240414 XZSex 19性別性向同性戀：護教02

有弟兄姊妹支持，新福才有能力分享資源。若您受益於新福網路事工，我們邀請您為新莊改革宗福音教會奉獻：「台灣基督教改革宗協會」華南銀行新店分行 (008) 166-10-005656-4。海外奉獻 PayPal: [email protected] 。索取繳稅憑單請來信 [email protected] 謝謝您。

240414新福主日學：性別性向同性戀：護教02                高阿丹 參考文件：2020 PCA Ad Interim Committee On Human Sexuality： https://pcaga.org/aicreport/新福西敏信仰告白主日學課程： https://archive.org/details/@pulireformed?query=XZWCF+中文翻譯：高阿丹/新莊改革宗福音教會；使用中文版本請註明出處 APOLOGETIC APPROACHES FOR SPEAKING TO THE WORLD向世界說話的護教進路 Challenge 2: Addressing the historical narrative—ignorance of the first (Christian) “sexual revolution.”挑戰2: 處理歷史敘事——對於第一次（基督徒）「性革命」的無知 As we saw above, the main cultural story about sexuality is to a great degree a historical narrative—one that provides a “history of sex” that is now widely believed. It serves as another layer of assumptions that frame modern people’s responses to Christian views of sexuality. Those who believe this account of our sexual history will not be able to find Christian views plausible. We have been given a great deal of help, however, toward exploding the popular history-of-sex myths in the ground-breaking scholarship by Kyle Harper, From Shame to Sin.[1]如上文所述，關於性的主流文化故事在很大程度上是一種歷史敘事——它提供了一部許多人採信的「性歷史」。

它提供現代人對基督教性觀點的另一層預設。相信這一個我們的性歷史的人不會以為基督教觀點可信。

然而，凱爾哈珀（Kyle Harper）的開創性學術研究《從羞恥到罪惡 From Shame to Sin》大大幫助我們打破坊間流傳的性歷史迷思。1 History or Myths? 歷史或迷思？

Popular history says: (a) The Roman world was a time and place of “polymorphous sexual freedom” and “sexual diversity”;[2] (b) but Christianity came in with its highly restrictive sex ethic, which it imposed through legislation. But Harper writes: “Over the last generation, as the history of sexuality became one of the great scholarly enterprises, the popular story in which Christianity put an end to pagan freedom with the body was exposed as a caricature, at best.”[3] How so? 流行的歷史說：(a) 羅馬世界是一個有「多型態性自由 polymorphous sexual freedom」和「性多元」的時代和地方：2 b) 但基督教帶著藉著立法強加的高度限制性倫理到來。

但哈珀寫道：「當性歷史成為一個強大的學術事業之時，坊間流傳基督教毀滅異教身體自由的故事，在上一代已經被揭露頂多是一個浮誇的漫畫。」3 怎麼說？

In the Greco-Roman world it was understood that while respectable women had to be virgins at marriage and could have sex with no one but their spouses, husbands—and all males—were expected to have sex with servants and slaves, prostitutes, poor women, and boys. Men could essentially force themselves on anyone below them in the social order; they could have sex with anyone but the wife of another man of status. This was, for men at least, a permissive sex ethic. Why then, long before the Caesars became professing Christians, did the Church grow rapidly as millions of people voluntarily adopted our faith’s more restrictive standards for sexual behavior? How could such a restrictive code have won out culturally? 在古希臘羅馬世界，人們都知道，有地位的女性在結婚時必須是處女，除了配偶之外不能與任何人發生性關係。

但是一般來說，丈夫（和所有男人）則與僕人、奴隸、妓女、貧窮婦女和男孩發生性關係。男人基本上可以強迫任何低於他們社會地位的人與他們發生性關係，但不能與另一個有地位的男人之妻發生性關係。至少對男人來說，這是一種放任的性倫理。那麼，為什麼早在凱撒宣稱自己是基督徒之前，教會迅速發展，數百萬人自願採用我們信仰中更嚴格的性行為標準？ 這種限制性的規範怎麼取得文化勝利？

The short answer is this: that while the pagan behavioral code was more permissive, at least for men, the underlying logic or vision for sex propounded by Christians was vastly more positive and humane than the pagan one.[4] And the practical outcome was far more protective of the interests of both women and children. How so?簡短的答案是：雖然異教的行為準更為寬鬆，至少對男人來說是這樣，但基督徒提出比異教徒更和人道的性基本邏輯或願景。

4 實際的結果是大大提升對婦女和孩童權益的保護。怎麼說？

Every culture has a sexual morality, and that morality is grounded in beliefs about what sex is for. A sex act is allowed if it meets that culture’s telos (i.e., purpose) for sex and disallowed if it does not. In Rome sexual morality was determined by the social status of the parties and, therefore, by power. Sex was for the personal pleasure and enhancement of people with social rank. The rightness or wrongness of sexual acts depended on whether or not they kept persons in a right relationship with the polis, the social order and hierarchy. Those with more power and social honor (men over women, high social status over lower social status) had more sexual freedom than those with less.每一個文化都有其性道德（sexual morality），其性道德則基於關於性的目的之信念。

