惡夢

 2026/07/01晚上，我做了一個惡夢。

我夢見我與家人去參加一個活動，需要搭公車到活動地點。我開車送他們到上車地點，讓他們先上車，然後去找停車位。我找的有點久，當徒步回到上車地點時，公車已經出發了。

還好，公車還看得見，而且此時是上坡。我自料應該還趕得上，於是開始拼命地跑。也許是上坡對我的負擔也很大，我拼盡全力，卻仍只能眼睜睜看著公車漸行漸遠。

我又累又急，不知該怎麼辦。正心慌時，太太居然搭了一台車回頭找我。她告訴我公車暫停在前方不遠處，我們馬上過去，應該趕得上。於是我們拔腿起跑，想要追上公車。（印象中我在太太身上拿到一張寫著3個地名的紙條，應該是她一路經過的地點。不過這個細節不太重要）

我雖然累，但太太帶來的消息讓我振奮，所以跑得起勁，但此時太太身穿連身禮服，跑步不方便，嚴重拖慢了速度。我一時心急，深怕趕不上公車的悲劇再來一次，於是拋下太太，一個人拔腿狂奔。我心想：「太太你等我，等我攔住公車，我會請司機停下來等你的。」

事與願違，我還是沒趕上公車，這次連公車的背影都沒瞧見。我極度疲累，對沒有攔到公車感到沮喪。我想回頭去找太太，卻發現自己顧著追公車，已經迷路了！

這下子我心更慌了！焦慮到不行。我到路邊的風景區探問、尋找，還是不見太太的蹤跡。天色漸暗，我喪氣地離開風景區，卻發現所有的門全都關上了！

怎麼辦？沒找到太太，我自己還被困在風景區！我整個人崩潰大哭，這時候，所有的門忽然都開了！

瞬間出現的希望怎能輕易放過？我立刻衝出風景區，繼續尋找太太。但希望之後是無盡的絕望：此刻我人在陌生的城鎮（夢中的地名是苗栗----又一個不重要的細節），身邊都是彎曲的小路，每每抱著希望可以通往大路（因為才會有公車），卻常常走到死巷被迫折返。幾度往復尋路未果後，我疲累不堪、心急如焚，不知道太太現在怎麼樣了？沮喪、絕望、擔憂......所有的負面情緒擰成一股越收越緊的焦慮，讓我在陌生的街頭獨自慌亂無依。

這時候，救星出現了。一個當地人告訴我，他家有家用電話可以讓我聯絡太太。我連聲道謝，但對方拿出來的，卻是一具故障的電話機，上面的數字鍵位置錯亂，有的還脫落。我一再按錯號碼，聯絡不上太太，心中的焦慮感又上升了一層。最後不知道是誰提供了一具正常的電話機，我才首度接通、聯絡上太太。當我聽到話筒裡傳來熟悉的聲音時，我的情緒瞬間大崩潰，痛哭到不行。

夢境在這裡結束。我躺在床上，思索著夢境的意義：

1.失去太太的焦慮感貫穿整個夢境，這反映了太太在我生命中的重要性，我不能沒有她。

2.夢境裡，我迷路在風景區、陌生城鎮裡，快要抓狂的焦慮與慌亂，是我強烈的內在風暴。但這個風暴關鎖在我的心裡，我太太並不知道我是如此的在乎她。

夢醒後，我把這的夢告訴太太。她一下子就看出一個我沒意識到、卻極為重要的對比：我沒跟上公車，她會折回來找我；可是當我們一起追公車時，我卻拋下了她。她總結說：「這就是我們兩人個性的差異，也是我們的關係一再反覆的原因。」

我恍然大悟，也意識到夢境裡的一個小細節：太太回頭找我時，那是一個「特寫畫面」，太太是畫面中唯一的主角；相反的，我和太太一起追公車那一幕卻是個「遠鏡頭畫面」，太太在畫面裡一直是小小的，然後漸漸的默默的，被我拋在鏡頭之外。

這個畫面對比，呈現了太太在我心中兩種截然相反的地位：

1.當我需要她時，她絕對是我心中的第一與唯一

2.當我專注在眼前的任務（追公車）時，我會為了達成任務而輕易拋下她。可是我會告訴自己：我是為了她，才會不得已拋下她

太太不只一次告訴過我：「人比事情重要」。我以為我理解這句話，因為我在做事時都會告訴自己：我是為了她；但我真的不理解這句話，因為每次我完成任務時，她有時會不滿意，就繼續找下一件事情給我做……

我終於知道，當我只確認自己的心意，卻沒有真正在意對方的想法與需要時，我滿腔的愛與在乎，只侷限在自己的內心裡，對方完全感受不到。因為我的行為（拋下她）比起我的言詞（嘴上說在乎），更能「證明」我對她的愛。

