2026年1月13日 星期二

給一個學生的回信:關於信仰基督教

按:某位已畢業的學生(異教徒,但沒有強烈的信仰追求)問我幾個關於認識基督教的事,第一個問題很嚴肅:「在改信基督教的一開始會遇到哪些困難呢?」所以我認真地回覆了她。

改信仰不是容易的事,不然我也不會到43歲才受洗信主。

舉個例子:李登輝前總統原本也不是基督徒,他受的是日本教育,有武士道的信念,年輕時加入過共產黨,渴望革命改變世界,等到進入黨國體制後,才想認識一下基督教的信仰。他怎麼做?讀聖經+拜訪教會。

李前總統是博學之人,他不僅自己研讀聖經,還每週排定時程,一間一間的去拜訪教會,在拜訪教會時,會仔細聆聽牧師的講道。他不是抱著「看看」的心理去的,他在「認識基督教」,在「尋求真理」。最後,他受洗成為長老教會系統的基督徒。

你可以用「想理解基督徒\男友」的角度去接觸基督教,這沒問題,但你自己信與不信,光靠別人的餵養是不夠的。你自己要對真理有「飢渴」,沒有這份內在的動力,基督信仰最終也只會是你書架上的一本書而已。

是的,飢渴。李登輝有,我也有。

先不要談到「改信」這一步,你先「接觸」。接觸的「客觀實體」有二:聖經+教會(不是建築物,是信主的一群人),但聖經也好、教會也好,都要指向同一個「絕對主體」:神(上帝)。你要信基督教,真正的檢驗是「有沒有真心想認識這一位神」。

從我的經驗來說,會遇到的困難有:

1.基督教教義上的「排他性」

這一點是讓我當年打死不肯信主的核心原因,我覺得基督教太霸道,只有自己的才是唯一真理,其他信仰都是假的。但這一點沒有別的解藥,只有自己親自去認識基督教的教義,才會有接受這一點的可能。

當初剛信主時,是印尼的唐崇榮牧師在佈道會上說出的「真理是絕對的,既然絕對,那真理就具有排他性」這一段話打醒了我,讓我更謙卑地去「認識」基督教,而非帶著既有的信仰內容去「檢視」基督教因為我必須要正視一個問題:如果基督教「真的」是真理呢?

2.「價值系統整合」與「價值系統更換」

一般人可能只會在「生活習慣層次」上感到不便,例如吃素吃葷、拿不拿香、拜不拜廟、要不要把寶貴的週日去上教堂...等。

再來是「觀念層次」的衝突,例如眾生平等VS人是萬物之靈;殺生是罪過VS聖經說不帶血的就可以吃;拜神明VS拜偶像;唯一真神VS宗教都是勸人為善...等。

再來是「信仰層次」的對撞。以我為例,接受唯一真神,就必須視所有廟宇的神明為偶像,甚至必須去除(不是去燒廟啦,是要否定諸神具有神的資格);接受原罪論,就必須放棄我過去相信的性善論;相信聖經「神允許肉食」,就必須放膽開葷,不再茹素(我以前教會有一對夫妻也是一貫道改信基督教,但他們仍然保持吃素的習慣)...等。

信基督教以前,我採取的方式是「系統整合」,也就是近乎「雜家」的方式,在各個宗教裡擷取所長,而我的價值核心,是「追求自我品格的提升與完美」,凡有利我品格成長、靈性成長的思想與宗教內容,我都會彙整起來,成為我信仰的價值。而這些都是經過我自己檢驗過的,並不是像一貫道一樣,把一整套宗教內容置入到自己的腦袋裡,所以這個系統整合只適合我自己,不適用於別人。

而這在婚後就遇到了問題。以前,我對「關係」的態度是隨遇而安的,來則聚,分則離,不看重關係的經營(就是比較道家一點),因為很花心力。這種態度對外人是可以的,但對親人就不行,很不幸的是,婚姻就是讓兩人從外人變為情人、再變為親人的過程,當成為親人,就不能不重視關係。所以我的「隨遇而安」,就會成為兩人關係的殺手,我自己覺得沒那麼嚴重,但師母卻深深被此所傷。這時我才理解:系統整合在「關係」中是失效的,我需要的,是「系統更換」。

那為什麼是基督教?因為基督教最顯眼的教義就是「愛」,如果基督教能讓我對愛有更深刻的理解與生命改變,那就是它了。在我漫長的信主過程中,其實就是「價值系統更換」的過程,這是很深層、很內在的領域。如果是為了某些「外在原因」(例如「我的結婚對象一定要是基督徒」)而信主,那麼我必須老實說,當外部因素消失(例如「與基督徒正式成為夫妻」),你就不再需要基督教,也就是說,你不再需要神了。


不知不覺講了太多。簡單彙整幾個重點給你:

1.改信基督教的一開始會遇到哪些困難呢? 

