Producer: TEDTalks
Tom Honey on God and the tsunami
Tom Honey:上帝和海嘯
譯者: Inder
In the days following the tragic South Asian tsunami of 2004, the Rev. Tom Honey pondered the question, “How could a loving God have done this?” Here is his answer.
在2004年南亞海嘯悲劇後的日子裡,Tom Honey牧師一再思考一個問題,“一位慈愛的上帝怎麼能製造這樣的海嘯悲劇呢?“下面是他的答案。
I am a vicar in the Church of England. I’ve been a priest in the Church for 20 years. For most of that time, I’ve been struggling and grappling with questions about the nature of God. Who is God? And I’m very aware that when you say the word God, many people will turn off immediately. And most people, both within and outside the organized church, still have a picture of a celestial controller, a rule maker, a policeman in the sky who orders everything, and causes everything to happen. He will protect his own people, and answer the prayers of the faithful.
我是一個英格蘭教會的牧師,我在教會當牧師已經20年了.大多數的時間我一直在絞盡腦汁努力回答有關於上帝本質的問題,誰是上帝?我很清楚知道,當一開口談上帝時,很多人會立即腳底抹油跑走.而大多數人,無論是教徒或非教徒,都會有這種印像:上帝是天國的控制者;規則裁定者;住在天上的警察,主宰一切,命令一切事發生,他將保護他自己的子民,並順應酬答虔誠禱告的信徒。
And in the worship of my church, the most frequently-used adjective about God is “almighty.” But I have a problem with that. I have become more and more uncomfortable with this perception of God over the years. Do we really believe that God is the kind of male boss that we’ve been presenting in our worship and in our liturgies over all these years?
而在我的教會禮拜中,最常用關於上帝的形容詞是“萬能“。但我卻不這樣認為.這些年來,我越來越無法自在用這種角度去衡量上帝.難道我們真的相信那個我們這些年來崇拜和禮敬的神是一個男性上司的形象嗎?
Of course, there have been thinkers who have suggested
different ways of looking at God. Exploring the feminine, nurturing side of divinity. Suggesting that God expresses himself or herself through powerlessness, rather than power. Acknowledging that God is unknown and unknowable by definition. Finding deep resonances with other religions and philosophies and ways of looking at life as part of what is a universal and global search for meaning. These ideas are well-known in liberal academic circles, but clergy like
myself have been reluctant to air them, for fear of creating tension and division in our church communities; for fear of upsetting the simple faith of more traditional believers. I have chosen not to rock the boat.
當然,有思想家提出不同的方式來看待上帝。試圖提出上帝具有女性面及培育面的神性。提出上帝會借由他(她)無能為力的一面來示現世人,而不是只有強權的一面。承認上帝的定義是未知和不可知。尋找與其他宗教和哲學更深切的共鳴以及是在宇宙間世界中如何看待追尋生命意義的方法.這些想法在自由派學術界中早就眾所周知,但作為神職人員的我一直不願意公開這種思想,因為怕製造緊張和分裂我們的教會團體,生怕打破了信徒們傳統單純的信念。所以我選擇視而不見,不要惹麻煩.
Then, on December 26th last year, just two months ago,that underwater earthquake triggered the tsunami. And two weeks later, Sunday morning, ninth January, I found myself standing in front of my congregation — intelligent, well meaning, mostly thoughtful Christian people — and I needed to express, on their behalf, our feelings and our questions. I had my own personal responses, but I also have a public role, and something needed to be said. And this is what I said.
然後,在去年12月26日,距離現在僅僅兩個月前,海底地震引發海嘯。兩個星期後,星期日上午,1月9號.我發現自己站在教徒們的前面: 一群聰明,心善,有思想的基督徒的前面- 我必須要發表演說,我必須代表他們,來抒發我們的感情和提出我們的疑問。我有我個人的反應,但我也扮演著公共的角色,我必需說一些話的。下面這就是我說的。
Shortly after the tsunami I read a newspaper article written by the Archbishop of Canterbury — fine title — about the tragedy in Southern Asia. The essence of what he said was this: the people most affected by the devastation and loss of life do not want intellectual theories about how God let this happen. He wrote, “If some religious genius did come up with an explanation of exactly why all these deaths made sense, would we feel happier, or safer, or more confident in God?”
