自省文

這是我幾天前看到的一篇FB貼文（見上一篇），，裡面有很不錯的觀念，但是我很清楚，我觸及到一個邊界。那個邊界就是「對神的渴慕」。

聽起來很奇怪，對不對？我喜歡讀聖經，也樂於思考，看起來不像不渴慕神的樣子。

但信仰從來不是努力在「看起來」之上，而是「內心是否真的敞開」。

我敞開過，但關起來的次數更多----這就是我的問題。

我為何珍惜少數有過的屬靈經驗？因為那是被聖靈觸摸的生命觸動。當下的感動是真實的，但問題是，我無法延續它。

關鍵就在我還活在這個世界上----這個充滿各種誘惑的世界。

我不是想卸責（自己不努力尋求神，還去怪罪別人），而是表達我的軟弱：我對這個世界的抵抗力，真的不高。

昨天主日後的聖餐時間，我與Peter聊起基督徒面對「罪的誘惑」時的兩難：當我過著屬靈的生活，與神有親密的關係時，那感覺是享受的；但當我的罪性、生理需求與世界的罪相勾連時，我的感受也是「享受」的----唯一的差別，大概是享受犯罪快感之後，真真實實的空虛感與罪惡感，而屬靈的享受不會這樣。

回到我的問題。其實，我也常會處在這種兩難之中。我會在乎別人的眼光，知道在世界中生活的各種邊界（「不侵犯別人」的邊界），所以我守的還可以，並據此建立了較好的外在形象。然而一個人獨處的時候，沒有別人眼光的顧忌的時候，反而是我罪性最活躍的時候----我知道上帝在，知道他在看著我，但我看不見他，所以我自我欺騙的「一個人」享受犯罪。這有點像你公開認罪的狀況：我們可以選擇不犯罪，但在那個「心裡感覺安全」的獨處情境裡，我們「選擇」了得罪神。

在2013年，我寫了這首詩：<我看見撒旦在微笑>

我看見撒旦在微笑

當我在禱告中

更多的關注在自己的苦痛

我看見撒旦在微笑

當我將負擔交托給主

卻急於看見負擔的消弭

我看見撒旦在微笑

當我空出了心中的位置給主

卻常常想去檢視位置是否空著

我看見撒旦在微笑

當我求主死滅我的老我

卻仍捨不得放下自以為好的自我

我看見撒旦在微笑

當我誦唸聖經的語句

卻只聽見聲音的震動

我看見

撒旦在微笑......（完）

這是我剛信主時寫的詩。多年過去了，我依然還在努力「渴慕神」。

那篇FB文章的結論很溫暖：

「也許有些罪的背後,其實藏著一個很深的空缺。而真正能填滿人的，不是更強的意志力，而是更深地經歷上帝的愛。 ......

也許我們不只是要努力「戒掉罪」。我們更需要的，是慢慢「離開罪」。

不是因為我們很有意志力，很能忍，而是因為我們開始嚐到更美的東西。 」

就像耶利米書31:3 說的：

古時耶和華向以色列顯現，說：「我以永遠的愛愛你， 因此我以慈愛吸引你。 」

願你我都把心向神完全敞開，讓光照進我心，充滿我心，單單享受神永遠的慈愛，不眷戀世界對罪性的「呼喚」。

---

This is a Facebook post I came across a few days ago. It contains some very profound concepts, but I am well aware that I have reached a boundary. That boundary is "the longing for God."

It sounds strange, doesn't it? I love reading the Bible and I enjoy contemplating it, so I don't look like someone who doesn't long for God. However, faith is never about striving to "look the part," but rather about "whether the heart is truly open."

I have opened up before, but I have shut it down even more times—and that is my problem.

Why do I cherish the few spiritual experiences I've had? Because they were moments where my life was genuinely touched by the Holy Spirit. The moving feeling in those moments was real, but the problem is, I cannot sustain it.

The crux of the matter is that I am still living in this world—a world brimming with all kinds of temptations.

I am not trying to shirk responsibility (blaming others instead of striving to seek God myself); rather, I am expressing my weakness: my resistance to this world is honestly not very strong.

Yesterday, during fellowship after the Sunday service, Peter and I talked about the dilemma Christians face when confronting the "temptation of sin." When I live a spiritual life and share an intimate relationship with God, that feeling is enjoyable. But when my sinful nature and physical desires intertwine with the sins of the world, my experience is also one of "enjoyment." The only difference, perhaps, is the genuine sense of emptiness and guilt that follows the pleasure of sinning, whereas spiritual enjoyment never leaves such a bitter aftertaste.

