強力推薦：「腦海裡的世界」 記錄片（英國BBC製作）

https://b23.tv/NVUvzjf

第1-2集：自閉症（共4個個案）

第3集：過過動症（2個個案）

第4集：讀寫障礙（2個個案）

因為Jabez的緣故，我們接觸、進入了特兒的世界----不只是Jabez的個人世界，也包括各式各樣、不同障別的特兒圈子。感謝主，讓我們在信主後才生下Jabez，這幫助了我們很早就對準神，以尋求神「偽裝的祝福」的角度去陪伴、照顧這個孩子，並讓我們看見，神透過這個孩子給我們家一路以來的啟示是什麼。

在上帝眼裡、在家人眼中，Jabez是多麼可愛、甚至是完美的小孩！但我們眼中的「可愛」，可能與一般人的認知不太一樣，因為一般人沒有近距離理解特兒的機會。

甚至很多的特兒家長，也不瞭解自己所生下的特兒。所以特兒究竟花了多大的努力讓自己融入這個世界（從家庭到社會），我們永遠不會知道。

直到有人願意幫助他們把自己「腦海裡的世界」表達出來。

影片裡，個案幾乎都提到他們兩方面的困境：融入世界的困難，以及融入世界（甚至僅是簡單的「被理解」）的渴望。對於他們，「被接納」遠比「變正常」更為重要，因為意識到自己的「特殊」，已經是他們永遠放不下、需要一輩子奮戰的十字架了。

這兩天，我們全家一起看完「腦海裡的世界」，邊收看邊討論。我們不只是談論Jabez，更多的時候，我們透過影片提到的「癥狀」去檢視自己，是否有這些特殊的「內在生命因子」。在討論中，家人彼此坦白自己的軟弱，而這樣的坦白，帶來同理與接住，家人的關係更加緊密了。

分享這個記錄片，是希望特兒們可以在大家的「理解」中，也能漸漸地被大家同理與接納住。我想，這是會讓上帝發出微笑的美好事情 。 

***

Highly Recommended: "Inside Our Autistic（ADHD/Dyslexic） Minds" Documentary (Produced by the BBC)

Episodes 1–2: Autism (4 case studies) 

Episode 3: ADHD (2 case studies) 

Episode 4: Dyslexia (2 case studies)

Because of Jabez, we encountered and entered the world of special needs children—not just Jabez’s personal world, but also the wider community of children with various types of disabilities. Thank God that we came to know the Lord before Jabez was born. This helped us align our focus with God early on, allowing us to accompany and care for this child by seeking God’s "blessings in disguise." It also showed us the revelations God has brought to our family through him along the way.

In the eyes of God and his family, Jabez is such a lovely, even perfect child! However, our definition of "lovely" might differ from the mainstream perspective, as most people rarely get the chance to understand special needs children up close.

In fact, many parents themselves do not truly understand the special needs children they gave birth to. We will never truly know how much effort these children put into fitting into this world, from their families to society.

That is, until someone is willing to help them express "the world in their minds."

In the documentary, almost all the individuals mentioned a two-fold struggle: the difficulty of fitting into the world, and their deep longing to fit in (or even to simply be understood). For them, "being accepted" is far more important than "becoming normal." Recognizing their own "uniqueness" is already a lifelong cross they can never put down.

Over the past two days, our whole family watched "Inside Our Autistic（ADHD/Dyslexic） Minds " together, discussing it as we watched. We didn't just talk about Jabez; more often, we examined ourselves through the "symptoms" mentioned in the video to see if we also carried these unique "inner life factors." During our discussion, family members openly shared their own weaknesses. This honesty brought empathy and support, drawing our family even closer together.

I am sharing this documentary in the hope that through everyone's "understanding," special needs children can gradually be empathized with and accepted. I believe this is a beautiful thing that will bring a smile to God's face.

------------------------------------------------------

其實，這個記錄片讓我的家人都重新檢視了自己，以及彼此長年來的共處經驗。

第3集，ADHD的亨利具有兩種特質：亂中有序與健忘。前者是Daphne 的特質，我認識她時就已經知道，後者則是我的特質。而我兼具自閉症「追求秩序感」的特質（ex：我求學時，書架上的書會按照書本大小排列），與Daphne亂中有序恰好對立。Daphne具有圖像記憶的能力，她可以根據腦海裡的視覺地圖，清楚知道什麼東西放在哪裡，我一旦將物品動了位置，她會找不到東西。而我也可能會找不到，因為我忘記收去哪裡了。

這個問題，在我們相處的過程中必須學會適應對方或妥協，不然永遠吵不完。所以我學會包容Daphne的亂（孩子出生後家裡更亂，但我已經完全妥協了），以免東西找不到怪罪我。而Daphne也對我的健忘徹底死了心，也訓練孩子一起對我「耳提面命」，降低健忘對生活造成的「災損」。

第4集， 讀寫障礙的李對我而言是個特別的個案，他的音感超好。他想演音樂劇，但讀寫障礙讓他根本無法參與演出，因為他連四句長度的歌詞都背不下來，拍攝團隊甚至被迫為了他延長影片拍攝時間，且到處貼提示詞幫助他。

我沒有讀寫障礙，但我跟他一樣具有先天音感（這是Daphne發現的，因為我不用看譜就可以根據抓到的基準音彈出整首歌，當時她嚇了一大跳），所以音樂蘊含的情感，對我的觸動非常直接而強烈，這一點與我平時「對情緒的低感受力」形成強烈的反差。Daphne哀怨的開玩笑說：「難不成要我用唱的你才能感受到我的情緒？但我歌聲不行啊！」

這些都是極為有趣發現。不是在給自己貼標籤，而是發現自己原來具有某些連自己都意識不到的「特殊」之處，雖然增加了彼此相處的難度，但也在愛裡，學習接納彼此的不同之處，在關係中合一。

不知道你們看完後，會不會也發現到神在你生命裡的「隱藏設計」呢？

***

Actually, this documentary prompted my entire family to re-examine ourselves and our years of living together.

In Episode 3, Henry, who has ADHD, exhibits two traits: organized chaos and forgetfulness. The former is Daphne’s trait, which I already knew when I met her, while the latter is mine. Meanwhile, I also possess the autistic trait of "seeking a sense of order" (for example, during my school years, I would arrange the books on my shelves by size), which stands in direct contrast to Daphne’s organized chaos. Daphne has a photographic memory; she can visualize a map in her mind and know exactly where everything is. If I move an object, she won't be able to find it. And I might not find it either, because I will have forgotten where I put it away.

