4.1  「造」的和「生」的

說是有人問一個學生，他想像的上帝像什麽。他回答說，據他所知，上帝喜歡打探人間活動，要是有誰貪玩，好吃懶做，他就會來禁止。我想這也是大多數人腦海中的“道德”的含義：干涉我們，不讓我們享樂人生。

  4.1 Making And Begetting 

 There is a story about a schoolboy who was asked what he thought God was like. He replied that, as far as he could make out, God was “The sort of person who is always snooping round to see if anyone is enjoying himself and then trying to stop it.” And I am afraid that is the sort of idea that the word Morality raises in a good many people’s minds: something that interferes, something that stops you having a good time.

我十分明白，為什麽有些人討厭神學。記得有一次我向英國皇家空軍演講，一位身經百戰的老空軍站起來，說，“神學對我一點用處也沒有。不過，這可不等於說我不虔誠。我知道冥冥中有位上帝，我可以感覺到他，夜間單獨一人在沙漠中的時候，那種體驗極之神秘。這是為什麽我不相信你那一套關於上帝的文縐縐講法。”對凡是有真實經驗的人，神學理論毋乃太小器，太迂腐，一點也不著邊際！

In a way I quite understand why some people are put off by Theology. I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the RA.F., an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, “I’ve no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I’m a religious man too. I know there’s a God. I’ve felt Him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that’s just why I don’t believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him. To anyone who’s met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!”

好，從他的角度來看，我十分同意他的想法。我相信他在沙漠中一定有過真正接觸上帝的經驗。從那種經驗來看基督教的信條，無異於從真實的事物轉到欠真實的事物。要是你有過站在海灘上眺望大西洋的經驗，然後來看一幅大西洋的地圖，這也是從真實的事物轉到欠真實的事物，從真正的海水與波浪轉到印了顏色地圍的紙。

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably had a real experience of God inthe desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really wasturning from something real to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at amap of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper.

現在，問題來了，大家都承認地圖只是一張印了顏色的紙，但有兩件事我們得記住。地圖是根據許許多多人在大西洋上航行的經驗繪成的，所以地圖繪成所依據的大量經驗和你站在海灘上眺望大西洋的經驗一樣真實。不同的是，你的經驗只是個人的一瞥，而地圖則是將許多不同的經驗拼合在一道。

But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single isolated glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together.

其次，你若旅行，一定得帶張地圖。你若以立在海灘遠眺為足，你個人欣賞海的興趣當然大過看地圖；但是你若要遠行，地圖使比站在海灘遠眺有用得多。

In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

神學因此有點像地圖。一個人只學學、想想基督教的教義，便停在那裡不動，當然不及我前面講到的那位朋友在沙漠裡的經驗，沒有他那麽真實，那麽興奮。教義不是上帝，只是地圖之類的工具。如果這張地圖是根據千百人與上帝真實接觸的經驗，這種經驗若和你我可能得到的那份興奮、那份敬虔感比較，你我的體驗便不免很粗糙，很無條理。其次，你若想進一步瞭解教義，必須有張地圖。那位朋友在沙漠中的感受可能很真切，而且一定十分興奮，但除此之外，他還得到什麽呢？什麽都沒有，也派不上用途。

Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it.

事實上，一種單憑對上帝的自然感覺而產生的糊信仰，雖然非常吸引，但除了興奮之外還有什麽呢？就好像從海灘看海浪一樣。站在英倫海邊看浪，研究浪花，怎麽也去不了紐芬蘭島。同樣，只從花朵或者音樂中去感覺上帝的同在，也得不到永遠的生命。反過來說，只讀地圖不到海上航行，也去不到你要去的地方。你作海上航行假若沒有地圖，也不會很安全。

In fact, that is just why a vague religion—all about feeling God in nature, and so on—is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work; like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map.