海嘯發生後不久,我看了報紙上坎特伯雷大主教寫的文章-很棒的文章-關於南亞的悲劇。文中要義是:那些被海嘯摧毀所有及失去至親好友生命的難民,並不想聽到思想學給他們一個合理的解釋關於上帝為什麼讓這種事情發生。他寫道:“如果某些宗教天才能想出了一個好理由:究竟為什麼這些死亡是有道理的,我們就會感到更快樂嗎,或者更安全,更信上帝嗎?“
If the man in the photograph that appeared in the newspapers, holding the hand of his dead child was standing in front of us now, there are no words that we could say to him. A verbal response would not be appropriate. The only appropriate response would be a compassionate silence and some kind of practical help. It isn’t a time for explanation, or preaching, or theology; it’s a time for tears.
如果在報紙中出現的男人,在照片中那個手掌緊緊的貼握著他死去小孩的手的人.現在站在我們面前,我們有什麼話可以對他說? 任何言語都不恰當.唯一適當的回應是充滿同情心的沉默和某種實值上的幫助。這不是解釋的時機或說教,或佈道的時候,這是一個憂傷含淚的時候.
This is true. And yet here we are, my church in Oxford, semi-detached from events that happened a long way away, but with our faith bruised. And we want an explanation from God. We demand an explanation from God. Some have concluded that we can only believe in a God who shares our pain. In some way, God must feel the anguish, and grief, and physical pain that we feel. In some way the eternal God must be able to enter into the souls of human beings and experience the torment within. And if this is true, it must also be that God knows the joy and exaltation of the human spirit, as well. We want a God who can weep with those who weep, and rejoice with those who rejoice.
沒錯,我的教會在牛津,因為相隔十萬八千里,受海嘯災區影響微弱.但是我們的信仰卻受內傷我們希望上帝給我們一個解釋.我們要求上帝作出解釋。有些人最後的結論是相信上帝在分擔我們的痛苦。一定是這樣,上帝一定會感受到我們所受的痛苦,憂傷,和身體上的疼痛.毫無疑問的,永恆的上帝一定會探觸到人類的靈魂共同來承受痛苦折磨。如果這是真的,那麼上帝一定知道喜悅和激勵人們的兩個精神領域.我們希望的上帝是必須能夠當我們傷心時陪伴著我們哭泣,當我們歡樂時分享著我們高興.
This seems to me both a deeply moving and a convincing re-statement of Christian belief about God. For hundreds of years, the prevailing orthodoxy, the accepted truth, was that God the Father, the Creator, is unchanging and therefore by definition cannot feel pain or sadness. Now the unchanging God feels a bit cold and indifferent to me. And the devastating events of the 20th century have forced people to question the cold, unfeeling God. The slaughter of millions in the trenches and in the death camps have caused people to ask, where is God in all this? Who is God in all this?
對我來說,這重新撰釋基督教信仰的上帝的宣言深深的令人感動和令人信服.數百年來,正統的,可被接受的真理是上帝是天父,造物主,是不變的,因此被定義成沒有疼痛或悲傷的情緒反映。現在這不變上帝令我感覺到有點冷漠,令人不解.而20世紀的許多災難性事件,促使人們質疑為什麼上帝那麼冷漠無情呢。千百萬被屠殺在戰壕裡的死屍和千百萬在死亡集中營受刑的無辜百姓,人們不禁要問:上帝您在那裡啊?在這一切的痛苦中您扮演什麼角色?
And the answer was, “God is in this with us, or God doesn’t deserve our allegiance anymore.” If God is a bystander, observing but not involved, then God may well exist, but we don’t want to know about him. Many Jews and Christians now feel like this, I know. And I am among them.
無疑的,答案是,“上帝時時與我們同在,否則上帝不值得我們效忠.” 如果上帝只是一個旁觀者,只是觀察,但不參與,那麼,上帝可能存在,但我們不想了解他。許多猶太人和基督徒現在都有相同感受, 我知道。因為我也是其中之一。
So we have a suffering God. A God who is intimately connected with this world, and with every living soul. I very much relate to this idea of God. But it isn’t enough. I need to ask some more questions, and I hope they are questions that you will want to ask, as well, some of you.
因此,我們有一個飽受折磨的神.緊密連接這個世界,慈眼視眾生,關念每個人的靈魂。我很贊同這樣的想法.但這還不夠。我需要探討更多的問題,我希望這些問題您也想知道,至少在坐的一些人想知道.
Over the last few weeks I have been struck by the number of times that words in our worship have felt a bit inappropriate, a bit dodgy. We have a pram service on Tuesday mornings for mums and their pre-school children. And last week we sang with the children one of their favorite songs, “The Wise Man Built His House Upon the Rock.” Perhaps some of you know it. Some of the words go like this: “The foolish man built his house upon the sand/ And the floods came up/And the house on the sand went crash.” Then in the same week, at a funeral, we sang the familiar hymn “We Plow the Fields and
Scatter,” a very English hymn. In the second verse comes the line, “The wind and waves obey him.” Do they? I don’t feel we can sing that song again in church, after what’s happened.
