邊緣與中心：信仰，生活與政治

自序

我在中心還是在邊緣？從社會角度來說，我不屬於邊緣，因為我家庭總收入屬於高收入一族。但從教會角度來說，我不屬於中心，因為教會的主流不太接受我對信仰的詮釋。所以，邊緣與中心的相對性是從它們在何種關係上來理解，而非固定和絕對。那麼，我們是否不應該用邊緣與中心作為思考工具？答案不是，因為邊緣與中心的相對性和不固定性沒有否定它真實的存在，反而它要求我們以較靈活性、辯證性和自我批判地理解邊緣與中心的關係，不陷於簡化和機械化二元思維，也不將對方妖化。

在邊緣與中心，我選擇從邊緣者角度看事物。選擇一詞本身已含意偏見，但偏見不等於偏差。因為重點不是多角度對事物的理解，而是從多角度出發後，評論者選擇以甚麼角度詮釋事物。我選擇從邊緣者角度。選擇邊緣者角度不是因為他們的角度是必然正確，而是因為他們的角度往往被社會論述壓抑了。如果不刻意從他們角度說話的話，他們的聲音只會遭滅聲。邊緣者角度只是一個立場，所以，它走向對話，以不卑不亢態度對話。在內文，我常引用毛澤東一句話，「屁股指導頭腦」就是我的意思。

在邊緣與中心，我選擇站在邊緣者的需要。需要一詞關乎一個道德訴求，但這不是資本主義生活形態的思維。在資本主義下，需要只有消費主義下的含意，沒有道德意含。所以，資本主義社會不需要滿足邊緣者的需要，因為邊緣者沒有經濟回饋，反而他們要自力更新，提昇競爭能力。然而，邊緣者的出現不純是因他們不負責任的結果，更是因被剝削的結果。我們不需要否定邊緣者的弱競爭力相對地弱，但競爭力較強的一群沒有因此對他們有額外照顧和保障，反而以各種論述和制度進一步剝削他們。因此，選擇站在邊緣者的需要，不是因對他們的可憐，而是因對公義的回應。

在邊緣與中心，我選擇與中心保持距離。距離一詞就是拒絕被中心同化，因為任何權力本身都有一種吸納力。如起初所說，邊緣與中心是互動的。在邊緣之邊，也存在中心與邊緣；同樣，在中心之心，也存在邊緣與中心。事實上，我們看見曾為邊緣發聲和奮鬥的人最後成為邊緣的中心，只滿足自已的權力慾。同樣，我們也看見在中心的人努力為邊緣的爭取公義，不戀棧權力。選擇邊緣就是拒絕被中心同化。

本書嘗試從邊緣角度探討信仰、生活和政治在邊緣與中心的關係。本書主要收集我於2010-13年期間在《時代論壇》出版的文章，其中我補充了多篇未刊登文章。在此，我特別要多謝《時代論壇》讓我有自己專欄。不知不覺，從1999年7月到現在，我已寫了14年，而因這專欄已出版的書，計有《日光之下》、《九七後夢幻世界》和《野蠻與文明》等。今次，再得蒙社長錦洪兄和總編文威兄賞識和邀請結集出版，我抱著興奮，並戰戰競競的心情答應了。願這書能表達出邊緣者的角度、鼓勵我們站在邊緣者的需要上，並有勇氣選擇與中心保持距離。

寫於蘇格蘭格拉斯歌

2013年4月19日

Jesus' resurrection has a history, not just a historical fact (Lk 24:1-12)

Easter is a time to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. But how do we understand the resurrection of Jesus? Resurrection of Jesus gives hope to those whose loved are died. Also resurrection of Jesus is an evidence of that Jesus is Lord, and he overcomes death. These understandings are justified, but according to Luke, the angels provide a different understanding. They said,

Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. (24:6-7, 9:22)

This is not just to remind the women that Jesus had already told them about his resurrection, and therefore, they should not be afraid. But rather this is to remind them that Jesus’ resurrection has to be understood in the sense of suffering, unfair treatment and being killed. The word, remember, has a special meaning in Luke. It reminds us Jesus’ word in the last supper, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’. In this sense, resurrection is not just a very general description of the future of a dying life. Rather resurrection is a response to a life that is killed violently and unjustly. Resurrection of Jesus is not just a historical fact, but also has a history. What is the history of Jesus' resurrection?

