摘自：Tabletalk 杂志，Pastor's Perspective, by Gary L.W. Johnson
英国的改教家修•拉提摩（Hugh Latimer）曾说过，“我们绝不可把合一看得如此重要，以至于为了合一的缘故而放弃神的道。”这是发自一位被烧死在火刑柱上，而不是妥协福音的真理的人所说的智慧的话。
对那些称自己是基督徒，却只关心表面有形的合一的人，拉提摩的决心显得非常没有吸引力的。持守这个信念的人一再告诉我们，教会最主要的错误就是缺乏有形的合一，这是很可悲的。他们一再诉诸主耶稣在约翰福音17章所说的话，而把那些没有参与这种合一的努力的人，都描绘成是严重地违背了基督的教训！他们宣称，缺少有形的合一，是我们最大的罪。什么是导致这种可恶状况的原因呢？教义——或更明确地说——是教义的特点。现今，他们说宗教改革时期对唯独信心的理解，对替死代赎（penal substitutionary atonement）的教义，以及特别是无尽刑罚这个可憎的概念，以及唯独借着基督得救的排他性，对建立有形的基督徒合一，都是障碍（译按，这似乎是在指Emergent church的主张，因为这些都是EC反对的教义）。然而，这个有形的合一的观念究竟是不是主耶稣在约翰福音17章所作的大祭司的祷告的意图呢？如同Robert Lewis Dabney 在上一个世纪所指出的，我们的主所关心的，是属灵上的合一。要求有形的合一，本不是那段经文的意思，按照Dabney的话说，是一个巨大的错误。事实上，这是一个偶像，目的是要窒息任何合法的异议，并且，容我加上一句话，对教会的健康与福祉，是极为致命的（positively deadly）。我想到一个世纪前著名的英国哲学家和议员Francis Bacon的一段话：“为了权宜之计所形成的合一，实际上，是把根基建立在完全的无知上。如同每个人都知道的，所有的色彩在黑暗中看起来都是一个颜色。”时代在改变，许多人告诉我们，我们需要和时代一起改变。如果我们不做改变，我们就会被看作是落后，不合时宜的。
在我们这个后现代的时代中，“宽容”（tolerance）被看成比真理的价值高，而真理，如同美，是由持有者的眼光来决定的，这是每个人都应该有的看法，只有那些令人讨厌，吹毛求疵在阐述真理的人除外，也就是那些坚持绝对真理，或者是那些用神学语言来表达真理，想要维持历史正统性的人。很不幸的，许多称自己是福音派的人，当谈到为他们的信仰作定义时，往往兴高采烈地拥抱一个独特的不要教义的思维方法（non-doctrinal mentality）。这个可悲的景况，一部分原因可以追溯到这个骗人的、完全天真的假设上，就是我们周围的文化是价值中立的，因此是无害的。这显明在一个观念上，就是说既然所有的事物主要都是属于个人的偏好（例如不同的生活形态），那么，我们应该要热烈庆祝这种多样性，搁置个人的判断，“你好，我好，大家好”！相信这种说法的基督徒没有想到的，是当我们这样做的时候，就违反了保罗在罗马书12：2的劝诫：“不要效法这个世界”。虽然这种中立主义强调的是多样性，但是它只是一个幌子。思想的一致性（conformity）才是它实际的动力。中立主义所要寻求的思想一致性，其标准是人类的自主性，目标很单纯，也很简单。这并不会让人感到意外，这种对思想一致性的要求，在基督教圈子内有一个显着的平行说法——要求有形的合一。
最近，这个“行为比教义重要”（deeds over creeds）的座右铭再一次掳获了福音派世界的想象。虽然这听起来很有吸引力，但是这却需要付出很高昂的代价。怎么会这样呢？根据这个说法，你的标签是什么（罗马天主教，东正教，五旬节派，或浸信会）是无关紧要的。很显然，重要的是我们对耶稣的爱——其他的都不重要。这不是我们第一次听到这种诉求。一个世纪以前，“守约者”（Promise Keepers）也步向同样的道路。在它1994年在波特兰举办的“抓住这个时刻”（"Seize the Moment）研讨会中，创办人Bill McCartney说，“守约者不在乎你是否是一位天主教徒。你爱耶稣吗？你是否是神的灵所生的？”当时守约者的总裁Randy Phillips接着说，“无论你的标签是什么，都不应该使我们分裂……我们欢迎所有的人，无论他是浸信会，五旬节派，或罗马天主教。如果你在基督的身体内，那么，我们就欢迎你。”（Albert James Dager, Media Spotlight, "Promise Keepers: Is What You See What You Get?" p. 20）但问题是，这不只是个标签的问题。如果事情是如此，那么，摩门教（末日圣徒教会）的官方立场就不是我们需要关心的问题。如果个别的摩门教徒说他们爱耶稣，也是圣灵重生的，他们为什么要被排除在外呢？
许多福音派的人，如今都在打着相同的鼓声：行为比教义重要。但是结果是，教义真的很重要。按照目前这种强加在我们身上的合一，也就是不管教义，不需要教义所构成的合一，註定要产生出一种被不纯正教义所污染的合一。恰恰是这种污染，在经过全面的审查后，会造成对福音真理的妥协。这就是为了有形的合一所要付出的高昂代价。
The English Reformer Hugh Latimer once remarked, "We ought never to regard unity so much that we would or should forsake God's Word for her sake." Wise words from a man who went to the stake, rather than compromise the truth of the gospel.