We had to learn to adapt or compromise on this issue in our relationship; otherwise, the arguments would never end. So, I learned to tolerate Daphne’s messiness (the house got even messier after the kids were born, but I have completely surrendered to it) to avoid being blamed when things go missing. On the other hand, Daphne has given up all hope regarding my forgetfulness. She has also trained the kids to constantly remind me of things to reduce the "property damage" it causes to our daily life.

In Episode 4, Leigh, who has dyslexia, is a particularly unique case to me. He has a brilliant sense of pitch. He wanted to perform in a musical, but his dyslexia made it impossible for him to participate because he couldn't even memorize a four-line lyric. The production crew was even forced to extend the filming schedule for him and post cue words everywhere to help him out.

I don't have dyslexia, but like him, I have an innate sense of pitch. Daphne discovered this because I can play an entire song by ear based on a root note without looking at sheet music, which shocked her at the time. As a result, the emotions carried by music touch me very directly and intensely. This forms a sharp contrast to my usual "low sensitivity to emotions." Daphne jokingly complained, "Do I really have to sing for you to feel my emotions? But my singing voice is terrible!"

These were all incredibly interesting discoveries. It is not about labeling ourselves, but about realizing that we possess certain "unique" traits we weren't even aware of. While this adds to the difficulty of living together, it also allows us to learn to accept each other's differences through love and become one in our relationship.

I wonder if, after watching it, you will also discover God's "hidden design" in your own life?

轉貼：一篇FB與基督信仰有關的文章

今天讀到一位諮商心理師提到一個很有意思的概念。他說，面對上癮，很多時候不要只是「戒癮」，而是要學習「離癮」。

所謂戒癮，很像是硬撐。

戒酒、戒菸、戒手遊、戒短影音……

我們很努力地壓抑自己、命令自己「不要再碰」。

但很多時候，心裡其實還是很想要。

於是人就會陷入一種循環：

拼命忍耐 → 意志力耗盡 → 再次沉迷 → 內疚羞愧 → 更討厭自己 → 又再次沉迷。

問題是，很多癮頭的背後，本來就不只是「喜歡那個東西」而已。

有人一直滑手機，其實是害怕孤單。

有人沉迷遊戲，是因為現實太挫敗。

有人酗酒，是想暫時忘記衝突與壓力。

有人無法停止工作，是因為只有成就感才能讓他覺得自己有價值。

所以「離癮」的概念，不只是反抗那個行為，

而是去理解：我真正缺少的到底是什麼？

或許是安全感。

或許是陪伴。

或許是被肯定。

或許只是內心太空了。

我們需要找到上癮背後的真正原因，

才能解決內心根本的議題。

後來我就在想，基督徒面對罪，會不會也是這樣的概念？

很多時候，我們努力「戒罪」。

不要貪財、不要色情、不要嫉妒、不要說謊。但內心深處，其實還是很渴望那些東西能帶來的快感與好處。

於是我們就活在另一種循環裡：

努力克制 → 失敗跌倒 → 自責羞愧 → 再次立志 → 又再次失敗。

可是福音好像不只是叫我們更用力地壓抑自己。而是邀請我們去發現：為什麼我這麼需要這些東西？

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。

當人真的在信仰裡得到安全感，

在教會找到相愛的群體，

在服事裡找到價值，

在福音裡體會到恩典與盼望，

就能慢慢鬆手放開曾經依賴的某些事物。

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。

---

Today, I read something really interesting by a counseling psychologist. He said that when we’re dealing with addiction, a lot of times we shouldn't just try to "abstain from addiction," but instead learn to "leave addiction."

Abstaining from an addiction feels like you’re just forcing yourself to white-knuckle it.

Abstaining from drinking, smoking, mobile games, or short-form videos...

We try so hard to suppress our urges, telling ourselves, "Don’t you dare touch that again."

But honestly, most of the time, we still really want it deep down.

So we get trapped in this endless loop:

Trying so hard to hold back → Running completely out of willpower → Falling right back into it → Feeling super guilty and ashamed → Hating ourselves even more → And then falling back into it all over again.

The thing is, what’s driving the addiction usually isn't just that we "like that thing."

Someone who can’t stop scrolling through their phone might actually just be terrified of being lonely.

Someone hooked on gaming might just find reality way too frustrating.

Someone drinking heavily might just want to temporarily escape from conflict and stress.

Someone who’s a total workaholic might feel like they only matter when they achieve something.

That’s why the idea of "leaving addiction" isn't just about fighting the behavior.

It’s about figuring out: what is it that I’m actually missing?

Maybe it’s a sense of security.

Maybe it’s companionship.

Maybe it’s validation.

或 Maybe the inside of us is just totally empty.

We have to find the real root cause behind the addiction to actually fix what's going on inside our hearts.

Later, it got me thinking—is it the exact same way for Christians dealing with sin?

A lot of times, we try so hard to "abstain from sin."

Don't love money, don't watch porn, don't be jealous, don't lie. But deep down, we still secretly crave the pleasure and perks those things give us.

So we end up living in a whole different loop:

Trying our best to control ourselves → Messing up and falling down → Blaming ourselves and feeling ashamed → Making a fresh resolution → And then messing up all over again.

But the Gospel doesn't seem to just tell us to suppress ourselves even harder. Instead, it invites us to ask: why do I feel like I need these things so badly?

Maybe behind some of our sins, there's actually a really deep void.

And the thing that can truly fill a person isn't stronger willpower—it's experiencing God's love on a much deeper level.

When someone truly finds security in their faith, finds a community that loves them in the church, finds their value in serving, and really feels the grace and hope in the Gospel, they can slowly start to let go of the things they used to lean on.

Maybe we don't just need to work hard to "abstain from sin."

What we really need is to slowly "leave sin."

Not because we have amazing willpower or can endure a ton of pain, but because we've started to taste something so much better.