答:如上。

2.怎麼樣會冒犯到基督信仰的人呢? 

答:不在信仰中的人,這一點無解。台灣愛吃豬肉,就常常在這一點冒犯伊斯蘭信徒而不自知。所以去「理解基督教」是唯一解。

3.我不知道要怎麼確定這個宗教是真的、值得相信的

答:你的問題有一個盲點:不是別人告訴你的信仰內容有真有假,你只需要做「確認」的動作;而是你必須「親自進入、親自瞭解」才能去「確定」這個信仰內容是真是假。這就是我在前面會告訴你李前總統這個例子的原因。我如果不走進教會、不讀聖經,不跟教會的屬靈長輩質疑、請益,我也不會成為基督徒----而且我有「再也不會離開的確信」喔!

我知道我的措辭有點深,但仍希望對你有些幫助。

Changing one’s faith is never an easy matter. Otherwise, I would not have waited until the age of forty-three to be baptized and become a believer in Christ.

Let me offer an example. Former President Lee Teng-hui was not originally a Christian. He received a Japanese education and was deeply influenced by the spirit of Bushidō. In his youth, he even joined the Communist Party, longing for revolution and social transformation. It was only after he entered the party-state system that he began to take an interest in Christianity. How did he do so? By reading the Bible and visiting churches.

President Lee was a highly learned man. He did not merely read Scripture on his own; he also deliberately scheduled time each week to visit churches one by one. During these visits, he listened attentively to the sermons preached by pastors. He did not go with a casual or observational mindset. He went with the intention of understanding Christianity and seeking truth. Eventually, he was baptized and became a Christian within the Presbyterian Church tradition.

It is entirely acceptable to approach Christianity from the perspective of “wanting to understand Christians” or even “wanting to understand a Christian boyfriend.” However, whether you ultimately believe or not, relying solely on being spiritually “fed” by others is insufficient. You yourself must have a hunger and thirst for truth. Without this inner drive, the Christian faith will ultimately become nothing more than a book on your shelf.

Yes—hunger and thirst. President Lee had it. I had it as well.

Before speaking of “conversion,” let us first speak of “engagement.” There are two objective means of engagement: the Bible and the church (not the building, but the community of believers). Yet whether it is the Bible or the church, both must point toward the same absolute Subject: God Himself. To believe in Christianity, the true test is whether one sincerely desires to know this God.

From my own experience, the difficulties one encounters include the following:

1. The exclusivity of Christian doctrine

This was the core reason I stubbornly refused to believe for many years. I felt Christianity was too authoritarian—claiming itself as the only truth and dismissing other faiths as false. There is no shortcut to resolving this issue. Only by personally engaging with Christian doctrine can one possibly come to accept this claim.

When I first came to faith, it was a statement made by Pastor Stephen Tong (Tang Chong-rong) at an evangelistic meeting that awakened me: “Truth is absolute. And because it is absolute, truth is necessarily exclusive.” This statement humbled me. It led me to approach Christianity not as something to be examined through the lens of my pre-existing beliefs, but as something I needed to truly understand on its own terms. I had to face an unavoidable question: What if Christianity really is the truth?


2. ‘Integration of value systems’ versus ‘replacement of a value system’

For most people, the initial difficulties may appear at the level of daily practice: vegetarian versus meat-eating, holding incense or not, visiting temples or not, giving up precious Sundays to attend church, and so forth.

Next comes conflict at the conceptual level: equality of all beings versus humanity as the crown of creation; killing as sin versus the biblical permission to eat meat without blood; worshiping deities versus idolatry; belief in the one true God versus the idea that all religions merely teach moral goodness.

