Α. ON DOGMATICS AND DOGMAS

A. 教義學和教義

4. The function of the Holy Spirit in the formulation of dogmas

4. 聖靈在教條之组成中的作用

“Theophany” (the manifestation of God) as “Christophany” (the manifestation of Christ), which comprises the basis of the dogma, contains two basic problems. The one problem is that, one needs to cover the period of time that intervenes between the historical Christ and His (=the Apostolic) era, with the pursuant generations; these are the eras in which the dogma is formulated. So, How is it possible to bridge this time chasm? The second problem is that, within that same historical Theophany in Christ, there is the dimension of “already, and not yet”: in the historical Christ and the experience of the first apostles, we have God’s revelation “as an inner reflection and an enigma” and not as something seen “face to face”. The fulfilled, “face to face” revelation is an eschatological reality. Christ bears a pre-portrayal and a pre-savoring of the Kingdom, in other words, the complete and direct, personal cognizance (knowledge) of God. Until that “last day” has come, no prophet or saint has a full cognizance of God, in a stable and unchangeable form. How is it possible for this pre-savoring of paradise, this complete cognizance of God to be attained from now, with a complete certainty that the proclaimed dogma expresses this pre-portrayal, and that it formulates it faithfully and accurately? In other words, the dogma -as a faithful portrayal of Christ who reveals God- has to be faithful in the following two dimensions: A. The faithful portrayal of the historic Christ (= past), and B. The faithful portrayal of the future, eschatological Christ and His Kingdom. (ref. Byzantine icons – they are not limited to historical representations, but they also portray the future situation, for example the icon of the Pentecost). This task of bridging the present (=dogma) with the past (historical Christophany) and the future (=Second Coming), is the exceptional task of the Holy Spirit in Divine Providence. “It seemed proper to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15), is the decision reached by the Apostolic Synod. It comprises the fixed conviction of the Church that the dogmas are of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, as is the Scripture (“every divinely inspired scripture…..”) (Timothy II, 3:16). But this requires serious attention, because it can be understood in different ways; thus: 1. The presence of the Holy Spirit and His action can be misconstrued as a kind of magical and mechanical intervention of God. This reminds us of the “divine inspiration” of the ancient Hellenes (divination, oracles etc.), where personal freedom was excluded: the authors of the Bible and the Fathers of the Councils (Synods) were thus involuntary instruments of the Spirit. This is a perception that prevailed in the West (from where it also originated), in the form of so-called Fundamentalism. 2. The presence and the effect of the Spirit can be comprehended as being the result of moral changes in man. When we say “moral changes”, we imply a broader meaning of man’s every improvement that is attributed to his own striving. (for example, catharsis from vices; acquiring virtues etc.) 3. The effect of the Holy Spirit can be perceived as being the result of a community event, in both its perpendicular and its lateral dimensions, in other words, as a result of the communion within an ecclesiastic community. Of these possibilities, the first one must be excluded altogether. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of freedom, and does not force man. Besides, the event of Christ, the very nature of Christophany, is such that it fully respects a person’s freedom. The second possibility has more value and gravity and is more fitting to the prerequisites of ascetic experience, which, as we saw, must always be taken into consideration. Without catharsis from vices, it is not possible for anyone to see God (for example, whoever hates his brother cannot see God – ref. John I). In this same spirit, saint Gregory the theologian rebutted the Eunomians, who had created an entirely different, intellectual theology that allowed anyone to “theologize”, even “after horseracing events and singing and feasting…which (theology) deemed equally a part of enjoyment”, by pointing out to them that “it is not for everyone to philosophize on God…. not for everyone”, but only “by those who have been tested and who have spent their life in theory (of God), and –prior to this- have a cleansed soul and body, or are at least cleansing them”. However, if ascetic living is taken as an isolated and self-sufficient prerequisite, then it is suffering from two serious faults: that of individualism and moralism. In other words, we shall be in danger of believing that God reveals Himself to isolated individuals and under