church at Medellin (1968). Medellin marked a major change in the Latin American Hierarchy, which had blocked the election of Allende in 1964 and helped elect Eduardo Frei. Despite Pope Paul VI 's rejection of any form of revolution during his visit to Bogota in 1968, the revolutionaries got the Episcopal Conferences of Latin America [CELAM] to declare at Medellin that revolution against tyranny was justified. The tyrant could be represented by "unjust structures".

Medellin defined the situation in Latin America as charged with "institutionalized violence", and made the theory of dependence its own, condemning neo-colonialism and internal colonialism, and calling for liberation. The mainstream liberation theologians who had been preparing the ground for Medellin did not always understand dependency in the same manner. For their protagonist Gutierrez, the class-struggle is an important concept for clarifying the fact that it is not nations that are at war but certain classes within nations. For the oppressive regimes, Medellin became a word that meant subversion. The Rockefeller Report warned President Nixon and his southern allies of the likely "revolutionary character" of the changes demanded by the post-Medellin Church. This warning was backed by action: Tupomaros were silenced by the Armed Forces in Uruguay in 1973. The MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) brought about a coup d'etat in Chile in the same year. Montoneros in Argentina, after breaking away from the main popular body of Peronism, were equally wiped out. Fr. Carlos Mugica was a parallel of Camillo Torres, and was assassinated in Buenos Aires.

Following Medellin, the World Synod of Bishops in 1971 made "liberation" the key word and declared that "action in support of justice" was "part and parcel of the preaching of Gospel". It was understood that denunciation of injustice was consequently political but essentially evangelical. The Bishops of Brazil issued two documents that same year denouncing capitalism as "the greatest evil". Bishop Dom Candido Padin had already been responsible for the open denunciation of the doctrine of National Security in July 1968. The theme was taken up at a meeting of seven Latin American bishops and some US bishops at Riobamba in 1976. The meeting was closed down by the police.

That same year, 1976, the Brazilian bishops took an unusual step: the organization of International Days for a Society Overcoming Domination. The idea was supported by Bishops' Conferences in France, Canada, USA and Asia, as well as by the International Commission of Jurists. Many studies were collected over a period of two years, preparing for a general meeting to be held in Paris in May 1978. The meeting was cancelled due to the interference of some regimes through the Holy See. Despite such opposition the Bishops of Latin America repeated the "preferential option for the poor" at their general meeting at Puebia in January 1979. The Bishops of Nicaragua asked the USA to stop aid to Somoza. To quote from the official communique on religion issued by the National Directorate of the FSLN on October 7, 1980: "Patriotic revolutionary Christians are members of the Sandinist Popular Revolution and have been for many years. The participation of Christians, both lay and religious, in the FSLN and in the National Reconstruction Government (GRN) is a logical consequence of their outstanding identification with the people throughout the struggle against the dictatorship". It continues: "Thus Christians have been an integral part of our revolutionary history to a degree without precedent in any other revolutionary movement in Latin America and possibly throughout the world. This fact opens new and interesting possibilities for Christian participation in revolutions in other lands, not only in the period of the struggle for power but also in the next stage, that of the reconstruction of a new society".

In El Salvador, 48 hours after the coup d'etat against President Romero (Oct. 1980), the Archbishop of San Salvador, Mgr. Oscar Romero, expressed his support for the Revolutionary Junta's government. But when the Junta did not live up to the people's expectations Mgr. Romero spoke strongly against it and against the support of Washington. He was shot dead while saying Mass and after preaching: "We are living in a pre-insurrection period, and the teaching of the Church justifies insurrection when all peaceful means have proved useless".

It is important to note the active follow-up of the changes in the Latin American Church on the part of US agencies. At the Santa Fe Conference held in 1980, conservative American politicians worked out the US policy with regard to Latin America. One of their conclusions was that "in the interest of the U.S., Liberation Theology must be frustrated" (confidential report). After Reagan's election the same group established in Washington the "Center for Religion and Democracy" (1981), financed by the Republican Party and some private rightist organizations. The Center operates under the direction of the Protestant sociologist Peter Berger and the Catholic theologian Michael Novak. The elimination of Liberation Theology is the major item on the Center's agenda. This is to be done by propagating "privatized religiosity", leaving the public domain to the State. The Center seeks to encourage an apolitical religiosity which focuses on the feelings of consolation in human inferiority, delinked from any critical engagement in society. It is believed that the two avowed opponents of Liberation Theology in Latin America, namely the Archbishops Obando y Bravo and Lopez Trujillo were raised to the cardinalate in 1984 and 1985 through the good offices of the Centre.