換言之，神學是很實際的，尤其是對當前的實際問題。從前，人們受教育不多，意見交流也少，也許有幾許對上帝的簡單認識便可以應付過去。現在情形已經不同，差不多人人都能閱讀，會找書來看，會聽各種各樣的意見與討論。這樣一來，你若不停聽神學方面的聲音，雖不等於你對上帝一點認識也沒有，但一定會有許多錯誤的觀念。有的不正確，有的混雜不清，有的已過時。原來今天有許多以新奇來炫耀的所謂上帝觀，其實幾百年前早已有真材實料的神學家討論過，並且給否定了。今天若有人相信現代英國那些時新信仰，是在開到車，就像相信地球是平的一樣落伍。

In other words, Theology is practical: especially now. In Ac old days, when there was less education and discussion, perhaps it was possible to get on with a very few simple ideas about God. But it is not so now. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones—bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today, are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected. To believe in the popular religion of modern England is retrogression—like believing the earth is flat.

把這種所謂的基督信仰的時新外衣揭去，骨子裡講的豈不外乎是說：耶穌基督是一位偉大的道德教師。我們只要接受他的勸告，就很可能建立起比現在更好的社會秩序，避免另一次世界大戰？真的，的確是這樣，但基督信仰的全部真理已經大打折扣，而且毫不切實際。

For when you get down to it, is not the popular idea of Christianity simply this: that Jesus Christ was a great moral teacher and that if only we took his advice we might be able to establish a better social order and avoid another war? Now, mind you, that is quite true. But it tells you much less than the whole truth about Christianity and it has no practical importance at all.

不錯，我們若接受基督的教訓，很快就可以生活在一個更幸福的世界中。其實你毋須走到基督那裡去達到此目的。我們要是能接受柏拉圖或者亞裡斯多德或者孔子告訴我們的話，照著去做，我們的社會也會比現在不知好幾多。可是，我們做了沒有?我們從沒有真正聽從這些偉大的教師的話。我們有什麽理由說現在會開始聽呢?為什麽在許多偉大的教師中，我們現在更有跟隨基督的可能呢?是不是因為基督是所有道德教師中    出色的一位呢？如果是，我們跟隨他的可能性只有更少，因為我們連基礎課程都跟不上，怎能修讀高級的課程呢？假若基督信仰只是好的道德教訓總體中額外的一小點兒，那麽基督教便可有可無，並不重要了。過去四千年中，有的是智言慧話，汗牛充棟，增加一小點兒起不了什麽作用。

It is quite true that if we took Christ’s advice we should soon be living in a happier world. You need not even go as far as Christ. If we did all that Plato or Aristotle or Confucius told us, we should get on a great deal better than we do. And so what? We never have followed the advice of the great teachers. Why are we likely to begin now? Why are we more likely to follow Christ than any of the others? Because he is the best moral teacher? But that makes it even less likely that we shall follow him. If we cannot take the elementary lessons, is it likely we are going to take the most advanced one? If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference.

可是，你若肯在切實探討真理的基督教的著作中鑽研，便不難發現，這些作者所講的和今天時新的信仰非常之不同。他們告訴你，基督是上帝的兒子。他們說，凡是相信，也就是信靠基督的，都可以成為上帝的兒子。他們說，基督的死將我們從罪中挽救出來。抱怨這些話難明白是沒有用的。基督信仰所告訴我們的是另一個世界，所介紹的是一個我們能接觸、能聽見和看見的世界後面的那個力量。你可以不相信，說講的是假話；但假若基督教說的是真話，那就得是難懂的，至少像現代物理學一樣難懂，理由也是一樣。

But as soon as you look at any real Christian writings, you find that they are talking about something quite different from this popular religion. They say that Christ is the Son of God (whatever that means). They say that those who give Him their confidence can also become Sons of God (whatever that means). They say that His death saved us from our sins (whatever that means). There is no good complaining that these statements are difficult Christianity claims to be telling us about another world, about something behind the world we can touch and hear and see. You may think the claim false; but if it were true, what it tells us would be bound to be difficult—at least as difficult as modern Physics, and for the same reason.