certain conditions of human achievement. This is why the second possibility must necessarily be combined with the third one, which is the ecclesiastic form of action of the Holy Spirit. In order for this to be comprehended, we must first of all rid ourselves of a faulty perception that we have; i.e., that the Holy Spirit acts upon isolated persons. This perception is so widespread, that it might seem strange to refer to it as “faulty”. Those who defend this view are overlooking a fundamental distinction between the action of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and the action in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the Spirit is given to certain people (prophets, kings, etc.) and not the entire nation of Israel. During the Messianic era however, when the Holy Spirit is introduced in the New Testament with the arrival of the Messiah, it was expected that the Spirit would be given to the entire nation of God. This is why Luke in his narration of the Pentecost uses the phrase of the prophet Joel: “in the last days I shall pour forth from My Spirit over every flesh…..says the Lord Almighty”. As a result of this, all baptized Christians -in the New Testament- were considered as having the Holy Spirit and possessing various charismas. If we examine chapter 12 of Corinthians I, we can see how, for the apostle Paul, being a member of the Church is equivalent to possessing a certain charisma of the Spirit. Given that the Corinthians were under the impression that some people can be more charismatic than others, Paul refutes this perception vehemently, and stresses that everyone has some sort of charisma, even those who perform a simple task such as administration etc. Paul thus strikes back at every form of “spiritual elitism”, stressing that even if someone has adequate knowledge or faith to “move mountains”, he will be nothing, if he has no “love”. What does “love” signify here? If we take a look at this text as a whole (chapters 11 – 14) and not as isolated verses, we can see that for Paul, “love” –therein- signifies the communion that the community of the Church creates. Love here is not about the feelings of a certain person (good intentions etc.), but the inter-dependence of the members of the church, as one body. “Love” means not saying that ‘I am the head and I don’t need the legs’ etc… This is what Paul was stressing here: the inter-dependence of the assorted charismas. It is precisely for this reason, that Paul ends his Epistle by naming the Holy Spirit “community”. In Corinthians II, 13:13, it actually appears to be an expression that existed prior to Paul in the liturgical usage of the first Churches, and one that has remained a basic element of the Divine Eucharist ever since. Wherever the Spirit drifts, It creates a community, and destroys individualism. We must understand this thoroughly. This was how all the Fathers of the Church had also perceived the Holy Spirit. One could present a multitude of quotes from the Fathers of the first centuries, for example Gregory of Nazianzo, who especially focuses on personal “theory” (= “viewing”), hence endowing a special significance to the way he refers to the Holy Spirit. In his 12th Address, he compares the desire for “theory” with the Spirit as follows: On the one hand, there is the desire for theory, that is, the tendency for solitude, a catharsis of the mind and theory; but, this is not where the Spirit leads to. “The Spirit moves within (the congregation of the church), leading it and making it fruitful (the ecclesiastic community), in the desire to benefit it, that they may benefit each other, and make public the (Spirit’s) enlightenment”. This is why the “prepared” (congregated) church is –to saint Gregory- so much more superior than the experience of theory, as the skies are by comparison to a star, or a garden to a plant, or a whole body to a body member. To the Fathers, this is the chief work of the Spirit: to lead towards the overall Church, and not towards isolated, personal experiences. Consequently, all the charismas of the Church are necessary for the revelation of God; not just the few and far between ones. The reason for this is that no charisma can be imaginable, without its inter-dependence with the other ones. The Church has a variety of charismas; not everyone possesses “knowledge”, not everyone has healing abilities, or the gift of speaking languages, or administrative abilities etc.. They are not all “god-seers” in the same way. At any rate, no-one can see God on his own and independently of the other charismas. The Spirit acts as a community, and that means: within the body of the Church. Thus, we reach the conclusion with regard to the dogmas, that the revelation of the truth always presupposes a communion and a community of the Church in order for the dogma to be a truth. What exactly does this mean?

