無心卻傷人的言語

常有朋友跟我分享一些被傷害的經驗，但是那些傷人的言語卻是無心的。講的人並不是有意要傷害別人，卻不小心使人受了傷。正如有位牧師分享的：不管是開車有意撞人，或是開車不小心撞到人，或是被誤當成開車撞人的那一位，這三種狀況雖然該負的責任不同，受傷的人的傷卻是一樣的痛。

在禱告和反省中，我發現自己也可能很常不小心講出傷人的言語。別人的受傷不一定是我的責任，因為可能是對方過於敏感，界線不清，或是有一些誤會。但是不管我有沒有責任，別人的受傷還是很痛苦的。如果我能避免無心地傷害別人，其實是更好的，這也是愛的表現。

對我曾傷害的人，我願意真誠地道歉。對自己來說，願上帝幫助我，用更多的愛、智慧和敏感，來說出每一句話。

無可救藥的驕傲

最近漸漸體認到一件事情，就是：我真的有無可救藥的驕傲。我很容易覺得自己各方面都很不錯，很容易覺得自己表現比別人好。這種驕傲表現在思考各種神學立場上面，就是會覺得自己的看法才是最好的，很容易輕視別人的看法和意見。這種驕傲表現在和別人的溝通和相處上，就會變成不注重別人的意見，只注重自己想表達的。

問題是我的實況並不是自己所想這麼好，因為即使我的神學主張還算不錯，還是受限於我的視野，還是有我的盲點。即使我對許多事情的看法是不錯的，還是受限於我的經驗和知識。這個世界的知識和經驗這麼豐富，一個渺小的人怎麼能完全掌握？創造這個世界的上帝是這麼豐富和偉大，一個微不足道的人怎麼敢講自己對上帝的認識才是完全正確？

然後在感覺出自己的驕傲的同時，又會覺得自己能認識自己的驕傲，真的是很厲害，於是又陷入了驕傲當中。在分享出自己的驕傲的同時，又會覺得能讓大家知道我知道自己的驕傲，顯示出我的厲害，於是又陷入了虛榮當中。無可救藥的驕傲，就真的是無可救藥。

願上帝的恩典臨到，讓我能改變。願上帝的智慧臨到，讓我能真正認識自己。只有上帝能幫助我勝過驕傲。

讀聖經的幾種方式

讀聖經是很棒的事情，古今中外很無數的人從中得到幫助，也是體驗上帝的不二法門，不過讀聖經有好幾種方法，在這裡介紹我知道的幾種方法：

1.靈修
先禱告，亦可唱詩歌，然後讀一小段經文。讀完以後默想，最後作回應的禱告。時間可長可短。

秘訣：遇到難解的問題不用花太多時間思索，而是把重點放在上帝對我們說什麼。一定要默想經文和我們生活的關連，是不是能讓我們更認識上帝，或對我們有什麼提醒或我們可以學習的。

2.速讀
快速瀏覽全卷書，一天多半3-5章以上，甚至可看10章，前後可有簡短禱告。

秘訣：看完再一起思考整卷或整段經文涵義，可對全卷書及整本聖經有概觀性的認識，避免見樹不見林。

3.研經
禱告後深入探討某一小段經文，通常要研讀上下文，再來仔細研讀該段經文的涵義，特別是針對有爭議的經文。最主要需要分析這段經文主題、思路、論點。最後可以配合一些介紹背景的資料，例如可看一下研讀本聖經或現代中文譯本對該卷書的介紹，亦可參考註釋書。最後禱告結束。

