DOWNLOAD (MS-Word document)

Distinguishing Culturally Relative
from Normative Teachings

辨別文化相對教訓與規範性教訓

腓哥登及史圖額著（Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart），孔祥烱譯

We would suggest the following guidelines ... for distinguishing between items that are culturally relative, on the one hand, and those that transcend their original setting, on the other hand, and have normativeness for all Christians of all times. We do not contend for these guidelines as “once for all given to the saints,” but they do reflect our current thinking, and we would encourage further discussion and interaction (Many of these have been worked out in conjunction with our New Testament colleague, David M. Scholer).	我們建議用下列準則...去區分兩種教訓，一是文化相對的項目，二是那些超越時空，也是適合所有基督徒在所有時間的規範。我們沒有說這些準則是「一次交付聖徒的真道」，但它們反映了我們目前的想法，而我們鼓勵進一步的討論和交流。
1. One should first distinguish between the central core of the message of the Bible and what is dependent upon or peripheral to it. This is not to argue for a canon within the canon (i.e., to elevate certain parts of the New Testament as normative for other parts); it is to safeguard the gospel from being turned into law through culture or religious custom, on the one hand, and to keep the gospel itself from changing to reflect every conceivable cultural expression, on the other hand.	[1] 首先要分清聖經的核心教訓和邊緣教訓（或非獨立教訓）。這並不是主張正典內有正典（即提升新約某部分成為其他部分的規範）；而是要維護福音，一方面使它不會基於文化和宗教習俗而變成律法；另一方面保持福音不會因反映各種文化表現而改變。
Thus the fallenness of all mankind, redemption from that fallenness as God’s gracious activity through Christ’s death and resurrection, the consummation of that redemptive work by the return of Christ, etc., are clearly part of that central core. But the holy kiss, women’s head coverings, and charismatic ministries and gifts seem to be more peripheral.	核心教訓包括全人類的墮落、從墮落的救贖（就是神施恩的行動，透過基督的死和復活）、救贖工作的完成（透過基督的再來）。但是，聖潔的親嘴、婦女的蒙頭、靈恩的工作和恩賜就是邊緣教訓。
2. Similarly, one should be prepared to distinguish between what the New Testament itself sees as inherently moral and what is not. Those items that are inherently moral are therefore absolute and abide for every culture; those that are not inherently moral are therefore cultural expressions and may change from culture to culture.	[2] 同樣，我們要分辨什麼是新約看為固有的道德教訓，什麼不是。固有的道德教訓是絕對的，也是每個文化都要遵守的；那些非固有的道德教訓就是文化的表現，可能因不同文化而改變。
Paul’s sin lists, for example, never contain cultural items. Some of the sins may indeed be more prevalent in one culture than another, but there are never situations in which they may be considered Christian attitudes or actions. Thus adultery, idolatry, drunkenness, homosexual activity, thievery, greed, etc. (1 Cor. 6:9-10) are always wrong. This does not mean that Christians have not from time to time been guilty of any of these. But they are not viable moral choices. Paul, by inspiration of the Spirit, says, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, ... ”	例如，保羅的罪的目錄不包含文化項目。一些罪可能在一個文化中比另一個文化更為普遍，但從沒有任何情況下被僅僅看為基督徒的態度或行動。因此姦淫、拜偶像、醉酒、同性戀行為、偷竊、貪婪等（林前6:9-10）永遠是錯的。這並不說基督徒不會間中犯這些罪；但它們不是可實行的道德選擇。保羅在聖靈的默示下說：「你們中間也有人從前是這樣．但如今... 已經洗淨... 」
On the other hand, footwashing, exchanging the holy kiss, eating marketplace idol food, women having a head covering when praying or prophesying, Paul’s personal preference for celibacy, or a woman’s teaching in the church are not inherently moral matters. They become so only by their use or abuse in given contexts, when such use or abuse involves disobedience or lack of love.	另一方面，洗腳禮、聖潔的親嘴、吃市場中曾祭偶像的食物、婦女祈禱或說預言時必須要蒙頭、保羅個人獨身的選擇、或婦女在教會講道等，不是固有的道德教訓。他們成為道德問題是因為在特定情況下，在使用或濫用時出現不服從或缺乏愛的情形。
3. One must make special note of items where the New Testament itself has a uniform and consistent witness and where it reflects differences. The following are examples of matters on which the New Testament bears uniform witness: love as the Christian’s basic ethical response, a non-retaliation personal ethic, the wrongness of strife, hatred, murder, stealing, homosexuality, drunkenness, and sexual immorality of all kinds.	[3] 我們必須特別注意的項目，就是新約聖經哪裡有統一的和一致的教訓，哪裡有不同的地方。下面的例子是新約內統一的教訓：愛是基督徒基本的道德反應、非報復性的個人道德、錯誤的事包括鬥爭、仇恨、謀殺、偷竊、同性戀、醉酒及各種性不道德。
