本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛本来是想明早起来再写影评的，但是忍不住挥笔几下。趁着我还有记忆，趁着阿滋海默症还没有临到我....
《我脑中的橡皮擦》是孙艺珍的又一部力作。清新的造型、明星的搭配、甜蜜的爱情、绝症的降临等等等等，这都是“韩影”感人的常规手段。但是这次同中有异。
我看到了两点：（1）以圣经主题为背景的故事构思；（2）新型绝症的预警。
（1）耶稣－－木匠，聪明的工头、忠心的管家－－Cheol-Su，宽恕 v.s. 仇恨
在故事的开头，“公主”追“乞丐”的爱情故事竟然被“公主”的爸爸看好。这个虔诚的基督徒爸爸（也是Cheol-su的上司）以主耶稣作比方，告诉Cheol-Su木匠是一个神圣的工作，并启发Cheol-Su一个好木匠要在看似不好的木料中发觉好的纹理，正如Cheol-Su自己被“公主”爸爸看好一般。关于这一点的关联性，我是拍手叫好。众所周知韩国在上世纪80年代中期的教会大复兴影响了千千万万的韩国、台湾、甚至中国大陆的基督徒的复兴。而在韩国电影中这样明确地以基督信仰文化影响年轻一代的做法实属第一次。在韩风刮遍中港台的今日，这样的创意的确可以潜意识地领人归主。
Cheol-Su也是一个有志青年，身世贫寒却从不自己卑贱自己。他一步步刻苦做好每一个承包的建筑工程，不好的施工坚决返工，直到做好为止。而其“酷毙了，逊呆了”的气质是迷倒Su-jin的第一因。但是Su-jin的父亲看见的确是Cheol-Su的内里的好品质－－孺子可教也。圣经上所记，聪明的工头将房屋建立在坚固的磐石根基上，永远不动摇。这里，与之类似的，Cheol-Su也是将每一个脚手架，每一层楼房建造地结结实实的。实在是一个“聪明的工头”。不仅如此，他还是一个“忠心良善的仆人”，“忠心的管家”他在“小事上忠心，大事上也忠心”。虽然一开始他只是一个小小的建筑工地包工头，但是由于兢兢业业地做好当前的工作，并加上日后岳父大人的赏识，步步高升，慢慢做到独立进行设计的建筑师。一次就考过建筑师执照的他固然聪明，但是更聪明的是他懂得怎样把握当下，管理好上帝赐给他的那一份财产。当时机来临时，他的“工程”必然可以经受地住考验与选拔。
Cheol-Su的家境是一个与故事主题相并行的副主题。从含沙射影的论述、对话中，我们发现，他母亲是个“太妹”似的人物，在17岁与男友越轨时怀下他，并且在日后的狼藉生涯中一步一步给年幼的Cheol-Su造成根深蒂固的心灵伤害。她最终为了和所爱的人私奔而丢弃了儿子。那是的Cheol-Su在一夜之间“哭尽”了所有的眼泪，发誓不再认她为母亲。当他在功成名就，家庭事业双丰收的时候，母亲找到公司来向他求助还债。积怨颇深的Cheol-Su怎么能一下子原谅这样的母亲？为此他甚至在爱妻面前发怒。曾经被父亲原谅过的Su-jin劝导他学习原谅他母亲。“宽恕...就是把你心里的仇恨只留一点小小的空间”。智慧的Su-jin提醒他，聪明的木匠是建造心灵的房屋。至此，三个分主题－－木匠、好管家、宽恕－－糅合在一体，完美的表达了圣经中重要的信息。耶稣就是那位好木匠，借着他的救赎我们得到天父的赦免与宽恕，并且他为我们建造了心灵的宫殿，不断激励我们一生去做忠心良善的好管家。在这一部分中，Su-jin借着从父亲而来的宽恕帮助Cheol-Su去宽恕他的母亲，也能最终地宽恕了她。而Su-jin父亲的敬虔与基督徒的生命在其中扮演了不可磨灭的角色。而层层递推到最后的最后，是主耶稣拯救了她的父亲、帮助她的父亲做了这一切。于是，救恩属乎神这一中心思想在不经意之间得到了淋漓尽致的发挥。耶稣在人间成就和睦也被表达地清晰无疑。
一点小结：这样的剧情编排与构思可以看出编剧和导演的确煞费苦心。我想不是每一个人都会看见我上面所写的这些。但是我相信，基督徒来看这部电影时所看到的绝不应该仅仅还停留在“爱的死去活来”的层面上。我猜，编导肯定也是“醉翁之意不在酒”。
（2）新型绝症的预警
孙艺珍是我最喜欢的一个韩国女影星。之前的《向左爱、向右爱》里面她因得了血液病而死去。不是每个人都有得血液病得机会，于是我们看起来也是在看别人得故事，“事不关己、一边挂起”，顶多也是几滴眼泪罢了。而这里，一种叫做“阿滋海默症”记忆丧失症把我们每个人都拉入现实处境中。这种病不仅仅只有老年人才得，年轻人也会，就如电影中的女主人公一样。病因大概是由于基因的问题引起，至今没有解药。谁又知道自己的基因就是那么的好，不会得这种病呢？用google搜索阿滋海默症，就可以读到很多相关资料。这种病可怕在于病人的记忆慢慢丧失以至于所有的事情都忘光。这种病也会致命。
在一段甜美温柔的爱情过后遇上这样的一种病的确是人生一大灾难。我也佩服编导能够想的出来这样的新招让观众流泪。流泪是小事儿。大事儿是我们能否借此机会想一想我们自己的处境。谁敢说我们就不会得阿滋海默症呢？谁敢为明天夸口呢？看到这里，我们除了庆幸自己现在还没有得这种病之外，更多的是要思考今生怎么活更有意义！我很感谢韩影，因为韩影的这种悲剧设置让每个观众都有一种“存在主义”的焦虑。让人顿时、当下产生一种对自己生命之不确定性的怀疑。这种健康的怀疑是合乎圣经的，因为没有人能够掌管明天。掌管明天的是上帝。这种焦虑让人问自己的第一个问题就是，“如果我得了这种病，我怎么办？”很好！这种问题问得值得，这种焦虑应当有！现在多少人沉浸在醉生梦死中不知今朝为何日。这种产生“顿醒”功用的处理把人带到了绝望的边境。不单单是我们若是得了这种病怎么办，更是在我们没有得这种绝症得时候，我们怎样有意义地过一生？我们该怎么办－－this is THE question. 所谓绝望就是绝对的希望，于是乎人的尽头就是神的开端。借由上面所评析的圣经主题，本部电影终归旨在把人引向耶稣－－“唯一的道路、真理、生命”。
没有记忆的人生的痛苦的。没有记忆的爱情是无法想象的。这就是为什么当Cheol-Su和Su-jin得知这个噩耗时，两人绝望与无助的原因了。但是他们没有放弃。他们艰难地共同往前走，直走到天堂。在电影的末尾，Su-jin问Cheol-Su“这是天堂吗？”Cheol-su说“是的”。我也想说“是的”。因为天堂就在这里，在有耶稣的地方就是天堂。在有他的爱与宽恕的地方，就是他百姓聚集的地方，那里就是天堂。人世间的爱情固然短暂，但是当电影结束的那一个镜头打向高速公路的远方，Cheol-su和Su-jin彼此说“我爱你”的时候，其寓意是深远的。在永恒的路上说“我爱你”是需要一个大前提的保证的。那就是首先接受那永生的礼物。
总结
任何一部艺术创作都不会有所谓完美的程度。任何一个艺术家欲想达到完美必先承认自己作品之不完美。于是我这点评论也不能只“报喜不报忧”，否则不仅不符合事实，更有夸其所爱之嫌。若说这部电影有什么不甚完美之处，我认为第一就在于对于“宽恕”的定义。“宽恕...就是把你心里的仇恨只留一点小小的空间”是这样的吗？圣经里面的宽恕是完全的饶恕，就如天父通过基督耶稣完全地饶恕我们一样。而那个一点小小的空间的仇恨却仍然聚集了愤怒的力量，犹如导火索，一碰就会膨胀爆发。但是正如20世纪英国的C.S.Lewis说过“二战中的英国国民要学习饶恕并不是一下子就要彻底原谅盖世太保的恶行，而是先从原谅邻居开始；正如学数学是先从基本算术开始，然后学到微积分。”由此观之，暂且将宽恕定义成片中的样子可以看成是学习宽恕的第一步。以下附上C.S.Lewis著名的Mere Christianity中的论饶恕一文加以补充。
