（按上圖或按此免費下載）

撮要

文化適應無疑是近代中國教會史的重要課題。基督信仰作為「異文化」，在傳入中國時，如何面對「本土文化」的差異，西方傳教士與中國基督徒，又怎樣承受因文化差異而帶來的激盪?沿海的粵港基督徒，他們的反省又有何獨特之處?本文以「第二次禮儀之爭」為經，以上述兩地的基督徒為緯，選取兩個個案，作為討論的依據。

個案一主要圍繞香港倫敦會信徒何玉泉與《萬國公報》主編陸佩(S. Robert )就儒學是否「天道」而展開的一場論爭。從儒入耶的何玉泉，主張協調基督信仰與儒家傳統，並確信儒學亦為「天道」，六經中的「上帝」即等同於基督教的God ，而孔子更與耶穌，有著共同的地位。對此等「合儒」、「補儒」的論調，陸佩當然予以極大的保留。他深信何氏重新註釋儒家經典，以說明上帝即God，進而論證儒學亦為「天道」的做法，是徹頭徹尾的扭曲信仰；因此，儒家只是「人道」。這種混合主義只會引致教會出現嚴重的儒家化傾向而已。

個案二則由廣東教外儒生羅黻南引發，他認為中國教會禁止信徒祭祖的做法，只會構成中國皈信的阻礙。羅氏從大傳統的角度出發，深信祭祖是中國人體現孝的表現，而非流於迷信的陋習。羅氏的意見引起不少信徒的反對，其中包括香港禮賢會的王煌初及佛山倫敦會的楊襄甫(尚有何玉泉)，他們基於祭祖問題的敏感，縱然認同中國祭祖的本源為孝的體現，最後也得強調這種精神已經盪然無存；並且雖然王煜初及 何玉泉皆主張協調儒家傳統與基督信仰，但在祭祖問題上，卻都採取一個較為「保守」的立場。

就何玉泉、王煌初及楊襄甫三位粵、港信徒來說，在殖民地及通商口岸的特殊環境下，他們確實積極參與清末的社會及政治改革運動。不過，我們卻不可過分誇大其「改革」形象與基督信仰的關係。此外，他們一方面持守儒家傳統，致力作個「儒者基督徒」，另方面卻又反對教外儒生容忍祭祖的主張，也反映出他們在文化適應過程中，為尋索自己 身分所作的抉擇。

ABSTRACT

Cultural adaptation is one of the most important issues in modern Chinese church history. This paper tries to focus on the issue of “Second Rites Controversy” and makes a discussion on two case studies on Hong Kong and Guangdong regions.

Case I was the debate between a convert of Hong Kong London Missionary Society, Ho Yu-chuan ( 何玉泉)and the Chief-editor of Wan-kuo Kung-pao (《萬國公報》)，Rev. S. Robert (陸佩). Ho advocated the accommodation between Christianity and Confucianism, and strongly believed that Confucianism should include in the teaching of Christianity, the term “Shangti”(上帝) as seen in Chinese Classics was equal to “God” in Christian belief, the role of Confucius was also equal to that of Jesus Christ in Christianity respectively. On the other hand, Rev. S. Robert was strongly against toward these views of “ha-ju”(合儒) and “pu-ju”(補儒).He believed that Ho’s re-interpretation of Confucian Classics to prove that “Shangti” was equal to “God” and eventually to draw the conclusion that Confucianism was part of Christianity, was a great distortion of the Christian doctrines. Confucianism was only a kind of “Ren-tao”(人道)rather than Tien-tao. The consequences of this type of syncretism was the Confucianizing tendency in Chinese Church which was preaching “another Gospel “, the Gospel of morality and good works rather than the Gospel of salvation from sin.

Cases II began when a Confucian in Guangdong, Lo Fu-nan(羅黻南) advocated the toleration of Ancestor Worship in the Chinese Church. He believed that the rules that prohibited Chinese Christians from participating in the Worship of Ancestral was one of the most significant hindrance of Chinese’s conversion. From the viewpoint of the “Great Tradition”, Lo tried to persuade western missionaries that the nature of the ritual is filial piety rather than any kind of superstition. Many Chinese Christians such as Wang Yu-chu (王燈初，Hong Kong Rhenish Church) and Yang Xiang-fu (楊襄甫, Fo-shan London Missionary Society) as well as Ho Yu-chuan, however, opposed Lo’s view.

In the light of the three Christians in Hong Kong and Guangdong, Ho, Wang and Yang, in the special environment of Colony and treaty ports, they participated in the social and political reform movement actively. However, we cannot over-estimate the relationship between their “reform image” and the Christian belief. Besides, the good relation with Confucianism, and they tried their best to behave as a “Confucianist Christians” on one hand, and strongly against the view of toleration with Ancestor Worship on the other, may reflect their decision in searching identity in the process of cultural adaptation.

原載於《建道學刊》3期（1995年1月），頁95-123。