On the other hand, the New Testament does not appear to be uniform on such matters as women’s ministries in the church (see Rom. 16:1-2, where Phoebe is a “deacon” in Cenchrea; Rom. 16:7, where Junia—not Junias, which is an unknown masculine name—is named among the apostles; Rom. 16:3, where Priscilla is Paul’s fellow worker—the same word used of Apollos in 1 Cor. 3:9; Phil. 4:2-3; and 1 Cor. 11:5 over against 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:12), the political evaluation of Rome (see Rom. 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 over against Rev. chapters 13-18), the retention of one’s wealth (Luke 12:33; 18:22 over against 1 Tim. 6:17-19), or eating food offered to idols (1 Cor. 10:23-29 over against Acts 15:29; Rev. 2:14, 20). By the way, if any of these suggestions caused an emotional reaction on your part, you might ask yourself why.	另一方面，在下面一些例子中，新約似乎沒有統一的教訓：對婦女在教會的工作（見羅16:1-2，其中非比是堅革哩教會的女「執事」；羅16:7，猶尼亞是一個使徒，其名字很可能是女性；羅16:3，百基拉是保羅的女同工，「同工」這個詞也用在林前3:9及腓4:2-3稱呼阿波羅；林前11:5准許女人禱告或講道，對比林前14:34-35和提前2:12）、對羅馬政府的評價（見羅13:1-5和彼前2:13-14，對比啟13–18章）、對財富的積存（路12:33; 18:22，對比提前6:17-19）、對曾祭偶像的食物（林前10:23-29，對比徒15:29和啟2:14,20）。順便一提，如果這些建議引起你的情緒有反應，可能你要問自己為什麼。
Sound exegesis may cause us to see greater uniformity than appears to be the case now. For example, in the matter of food offered to idols, one can make a good exegetical case for the Greek word in Acts and Revelation to refer to going to the temples to eat such food. In this case the attitude would be consistent with Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22. However, precisely because these other matters appear to be more cultural than moral, one should not be disturbed by a lack of uniformity. Likewise, one should not pursue exegesis only as a means of finding uniformity, even at the cost of common sense or the plain meaning of the text.	良好的解經可能導致我們看到比現在更多統一的教訓。例如，在曾祭偶像的食物的問題上，對使徒行傳和啟示錄的希臘字的解釋可能是指在廟宇吃這類食物。這態度就符合保羅在哥林多前書10:14-22所說的。然而，正因為這些事項似乎關乎文化而不是道德，我們不應因為缺乏統一性而感到不安。同樣，我們不應以解經作為尋求統一的手段，結果甚至不理會常識或經文的普通意義。
4. It is important to be able to distinguish within the New Testament itself between principle and specific application. It is possible for a New Testament writer to support a relative application by an absolute principle and in so doing not make the application absolute. Thus in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 for example, Paul appeals to the divine order of creation (v. 3) and establishes the principle that one should do nothing to distract from the glory of God (especially by breaking convention) when the community is at worship (vv. 7, 10). The specific application; however, seems to be relative, since Paul repeatedly appeals to “custom” or “nature” (vv. 6, 13-14, 16).	[4] 重要的是能夠在新約聖經中區別原則與具體應用。新約聖經的作者可能以絕對性的原則支持相對性的應用，但沒有將應用變成絕對性。例如，在哥林多前書11:2-16，保羅引用創造的次序（林前11:3）而建立原則，就是任何人都不應在群體的崇拜中作任何行動去分散眾人榮耀神（尤其是打破慣例的行動）。然而，這具體的應用似乎是相對的，因為保羅一再訴諸於「習慣」或「自然」（林前11:6,13‑14,16）。
This leads us to suggest that one may legitimately ask at such specific applications, “Would this have been an issue for us had we never encountered it in the New Testament documents?” In Western cultures the lack of a covering on a woman’s head (especially her hair) with a full-length veil would probably create no difficulties at all. In fact, if she were literally to obey the text in most American churches, she would thereby almost certainly abuse the “spirit” of the text. But with a little thinking one can imagine some kinds of dress—both male and female—that would be so out of place as to create the same kind of disruption of worship.	這引使我們建議：對具體應用可以合法地發問：「如果我們從來沒有看過新約聖經，這件事對我們會不會是一個問題？」在西方文化中，一個女人沒有在她的頭上（特別是頭髮上）蓋上全長的面紗，這大概不會出現問題。事實上，如果她照字面去服從，她幾乎肯定在多數的美國教會中是濫用了經文的「精神」。相反地，我們只需要稍用頭腦，就可以想像有一些男性和女性的裝扮是不合適的，會對崇拜引來擾亂。