First, it is about why Jesus was handed over to sinners. It is because Jesus challenges the religious rules that construct boundary between people, and he takes the side of the marginalized. It is because he preaches the kingdom of God that challenges the power of religious authorities. It is because he violates the social order by promoting a new family that is not bounded by marriage, giving birth and blood. This is the history of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. If crucifixion is a no to Jesus’ option, I would say resurrection then is a yes to Jesus’ option.

Second, it is about who these sinners were. In Lk 9, they are elders, priest and scribes, but in Lk 24, they are sinners. They are not general sinners like you and I, but they are sinners, because they know what they have done is wrong, but they refuse to follow what the truth is. Even though they find no reason to put Jesus into death, they lie by accusing Jesus as revolutionary against the Roman Empire. They are sinners because they have lost their conscience and let selfish and greedy dominate. In this sense, the resurrection of Jesus is a threat to the sinners. On the one hand, they are afraid of being revenged for what they have done. On the other hand, they are afraid of their hypocrisy being revealed. The resurrection of Jesus disallows darkness.

Third, it is about what they did on Jesus. Even though the Roman governor Pontius Pilate finds Jesus no guilty, but the sinners do not allow him to release Jesus. They want Jesus to be crucified, but put the blame on the Romans so that they are clean. Killing is a method to make people keep silence. On the one way, the victim is no longer able to speak out, for he is killed. On the other hand, this threatens other to keep silence, for they do not want to be killed. Resurrection of Jesus is to challenge that killing is not the powerful weapon as one thinks. The death cannot accuse, but resurrection can. In this sense, resurrection is a prosecution of any brutal and inhuman act.

These are the background for our understanding of the resurrection of Jesus, that is, the triumph of the truth, shining the darkness, and a prosecution of any brutal and inhuman act. Nevertheless, the church is inclined to understand the resurrection of Jesus ahistorically and individually. As a result, we are unable to respond the political and economic world theologically. Also, the sinners are longer afraid of Jesus' resurrection.

Since Jesus’ resurrection is a no to any anti-life action and a prosecution of anti-life, what would the church do in the current event of 貨櫃搬運工人工業行動? What are the anti-life elements in treating the workers? Since Jesus’ resurrection is a challenge to the sinners who trample the life of others, what would the church do in the current event of貨櫃搬運工人工業行動? Who are these sinners? Are they contracters, capitalism, and others?

I have no intention to politicize the resurrection of Jesus, but the early church knows that resurrection of Jesus has a history, and to believe of Jesus' resurrection would bring them to trouble. We Christian can't avoid of getting into politics, because Jesus is resurrected.

John 12:1-8 An ethic of thanksgiving

If you have the amount of money equivalence to 300 days’ wages of a worker (300 denarii), how would you spend? Would you agree with Mary spending this amount of money for Jesus? Or would you agree with Judas that the money should be spent for the poor? Ethically speaking, utilitarianism would consider that the happiness spending 300 denarii on the poor is happier than on Jesus, for more people would be benefited. Besides, the need of the poor is more urgent than the need of Jesus. Therefore, spending the money on the poor is a good choice. On the other hand, deontologists would consider right that matters. Right here is applied to a universal principle. Helping the poor is morally right, while spending the money on perfume is one’s right, but this is not a matter of morally right. Being morally right is more worth than an emphasis on one’s right. Although one’s right should not be violated, we have the right to criticize. This happens to the most recent TV show 《叻哥游世界》, and he is criticized as extravagant. Most probably, Jesus would agree with utilitarianism and deontological ethics, but he defends Mary’s doing by saying that ‘she bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.’ Does Jesus agree that it is right to have an expensive funeral?

Jesus’ comment reflects that it is understandable to spend extra money for the deceased, but this is not about the necessity of having an expensive funeral. However, I am puzzled that Mary has had any vantage knowledge of Jesus’ death so that she brought the perfume for his burial. In fact, Mary used the perfume for Jesus during his meal, not his burial. Why does Jesus say that ‘she bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial’? First, it is a way to defend what Mary has done. Second, Jesus makes use of it as a reminder to his disciples that he is soon to be killed. Now, we return to the basic question: How does Mary justify spending 300 days’ wages of a worker for perfume for Jesus if this is not a matter of exercising one’s right? Why does Jesus allow her to do it?