2026/05/17 David 牧師講道講稿（Stephen 長老潤改）

經歷上帝拯救的作為

David Loveland

引言

我想談一個我們有時可能自以為了解的主題。

人們會問你：「你得救了嗎？」很多時候，我們聽見這個問題時，會按照過去被教導的方式回答，卻沒有真正理解「得救」或「救恩」這個詞所包含的重要性、深度與廣度。

這篇信息與我們如何在生命中經歷上帝拯救的工作有關。

不只是因為某一天我們做了一個禱告。那只是開始。那只是打開一道門，使你開始與上帝同行、經歷生命。但如果你停留在那裡，其實你還沒真正開始。

很多人被帶到基督面前之後，我們卻看見他們漸漸消失、跌倒、離開。我們再也見不到他們。因為有時我們沒有學會如何陪伴他們，也沒有學會如何幫助他們踏出下一步——真正地信靠耶穌，以至於能說：

「我如此信任祢，因此我願意跟隨祢。」

這樣的信任，比較像婚姻中的信任。

我記得四十二年前，我與 Pamela 結婚時，在婚禮那天之前都還好，但到了婚禮當天，我卻害怕得不得了。為什麼？因為我知道我正進入另一個層次。我現在要對她負責，也要把我的生命委身給她。

當然，我會做得不完全。我會失敗很多次。但我裡面有一種預備好的心志：

「Pamela，我要與你立約，只要我們都還活著，我就要與你同行。」

所以我們就這樣一起走過來了。這並不總是容易，但卻是美好的，因為耶穌是我們關係的中心。

如果耶穌不在中心，一切就會變得混亂，也會變得非常艱難。

我也想說，看見你們每個星期天都歡迎聖靈進入你們當中，是多麼令人鼓舞。你們帶著期待來聚會，相信自己會遇見上帝，也能回應祂。

看見年輕人越來越渴慕神、越來越深地經歷祂，也非常令人振奮。作為一個老人家，我真的深受鼓舞。

---

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。

信仰金句（網文節錄）

 基督信仰最核心的部分

——不在於我們擁有什麼，而在於我們被誰擁有。

「書評：分別為聖：長老教會．普渡．通靈象徵」讀後感

今天看到這篇書評：《分別為聖：長老教會．普渡．通靈象徵》，有幾段內容符合我的屬靈經驗：

「超界體驗（我知所以稱為超界體驗而不稱為神聖體驗，是因為這種體驗不見得就是神聖的）這種事情，只要體驗過，個人就等於得到證據，但沒體驗過的人，就只是沒體驗過，卻不能否認別人的舉證...」

按：信主前，我就是沒有「超界體驗」的人，那些來自各方（包括家人）的超界體驗分享，我無法檢證，只能存而不論，所以我只能透過「宗教理性」從教義入手，去尋求我認可的「真理」。

「 這會產生兩個問題，一是就算你真的領受來自真神的世界接觸，你也會用錯誤的文化與價值背景去詮釋這份接觸，因此乩童與基督教說方言，可能同樣得到領受，卻一起用錯誤的方式解讀，前者用傳統文化價值去解釋（至少還有個「翻方言」的桌頭），後者則可能用自己的感受去解釋（因為沒人翻方言），結果就是兩個都錯了…… 」

按：這樣的「追求真理」模式以及「屬靈光景」，延續到初信主時，因為聖經的文化、語言都不同（語言部份，像「負擔」一般指的是「被動承受的責任或壓力」，但主裡指的是「受神啟示主動承擔的責任或使命」），所以我的屬靈進展很有限，也常常用「會通」的方式（以過去信仰的觀念去類比、橋接聖經的觀念）來理解聖經。雖然不是針對超界經驗，但與作者說的「用錯誤的文化與價值背景去詮釋這份接觸」，本質是一樣的。

所以當年母親節主日時中生哥帶我做的認罪禱告，對我而言是一個信仰的里程碑，因為這是我第一次的「屬靈經驗＼超界經驗」。尤其當中生哥帶我一句一句禱告時唸到「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。」（約一1:9）這節經文，我感受到認罪後「被赦免、被洗淨」的釋放之感，這個經歷，我不會用「錯誤的文化與價值背景去詮釋這份接觸」，我覺得這是很重要的分辨。

***

<書評：分別為聖：長老教會．普渡．通靈象徵>　出處：旭日之丘（Dawn Hill）

日期： 11月 21, 2024

這本書很有意思，算是讓我對於台灣各種宗教現象多了一點不同的觀點，同時也有更豐富的資訊。

是這樣的，雖然我本來就對於各種宗教現象很感興趣，長久以來都有在關注，但畢竟對大多數宗教來說，我只是圈外人，並沒有實際進入宗教崇拜的體系裡面，簡單說，或許我有很多二手資料，但缺少親自參與，或者與內部人員交流的經驗。

後來因為工作的關係，有機會接觸各色宗教組織，對於組織運作方式有較多理解，這部份倒是一般人較難接觸到的部份，甚至就連信徒都無法接觸，算是一般人比較難得到的資訊與經驗，但這依然比較偏制度面的東西（雖說不同教義與價值觀會影響組織運作方式）。

所以這本書的內容就很有趣了。

我過去提過我自己的相關體驗（談談超界體驗1、2、3），但這畢竟討論範圍算是限縮在基督教的狀況，而其他宗教其實是有不同態樣的，這是在討論的時候區要區分的，不然只會互相對方怪怪的。

因為我相信上帝的啟示有普世性，這意謂著全人類的宗教源頭其實還是會回歸到上帝，只是在千萬年的演化當中，不同地區的人類各次將這份領受轉變成不同的宗教崇拜型態，不過這當然不是說信什麼都沒關係，正好相反，是信錯了很可惜，因為追求真理的道路很容易迷路，走到其他地方去可不見得繞得回來。

但就算在宗教神話、教義、科儀上各有不同，但論到超界體驗（或者說神聖體驗，乃至於本書提及的聖界的接觸），全世界倒是有很高的一致性，這一點很有意思，但也是必須特別注意的部份。

簡單說，「起乩」這種事情全世界都有，不管你有沒有親身經歷、相不相信，總之從古到今這世界上有非常多人有相關體驗，如果你想要直接說是假的，我只能勸你不要隨便對不確定的事情下定論，正如很多無神論者認為宗教人是對無法確定的事情下定論一樣——結果你還不是一樣？

其實更好玩的地方在於，超界體驗（我知所以稱為超界體驗而不稱為神聖體驗，是因為這種體驗不見得就是神聖的）這種事情，只要體驗過，個人就等於得到證據，但沒體驗過的人，就只是沒體驗過，卻不能否認別人的舉證，所以我才常說無神論者才是最強固的迷信者啊！

