Reading Notes

Christ and Culture H.Richard Niebuhr

Chapter II Christ against Culture

II Tolstoy’s rejection of Culture

Monastic Movement is derived from the tradition built by early fathers like Tertullian, which makes incidental contribution to culture in the waves of history. Protestant sectarianism and medieval monasticism are best samples to illustrate those long-term efforts. Other groups like Mennonites (as representative of protestant sectarianism), Society of Friends (as another example less radical) and modern Quakers mark significantly in the first group of positions. Leo Tolstoy is another representative worthy attentions, who in his own time and place stated the radical position as Tertullian.

Tolstoy’s conversion is based on his belief that the new law given by Jesus Christ is on the foundation of the nature of things. (St. Mathew’s Gospel. Chapter Five) He interprets the Words literally without all the ecclesiastical glosses on the texts. For Tolstoy, Christ is the lawgiver of new law and the abolisher of the old law (Moses’ law). He summarizes this new law in five definite injunctions (see p.59) in which the law of nonresistance is the key to the whole.

Like other figures stand in that position, the commandments of Christ are considered as the main account of the opposition to the institutions of culture. He hold that the corruption is resident in human nature, and evil is in culture with which man is contending. He is not simply content to withdraw from social life and live a semi-monastic life, but becomes a crusader against secular evil culture.

There is no such thing as good government for Tolstoy, neither state, church, property system are the forts of evil, even philosophy, sciences and arts are under condemnation. The states and Christian faith are simply incompatible as the prop of state is love of power and exercise of violence. He rejects such assertion posted by Paul that the states are in function of restraining evil thing; for Tolstoy sees the states are chief offenders against life. The approaches to arrive his goals are complete nonparticipation to evil and nonviolent striving for conversion of all men to peaceful, anarchic Christianity.

Tolstoy treats the churches as self-centered organizations and servants of the states, even obscurers and falsifiers of the gospel. He depicts them as ‘anti-Christian institutions’, and reformations in such institutions are wholly inadequate and meaningless. In the end, the judgment of Christ will destroy them completely as Christ did not build the churches from the beginning. For Tolstoy, churches remain identical evil and incompatible to Christianity as the states do; churches and states together represent the institution of violence and fraud.

Economic institutions are equally attacked and rejected by Tolstoy. He treats property claims are based on robbery and maintained by violence. He is against the subdivision of labor in economic society as it violates the Christian sermon of equality of humanity. The contribution made by privileged is dubious and could not be compensated. He counsels intellectuals, landlords and military men to renounce their properties and work in their own hands.

Tolstoy also turns against philosophy, sciences and arts. Sciences and philosophy are bad as they fail to answer the fundamental questions of humanity and life and remain falsehood; also they have no capacity to ameliorate people’s life. Philosophy teaches the vanity of life, while the ordinary people who follow Christ acknowledge more truth than the wise-men do. However, Tolstoy as an artist could not abjure arts in every respect, as he at least makes distinctions between bad and good arts. Only works which express universal feelings and comprehensible by the masses and in accord with Christian moral can be classified to good arts by Tolstoy.

One remarkable trait makes Tolstoy differ from other representatives of the first position is his meager devotion to Lord. For him, Christ presents no more significant than his ‘new law’. He was more of a legalist than the legal Tertullian, for he seldom expresses his ardor toward the grace of God and did not show deep apprehension about their completeness in the Son.

Conclusion: The person of first type share unity of spirit in their common acknowledge of the sole authority of Christ and the common rejection of prevailing culture. They show in two ways: as apocalyptic they will prophesy the coming of divine order and the falling of current culture; as mystics they emphasize the hidden divine order behind the temporal and cultural scene. What significant for them is the Kingdom of Heaven and its way to act upon their life rather than secular business.

III Necessary and Inadequate Position

    The anti-culture Christians played a significant role in history and they were needed in the total encounter of church and world. Part of the attraction of the ‘Christ against Culture’ answer lies in its evident reduplication of profession to Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven.