我的一点浅见就敷述至此。绝对不敢说这一点文字包含了全部的精彩内容。要想知道更多的一手资料，还请自己细细品尝。好电影的一个共同特点就是于细微末节处道出设计者的精心，没有一点浪费的笔墨。这部电影就是如此。
亮 于多伦多
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
7. Forgiveness
I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. But I am not sure I was right I believe the one I have to talk of today is even more unpopular: the Christian rule, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Because hi Christian morals "thy neighbour" includes "thy enemy," and so we come up against this terrible duty of forgiving our enemies.
Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. "That sort of talk makes them sick," they say. And half of you already want to ask me, "I wonder how you'd feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?"
So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I must not deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying to tell you in this book what I could do—I can do precious little—I am telling you what Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us." There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly dear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do?
It is going to be hard enough, anyway, but I think there are two things we can do to make it easier. When you start mathematics you do not begin with the calculus; you begin with simple addition. In the same way, if we really want (but all depends on really wanting) to learn how to forgive, perhaps we had better start with something easier than the Gestapo. One might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children, or the nearest N.C.O., for something they have done or said in the last week. That will probably keep us busy for the moment. And secondly, we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbour as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?
Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and 1 do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently "Love your neighbour" does not mean "feel fond of him" or "find him attractive." I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do 1 think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it, is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief.
For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.
For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life—namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.
Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again.
The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, "Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that," or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker.
If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything—God and our friends and ourselves included—as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.
Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I still think so now that we are at peace.