Back to my own problem. In fact, I often find myself caught in this exact dilemma. I care about how others perceive me, and I know the various boundaries of living in society (the boundary of "not imposing on others"), so I manage well enough and have built a decent outward image based on that. Yet, when I am alone, free from the scrutiny of others, that is precisely when my sinful nature becomes most active. I know God is there, I know He is watching me, but because I cannot see Him, I deceive myself into thinking I am "alone" and indulge in sin. This is somewhat like the situation of public confession you mentioned: we have the choice not to sin, but in that private setting where "the heart feels safe," we "choose" to offend God.

In 2013, I wrote this poem: I See Satan Smiling

I See Satan Smiling

I see grim Satan smile with pride, 

When in my prayers I choose to hide, 

And fix my gaze upon my grief, 

Rather than seek His sweet relief.

I see grim Satan smile with pride, 

When to the Lord my cares confide, 

Yet anxiously I demand to see 

My heavy burdens lift from me.

I see grim Satan smile with pride, 

When for the Lord a place provide, 

Yet often turn my eyes to trace 

If emptiness still fills the space.

I see grim Satan smile with pride, 

When asking that the old self died, 

Yet tightly clutch and hold so dear 

The worldly righteousness I fear.

I see grim Satan smile with pride, 

When Holy Scriptures are applied, 

Yet all I hear from words profound 

Is but the trembling of the sound.

I see him watch, 

And smile with pride... (The End)

This is a poem I wrote when I was a new believer. Many years have passed since then, and I am still striving to "long for God."

The conclusion of that Facebook post was very warm:

"Perhaps behind some sins, there lies a deeply hidden void. And what truly fills a person is not a stronger willpower, but a deeper experience of God’s love. ... Perhaps our goal shouldn't just be striving to 'quit sin.' What we need more is to slowly 'depart from sin.' 

Not because we possess great willpower or endurance, but because we have begun to taste something far more beautiful."

Just as Jeremiah 31:3 says: 

The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with unfailing kindness.”

May both you and I open our hearts completely to God. Let His light shine into our hearts and fill them entirely, so that we may solely enjoy His everlasting lovingkindness, and no longer yearn for the world's "calling" to our sinful nature.

20260524 Andrew講道影片心得

影片出處：https://youtu.be/ACHeLoI2p0A?si=QxdSzXzIpquiS2b4 （英文版） 

今天Andrew 的講道很觸動我，因為他所說的罪的屬性與影響，在我身上通通都有。

罪跟酵一樣，會進入、擴散、腐蝕我們的生命，而可怕的是，這個過程是不可逆的----除非神的救恩臨到。常常我誤以為，只要自己的屬靈狀況「有改進」，就已經在處理罪了。這樣的心態，讓我一方面的確朝著救恩的方向前進，但另一方面，也仍然給罪留下破口。等到自己發覺不對勁了，常常已經是「走得太遠」了。

生命從麻木到剛硬，是一個漸進的過程，這也是罪最可怕的地方。它通常不會在犯罪之初就讓我感覺到捆綁與死亡，相反的，我會覺得享受，覺得快樂。那滋味如此難忘，於是逐漸陷溺其中（還是主動的陷進去），難以自拔。陷溺越深，捆綁就越緊，以至於死亡。

罪始於誘惑，終於死亡，這是聖經反覆證實的事，但我生命中「淡化感受，享受安逸」的特質，使我對罪的病識感常在感覺「有改進」的狀況下鬆懈，於是又成為罪的俘虜。

罪使人羞愧，使人隱藏，所以要將罪攤在光中是何等的困難！所以我們都需要神的恩典遮蓋，知道主耶穌願意、也已經為我們付上贖價，才能在神的赦免與釋放中重新獲得自由。

我永遠記得Jonathan Yang 牧師當年帶我做認罪禱告時的聖靈感動。「我們若認自己的罪，神是信實的，是公義的，必要赦免我們的罪，洗淨我們一切的不義」(約翰一書 1:9)，當我跟著牧師一句一句禱告唸到這句經文時，我痛哭流涕，泣不成聲，那股強力灌注進來的感動，將我心裡深深的罪疚感完全驅散，那是我第一次感經歷鎖鏈被砍斷、捆綁被釋放、生命被洗淨的感覺。我當年犯下的錯並未消失，但我不用再被罪疚感控訴，因為我屬於耶穌基督了。