    The Christian withdraw from culture indicates that the believers have maintained the distinction between Christ and Caesar, between revelation and reason, between God’s will and man’s. The men in the first position sort have led to reformations in both church and world, although they did not intend to do so. Ex. Monasticism as conservers of culture during the dark ages; protestant sectarians changed political customs and promote religious liberty.

    Though men in first sort answer did contribute much in history, they never achieved these results alone and directly but only through the mediation of believers who gave a different answer to the fundamental question. Ex. Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine but not Tertullian undertook reformation of Roman culture. In every case the followers did not compromise much to the radicals exclusive teachings. They were inspired by other answers.

    So long as the Christ and Culture cannot be amalgamated, so long is the radical answer inevitable in the church. It is needed in the past and now. The radical answer keeps Christian faith not to degenerate to a utilitarian device controlled by the states and individuals, and it also balances other Christian groups.

    Still we can point out that answer is equaled inadequate to inevitable, as it’s impossible to reject culture in every aspects. Christ claims no man purely as natural beings. And men are cultivated men into whom culture has penetrated and into whom political beliefs and economic customs are also resident. Actually, the anti-culture Christians are always making use of culture or part of the culture although they reject it ostensibly. Ex. Tertullian with his legal tradition; Clement of Alexandria with his semi-stoic ideas. They meet Christ as an heir of their own cultures.

    Culture plays important role in communicating with God and comprehending gospels as mediation. Firstly, people have to use language to explicate and interpret the theological concepts and principles or even modify them in the context to their own culture. Secondly, as the words of Christ are not sufficient to supply an answer to all the questions of daily life, men need other helps and supplements. Ex. Early Christian groups separated themselves from the Jews and gentiles while borrowed their customs but abandoned their authorities. Benedict of Nursia sought reflections of human experience to manage and organize his monastic community when the Scripture could not suffice him. The withdraw from culture even produces new cultural pattern: monasticism regenerates the rituals and rites; only after the authority of the states was shunned, the Christian community developed into a political community; Controversy among Francis monks about conservation of ecclesial property showed clearly that men needed clothes and sheltered even in poverty.

    The radical Christians have also always been required to take recourse to principles he could not derive from his conviction of Christ lordship. They were living in an interim. Ex. Tertullian’s advises to his wife about her remarriage after he passed away (see p.71 while personally I thought this case is not convincing at all). It’s necessary to recognize laws and morals relative to the time of the interim and to the existence of pagan society. Tolstoy had renounced his property but remained bound to his family. Etc.

Conclusion: The difference between the radicals and other groups is often only this: that the radicals fail to recognize what they are doing and continue to speak as though they were separated from the world.

IV Theological problems: 4 problems left

A.   The problem between the reason and revelation.

    The radicals share a tendency to denigrate reason and exalt revelation: ex. Tertullian: I believe because it’s absurd. (Though he’d never expressed it directly) Because they consider reason is erroneous and deceptive therefore cultural reason lead not to the knowledge of God and truth of salvation. Also they make distinctions between natural knowledge possessed in human soul and vitiated understandings in culture. Furthermore a distinction is told between revelation given by spirit or inner light, and the revelation historically given and transmitted through Scripture. It’s a dangerous tendency.

B.   The problem about human nature and prevalence of sin

    The radicals use social terms to explain the inheritance of sin among men, which contribute much to theology. They recognize both culture and nature are the carriers of sin: ex. Asceticism. They face up to the fact of their sinfulness.

    However, if they admit that sin is resident in themselves (but not outside human nature unilaterally), the separation between themselves and cultures is meaningless.

C.   The problem about the relation of law and grace

    One general accusation: legalism, as they neglect the significance of grace and forget that the gospel is for all men.

D.   The distinction between Jesus Christ and Creator of nature and Governor of history, as well as Spirit immanent in creation and in Christian community.