Finally, there is collision at the level of faith itself. In my case, accepting the one true God required me to regard all temple deities as idols—not in the sense of destroying temples, but in denying their divine status. Accepting the doctrine of original sin required me to abandon my former belief in the innate goodness of human nature. Accepting the biblical teaching that God permits the consumption of meat required me to cease my vegetarianism. (Even today, there are believers who converted from Yiguandao who remain vegetarian, and I respect that.)

Before becoming a Christian, I practiced what I would call “value system integration”—a syncretistic approach. I drew selectively from different religions, adopting whatever I believed contributed to my moral refinement and spiritual growth. The core of my values was self-cultivation and the pursuit of personal moral perfection. Everything I accepted had been examined and chosen by myself; it was not an uncritical acceptance of a complete religious system. This integrated system worked for me—but only for me. It was not transferable.

After marriage, however, this approach failed. Previously, my attitude toward relationships was one of detachment: if we come together, we come together; if we part, we part. I did not invest deeply in maintaining relationships—it required too much effort. This stance may be acceptable toward outsiders, but not toward family. Unfortunately, marriage is precisely the process by which two people move from strangers, to lovers, and then to family. Once someone becomes family, relationship cannot be treated lightly.

My “detached acceptance” became destructive to the marriage. I did not initially think it was that serious, but my wife was deeply hurt by it. Only then did I realize that system integration fails in the context of intimate relationships. What I needed was not integration, but system replacement.

Why Christianity? Because the most distinctive doctrine of Christianity is love. If Christianity could transform my understanding and practice of love, then this was the faith I needed. My long journey to faith was, in essence, a process of value system replacement—deep, internal, and fundamental.

If one believes for purely external reasons—for example, “my spouse must be a Christian”—then I must say honestly: when that external reason disappears (such as once the marriage is secured), Christianity will no longer be necessary. In other words, God will no longer be necessary.


I have spoken at length. Let me summarize a few key points:

1. What difficulties arise at the beginning of converting to Christianity?

Answer: As described above.

2. How does one offend Christians without intending to?

Answer: This is unavoidable for those outside the faith. In Taiwan, for example, the love of pork often unintentionally offends Muslim believers. The only solution is to truly understand Christianity.

3. I do not know how to determine whether this religion is true and worthy of belief.

Answer: There is a blind spot in this question. Faith is not something where others tell you what is true or false and you merely verify it. You must personally enter into it, personally engage with it, in order to discern whether it is true. This is why I mentioned President Lee’s example earlier. Had I not entered the church, read the Bible, questioned and sought counsel from spiritual elders, I would never have become a Christian—and now I have a deep conviction that I will never leave.

I know my wording is somewhat dense, but I sincerely hope it will be of some help.

2026年1月8日 星期四

GT20260109主題:耶穌關於「世代的人」的比喻

經文:路加福音7:31-34

31 主又說:「這樣,我可用甚麼比這世代的人呢?他們好像甚麼呢? 

32好像孩童坐在街市上,彼此呼叫說:

我們向你們吹笛,

你們不跳舞;

我們向你們舉哀,

你們不啼哭。

33施洗的約翰來,不吃餅,不喝酒你們說他是被鬼附着的。

 34人子來,也吃也喝你們說他是貪食好酒的人,是稅吏和罪人的朋友。

主題:耶穌關於「世代的人」的比喻

真是鮮活的比喻!

每個世代都有這樣的人啊:既不回應別人的喜樂與哀哭(孩童的比喻),又對別人的行為老是找理由去反對與批評(施洗約翰與耶穌自己的遭遇)。前者是對別人的無感與冷漠,後者是極端的自我中心主義。

這樣的生命,是極為剛硬的;這樣的生命,也會嚴重傷害所有的關係。如果讓這樣的人擁有權勢可以決定關係、甚至是建構體制,那一定是只計算個人獲利,不惜將別人當成資源(中國稱之為「人礦」)的恐怖關係與體制,因為在他的世界裡,只有他的意志才是對錯的標準,只有他的樂與悲才是需要在乎的情緒。

而這樣的生命,離神最遠。

Scripture: Luke 7:31–34


31 The Lord said, “To what, then, shall I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?


32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to one another:


‘We played the flute for you,

and you did not dance;

we sang a dirge,

and you did not weep.’