想到這裡，多年來太太在每次爭吵後累積的委屈，我終於同感了。那些陳年舊帳，對我而言只是已經翻篇的「往事」，但對太太而言，卻是「舊創未癒，又添上新的」一道道傷痕。那些痛，只是她為了愛、為了關係而選擇放下，但是並未遺忘。

後記（7/18）

我很少做夢，會被我刻意記下來的夢，通常都有意義。

就像我在週三小組時說的，我沒有先知的恩賜，所以我不認為這是神感動的夢，勉強可以說是神透過這個夢在對我說話。對我而言，找到「對準神」的角度去解讀這個夢，應該是比較重要的。

這個夢在哪裡對準神呢？我認為是在夫妻關係這個層面上。從屬人的角度，我覺得我是一個愛太太、愛家庭的人，太太交代的事我都有做，對孩子應盡的責任我也努力做到，但我看不見自己「忽視家人」的部分，這部分隱藏在我的心態與行為模式裡。

這個夢把我「主觀上在乎家人，客觀上卻忽視家人」的問題呈現出來，而且充滿強烈的情緒感受，以至於Daphne 點出的一個重點細節，我可以馬上在夢境裡捕捉到符合細節的畫面。

所以，我為這個影響夫妻關係的「問題」認罪，求神帶領我勝過這個罪，讓我把心裡對妻子的在乎，能夠透過「行為」以及「願意改變的心意」讓妻子能看見、感受到，不讓這個問題繼續成為夫妻感情的破口。

***

The Nightmare

On The night of July 1,2026, I had a nightmare.

I dreamed that my family and I were going to an event, and we needed to take a bus to the venue. I drove them to the boarding spot, let them get on first, and then went to look for a parking space. It took me quite a while to find one, and by the time I walked back to the boarding spot, the bus had already left.

Fortunately, the bus was still in sight, and it was going uphill. Thinking I could still catch up, I started running as fast as I could. Perhaps the uphill climb was too taxing; despite giving it my absolute all, I could only watch helplessly as the bus drifted further and further away.

Exhausted and panicked, I didn’t know what to do. Just as anxiety was taking over, my wife unexpectedly rode a vehicle back to find me. She told me the bus had temporarily stopped not too far ahead, and if we hurried, we could still make it. So, we both took off running, trying to catch up with the bus. (I vaguely recall getting a slip of paper from her with three place names written on it, likely locations she had passed along the way. But this detail isn't very important.)

Although I was tired, the news she brought energized me, and I ran with renewed vigor. However, she was wearing a full-length gown, which made running difficult and slowed her down significantly. In a fit of urgency, terrified of repeating the tragedy of missing the bus, I abandoned my wife and sprinted ahead alone. I thought to myself, "Wait for me, honey. Once I stop the bus, I'll ask the driver to wait for you."

Things didn't go as planned. I still missed the bus, and this time, I couldn't even see its tail lights. Utterly exhausted, I felt a deep sense of defeat for failing to stop it. I wanted to turn back and find my wife, only to realize that in my frantic chase, I had completely lost my way!

Now, panic truly set in! My anxiety skyrocketed. I went into a roadside scenic area to ask around and look for her, but there was still no sign of my wife. As darkness began to fall, I despondently prepared to leave the scenic area, only to find that all the gates were locked!

What was I supposed to do? I hadn't found my wife, and now I was trapped in the scenic area myself! I completely broke down and wept. Right at that moment, all the gates suddenly swung open!

How could I let a sudden glimmer of hope slip away? I immediately rushed out of the scenic area to continue searching for my wife. But hope was quickly followed by endless despair: I now found myself in an unfamiliar town (the name in my dream was Miaoli—another unimportant detail), surrounded by winding alleys. Time and again, I hoped these paths would lead to a main road (where the buses would be), only to hit dead ends and be forced to turn back. After repeatedly searching for a way out to no avail, I was exhausted and frantic, worrying about how my wife was doing. Frustration, despair, worry... all these negative emotions twisted into a tight, suffocating knot of anxiety, leaving me panicked and helpless on the unfamiliar streets.

Just then, a savior appeared. A local told me I could use his home phone to contact my wife. I thanked him profusely, but what he handed me was a broken telephone. The number keys were scrambled, and some had even fallen off. I kept dialing the wrong numbers, unable to reach her, and my anxiety spiked to another level. Finally, someone—I don’t know who—provided a functioning phone, and I was finally able to connect with my wife for the first time. The moment I heard her familiar voice on the other end, I completely broke down, crying uncontrollably.

Reflections in the Waking World

The dream ended there. Lying in bed, I pondered its meaning:

1.The anxiety of losing my wife ran through the entire dream, reflecting how crucial she is in my life—I simply cannot live without her.