While elsewhere it is State governments that have been throwing foreign missionaries out, in Nicaragua it is the Church Hierarchy that has been expelling the foreign missionaries who have learned to collaborate with the BCCs and with the laity involved in national reconstruction. The reestablishment of ambassadorial relations between USA and Vatican on 10 January 1984 after a break of 117 years was connected with Regan's policy towards Poland and the Eastern bloc, as well as the expectations of USA regarding the Vatican's control over the Latin American Churches, particularly the revolutionary clergy of Nicaragua.

The "Instruction on Certain Aspects of Liberation Theology", issued by the Vatican in 1984, may also be understood against the same background. Contrary to the convictions of most mainstream liberation theologians, who see the world as one and salvation history as one, and consequently as a single plane for clergy and laity to operate on, the Church magisterium has been insisting that the clergy leave the politicking to the laity, and that activists shun such Marxist concepts as class struggle. That same year one of Brazil's best known liberation theologians, Leonardo Boff, was called to the Vatican for interrogation and later forbidden to make public pronouncements for a year. As recently as 1989, Cardinal Arns of Sao Paulo was admonished by the Vatican for writing a letter to Fidel Castro, asserting that the Cuban revolution displayed "signs of the kingdom of God", and Bishop Pedro Casaldaliga, who visited Nicaragua to strengthen the basic communities, was told by the Vatican not to go there again. Both these leaders of the Brazilian Church are held in the highest esteem and veneration by the masses of the Brazilian people.

A team of Asian Bishops that visited Nicaragua and spent 10 days moving freely and meeting anyone they wanted to meet, submitted a report that is very critical of the Hierarchy of Nicaragua as unwilling to compromise and to join hands with the Sandinista government in the face of a ruthless American trade embargo and the "Contra" war. The team of Asian bishops has words of great appreciation for the achievements of the Sandinistas in their attempts at real democratization.

All of this is in keeping with the philosophy of the Trilateral Committee, which was established at the beginning of the 70s under the leadership of Zbigniew Brezezinski. Brezezinski was critical of Kissinger's policies (1969-76): shuttle-diplomacy and tight-rope walking. He favoured a compact global policy, which implied that the democratic system was no longer capable of governing and that the system was too vulnerable to undesirable changes. The Trilateral proposed that the foreign policy makers of imperialism should be "architects", not "tight-rope walkers", and that they should develop a solid edifice. This would require trans-national capitalism to adopt a new face, with a minimum of democratic freedom in politics and absolute freedom in economy. Detente would be one of the pillars of the Trilateral policy for the superpowers and the entire globe. That would prevent any further exodus into the socialist world. In practice any tendencies in this direction were to be discouraged by a powerful military force (rapid deployment). But all this is to be achieved with smiles. Detente would also include ideological pluralism.

This explains the measured and calculated opening towards Eurocommunism, which was to be used to encourage dissidence in the socialist bloc. The results of the media manipulation are clear from the developments in Eastern Europe. After the victory on technological grounds, the Trilateral decided to move on to ideological grounds. The Carter rhetoric of human rights (with control or displacement of military abuses where necessary) in the capitalist sphere of influence was meant to balance the Western embarrassment with the demands for freedom for dissenters in the Socialist bloc.

Against this background, the "upsurge of democracy" in Latin America and elsewhere is a face-saving device and a longterm illusion! Latin America is a part of the world where the Trilateral has nothing to fear, and as such can safely put up "democracy shows". Gorbachev may have learned from the Trilateral to work out a socialism with a human face but that has yet to become a fitting challenge to Trilateral's capitalism with a human face. There is no change of goals and allies in either camp, but only a change of methods. When military force does not provide the expected "security" for the imperialist logic of domination and accumulation of benefits, it is considered advisable to put on a civilian uniform or even to set up a genuinely cooperative civilian rule. The Trilateral project does not envisage justice for the masses, but only a better balance for the upper landed and commercial-industrial interests.