33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’


34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’”


Theme: Jesus’ Parable about “the People of This Generation”


What a vivid parable!


Every generation has such people: those who neither respond to others’ joy nor to their sorrow (the parable of the children), and who constantly find reasons to oppose and criticize others’ actions (as seen in their treatment of John the Baptist and of Jesus himself). The former reflects indifference and emotional numbness toward others; the latter reflects an extreme form of self-centeredness.


Such a life is profoundly hardened. Such a life also seriously damages all relationships. If people like this were to hold power—able to determine relationships or even construct systems—those systems would inevitably calculate only personal gain, treating others merely as resources (in China, this is referred to as “human mines”). This would result in terrifying relationships and structures, because in their world only their own will defines right and wrong, and only their own joy and sorrow are emotions that matter.


Such a life is the farthest from God.

2026年1月7日 星期三

楊腓力婚外情事件之省思

基督教作家楊腓力坦承婚外情八年!宣布退出寫作與公開事工


「總要警醒禱告,免得入了迷惑。你們心靈固然願意,肉體卻軟弱了。」(馬太福音 26:41)


這是知道楊腓力事件後我想起的經文。


楊中生牧師在我初信主時曾告訴我,基督徒只是「蒙恩的罪人」。當年我不甚理解,因為我以為信主後只要靠著學習聖經的道理、遵從主耶穌的教導,我就可以讓自己趨於完美,一如我還是儒家信徒時,相信自己憑著修養品德,就可以成為止於至善的「聖人」。


直到我深受罪疚感所困, 楊中生牧師以上帝「無可理喻的愛」開導我,我才懂得神的慈愛與公義本質,懂得神與人之間那道無法跨越的鴻溝,懂得上帝的聖潔與榮耀,以及自己為何會同時「畏懼光」與「尋求光」----


因為我終於體認到,人與罪的關係是:「它必戀慕你,你卻要制伏它」(創世紀4:7) 


在這樣充滿張力的的關係中,就會呈現這樣一種詭異卻真實的生命景況:


撐開陽傘

和地上罪的陰影

嬉戲(<懺>,2013年舊作)


我想,這應該就是楊腓力這八年來每天在熬受的日子。


至於審判,那是上帝的事。

***

“Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Matthew 26:41)


This was the passage that came to my mind after learning of the Philip Yancey  incident.


When I first came to faith, Pastor Jonathan Yang once told me that Christians are merely “sinners saved by grace.” At the time, I did not truly understand this, because I believed that after coming to faith, as long as I studied Scripture diligently and followed the teachings of the Lord Jesus, I could gradually perfect myself. This was much like when I was still a Confucian adherent, believing that through moral self-cultivation one could become a “sage” who abides in the highest good.


It was not until I was deeply tormented by guilt that Pastor Jonathan Yang enlightened me with God’s “incomprehensible love.” Only then did I come to understand the nature of God’s mercy and justice; to recognize the unbridgeable chasm between God and humanity; to grasp God’s holiness and glory; and to understand why I could simultaneously “fear the light” and yet “seek the light”—


For I finally came to realize that the relationship between humanity and sin is this:

 

“Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

(Genesis 4:7)


Within this relationship, so full of tension, there emerges a strange yet profoundly real condition of life:


Opening a parasol

 Playing

 with the shadow of sin on the ground

(“Confession,” an old work from 2013)


I imagine that this is the life Philip Yancey has been forced to endure, day after day, over the past eight years. 


As for judgment—that belongs to God alone.

2026年1月6日 星期二

令人不安的視角:關於「蔡依林演唱會上的那個「惡魔」,其實是人類第一個說不的女人」一文

這是一篇讓我很不安的文章。

表面上看,作者寫的是對蔡依林演唱會的舞台元素「惡魔(莉莉絲)」的女性主義角度解讀,但因為在莉莉絲故事的原始文本涉及上帝,使我無法不從信仰的角度去檢視這篇文章。

所以,我很不安。

首先,雖然文中說「(莉莉絲)這個故事不在聖經正典裡,是中世紀的猶太民間文學」,看似要與基督信仰切割(作者在文後也說「我自己是基督徒,我寫這篇不是要挑戰誰的信仰」),然而故事涉及創世之初「上帝與人之間的關係與互動」,在作者詮釋的過程中,這條「聖經正典\民間文學」的界線對一般讀者而言是很難清楚拿捏的,不管是基督徒或非基督徒。在這種「邊界感不明」的情況下,我擔憂讀者順著作者的論述脈絡自然地接受了文中的觀點,而忽略了在論述的過程中,上帝的地位被人的自由意志給凌駕了,而這會觸及基督信仰關於罪最重要、最核心的內容:人的自由意志不再順服上帝,也就是「自以為義」。