我曾有過如此美好的屬靈經歷，但我卻無法持續下去，「痛過就忘（淡化感受）」是我的致命傷，成為我隱微的罪，傷害著我，也傷害著我身邊的人。今天Andrew 的講道再度提醒了我，對於罪，我不能輕易饒恕自己，因為我若輕易饒恕自己，那就是給罪留餘地，與罪沒完沒了的「相愛相殺」。

求主賜給我警醒的心，以慈愛吸引我，將我的眼目帶離這個世界，讓我望向耶穌，望向永生。也求主賜我順服的生命，不再愛自己過於愛神。

Andrew’s message today deeply touched me because every characteristic and effect of sin that he described can be found in my own life.

Sin is like yeast—it enters, spreads, and corrupts our lives. What makes it so frightening is that this process is irreversible unless God’s salvation intervenes. Too often, I mistakenly think that as long as my spiritual condition is “improving,” I am dealing with sin. This mindset does move me toward salvation in some ways, but at the same time, it leaves openings for sin to remain. By the time I realize something is wrong, I have often already gone too far.

The progression from spiritual numbness to hardness of heart is gradual, and that is what makes sin so dangerous. It rarely makes me feel its bondage and death at the beginning. Instead, it feels enjoyable; it feels pleasurable. The experience is so memorable that I gradually become immersed in it—indeed, I willingly plunge myself into it—and find it difficult to break free. The deeper the indulgence, the tighter the bondage becomes, ultimately leading to death.

Sin begins with temptation and ends in death. This truth is repeatedly affirmed throughout Scripture. Yet my tendency to dull my feelings and seek comfort often weakens my awareness of sin whenever I sense that I am “making progress.” As a result, I once again become a captive of sin.

Sin brings shame, and shame causes people to hide. That is why bringing sin into the light is so difficult. We all need God’s grace to cover us. Only when we know that Jesus was willing—and has already paid the ransom for us—can we receive true freedom through God’s forgiveness and deliverance.

I will never forget the work of the Holy Spirit when Pastor Jonathan Yang led me in a prayer of confession years ago. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). As I repeated this verse line by line after him during the prayer, I broke down in tears and could hardly speak. A powerful wave of conviction and comfort flooded into me, completely driving away the deep guilt I had carried in my heart. It was the first time I experienced what it felt like for chains to be broken, for bondage to be released, and for my life to be cleansed. The mistakes I had made did not disappear, but I no longer had to live under the accusation of guilt, because I belonged to Jesus Christ.

I once had such a beautiful spiritual experience, yet I have not been able to sustain it. “Forgetting the pain once it has passed” — dulling my sensitivity to what I have experienced — has become my fatal weakness. It has turned into a subtle sin that harms both me and the people around me. Andrew’s message today reminded me once again that I cannot afford to be lenient with myself regarding sin. If I easily excuse myself, I am simply giving sin room to remain, continuing an endless cycle of conflict and entanglement with it.

May the Lord give me a watchful heart. May His love draw me to Himself, turning my eyes away from this world and fixing them on Jesus and on eternal life. And may He grant me a life of obedience, so that I will no longer love myself more than I love God.

2026/05/03 Stephen長老主日講道有感

 Stephen ，你今天在主日的分享很觸動我。對我而言，「聖靈」這部分的信仰一直是一個「深水區」，因為祂無法純然透過知識去理解，對於聖靈，你只能「領受」。

很不幸的是，屬靈的世界裡，還有很多假靈、邪靈，所以你說的對，「不談」是最安全的，這也是我以前的態度----反正我有聖經就好。

不過這樣的信仰是不完全的。三一真神其中一個位格，就是聖靈，排除祂，對神的認識就不會真切，也無法進入信仰生活中非常重要那個部分：教會----而這正是聖靈重要的工作之一。是聖靈將各個恩賜賜給眾人，眾人彼此聯合、同工、合一，與主連結成為合神心意的樣式。

「沒有獨善其身的基督徒」，這是我信主後重要的生命改變。以前我不懂這一點，覺得只要自己追求認識主就好，別人夠不夠認識主那是他自己的事，與我無關。可是我忽略了一點：如果沒有其他基督徒的陪伴、互動與遮蓋，我單憑自己的努力，是不可能走到現在、走到到這裡的。是「關係」，讓我們在神的眼中成為特殊，也讓我們彼此之間有了成為神的樣式的可能。