The new "democratization" and promotion of sub-nationalities can be explained as yet another stage in the development of world capitalism. Following the breaking down of the colonial barriers to its capital penetration and the creation of "independent" nations, the new requirement seems to be a further breaking up of the nations into "sub-nations", which would be more vulnerable and therefore more dependent on world capital for their survival.

Concluding Remarks

The colonial Church in the Third world (the image and likeness of the metropolitan Church) has built a solid material basis for itself by having landed property and buildings and other sources of regular income. The price to pay for this is dependence on the dominant classes, whose help is indispensable for the maintenance of and augmentation of the Church's patrimony. Of course the poor were never neglected: they had the sacraments, processions and alms. These were meant to console and confirm them in their natural fatalism. Compared with this situation, the BCCs foster critical relationships and do not allow themselves to be used for maintaining the stability and progress of some classes and of the government that ensures this. It is up to the official Church to support the poor prophetically, abandoning its strong position and temporal power.

It is in the history of Hong Kong that one will have to seek the elements for a creative response in view of its future. The social, political, economic and ecclesiastical structures that have taken root in Hong Kong will need to be carefully evaluated for their constructive or deviating contribution to the majority of the people of Hong Kong. It will be necessary to assess deviation in terms of values that are not in keeping with the "Kingdom of God" and are becoming a block to responding prophetically to the call of the God of history. It may be necessary to do much genuine soul-searching to see how much of the concern for "democracy" is truly a concern for justice for the marginalized or only a concern for safeguarding the benefits reaped by the institutional Church and the well-to-do Christians of Hong Kong. It may also be necessary to distinguish "Church and State" from "religion and politics". When Church and State cannot count on each other for mutual support, when ideologies and public legitimations change, then it is only a new understanding of the tasks of religious faith, with new structures of participation and community building in the Church, that will enable the Christians of Hong Kong to outlive any particular historical conjunction and provide a new creative basis for expressing religious commitment in daily life.

Unwillingness to undertake a serious response to the above points could vitiate any plans to embark on adapting traditional Church structures, turning them into a mere political strategy of the middle class (presuming that the upper class has plans for, and access to, better pastures elsewhere). Any ideas of strategy could end up with frustration faced with intra-Church confusion and political anxieties that may become the lot of Hong Kong Christians in the wake of its integration into the People's Republic of China. The one and only predominant desire ought to be to see in the new developments an historic opportunity to carry the faith and its liberating message into the Mainland in the midst of any trials that may be awaiting.

by Teotonio R. de Souza, S.J.

LOCAL CHURCHES :

Some Historical-Theological Reflections in the Asian Context



The Problem

The concept of "local church" is fundamental for any meaningful discussion of, or for plans for, the implementation of "Basic Christian Communities". The "local church" understood in the sense of some administrative unit of the Church at some level of Church structure is not what makes the "local church" an important issue in the Church today. Seeking parallels in the early history of Church expansion in the form of the churches the Apostles left behind (1) can help us to understand the tensions of locality and catholicity experienced by the followers of Christ from the time Christianity evolved as an expanding social organization.

The expansion of the Church over space and time eventually came to mean that the expansion of communities accompanied the political, economic, social and cultural domination of one society by another. This process was accompanied, as could be expected, by divisive and secessionist tendencies at the level of diakonia within local communities, and at the level of koinonia between communities.

As illustrations of intra-societal conflicts, we have the case of Ananias, who was reluctant to share his goods [Acts 5:1-11], and the necessity of the creation of the ministry of "deacons" when Hebrews and Hellenists had a conflict over the distribution of alms [Acts 6:1-6].

The "heresies" of the early centuries and thereafter illustrate the inter-societal trend of cultural domination in the Roman empire and should be analyzed along these lines, rather than treated as purely doctrinal conflicts. As long as the communities were few and small, personal apostolic admonitions (as seen from the Pauline and Johannine epistles) seem to have succeeded in maintaining the balance between locality and universality without serious damage to koinonia, but as larger political-cultural boundaries were being crossed and apostolic authority was taking dominant political-cultural forms, diversity of ecclesiologies was not an easy alternative to heresies and schisms.