但問題也出在這裡，因為超界體驗不見得是神聖的，像本書提到台灣民間信仰特別強調的「冤親債主」的概念，這其實就是很不好的認知。

沒錯，出發點都是好的，有借有還有欠該還，這是很初階的社會交換論思維，但如果把這種概念無限延伸到前世與來世，這其實是很嚴重的捆綁。

是的，這是很初階的宗教體認，來自於對於造物主的一種誤解，又或者逃避造物主。

這問題在台灣特別複雜，因為台灣有太多宗教混淆，用美其名為包容的話術來進行欺騙，實際上這只是單純在進行宗教自助餐的包牌與尋租活動，所以輪迴與祖先崇拜可以擺在一起……原始道教祖先崇拜是沒有輪迴這回事的，輪迴是佛教帶進來的觀念，真正道教沒這玩意，而這兩個概念其實是互斥的，除非你盲從，不然絕對會發現怪異之處。

這會產生兩個問題，一是就算你真的領受來自真神的世界接觸，你也會用錯誤的文化與價值背景去詮釋這份接觸，因此乩童與基督教說方言，可能同樣得到領受，卻一起用錯誤的方式解讀，前者用傳統文化價值去解釋（至少還有個「翻方言」的桌頭），後者則可能用自己的感受去解釋（因為沒人翻方言），結果就是兩個都錯了……

在這我要強調一點，正如我常罵靈恩派對於靈恩與方言的教導都是錯的——請注意，「教導」是錯的，但我們卻依然可能真實的領受到這類神聖體驗。

是的，「感受」是真的，信徒的確有接觸到這類聖界的訊息，但如果教導是錯的，之後的詮釋也只會是錯的。

不然聖經也不用一直警告說方言只是個「不那麼重要」的恩賜，因為更好的領受是智慧、知識，這「同樣」能帶來神聖體驗，而且更加真確。

只能說，無法透過理性與邏輯得到神聖感動，其實是很可惜的，聖經也提到，「你當追求那更好的」，這可不是開玩笑阿！

但還有更糟的，就是真的碰上邪靈（所以說才說是超界體驗，因為不見得是神聖體驗），但這部份我就完全沒經驗（或者至少我自己沒感覺），我認識的基督徒精神科醫師說過，在他退休之前漫長的職業生涯裡面，他只遇過兩位患者會讓他真的懷疑是邪靈附身，其他基本上都能有病理解釋。

至於如果要說些異教神祇都是邪靈……我只能說，這才是標準被多神論的文化背景影響所造成的恐懼，而且是對上帝的啟示缺乏尊重——再說一次，原始人類應該都認識上帝，而且只認識上帝。

其實古中東有不少詞彙，一開始都是同一個意思，不管是埃爾、一如、巴力、以利，一開始都是我的神（El）或我的主（Baal）的意思，並不是神的名字，根本是大家通用的，往往是不同群足、部落在交流中，用對方的語言來稱呼對方的神（同時也為了獨占神的恩庇），結果好像變成有各種神，再加上各地風土民情產生不同敬拜方式，之後連教義也都開始不同（最經典的就是燒祭物這件事情在某些人手上變成燒人甚至燒自己孩子）。

或許你看到的是一群人在拜邪靈的恐怖畫面，我看到的是上帝為了走錯路的人在哀傷著，因為他們用錯誤的態度與錯誤的想像崇拜著上帝。

雖然可能非常虔誠。

這本書就提到了這種現象，這些人很虔誠，甚至非常有使命感，只是在這個社會裡逐漸被邊緣化。這幾年因為娛樂性與文化傳承的名目似乎讓傳統信仰多了點「被理解」，但那其實有更多是收編與改造，因為現代社會對於「神聖體驗」依舊難以接受，偏偏對於宗教來說，那是很關鍵的信仰要素。

其實一百五十年前基督教傳來台灣（雖然更早也有，但之後整個被中斷數百年），早期反倒比較站在互相理解這一點上面的，但很現實的一點在於基督徒當時受到很大迫害（還有人殉道），加上西方文明跟著引進，傳統宗教很快就被精英階級給厭惡（早期台灣的精英階級，尤其是法醫理工這四個領域有高比例基督徒——所以二二八大屠殺時，基督徒也是高比例的受到屠殺，所以我說統派教會就是異端教會不是開玩笑，這些教會根本是站在魔鬼那邊），連帶讓長老教會與這些傳統失去聯繫，雖然因為年代夠久，長老教會自己也成為「本土一派」（實際上還是守護台灣語言文化最積極且持續的團體），但顯然現在的信徒對於台灣自己的宗教歷史很不清楚。

新來的教派更是斷根段得更徹底，這樣要跟我說他們的信仰可以一路連回去耶穌，連回到創世之初，我也只能呵呵，因為你連三四十年前都連不回去……

總之，這本書提供了不少有意思的素材，讓我們可以瞧見台灣傳統信仰（佛教、道教，還有民間新興教派——其實比台灣的長老教會年輕）那種不同的掙扎。

其實真有不少值得反省的地方，我上面不是說了，我看見的是上帝在憂傷阿！

***

分別為聖：長老教會．普渡．通靈象徵

作者： 王鏡玲 

出版社：前衛 

出版日期：2016/08/01

語言：繁體中文

ISBN：9789578018068

叢書系列：台灣文史叢書

規格：平裝 / 272頁 / 15 x 21 x 1.36 cm / 普通級 / 部份全彩 / 初版

出版地：台灣 

莊牧師「當神明承諾能解決戀愛和財務困境時」一文讀後

按：<當神明承諾能解決戀愛和財務困境時>這一篇是莊智超牧師基於對台灣民間信仰的認識所提出的「新傳福音方式」，我看完後覺得他的意見或態度，比較像以利亞戰勝巴力先知一樣（王上18），直接和台灣的泛靈信仰對撞，要在台灣人的「靈界世界」裡攻佔領地，但我看的是既憂且懼。

誠然，莊牧師對台灣民間信仰的認識是深刻的（以我過去的信仰背景，我知道他說的是事實）：

「台灣民間信仰提供人們安全感和具體的處境化保障。人們不需要掌握複雜的教義——只需去廟裡向神明祈求即可。
因此，對多數台灣人而言，抽象的福音意義不大。許多台灣人需要的是更接地氣的福音，能回應民間信仰的神明所能滿足的需求：日常生活所需及感受。解決這些需求不是神明們的副業，而是他們存在的目的。」（文摘）

但我的信仰經歷告訴我，這樣的信仰景況恰好是需要被救贖的屬靈硬土，需要的是被翻轉與更新，不是妥協。如果信仰需要像商品陳列供均選擇，基督的福音應該是展現商品質感吸引人的注意，而不是宣傳「別的商品有的我也有，而且我的更好！」