所以，我在最後的禱告時間，按著你的啟發求神「對我吹氣」，開啟我的靈，決定「與聖靈一起冒險」。雖然當下沒有「被特殊能力灌滿全身」的奇特（或者說，神秘）感受，但這樣的決志，讓我充滿平安。

後來你為阿諾禱告完後，我也跟他聊了一會兒。我知道對他而言，「感受」是很難精準表達出來的，他對你說出口的「舒服」，可能蘊含了「喜悅、平安、釋放……」等不同的內容。我告訴他，就算講不出來也沒關係，只要記住現在當下的感受就好，因為在我們教會中的屬靈感受是真切的，這個感受，可以成為日後屬靈辨識上的根據。

---

​Stephen, your sharing during today’s service really touched me. To me, the "Holy Spirit" has always been a bit of a "deep water zone" in my faith—because He cannot be understood purely through intellectual knowledge; you can only "receive" Him.

​Unfortunately, in the spiritual realm, there are many false and evil spirits. So you were right: "not talking about it" is the safest route, which was exactly my old attitude—as long as I had the Bible, I felt I was fine.

​However, that kind of faith is incomplete. The Holy Spirit is one of the persons of the Trinity; to exclude Him is to lack a true understanding of God. It also prevents us from entering a vital part of the life of faith: the Church—which is one of the Holy Spirit's primary works. It is the Spirit who bestows gifts upon us all, allowing us to unite, co-labor, and become one, connecting with the Lord to become the body that God intends.

​"There is no such thing as a solitary Christian"—this has been a significant life change for me since I came to Christ. I didn't understand this before; I thought as long as I pursued knowing the Lord myself, it didn't matter how others were doing. But I overlooked one thing: without the companionship, interaction, and covering of other Christians, I could never have made it this far on my own effort. It is "relationship" that makes us special in God’s eyes and makes it possible for us to reflect His likeness to one another.

​So, during the final prayer time, inspired by what you said, I asked God to "breathe on me" and open my spirit. I decided to "take an adventure with the Holy Spirit." Although I didn't experience any "mystical" sensation of power flooding my body at that moment, this decision filled me with great peace.

​After you finished praying for Arnold, I chatted with him for a while. I know that for him, "feelings" are hard to express precisely. When he told you he felt "comfortable," it likely encompassed a mix of joy, peace, and release. I told him it’s okay if he can’t put it into words—he just needs to remember how he feels right now. Spiritual experiences in our church are real, and this feeling can serve as a foundation for spiritual discernment in the future.

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.

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.

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.

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。

尋找我們的神----「大衛-王者降臨」電影觀後感

網路電影宣傳海報

「大衛-王者降臨」絕對是今年最好看的福音電影了！

不同於電影「萬王之王（主耶穌）」的「插敘（說故事）」敘事結構，「大衛-王者降臨」採取跟電影「埃及王子（摩西）」相同的「線性敘述」方式，讓電影的完整性與流暢性顯得更佳。但電影中「神存在的樣式」，本片與「埃及王子」則明顯不同。

在「埃及王子」中，神以「具體存在」的形態與先知摩西互動，摩西所行的神蹟，全都是按照神「開口（聲音）」的指示去實現。電影裡我們看不見神的具體形象，但神這個角色，是以「聲優」的形式來演出的。

而「大衛-王者降臨」裡的神，自己始終沒有開口，他的「旨意」是藉著先知撒母耳來傳達：掃羅的膏立、被廢以及大衛的膏立，都以撒母耳的「傳達」為依據----但神始終在電影裡的每一個地方「存在」。

我們的神是創世的神，「自從造天地以來，神的永能和神性是明明可知的，雖是眼不能見，但藉着所造之物就可以曉得，叫人無可推諉。」 (羅馬書 1:20 )這個真理容易理解，但一般人卻不容易「感知」。在「大衛-王者降臨」裡，我更看重的是神在另外兩個層面的存在：「內在面」與「超越面」。

就超越面而言，撒母耳傳達神的旨意，是「超越的神」的呈現；歌利亞與大衛對戰時，高傲地誇口挑戰「大衛的神」那一幕也是。當歌利亞倒下的那一刻，那不是大衛的勝利，是神藉著「弱小的孩童大衛」所成就的勝利。這位神，是超越世界之上掌管一切、決定一切的至高主宰。

