护教新阵地：军队中的灵性与苦难
A New Apologetic Front: Spirituality and Suffering in the Army
In an institution like the military, where soldiers must die, platitudes must die as well. Horace’s famous words, “Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori” (How sweet and fitting it is to die for one’s country), grind to a halt before real suffering:
在军队这样一个士兵必须面对死亡的机构中，陈词滥调也必须随之消亡。贺拉斯那句名言——“Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori”（为国捐躯，甜蜜而光荣）——在真实的苦难面前戛然而止：
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.1 [1. Wilfred Owen, "Dulce et Decorum Est" from Poems, ed. Siegfried Sassoon. New York: The Viking Press, 1921. Public domain.]
若你能听到，在每一次颠簸中，血液 从被泡沫腐蚀的肺部中咯咯作响， 如癌症般猥亵，如无辜之舌上 卑劣且不可治愈的溃疡之反刍般苦涩—— 我的朋友，你便不会如此兴致勃勃地 向那些渴求某种绝望荣耀的孩子们讲述 那个古老的谎言：Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori（为国捐躯，甜蜜而光荣）。1 [1. Wilfred Owen, "Dulce et Decorum Est" from Poems, ed. Siegfried Sassoon. New York: The Viking Press, 1921. Public domain.]
The realism inherent to such work often leads to more penetrating glances, not just at the world, but to the present culture and its blind spots. This is especially helpful in an age when the tried-and-true syllogisms of twentieth-century apologetics fall flat. What then can we learn from the military milieu that will help us to take every thought captive?
此类工作中固有的现实主义，往往能引导人们产生更深刻的洞察，不仅是对这个世界，更是对当下的文化及其盲点。在二十世纪护教论中那些经久考验的三段论失效的时代，这一点尤为有益。那么，我们能从军队的环境中学到什么，来帮助我们将每一个想法掳获？
The Reemergence of Spirituality
灵性的重新出现
Contrary to the claims of those who thought religion and spirituality to be a dead letter, spirituality is on the rise—claiming victims from atheism, Christianity, and everything in between. Some holdovers from the moral majority era might see this as an unmitigated good (we have more in common with someone who believes in a higher power than not, after all). Others may assume the sky is falling when they consider that, in loosening the theological bonds that once knit communities together, “spirituality” is often just shoe polish for a nihilistic narcissism.
与那些认为宗教和灵性已成死信的人的主张相反，灵性正在兴起——它在无神论者、基督徒以及两者之间的一切人群中寻找“受害者”。一些“道德多数派”时代的遗老可能会将此视为纯粹的好事（毕竟，与一个相信更高权力的人相比，我们与不信者有更多的共同点）。而另一些人则可能认为天要塌了，因为他们意识到，在松动曾经将社区凝聚在一起的神学纽带时，“灵性”往往只是为虚无主义的自恋所涂的一层粉饰。
There is one evident gain that Christians should take advantage of, however. In gaining a cultural consensus, spirituality now takes pride of place in how Christians engage the culture. The Army chaplaincy, for example, has quickly built upon the work of Dr. Lisa Miller, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University. With countless peer-reviewed studies, she has shown that every person is born with a “spiritual core” that reaches upward and outward and can be developed, wounded, and healed.
然而，基督徒应当利用其中一个显而易见的机会。随着文化共识的达成，灵性现在在基督徒如何接触文化方面占据了核心地位。例如，陆军军牧体系迅速借鉴了哥伦比亚大学临床心理学教授丽莎·米勒（Lisa Miller）博士的研究成果。通过无数经过同行评审的研究，她证明了每个人天生就有一个向上的、向外的“灵性核心”，它可以被开发、被伤害，也可以被治愈。
There is much that Christians could add to this discussion from Romans 1 and 2, but we would be jumping the gun. First, we need to show why the concept of a spiritual core is helpful. As psychologists and sociologists speak of an “epidemic of loneliness” in our culture, they generally describe loneliness as the lack of vertical and horizontal bonds that give rise to meaning, purpose, and identity.
关于这一点，基督徒可以从罗马书第1章和第2章中补充很多内容，但那样就操之过急了。首先，我们需要展示为什么“灵性核心”这个概念是有帮助的。当心理学家和社会学家谈到我们文化中的“孤独流行病”时，他们通常将孤独描述为缺乏能够产生意义、目的和身份认同的纵向和横向纽带。
Consequently, if we are made to connect vertically with God or a higher power, and horizontally with our fellow man, but are not doing so, then we have a problem. This concept of a spiritual core provides the principle; the epidemic of loneliness presents the need—in both the military and the wider culture.