    Some of the radicals like sectarians and Tolstoy regard the doctrine of Trinity as corrupt invention by corrupt church. It indicates that the Trinitarianism is by no means as speculative a position and as unimportance for conduct as is often maintained. And a temptation those radicals frequently face is that they are tempted to transform their ethical dualism to ontological bifurcation of reality; furthermore they are induced to divide the world into the material evil side and spiritual holy side. Thus the ghost of Manichean heresy is difficult to eliminate. Ex. Tertullian’s Montanism; George Fox’s reformation finally compromised and enthroned to human private conscience to lead the reformers.

   Conclusion: the reason why the radicals deviate from their starting point: The authority of Christ is hard to fathom. Perhaps it is indicated that Christ alone cannot be followed alone, as he cannot be worshipped alone; and that radical Christianity, important as one movement in the church, cannot itself exist without the counterweight of other types of Christianity.

     “你不该羡慕我，歌尔德蒙。事实并不存在你所想的那种宁静。不错，宁静也是有的，但并非一种在我们心中常驻的宁静；而那只是一种必须不间断的斗争去争取、 每日每时用斗争去争取的宁静。你没有见过我斗争，既不了解我在研究学问时的斗争情况，也不了解我在祈祷室中的斗争情况。你不知道倒也好。你所能见到的，只 是我不像你那样易于激动，于是认为这就是宁静。然而这是斗争，是同任何真正的生活一样的斗争和牺牲，你的生活也是如此。”

A chi sorriderò, se non a te?
A chi, se tu, tu non sei più qui?
Ormai, è finita è finita tra di noi
Ma forse un po' della mia vita
È rimasta negli occhi tuoi!
A chi io parlerò, se non a te?
A chi racconterò tutti i sogni miei?
Lo sai, mi hai fatto male lasciandomi solo così
Ma non importa, io ti aspetterò!
A chi io parlerò, se non a te?
A chi racconterò tutti i sogni miei?
Lo sai, mi hai fatto male lasciandomi solo così
Ma non importa, io ti aspetterò!

*

Domine, si non es hic, ubi te quram absentem?
主啊，既然你不在这里，我应到何方寻觅隐去的你？

Si autem ubique es, cur non video te praesentem?
既然你是全在，我又为何不见在场的你？

Sed certe habitas lucem inaccessibilem.
你实实在在居住在那不可接近的光之中。

Et ubi est lux inaccessibilis, aut quomodo accedam ad lucem inaccessibilem?
那不可近的光在何方，我将如何走近那不可近的光？

Aut quis me ducet, et inducet in illam; ut videam te in illa?
又有谁引领我，引我走进那光，见你在那光之中？

Deinde, quibus signis, qua facie te quaeram?
或者，要什么征象，什么形式方能寻求你？

Numquam te vidi, Domine Deus meus; non novi faciem tuam.
我主上帝啊，我从未见过你，我从未见过你的面目。

Quid faciet, altissime Domine, quid faciet iste tuus longinquus exul?
至高无上的主啊，如此远远放逐的人应何所适从，何所适从？

Quid faciet servus tuus anxius amore tui, et longe projectus a facie tua?
你的仆人应何所适从，他渴求你的爱，而远离你的面目？

Anhelat videre te et nimis abest illi facies tua.
他心跳着要看见你却如此远离你的面目。

Accedere ad te desiderat, et inaccessibilis est habitatio tua.
他渴求走近你，而你的居所却不可接近。

Invenire te cupit, et nescit locum tuum.
他渴望走向你，而不知你的居所在何方。

Quaerere te affectat, et ignorat vultum tuum.
他渴想寻求你，却不知你的面目。

Domine, Deus meus es, et Dominus meus es; et nunquam te vidi.
主啊，你是我主和我的上帝，而我从未见过你。

Te me fecisti et refecisti, et omnia mea bona tu mihi contulisti, et nondum novi te.
你创造了我，再造了我，我的一切福份来自你，而我不知道你。

Denique ad te videndum factus sum; et nondum feci propter quod factus sum.
我原是被创造来看见你，而我并未实现我受造的目的。

*
Misera sors hominis, cum hoc perdidit, ad quod factus est.
人类的命运悲惨啊，当他失去受造目的的时候。