就內在面而言，我覺得這應該是整部電影中最精彩動人的部分了。大衛的一生就是一部尋求神、倚靠神的故事，他牧羊時如此，膏立時如此，甚至不願親手殺害對他有敵意的掃羅王時也是如此。在電影裡，大衛兩度陷入困境的情節，最能彰顯神做為「內在生命之主」的意義：

1.掃羅追殺大衛，大衛被迫出逃，大衛一邊逃命、一邊唱著「我看不見神」的心聲。導演在大衛逃命所唱的歌曲中使用了蒙太奇的手法，讓大衛與她母親在同一個畫面中，呈現「看不見神、渴求神的保護」（大衛） 與「相信神，帶著信心逃離掃羅的追捕」（母親）兩種截然相反的心境。他們並未見到神的形象，卻都在心中留著給神的位置，信靠神的保守，彰顯了神的同在。

2.亞瑪力人攻破洗格拉，擄走跟隨大衛的族人，使大衛面臨跟隨群眾信任瓦解的危機。大衛在極度無助、走投無路之際，選擇相信神：他解除武裝，一個人追趕至亞瑪力人的所在，揚聲高唱對神的信心，但被亞瑪力人一拳擊倒並被綁住手腕吊起。此時的大衛毫無反擊之力，然而被擄的族人因著大衛的信心卻開始起身高唱「我不害怕」----一個族人起身，被擊倒；再一個起身，再被擊倒；又一個起身，又一個起身……直到所有人起身高唱「我不害怕！」情勢於是逆轉，最終大衛與族人趕跑了亞瑪力人。這時候的神並沒有高居在諸天之上，而是進入每一個人的心裡，成為每一個人充滿信心的力量泉源。

我們的神，就是這麼一位既超越又內在的神。

餘論

1.在電影裡，大衛被亞瑪力人綁縛時的形象，彷彿日後上十字架的主耶穌。他順服、懷抱信心，縱使會因此而死也毫不迴避。這多像日後那位順服、犧牲、充滿愛與能力的君王----主耶穌。雖然電影裡的這段情節是出於杜撰，但我想導演應該是刻意讓大衛與主耶穌相連結，傳遞救主彌賽亞是出於大衛的子孫：主耶穌基督。

2.在電影裡，大衛的媽媽以編織為喻，教導大衛要相信神的偉大計畫。這個「編織」的意象，應該是借用於電影「埃及王子」。摩西逃離埃及時被葉忒羅收留，葉忒羅邀請摩西加入聚會所演唱的「through the heaven eyes」，裡頭就是使用「編織」來比喻神偉大的計畫。

***

<Seeking Our God — Reflections After Watching David: The King’s Arrival>

David: The King’s Arrival is without question the finest gospel film of this year.

Unlike The King of Kings (Jesus Christ), which employs an interwoven, story-within-a-story narrative structure, David: The King’s Arrival adopts a linear mode of storytelling similar to The Prince of Egypt (Moses). This choice enhances the film’s overall coherence and narrative flow. However, in its portrayal of “the manner of God’s presence,” this film differs markedly from The Prince of Egypt.

In The Prince of Egypt, God interacts with the prophet Moses in a “concrete” form of presence. The miracles Moses performs are all carried out according to God’s spoken instructions. Although God’s physical form is never shown on screen, God nevertheless appears as a character through voice acting.

By contrast, in David: The King’s Arrival, God never speaks directly. His “will” is conveyed through the prophet Samuel: the anointing of Saul, his rejection, and the anointing of David are all based on Samuel’s mediation. Yet throughout the film, God is present everywhere. Our God is the Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). This truth is easy to understand intellectually, yet difficult for most people to truly “perceive.” In David: The King’s Arrival, what I value most is God’s presence on two additional levels: the immanent dimension and the transcendent dimension.

From the transcendent perspective, Samuel’s proclamation of God’s will is a manifestation of the “transcendent God.” The same is true of the scene in which Goliath arrogantly boasts and challenges “David’s God.” When Goliath falls, it is not David’s victory; it is God’s victory, accomplished through the “small and weak child David.” This God stands above the world, sovereign over all things, determining all outcomes as the supreme ruler.