過去的幾禮拜裡,我已經好幾次在我們的崇拜儀式中感受到有點不適當,和有點騙人的感覺.每個星期二早我們為媽媽和他們的學前兒童舉行一個親子教室.上週我們與孩子們唱一首他們都喜愛的歌曲,”聰明的人把房子建在磐石上。” 也許在坐的有些人知道這首歌.有些歌詞是這樣的:”愚蠢的人把房子建在沙上/海水來了/沙灘上的房子崩潰了。” 然後在同一周,在一個葬禮上,我們唱起了熟悉的讚美詩”我們犁田和播種,” 典型英國的讚美詩歌.在第二章句有一行是,”風和海都必須服從他(上帝)。” 真的嗎?海嘯發生後,我不覺得我們能在教堂再唱這首歌.
So the first big question is about control. Does God have a plan for each of us? Is God in control? Does God order each moment? Does the wind and the waves obey him? From time to time, one hears Christians telling the story of how God organized things for them, so that everything worked out all right. Some difficulty overcome, some illness cured, some trouble averted, a parking space found at a crucial time. I can remember someone saying this to me, with her eyes shining with enthusiasm at this wonderful confirmation of her faith and the goodness of God.
因此,第一個問題是關於統制駕馭。上帝決定每個人的命運嗎?上帝在獨攬管制世人嗎? 每件事件的發生都是上帝的旨意嗎? 上帝可以呼風喚雨? 一次又一次,我們聽到基督徒強調上帝是如何為他們安排人生,所以一切均有完美結局.克服一些難解的困難,治好有些醫師束手無策的疾病,避免有些麻煩,甚至在一個關鍵時刻找到一個停車位。我記得有人對我說這些奇蹟時,她的眼睛閃閃發光,熱情的見證她對上帝的信心和上帝的真善美.
But if God can or will do these things — intervene to change the flow of events — then surely he could have stopped the tsunami. Do we have a local God who can do little things like parking spaces, but not big things like 500 mile-per-hour waves? That’s just not acceptable to intelligent Christians, and we must acknowledge it. Either God is responsible for the tsunami, or God is not in control.
但是,如果上帝能夠或會做這些事情 -介入改變事件發生的結果- 那麼他一定能夠阻止海嘯。我們是否有一個在某區的上帝,他可以做一些小事:像是找車位,但卻不去阻止每小時500英里的海浪?這是有智慧的基督徒不能接受的,我們必須承認這一點。上帝要不是必須為此災難負責(創造海嘯),就是根本不法控制海嘯.
After the tragedy, survival stories began to emerge. You probably heard some of them. The man who surfed the wave. The teenage girl who recognized the danger because she had just been learning about tsunamis at school. Then there was the congregation who had left their usual church building on the shore to hold a service in the hills. The preacher delivered an extra long sermon, so that they were still out of harm’s way when the wave struck. Afterward someone said that God must have been looking after them.
悲劇發生後,許多倖存者的故事開始流傳.你可能聽說過一些。一名男子隨浪潮衝浪竟存活.十幾歲的女孩瞭解到海嘯危險,因為她剛在校學習過.然後有一群教徒當天離開了他們在一貫使用的岸邊教堂,改在山上禮拜.那天牧師花在講道時間異常的長.所以,他們當海嘯襲擊時他們沒被傷害.後來有人說,上帝一定在照顧保護他們。
So the next question is about partiality. Can we earn God’s favor by worshipping him or believing in him? Does God demand loyalty, like any medieval tyrant? A God who looks after his own, so that Christians are OK, while everyone else perishes? A cosmic us and them, and a God who is guilty of the worst kind of favoritism? That would be appalling, and that would be the point at which I would hand in my membership. Such a God would be morally inferior to the highest ideals of humanity.
因此,接下來的問題是關於偏袒。是不是必須要相信他,崇拜他才能贏得上帝的青睞呢?是不是上帝要求忠誠像中世紀暴君一樣?上帝只照顧自己的子民.所以,基督徒可以平安,而其他人就任其滅亡? 在同一個宇宙,有我,有您和一個有最惡劣的偏袒罪行的上帝?這將是駭人聽聞的,如果這樣子,我將放棄我的會員資格.這樣的上帝在道德上不如人類中的聖人.(具人性最高理念)
So who is God, if not the great puppet-master or the tribal protector? Perhaps God allows or permits terrible things to happen, so that heroism and compassion can be shown. Perhaps God is testing us: testing our charity, or our faith. Perhaps there is a great, cosmic plan that allows for horrible suffering so that everything will work out OK in the end. Perhaps, but these ideas are all just variations on God controlling everything. The supreme commander toying with expendable units in a great campaign. We are still left with a God who can do the tsunami and allow Auschwitz.
