【短文】Bill Muehlenberg - Against Tolerance and Broadmindedness

此文在找金句時順便找到的

billmuehlenberg.com/...

美國牧師約翰·派珀（John Piper）曾寫道：

「相對主義是對上帝客觀現實的叛逆。上帝的存在本身為真理的可能性創造了條件。上帝是所有真理主張的終極和最終標準——他是誰，他意願什麼，他說什麼是衡量一切的外部客觀標準。當相對主義說沒有對每個人都有效的真理和虛假的標準時，它說話的方式就像無神論者。它對上帝犯下了叛國罪。」

他說得對極了。但這種叛國行為不僅僅出現在世界中、無神論者大會上或世俗大學裡。越來越多地，而且最悲慘的是，它們也出現在我們的教會中。如今有太多的基督徒生活和行事就像世俗的人文主義者。

他們簡單地吸收了周圍文化的所有廢話，無論是相對主義、政治正確還是流行的寬容錯誤觀念。他們聽起來就像異教徒，譴責真理，沉溺於道德相對主義，並有效地否認了自己的聖經。

他們在思想上和神學上都軟弱無力。他們失去了辨別能力，無法區分真假，也無法分辨對錯。他們只是名義上的基督徒，堅持一種任何世俗人文主義者都會自豪地堅持的世界觀。

後現代主義和認識論相對主義的興起對此負有很大責任，以及平均基督徒的智力下降，他們往往是聖經文盲。這些淺薄的信徒只是飲用世界目前提供的所有時尚潮流。

鑒於所有這些，有人最近給我發了一篇很棒的隨筆，由富爾頓·J·希恩（Fulton J. Sheen）主教撰寫，題為《寬容的詛咒》（The Curse of Broadmindedness）。它來自他的書《情緒與真理》（Moods and Truths，Garden City Publishing，1932年）。很難相信它實際上是很久以前寫的（確切來說是80年前）。

這篇文章是對圍繞我們——甚至是圍繞教會的軟弱思維的尖銳和預言性的反駁。它對我們今天發現的後現代廢話的完美回應，即使在信徒中也是如此。它是在虛假和不信的時代對真理和確定性的號召。

顯然，作為一名天主教作家，他主要針對的是天主教徒。但他的評論也適用於所有基督徒，在我們現代否認真理和崇拜寬容的時代，這無疑是非常相關的。讓我向你提供這篇非常有幫助的隨筆的大段落。

他非常正確和生動地談到了「神性的不寬容」（the intolerance of Divinity）。基督的獨特主張在2000年前和今天一樣令人惱火。它們看起來如此不寬容和封閉。人們似乎像現在一樣討厭絕對真理的概念。希恩說：

「正是對獨特性的主張導致了士兵對基督的打擊，也是對獨特性的主張導致了世界對教會的不認可。記住，基督生命中有一件事導致了他的死亡，那就是他對神性的不寬容主張。他對睡覺的地方和吃的東西是寬容的；他對魚腥味的使徒的缺點是寬容的；他對釘他十字架的人是寬容的，但他對自己神性的主張是絕對不寬容的。他說，不接受他的人將被定罪，這句話沒有什麼寬容。他說，任何把自己的父親或母親比他更重要的人的人不配做他的門徒，這句話沒有什麼寬容。他在祝福世界所恨和詆譭的人時，沒有什麼寬容世界的意見。在他的心目中，寬容並不總是好的，不寬容也不總是壞的。」

「沒有任何主題比寬容和不寬容的主題更使一般人心煩意亂。寬容總是被認為是可取的，因為它被認為是與開明相等。不寬容總是被認為是不可取的，因為它被認為是與狹隘相等。這不是事實，因為寬容和不寬容適用於完全不同的事物。寬容只適用於人，但從不適用於原則。不寬容只適用於原則，但從不適用於人。我們必須對人寬容，因為他們是人；我們必須對原則不寬容，因為它們是神性的。我們必須對迷途的人寬容，因為無知可能使他們偏離正道；但我們必須對錯誤不寬容，因為真理不是我們創造的，而是上帝的。因此，教會在她的歷史中，在做出應得的賠償後，總是歡迎異端者回到她的靈魂寶庫，但從不歡迎他們的異端進入她的智慧寶庫。」