2.The overwhelming anxiety and panic of getting lost in the scenic area and the unfamiliar town represented a powerful internal storm. Yet, this storm was locked away inside my own heart; my wife had no idea just how deeply I cared for her.

After waking up, I shared this dream with my wife. She instantly pointed out a stark, crucial contrast that I had completely missed: when I failed to catch the bus, she turned back to find me; yet, when we were running after the bus together, I abandoned her.

She summarized, "This is the difference in our personalities, and it's the reason why our relationship keeps falling into the same patterns."

A wave of realization hit me, and I recalled a subtle detail from the dream: when my wife came back to look for me, it was a "close-up shot," with her as the sole focus of the frame. In contrast, the scene of us chasing the bus together was a "long shot"—she remained tiny in the frame, gradually and silently left behind, fading out of the picture.

This visual contrast captured two completely contradictory places my wife holds in my heart:

1.When I need her, she is absolutely my top and only priority.

2.When I am focused on the task at hand (chasing the bus), I will easily abandon her to achieve my goal. Yet, I justify it to myself: I only left her behind because I had no choice, and I did it for her sake.

My wife has told me more than once, "People are more important than tasks." I thought I understood this because whenever I was busy doing things, I would tell myself I was doing them for her. But in reality, I didn't truly grasp it. Because every time I finished a task, she would sometimes remain unsatisfied and simply find the next chore for me to do...

I finally understand: when I only validate my own intentions without genuinely caring about the other person's thoughts and needs, my heart full of love and care remains locked inside me. She cannot feel it at all. Ultimately, my actions (abandoning her) "prove" my love far more loudly than my words (saying I care) ever could.

Realizing this, I finally empathized with the years of accumulated hurt and resentment my wife has carried after every single argument. To me, those past grievances were just "history" that had been put to rest. But to my wife, they were wounds upon wounds—old scars that had never healed, topped with fresh new cuts. She only chose to set that pain aside for the sake of love and our relationship, but she never forgot them.

ps：

​I rarely dream, so the dreams I deliberately choose to remember usually have meaning.

​As I mentioned during our Wednesday small group, I don’t have the gift of prophecy. Therefore, I don’t view this as a divinely inspired dream; at most, it could be said that God is speaking to me through it. For me, the more important thing should be finding the right perspective to interpret this dream by "aligning with God."

​Where does this dream align with God? I believe it is at the level of the marital relationship. From a human perspective, I feel that I am someone who loves my wife and my family. I do what my wife asks of me, and I strive to fulfill my responsibilities to my children. However, I fail to see the ways in which I "neglect my family"—a part of me that is hidden within my mindset and behavioral patterns.

​This dream brought to light my issue of "caring about my family subjectively, yet neglecting them objectively." It was so filled with intense emotions that when Daphne pointed out a key detail, I was immediately able to capture a visual in the dream that matched that detail.

​Therefore, I confess this "issue" that impacts our marital relationship as a sin, and I ask God to lead me to overcome it. I pray that the care I hold for my wife in my heart can be seen and felt by her through my "actions" and a "willingness to change," so that this issue will no longer serve as a breach in our marriage.

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?

台中梅雨即景

暴雨雷霆至，

濃雲吞遠山。

低昂芳草勁，

默默待天藍。

台中烏溪雨後

碧樹枝猶勁，
烏溪水不清。
蜿蜒流向遠，
何日入澄明？

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.

給接待的南非宣教士的回信

 親愛的Lisa：

你信中對我的稱讚，讓我受寵若驚！週一晚上在Stephen 家裡的聚會，我向Craig 說我是小信的人，但他給我很大很深的鼓勵。現在，你的信也大大的鼓勵了我。

送你們離開後，在開車的路上，我和Daphne 一起分享了這段時間被感動、被鼓勵的點點滴滴。「人接待你們就是接待我；接待我就是接待那差我來的。」(馬太福音 10:40)在接待你們之前，這段經文調整了我的眼光，讓我放下第一次接待服事的緊張與焦慮；現在你們離開台灣，這段經文又再度出現在我的心中：因為接待了你們，所以我才能看見神在我家的賜福，以及神對我家的呼召。

你是很美好的女孩子。你真誠、善良、有禮、體貼又細心，我們全家都很喜歡你。10:00pm接Phoebe下班回家時，她在車上說：「我已經開始想念Lisa她們了。」Jabez也是，他洗完澡躺在你睡過的床上，說：「這是『Lisa 的』房間。」我想，你懂的。😊

 若不是神的安排，這一切的美好都不會發生。願神祝福你回到南非後的生活，在學業上、工作上，都有神的保守。

ps: 歡迎妳成為我家的「第六人」😄

 Jorman 

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.

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.