文化容許一個符合該文化所定義性目的 telos（即目的）的性行為；性行為若不符合文化的性目的，則被禁止。在羅馬，性道德取決於雙方的社會地位，即取決於權勢 power。性的目的是個人享樂和提升人的社會地位。性行為之對錯取決於它們是否維持人們在政治、社會秩序和階級制度中的正確關係。擁有越多權勢和社會名望（男性高於女性，社會地位高低），就擁有更多的性自由。

The First (Christian) Sexual Revolution 第一次（基督徒的）性革命 Christianity, however, brought in the first sexual revolution in the West. Christianity changed the “foundational logic” of sex so that “the cosmos replaced the city as the framework of morality.”[5] Sex acts were judged as to whether or not they kept persons in a right relationship with the cosmos, God’s created and redemptive order. Christians’ sexual behavior had to be patterned after God’s saving love for us. As God gave himself to us in Jesus Christ and we give ourselves exclusively to him, so sex is to be practiced only within a life-long covenant of marriage. As union with Christ bridges the gap and unites God and humanity, so sex is to be practiced in a marriage uniting two different genders. (See below under Challenge #3.) In a revolutionary break with the culture, then, Christians insisted that the rightness or wrongness of sexual acts be determined not by social status and power but by covenantal love and gender difference.然而，基督教為西方帶來第一次性革命。

基督教改變性的「基本邏輯」，「宇宙取代城市成為道德框架」。5 評判性行為的標準是它們可否維持人與宇宙 cosmos，就是上帝的創造和救贖秩序之間的正確關係。基督徒的性行為必須以上帝對我們的救贖之愛為模式。上帝在耶穌基督裡把自己給了我們，而我們也將自己完全獻給祂，因此性行為只能在終生的婚姻盟約中進行。與基督聯合跨越上帝與人之間的鴻溝，因此性生活應進行在結合兩個不同性別之婚姻中。

(見下文「挑戰3」）基督徒與文化之間產生革命性的決裂，他們堅持性行為的對錯並不取決於社會地位和權勢，而取決於盟約之愛和性別差異 covenantal love and gender difference。

There was an immediate concrete result that all could see. By breaking the connection of sex with the social order, Christianity guarded the vulnerable from exploitation. No man could demand sex of a woman without giving up his independence and committing his whole life to her. No man could demand sex from his servants. The vulnerable—women, slaves, and children—were protected by the insistence that sex occur only within the safety of the covenantal union of marriage. But beyond these practical results, the “underlying logic” of Christianity regarding sex went much further and higher. It re-imagined sex as no longer a mere appetite that we could barely control but rather as a joyous, even sacred, expression that reflects the way God is saving the world. 所有人都立刻能見具體結果。

基督教打斷性與社會秩序的聯繫，藉此保護弱勢群體免受剝削。任何男人不能要求與女人發生性關係，除非他放棄自己的獨立並將終身委身給女人。沒有男人有權要求與他僕人發生性關係。性行為只能在婚姻盟約的安全範圍內發生，這保護婦女、奴隸和兒童等弱勢群體。但除了這些實際結果之外，基督教關於性的「基本邏輯」有更深遠的影響。在這個邏輯之下，性不再只是一種我們幾乎無法控制的慾望，而是一種喜樂甚至神聖的表達，反映上帝拯救世界的方式。

The Second (Modern) Sexual Revolution 第二次（現代）性革命 How does the Christian sexual revolution relate to the second, modern “sexual revolution”?基督徒的性革命與第二次的現代「性革命」有什麼關係？

First, it is important to recognize that the very humanitarian values of our culture—including its affirmation of sex and consent—come from Christianity. The modern emphasis on the goodness of the physical body and of sex, as well as on consent and mutuality (1 Corinthians 7:1-4) without a double standard for men and women, were Christian gifts to the modern world. Indeed, Paul’s statement that “the husband’s body does not belong to himself but to his wife,” just as the wife’s belongs to the husband, was a radical, unprecedented declaration in that patriarchal culture. Harper writes: “The social assumptions of pre-Christian sexual morality, such as the casual exploitation of the bodies of [powerless] non-persons, seem incomprehensible [to us today] precisely because the Christian revolution so completely swept away that old order….”[6] Harper here is referring to a growing body of scholarship demonstrating that the modern secular person believing fiercely in the equal rights and dignity of every individual is really borrowing a belief about human nature that originally developed from the Bible and grew out of Christian societies.[7] 首先，我們必須認知文化中非常人道主義的價值觀——包括對性的肯定和同意——來自基督教。