Since Mary’s brother Lazarus was in the feast (John 12:1-2), I would say that what Mary did was an act of thanksgiving, for Jesus brought her brother’s life back. An ethic of thanksgiving is beyond an ethic of utilitarianism and deontological ethics. First, an ethic of thanksgiving is about a conversion from a life of calculability to a life of appreciation. Thanksgiving is not a result of a rational calculation of return to what someone has done something for you, but a sense of appreciation of what someone has done something for you. Basically, a life of calculability is a kind of consumer’s mentality. Since a consumer’s mentality is about the right to receive what I have paid, there is no thank you. One may say thank you is possible, because it is free. There is no room of appreciation. Judas is dominated by the life of calculability, and as a result, he is not only unable to appreciate what Mary has done for his Master, but also full of discontent. On the contrary, Mary knows exactly how much she has done for Jesus cannot repay what Jesus has done for her and her family. She learns to say thank you, appreciate and feel happy.

Second, an ethic of thanksgiving is about one’s conversion from a stranger- relationship to an encounter-relationship. A stranger-relationship has no intention to build up any kind of relation. A stranger-relationship is dominated by rules and principles, and lack of人情味. This is something like the blindfold of Lady Justice, but everyday life is not the court. 人情味 allows one to treat other in a way not necessarily bound by principles and rules, but in a flexible way. Due to人情味, the shop-owner in the market does not collect the exact amount of money I am supposed to pay. Besides, the shop-owner will keep something good for me. An encounter-relationship requires one not only to see the other as a communicable person, but also a person calling me. I would say that God’s forgiveness is a kind of人情味. It is illogical and irrational, but treats me human. Jesus shows appreciation to Mary’s doing, for it is人情味 between them.

Would you agree with Mary spending this amount of money for Jesus? Or would you agree with Judas that the money should be spent for the poor? The issue is not the decision-making, but an ethic of thanksgiving featured by a life of appreciation and a encounter-relationship. Such kind of life can choose to spend the money for Jesus as well as for the poor. The matter is whether you share this life.

預苦期 (一): 以感恩生活和照顧貧窮人紀念主耶穌的救贖 (申26:1-11)

每一個民族和國家都會嘗試為其存在建立一個偉大的故事。例如，中國共產黨就有很多偉大故事，其中之一就是逃亡被改為「長征」。猶太人也不例外，他們的故事是：

我的祖先原是一個流亡的亞蘭人，帶着稀少的人丁下到 埃及寄居。在那裏，他卻成了又大又強、人數眾多的國。埃及人惡待我們，迫害我們，將苦工加在我們身上。於是我們哀求耶和華我們列祖的上帝。耶和華聽見我們的聲音，看見我們所受的困苦、勞役和欺壓，耶和華就用大能的手和伸出來的膀臂，以及大而可畏的事和神蹟奇事，領我們出了埃及，將我們領進這地方，把這流奶與蜜之地賜給我們。耶和華啊，看哪，現在我把你所賜我地上初熟的土產供上。（申26:5-9）

這故事的特徵有二：第一，上主是顧念他們的；第二，他們倚靠上主恩典。雖然以後數代的猶太人已沒有出埃及和入迦南的切身經驗，但沒有因此，他們對這歷史經驗變得陌生，因為這歷史經驗在他們生活中是仍繼續重演。第一，透過宗教生活提醒他們有關出埃及和入迦南的事件。宗教生活反映在祭司和祭物上。祭司的出現不是猶太人的設定，而是上主的設定。祭司是上主與猶太人的媒介。他代表猶太人向上主獻祭，也代表上主向人的接納與宣赦。祭司和獻祭的出現就是因經驗上主對猶太人的救贖而來。所以，每次宗教活動就是歷史重演。第二，透過感恩和獻祭重演出埃及和入迦南事件。「耶和華啊，看哪，現在我把你所賜我地上初熟的土產供上。」（節2）感恩不一定因為豐收，而是因為有地可以耕種，也因為所耕種的可以有收成。因著感恩，猶太人認識沒有外在的恩典，就沒有今日。感恩使他們重演出埃及和入迦南。第三，透過在他們中間的寄居和孤兒寡婦重演出埃及和入迦南（節11-13）。寄居和孤兒寡婦是那些缺乏，無可倚賴的人。他們的出現含意著上主要拯救他們，因為當上主看見猶太人所受的困苦、勞役和欺壓，祂就拯救。上主吩咐猶太人的獻祭是要照顧他們。寄居和孤兒寡婦的遭遇沒有使人懷疑上主的真實，反而更真實體驗上主的愛。這是出埃及和入迦南的重演。

說回來，為何出埃及和入迦南這歷史經驗如此重要？原因不是因為政治上，猶太人需要這段歷史來鞏固其民族和國家，而是因為他們要知道他們是上主的子民。上主的子民不是關乎猶太人的特權，而是要成為萬國的祝福，見證上主的恩典。當他們忘記這歷史時，他們就沒有善待寄居者。這正是今日以巴衝突因素之一。