因此，如果我们被造是为了在纵向上与上帝或更高的权力连接，在横向上与同胞连接，但我们却没有这样做，那么我们就遇到了问题。这种“灵性核心”的概念提供了原则，而“孤独流行病”则呈现了需求——无论是在军队中还是在更广泛的文化中。
To address this need, the Army has committed an entire chapter to “spiritual readiness” in their field manual on holistic fitness.1 [1. Department of the Army, FM 7-22, Holistic Health and Fitness (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2020).] Of course, in formulating a doctrinal approach to spiritual readiness, the document—due to pluralism concerns—remains remarkably averse to any theological doctrine that may provide such readiness. But the point is not that the shot falls short of the target, but rather that the Army is taking a shot at all.
为了应对这一需求，陆军在其关于整体健身的野战手册中，专门用一整章来讨论“属灵准备”（spiritual readiness）。1 [1. Department of the Army, FM 7-22, Holistic Health and Fitness (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2020).] 当然，在制定属灵准备的原则性方法时，该文件由于对多元主义的考量，对任何可能提供此类准备的神学教义都表现出显著的排斥。但重点不在于这一击是否未能命中目标，而在于陆军竟然尝试开了一枪。
Spirituality no longer stands on one side of the culture divide. It is the deepest part of a person and arguably the most determinative factor in mental health. And, across disciplines, we are seeing that it is not effectively engaged. Thus, it stands as a key connection point between the believer and unbeliever. What is happening at the core level in each of our hearts? What was this core made for? How has it been shaped? Conversational doors open at each of these questions.
灵性不再处于文化分歧的一侧。它是一个人最深层的部分，而且可以说也是心理健康中最具决定性的因素。而且，在各个学科中，我们都看到灵性并未得到有效的探讨。因此，它成为了信徒与非信徒之间一个关键的连接点。在我们每个人的内心“核心”层面正在发生什么？这个核心是为了什么而造的？它是如何被塑造的？每一个问题都为对话开启了大门。
Spirituality is not only a present concern of the Army. In most Army writings concerning Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO)—future wars against major powers—there is constant mention of the indispensability of “spiritual resiliency” in our soldiers. While the term is not formally defined, the context makes the implication clear: We need soldiers who are able to undergo and ascribe meaning to suffering. They need a belief system—a religion—that makes sense of suffering and enables them to endure. Suffering—and the prospect of suffering—brings the topic of spirituality to the fore.
灵性不仅是陆军目前的关注点。在大多数关于大规模作战（LSCO）——即未来与大国之间战争——的陆军著作中，经常提到士兵拥有“灵性韧性”（spiritual resiliency）是不可或缺的。虽然这个词没有正式的定义，但语境使其含义十分明确：我们需要能够承受苦难并为苦难赋予意义的士兵。他们需要一套能够解释苦难并使他们能够忍耐的信仰体系——一种宗教。苦难以及对苦难的预期，使灵性这一话题凸显出来。
The Ever-Present Problem of Suffering
苦难这一永恒的问题
Conversations about spirituality could be stiff-armed away (and often are in our culture of distraction), if not for the ever-present problem of suffering. We live in an age of distraction, where most people find enduring and intoxicating ways to cope and avoid the problem of suffering. Yet, the universal nature of suffering means that reality will come knocking at the door of distraction unbidden.
如果不是因为苦难这个永恒存在的问题，关于灵性的对话可能会被拒之门外（在我们这个分心的文化中经常如此）。我们生活在一个分心的时代，大多数人找到了持久且令人沉溺的方式来应对和逃避苦难问题。然而，苦难的普遍性意味着，现实会不请自来，敲响那扇被分心掩盖的大门。
In the military, service-members must reckon with this pernicious problem on a more regular basis. They must be prepared to take life or give it, suffer in myriad ways, and then come home healthy and whole. A key marker of spiritual readiness is resiliency—a term that implies the existence of external pressure, stress, or suffering—and the ability to persevere.