那麼,誰是上帝,如果他不是木偶戲大師或部落的保護者?也許上帝允許可怕事情發生,讓英雄主義和同情心可以被激發。也許上帝是考驗我們:考驗我們的慈善,或者我們的信仰。也許另一個偉大的宇宙計劃將實現,所以會有可怕的天災人禍,因為要從新洗牌,為美麗遠景而受苦.或許吧,但這些想法都只是對上帝是主宰者的不同聯想.最高統帥在巨大的活動中,玩弄著可被消耗的單位.我們的上帝還是那個製造海嘯,同意Auschwitz 死亡集中營的神.
In his great novel, “The Brothers Karamazov,” Dostoevsky gives these words to Ivan, addressed to his naive and devout younger brother, Alyosha: “If the sufferings of children go to make up the sum of sufferings which is necessary for the purchase of truth, then I say beforehand that the entire truth is not worth such a price. We cannot afford to pay so much for admission. It is not God that I do
not accept. I merely, most respectfully, return Him the ticket.”
Dostoevsky在他的偉大小說“卡拉馬佐夫兄弟"中寫到艾本(Ivan)告訴自己天真,虔誠的弟弟,阿憂沙(Alyosha):”如果須要累積總合無數次孩子們的痛苦才有足夠的能力購買真理,那我想先說,這個真理不值得購買。我們付不起這麼多的入場費。不是說我不接受上帝(而是這過程,我不能承受),我只好用最虔誠的態度,把進入(天國)的門票還給上帝.
Or perhaps God set the whole universe going at the beginning and then relinquished control forever, so that natural processes could occur, and evolution run its course. This seems more acceptable, but it still leaves God with the ultimate moral responsibility. Is God a cold, unfeeling spectator? Or a powerless lover, watching with infinite compassion things God is unable to control or change? Is God intimately involved in our suffering, so that He feels it in His own being?
或者當上帝創造整個宇宙時,就決定永遠放棄控制.所以該在自然過程會發生的就發生,而演化過程也扮演其該有的角色.這解釋似乎比較容易接受,但上帝還是背負終極的道德責任.難道上帝是冷漠無情的觀眾?或是一個無能為力的愛人,眼睜睜看著無數次的悲哀卻無法控制或改變?還是上帝密切參與我們的痛苦,所以他也深切的體會那份苦?
If we believe something like this, we must let go of the puppet-master completely, take our leave of the almighty controller, abandon traditional models. We must think again about God. Maybe God doesn’t do things at all. Maybe God isn’t an agent like all of us are agents. Early religious thought conceived God as a sort of superhuman person, doing things all over the place. Beating up the Egyptians, drowning them in the Red Sea, wasting cities, getting angry. The people knew their God by His mighty acts.
如果我們相信這樣的推理,我們必須完全放棄木偶大師的上帝形象,拋開全能控制者上帝的理念,拋棄傳統的模式。我們一定要從新定位上帝.也許上帝根本什麼也沒做(沒有創造所有的災難).也許人類才是所有災禍的媒介,不是上帝.早期的宗教思想,設想上帝是超人.在每個不同角落,做每件事 。毆打埃及人,把他們淹死在紅海裡,摧毀整個城市,(因為埃及人惹)上帝生氣.人們瞭解的上帝是透過他的偉大神跡.
But what if God doesn’t act? What if God doesn’t do things at all? What if God is in things? The loving soul of the universe. An in-dwelling compassionate presence, underpinning and sustaining all things. What if God is in things? In the infinitely complex network of relationships and connections that make up life. In the natural cycle of life and death, the creation and destruction that must happen continuously. In the process of evolution. In the incredible intricacy and magnificence of the natural world. In the collective nconscious, the soul of the human race. In you, in me; mind and body and spirit. In the tsunami, in the victims. In the depth of things. In presence and in absence. In simplicity and complexity. In change and development and growth.
但是,如果上帝根本沒有採取任何行動?如果上帝根本沒有做任何事?又如果上帝是與任何事件共同存在?是存在宇宙間充滿愛心的靈魂.是支撐和維持一切事物的一種內在的仁慈善心.可不可能上帝是與任何事件共同存在呢?在無限複雜的關係網和連接中形成生命.所以必須遵循自然法則-有生有死,創造和破壞,一定會不斷發生.上帝是在自然的進化的過程中.是在令人難以置信的錯綜複雜中和壯麗的自然世界中.在潛意識中,與人類的靈魂同在.與您,與我,與我們的記憶,我們的身體和靈魂同在.上帝在海嘯中, 上帝與世界受難者同在.深刻的滲入事件的內函. 與存在和失落同在,在簡單中也在繁雜中,在變異. 發展和茁壯中存在.