至於基督徒，我們的身份來自耶穌基督在十字架上的受苦帶來的救贖。沒有這歷史，就沒有基督徒；沒有這歷史的重演，教會就不是教會了。因此，教會必有聖餐，而每次聖餐就是重演耶穌基督的拯救。在聖餐中，我們體會耶穌基督的身體為我捨，耶穌基督的寶血為我流。我們是重價贖回來。此外，藉著見證和奉獻，我們見證上主不只是在我們危難中才出現，更一直看顧我們的生活。當習慣注視自己的不足時，我們很難感恩。當聽見有病患者說每一日都是額外時，我們才明白感恩的基礎不是因有餘，而是因仍在。所以，收入不高、體弱多病也可以感恩。最後，透過對貧窮人的照顧，我們重演耶穌基督的救贖。這正是耶穌在馬太福音25章所說的，

因為我餓了，你們給我吃；渴了，你們給我喝；我流浪在外，你們留我住； 我赤身露體，你們給我穿；我病了，你們看顧我；我在監獄裏，你們來看我。義人就回答：『主啊，我們甚麼時候見你餓了，給你吃；渴了，給你喝？甚麼時候見你流浪在外，留你住；或是赤身露體，給你穿？又甚麼時候見你病了，或是在監獄裏，來看你呢？』 王回答他們說：『我實在告訴你們，這些事你們做在我弟兄中一個最小的身上，就是做在我身上了。』

一年前，政府向每位18歲以上的香港居民派發6000元。你如何運用這筆錢？有基督徒選擇以這筆錢發動平等分享運動，為貧窮人、老人和露宿者提供飯盒和食物。到今天，這行動沒有因6000元用完後就結束，反而每個星期，他們繼續進行。他們不只派食物，更與貧窮人、老人和露宿者傾談。宗教生活、感恩生活和照顧貧窮人不是三擇其一或二，而是三者不可缺。

在教會年曆，今個主日是預苦期的開始。預苦期是透過禱告、奉獻、悔改和幫助貧窮人，讓我們紀念和參與耶穌基督為世人要承受的苦難。在第一週的預苦期，讓我們學習以感恩生活和關懷貧窮人重演耶穌基督的愛與救贖。

生命的本源與朝聖之旅－生命教育的故事

自序

生命教育不是學校場景下教育工作者的專利，反而是任何一個人都參與生命教育和任何一個場景都可實踐生命教育。那麼，刻意以生命教育作招牌的只不過是針對已存在於社會的反生命之傾向和行為，而不是要奪取對生命教育的話語權。所以，本書只是整理這三年參與生命教育，從中探索生命教育的小嘗試。

近十年來，教育界開始以生命教育為題推動以人文為核心的教育。如起初所說，生命教育不只屬於教育界，更屬於其他界別，包括社福界、醫療界、商界、餐飲界和服務界。所以，雖然本書的寫作背景是教育界，但我在寫作時，儘量包容，以致非教育界也能分享其中的故事。說回來，教育界如何理解生命教育？臺灣教育界在孫效志教授帶領下，以人生三問勾劃高中學生生命教育的內容和方向，即「人為何而活」、「人應如何生活」和「如何才能活出應活出的生命」。若有人生三問，有人提出人生三態，即生存、生活和生命。生存是一種本能，是人存在於社會的首要條件；生活是一種方式，是人存在於社會的終身追求；生命是一種概括，是人存在於社会的價值體現。生存的最終目的，就是為了享受生活；人之所以要享受生活，就是要點綴自己的生命。除人生三問和人生三態外，正向心理學以愉快人生（pleasant life）、美好人生（good life）和意義人生（meaningful life）來描述快樂人生的基本。簡單來說，愉快人生是人能夠成功在生活中獲得各樣正面的情緒，包括快樂、自信、平靜、滿足等；美好人生是能夠在各種生活的重要環節上（包括家庭、人際關係、工作、子女管教等）運用我們個人獨特的長處和美德；意義人生是找到人生的意義。

以上對生命教育的不同焦點有一個共同點，就是發問。一方面，發問帶出人的存在，而存在使人發問。另一方面，發問是不會終止的。找到答案就產生新的發問，所以，生命教育是沒有最後定案。