With the emergence of what is called the European World-Economic System (2) and the global expansion of Christianity, it became even more difficult to maintain this balance. In the new colonial set-up, Europe became the "centre" and the "pole of religious expansion", while the colonies became the "periphery", where consensus operated in structures of dependence and domination. In this bipolar context, the catholicity of the Church was linked with the metropolitan church and its western association with the Roman church. Ideological cultural hegemony was located there, and the churches in the "periphery" were only missionary appendages to the church at the "centre". Since Vatican II, it appears that we have been witnessing a change in the approach of the dominant Roman Catholic Church towards the churches of the Third World, the non-Catholic churches, and the other religions. Is this a new self-understanding, or only a tactical theological concession to the post-colonial world situation?



  
1.Cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (London : Geoffrey Chapman, 1984).

2.Wallerstein, I., The Models World-System, 2 vols. (Florida, U. S. A., Academic Press Inc., 1974-80)

The Approach

Much has been written in recent years on the issue of the local Church (with variations in terminology) and the most that I could claim to do in this paper is to focus on some points that perhaps have not been sufficiently stressed and which could help us understand the problems of localizing the church, which is essential for its true catholicity. Without a good grasp of such issues, serious experiment with "small faith communities" could prove frustrating. As may be expected, our approach will be predominantly historical, but with an awareness of, and sensitivity to, the theological implications for churches in the Third World. The church of Hong Kong is likely to enter into this category.

It is not possible in the space available to enter into factual details of the origin and evolution of the individual local churches in Asia. However, the colonial atmosphere in which they grew has shaped their growth and evolution. The Portuguese and Spanish expansion determined to a large extent the pattern of evolution of the local churches all over Asia, including regions that came under control of other European powers in the course of later centuries. The recipient cultures need also to be taken seriously into consideration to understand the nature of the local churches in Asia. My concluding section will pay special attention to this.

The Church in History : Witnessing to the Gospel?

In the guidelines issued for drawing up the FABC / TAC document on THE LOCAL CHURCH, it was stated that the "being of the Church" is not separable from its "mission". This would imply that the nature of the Church can be best understood only against the background of its past and its doings in the past, without of course negating potentialities for the filture. The scriptural "mission" to all nations and till the end of time does not by itself and without reference to the historical growth of the Church help us to understand how that "mission" was actuated. Furthermore, new challenges to "mission" cannot be understood except in the historical conjuncture that has evolved from both the distant and the more recent past.

The beginning of the Church is traced back scripturally to Pentecost Day, when the outpouring of the Spirit found people from all over the world speaking their own tongues and all understanding each other－a reversal of the Biblical Babel. Although this phenomenon may help to explain some constitutive elements of the Church, particularly the central role of the Holy Spirit, it does not help to understand the actual process by which Christianity expanded into new regions with different cultures. Rather, the Pentecost narrative idealizes the issue. Practically at no stage of the history of the expanding Church have its individuality and universality been so easily manifested as in the Pentecost narrative! There is little likelihood that people today will accept a theology of "mission" that would overstress the idealism of the scriptures without explaining why that idealism has taken less ideal forms in the course of the past twenty centuries.

The gradual self-understanding of the Church is itself a part of its historical nature, as when Jesus said: "when the Spirit comes ... he will lead you into all the truth" (Jn 16:12-12). In time, and assisted by the Holy Spirit, the Church has realized that she has too often been a victim of her own self-justifying rhetoric. In seeking unity, the Church sometimes fell into a cult of uniformity, of a monolithic Church, which aspired to a single universal language (Latin), a single theological system (Neo-Scholasticism), a single system of worship (the Roman Rite), and a single system of government (the Code of Canon Law). The Church also sought catholicity in universal expansion and in an irrational quest for bigness. The notion of mission was corrupted by the imperialistic effort to bring as many as possible into the fold, and by the adoption of the maxim "Outside the Church no salvation". The "barbarians" of the empires were substituted by "pagans". This trend is turning with the more recent self-understanding, but it does not seem to lead as yet to the understanding of the unity of mutual charity leading to a universality of communion of friends. (3)



  
3.Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (Hong Kong, 1985).

Catholicity : Communion or Domination?

In Western histories of the Church and other theological writings, one commonly reads about the distinction between Latin and Greek Churches, designated as Western and Eastern Churches. I have not come across any serious questioning of this terminology. The term "Eastern" can only tenuously be justified for the Church of Constantinople on the basis of the influence it exercised over the East as a result of the inherited Hellenistic cultural influence in some border areas of the Persian empire, but it was still very much a Greek European church in the eastern part of the Roman empire. The so-called "Churches of Asia" were mostly the churches in Asia Minor, the European Turkey of today. The influence of the Greek Church over Russia was still restricted to the East of Europe.