From the immanent perspective, this is, in my view, the most compelling and moving part of the entire film. David’s life is a story of seeking God and relying on God—whether while shepherding sheep, being anointed, or even when he refuses to kill King Saul, who harbors hostility toward him. Two moments in the film, in which David falls into dire circumstances, most vividly reveal the meaning of God as the “Lord of inner life”:

David Fleeing from Saul As Saul hunts him down, David is forced to flee. While escaping, he sings of his inner cry: “I cannot see God.” In this sequence, the director employs montage, placing David and his mother within the same frame. This juxtaposes two starkly different states of mind: David’s sense of not seeing God and his longing for God’s protection, and his mother’s trust in God as she flees Saul’s pursuit with faith. Neither sees God’s visible form, yet both leave space for God in their hearts, trusting in His protection and manifesting God’s presence.

The Amalekites’ Attack on Ziklag When the Amalekites overrun Ziklag and carry off the people who followed David, David faces a crisis in which the trust of his followers is on the verge of collapse. In utter helplessness, with no way forward, David chooses to trust God. He lays down his weapons and pursues the Amalekites alone, singing loudly of his faith in God. He is struck down by an Amalekite, bound at the wrists, and hung up. At this moment, David has no power to resist. Yet because of David’s faith, the captured people begin to rise and sing, “I am not afraid.” One person stands up and is struck down; another rises and is struck down; then another, and another—until everyone stands and sings, “I am not afraid!” The situation reverses, and David and his people ultimately drive away the Amalekites. Here, God is no longer portrayed as enthroned high above the heavens, but as entering into every heart, becoming the wellspring of faith and strength within each person.

Our God is precisely such a God—both transcendent and immanent.

Additional Reflections In the film, the image of David bound by the Amalekites strongly resembles the Lord Jesus on the cross. David is obedient and filled with faith, not shrinking back even if obedience leads to death. How similar this is to the later obedient, self-sacrificing, loving, and powerful King—Jesus Christ. Although this scene is a fictional addition, I believe the director intentionally connects David with Jesus, conveying that the Savior, the Messiah, comes from the lineage of David: Jesus Christ.

In the film, David’s mother teaches him to trust in God’s great plan by using weaving as a metaphor. This imagery of “weaving” appears to be borrowed from The Prince of Egypt. When Moses flees Egypt and is taken in by Jethro, Jethro invites Moses to join the gathering in singing “Through Heaven’s Eyes,” a song that likewise uses weaving as a metaphor for God’s magnificent plan.

分別為聖

新心教會的「制服」

「你們要聖潔，因為我是聖潔的。」（利未記 11:45）

這是上週日下午晾曬新心教會的「制服」時，腦海閃過的一句經文。

這四件由小而大整齊排列、一片潔白的衣服，看著實在很舒服。然而這是我這輩子，第一次遵守「白色衣服不可以和有顏色的衣服混在一起洗」的洗衣規定。

我回想起下午的情況：在太太提醒我「這幾件要單獨洗，不要跟洗衣籃的衣服一起洗」之前，我就已經動了這個念頭了。這其實違反我「快速省事」的做事原則（反正今天我就打算要洗衣服了，晚上一起洗更省事），可是因為衣服上印著「新心教會」四個字，想到過去白色衣服被我「偷懶的洗」的下場，讓我不太願意它們太快就變成「灰白色」。於是我將這四件衣服丟進洗衣機，單獨清洗。 

是的，我將這四件衣服「分別出來」，因為它們是「潔白」的。 

分別，是特意的揀選，在這當中有我對這四件衣服「特別的心意」。那麼神將我們「分別為聖」的時候，不也是有這樣的心意嗎？這樣看來，能被神所揀選，實在是大大蒙福的事啊！

當然，「分別為聖」後要持守聖潔，並不是一件容易的事，畢竟人的罪性一直誘使我偏離神的聖潔，讓我安於「自以為義」的狀態。就像之前混洗後的白色衣服，在我眼中它仍是「白色」，但其實已經「不潔白」了。

「你們要聖潔，因為我是聖潔的」，這節經文不只是一個命令，它也是人愛神的自我檢視：我是否真心追求神的聖潔？還是我只想做到「比別人更聖潔」就好？我看著這一排潔白的衣服，心中已經有了答案：

「主啊，願我愛你勝過愛我自己，因為我是個不配的人。」

***

<Set Apart / Consecrated>

“Be holy, because I am holy.” (Leviticus 11:45)

This verse came to my mind last Sunday afternoon as I was hanging out New Heart Church’s “uniforms” to dry.