基督信仰的教訓中，教我們吃驚的，是說只要我們歸屬基督，我們就可以成為「上帝的兒子」。有人間“我們不是已經做了上帝的兒子了嗎?”對，因為基督徒把上帝當作他們的天父。而這是基督信仰中的一個重要的教訓。從某種意義說，我們都已經是上帝的兒子。我是說，上帝給了我們生命，他愛我們，看顧我們，因此他像我們的父親一樣。但是聖經說我們“成為上帝的兒子，顯然一定另有所指。這就把我們帶到了神學的核心。

Now the point in Christianity which gives us the greatest shock is the statement that by attaching ourselves to Christ, we can “become Sons of God.” One asks “Aren’t we Sons of God already? Surely the fatherhood of God is one of the main Christian ideas?” Well, in a certain sense, no doubt we are sons of God already. I mean, God has brought us into existence and loves us and looks after us, and in that way is like a father. But when the Bible talks of our “becoming” Sons of God, obviously it must mean something different. And that brings us up against the very centre of Theology.

基督教的某一個信經中說，基督是上帝的兒子，「在萬古之前為父所生」。請注意，這和基督降世為人，為童女所生一事，其間沒有關係，因為我們現在不是講童女懷孕生子，而是討論在宇宙創造以前，時間沒有開始以前所發生的一件事。「在萬古之前」基督已生，他不是造物。這是什麽意思呢?

One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God “begotten, not created”; and it adds “begotten by his Father before all worlds.” Will you please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin? We are not now thinking about the Virgin Birth. We are thinking about something that happened before Nature was
created at all, before time began. “Before all worlds” Christ is begotten, not created. What does it
mean?

讓我們先談第一點，也就是人有上帝的形像。上帝所造的每一物都多少帶有一點他的形像。比方說，太空帶有他的宏偉，但太空的宏偉並不就是上帝才具有的那種宏偉，而只是一種表徵，或者將無上崇高的靈性上的偉大表現在不屬靈性領域的事物上。又比方說物質，物質像上帝，帶有他的能，但是物質之能與上帝的全能當然不同，也不屬同一類。植物世界像上帝，因為植物帶有生命，而上帝乃“永活的神”。可是生理層次上的生命和上帝所具有的生命也不相同，只是一種表徵或者一個影兒。若談到動物，可以在生理的生命之外，找到其他的與上帝的相似處。例如昆蟲的勤勞和繁殖，可以隱約見到上帝無休無止的活動與創造。在高級的哺乳動物中，我們依稀可以找到那種發乎本能的愛，這當然和存乎上帝裡面的大愛不同；但像它，就像繪的氏上的風景畫。這風景畫可以“像”實地的風景。

Let us take the first point (man’s resemblance to God) first. Everything God has made has some likeness to Himself. Space is like Him in its hugeness: not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God’s, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms.Matter is like God in having energy: though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is alive, and He is the “living God.”But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God: it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it. When we come on to the animals, we find other kinds of resemblance in addition to biological life. The intense activity and fertility of the insects, for example, is a first dim resemblance to the unceasing activity and the creativeness of God. In the higher mammals we get the beginnings of instinctive affection. That is not the same thing as the love that exists in God: but it is like it—rather in the way that a picture drawn on a flat piece of paper can nevertheless be “like” a landscape.

這是應弄清楚的第一點。上帝所生的是上帝，就像人所生的是人。上帝造的便不會是上帝，就像人所造的不會是人一樣。這正是人類為什麽不像基督、不是上帝的兒子的道理。他們可以在某些方面像上帝，但不是上帝，只可以算是像上帝的雕像或者圖畫。一座雕像有人的形狀，但沒有生命；同樣，人也有(在某種意義上，我就要解釋)上帝的形像，但沒有上帝有的那種生命。

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. WhatGod creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God inthe sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the samekind. They are more like statues or pictures of God. A statue has the shape of a man but it is not alive.

在現代英文中已少用be getting或be gotten這個表示「生」的字，但我們一見到都會知道其意思。生誰(Tobeget) 就做誰的父親，但造 (tocreate) 則指創制。二者間的差別是：你生一人，此人與你同屬一類：人生出人的嬰兒，海生小海，鳥兒生蛋，孵出小鳥。可是，你若制造什麽，製造出來的是與你自己不屬一類的東西。鳥兒造巢，海造堤，人造出收音機，也可以造出比收音機更像他自己的東西，例如一座雕像。他若技術高超，可以造出一座十分像人的雕像；但卻不同於真人，不能呼吸，不會思想，沒有生命。

