張國棟:一篇談文化戰爭的文章
張國棟:一篇談文化戰爭的文章
前言
有空的話,真想整理一下美國有關文化戰爭的評論。在拙著《論盡明光社》第二章,我引述了幾位社會科學研究人員的意見,他們若不認為沒有文化戰爭這回事,就是沒有狹義的文化戰爭--即宗教右派堅持的那一種涇渭分明的文化戰爭。其實在基督教裡,包括福音派裡,有關文化戰爭的討論亦比我們在香港教會裡那些單方「教導」多元,《今日基督教》多年前曾有一期刊載多篇正反討論的文章,讓讀者深入了解。唯香港的教會最「優異」之處,是只會把自己愛聽的洋貨輸入來,令本土信徒以為基督徒只有一個理性選擇。這思想充斥著基督教傳媒,在某幾份報章裡早已成為官方立場,完全不容質疑。這現象實在教人感到香港教會很無知和不理性。問題不是選擇了那個立場太保守(若是理性地這樣做,我其實可以接受),而是在資料如此少的情況下,根本沒有選擇,亦談不上有很多理性判斷。拙著分析關啟文博士如何誤評安徒,背後問題也同樣是這個(不過,他應該不是無知,而是偏執),把一個本應要由經驗去檢證的文化戰爭論旨,當成一個先驗地判斷一切事情的前設,結果,別人沒有甚麼文化戰爭敵我思維,都被他解讀為別人在壓逼宗教,教徒必須奮起反抗。
(順帶一提,台灣教會雖然在很多方面比香港教會保守,但信徒們卻敢言得多。台灣有一個宗旨是要幫助同性戀者改變性傾向的組織「走出埃及」,這類組織自然會向美國右派取經,因為在今天聲稱同性戀者可以--甚至潛台詞是「應該」--改變性傾向,只有這類組織和人士。這組織有一份刊物,曾有一期有一位神學院教師林瑋玲撰文〈同性戀與文化之戰的再思〉,呼籲人們不要用文化戰爭的語言來繼續這些事工/社運。試問,香港除了某一、兩間常被指為過份開放的神學院,有哪一間神學院的教授有勇氣寫這樣一篇文章?答案恐怕是沒有的。他們就算不接受文化戰爭這樣想法,也永不會,亦不敢,公開批評的。該刊更新速度慢,現未有全文網上版,我節錄了在這裡,讀者也可試試 Google Cache 的記錄。)
*************************************
以下是一篇美國某福音派領袖寫的文章,他開卷劈頭便說:「要怎樣打勝文化戰爭?方法是不要打。」雖然文章下半部主要環繞美國社會內部議題,但這基本論調仍是值得基督徒反省的。
How to Win a Culture War
by Jim Wallis 07-23-2009
Want to know how to win a culture war? Don’t fight one. The soul of our nation has been marred from a perpetual state of culture war. In an Orwellian twist, each camp relies on conflict with their supposed enemies for the perpetuation of their own existence. The culture warrior’s clout, influence, fundraising, and organizing is based upon real or perceived attacks from the other side. These “threats” and boogeymen are their oxygen, and without them, they die.
The biggest fear of those leading the culture wars is not an attack from the other side or the threat of losing ground on their issues — it is common ground. Culture wars require a clash of incompatible ideologies; common ground acknowledges differences but finds practical shared goals. Practical shared goals mean people and parties with different ideologies can both “win.” When culture wars are fought, the only people who win are those who build their careers off them.
Culture wars inevitably have causalities, and if those leading the charge have their way, the next casualty will be meaningful health-care reform. In a nation as prosperous as ours, all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. Reasonable people may differ on how best to accomplish this goal, and I welcome a rigorous policy debate about it, but it should be a moral priority for all of us. We must work together to find common ground that will provide quality, affordable health care to all Americans.
At this point in the debate, abortion should not become a wedge issue that could doom the chances of any legislation passing. For too long the issue of abortion in our country has been a contentious and ultimately divisive debate between simplified and polarizing positions of “life” and “choice.” It has been an ideological clash in which each side has sought dominance through shouting their position out louder and longer than the other side. There are code words, buzz words, and shibboleths to identify those on your team and to protect your side from intrusions by the enemy. The trenches have grown deeper and the barbed wire fences higher while little has been done to advance any solutions or provide opportunity for real dialogue….