Moreover, it was the "caesaro-papism" of the Byzantine Church that created problems for the survival of local churches in the Sassanid Persian empire and led to the break-away of the East-Syrian (Chaldean) Church, which kept links with Christianity in the real Asia that was hardly known to Europe. This separation took place before the end of the 5th century.

Hence, the conflicts between the Latin and Greek Churches were very much East-West conflicts within Europe and may be seen as distant heralds of the nationalisms that would emerge following the peak of the Latin hegemony in the Christendom of the Middle Ages. However, there is no denying the fact that the geographical-cultural proximity of the Byzantine Church to the East showed in it some eastern cultural traces that differed somewhat from the Latin concerns. However, the deeper cause of the tension and eventual schism was the cultural predominance that Byzantine Europe enjoyed over the western half as a result of the shift of the capital. The socio-economic and cultural insufficiency of Western Europe and its new political developments enabled the papacy in Rome to exercise leadership and rally the feelings of the western half by drawing upon the Petrine and Roman imperial tradition to compensate for its losses.

In this conflict, the strength of the Byzantine church, namely the presence of the emperor, became also its weakness. It had to share its authority with the emperor, while the papacy in the West could present a unified command and the allegiance of its more rural subjects. Also the prosperity and pomp of the court and its munificence to the Patriarch and hierarchy could hardly provide sufficient experience of threat even in the midst of growing demands of the Roman church for supremacy. Besides, while the emperor could trust himself to control the dissatisfaction of his Byzantine subjects in and around the capital, logistics required that he should be more generous to the demands of the subjects that he had left behind and in the more distant part of the empire.

This may partly explain the nature of imperial interventions and the position taken by the emperor in ecclesiastical conflicts. These socio-politico-cultural contradictions of Western-Eastern European societies can explain to some extent the problems of individuality and catholicity, which saw further deepening when the whole of Europe was reduced to the "periphery" by the Arab-Turkish "centre". In the new situation of encircled Europe, the "crisis of feudalism" * put the religiosity of the local churches of Europe to a severe test.

The "truce of God" could provide only a limited respite, and it was the leadership of the papacy that provided a catholic solution by calling upon the mutually feuding Christian princes and nobles to engage their energies in crusades, which could provide the required Lebensraum. The crusades also offered opportunity to Rome to establish Latin patriarchates in Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch and thereby encroach upon the traditional eastern patriarchates.

The Iberian expansion in the 15th century was largely motivated by a continued internal crisis provoked by a population explosion and food shortages. The papal intervention provided a catholic solution to the two Iberian Christian powers that suspected each other's gains in the new enterprise. The catholicity of the intervention was curiously expressed by dividing the globe for the peaceful pursuit of colonization and evangelization by the two contending Catholic powers. The "Roman complex", developed over the centuries of European history with its internal West-East (Oriental Schism) and North-South (Reformation) divides, seems to have been a long preparatio evangelica for a real "missionary" phase. Attempts were made to restore its scriptural meanings to the term "mission", but that could not justify denying the historical origin of its usage and the historical connotations it has assumed in the course of the colonial and imperial phases of European expansion.

Mission : Deculturation before Inculturation?

The people in the Third World can learn from Scripture the nature of an ideal Church, but their own Churches were given birth by "mother Churches" that sent missionaries to them. I am not referring to the Syrian Church in South India, which was an exception. The European missionaries were sponsored by colonial governments or were at least protected by their power and shared their prestige. Thus, for instance, Franciscan and Dominican missionaries accompanied the Portuguese and Spanish royal fleets right from the beginning. When the Society of Jesus was just founded and King John III of Portugal came to hear of its Counter-Reformation zeal, he thought of it as best suited for the colonial designs of the Portuguese. He was not wrong in his expectations. There is abundant documentary evidence to show how the missionaries, particularly the Jesuits in India and the Dominicans in the Philippines, justified the colonial enterprise and defended it against native opposition and resistance. Their early writings express convictions that Portugal and Spain were created by God for the express purpose of spreading the Roman Catholic faith around the world. Rizal may have been exaggerating a little when he wrote in his Noli me Tangere: "The Government itself sees nothing, hears nothing and decides nothing except what the parish priest or the head of a religious Order makes it see, hear and decide".(5)