他繼續說：「對真理獨一性（oneness）的這種漠不關心，是當今思維中非常流行的假設的根源，即宗教是一個開放的問題，就像關稅一樣，而科學是一個關閉的問題，就像乘法表一樣。這是一種奇怪的開明，它教導任何人都可以向我們講述上帝，儘管它從來不會承認除了科學家之外的任何人都可以向我們講述原子。它激發了這樣一種想法：我們應該足夠開明，向任何精神分析師公布我們的罪，即使他生活在一個玻璃房子裡，但我們絕不能狹隘到向告解室的牧師說出這些罪。它創造了這樣的普遍印象：任何人對宗教的個人意見都是正確的，它使現代人傾向於接受以《我的宗教觀》為題的文章，由任何從好萊塢電影明星到麗思卡爾頓大酒店主廚的無名人士撰寫。」

「這種開明（broadmindedness），犧牲原則來迎合心血來潮，將實體（entities）溶解在環境中，並將真理降為意見，是邏輯能力衰落的不容置疑的跡象。」 這話說得非常對。事實上，許多開放的心需要關閉進行維修。他繼續說：

「這種開明的補救措施是不寬容，不是對人的不寬容，因為我們必須對他們保持寬容，無論他們持有什麼觀點，而是對原則的不寬容。橋樑建造者必須對橋樑的基礎不寬容；園丁必須對花園中的雜草不寬容；財產所有者必須對財產權的不寬容；士兵必須對自己的國家而不對敵人的不寬容，在戰場上開明的人是懦夫和叛國者。醫生必須對病人的疾病不寬容，教授必須對學生的錯誤不寬容。同樣，建立在神性不寬容基礎上的教會，必須對委託給她的真理同樣不寬容。不應該有單手戰鬥、半拔寶劍、分裂的愛、將基督和佛陀平等對待的廣泛的幼稚寬容或開明，因為我們的主耶穌基督已經說過：『凡不是與我同在的，就是反對我。』」

他總結說：「世界可能會指控教會不寬容，而世界是對的。教會是不寬容的——對真理不寬容，對原則不寬容，對神性不寬容，就像我們的主耶穌基督對他的神性不寬容一樣。其他宗教可以改變他們的原則，他們確實在改變，因為他們的原則是由人製定的。教會不能改變，因為她的原則是由上帝製定的。宗教不是我們喜歡的信念的總和，而是上帝賜予我們的信念的總和。世界可能與教會意見相左，但世界非常清楚它正在與什麼意見相左。在未來和過去，教會將對婚姻的聖潔不寬容，因為上帝所結合的，人不得分離；她將對自己的教義不寬容，並為它準備好死亡，因為她不怕那些殺肉體的人，而是怕那些有權力將肉體和靈魂投進地獄的人。」

哇，你已經很久沒有看到過這種風格的寫作了——而這是在八十年之前寫的！現在有誰會為真理站出來，並輕視和忽視當今的過時潮流和時尚的世界觀呢？這當然會很昂貴，因為在思想和道德上都是軟弱的時代堅持自己的信念會非常不受歡迎。

基督徒也可以期待受到其他自稱基督徒的人的嚴厲批評。我們將受到世界和世俗基督徒的批評。正如托澤（Tozer）曾經說過的：「最熱心的寬容信徒往往不能容忍對每個確信地談論上帝的人。」

但確信地談論上帝正是我們被召喚去做的事情。

American pastor John Piper once wrote: “Relativism is a revolt against the objective reality of God. The sheer existence of God creates the possibility of truth. God is the ultimate and final standard for all claims to truth—who he is, what he wills, what he says is the external, objective standard for measuring all things. When relativism says that there is no standard of truth and falsehood that is valid for everyone, it speaks like an atheist. It commits treason against God.”

He got that right. But such treasonous actions are found not just in the world, at atheist conventions, or in secular universities. Increasingly, and most tragically, they are being found in our churches as well. Far too many Christians today live and act as if they were secular humanists.

They have simply soaked up all the nonsense from the surrounding culture, be it relativism, or political correctness, or the faulty notions of tolerance making the rounds. They sound just like pagans as they decry truth, wallow in moral relativism, and effectively deny their own Bibles.

They are as soft in the head as they are theologically mushy. They have lost the ability to discern, to spot truth from error, and to tell right from wrong. They are Christians in name only, holding to a worldview which any secular humanist would proudly cling to.

The rise of postmodernism and epistemological relativism has greatly contributed to this, as well as a dumbing down of the average Christian, who tends to be biblically illiterate. Many of these shallow believers simply imbibe of whatever trendy fashions the world is now offering.

In light of all this, someone just recently sent me a terrific essay by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen called “The Curse of Broadmindedness”. It comes from his book Moods and Truths (Garden City Publishing, 1932). It is hard to believe that it was actually penned so very long ago (80 years ago to be exact).

It is a sharp and prophetic rebuttal to the mushy thinking which surrounds us – and even surrounds the church. It is a perfect rejoinder to the postmodern nonsense we find so rampant today, even amongst believers. It is a clarion call for truth and certainty in times of falsehood and unbelief.