在文章中,莉莉絲是全文的核心,在「男性\女性」「個人\系統」「自由\壓迫」等論述架構下,莉莉絲成為「打破性別不平等,對抗系統壓迫,追求個人意志自由」的正面形象,一個女權的象徵。這個論述架構當然有心理學上的根據(作者也是心理學家),但我認為詮釋「神話」與「神的話」還是要區別對待:神話是人類文明發展的產物,神的話卻是上帝的直接、間接啟示。若混淆了兩者的界線,把神的話當作神話看待,人們將無法以真理的角度去認識神的話語,只會去選擇符合自己的認知與期待的文化詮釋。

在文章中,因為莉莉絲為核心的緣故,上帝的地位被暗中降低了:上帝成為「系統」的一部份。上帝接受了亞當對莉莉絲的告狀,派天使去告誡她,但莉莉絲不接受,於是詛咒被實現了。上帝成了「系統」執行壓迫的決策角色,而那個「創造世界」的大能者與至高者的角色,模糊了。

我最受不了的是文中的這句話:「上帝學到教訓了」。作者可能沒有自覺,但這句話的言外之意是:「上帝是會犯錯的」,為了解決這個錯誤,所以上帝改從亞當的肋骨創造夏娃,好讓夏娃「記得自己的位置」。從人的角度看,「修正錯誤」的確是美德,但在真理中,上帝是不會犯錯的,犯錯的是人。而上帝為了人的犯罪,啟動了跨時代的大計劃,先預表(先知)、再成就(十字架上的基督)、最後終極審判(啟示錄的王者基督),在當中要啟示世人的,是上帝對人無條件的愛與祂忌邪的公義。在人的義中,「學到教訓、修正錯誤」看似可取,但上帝的榮耀與聖潔,已經被這樣的論述徹底冒犯了。

This is an article that makes me deeply uneasy.


On the surface, the author presents a feminist interpretation of the stage element “the demon (Lilith)” in Jolin Tsai’s concert. However, because the original texts of the Lilith story involve God, I find it impossible not to examine the article from the perspective of faith.


And so, I feel uneasy.


First, although the article states that “this story (of Lilith) is not part of the biblical canon but belongs to medieval Jewish folklore,” which appears to draw a boundary from Christian belief (the author also notes at the end, “I myself am a Christian; I am not writing this to challenge anyone’s faith”), the narrative nonetheless touches on “the relationship and interaction between God and humanity at the dawn of creation.” In the author’s interpretive process, the boundary between “biblical canon” and “folk literature” becomes very difficult for general readers—whether Christians or non-Christians—to clearly discern. Under such conditions of blurred boundaries, I am concerned that readers may naturally follow the author’s line of reasoning and accept the viewpoints presented, while overlooking the fact that, in the course of the argument, God’s position is overridden by human free will. This directly touches the most essential and core understanding of sin in Christian faith: when human free will no longer submits to God—that is, self-righteousness.


In the article, Lilith is the central figure. Within the frameworks of “male/female,” “individual/system,” and “freedom/oppression,” Lilith is portrayed as a positive image—one who “breaks gender inequality, resists systemic oppression, and pursues the freedom of individual will,” a symbol of feminism. This framework certainly has psychological grounding (the author is also a psychologist). However, I believe that “myth” and “the Word of God” must be treated differently. Myth is a product of human civilization, whereas the Word of God is God’s direct or indirect revelation. If these two are conflated—if the Word of God is treated as myth—people will no longer approach Scripture from the perspective of truth, but will instead selectively adopt cultural interpretations that align with their own cognition and expectations.


Because Lilith is the core of the article, God’s status is subtly diminished: God becomes part of the “system.” God accepts Adam’s accusation against Lilith and sends angels to warn her, but Lilith refuses to comply, and thus the curse is enacted. God becomes the decision-maker who executes oppression on behalf of the “system,” while His role as the omnipotent Creator and the Most High becomes blurred.


