因此,接下來我們穿行于這座城市時,我留了個心眼,試圖分辨出哪些是因真正信仰上帝而產(chǎn)生的畫作,哪些不是。很快,這件事就變得艱難起來,因為每一家公立救濟(jì)院背后都有一位富有的資助人在支撐;市場經(jīng)濟(jì)中掙來的金錢也許堆高了廣場上的高塔,但也為育嬰堂和學(xué)校提供了資金。當(dāng)然這些畫本來也不是為了公共利益而作的。沒多久,我放棄了。根本分不清嘛。跟許多其他歐洲城市一樣,這座城市也是個大熔爐,貪污腐敗,藝術(shù)成就,趨炎附勢,善意仁慈,所在皆有。信仰就在這熔爐中,真真假假。人群好壞難辨,就像人生。
In his recent biography, the former Bishop of Edinburgh - Richard Holloway - identifies thistension when he writes: "My mistake was to think religion was more than human." He goes on: "I was less sure whether God was also just a human invention, but I was sure religion was." Aswith the art and architecture of Christendom - much of it obviously a human construct - it'ssometimes hard to know where God is in it all.
前愛丁堡主教Richard Holloway在他最近的傳記中這樣描述這種張力:“我的錯誤就在于認(rèn)為宗教高于民眾。我不是很確定上帝是不是民眾一手造就的,但我很肯定宗教是民眾創(chuàng)造的。”基督教界的藝術(shù)和建筑很明顯絕大部分是人的杰作,有時候很難講上帝到底在哪里。
And yet Paul once described Jesus as "the invisible image of God for whom all things - visibleand invisible - were created." This cosmic claim reminds us that when God got involved withman - he also got involved with culture. I confess, I found it hard to match the image of Jesus- so skillfully depicted by Memling - with the image I carry in my mind. But perhaps that's howit's meant to be: a messy mix of imperfect people trying to imagine and interpret a perfectGod who can never be perfectly pictured.
Paul曾這樣形容耶穌:“所有一切有形或無形的事物都是為了看不見的上帝而創(chuàng)造的。”這則重大宣言提醒我們,當(dāng)上帝與人產(chǎn)生牽連,他就跟文化有了牽連。我坦誠,我發(fā)現(xiàn)很難將Memling精美畫作中的耶穌形象跟我腦海中的耶穌形象重疊起來。但恐怕事情本來就是這樣的,一大群不完美的普通人試圖想象和詮釋一個無法徹底展示出來的完美上帝。