在军队中，服役人员必须更频繁地正视这个棘手的问题。他们必须准备好夺取生命或献出生命，以无数种方式承受苦难，然后健康且完整地回家。灵性准备的一个关键标志是韧性——这个词暗示了外部压力、压力或苦难的存在，以及坚持下去的能力。
But how is a soldier—or any person for that matter—able to persevere in and through suffering? Sadly, many don’t—at least not well. This is where two other terms that are growing in prominence within the military are important: “moral injury” and “spiritual injury.”
但是，一名士兵——或者任何一个人——如何才能在苦难中坚持并从中走出来？遗憾的是，许多人做不到——至少没能很好地做到。这就是在军队中日益受到关注的另外两个词变得重要的原因：“道德损伤”（moral injury）和“灵性损伤”（spiritual injury）。
Both resist simple definitions, but we’ll simplify nonetheless in order to keep the focus on the implications of these terms. Moral injury is the negative emotions that come with the betrayal of your moral code—either by yourself or another. These feelings—such as shame—cannot fully be comprehended by psychology, let alone the natural sciences, because they get to a fundamental understanding of the true, good, and beautiful.
这两个词都难以用简单的定义来概括，但为了将重点放在这些词的含义上，我们还是将其简化。道德损伤是指由于你或他人背叛了你的道德准则而产生的负面情绪。这些感觉——例如羞耻感——无法完全由心理学，更不用说自然科学来理解，因为它们触及了对真、善、美的根本理解。
Spiritual injury is a soul wound caused by trauma that alters your relationship to yourself, to others, and to God. This also cannot be quantified or fully addressed by other disciplines. How can a psychologist heal the breach you feel between yourself and God? There is likely a dissertation waiting for the person who can draw a throughline from the spiritual core to spiritual injury to the epidemic of loneliness.
属灵创伤（Spiritual injury）是一种由创伤引起的灵魂伤口，它改变了你与自己、与他人以及与上帝的关系。这种创伤无法被量化，也无法由其他学科完全解决。心理学家如何能修复你感到自己与上帝之间产生的裂痕？对于能够将灵性核心、属灵创伤与孤独症流行这三者串联起来的人来说，这里可能潜藏着一个博士论文的课题。
Like PTSD, both concepts will likely grow in prominence due to their universality in scope. As with PTSD, these issues might be more urgent and prevalent in a military setting, but they also cast greater light upon the human condition at large. They remind us that within both the military and our cultural context, we don’t have an answer for the problem of suffering…and that is a problem.
与创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）一样，这两个概念由于其范围的普遍性，可能会变得越来越受关注。正如 PTSD 一样，这些问题在军事环境中可能更为紧迫且普遍，但它们也更深刻地揭示了广泛的人类处境。它们提醒我们，无论是在军队中还是在我们的文化语境中，我们都无法为苦难问题提供答案……而这本身就是一个问题。
The Theodical Approach
神义论路径
Tim Keller gets at the vacuous and hypocritical condition of our culture regarding suffering in his book, Walking with God through Pain and Suffering. Theodicy—the justification of God in the face of evil—is often treated as a problem for Christians. But what alternatives do people have to that which we have in the Bible? And for that matter, why should they care? Why would they consider it a problem unless we were made for something better?
提摩太·凯勒（Tim Keller）在他的著作《与神同行，走过痛苦与苦难》（Walking with God through Pain and Suffering）中，探讨了我们文化在面对苦难时那种空洞且虚伪的状态。神义论（Theodicy）——即在面对邪恶时为上帝辩护——通常被视为基督徒需要面对的问题。但除了我们从圣经中获得的东西，人们还有什么替代方案？而且就此而言，他们为什么要关心？除非我们天生就是为了更好的目标而造，否则他们为何会认为这是一个问题？
It turns out that the quest inward has not allowed our spiritual types to escape the devil of suffering. Paraphrasing Luther on the monastics, our spiritual friends have merely taken the devil in with them. And guess what? They don’t know how to kick their unwanted guest back out.