What I find most unbearable is the sentence in the article: “God learned a lesson.” The author may not have been conscious of it, but the implication of this statement is that “God can make mistakes.” To correct this mistake, God then creates Eve from Adam’s rib so that Eve will “remember her place.” From a human perspective, “correcting mistakes” is indeed a virtue. But in truth, God does not make mistakes—humans do. And because of human sin, God set in motion a plan spanning all ages: first prefigured through prophecy, then fulfilled in Christ on the cross, and ultimately consummated in final judgment (Christ the King in Revelation). What God reveals through this plan is His unconditional love for humanity and His jealous righteousness. Within human righteousness, “learning a lesson and correcting mistakes” may seem commendable, but God’s glory and holiness are profoundly offended by such a line of reasoning.


At first, I simply felt that the article was inappropriate. It was not until last night, when I saw a young Christian brother share this article, that I forced myself to seriously examine the sense of “wrongness” I felt. In the end, what I truly felt was unease. Last night, I left a brief comment reminding him to be mindful of the issue of God being diminished. This morning, with more time, I was able to organize my thoughts more clearly and write this piece to share them with you.


***
出處:李思萱臉書
蔡依林演唱會上的那個「惡魔」,其實是人類第一個說不的女人

蔡依林大巨蛋演唱會結束後,網路上吵成一團。有人說那三十米的巨蟒、那頭公牛、那個第三隻眼,根本是光明會符號,整場像大型獻祭儀式。其中一個被點名的形象,是「魔女莉莉絲」。

但莉莉絲是誰?她為什麼是「魔女」?

大部分人都知道夏娃是亞當的妻子,人類的第一個女人。但在猶太民間傳說裡,有一個被消失的角色:莉莉絲。她才是第一個女人。(先說清楚,這個故事不在聖經正典裡,是中世紀的猶太民間文學,但它流傳了上千年,影響了後來西方文化對「女巫」「妖女」的想像,值得我們認識一下。)

故事是這樣的。上帝用泥土造了亞當,然後用同樣的泥土造了莉莉絲。兩個人一起住在伊甸園,一切看起來很美好,直到他們吵架了。吵什麼?性愛的體位。亞當堅持要在上面,莉莉絲說:憑什麼?我們都是泥土做的,我們是平等的。

亞當不接受。莉莉絲也不讓步。

然後莉莉絲做了一件事:她唸出上帝隱密的名字,瞬間離開了伊甸園。她是自己走的,沒有人趕她。

亞當很生氣,去跟上帝告狀。上帝派了三個天使去追莉莉絲,在紅海找到了她。天使說:回來,不然你每天會有一百個孩子死掉。莉莉絲拒絕了。她說她不會回去那個要她服從的地方。

於是她被詛咒。每天死一百個孩子。她從第一個女人,變成了殺嬰的惡魔、誘惑男人的妖女、所有女巫的始祖。

而上帝學到教訓了。第二次造女人的時候,不再用泥土,改用亞當的肋骨。這樣她就是「從男人身上來的」,會記得自己的位置。這個女人叫夏娃。

我第一次讀到這個故事的時候,愣了很久。

因為莉莉絲的「罪」,從頭到尾只有一個:她要求平等。
她沒有殺人,沒有偷東西,沒有背叛任何人。她只是說:我們都是一樣的材料做的,為什麼我要在下面?

然後整個系統就動起來了。亞當去告狀、上帝派天使、天使威脅她、詛咒她的孩子。她被追殺、被詛咒、被妖魔化。從「第一個女人」變成「惡魔」,只因為她說了一個「不」字。

更讓我在意的是後來的敘事怎麼寫她。

她要求平等,被說成「忌妒亞當」。她離開伊甸園,被說成「背叛上帝」。她拒絕回來,被說成「投靠惡魔」。她的孩子被殺,她被迫反擊,然後她變成「殺嬰的妖怪」。

前因全部被抹掉,只剩下她「變壞」的那一刻。
是誰先動手的?是誰先說每天要殺她一百個孩子?沒有人記得了。大家只記得莉莉絲是惡魔。

這個故事讓我想到的是:這套劇本到今天還在用。
一個女人在職場上有企圖心,被說「太強勢」「難相處」。一個女人拒絕追求者,被說「公主病」「妳以為妳是誰」。一個女人不想結婚生小孩,被說「自私」「不完整」。一個女人離開一段關係,被說「狠心」「無情」。一個女人表達憤怒,被說「歇斯底里」「情緒化」。