秘訣：一定要先讀聖經，盡量先有了自己的想法以後再看註釋書，才是自己的東西。另外研經最後還是要回歸生活應用，必須找到和自己生活的關連。

4.禱讀
禱告後用默禱的心慢慢將一段經文讀1-2遍，並特別注意哪些字詞或句子吸引或感動自己，然後默想這些字詞或句子，最後禱告。

秘訣：先跳過問題、研究或分析，這方式最主要是要和上帝對話。

這四種方式裡面，我覺得靈修是最基本的，偶爾靈修可以用禱讀來進行。再來最好另外有速讀的進度，研經則把握機會進行，例如配合查經班。讓我們一起多讀聖經！

青年聚會的型態

最近在思考教會青年聚會的型態，主要可以分成團契及小組兩種型態，當然小組也有各種不同風格的小組和配搭的計劃。本來就沒有任何一個聚會型態是完美的，各型態各有優缺，不過如何發揮不同型態的優點，補救其缺點，是最重要的。由於我參與的團契與小組也很有限，只能就我所知來分析不同型態的優缺：
一、團契型
優點：
1.接觸的人較多，不會僅限一些和自己同質性很高的人，可以和不同的人一起學習
2.聚會比較容易請講員，可以設計多元的聚會方式
3.可以訓練如何籌備大小型聚會
4.可以訓練如何推動靈修、禱告、傳福音、關懷等計劃
5.做得好的話可以邀到大部分的人都參與事奉
6.若有小組且運作良好，則可同時發揮團契及小組的優勢
7.決策大多由多數人一起做決定，較不易有腐敗且可學習共同決策
缺點：
1.若沒有團契另外分小組，則互動和關心較少
2.來教會的青年新朋友若沒有機制順利轉介至團契時常會缺乏關心力道
3.聚會性質有的時候會和主日禮拜重複
4.將人力擺到行政時，關心就會不夠強；將人力擺到關心時，行政就會不夠強
5.團契若另有小組時間時，聚會時間較長
6.隨著年紀漸長必須換團契，需要重新適應新的團契
7.如果沒有福音及外展行動，容易變成內聚團體
8.若沒有隨著人數不斷增加輔導，團契的牧養會遇到瓶頸
二、小組型
優點：
1.同質性很高，可以幫助新人快速適應並加入
2.聚會準備較為簡單，只要有簡單詩歌、破冰、經文、分享即可，且人數較少壓力較小
3.聚會時間較短，可以減少忙碌的人參加的負擔
4.人力可以專心擺在關懷，關懷力道強
5.若是和主日禮拜的新朋友關懷連結得好，可以成功邀請很多新朋友
6.做得好的話可以鼓勵大部分的人都參與小組的事奉，教會許多工作也可以透過小組長來了解各種人才
7.小組必須要有足夠小組長及區牧等等投入，會強迫不斷有人投入這個區塊
8.小組模式權力集中在區牧、小組長身上，決策快速不會有太多雜音
缺點：
1.缺乏和其他不同小組的人互動的機會
2.如果只有小組，卻沒有系統性的訓練和主日講道，會缺乏成長和願景
3.可以一直在同一個小組，不用一直轉換，但也很侷限在這個小團體
4.比較沒機會邀請講員來演講
5.如果沒有福音及外展行動，容易變成內聚團體而不成長
6.小組長個人須兼顧關懷、行政、牧養等等，壓力較大(看是採取哪種小組精神)
7.小組長必須先經良好訓練
8.小組長如果自己也必須參加小組長的小組，就會變成一週要排出兩段聚會時間

團契和小組型態都有做得很不錯的範例，當然若是團契到達100-200人以上是不是要拆成兩個團契比較好，又是另一個問題。若是團契能同時具有小組，並特別重視新朋友及主日禮拜新朋友的關懷，且不斷增加輔導投入，或許能避免一些團契型態的缺點。若是小組常舉辦聯誼並配合良好訓練，或許能避免一些小組的缺點。

當然型態有好有壞、有優有缺，但最重要的，還是要倚靠上帝，不然我們什麼都不能做。

台灣基督長老教會缺乏青年的危機

最近一直在思考台灣基督長老教會缺乏青年的狀況，因為感覺起來，教會青年流失已經是非常普遍的情形。這種狀況持續下去，二十年後長老教會是不是就會逐漸萎縮？目前長老教會教勢是勉強維持持平的狀況，但是缺少青年的惡性循環是不是甚至可能造成長老教會關門？

青年為什麼離開長老教會？是否是因為沒有受到關懷？或是因為不被重視？或是因為文化不同？或是因為語言不同？或是因為禮拜方式不同？或是因為音樂風格不同？或是因為教會不重視宣教？或是這些都不是，是因為這是青年不成熟、其他教會不應該搶羊、或教會太過遷就青年而喪失了傳統精神？

每個人對以上的問題可能都有不同答案，但是或許，我們應該聽聽青年自己的聲音。

台灣對外勞的不公義：我們還能期待上帝為台灣伸張公義嗎？

上次林律師來台神演講提出這個問題：「當台灣對外勞如此地不公義時，我們還能期待上帝為台灣伸張公義嗎？」

我非常有感觸，因為我一直不斷為台灣在國際能受到公平正義的待遇禱告，但是我越思考台灣如何不公義地對待外勞，我就越慚愧。這樣我們怎麼還能期待上帝為我們伸張正義呢？

外勞問題，沒有去關心或了解的人是無法理解這當中的不公義。其實每個外勞一踏上台灣，他/她就背負了要用一兩年以上才還得清的債務：仲介費。一旦被遣返，這筆仲介費就損失了，在台灣工作需要一兩年才能還，更何況在本來的國家，根本不可能還得起。因此遣返對外勞來說，是最恐怖的命運。為了避免遣返，外勞什麼都能配合。