5. It might also be important, as much as one is able to do this with care, to determine the cultural options open to any New Testament writer. The degree to which a New Testament writer agrees with a cultural situation in which there is only one option increases the possibility of the cultural relativity of such a position. Thus, for example, homosexuality was both affirmed and condemned by writers in antiquity, yet the New Testament takes a singular position against it. On the other hand, attitudes toward slavery as a system or toward the status and role of women were basically singular; no one denounced slavery as an evil and women were held to be basically inferior to men. The New Testament writers also do not denounce slavery as an evil; on the other hand, they generally move well beyond the attitudes toward women held by their contemporaries. But in either case, to the degree to which they reflect the prevalent cultural attitudes in these matters they are thereby reflecting the only cultural option in the world around them.	[5] 一個重要的準則就是小心地確定新約聖經的作者面對的文化選擇。若新約的作者贊同一種文化情況，但他只有一種選擇，則這看法相對於文化的可能性就增加。例如，古代有不同的作者同時肯定和譴責同性戀，但新約聖經卻一致反對它。另一方面，古代對奴隸制的態度，或對婦女的地位和角色的看法，基本上都是一致的；沒有人譴責奴隸制為罪惡，婦女基本上都被認為是低於男性。新約的作者也沒有譴責奴隸制為罪惡；另一方面，他們對婦女的態度卻遠遠超出了他們同時代者的態度。但是，這兩個個案都反映了當日流行的文化態度，結果反映了他們周圍的世界唯一的文化選擇。
6. One must keep alert to possible cultural differences between the first and twentieth centuries that are sometimes not immediately obvious. For example, to determine the role of women in the twentieth-century church, one should take into account that there were few educational opportunities for women in the first century, whereas such education is the expected norm in our society. This may affect our understanding of such texts as 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Likewise, a participatory democracy is a radically different thing from the government of which Paul speaks in Romans 13:1-7. It is expected in a participatory democracy that bad laws are to be changed and bad officials are to be ousted. That has to affect how one brings Romans 13 into twentieth-century America.	[6] 我們必須保持警覺，明白第一世紀和二十世紀可能存在的文化差異有時不太明顯。例如，要決定婦女在二十世紀教會中的角色，應該考慮到第一世紀的婦女缺乏受教育的機會，而教育卻是現代社會預期的規範。這可能影響我們理解像提摩太前書2:9-15的經文。同樣，參與式民主制度與保羅在羅馬書13:1-7所講的政府絕對不同。在參與式民主制度下，不良的法律要被改變，不良的官員要被罷免。這改變應該影響我們怎樣將羅馬書13章帶進二十世紀的美國。
7. One must finally exercise Christian charity at this point. Christians need to recognize the difficulties, open the lines of communication with one another, start by trying to define some principles, and finally have love for and a willingness to ask forgiveness from those with whom they differ.	[7] 最後，我們必須實行基督徒的愛心。基督徒需要認識到困難，互相打開溝通的渠道，開始時嘗試為一些原則下定義，最後以愛為結束，並願意向與你不同意見的人求寬恕。
Before we conclude this discussion, it may be helpful for us to see how these guidelines apply to two current issues: the ministry of women and homosexuality—especially since some who are arguing for women’s ministries are using some of the same arguments to support homosexuality as a valid Christian alternative.	在我們結束這討論之前，可能有幫助的是應用這些準則於兩個現今的問題：婦女的事奉和同性戀。尤其是因為一些提倡婦女事奉的人，以相同的論點去支持同性戀為一個基督徒可行的選擇。
The question of women’s role in the church as a teacher or proclaimer of the Word basically focuses on two texts: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. In both cases “silence” and “submission” are enjoined—although in neither case is the submission necessarily to her husband—and in 1 Timothy 2 she is not permitted to teach or to “have authority over” a man. Full compliance with this text in the twentieth century would seem to rule out not only a woman’s preaching and teaching in the local church, but it also would seem to forbid her writing books on biblical subjects that men might read, teaching Bible or related subjects (including religious education) in Christian colleges or Bible Institutes where men are in her classes, and teaching men in missionary situations. But those who argue against women teaching in the contemporary church seldom carry the interpretation this far. And almost always they make the matters about clothing in the preceding verse (1 Tim. 2:9) to be culturally relative.	婦女在教會的角色的問題，就是婦女能否作教師或宣講神的話，基本上集中在兩段經文：哥林多前書14:34-35和提摩太前書 2:11-12。這兩段經文中，婦女被命令要「沉靜」和「順服」，而她的丈夫在兩段都沒有命令要順服。提摩太前書2章不准許女人去講道或「轄管」男人。要在二十世紀完全隨從這經文，似乎不僅是禁止女人在地方教會講道和教導，也似乎禁止她著作以聖經為主題的書（如果男人會讀的話），禁止她在有男人的基督教學院或聖經學院教導聖經或相關科目（包括宗教教育），禁止她在宣教工場中教導男人。但是，那些主張禁止婦女在地方教會教導的人很少會這樣解釋。而且他們差不多一定將前面關乎服裝的事（提前2:9）解釋為文化上相對。