我反對以「傳統信仰的思維慣性為基礎」的福音宣傳方式是有思考過的。如果沒有擺脫傳統信仰的思維慣性，那福音不過是「另一種滿足個人需要的『選擇』」，不是「真理」，在這樣的基礎下進來教會，也會因為「真正的福音」衝擊了既有的慣性而離開，因為福音對他來說，只是可供選擇的自助餐而已。

「神的意念高過人的意念」、「盡心盡性盡力愛主你的神」……這些教導，都指向神「創造的主」的全能與本質，人應該改變自己去學神、去符合神的心意，怎麼會為了讓人好接受福音，所以可以允許＼強化「配合人的需要」、「配合在硬土紮根的需要」，去讓福音裝扮成「靈界裡最強大、最能滿足人民需求的『神明』」？這很容易把神給「偶像化」耶！

所以莊牧師的結論我看得是憂懼交加：

「基督徒需要展示上帝比那些威脅著台灣人民的靈體和神祇更強大、更能滿足他們的日常需求。
這樣的福音對台灣人而言才是真正的『好消息』，是能在這個文化裡紮根的呼召。」

總之，為了「讓福音紮根」的目的而投台灣民眾之所好，這樣的「手段＼工具」思維，只怕會重演以色列人進迦南地卻不徹底清除偶像的往事，最終以色列人無法擺脫罪的引誘而玷污了迦南美地，讓耶路撒冷聖地成為荒涼之土，我期期以為不可。
-----

This piece by Pastor Tony Chuang proposes a new approach to evangelism based on his understanding of Taiwan’s folk religions. After reading it, I felt that his attitude resembles that of Elijah confronting the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18)—directly colliding with Taiwan’s animistic worldview, attempting to claim spiritual territory within the “spirit world” of Taiwanese people. But as I read, I felt both concern and fear.

Indeed, Pastor Chuang’s grasp of Taiwanese folk religion is profound (from my own past religious background, I can attest that what he describes is true):

> “Taiwanese folk religion provides people with a sense of security and concrete contextual assurance. People don’t need to understand complex doctrines—just go to the temple and pray to the gods.
Therefore, for most Taiwanese, an abstract gospel holds little meaning. What many Taiwanese need is a more down-to-earth gospel that can respond to the same needs their deities fulfill—daily necessities and emotional comfort. Meeting these needs is not a side job for the gods; it is their very purpose.” (excerpt)

But my own faith experience tells me that this very spiritual condition—the hardened soil—is precisely what needs redemption, transformation, and renewal, not compromise.
If faith were something displayed like goods on a shelf for people to choose from, then the gospel of Christ should attract attention through its inherent beauty and quality—not by claiming, “Our product has everything the others have, but ours is better!”

My opposition to evangelistic methods built on “the habitual thought patterns of traditional religion” is not without reflection. If we do not break free from those thought patterns, the gospel becomes merely “another option for fulfilling personal needs,” not the Truth.
People who enter the church on that basis will leave when the true gospel challenges their old assumptions—because to them, faith is nothing more than a self-serve buffet of choices.

“God’s thoughts are higher than man’s thoughts.”
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength.”
These teachings point us toward God’s omnipotence and divine nature as the Creator. Humanity is the one who should change—to learn from God and align with His will.
How then can we justify adjusting or enhancing the gospel to “meet human needs” or to “take root in hard soil,” by presenting God as “the most powerful and satisfying deity in the spiritual realm”?
That risks turning God Himself into an idol.

That’s why I read Pastor Chuang’s conclusion with mixed anxiety and sorrow:

> “Christians need to demonstrate that God is stronger than the spirits and deities that threaten the Taiwanese people—and that He can better meet their daily needs.
Only such a gospel will truly be ‘good news’ to the Taiwanese and take root in their culture.”

In the end, to “help the gospel take root” by catering to what the people already desire—this instrumental or utilitarian approach—may simply repeat Israel’s failure in Canaan: entering the land but not fully cleansing it of idols.
Ultimately, Israel fell into sin and defiled the Promised Land, turning the holy city of Jerusalem into a desolate ruin.
I find such an outcome deeply alarming and unacceptable.

附：Stephen Grewar長老的回應（2025/11/11）

早安，Jorman！我直到今天早上才看到你昨天的留言。越讀那篇文章，我越想知道你的看法。讀黃先生（Tony Huang）的文章時，我心情複雜：對他的發現很感興趣，但並不完全同意他的結論。第一印象具有形塑力，且往往相當強固，日後難以改變。我曾在市裡參訪過一間教會，也認識過那裡的牧師。或許那時他和我一樣心事繁重，但我當時的印象並不佳。當然我相信他是位很棒的人，但我自己的既有印象一直持續到現在。

當福音被情境化到一個程度，使得傳福音以人的日常需要為核心，會不會也產生類似的結果？我相信黃先生的良善用心是要將人領進福音的豐滿，但我擔心我們可能會養成一代以為神旨在祝福我們一切所行的心態──祝福我的工作、祝福我的家庭、祝福我的學習、祝福我尋找配偶等等。我並不認為這是他言說的核心，但這卻是一個令我憂慮的警訊。

我非常感謝也重視你對他文章的回應。Jorman，真的很感激你。你能深思熟慮，並以經文本位來檢驗事物。把福音當作「情境化」的一種論述，需要謹慎處理，並以經文為標準去試驗。我想到許多人把神當作自動販賣機，而非當作主。誠然我們在他裡面蒙福，但這是依照他的條件，而非我們的想望。

實際上，福音對於多數以自我為中心的心態仍然缺乏吸引力。以創造主為中心的傳福音有其美好之處——它立刻喚起世界觀的危機。當聖靈開啟人的眼睛、軟化剛硬的心，接著的問題便是：「我如何活著討他喜悅？」而很快地，也會顯明：若沒有恩典、沒有信心，我們無法討他喜悅。

---

Good morning Jorman! I only managed to read your message from yesterday this morning. As I read that article I was more and more interested in what your thoughts would be. I read Tony Huang's article with mixed emotions. I was very interested in his findings but not entirely in agreement with his conclusions. First impressions are formative and tend to be rather strong, difficult to break later on. I visited a church in the city quite some time back and I was introduced to the pastor. Perhaps like me he had a lot on his mind at that time but my impression was not very positive at that time. I am certain he is a super guy but my own impression has stuck all this time. Won't the same happen when the gospel is contextualized to such a degree that evangelism is centered on human everyday need. I am pretty sure Tony Huang's heart is to bring people into the fullness of the gospel, I'm concerned that we will be raising a generation with an idea of God wanting to bless everything we do. Bless my work, bless my home, bless my studies, bless my hunt for a spouse, etc. I don't think this is at the heart of what he is saying but it's a flag that concerns me too. I strongly appreciate and value your response to his article. Again, I am so greatful for you Jorman. You think things through and test things against the Word. Contextualizing the gospel as an idea needs to be handled with care and tested against scripture. I think of the many people who treat God as a vending machine rather than Lord. We are blessed in Him, but on His terms not ours. In reality the gospel will remain unappealing to people with a mindset that is largely self centered. Evangelism centered on the Creator God is wonderful in that it immediately invokes a crisis of worldview. As the Holy Spirit opens people eyes and softens hard hearts the question becomes about how I can live to please Him, and then soon enough it becomes apparent that without grace and without faith we cannot please Him.