事实证明，向内的探索并未能让那些追求灵性的人逃脱苦难这个魔鬼。借用路德对修道士的描述，我们的灵性之友只不过是将魔鬼一起带进了屋子。你猜怎么着？他们不知道如何将这个不请自来的客人们赶出去。
A new apologetic front is opening—let’s call it the “Theodical Approach.” Instead of going on the defensive and trying to explain how the God of the Bible could allow evil or suffering to occur, we should challenge our friends to come up with a better alternative. How have they made sense of suffering? Let’s unpack this approach (which I use often with soldiers and even strangers at the brewery) with several moves:
一个新的护教阵地正在开启——我们可以称之为“神义论路径”。我们不应采取防御姿态，试图解释圣经中的上帝为何允许邪恶或苦难发生，而应挑战我们的朋友，让他们提出一个更好的替代方案。他们是如何理解苦难的？让我用几个步骤来拆解这个方法（我经常将其用于士兵，甚至是在精酿啤酒厂遇到的陌生人）：
The initial challenge. I recently lost a soldier. Not just any soldier, but the one I baptized on my recent deployment. I carried this grief with me to my neighborhood brewery, where I know all the locals, and talked about my soldier, my grief, and my hope. This vulnerability invites conversations, and sure enough, a young man asked, “How can you possibly believe in a God who allows suffering?”
初步的挑战。 我最近失去了一名士兵。不只是任何一名士兵，而是我在最近一次部署期间洗礼的那位。我带着这份悲痛来到社区的啤酒厂，那里所有的当地人都认识我，我谈到了我的士兵，我的悲痛以及我的希望。这种坦诚地展露脆弱会引发对话，果不其然，一名年轻人问道：“你怎么可能相信一位允许苦难存在的上帝？”
This question is a well-intentioned trap. People who ask this question are rarely malicious, but it is an easy way to deal with a difficult issue. They know that there is no simple, satisfying way to answer the question. Christians often get caught in a myriad of webs. Perhaps our response is that suffering is a result of the fall of our first parents. Inevitably, the retort will lead us astray: “Why did God allow the fall?” “Why are we made to suffer for their failure?” There are responses to all these questions, but we will never get back to the original question.
这个问题是一个出于好意的陷阱。问这个问题的人很少心怀恶意，但这是一种处理困难问题的简便方法。他们知道没有简单且令人满意的方式来回答这个问题。基督徒经常陷入重重困境之中。也许我们的回答是，苦难是始祖堕落的结果。不可避免地，对方的反问会将我们带偏：“上帝为什么允许堕落发生？”“为什么我们要为他们的失败而受苦？”虽然所有这些问题都有答案，但我们永远无法回到最初的问题上。
The key to the initial challenge is to change the direction of the challenge. Why do they care about what Christians think about suffering? Do they have a personal interest or a story they want to share? Otherwise, the question is irrelevant (unless a Christian is directly evangelizing and they can fairly ask the question since we’re asking them to change their belief system). They ask us this question because they’re emotionally invested, and it is right to ask them to lay their investment upon the table.
应对初步挑战的关键在于改变挑战的方向。为什么他们关心基督徒如何看待苦难？他们是否有个人兴趣，或者有想要分享的故事？否则，这个问题就毫无意义（除非基督徒正在直接传福音，而对方可以公正地提出这个问题，因为我们正要求他们改变其信仰体系）。他们问我们这个问题，是因为他们在情感上有所投入，而要求他们将这种投入坦诚地摆在桌面上是正确的。
Exposing the wounded bias. The term “wounded bias” is used intentionally. When we are hurt, we often like to challenge and distract others to keep people away from the hurt. When we protest, we protest because we care. People protest the God of the Bible because they believe that he exists (Rom. 1–2). They rightfully feel wounded—spiritually injured, if you will. They have a soul wound in need of dressing.
揭示“受伤的偏见”。 使用“受伤的偏见”（wounded bias）这个词是有意为之的。当我们受伤时，我们往往喜欢挑战和分散他人的注意力，以防止人们触及伤口。当我们抗议时，是因为我们在意。人们抗议圣经中的上帝，是因为他们相信祂存在（罗 1–2）。他们理所当然地感到受伤——如果你愿意的话，可以称之为精神上的创伤。他们的灵魂之伤需要包扎。
There are many ways to expose this wounded bias. We can ask abstract questions about why they care about suffering, why they call it wrong, or why they care about God amidst it all. But the more effective questions are usually more personal—something that gets at their own hurt. Why are they upset with the God who made them? If they’re willing to tell that story, we can start making our way home.