Obviously, writing as a Catholic, he has Catholics primarily in view here. But his comments can well apply to all Christians, and are certainly so very relevant in our modern truth-denying and tolerance-deifying times. Let me offer some large slabs of this very helpful essay to you.

He very rightly and tellingly speaks of “the intolerance of Divinity”. The unique claims of Christ were just as grating 2000 years ago as they are today. They seem so very intolerant and close-minded. And people seemed to dislike notions of absolute truth back then as much as they do now. Says Sheen:

“It is the claim to uniqueness that brought the blow of the soldier against Christ, and it is the claim to uniqueness that brings the blow of the world’s disapproval against the Church. It is well to remember that there was one thing in the life of Christ that brought His death, and that was the intolerance of His claim to be Divine. He was tolerant about where He slept; and what He ate; He was tolerant about shortcomings of His fish-smelling apostles; He was tolerant of those who nailed Him to the Cross, but He was absolutely intolerant about His claim to be Divine. There was not much tolerance about His statement that those who I receive not in Him shall be condemned. There was not much tolerance about His statement that any one who would prefer his own father or mother to Him was not worthy of being His disciple. There was not much tolerance of the world’s opinion in giving His blessing to those whom the world would hate and revile. Tolerance to His Mind was not always good, nor was intolerance always evil.

“There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God’s. And hence the Church in her history, due reparation made, has always welcomed the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never his heresy into the treasury of her wisdom.”

He continues: “Such indifference to the oneness of truth is at the root of all the assumptions so current in present-day thinking that religion is an open question, like the tariff, whereas science is a closed question, like the multiplication table. It is behind that queer kind of broadmindedness which teaches that any one may tell us about God, though it would never admit that any one but a scientist should tell us about an atom. It has inspired the idea that we should be broad enough to publish our sins to any psychoanalyst living in a glass house, but never so narrow as to tell them to a priest in a confessional box. It has created the general impression that any individual opinion about religion is right, and it has disposed modern minds to accept its religion dished up in the form of articles entitled: ‘My Idea of Religion,’ written by any nondescript from a Hollywood movie star to the chief cook of the Ritz-Carlton.

“This kind of broadmindedness which sacrifices principles to whims, dissolves entities into environment, and reduces truth to opinion, is an unmistakable sign of the decay of the logical faculty.” Exactly right. The truth is, a lot of open minds need to be closed for repairs. He goes on:

“The remedy for this broadmindedness is intolerance, not intolerance of persons, for of them we must be tolerant regardless of views they may hold, but intolerance of principles. A bridge builder must be intolerant about the foundations of his bridge; the gardener must be intolerant about weeds in his gardens; the property owner must be intolerant about his claims to property; the soldier must be intolerant about his country, as against that of the enemy, and he who is broadminded on the battlefield is a coward and a traitor. The doctor must be intolerant about disease in his patients, and the professor must be intolerant about error in his pupils. So, too, the Church, founded on the Intolerance of Divinity, must be equally intolerant about the truths commissioned to her. There are to be no one-fisted battles, no half-drawn swords, no divided loves, no equalizing Christ and Buddha in a broad sweep of sophomoric tolerance or broad-mindedness, for as Our Blessed Lord has put it: ‘He that is not with Me is against Me’.”

He concludes, “The world may charge the Church with intolerance, and the world is right. The Church is intolerant-intolerant about Truth, intolerant about principles, intolerant about Divinity, just as Our Blessed Lord was intolerant about His Divinity. The other religions may change their principles, and they do change them, because their principles are man-made. The Church cannot change, because her principles are God-made. Religion is not a sure of beliefs that we would like, but the sum of beliefs God has given. The world may disagree with the Church, but the world knows very definitely with what it is disagreeing. In the future as in the past, the Church will be intolerant about the sanctity of marriage, for what God has joined together no man shall put asunder; she will be intolerant about her creed, and be ready to die for it, for she fears not those who kill the body, but rather those who have the power to cast body and soul into hell.”

Wow, you don’t hear much writing like this anymore – and this was penned eight decades ago! Where are those who will stand for truth today, and ignore with disdain the passing fads and trendy worldviews of the day? It will be costly of course, because standing with conviction in an age of mental and moral mush is going to be quite unpopular.

And Christians can also expect to be criticised big time by others who claim to be Christians as well. We will be slammed by both the world and by worldly Christians. As Tozer once put it, “The most fervent devotees of tolerance are invariably intolerant of everyone who speaks about God with certainty.”

But speaking about God with certainty is exactly what we are called to do.