***

<當神明承諾能解決戀愛和財務困境時>Tony Chuang

在福音能明確解決日常需求前，多數台灣非基督徒可能仍會對基督教興趣缺缺。

小學一年級時，我每天下課後的例行生活都一樣。我會步行五分鐘，穿過繁忙的高樓和擠滿機車的台北市區，回到公寓老家，祖父母會在那裡迎接我。進家門後，奶奶總是提醒我要先拜祖先，才能玩我的變形金剛。我拿起一住香，雙手合十，對著客廳中央的祖先神龕簡單的祈禱。

我向祖先祈求健康、財富和好成績，接著享用祭拜祖先和神明的供品餅乾。人生很美好，我有勤奮工作的父母供應我日常所需、有祖父母照顧我的生活，還有祖先祝福並保護我的人生。

那時的我未曾聽過福音，而從祖父母那裡聽到關於基督教的評論都是負面的：基督徒想要我的錢，以及基督教本身就「不是我們的道路/方式」。我們的道路是華人民間信仰——結合儒家思想、道教元素，還有眾多神明、祖先和薩滿儀式。

母親總是教導我，有一位叫做耶穌的神明，向祂祈求很有效，所以我也將祂加入我的神明名單裡。直到高中時期，一位同學和我分享福音後，我才將生命交給這位基督教的上帝。

大約30年後，我撰寫《宗教信仰與福音傳播：從台北民間信仰中獲得的啟示》（Religiosity and Gospel Transmission: Insights from Folk Religion in Taipei）一書，探索民間信仰如何塑造台灣人的世界觀，以及基督徒能如何更有效地和台灣人傳福音。根據《皮尤研究中心》的數據，基督徒僅占台灣人口的6%，民間信仰的信徒則占44%。台灣是全球民間信仰信徒比例第三高的國家。

雖然我的研究主要集中在故鄉台灣，但華人民間信仰是全球漢裔華人之中廣泛存在的信仰體系。具體的實踐可能因地理位置而異，但人們的觀念和宗教信念，比如風水或靈界/無形世界，確實十分相似。

透過在台北街頭和廟宇與25位民眾的訪談，我逐漸發現基督教需要為深信民間信仰的台灣人（無論他們多麼深信）解答兩種關鍵的問題：基督教是如何與靈界互動的？基督教如何幫助台灣人度過日常生活？

傳福音給相信靈界存在的人

華裔美國社會學家楊慶堃（C. K. Yang）指出，華人民間信仰是一種「分散型宗教（diffused religion）」，意思是這種信仰滲透至日常生活中，以一種制度化的宗教通常無法做到的方式交織在世俗空間裡。例如，在全球華人社區中，一間新的商店開幕時，常會見到店家向特定的神明供奉食物和香，祈求祝福和生意興旺。

這也意味著，「現代化（modernity）」並未像在世界其他地方那樣消除民間信仰，而是對華人的宗教性產生截然不同的影響。民間信仰使世俗機構和社會群體「充滿超自然色彩的豐富民俗特色」，楊慶堃在《華人社會的宗教》中寫道：「（華人）整體的社會環境具有神聖氛圍，啟發人們的感覺，認為神明與人一起參與在塑造傳統生活方式的過程。」

民間信仰在日常生活和社會機構（包括政府辦公室和學校）中的普及，使其成為台灣人集體意識的一部分，與政治事務一樣重要。但這並不意味著所有台灣人仍「被超自然的魅力吸引」，而是如哲學家查爾斯·泰勒在《世俗時代》中所說的那樣，所謂的「超自然」已然成為一種人們接受的日常體驗。

在這樣的背景下，福音的呈現應直接觸及鬼怪、靈體、地方神祇和祖先等構成台灣人現實生活的力量。

例如，每年某些日子裡，台北街頭會擠滿扛著地方神像的人，從一座廟宇遊行到另一座廟宇。台灣民間信仰知名學者林茂賢解釋，這些遊行在靈性上類似於警察巡邏，目的是「驅邪安民」。

而如果福音無法做到「驅邪安民」，福音在台灣便會被視為毫無用處。根據我的訪談，台灣許多地方的人至今仍真實地擔憂鬼怪和邪靈。因此，教會需要更健全的驅魔神學及實踐。福音不應只是關於來世的保險，更應成為對抗現實或感知中的靈界力量的保護。

一個實際的例子是，讓非基督徒知道「耶穌的名」能驅逐所有可能侵擾家宅的惡靈，或向耶穌禱告的力量能成就其他靈體或神明所不能成就的事。

台灣的靈恩派教會早已能做到這一點。Judith C. P. Lin在《1945至1995台灣靈恩運動》一書中指出，由於無形的靈界在台灣人日常生活裡是種常態，多數台灣教會「理解聖經裡記載的關於信仰的超自然層面為『可以在現世品嚐和經歷的現實』」。她認為，這也是靈恩運動在台灣迅速成長的原因，並指出約有三分之一的台灣基督徒傾向靈恩派信仰。

在靈恩和非靈恩基督徒群體中，台灣基督徒經常為釋放、奇蹟性的醫治以及在靈界爭戰中的保護而禱告。這些福音實踐向台灣人揭示上帝的力量、禱告的方式、靈媒的危險等與他們日常生活相關的問題。

台灣教會自1980年代以來開始有靈恩相關的教導及實踐。然而在我的訪談中，只有少數人提到基督徒曾向他們談論關於無形的靈界。或許透過提及靈界的方式傳遞福音可以更多地運用於初次分享福音的情境中。一個能充分解答靈界問題的福音能在台灣獲得更多回應。