 We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

讓我們先談第一點，也就是人有上帝的形像。上帝所造的每一物都多少帶有一點他的形像。比方說，太空帶有他的宏偉，但太空的宏偉並不就是上帝才具有的那種宏偉，而只是一種表徵，或者將無上崇高的靈性上的偉大表現在不屬靈性領域的事物上。又比方說物質，物質像上帝，帶有他的能，但是物質之能與上帝的全能當然不同，也不屬同一類。植物世界像上帝，因為植物帶有生命，而上帝乃“永活的神”。可是生理層次上的生命和上帝所具有的生命也不相同，只是一種表徵或者一個影兒。若談到動物，可以在生理的生命之外，找到其他的與上帝的相似處。例如昆蟲的勤勞和繁殖，可以隱約見到上帝無休無止的活動與創造。在高級的哺乳動物中，我們依稀可以找到那種發乎本能的愛，這當然和存乎上帝裡面的大愛不同；但像它，就像繪的氏上的風景畫。這風景畫可以“像”實地的風景。

Let us take the first point (man’s resemblance to God) first. Everything God has made has some likeness to Himself. Space is like Him in its hugeness: not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God’s, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms.Matter is like God in having energy: though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is alive, and He is the “living God.”But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God: it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it. When we come on to the animals, we find other kinds of resemblance in addition to biological life. The intense activity and fertility of the insects, for example, is a first dim resemblance to the unceasing activity and the creativeness of God. In the higher mammals we get the beginnings of instinctive affection. That is not the same thing as the love that exists in God: but it is like it—rather in the way that a picture drawn on a flat piece of paper can nevertheless be “like” a landscape.

談到人類這萬物之靈，我們具有上帝   完全的形像，比我們已經知道的任何動物更像他。(在其他世界裡也許有比人類更像上帝的造物存在，但我們到現在仍未發現。)人類不但有生命，且能愛，能推理。生理的生命在人身上達到了高的完美境界。

 When we come to man, the highest of the animals, we get the completest resemblance to God which we know of. (There may be creatures in other worlds who are more like God than man is, but we do not know about them.) Man not only lives, but loves and reasons: biological life reaches its highest known level in him.

但是人類的自然的身體所沒有得到的，是靈性的生命，一種只存在上帝裡頭的更高等的不同生命。我們用生命一詞稱呼二者，但若以為這兩種生命是一樣的，就好像將太空的宏偉等同於上帝的“宏偉”一樣。在現實裡，生理的生命與靈性的生命間的差異實在太重要，所以我得給它們不同的名字。生理的生命循自然的途徑來到我們裡頭，因此像大自然中其他事物一樣，總會衰殘、枯竭，要靠大自然中的空氣、水和食物等等來不斷補充。我把這生命叫做Bios(塵生)，靈性的生命乃從永遠而來，存在上帝裡頭，這生命創造了整個自然宇宙，我把這生命稱之為Zoe(永生)。塵生多少帶有一點永生的樣子，像影子，不過，充其量也只是照片之於風景，或者雕像之於人。一個人要從“塵生”進到“永生”須經歷一個轉變，就像要將石像轉變成為真人般的大改變。

But what man, in his natural condition, has not got, is Spiritual life—the higher and different sort of
life that exists in God. We use the same word life for both: but if you thought that both must therefore
be the same sort of thing, that would be like thinking that the “greatness” of space and the “greatness” of God were the same sort of greatness. In reality, the difference between Biological life and spiritual life is so important that I am going to give them two distinct names.  The Biological sort which comes to us through Nature, and which (like everything else in Nature) is always tending to run down and decay so that it can only be kept up by incessant subsidies from Nature in the form of air, water, food, etc., is Bios. The Spiritual life which is in God from all eternity, and which made the whole natural universe, is Zoe. Bios has, to be sure, a certain shadowy or symbolic resemblance to Zoe: but only the sort of resemblance there is between a photo and a place, or a statue and a man. A man who changed from having Bios to having Zoe would have gone through as big a change as a statue which changed from being a carved stone to being a real man.

這才是基督信仰所教導的內容。這個世界只是一座雕刻匠的大工廠，我們是裡頭的雕像。現在有消息出來，說工廠裡的雕像(我們)，有一些在某一天會變成活人。

And that is precisely what Christianity is about. This world is a great sculptor’s shop. We are thestatues and there is a rumour going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come to life.