作為教條基礎的「Theophany」（上帝的顯現）（也就是「Christophany」：基督的顯現），包含着二個基本的問題。第一個問題是，如何包括到在歷史性的基督的時代和他的（使徒的）時代以及後來的世代之間的時間。 教條是在這段時間内被發表宣布出來的。我們要如何才可能跨過這個深坑？ 第二個問題则是，在基督中的歷史性的顯現中，有所謂的「已經」和「還沒有」：在歷史性的基督以及第一代的使徒的經驗中，上帝的啟示是一個「內心的反映和謎」， 而不是「面對面」所看見的東西。所實現的「面對面」的啟示是一個來世 （末日）之事。基督是讓我們在事前先見到以及先品嘗到天國的，換句話說，他就是完整和直接的，個人私有的對上帝的認識（知識）。直到「末日」來到之前，沒有任何先知者或是聖人有過一個對上帝的完整的， 穩定和不變的認識。這種對天堂的事先品嘗，這種對上帝的完整認識， 是如何可能從現在起被獲得呢？ 並且是在完全能够確定所宣布的教條已表達了這種事先描繪， 以及忠實地將它闡明了的情况下而被獲得的？ 換句話說，教條 -- 如果它必是對顯現出上帝的基督作出忠實的描繪的話 -- 必須在以下兩個方面裡保持它的忠實性： A. 對歷史性的基督（= 過去的）作出忠實的描繪， B. 對未來的， 末日的基督和他的王國作出忠實的描繪。 （比如說，拜占庭的肖像 -- 它們不是只限於歷史性的圖像； 它們有時也描繪着未來的事件，例如， 聖靈降臨  [Pentecost] 之事）。 這種橋接現在（= 教條）， 過去（歷史性的基督之顯現 [Christophany]）， 以及未來（= 基督再來）的任務是在神意（ Divine Providence） 中的聖靈的特别的任務。 「這在我們以及聖靈看來似乎是很恰當的」（使徒行傳 15），這就是使徒會議 （Apostolic Synod）所作出的決定。這里包含着教會對於教條所有的確信， 也就是說，教條是受過聖靈的靈感的，就好像聖經一樣（「聖經都是神所默示的.....」）（提摩太後書， 3 ： 16 ）。但是這點需要我們特别的注意，因為它是能夠以不同的方式而被了解的；所以： 1. 聖靈的存在和它的行為可能被誤解為上帝的一種超自然的或機械性的干預作用。這使我們想起古代希臘的「神靈的靈感」（佔卜，神諭等等）； 但是在這種靈感中個人的自由是被排除了的：聖經的作者們和議會（Synods）的教父們因此只是神靈所控制的，並無自我意識的工具。這是在西方世界裡非常普偏的一種理解（而它也是從此發源的），而它出現的形式就是所謂的基督原教旨主義 (fundamentalism)。 2. 聖靈的存在和效果可以被理解為在人之中的道德變化的結果。當我們說「道德變化」之時，我們所意味著是人的由他自己努力所作成的，一個更廣闊的每方面的自我改進（例如，卸掉惡習， 達成德性等等）。 3. 聖靈的效果可以被視為一樁社會團體事件的結果，並且這在其垂直和其橫面的兩方面中皆是如此的，換句話說，它可以被視為一個教會團體之中的共融 (communion) 的结果。 在這些可能性中，(1) 是一定得被拒绝的。聖靈是一種自由的靈體，他是决不會強迫人的。再說，基督的這個事件，基督顯現 （Christophany） 的這個事件的本質，即是完全地尊重一人的個人自由的。 這第二個可能性则是有價值和重力的，它並且是更合適于苦行體驗的先決條件的 （我們已經看到，我們必須一直考慮到這個苦行體驗）。 我們若是不卸掉惡習，就不可能看見上帝（例如，任何憎恨他的兄弟的人皆不可能看見上帝 。約翰前書)。在同樣的精神裏，聖國瑞神學者 (St. Gregory the Theologian) 反駁烏奴米耳信徒 （Eunomians），因為這後者創建了一種完全不同的智力神學， 以便允許任何人随時随地皆可「搞神學」(theologize)，甚至「是在（神學）所認為同樣是為享樂的一部份的賽馬事件或是唱歌和宴會之後... 」。 St. Gregory 指出， 「對上帝進行哲學思考 （philosophize on God) 這回事.... 並不是適于每個人的，而是只適于那些已被測試過了的，以將他們的生命花在（關于上帝的）理論上的， 並且在這之前已有一個淨化了的靈魂和身體的，或者，至少是正在淨化它們的人」。可是，如果苦行生活 (ascetic living) 只被當作一個單獨孤立的， 自我足夠的先決條件，那它將會有兩種嚴重的缺點：個人主義的缺點和道德主義的缺點。