福音對日常生活的影響

在接觸台灣非基督徒時，另一個需要考量的重要面向，是他們向民間信仰的神祇祈求時所求的是什麼。西方人傳福音時多半專注於呈現更抽象的概念，如基督教如何提供罪的赦免、新生命和永恆的盼望，但台灣人更關心的是實際日常的需求。

例如，他們會向關聖帝君祈求升遷，向土地公祈求保護住宅免受小偷侵入，向月老祈求得遇佳緣。

和台灣人傳福音時，需要說明福音是否能或如何能在這些實際需求上幫助他們。許多基督教傳道人會敦勸我們過著符合福音的生活方式——即我們作為基督徒應如何按著所領受的恩典和責任而生活——但在日常生活中，福音對我們而言究竟意味著什麼？

當你的事業不景氣時，福音是如何回應的？當你住在高犯罪的社區，福音如何保護你？當你38歲了卻無法找到伴侶，福音能提供什麼？「要更有信心」和「依靠耶穌」這些簡單的回答，對於解決人們的真實困擾並不夠具體。

一些去教會一段時間的基督徒已逐漸明白福音如何應用於特定情況，但非基督徒並不理解這一切。在我的訪談中，許多台灣非基督徒認為抽象的福音「無關緊要」、「愚蠢」或「自大」。有些人甚至誤以為這只是另一種神秘咒語。除非我們所傳的福音開始明確地回應日常生活中的問題，多數台灣非基督徒可能會繼續對福音無感、認為福音沒有說服力。

民間信仰能為人們日常生活中遇到的情境提供解答及具體的儀式。透過習俗、儀式和像清明節這樣的特殊節日，台灣民間信仰提供人們安全感和具體的處境化保障。人們不需要掌握複雜的教義——只需去廟裡向神明祈求即可。

因此，對多數台灣人而言，抽象的福音意義不大。許多台灣人需要的是更接地氣的福音，能回應民間信仰的神明所能滿足的需求：日常生活所需及感受。解決這些需求不是神明們的副業，而是他們存在的目的。

在台灣呈現福音的面貌時，應採取處境化的方式，呈現上帝為比媽祖更能保護漁民、比土地公更能守護土地、比觀音更慈愛、比文昌帝君更關心學業、比月老更理解愛情的神。

這並不意味著基督徒應稀釋福音，或只將其定義為滿足日常需求的手段。福音具有永恆的意義，將人帶至與天父的關係中。福音的重點也不在於滿足個人慾望，而是以天父的心意而活。若將滿足日常需求的觀點推向極端，會變成「成功神學（又稱昌盛福音）」，不再關注耶穌所說的天國、忽視約翰對愛的教導，以及保羅呼籲我們過著配得上所蒙的召的生活的勸誡。

在耶穌的事工中，祂不僅滿足人們外在的需求，也關懷他們靈性的需求。耶穌談到當有人（不懷善意的）要求我們搬東西的情境（馬太福音5:41）、談到我們應如何繳稅（馬可福音12:17）以及如何寬恕他人（馬太福音18:21-22）。抽象的真理有時伴隨著滿足我們日常的需求，有時則沒有。即使是在登山寶訓這樣的大型公開講道中，耶穌仍教導人們日常生活的行為準則。

和信奉民間信仰的台灣人傳福音時，討論他們的生命正面臨哪些挑戰十分重要。可以詢問他們近期拜了哪些神祗、祈求了哪些事。了解這些問題有助於基督徒解釋福音能如何直接回應他們所關切的事、上帝能如何解決他們的問題，以及祂如何因著愛，為我們做出超越任何神明所能做的事。

有時，上帝並不會滿足我們每一個需求，但這並不意味著福音在這些議題上無話可說。例如，福音教導人們不必為金錢或工作升遷擔憂，而是「先求祂的國和祂的義，這些東西都要加給你們了。」（馬太福音6:33）。關於人身安全的問題，福音告訴我們，上帝「為你吩咐祂的使者，在你行的一切道路上保護你。」（詩篇91:11）。對於尋求伴侶的人，福音教導我們什麼是真正的愛（哥林多前書13章）。

在充滿民間信仰的文化中，讓人們認識到耶穌基督的福音仍是必要且重要的，基督徒需要展示上帝比那些威脅著台灣人民的靈體和神祇更強大、更能滿足他們的日常需求。

這樣的福音對台灣人而言才是真正的「好消息」，是能在這個文化裡紮根的呼召。

------

ChatGPT翻譯

Christianity Today
November 15, 2024

<When Deities Promise to Solve Romantic and Financial Problems>By Tony Chuang

Before the gospel can clearly address everyday needs, most non-Christian Taiwanese are likely to remain uninterested in Christianity.

When I was in first grade, my daily routine after school never changed. I would walk five minutes through Taipei’s busy streets filled with tall buildings and swarms of scooters to reach my grandparents’ apartment, where they would welcome me home. As soon as I entered, my grandmother would remind me to worship the ancestors before playing with my Transformers toys.

I would take a stick of incense, put my hands together, and offer a simple prayer to the ancestral shrine in the living room.

I prayed for health, wealth, and good grades, then enjoyed the cookies offered to the ancestors and gods. Life felt wonderful—I had hardworking parents providing for me, grandparents taking care of me, and ancestors blessing and protecting my life.

At that time, I had never heard the gospel. The only things I knew about Christianity came from my grandparents, who spoke of it negatively: Christians, they said, just wanted my money, and Christianity “was not our way.”

Our way was Chinese folk religion—a blend of Confucian values, Taoist elements, and numerous deities, ancestors, and shamanic rituals.

My mother used to tell me that there was a god named Jesus, and that praying to him worked well. So I simply added him to my list of gods. It wasn’t until high school, when a classmate shared the gospel with me, that I gave my life to the Christian God.

Nearly thirty years later, I wrote a book titled Religiosity and Gospel Transmission: Insights from Folk Religion in Taipei, exploring how folk religion shapes the worldview of Taiwanese people—and how Christians can share the gospel more effectively with them.

According to the Pew Research Center, Christians make up only 6 percent of Taiwan’s population, while followers of folk religion account for 44 percent. Taiwan has the third-highest proportion of folk-religion adherents in the world.

Although my research focuses mainly on Taiwan, Chinese folk religion is a widespread belief system among Han Chinese communities globally. While practices may differ by location, concepts such as feng shui and the existence of a spiritual or invisible realm remain strikingly similar.

