25。冒牌的朋霍费尔（潘霍华）：福音派的批判

作者：小草

2010年作家埃里克.梅塔克萨斯(Eric Metaxas)出版了一本朋霍费尔（潘霍华）的传记：《朋霍费尔：牧师，殉道士，先知，间谍》(Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy），如下图所示。

美国加州大学历史系的 Richard Weikart 博士对这本书写了个评论文，题为《Metaxas's Counterfeit Bonhoeffer: An Evangelical Critique》（梅塔克萨斯的冒牌朋霍费尔：福音派的批判）。Richard Weikart 是现代欧州思想史的博士（modern European intellectual history），他的这篇书评颇具分量，也被一些基督教的牧者所引述。下面就是我从其文章里摘录的几段，并做简要的中译（我并不擅长于翻译，不能做到像专业翻译那样精准细致，所以只能给予简译或大致的意译）。

Eric Metaxas's Bonhoeffer biography has won many accolades from evangelicals, not only because Metaxas is an excellent writer, but also because he serves up a Bonhoeffer suited to the evangelical taste. Many evangelicals admire Bonhoeffer and consider him a fellow evangelical. Metaxas's book confirms this image. In an interview with Christianity Today Metaxas even made the astonishing statement that Bonhoeffer was as orthodox theologically as the apostle Paul.

埃里克.梅塔克萨斯的朋霍费尔传记赢得了许多来自福音派人士的嘉奖，这不只是因为梅塔克萨斯是个出色的作家，也是因为他把朋霍费尔写得合福音派的味口。朋霍费尔受到很多福音派人士的钦佩，并被认为是他们中的一员。梅塔克萨斯的书使朋霍费尔的这一形象得到了巩固。在一次“今日基督教“的访谈中，梅塔克萨斯甚至发表了惊人的声明，他说，朋霍费尔在神学上的正统性是与使徒保罗一样的。

As orthodox as Paul? Metaxas does not seem to know that in his Christology lectures in 1933 Bonhoeffer claimed, "The biblical witness is uncertain with regard to the virgin birth." Bonhoeffer also rejected the notion of the verbal inspiration of scripture, and in a footnote to Cost of Discipleship he warned against viewing statements about Christ's resurrection as ontological statements (i.e., statements about something that happened in real space and time). Bonhoeffer also rejected the entire enterprise of apologetics, which he thought was misguided.

如保罗一样正统？看起来梅塔克萨斯不知道朋霍费尔于1933年在他的基督论演讲里宣称到。”圣经对童女生子的见证是不确定的。“ 而且朋霍费尔还拒绝接受圣经都是神所默示的。在《门徒的代价》的注脚里，他提出警告，要抵制声称基督的复活是在真实的时空下发生的。朋霍费尔还对整个护教事工给予排斥，他认为这是误入歧途的。

For one thing, Bonhoeffer (like his mentor Barth) admitted that Kierkegaard was one of the most powerful influences on his theology, which means that Bonhoeffer was committed to an irrationalist, existentialist worldview that is quite different from the mindset of American evangelicals. Though most evangelicals probably do not know it, most Bonhoeffer scholars dismissively reject the idea that Bonhoeffer's theology is compatible with American evangelical theology.

朋霍费尔（如他的导师巴特）承认祁克果是对他的神学最有力影响力的人之一，这就意味着朋霍费尔表明他自己是个非理性主义者，和存在主义者的世界观，这就与美国福音派人士的思维倾向相当的不同。尽管大部分的福音派人士可能不知道这点，但是大部分的研究朋霍费尔的学者却对这种认为朋霍费尔的神学与美国福音派的神学是相容的观点很不屑，并给以拒绝。

Metaxas correctly acknowledges that Karl Barth was the most important influence on Bonhoeffer's theology. However, he never explains anything about Barth's theology, except that Barth opposed liberal theology. Metaxas does not seem to understand that Barth's rejection of liberal theology did not cause him to embrace biblical inerrancy.

梅塔克萨斯承认卡尔巴特是对朋霍费尔的神学最有力影响力的人之一，然而，除了巴特反对自由神学之外，他却从没解释巴特的神学。梅塔克萨斯似乎不理解巴特对自由神学的排斥并没有导致他接受圣经的无误性。

Metaxas, then, has presented us with a sanitized Bonhoeffer fit for evangelical audiences. Evangelicals can continue to believe comfortingly that Bonhoeffer is one of them, and that his heroic stance against Hitler was the product of evangelical-style theology. This view is naive, but many wish it to be so. They might prefer Metaxas's counterfeit Bonhoeffer to the real, much more complex, German theologian who continued to believe in the validity of higher biblical criticism, who praised Rudolf Bultmann when he called for demythologizing the New Testament, and who in his prison writings called for us to live "as if there were no God." In 1944, toward the end of his life, Bonhoeffer admitted that he was a theologian who "still carries within himself the heritage of liberal theology."

梅塔克萨斯陈现给我们的是一个适合于福音派观众的、净化过的朋霍费尔。福音派人士可以继续欣慰地相信朋霍费尔是他们中的一员，并认为他反抗希特勒的英雄姿态是符合福音神学的产物。这种看法是幼稚的，但很多人却希望如此。他们可能宁愿要梅塔克萨斯的冒牌朋霍费尔过于这位真实的、复杂得多的，还相信更高级的福音批判的有效性的德国神学家，在Rudolf Bultmann号召把新约非神话化时，他还给予赞誉，他在监狱写作里还号召我们，要活得”仿佛神不存在。“ 1944年，在接近他生命的终点时，朋霍费尔承认他是一位 “里面还带这自由神学遗产”的神学家。