Durus, et dirus casus ille!
可怕的，可怖的人类的堕落啊！

Heu! Quid perdidit, et quid invenit? quid abscessit, et quid remansit?
啊！人类失去什么，又得到什么？什么离去了，又留下什么？

Perdidit beatitudinem ad quam factus est, et inveit mieriam propter quam factus non est: abscessit, sine quo nihil felix est, et remansit, quod per se nonnisi miserum est.
失去他受造应得的永福，得到他受造不应得的悲惨；离去的是幸福所必须，留下的本身只是悲惨。

Manducabat tunc homo panem angelorum, quem nunc esurit; manducat nunc panem dolorum, quem tunc nesciebat.
人类当初吃的是天使的面包，如今想望不到；今日吃的是悲苦之果，当初并不知道。

Heu! Publicus luctus hominum, universalis planctus filiorum Adae!
啊！全人类的悲哀，亚当全体子孙的悲恸！

Ille ructabat saturitate, nos suspiramus esuie.
亚当饱餐而打嗝，我们却饥馁而叹嗟。

Ille abundabat, nos mendicamus.
他当初富足有余，而我们一贫如乞。

Ille feliciter tenebat, et misere deseruit; nos infeliciter egemus, et miserabiliter desideramus; et heu! vacui remanemus!
他幸福地享有，却悲惨地放弃；我们不幸地匮乏，而悲惨地渴求；可悲啊！我们一无所有！

Cur non nobis custodivit, cum facile posset, quo tam graviter careremus?
他为何不留给我们他那白得的，使我们如此沉重地感受匮乏？

Quare sic nobis obseravit lucem, et obduxit nos tenebris?
他为何遮掉那光，将我们罩在一片黑暗之中？

Ut quid abstulit nobis vitam, et inflixit mortem?
他为何攫走我们的生命，将死亡加在我们头上？

Aerumnosi, unde sumus expulsi, quo sumus impulsi?
满载悲苦，我们何所而来，何所而去？

Unde praecipitati? Quo obruti?
从何处被抛来？将被丢弃向何方？

A patria in exsilium, a visione Dei in caecitatem nostram, a jucunditate immortalitatis in amaritudinem et horrorem mortis.
从家园到放逐，从直观永福到双目皆盲，从永生福份到永死极苦。

Misera mutatio de quanto bono in quantum malum!
从如此的福份悲惨地降为如此的罪愆！

Grave damnum, gravis dolor, grave totum.
沉重的堕落，沉重的悲哀，沉痛的一切。

*

Sed heu! me miserum, unum de aliis miseris filiis Evae, elongatis a Deo!
可悲啊！苦难的我， 一个远离上帝的悲惨的夏娃子孙！

Quid incoepi? Quid effeci?
我担负了什么？完成了什么？

Quo tendebam? Quo deveni?
我飘泊向何处？又来到何方？

Ad quid aspirabam? In quibus suspiro?
我寻求什么？我渴望什么？

Quaesivi bona, et ecce turbatio.
我寻求至善，却落得混乱。

Tendebam in Deum, et offendi in meipsum.
我寻找上帝，却成了自我的阻力。

Requiem quaerebam in secreto meo, et tribulationem et dolorem inveni in intimis meis.
我追求内心的平安，却得到最深的忧伤磨难。

Volebam ridere a gaudio mentis meae, et cogor rugire a gemitu cordis mei.
我想望由衷的快乐微笑，却落得心痛的呻吟。

Sperabatur laetitia, et ecce unde densentur suspira.
我寻求幸福，却只有无休止的叹嗟。

*

Et o tu, Domine, usquequo? Usquequo, Domine, oblivisceris nos, usquequo avertis faciem tuam a nobis?
主啊，你要多久遗忘我们？多久移开你的面目？

Quando respicies et exaudies nos?
你何时方能眷顾我们，听我们的呼求？

Quando illuminabis occulos nostros, et ostendes nobis faciem tuam?
何时方能照亮我们的眼，向我们显现你的面目？