How does this in-ness, this innerness, this interiority of God work? It’s hard to conceive, and begs more questions. Is God just another name for the universe, with no independent existence at all? I don’t know To what extent can we ascribe personality to God? I don’t know. In the end, we have to say, “I don’t know.” If we knew, God would not be God.
如何解釋上帝這種"同在性" "內心性""內在性"的特質呢?這想法很難被接受,因此引出更多的疑問.是不是上帝只是宇宙的另一個名稱,根本沒有獨立存在過呢?我不知道在何種程度上,我們可以賦予上帝多少人格特質?我不知道。最終,我們不得不說,“我不知道。" 如果我們知道,上帝就不是上帝了。
To have faith in this God would be more like trusting an essential benevolence in the universe, and less like believing a system of doctrinal statements. Isn’t it ironic that Christians who claim to believe in an infinite, unknowable being, then tie God down in closed systems and rigid doctrines?
對上帝的信心應該跟相信世界裡有一個根本的善念一樣,而不是只是相信刻板理論教條的上帝.對基督徒的我們而言這不是很諷刺嗎?我們宣稱我們相信無限和不可知,然而卻用封閉系統和僵化教條來困鎖我們的上帝.
How could one practice such a faith? By seeking the God within. By cultivating my own inwardness. In silence, in meditation, in my inner space, in the me that remains when I gently put aside my passing emotions and ideas and preoccupations. In awareness of the inner conversation.
那麼如何能實踐這種對上帝的信念呢?在內心深處尋求上帝,通過培養自己的內在. 在寂靜,在打坐中,在我的內在世界中,在我們淡定自在的剝棄自己的情緒,想法和偏見時所萃取出那個"純真的我們"中,和在我們自我檢視的過程中.
And how would we live such a faith? How would I live such a faith? By seeking intimate connection with your inwardness. The kind of relationships when deep speaks to deep. If God is in all people, then there is a meeting place where my relationship with you becomes a three-way encounter. There is an Indian greeting, which I’m sure some of you know: “Namaste,” accompanied by a respectful bow, which roughly translated means “That which is of God in me greets that which of God is in you.” Namaste.
那麼我們如何能活出這樣的信念呢? 我又將如何能在生活中實踐這樣的信仰呢?經由尋求與您的內在密切聯繫.是那種乳水交融的關係.如果上帝存在所有的人中.那麼就有一個地方,在那兒我跟您的關係是三方面的接觸,是相通的.印度有句問候語,我敢肯定,你們有些人知道:”Namaste,”(“合十禮“)伴隨著恭敬的一鞠躬,大致翻譯的意思是"我心中的神跟您心中的神打招呼"Namaste.
And how would one deepen such a faith? By seeking the inwardness which is in all things. In music and poetry, in the natural world of beauty and in the small ordinary things of life, there is a deep, indwelling presence that makes them extraordinary. It needs a profound attentiveness and a patient waiting. A contemplative attitude, and a generosity and openness to those whose experience is different from my own.
那我們如何加強這種信念呢?通過追索所有的事物的內在層面.在悠揚樂章中在動人詩歌中,在欣賞美麗的自然世界中和處理日常生活中的瑣碎小事中.因為這些事務中都包含一個深奧的道德,所以不平凡.(一花一世界) 是須要深刻徹底的關注和耐心才能完成, 是須要深思熟慮的態度和慷慨開放的胸襟來接受與我們不同的背景的他人.
When I stood up to speak to my people about God and the tsunami, I had no answers to offer them. No neat packages of faith, with Bible references to prove them. Only doubts and questioning and uncertainty. I had some suggestions to make — possible new ways of thinking about God. Ways that might allow us to go on, down a new and uncharted road. But in the end, the only thing I could say for sure was, “I don’t know,” and that just might be the most profoundly religious statement of all.
Thank you.
當我站在我的教友前,對他們講有關上帝和海嘯時,我沒有任何的答案可給他們。聖經中沒有完善的標準答案.我無法找到可參考証明的任何有關資料.所以只剩下懷疑,疑問和不確定.我想提出一些建議,使-是否能用新的思維方式來定位上帝.一條新的和未經探測的思考方式讓我們可能繼續下去.但最後,我唯一能說的還是,“我不知道“,而這或許也是我最深切的宗教聲明。
謝謝。