Monthly Archives: June 2017

論三自

Sanzi

朋友貼出這幅圖,有人回應說無需敵對三自,為福音的緣故應遷就融入三自。這樣的觀點既不了解中共建立所謂『三自愛國運動』的目的,也不了解當初加入三自之人士的信仰背景。

共產黨領導下的三自教會與西方傳教士起初定下的三自原則大大不同,前者是控制教會的手段,後者是西方宣教士中的有識之士為了使中國教會有日能自立不依賴西方差會與宣教士而推出的建議。

而中共移花接木的三自政策,根本不是為教會的益處,更遑論傳福音。

三自在50年代初成立之後,沒多久便經歷了幾場政治運動的浩劫。三自內的少數福音派領袖如陳崇桂被打成右派,下場淒慘。而三自自創立起初是以親共的持自由派神學的人士為主,也就是不信派人士主導,如吳耀宗,丁光訓等人,文革前與期間,三自跟其他四個控制主要宗教的鷹犬,即五個宗教協會停止運作。三自的不信派到文化大革命之後又卷土復來成為三自領袖。保守的福音派基督教人士如王明道,倪柝聲等本土非宗派基督教領袖則因不苟同三自而沒有參與跟加入三自,並因此入獄。

中共領導下的三自本來就是以不信派人士為主,被當時福音派的基督徒所斥責。認為為福音緣故而加入三自融入三自沒什麼不好,其實不了解三自自其創立起初的目的及其主要領袖的不信背景。中共成立三自的目的不是為福音,這樣想有點一廂情願。三自創立時主要及大部分的領袖也不是堅信聖經的基要派福音派基督徒。融入三自,是與不信派為伍,對當時許多堅持聖經信仰的基要派基督徒來講,加入三自即是賣主求榮。

當然,今天的三自或許已經跟當初的三自或有不同,三自教會內相信聖經的福音派基要派基督徒也比半世紀前多了許多,講台信息甚至也很福音性。但三自作為中共統戰工具的性質並沒有改變。而且從近年來中共也迫害一些個別三自教會,三自的基督徒及教會領袖的個案表明,中共會不吝嗇嚴懲那些反對它的教會人士,無論他們屬於三自與否。我們也看到有三自前牧師脫離三自成立家庭教會的情況。

從歷史源頭看來,不加入融入三自不是反福音。恰恰相反,反對福音反對基督的是中共的宗教政策,三自是統戰跟控制教會的工具,不是傳福音的工具。

Advertisements

Book Review: A New History of Christianity in China

All around us are the debris and the artifacts of the“post-Christian West,”and taking shape on the horizon is post-Western Christianity.” I would guess that it is here, in the kingdom of post一Western Christianity, that China may contribute something out of the treasure trove of her own rich Christian history. – Daniel Bays, concluding remarks in “A New History of Christianity in China.”

It is indeed a great scholarship done by Prof. Bays (Calvin Seminary; PhD University of Michigan), a sequel of his edited book “History of Christianity in China” written 20 years ago. This new volume is rather comprehensive, but with good breadth and right depth, quite easy to consume the information presented. Good introduction for someone interested in learning about the history of Christianity in China, including both Catholicism and Protestantism. I regret, however, that Prof. Bays left out one important development in this book, which is the development of Reformed Christianity in China. However, contemporary issues related to Christianity was probably something not of priority for this book. Overall a very good read, and informative for a book on an expansive subject, written in mere 200 pages. Hopefully a second edition would correct the number of typos I found in the book.