換句話說，我們將錯誤地相信， 上帝是只有在某些人有成就的情况下，對單獨孤立的這些人顯露自己。 這就是為甚麼這第二個可能性必須與那第三個可能性結合起來，也就是聖靈的教會團體形式的行為。 為了能了解這點，我們必須首先擺脫掉一種錯誤的想法；那就是，聖靈是只對單獨孤立的某些人有所行動。這種想法已是如此普遍，就連將它作為「錯誤的」也可能看來是奇怪的。那些坚持於這種想法的人， 完全忽略了聖靈在舊約聖經中的行為與聖靈在新約聖經中的行為之間的一個基本的不同性。在舊約聖經中，神靈是只被給予於某些特定的人（比如說，先知者，國王，等等）而不是被給予於以色列這個整個國家的。 可是在救世主的時代期間，當聖靈與彌賽亞 (Messiah) 的到來一起在新約聖經中出现之時，大家期望着神靈將會被給予於整個上帝的國家。 這就是為甚麼路加在敘述聖靈降臨 (Pentecost) 之時引用先知者 Joel 之言：「在末日之時我將以我的聖靈灌溉到所有的肉體上.... 全能的上帝如此說」。 因此，所有（在新約聖經中的）受洗過的基督徒皆被認為是具有聖靈以及某種非凡魅力 (charisma) 的。如果我們仔细查看歌林多前書的第十二章， 我們则能夠明白，對使徒保羅來說，身為教會的一名成員是如何可以等於已是具有聖靈的某種魅力的。歌林多人 認為某些人比其他人更具有魅力，但是保羅強烈地反駁這種看法； 他強調， 每個人皆是可有某種魅力的，即使是那些只執行簡單任務的人，比如說管理人員。保羅因此對「靈上的精英主義」(spiritual elitism) 進行反擊，強調着即使一人有能够「移動山」的知識和信心，他要是沒有「愛」的話，他也不會是甚麼了不起的東西。 「愛」在這裡表示着甚麼意義呢？如果我們在此將這篇文章（第 11 章 - 第 14 章）作為一個整體看待， 而不是當作單獨孤立的散文的話，我們则能夠明白， 對保羅來說，「愛」 在此是表示着教會團體所建成的共融 (communion) 的。愛在這裡並不是關於某個人的感覺（他的好的意圖等等），而是指教會的成員們的如同一個身體似的相互依賴。「愛」意味著一人不說： 我是頭， 我不需要腿等等 ... 這是保羅在此所強調的：各自不同的魅力之間的相互依賴。 保羅之所以在他的書信之終處命名聖靈為「團體」就是因為如此。在歌林多後書 13 ： 13  中，這辭看起來似乎是出现在保羅之前，在第一代的教會的禮拜書寫中已被用過了的，而它從此以後一直是聖餐中的一個基本的要素。 聖靈每到哪處，就會建立一個團體，並且摧毀個人主義。我們必須徹底地瞭解這點。所有的教父們也是如此來了解聖靈的。我們可以舉出許多的第一世紀的教父們的說法，例如 Gregory of Nazianzo，他特别地重视于私人的「theory」（=「觀看」），因此賦予他提到聖靈的方式一種特別的意義。在他的第十二條道理中，他是如此來比較對于「theory」的慾望以及神靈的：在一方面來說，我們對 theory 有慾望，也就是說，我們有需要孤獨的傾向，我們需要發泄一下頭腦以及目觀 (theory)；但是，這不是神靈所想帶到的地方。「神靈活動于（教會的團體中），引導著它，使它成為更富有和有效的，因為他想於它有益，以使得教會團體的人們也可以於彼此有益，並且對外公開（神靈的）啟發 (enlightenment)」。這就是為甚麼對 Gregory 來說，「準備過的」教會團體是大大超出于理論 (theory) 的體驗的，就好像天空比較於星星一樣，或者是花園比較於一支花，或者是一個整個的身體比較於一個身體的一部份。對教父們來說，這是聖靈最主要的工作：將人帶領到教會的整個團體，而不是引人到一個單獨孤立的，私人的體驗之中。 所以，對上帝的啟示來說，整個教會的所有魅力皆是必要的， 而不是僅僅其間的一小部份之人的。這是因為任何魅力若是不與其他的魅力相互依賴， 则會是不可想像的。一個教會是有各種不同的魅力的；並不是每個人皆會具有「知識」，也不是每個人皆會具有痊愈他人的能力，也不是每個人皆會有會說話的天分或是能够管理他人的能力， 等等 。 並不是每個人皆會是同樣的「可知上帝之者」。 無論如何，沒有人是可以在與其他的魅力豪無關系的情况下而獨自看見上帝的。神靈是以一個團體的形式而有行動作為的，這意味著：在教會的身體中。 因此，我們在關於教條的意義方面作出如此的結論：真理的啟示的先决條件是共融以及教會的團體， 只有如此， 教條 (dogmas) 才可成為一個真理。而這又到底是甚麼意思呢？