In Portuguese India the situation was not different. The great missionary of the Indies, St. Francis Xavier, was convinced that it was hard to establish Christianity among the orientals (Negroes) and harder to preserve it, except in coastal regions where the Portuguese control and Portuguese gunboats held sway.(6)

Even when the natives were admitted to the ranks of lower clergy, the white Religious Orders kept control of the "frontier" where the loyalty of the native clergy was not trusted. The Religious Orders in the forefront of the missions justified their reluctance to hand over responsibility to the native clergy by describing every Religious House as a fort and every white Religious as a captain in the service of the Crown.(7) It was not different anywhere in the colonies. A viceroy of Mexico once observed: "In each friar in the Philippines, the king has the equivalent of a captain-general and an entire army"(8) The missionaries were far cheaper and more effective than large and costly garrisons would have been.

With the advent of imperialism and the breaking of the Chinese melon and the partition of Africa in the 19th century, missionary societies, predominantly Protestant, mushroomed all over the colonies. The Treaty of Berlin provided for free movement of missionary societies across territorial boundaries irrespective of the colonial powers which ruled the territories in question. In practice, however, each colonial power tended to accord preferential treatment to missionary societies originating in its own metropolitan country.

Christian missionaries were sent specifically to "civilize" the natives of the colonies and to act as the links between the rulers and the ruled. They were to provide literacy and other skills to the people who were later to become interpreters, clerks, teachers, evangelists, and artisans in the service of the colonial administrations. The converts became extension officers in the process of Europeanization. The degree of conversion to Christianity was defined in terms of the extent to which the convert had absorbed and adopted the culture of the resident missionary. This acculturation was meant to help in the long run to create tastes in the native population for goods that the imperialists had to offer. It was a process in which the western missionaries cooperated enthusiastically till the political process of de-colonization put an end to it. The newly emerged independent nations saw in their political independence the necessary pre-condition for socio-economic and cultural advancement. In reality, the end of colonialism and its physical restrictions on the world-market was a requirement for the emergence of Financial Capitalism in the United States of America in the early decades of this century.

Third World countries are now politically independent, but also fully exposed to the neo-colonial exploitation of Western capitalism. The situation of dependence continues to enable the West to protect its agencies (multinational corporations) in the dependent regions and the Churches have not been very free from its manipulative capacity. Problems confront the churches of the world "periphery" on two fronts. They must struggle for their indigenous character and at the same time and in opposition to their "mother" churches, seek to create an understanding of the needs of their poverty-stricken masses, exploited by a system which, located at the "centre", benefits those same "mother" churches which supposedly aid the "periphery" with their "alms", which amount to only an insignificant fraction of what has been extracted from the "periphery" in the form of profits in an unjust international system.(9)

While the mission of the Church is to witness to the Gospel, we have seen briefly the destruction that this mission wrought in the Third World in collaboration with the Western powers. Though the destructive contribution of the missions to the Third World will never be sufficiently emphasized, one needs to see also the direct and indirect positive aspects that could be classified as "saving" features. It is to be noted, for example, that in most cases the conversions were made among the oppressed sections of the native society. Their conversion and collaboration with the external elements to challenge the predominance of the elite held out a concealed threat and acted as a catalytic agent for promoting reform during the centuries.

In India, for instance, the mass conversions acted as a shock-retreatment on the orthodox Hindu society. It has now learned that the revolutionary potential of low castes, outcastes and tribals cannot be underestimated. However, in the post-independent era the converted minorities are facing a crisis of cultural identity and this is due to the earlier process of acculturation which made them a cultural tragi-comedy, people who do not belong either to the Western culture or to the national Eastern culture. This is how many Christians in Hong Kong may find themselves, between the devil and the deep, unwanted by England and misfits for the Chinese dispensation. This is where the issue of inculturation becomes urgent. Translated bibles and translated rituals cannot provide satisfactory results. Christianity will still remain an implant, and never be a graft living on the sap of the native culture.

Church institutions which have been imported from the West and are deemed as vital for the universality of the Church and its unity, need to be subjected to acceptance or rejection by the native cultural world-view and its values wherever these do not conflict with genuine Gospel values. Unfortunately, in countries where the Western capitalist system does not have full sway, the presumed necessity of many juridical and other expressions of authority and discipline is no longer considered essential.