現代人強調肉身和性的美好，強調同意和相互性（林前7:1-4），對男女沒有雙重標準，這些都是基督教帶給現代世界的禮物。事實上，保羅說「丈夫也沒有權柄主張自己的身子，乃在妻子」（林前7:4），就如妻子屬於丈夫一樣，這在當時的父權文化中是一個前所未有的激進宣言。哈珀寫：「基督教之前性道德的社會預設，如隨意剝削[沒有權勢的]非人身體 bodies of non-persons（譯註：「non-person 非人」指沒有被當作人看待的人，如奴隸），對我們來說不可思議，正因為基督教革命徹底地掃除了舊秩序。。。

」6 哈珀在這裡指的是越來越多的學術研究顯示，現代世人堅信每個人的平等權利和尊嚴，實際上是藉用了一種關於人性的信念， 這種信念最初從聖經發展出來，並在基督教社會中成長。

Second, we should realize that the modern movement of sexual liberation is in many ways retrograde, a turning back the clock to the underlying logic of Rome. Modern culture has broken the link between sex and God and re-attached sex to the social order. So sex is again detached from the requirement of life-long commitment in marriage. Sex again becomes about self-fulfillment instead of self-giving. As Harper notes, the modern sexual revolution retains some of Christianity’s gifts to the world, the concepts of consent and of the goodness of sex. So while not as brutal as it was in the older pagan culture (due to the remaining Christian elements), sexual culture today is still depersonalizing and objectifying. There are numerous studies and anecdotal evidence that people are far lonelier, with sex detached not only from marriage but even from personal relationship through the massive and elaborate empire of pornography. In ancient Rome there was usually one party—the party with power—using the other party as an object to satisfy his physical needs. Today often the parties are both using one another, treating the other party as an object to meet needs, to be related to only as long as those needs are being met. 其次，我們應該認知，現代的性解放運動在許多方面都是倒退的，倒退到羅馬的基本邏輯。

現代文化打破了性與上帝之間的聯繫，重新將性連結於社會秩序。因此，性再次脫節婚姻中終身承諾的要求。性再次變成了自我實現，而非自我奉獻。正如哈珀所指出的，現代性革命保留了基督教帶給世界的一些禮物，即 「同意」和 「性本美善」的概念。雖然今天的性文不像古老的異教文化那樣殘酷（由於殘留的基督教元素），但仍然是去人格化和物化的 depersonalizing and objectifying。 大量的研究和軼事證據顯示人更加孤獨，性透過龐大而刻意塑造的色情帝國，不僅脫離婚姻也脫離人際關係。在古羅馬，通常是有權力的一方將另一方作為滿足其生理需求的對象。

如今，雙方往往互相利用，把對方當作滿足需求的對象，只有需求得到滿足才發生關係。

Modern culture’s desire to retain some parts of the Christian sex ethic but not the others has created huge tension. The idea of consent goes best with covenant, not hook-ups.[8] Women in particular can feel used as objects. Early Christians faced the same charge that we do—that our sex ethic is stifling, kill-joy, negative, repressive, and unrealistic. They also knew that, while in the short run sexual self-control is hard, in the long run, the Christian sex ethic is more fulfilling and less dehumanizing. In our day we must also find ways to talk confidently about the revolutionary Christian good news about sex. 現代文化奢望保留基督教性倫理的某些部分，而排除其他部分，這帶來巨大張力。

同意的概念最合宜運用在盟約之中，而不是在約會的時候使用。女性尤其會覺得自己被物化利用。早期基督徒同樣面對我們面對的指控——我們的性倫理令人窒息的、奪走樂趣、消極、壓抑，不切實際。他們也知道，雖然性的自我約束從短期看來很困難，但從長遠角度來看，基督教的性倫理更充實，更人性。在我們這個時代，我們也必須找到方式，讓我們有信心論說基督教關於性的革命性好消息。

[1] Kyle Harper, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013). See also Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008). [2] Hillel Halkin, “The Persistence of the Oldest Hatred,” Review of How to Fight Anti-Semitism by Bari Weiss. The New York Times, September 10, 2019. [3] Shame to Sin, 2.[4] Harper writes that what happened as Christianity grew in the West was “a transformation in the deep logic of sexual morality.” Ibid., 7.哈珀寫，隨著基督教在西方的發展，「性道德的深層邏輯發生了轉變」。

同上，第 7 頁。

[5] Ibid., 8.[6] Kyle Harper, “The First Sexual Revolution: Kyle Harper shows how Christianity transformed the  ancient world,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, no. 279, 2018, 41+. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/01/the-first-sexual-revolution (accessed 04/26/2020).[7] See Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014); Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (New York: Basic Books, 2019); Eric Nelson, The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010); Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150-1625 (Grand Rapids,: Eerdmans, 1997); Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989) and A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).  [8] See Zoe Strimpel, “Why the Young are Falling Out of Love with Sex,” Unherd, November 26, 2019, which is a good look at “the state of modern sex.” Follow the links in the article to other empirical studies. https://unherd.com/2019/11/why-are-the-young-falling-out-of-love-with-sex/?=refinnar (accessed 04/26/2020).