也因此當仲介或雇主性侵外勞、要求外勞每週7天毫無休息的工作、要求外勞除了上班工作外回家還要加班做家務等等近似奴隸的待遇發生的時候，外勞多半選擇隱忍，因為外勞沒辦法不做，他/她們沒有換雇主或仲介的權利，不做的意思就是要被遣返。

而且我們還理所當然地認為外勞最好不要有休閒，最好不要去跟他/她的朋友混在一起。要求一位離鄉背景的人不和他/她的同鄉在一起，這樣合理嗎？如果我們去國外留學的人都不准有休閒，也不准跟一樣從台灣來的留學生談心，這樣不簡直是虐待？

這整個體制是不是應該想辦法改變？我們能不能對這些遠道而來幫我們從事危險、疲累工作的外勞多一點尊重？是不是應該給他/她們休假？是不是應該讓他/她們能換雇主及仲介？是不是應該明訂兩國仲介費比例？

願台灣能行在上帝的公義中。

對自己解經立場的檢視與反思My personal reflection on how I interpret Bible

Tao-jen Wang 王道仁 97003

“And no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (Matthew 11:27, NRSV)  Reading Bible and trying to know God is impossible without God’s own help.  May the Lord guide me on this reflection paper.

Background

I was born in Taipei during the 1970’s, when Taiwan was struggling with diplomatic crises and in the same time trying to transform from a developing country into a developed country.  Politically Taiwan was moving toward democracy and the culture in Taiwan was rapidly changing and mixed with traditional Chinese, American and Japanese influence.  Education in Taiwan was mostly authoritative, but became more open as I grew up.  My thinking tend to be simultaneously modern and post-modern and this might come from my cultural background.  And maybe the conflict between Taiwan and China made me often think about justice when I read Bible.  I also stayed in the United States for four years when I was a pre-schooler, so my boldness in asking questions might be influenced by that.  Feminism movement had its influence in Taiwan, but often more in words rather than in action.  But at least conceptually I am also influenced by it.

My parents’ and I go to the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan regularly and my hometown church had a good relationship with Campus Evangelical Fellowship.  My mother studied in Taiwan Theological College and Seminary, China Evangelical Seminary and The South East Asia Graduate School of Theology and I also studied in China Evangelical Seminary and Taiwan Theological College.  So I have my conservative roots, but am also exposed to a diverse range of theologies. 

Interpreting Bible: Bible itself as a basis

So those mentioned above are my background, which influenced my interpretation of Bible either consciously or unconsciously.  But how do I interpret Bible? Or what is the position of my own hermeneutic theory? I hope to form my standpoint from Jesus and Bible itself, since I think human knowledge had its limitation and knowing God and knowing how to interpret Bible must come from God Himself.  And Bible is our best source to know Jesus, so I will use Bible as a basis to discuss. 

Inerrancy of Bible

First of all is the discussion of the “inerrancy” of Bible.  Jesus stated the basis of inerrancy in Matthew 5:18, “until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”  So I believe that though Bible is prone to human error, God somehow helps our Bible to be “inerrant[1]”  in a sense.  At least we can rely on Bible to know God and His plan for human.  As for some minor discrepancies within Bible like those among the four gospels, I do not think it to be a major concern.  On the contrary, I think those increases the credibility of Bible as a historical record since forged documents always seek harmony with themselves.

Saying Bible is inerrant does not mean that interpreting it word by word in its literal sense is the only valid way of interpretation.[2]  Obviously some of the passages in Bible are not meant to be interpreted like that such as Psalms.  I agree that when Bible wants us to do this we should, but I am also concerned that doing this too strictly and inflexible without focusing on the living God and individual human might lead to the error of the Pharisees: they “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:24)  What I think we should do is to know that “we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.” (Romans 7:6)  We should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret Bible and try to know God and know what God wants us to do.  We should also be careful not to use this as an excuse to twist Bible to fit our own view. 