Generally it is the financial dependence of the Third World Churches needed to maintain institutional luxuries that keeps the clerical bourgeoisie linked with the West to safeguard personal privileges. As a result of its self-sufficiency with funds from abroad, the hierarchy does not need to depend on local resources. This enables it to live well without full integration in the concerns of the people. Within the hierarchy, moreover, those who depend more on foreign resources are also likely to act as watchdogs of foreign interests and to seek external intervention in matters which could and should be sorted out in the country.

It is in this context that an extra-territorial juridical centre does not appear to be a help towards the successful inculturation of local churches. The reluctance of Rome to acknowledge a greater autonomy on the part of the national episcopal conferences is one cause for serious concern and suspicion. Does Rome really serve the local churches, or wish them to grow out of their centuries of domination, including religious domination, and begin to live at a level of equality and genuine communion with all churches under the spiritual leadership, rather than the juridico-political domination of the Pope? Or is Rome only peddling documents on "Local Churches" to keep them humoured? Is it possible that an episcopal conference like that of India, with about 122 bishops, is incompetent to decide most of the matters pertaining to their national church? As a result we have an old church in India which has not really grown up. The process of deculturation may have to continue before Christians in Asia and elsewhere can truly be at home in their own countries and experience the Incarnation.



  
4.Wallerstein, I 37 ff.

5.Rizal, Noli me Tangere (Trans. Leon Ma. Guerrero, Hong Kong, 1986) 157.

6.Valignano, Historia del Principio y Progresso de la Compania de Jesus en las Indias Orientals (ed. J. Wicki, Rome, 1944) 70.

7.Teotonio R. de Souza, "The Portuguese in Asia and their Church Patronage", in : Western Colonialism in Asia and Christianity (ed. M. D. David, Bombay, 1988) 11-29.

8.C.R. Boxer, The Church Militant and Iberian Expansion (Baltimore, 1978) 75.

9.E. Dussel, "Some Hypotheses", in : Towards a History of the Church in the Third World (ed. Lukas Vischer, Bern, 1985) 110-130.

Asian Cultures and Inculturation

We are still in need of more than stereotypes for understanding what may be called Asian cultural traits. Some of the stereotypes were created by foreign dominators to suit their own interests. One current stereotype is the difference between materialist and spiritual societies. Pre-industrial societies were regarded as more spiritual. This reinforced the notion of the spirituality of the Indian pre-industrial past. It was a sort of compensation for the humiliation of the present. Gandhi even took pride in the absence of technological change and attributed it to the wisdom of the forefathers, "who knew that, if we set our hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral fibre".(10)

Gunnar Myrdal in his Asian Drama explains Indian "spirituality" as due to a lack of sufficient calories! Non-violence in Indian culture is particularly related to cow-protection, and, in the form of ahimsa, the Buddhists and Jains have made a general ethical value of it. Possibly it was meant to discourage inter-tribal warfare and encourage the expansion of settled agriculture and trade. Buddhism and Jains are known for their origin from new urbanization in the Ganges valley based on iron, the widespread domestication of the horse, and the extension of plough agriculture. The reaction of the new sects is understandable against the background of the concept of matsyanyaya, or the large fish devouring the small fish, known from the Mahabharata and Manusmriti and Dharmashastras. The competition for power ended in the 4th century B. C. with the emergence of the Mauryan empire, which during the reign of Asoka comprised almost the entire subcontinent, and the emergence of Buddhism, which reflected his concern for safeguarding his acquisitions against prospective rivals. Hence, history has little to vouch for the non-violence and spirituality of the Indian culture.(11)

The above considerations are important for any meaningful study of the issue of inculturation. The concept of "culture" that a national bourgeoisie tends to cultivate is often the same as that which the Catholic Church holds because of its own bourgeois composition. This is a "museum" or "entertainment" concept of culture, and not that of culture as "manifestations" of the life-style of people. Which such a concept of culture, one fails to grasp that culture is "living" and that any contribution to it should help the people to cope with their present life-challenges.