To those whose only concern is the appearance of visible unity among all who call themselves Christians, Latimer's resolve appears most unattractive. We are repeatedly told by those of this persuasion that the church's major fault is its deplorable lack of visible unity. Appeal is constantly made to the words of Jesus in John 17, and those who do not join this effort are portrayed as being in serious disagreement with Jesus! This abominable lack of visible unity, they claim, is our greatest sin. And what is chiefly to be blamed for this heinous state of affairs? Doctrine -- or to be more precise -- doctrinal distinctives. Nowadays we are told that things like the Reformation's understanding of sola fide, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, and, particularly, the distasteful notion of endless punishment and the exclusivity of salvation through Christ alone are an encumbrance to establishing visible Christian unity. But is this notion of visible unity what Jesus intended in His high priestly prayer in John 17? Our Lord's concern, as Robert Lewis Dabney pointed out last century, is for spiritual unity. The demand for visible unity is not only quite foreign to the text, it constitutes, in the words of Dabney, an enormous blunder. It is, in fact, an idol that is used to stifle any legitimate dissent, and, let me add, it is positively deadly to the health and welfare of the church. I am reminded of the remark of Francis Bacon, the noted English philosopher and statesman of a bygone era: "Unity that is formed on expedience is, in reality, grounded upon an implicit ignorance. As everyone knows, all colors will look the same in the dark." Times have changed and we are frequently reminded that we need to change with them. If we don't, we're going to be perceived as backward and outdated.
In our postmodern times, "tolerance" is valued over truth, and truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder and as such must be extended to everyone, except those disagreeable and critical exponents of truth who hold to absolutes, or, to put it into theological language, those who seek to maintain historical orthodoxy. Tragically, many professing evangelicals are embracing in celebratory fashion a distinctively non-doctrinal mentality when it comes to defining their faith. In part, this sad state of affairs is traceable to the gullible and blatantly naïve assumption that the surrounding culture is value-neutral and thus harmless. This manifests itself in the notion that since all things are primarily a matter of personal preferences (such as different lifestyles), then we should celebrate diversity by suspending judgment only to live and let live. Christians who end up buying into this idea fail to recognize that by doing so they are violating the apostle Paul's admonition in Romans 12:2: "Do not be conformed to this world." Despite the fact that this kind of neutralism accents diversity, it does so in name only. Conformity is actually what drives it. The standard around which neutralism seeks conformity is human autonomy, pure and simple. Not surprisingly, this desire for conformity has a noticeable parallel in Christian circles -- the demand for visible unity.
Recently, the motto "deeds over creeds" has once again captured the imagination of the evangelical world. As attractive as this may sound, there is a very steep price to be paid here. How so? According to this notion, it really doesn't matter what your label is (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, or Baptist). All that matters, apparently, is one's love for Jesus -- everything else is of little concern. This is not the first time we've heard this appeal. Over a decade ago, the Promise Keepers marched down this same path. At its 1994 "Seize the Moment" conference in Portland, founder Bill McCartney said, "Promise Keepers doesn't care if you're Catholic. Do you love Jesus? Are you born of the Spirit of God?" One-time PK president Randy Phillips continues: "...whatever the labels are should not divide us. ...all men are welcome, whether you're Baptist, Pentecostal, or Roman Catholic. If you are in the body of Christ, then you should certainly be welcome" (Albert James Dager, Media Spotlight, "Promise Keepers: Is What You See What You Get?" p. 20). But it was not simply a question of labels. If that is the case, then the official position of the Church of Latter-day Saints should not be a concern. If individual Mormons claim they love Jesus and are born of the Spirit, why should they be excluded?
Many evangelicals are now banging the same drum: deeds over creeds. But as it turns out, creeds really do matter. Any unity like the kind now being urged on us that is formed apart from creeds and the need for them, is doomed to produce the kind of unity that is polluted by doctrinal impurity. It is the kind of impurity that in the final analysis ends up compromising the truth of the gospel. This is too steep a price to be paid for the sake of visible unity.
Dr. Gary L.W. Johnson is senior pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, Arizona, and is an editor of By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification.
Pastor's Perspective is an opportunity each month for a different seasoned pastor to apply the themes discussed in Tabletalk more directly to the life of the layperson and equip the saints for service in the local congregation.