揭示这种受伤偏见的方法有很多。我们可以问一些抽象的问题，比如他们为什么关心苦难，为什么认为苦难是错误的，或者为什么在苦难中依然关心上帝。但通常更有效的问题是更具个人色彩的——能够触及他们自身伤痛的问题。为什么他们会对创造他们的上帝感到愤怒？如果他们愿意讲述那个故事，我们就可以开始寻找回家的路。
Be willing to be broken. Most people we meet in contemporary culture grew up in broken homes, and asking them to be vulnerable is asking a lot. This is a wonderful opportunity to share our own brokenness with them. Christians are no less stricken by suffering than others. We simply grieve as those with hope.
愿意展现破碎。 我们在当代文化中遇到的大多数人成长于破碎的家庭，要求他们展现脆弱是很高要求。这是一个与他们分享我们自身破碎的绝佳机会。基督徒遭受苦难并不比其他人少，我们只是带着希望在哀恸。
My new friend at the bar grew tired of unpacking his own story and biases. “We deal with all these stereotypes. What if it was your family? What if it’s something that is particularly hard to explain?” With tears in my eyes, I reminded him that the kid I baptized was a pastor’s kid. He professed faith on Easter Sunday and then committed suicide the day after Christmas.
我在酒吧结识的新朋友厌倦了剖析自己的故事和偏见。“我们面对着所有这些刻板印象。如果那是你的家人呢？如果那是某种特别难以解释的事情呢？”我眼中含泪地提醒他，我曾洗礼过的一个孩子是牧师的孩子。他在复活节主日承认信仰，然后在圣诞节后的第二天自杀了。
There was a respectful moment of silence. I think we tapped our glasses together. This has happened many times. When we’re willing to be vulnerable, there is a moment when the glasses clink. We’re reminded that Jesus was born in the dark of the night, forsaken. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus. He dreaded the cup of God’s wrath, but declared “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). For the joy set before him, he endured the cross (Heb. 12.1). All of those threads come together when the glasses clink.
现场陷入了肃穆的沉默。我想我们碰了碰杯。这种情况发生过很多次。当我们愿意展现脆弱时，就会出现杯子碰撞的时刻。我们被提醒，耶稣出生在黑夜之中，被弃绝；祂在拉撒路坟前哭泣；祂恐惧上帝愤怒的杯，但宣告：“不要成就我的意思，只要成就你的意思”（路 22:42）。为了摆在前面的喜乐，祂忍受了十字架（希 12:1）。当杯子碰撞时，所有这些线索都交织在了一起。
A place for tears. We weep for a reason. All of us end up weeping at some point—God designed our hearts that way. Our tears aren’t the problem. They are the right response to a broken world, as Jesus modeled for us (John 11:35). When we truly engage others in loving conversations about suffering, tears often ensue. Why?
泪水的空间。 我们流泪是有原因的。我们所有人最终都会在某个时刻流泪——上帝如此设计我们的心。泪水本身不是问题，而是对破碎世界的正确反应，正如耶稣为我们所作的榜样（约 11:35）。当我们真正地与他人进行关于苦难的充满爱心的对话时，泪水往往随之而来。为什么？
My friend at the bar had no explanation. We can gaslight people and tell them that their tears are the problem. Or we can acknowledge—as only the Bible does—that we weep over a broken world. We miss Eden as we weep over the wilderness. We long for a new heavens and new earth.
我在酒吧的朋友无法解释。我们可以通过心理操纵（gaslight）告诉人们，他们的泪水才是问题所在。或者，我们可以像唯有圣经那样承认——我们是在为这个破碎的世界而哭泣。当我们为旷野哀哭时，我们是在思念伊甸园。我们渴望新天新地。
This was the most compelling point. No other worldview can adequately account for our tears. Only the Bible sufficiently explains why we grieve. Only the Bible shows us what we can do with those tears. This is why Christians don’t need to feel threatened by the questions. The One we question is the One who alone holds our tears (Ps. 56:8).
这是最令人信服的一点。没有其他任何世界观能充分地解释我们的泪水。唯有圣经能充分解释我们为何悲伤，唯有圣经能向我们展示我们可以如何处理这些泪水。这就是为什么基督徒不需要对这些疑问感到威胁。我们所质疑的那一位，正是唯一将我们的眼泪装在皮袋里的那位（诗 56:8）。
Image: "Two Men by the Window," by Edvard Munch (1863–1944), oil on board. {CC BY-SA 4.0} Cropped by MR.
图片：“窗边的两个男人”，爱德华·蒙克 (Edvard Munch, 1863–1944) 著，板上油画。{CC BY-SA 4.0} MR 裁剪。