Through interviews with 25 people on Taipei’s streets and in temples, I gradually realized that Christianity must answer two key questions for those deeply rooted in folk beliefs:

1. How does Christianity interact with the spiritual realm?

2. How does it help people in their everyday lives?

Evangelizing Those Who Believe in the Spiritual Realm

Chinese American sociologist C. K. Yang described Chinese folk religion as a “diffused religion”—meaning it permeates everyday life and intertwines with secular spaces in ways institutionalized religions usually cannot.

For example, in Chinese communities around the world, when a new shop opens, it is common to see offerings of incense and food made to certain deities for blessings and good business.

This also means that “modernity” has not erased folk religion among Chinese societies as it has elsewhere; instead, it has shaped their religiosity differently. Folk religion imbues secular institutions and social groups with “a rich supernatural folklore,” Yang wrote in Religion in Chinese Society.

He observed that “the overall social environment of the Chinese people has a sacred quality, inspiring a sense that the gods participate with humans in shaping traditional life.”

Because folk religion permeates daily life and institutions (including government offices and schools), it forms part of Taiwan’s collective consciousness—just as important as politics.

Yet this doesn’t mean all Taiwanese are “enchanted” by the supernatural; rather, as philosopher Charles Taylor notes in A Secular Age, the “supernatural” has become an accepted part of ordinary experience.

In such a context, presentations of the gospel must directly address the powers—ghosts, spirits, local gods, and ancestors—that shape the Taiwanese understanding of reality.

For example, on certain days each year, Taipei’s streets overflow with people carrying statues of local deities from one temple to another. Taiwanese folk religion scholar Lin Mao-xian explains that these processions are spiritually akin to police patrols—meant to “drive away evil and bring peace.”

If the gospel cannot “drive away evil and bring peace,” it is seen as useless in Taiwan. Many Taiwanese still sincerely fear ghosts and malevolent spirits. Therefore, churches need a more robust theology and practice of exorcism.

The gospel should not only be about securing one’s afterlife—it should also offer protection against real or perceived spiritual forces.

A practical example is letting nonbelievers know that the name of Jesus can cast out evil spirits that disturb homes, and that praying to Jesus can accomplish things no other spirit or deity can.

Charismatic churches in Taiwan have long embodied this. In her book The Charismatic Movement in Taiwan, 1945–1995, Judith C. P. Lin notes that because the unseen spiritual world is part of daily life for Taiwanese, most churches “understand the supernatural dimensions of faith described in the Bible as realities that can be tasted and experienced in the present world.”

She argues that this is one reason why the charismatic movement grew rapidly in Taiwan—about one-third of Taiwanese Christians identify as charismatic.

Among both charismatic and non-charismatic believers, Christians in Taiwan often pray for deliverance, miraculous healing, and protection in spiritual warfare. These gospel practices reveal God’s power and the dangers of spiritism in ways deeply relevant to daily life.

Although charismatic teachings began spreading in the 1980s, few of my interviewees said Christians had ever spoken to them about the invisible spiritual realm. Perhaps evangelism that explicitly acknowledges spiritual realities should be used more often when sharing the gospel for the first time.

A gospel that speaks convincingly about the spiritual world will likely find a more receptive audience in Taiwan.

The Gospel’s Impact on Daily Life

Another key factor when engaging non-Christian Taiwanese is understanding what they seek from the gods of folk religion.

Western evangelism often focuses on abstract ideas—such as forgiveness of sins, new life, and eternal hope—but Taiwanese people are more concerned with practical, daily needs.

For example, they pray to Guan Sheng Dijun (Lord Guan) for promotions, to Tudigong (the Earth God) for protection from burglars, and to Yue Lao (the Matchmaker God) for romantic success.

When sharing the gospel, we need to explain whether and how it meets these same practical needs.

Many preachers urge believers to live according to the gospel’s values—guided by grace and responsibility—but what does the gospel actually mean for people’s daily struggles?

What does it say when your business is failing?

When you live in a high-crime area?

When you’re 38 and still single?

Simple answers like “have more faith” or “trust Jesus” are not specific enough for people facing real problems.

Longtime Christians may gradually learn to apply the gospel in specific situations, but nonbelievers do not yet understand this. In my interviews, many Taiwanese described the gospel as “irrelevant,” “foolish,” or “arrogant.” Some even thought it was just another kind of magical spell.

Unless the gospel begins to address real, everyday issues clearly, most non-Christian Taiwanese will remain indifferent.

Folk religion provides tangible rituals and solutions for life’s challenges. Through customs, ceremonies, and special festivals such as Qingming, it gives people a sense of safety and contextual assurance.

They don’t need to grasp complex theology—just go to a temple and pray.

Thus, for most Taiwanese, an abstract gospel means little. What they need is a more grounded gospel—one that meets the same needs their deities supposedly fulfill: daily provision and emotional security.

Meeting those needs isn’t a side job for folk gods; it’s their very purpose.

When presenting the gospel in Taiwan, Christians should contextualize it—showing God as more protective of fishermen than Mazu, more caring for the land than Tudigong, more compassionate than Guanyin, more concerned about education than Wenchang Dijun, and more understanding of love than Yue Lao.

This doesn’t mean Christians should water down the gospel or reduce it to a tool for meeting daily needs.

The gospel has eternal significance—it brings people into relationship with the Father. Its focus is not personal satisfaction but living according to the Father’s will.

Taken to extremes, emphasizing earthly blessings leads to the “prosperity gospel,” which neglects Jesus’s teaching on the Kingdom, John’s call to love, and Paul’s exhortation to live a life worthy of our calling.

In Jesus’s ministry, he addressed not only spiritual needs but also physical and emotional ones.

He spoke about practical matters—carrying a burden an extra mile (Matthew 5:41), paying taxes (Mark 12:17), and forgiving others (Matthew 18:21–22).

Even in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught principles for everyday living.

When sharing the gospel with folk-religion believers, it’s important to discuss the challenges they face. Ask which gods they’ve prayed to recently and what they’ve asked for.

Understanding these concerns helps Christians explain how the gospel directly responds to them—how God can solve their problems and, out of love, do more for them than any deity can.

Sometimes, God does not grant every request—but that doesn’t mean the gospel has nothing to say.

For example, it teaches that we need not worry about money or career success: “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33).

Regarding personal safety, “He will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways” (Psalm 91:11).

For those seeking love, 1 Corinthians 13 teaches what true love really is.

In a culture steeped in folk religion, it remains vital to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ—and to demonstrate that God is more powerful than the spirits and deities that so many Taiwanese fear, and more capable of meeting their everyday needs.

Only such a gospel will truly be good news to the Taiwanese people—a message that can take root in their cultural soil.