These four garments, neatly arranged from small to large and completely white, were truly pleasant to look at. Yet this was the first time in my life that I had actually followed the laundry rule that “white clothes should not be washed together with colored clothes.”

I recalled what happened that afternoon. Even before my wife reminded me, “These need to be washed separately; don’t wash them together with the clothes in the laundry basket,” the thought had already crossed my mind. This went against my usual principle of doing things quickly and conveniently (after all, I had already planned to do laundry that day, and washing everything together in the evening would have been much easier). However, because the words “New Heart Church” were printed on the clothes, and because I remembered the outcome of my past “lazy washing” of white clothes, I was reluctant to let them become “grayish” too quickly. So I put these four garments into the washing machine and washed them separately.

Yes, I “set apart” these four garments, because they were “white.”

To set something apart is an intentional act of choosing, and it reflects my “special regard” for these clothes. When God sets us apart as holy, does He not have such an intention as well? Seen this way, being chosen by God is truly a great blessing.

Of course, after being “set apart as holy,” maintaining holiness is not an easy thing. Human sinfulness continually tempts me to drift away from God’s holiness, allowing me to remain comfortable in a state of “self-righteousness.” Just like white clothes that were previously washed together with colored ones: in my eyes they are still “white,” but in reality they are no longer truly “clean.”

“Be holy, because I am holy.” This verse is not merely a command; it is also a self-examination of one’s love for God: Do I genuinely pursue God’s holiness, or am I satisfied with simply being “holier than others”? As I looked at this row of spotless white clothes, I already had my answer:

“Lord, may I love You more than I love myself, for I am an unworthy person.”

神的「 吸引」

「Jabez(小鴿子，我家的自閉兒)可能永遠不會知道，自己到底哪一點吸引著我們，讓我們這麼愛他。」

「很多人看見 Jabez 時，也被 Jabez 吸引，覺得 Jabez 很可愛。」

這是剛剛家人聊天時的兩句對話。我腦海突然閃過一節經文：

「古時耶和華向以色列顯現，說：我以永遠的愛愛你，因此我以慈愛吸引你。」( 耶利米書 31:3 和合本 )

神愛人是出於本質。若要透過「神做了什麼」來證明神的愛，那麼就會因為「神沒有做什麼」來否定神的愛。如此，我們離神就會非常遠了。

能看得見 Jabez 吸引人之處，我相信，我也會看得見神吸引我的地方。

 “Jabez may never know what it is about him that draws us so deeply, that makes us love him so much.”

“When people see Jabez, many of them are also drawn to him, thinking Jabez is adorable.”

These were two lines from a family conversation we had just now. Then a verse suddenly came to mind:

> “The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying: ‘I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with unfailing kindness.’”— Jeremiah 31:3 (NIV)

God’s love for people comes from His very nature. If we try to prove God’s love only through what He has done, then we will also begin to deny His love when He seems not to act. And when that happens, our hearts will drift far from Him.

To be able to see what makes Jabez so lovable—I believe I can also see what draws me to God.

***

神再次透過Jabez ，讓我更認識他了。這次我的領受是「吸引」二字。

在信仰的路上，以前我總定睛在「尋求」「認識」「經歷」等動詞，這些不是不對，但我忽略了「吸引」––我們能愛神，是因為神主動吸引我們，讓我們知道他的存在，進一步建立/恢復了彼此的關係。

Through Jabez, God once again helped me know Him more deeply.

This time, what I received was centered on the word “draw” or “attraction.”

On my journey of faith, I used to focus on verbs like “seeking,” “knowing,” and “experiencing.” These are not wrong, but I had overlooked “being drawn.” — We are able to love God because He first draws us to Himself, making us aware of His presence and leading us to build—or restore—our relationship with Him.

附：

一、楊中生牧師的回應

對的，神和愛不能分開，神就是愛的本質本體，把神和愛分開，就會掉入神做的事，而不是神自己。

格林多書信裡面提到。希臘人求智慧，猶太人求神跡，猶太求的就是從看得見的神跡，來尋找神。結局是他們錯了。

二、Stephen Grewar 牧師的回應

Hi Jorman, thanks for this lovely message. I love taking note of what God has done and have a grateful heart. But you are right, if we only respond when we observe what God has done we will surely drift.

I appreciate how you make sense of things. You are a deep thinker. The way God had made you and gifted you is surely a huge blessing to the the church.