All efforts at inculturation of the Church will have to keep these considerations in mind. Inculturation cannot be imposed by force, and much less by a clergy that is alienated from the masses of the people by its training, its institutional affiliations and its association with extra-territorial mentors. This is an area for the church leadership in Hong Kong to reflect seriously on. There may be a need of greater involvement on the part of the clergy in the life-concerns of the common and marginalized people, and this should be done by soiling their hands and feet. Inculturation will then take care of itself.(12) Only then will the true meaning of mission be restored and genuine witnessing of the Good News captivate more hearts.(13)

Even if the Catholic Church wishes to persist in its managerial attitude, particularly with its West-based and centralizing Roman curia, it should by now take serious note of the failure of its global machinery to raise the membership of the Catholic Church in Asia to more than an insignificant percentage of its millions. Even poverty has not been a sufficient motivation for Asians to accept the westernized brand of Christianity. And it is less likely to be an attraction in the post-colonial period with greater sensitivity to national cultures. Hence, the West-based, West-trained, or West-influenced Church managers may have to learn carefully the Asian cultural traits that make Asian cultures immune or resistant to the Westernized package of Christianity.



  
10.Quoted by R. Thapar, Ancient Indian Social History (Delhi, 1978) 17.

11.R. Thapar, op. cit. 46, 54, 308.

12.cf. Aloysius Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation, (New York, 1988) 38ff.

13.Roland Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, (Michigan, 1962).

Some Asian Culture Traits

Since 1967 IBM had been conducting worldwide comparative attitude surveys of its employees. By 1973 they had collected 116000 answer forms in 20 different languages from 72 countries. The analysis of these data showed that there were four dimensions on which the culture differences between countries could be measured. The researchers identified these four dimensions as (1) Power Distance; (2) Individualism-Collectivism; (3)Masculinity-Femininity; (4)Uncertainty Avoidance.

(1) Power Distance represents the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization or institution (e.g. the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The inequality is defined from below, not from above; and a society's level of inequality is endorsed by its followers as much as by its leaders.

(2) Individualism - Collectivism describes the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. In individualist groups the ties between individuals are loose, and everyone is expected to look after himself / herself and the immediate family. In collectivist societies people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups. Often their extended families continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word "collectivism" here has no political meaning. It refers to a group, not to the state.

(3) Masculinity - Femininity. The distribution of roles between the sexes is a fundamental issue in any society. In some societies men's values differ very much from women's values, while in other societies this difference is not very great. In Western societies men are supposed to be very assertive and competitive, while women are supposed to be modest and nurturing. On the basis of the degree of assertiveness and competitiveness we can speak of masculine countries and feminine countries.

The above three dimensions refer to three types of expected social behaviour: Behaviour towards people higher or lower in rank (Power Distance), behaviour towards the group (Individualism-Collectism), and behaviour according to one's sex role (Masculinity-Femininity). If we compare the three dimensions with the teaching of Confucius, it will be no surprise that the dragon countries are high on Power Distance, low on Individualism, and mid-range in Masculinity-Femininity.

(4) The fourth dimension was Uncertainty Avoidance. This indicates to what extent a culture programmes its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Uncertainty-avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of novel, unknown, surprising situations by adhering to strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and a belief in absolute truths. People in uncertainty-avoiding countries are also more emotional and motivated by inner nervous energy. Uncertainty-accepting cultures are more tolerant of differences in behaviour and opinion; they try to have as few rules as possible, they are relativist in their beliefs, and allow many currents to flow side by side. People in these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative; their environment does not expect them to express emotions. The dragon countries are weak in uncertainty-avoidance.

Two other studies independently designed and conducted also attempt to measure cultural differences. The Rockeach Value Survey designed in the U. S. A. surveyed nine Asian countries among others; and the Chinese Value Survey designed in Hong Kong surveyed 82 different countries of the world. The overlap between the findings of the three studies was remarkable because they used completely different questionnaires on different populations during different years. The reason may be that the three types of expected social behaviour towards senior / juniors, towards the group, and as a function of one's sex role are so fundamental to any human society that they are found regardless of whether the value surveys were designed by a Western or an Eastern mind. They are truly universal human traits in the sense that all societies share the same problems, but different societies have "chosen" different solutions. Unfortunately these cultural traits and corresponding resistances have never been properly understood or taken seriously in the response of the local churches of Asia.

A more serious consideration of the Asian cultural traits is crucial for the inculturation of Christianity and for the rejection of West-imposed attitudes and institutions as part of Christian faith. The Church in Hong Kong may need to do such an exercise to adapt its institutions to its cultural traits and shed the cultural values that alienating it from the masses of its people (not just "common" Christians) by being too much of a mix of Christian faith and Western colonial values.