On the other hand, that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 might be culturally relative can be supported first of all by exegesis of all three of the Pastoral Epistles. Certain women were troublesome in the church at Ephesus (l Tim. 5:11-15; 2 Tim. 3:6-9) and they appear to have been a major part of the cause of the false teachers’ making headway there. Since women are found teaching (Acts 18:26) and prophesying (Acts 21:8; 1 Cor. 11:5) elsewhere in the New Testament, it is altogether likely that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 speaks to a local problem. In any case, the guidelines above support the possibility that the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is culturally relative.	另一方面，提摩太前書 2:11-12可能是文化相對，這可以通過解釋全部三本教牧書信看到。在以弗所，某些婦女在教會中帶來麻煩（提前5:11-15; 提後3:6-9），她們似乎是假教師獲得支持的主要原因。由於婦女在新約其他地方也教導（徒18:26）和說預言（徒21:8; 林前11:5），提摩太前書 2:11-12很可能說及一個當地的問題。無論如何，上述準則支持提摩太前書 2:11-12的禁例可能是文化相對的。
The question of homosexuality, however, is considerably different. In this case the guidelines stand against its being culturally relative. The whole Bible has a consistent witness against homosexual activity as being morally wrong.	然而，同性戀的問題是相當不同的。在這問題上，上述準則反對它是文化相對的。整本聖經有一個一致的教訓，就是反對同性戀行為，認為它是道德上錯誤的。
In recent years some people have argued that the homosexuality that the New Testament speaks against is that in which people abuse others and that private monogamous homosexuality between consenting adults is a different matter. They argue that on exegetical grounds it cannot be proved that such homosexuality is forbidden. It is also argued that culturally these are twentieth-century options not available in the first century. Therefore, they would argue that some of our guidelines (e.g., 5-6) open the possibility that the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality are also culturally relative, and they would further argue that some of the guidelines are not true or are irrelevant.	近年來，一些人辯說新約所反對的同性戀單單是在濫用或虐待他人的情況，兩個同意的成年人私人忠貞的同性戀是另一回事。他們辯說以解經方法不能証明同性戀是被禁止的。他們亦辯說二十世紀的文化選擇在第一世紀不存在。因此，他們辯說上述準則（第5-6點）打開了一個可能性，即新約聖經對同性戀的禁令也是文化相對的；他們還認為，有些準則是不真實或不相關。
The problem with this argument, however, is that it does not hold up exegetically or historically. The homosexuality Paul had in view in Romans 1:24-28 is clearly not of the “abusive” type; it is homosexuality of choice between men and women. Furthermore, Paul’s word homosexual in 1 Corinthians 6:9 literally means genital homosexuality between males. Since the Bible as a whole witnesses against homosexuality, and invariably includes it in moral contexts, and since it simply has not been proved that the options for homosexuality differ today from those of the first century, there seem to be no valid grounds for seeing it as a culturally-relative matter ....	但是，這一論點的問題是，在解經上或歷史上它也不成立。保羅在羅馬書1:24-28所講的同性戀顯然不是「虐待」的類型，它是男和男、女和女之間選擇性的同性戀。此外，保羅在哥林多前書6:9用的「同性戀」一字的字面意思是男性生殖器的同性戀。由於聖經整體教訓反對同性戀，全部都屬於道德教訓，也根本沒有証據証明今天對同性戀的選擇跟第一世紀有什麼不同，認為它是文化相對的事似乎沒有合法的理由。
These, then, are some of our hermeneutical suggestions for reading and interpreting the Epistles. Our immediate aim is for greater precision and consistency; our greater aim is to call us all to greater obedience to what we do hear and understand.	以上就是我們一些詮釋學的建議，幫助對新約聖經書信的閱讀和解釋。我們當前的目標是更高的精確性和一致性，我們更大的目標是呼籲大家要更加服從所聽見和明白的事。

==============================

DOWNLOAD (MS-Word document)

SOURCE: Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart (1994): “Distinguishing Culturally Relative from Normative Teachings,” in Readings in Christian ethics, volume 1: Theory and Method, ed. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 202-206.

Taken from the book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd ed., by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart.