圣保罗讲道的实质
罗兰·艾伦
*作者罗兰·艾伦（1868-1947）于 1895 年至 1903 年在中国担任圣公会传教士。此后几年，他负责一个英国教区。
在《使徒行传》中，我们可以看到圣保罗布道的三个例子，
首先，圣保罗以犹太民族的过去历史为基础，
在第二部分中，他阐述了耶稣降世、遭人拒绝，
在第三部分中，他向所有接受饶恕的人宣告饶恕的信息，
- 诉诸过去，试图通过他和他的听众共同的真理陈述来赢得认同。
- 这是一个事实的陈述，是一个可以被理解、领悟、接受、
争论或证明的事物的断言。 - 对于不可避免的反对意见和本能的抗议，答案是：
布道者本国中最聪明、最有思想、最有正义感的人， 都决定反对这里提出的主张。 - 这是对人类灵性需求的呼吁，对饶恕的渴望，
以及在新的教义中可以找到平安和信心的令人欣慰的保证。 - 最后，是严厉的警告。拒绝上帝的信息会带来严重的危险。
这个福音与圣保罗最后一次向以弗所长老们讲话（徒20：17-
我们很容易理解，这样的福音会如何吸引圣保罗的听众。
对于那些寻求对世界、其本质和终结进行合理解释的人们，
对于那些具有高尚道德本能、
对于那些被罪恶感所压迫的人们，福音带来了饶恕和释放的保证。
对于那些受压迫的、悲伤的、绝望的人们，
对于那些被邪恶灵魂的恐惧吓坏了的人，福音揭示了一种仁慈、
对于不满于偶像崇拜的人们，福音教导他们纯洁地侍奉唯一的真神。
对于那些想象力被恩典的恐怖和黑暗所淹没的人们，
对于需要支持的弱者、被邪恶的锁链束缚的罪人、
对于孤独的人，福音提供了友好的温暖和陪伴，
一个人一旦有了信仰，他的生命就在于与基督的联合。因此，
被拒绝的可能性始终存在。圣保罗并没有在一个地方站稳脚跟，
悔改和相信是他布道的关键。悔改时，他们承认自己过去的过错；
*摘录自罗兰·艾伦 (Roland Allen) 所著《传教方法：圣保罗的还是我们的？》出版地：Grand Rapids, Michigan，出版社： Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001. 62-77.
The Substance of St Paul’s Preaching
Roland Allen
- The author Roland Allen (1868-1947) was an Anglican missionary in China from 1895 to 1903. For a few years afterward he was in charge of an English parish. For the next 40 years he was writing on missionary principles.
Of St Paul’s preaching we have in the Acts three examples, the sermon at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13: 16-41), the speech at Lystra (Acts 14: 15-17), and the speech at Athens (Acts 17: 22-31). We have also five incidental references to its substances: a description given by the soothsaying girl at Philippi (Acts 16: 17), a summary of his teaching in the synagogue at Thessalonica (Acts 17: 2, 3), a not of the points which struck the Athenians in the Agora as strange made by the Town Clerk at Ephesus (Acts 19:37), and the reiteration the Ephesian elders (Acts 20: 21). Besides these, we have an account of his preaching at Corinth given by St Paul himself in his first Epistle to that Church (1 Cor 2: 2). These accounts are naturally divided into two classes: the preaching in the synagogue, and the preaching to the Gentiles.
The sermon is divided into three parts by dramatic appeals to the attention of his hearers.
In the first, St Paul builds upon the past history of the Jewish race and shows that his Gospel is rooted there, that in his message there is no casting away of the things familiar, no denial of the truth of the old revelation made to the Fathers; but rather that the whole history of Israel is the divinely ordered preparation for the new revelation in the Messiah.
In the second, he sets forth the facts of the coming and rejection of Jesus and His consequent crucifixion. Here it is startling with what simple and unhesitating directness St Paul faces at once this great difficulty, the difficult with has at all times everywhere been the most serious hindrance in the way of the acceptance of the Gospel—the rejection of the missionary’s message by his own people. He does not shrink from it, it does not apologize for it, he does not attempt to conceal weight. He sets it forth definitely, clearly, boldly; he makes it part of his argument for the truth of his message. It is the fulfilment of prophecy. Then he produces his conclusive proof, the Resurrection, witnessed by the apostles, foretold by the prophets, the fulfilment of the promise.
In the third part, he proclaims his message of pardon for all who will receive it, and utters a solemn warning of the consequences which will follow its rejection.
We may see here five elements and four characteristics of St Paul’s preaching in the synagogue. The five elements are there:
- An appeal to the past, an attempt to win sympathy by a statement of truth common to him and his hearers.
- There is a statement of facts, an assertion of things which can be understood, apprehended, accepted, disputed, or proved.
- There is the answer to the inevitable objection, to the instinctive protests, that all the wisest and most thoughtful and most judicial minds among the speaker’s own people have decided against the claims here made.
- There is the appeal to the spiritual needs of men, to the craving for pardon, and the comforting assurance that in the new teaching may be found peace and confidence.
- Finally, there is the grave warning. The rejection of God’s message involves serious danger. The way of salvation may be refused, and is commonly refused, but not without peril.
This Gospel accords perfectly with the account with St Paul gives of his preaching in his last address to the Ephesian elders. The main elements include: The nature of God, one, living, personal loving; the facts of the life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the death, the resurrection: the meaning and their power to supply the spiritual needs of men; the folly of idolatry; the way of salvation: repentance and faith; the doctrine of the kingdom; the nearness of judgment.
We can easily understand how such a Gospel would appeal to the minds of St Paul’s hearers. To those who, among the conflicting claims and confused teachings of polytheism, were seeking for some unity in the world nature and of thought, St Paul brought a doctrine, at once simple and profound, of one personal God living and true, the Creator of all.
To men who sought for some intelligent account of the world, its nature and its end, St Paul revealed a moral purpose in the light of which all the perplexities, uncertainties, and apparent contradictions, resolved themselves into a divine harmony.
To men of high moral instincts, appalled and dismayed at the impurity of society around them, St Paul offered the assurance of a moral judgment.
To men oppressed by the sense of sin he brought the assurance of pardon and release.
To the downtrodden, the sad, the hopeless, he opened the door into a kingdom of light and liberty.
To those who were terrified by the fear of malignant spirits he revealed a Spirit benignant, watchful and ever present, all-powerful and able at a word to banish the power of darkness.
To men dissatisfied with the worship of idols he taught the pure service of one true God.
To people whose imaginations were overwhelmed by the terrors and darkness of the grace he gave the assurance of a future beyond the grace in the bliss and peace of the Risen Lord.
To the weak who needed support, to sinners bound with the chain of vice, to people unable to cope with the depressed morality of their heathen surroundings, he brought the promise of an indwelling Spirit of power.
To the lonely he offered the friendly warmth and society of a company all eagerly looking forward to a bright day when Grace would come and this world with all its perplexities and troubles pass away. It is no wonder that this Gospel of St Paul appealed to men, fired their imaginations, filled them with hope, and strengthened them with power to face persecution.
The moment a man had faith, life for him consisted in union with Christ. Consequently, it meant the acceptance of a new source of life. It meant dependence upon Christ for the supply and maintenance of life. It meant the abandonment of the old conception of life, nay, or the very life itself as he before knew it. It meant the casting away of all the former things.
The possibility of rejection was ever present. St Paul did not establish himself in a place and go on preaching for years to men who refused to act on his teaching. When once he had brought them to a point where decision was clear, he demanded that they should make their choice. If they rejected him, he rejected them. The ‘shaking of the lap’, the ‘shaking of the dust from the feet’, the refusal to teach those who refused to act on the teaching, was a vital part of the Pauline presentation of the Gospel. He did not simply ‘go away’, he opened rejected those who showed themselves unworthy of his teaching. It was part of the Gospel that men might ‘judge themselves unworthy of eternal life’. It is a question which needs serious consideration whether the Gospel can be truly presented if this element is left out. Can there be a true teaching which does not involve the refusal to go on teaching? The teaching of the Gospel is not a mere intellectual instruction: it is a moral process, and involves a moral response. If then we go on teaching where that moral response is refused, we cease to preach the Gospel; we make the teaching a mere education of the intellect. This is why so much of our teaching of the Gospel in schools and zenanas is ineffective. We teach, but we do not teach morally. We do not demand moral response. We are afraid to take the responsibility which morally rests upon us of shaking the lap. We should refuse to give intellectual teaching to a pupil if he refused to give us his attention: we might equally refuse to give religious teaching to a pupil who refused to give us religious attention.
Repentance and faith are the keynotes of his preaching. In repentance they confess their past wrongdoing; in faith they find forgiveness as members of Christ’s Body. In repentance they recognize the weakness; in faith they find strength by the administration of the Spirit of Christ. In repentance they confess the way in which they have walked is a way of death; in faith they find in the Kingdom of Christ the way of life. In repentance they break with a sinful world; in faith they enter the Church.
- Excerpt from Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001. 62-77.