模式從來沒變過:女人要求平等或拒絕服從,就會被改寫成「有問題的女人」。

然後還有那個「受害者變加害者」的套路。一個女人被傷害、被逼到絕境、被迫反擊,然後她反擊的那一刻被拿出來當證據,證明她本來就是瘋子、惡毒、不可理喻。前面發生的事全部消失,只剩下她「發瘋」的畫面。

所以這個幾千年前的故事,對今天有什麼用?
我覺得最重要的是:認出這個劇本。

當妳被貼上「太強勢」「難搞」「不知足」的標籤時,想想莉莉絲。這不是妳的問題,這是一個運作了幾千年的套路。認出套路,妳就不會真的以為自己有病。

還有一件事。莉莉絲被趕出伊甸園,聽起來很慘,好像她失去了一切。但換個角度想:她是唯一一個主動離開樂園的人。夏娃是被騙吃蘋果然後被趕走的,莉莉絲是自己選擇離開的。

她失去了樂園,但她得到了自由。
有時候「被拋棄」其實是「被解放」。有時候「被妖魔化」反而是一種認證——證明妳做了某件讓這個系統很害怕的事。

蔡依林在演唱會上化身莉莉絲的時候,我突然懂了她在做什麼。

她不是在扮演惡魔。她是在說:這個被妖魔化的女人,其實是我們的先驅。

想想蔡依林自己的路。她離開周杰倫之後,沒有崩塌,反而越來越走出自己。從「少男殺手」到「地才」到現在站在大巨蛋舞台上化身六個女神,她花了二十年證明一件事:離開不是結束,是開始。

莉莉絲、美杜莎、被燒死的女巫們——她們都走過這條路。她們被說成怪物,但她們的「罪」都一樣:不服從。

2026年了,我們還是站在同一個隊伍裡。

關於故事出處
莉莉絲作為「亞當第一任妻子」的故事,最早完整記載於《便西拉的字母》(The Alphabet of Ben Sira),大約成書於公元8到10世紀,是中世紀的猶太民間文學。這份文獻的性質一直有爭議,有些學者認為它帶有諷刺和戲謔的成分,可能是在嘲諷當時的社會現象或宗教權威,不一定是嚴肅的宗教論述。

文獻中關於「體位之爭」的原文大意是:莉莉絲說「我不可在下」,亞當說「我當在上,不可在你之下;你當在下,我在你之上」。這段對話直白到有點荒謬,這也是為什麼有人認為整個文本帶有黑色幽默的意味。

無論作者的原意是什麼,這個故事被創造出來、流傳了上千年,本身就說明了一件事:「不服從的女人」這個形象,是人類集體意識裡很深的焦慮。我們需要一個故事來解釋「為什麼女人應該服從」,而莉莉絲的下場就是那個警告。

不管這個故事最初是認真的還是諷刺的,它都反映了當時社會對女性角色的想像和規訓。而這份焦慮,顯然到今天都沒有消失。

最後說幾句
我自己是基督徒,我寫這篇不是要挑戰誰的信仰。莉莉絲的故事不在聖經正典裡,天主教、基督新教、東正教都不承認她是「亞當的第一任妻子」。

我想做的事情很簡單:提供一個不同的視角,讓大家看見「主流敘事」以外的東西。

每一個流傳下來的故事,都是某個時代、某群人選擇要這樣說的版本。被選中的版本不一定是唯一的真相,被消失的版本也不一定是錯的。我不是要跟主流敘事打架,我只是想讓更多人學會一件事:看故事的時候,記得問一句「這是誰說的?為什麼要這樣說?還有沒有別的說法?」

能拿掉框架看事情,才有機會看見更完整的圖。
也不需要一定認同哪一個意象,像我就覺得有時候我可以很夏娃,有時候也可以很莉莉絲。假如有種一定要成為莉莉絲才算進化的想法,其實也是對自己的暴力。

看懂的人自然會懂,不需要來戰。