本書選擇以兩個主題來詮釋生命教育，分別為生命的本源與朝聖之旅。生命的本源是關乎說故事、聽故事和重說故事。第二，生命的本源是身體和在地（embodiment）。最後，生命的本源是快樂與悲劇混合。生命是故事，不是因為故事是一個工具，而是因為生命是故事（being as in event）。我們只有在聽故事和說故事體驗生命，找回自己生命的位置。一方面，生命是故事拒絕將生命化約為一系列價值；另一方面，生命是故事提出我屬於甚麼故事的問題。除了生命是故事外，生命必然是身體和在地。否則，這不可能稱為生命。身體與在地要求我們從生理、心理和社會處景認識和活出生命。生命不純是意志和道德的問題，因為意志和道德也是身體性和在地性，即受他們所影響。最後，生命充滿含混。即有快樂，有悲劇；有慶祝，有哀痛；有感恩，有埋怨。如何在悲劇時仍對快樂有追求？如何在快樂時仍顧念在悲劇中的人？這是人生一大學問，也是生命的弔詭。

本書的第二個主題是朝聖之旅。朝聖之旅牽涉目的地和旅程。我沒有嘗試為閱讀者提供朝聖之旅的目的地，因為這是每個人要自己回答的，不可代辦。又縱使一個人暫不知其目的地，他仍然要走。所以，我集中探討朝聖之旅的旅程。其中，我認為有三個重要元素，分別為活得悠然、向他者開放和改造性踐行。活得悠然所關心的，就是找回生命的樂趣。它關乎心靈素養，即一種欣賞力、創造力和滿足感。我分別以閒暇和旅遊作為例子嘗試展現心靈素養的質素。選擇閒暇，因為這是工作時間長的香港人所嚮往的；選擇旅遊，因為這已是現代人的生活特性之一。除閒暇和旅遊外，閱讀、烹調、農耕、攝影 … 等等也是對活得悠然的體會。

朝聖之旅從來不是一個人的旅程。他不但需要有同行者，更在旅途中，他會遇上不同的人。那麼，向他者開放不僅是一個道德課題，更是一個存在課題。即我只有在向他者開放，我才認識自己的存在；我只有讓他者進入我的生命，我才認識體現真我。查斯（Jonathan Sacks）說，「我們在陌生人臉上遇見上主。我相信這是希伯來聖經對倫理單一最大和最違反直覺的貢獻。」[1] 在這部份，我選擇與老人痴呆者和特殊需要學童為例說明。他們讓我認識甚麼是人格、相互倚賴性、陌生世界、生命的驚訝 … 等等。有興趣者，可閱讀本人另一拙作，《不正常信仰－身體、身份與政治》（學生福音團契，2008）。

最後，朝聖之旅必牽涉改造性踐行。知行合一是其中一個課題，但我比較關心的課題是：（一）勞動在生命教育的角色；（二）參與社會改造的踐行與生命教育的關係。我選擇以台灣東海大學的勞作教育為案例探討勞動在生命教育的角色。我接受東海大學對勞作教育作出的教育反省，但我更認為勞作教育是對輕視勞動力社會的批判。另一文章是探討發生在2009和2010年的苦行。苦行是一場反對政府計劃興建廣深港高速鐵路香港段的社會運動。生命教育必驅使學習者對公義的追求；與此同時，在追求公義之時，我們正進入生命教育。

這書不是一本生命教育的入門，所以，我沒有交代生命教育的歷史。在學理方面，本書也欠缺系統陳明。此外，我也沒有提供一些實踐方案。相反，這書的目的是要刺激閱讀者對生命教育的想像，從而在其人生場景中思考可能的踐行。事實上，生命不能化約，反而甚麼都可以是生命教育，任何人也參與自己和他者生命的建立。我喜愛這種看似零亂的生命教育，不但因為生命就是沒有一定系統要跟隨，更因為教導者與學習者在互動中一同成長和一同發現。

我得以以較明顯身份進入生命教育的領域不能不提兩位同道。第一位是盧龍光院長，他努力倡議在香港中文大學崇基學院神學院成立優質生命教育中心，而同時，找我當上主任一職。因有這平台，我就順勢發展不同與中學生有關的生命教育課程和計劃，其中包括《我是我的身體》（2010-12）、《和平教育》（2011-12）、《文化教育－生命培育與身份建立》（2011-13）等計劃。第二位是鄭漢文博士。他邀請我以不同形式參與他帶領有關生命教育的計劃和課程，從中認識更多同行者。他更是我生命的同行者，分享生活點滴。

最後，多謝盧龍光院長、鄭漢文博士、曾煥棠教授和趙星光教授等賜序或推薦。

龔立人

2013年2月14日

---

[1] J. Sacks, The Dignity of Difference (New York: Continuum, 2003), p.59.