Quando restitues te nobis?
你何时方能复归于我等？

Respice, Domine; exaudi, illumina nos, ostende nobis teipsum.
主啊，眷顾我们，听我们，照亮我们的眼，显现你的面目。

Restitue te nobis ut bene sit nobis; sine quo tam male est nobis.
复归于我们，给我们平安，没有主我们如此悲苦。

Miserare labores et conatus notros ad te, qui nihil valemus sine te.
怜悯我们向主的匍匐，没有主我们无所措手足。

Invitas nos; adjuva nos.
求主引领我们，给我们救助。

Obsecro, Domine, ne desperem suspirando; sed repirem sperando.
我乞求主，莫让我在叹嗟中绝望，而在希望中复苏。

Obsecro, Domine, amaricatum est cor meum sua desolatione; indulca illud tua consolatione.
我乞求主，莫让我的心在荒凉中悲哀，求主赐给它安宁。

Obsecro, Domine, esuriens incoepi quaerere te, ne desinam jejunus de te:famelicus accessi, ne recedam impastus.
我乞求主，当我在饥饿中寻求主，莫让我空腹而去：我在饥枯中到主跟前，莫让我枵腹而归。

Pauper veni ad divitem, miser ad misericordem, ne redeam vacuus et contemtus.
我在贫穷中叩求巨富，在悲惨中伏求仁慈，莫让我空手受辱而回。

Et si antequam comedam suspiro, da, vel post suspiria, quod comedam.
如果我在食前哀嗟，求主在我叹嗟之后赐我食物。

Domine, incurvatus non possum nisi deorum aspicere; erige me ut possim sursum intendere.
主啊，匍匐的我只能垂首下视，求主撑直我的腰使我向上观看。

Iniquitates meae supergressae caput meum, obvolunt me; et sicut onus grave, grvant me.
我的不义冲上我的头，压抑着我，负重般将我压弯。

Evolve me, exonera me ne urgeat puteus earum os suum super me: liceat mihi suspicere lucem tuam, vel de longe, vel deprofundo.
求主解除我的重压，莫让那深坑埋葬我：让我窥见你的光，无论从远方或地藏。

Doce me quaerere te, et osende te quaerenti; quia nec quaerere te possum, nisi tu doceas, nec invenire, nisi te osendas.
求主引领我寻求主，求主现身；因为除非主引领我便不能寻求主，除非主对我现身便不能走近主。

Quaeram te desiderando, desiderem quaerendo, inveniam amando, amem inveniendo.
让我在渴求中寻找主，在寻求中渴望主，在爱中走近主，在走近中爱慕主。

*

Fateor, Domine, et gratias ago, quia creasti in me hanc imaginem tuam, ut tui memor sim, te cogitem, te amem: sed sic est abolita attritione vitiorum, sic est offuscata fumo peccatorum, ut non possit facere ad quod facta est, nisi tu renoves et reformes eam.
主啊，我认信，感激主按主的形象创造了我，使我得以记忆主，思考主，爱慕主：然而这形象被我的堕落所腐蚀，由我的罪愆而蒙垢，除非主更新它再造它，便无从按照它受造的目的行事。

Non tento, Domine, penetrare altitudinem tuam; quia nullatenus comparo illi intellectum meum, sed desidero aliquatenus intelligere veritatem tuam, quam credit et amat cor meum.
主啊，我不妄自探测主的深奥，我的心智在主面前如此渺小；但我愿望多少理解主的真理，因为我的心信奉它爱慕它。

Neque enim quaero intelligere, ut credam; sed credo, ut intelligam.
不是我的理解使我信仰，而是我的信仰使我理解。

Nam et hoc credo quia nisi credidero, non intelligam.
因为我也深信，惟有信仰，方能理解。

**********************

这段拉丁文祷文的首译者是唐逸先生，出自他关于中世纪哲学的著作《理性与信仰》，前天在打折书店偶得，不胜欣喜，为了这段优美的祷文买了下来。