The three approaches: the author, the text and the reader

When I interpret Bible, there are three approaches I would like to consider: the author, the text and the reader.[3]  As we can easily see from Bible, Jesus and his disciples often mentioned the author when they quoted the Old Testament.  During the passage discussing divorce in Mathew 19:3-9, Jesus talked about Moses’ intention in that particular time and space, which shows that Jesus cares about the author and the original meaning to the Jews.  But the author approach is not the whole scenario because we do not see Jesus and his disciples try to do deep historic research of Bible and authors of Bible often do not mean to write a Bible.  And Jesus and his disciples never analyzed the form, the redaction process or the source of Bible[4]; they simply accepted the canon.[5]

And the reader’s approach is also obvious when Jesus and his disciples use the Old Testament to address their everyday life, such as when Paul used the passage of ox to discussed his apostolic rights in 1 Corinthians 9:1-12.  But the reader approach is also not the whole picture, since as 2 Peter 1:20 says, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”  One cannot twist the Bible to say what one wants the Bible to say like what Satan did when tempting Jesus.  Sometimes we might wonder if some of the usage of the Old Testament in the New Testament were unrelated to the context of the original passage, like the usage of the “cornerstone” in Matthew 21:42.  But I think we should also differentiate using the Old Testament to describe similar experiences from interpreting the Old Testament itself.

When it comes to the text, Paul’s discussion of Abraham being justified by faith in Romans 4:1-25 is a good example.  Paul did not just cut one sentence from the Old Testament for argumentation; instead, Paul delved into the story of Abraham and found that it was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness when he was uncircumcised.  And the faith of Abraham is toward the God who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist, which is also related to the life story of Abraham.  But I do not think the text’s approach is neglecting the author or the reader; it is supported and strengthened by them. 

When it comes to which approach gets the precedence, I tend to lean more on the text’s approach.  This is because the author and the so-called history are too far from us and the text is more reliable as a basis, which I also believed to be historical.  And when the reader’s approach became dominant, it is hard not to twist the meaning of Bible. 

The discussion of multiple meanings

There are a lot of discussion concerning if a passage of Bible can contain multiple meanings.[6]  I think multiple meaning is possible when God, the ultimate author of Bible, wants it to have multiple meaning.  When Bible says “a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” in Ephesians 5:31, it clearly have two meanings according to Bible itself.  But multiple meaning of a passage does not mean every interpretation and meaning is valid.  On the opposite, any meaning is only valid when God approves it.  Since we are not God, we are not the ultimate judge, but we should also defend against false teachings and “rightly explaining the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Conclusion

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” (John 16:13)  May the Spirit of truth guide me when I am interpreting Bible, and lead me back if I go astray.

Reference

Osborne, Grant R. (格蘭‧奧斯邦). The Hermeneutical Spiral (基督教釋經學手冊). Taipei: Chinese Evangelical Fellowship, 1999.

Porter, Stanley E. ed. Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006.

Schneiders, Sandra M. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. New York: HarperCollins, 1991.

Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

---

[1] I disagrees with Schneiders on this concept: Schneiders totally rejected Bible to be inerrant due to discrepancies in Bible, the ambiguous nature of symbolic revelation and her denial of absolute Biblical authority.  I think symbolic revelation can still convey meaning to a certain degree or language would not even had any literal meaning at all.  And I do not see evidence that Jesus and his disciples rejected absolute biblical authority, but this also depends on what we mean by “absolute biblical authority.”  See Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 27-40, 53-55.  For an argumentation on conveying meaning through metaphor, see Grant R. Osborne (格蘭‧奧斯邦), The Hermeneutical Spiral (基督教釋經學手冊) (Taipei: Chinese Evangelical Fellowship, 1999), 399-404.

[2] Tate assumed an inerrant Bible means verbal inspiration, but I think even a conceptually inspired Bible can also be inerrant about God if God wants it to be like that.  See W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 170.

[3] For a brief overview of the three approaches, see Tate, Biblical Interpretation, xvi-xxi.

[4] For a discussion of source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and canonical criticism, see Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 176-185.

[5] Scholars might disagree on what “canon” was during Jesus’ time, but no matter which canon we choose or whether the canonization process was completed or not, the final form of what “it is written” was used.  See Stanley E. Porter ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006), 38-58, 261-265.

[6] For a discussion of multiple meaning, see Tate, Biblical Interpretation, xix, 185, 188.  Also see Osborne (格蘭‧奧斯邦), The Hermeneutical Spiral (基督教釋經學手冊), 387, 547.