It is no good quoting "Thou shalt not kill." There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major—what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight—the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause—is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken.
What I cannot understand is this sort of semipacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage— a kind of gaity and wholeheartedness.
I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the first world war, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it.
I imagine somebody will say, "Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?" All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating.
We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one's own back, must be simply killed. I do not mean that anyone can decide this moment that he will never feel it any more. That is not how things happen. I mean that every time it bobs its head up, day after day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head.
It is hard work, but the attempt is not impossible. Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves— to wish that he were not bad. to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, jot feeling fond of him nor saving he is nice when he is not.
I admit that this means loving people who have nothing lovable about them. But then, has oneself anything lovable about it? You love it simply because it is yourself, God intends us to love all selves in the same way and for the same reason: but He has given us the sum ready worked out on our own case to show us how it works.
We have then to go on and apply the rule to all the other selves. Perhaps it makes it easier if we remember that that is how He loves us. Not for any nice, attractive qualities we think we have, but just because we are the things called selves. For really there is nothing else in us to love: creatures like us who actually find hatred such a pleasure that to give it up is like giving up beer or tobacco. ...更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
《我脑中的橡皮擦》是孙艺珍的又一部力作。清新的造型、明星的搭配、甜蜜的爱情、绝症的降临等等等等，这都是“韩影”感人的常规手段。但是这次同中有异。
我看到了两点：（1）以圣经主题为背景的故事构思；（2）新型绝症的预警。
（1）耶稣－－木匠，聪明的工头、忠心的管家－－Cheol-Su，宽恕 v.s. 仇恨
在故事的开头，“公主”追“乞丐”的爱情故事竟然被“公主”的爸爸看好。这个虔诚的基督徒爸爸（也是Cheol-su的上司）以主耶稣作比方，告诉Cheol-Su木匠是一个神圣的工作，并启发Cheol-Su一个好木匠要在看似不好的木料中发觉好的纹理，正如Cheol-Su自己被“公主”爸爸看好一般。关于这一点的关联性，我是拍手叫好。众所周知韩国在上世纪80年代中期的教会大复兴影响了千千万万的韩国、台湾、甚至中国大陆的基督徒的复兴。而在韩国电影中这样明确地以基督信仰文化影响年轻一代的做法实属第一次。在韩风刮遍中港台的今日，这样的创意的确可以潜意识地领人归主。
Cheol-Su也是一个有志青年，身世贫寒却从不自己卑贱自己。他一步步刻苦做好每一个承包的建筑工程，不好的施工坚决返工，直到做好为止。而其“酷毙了，逊呆了”的气质是迷倒Su-jin的第一因。但是Su-jin的父亲看见的确是Cheol-Su的内里的好品质－－孺子可教也。圣经上所记，聪明的工头将房屋建立在坚固的磐石根基上，永远不动摇。这里，与之类似的，Cheol-Su也是将每一个脚手架，每一层楼房建造地结结实实的。实在是一个“聪明的工头”。不仅如此，他还是一个“忠心良善的仆人”，“忠心的管家”他在“小事上忠心，大事上也忠心”。虽然一开始他只是一个小小的建筑工地包工头，但是由于兢兢业业地做好当前的工作，并加上日后岳父大人的赏识，步步高升，慢慢做到独立进行设计的建筑师。一次就考过建筑师执照的他固然聪明，但是更聪明的是他懂得怎样把握当下，管理好上帝赐给他的那一份财产。当时机来临时，他的“工程”必然可以经受地住考验与选拔。
Cheol-Su的家境是一个与故事主题相并行的副主题。从含沙射影的论述、对话中，我们发现，他母亲是个“太妹”似的人物，在17岁与男友越轨时怀下他，并且在日后的狼藉生涯中一步一步给年幼的Cheol-Su造成根深蒂固的心灵伤害。她最终为了和所爱的人私奔而丢弃了儿子。那是的Cheol-Su在一夜之间“哭尽”了所有的眼泪，发誓不再认她为母亲。当他在功成名就，家庭事业双丰收的时候，母亲找到公司来向他求助还债。积怨颇深的Cheol-Su怎么能一下子原谅这样的母亲？为此他甚至在爱妻面前发怒。曾经被父亲原谅过的Su-jin劝导他学习原谅他母亲。“宽恕...就是把你心里的仇恨只留一点小小的空间”。智慧的Su-jin提醒他，聪明的木匠是建造心灵的房屋。至此，三个分主题－－木匠、好管家、宽恕－－糅合在一体，完美的表达了圣经中重要的信息。耶稣就是那位好木匠，借着他的救赎我们得到天父的赦免与宽恕，并且他为我们建造了心灵的宫殿，不断激励我们一生去做忠心良善的好管家。在这一部分中，Su-jin借着从父亲而来的宽恕帮助Cheol-Su去宽恕他的母亲，也能最终地宽恕了她。而Su-jin父亲的敬虔与基督徒的生命在其中扮演了不可磨灭的角色。而层层递推到最后的最后，是主耶稣拯救了她的父亲、帮助她的父亲做了这一切。于是，救恩属乎神这一中心思想在不经意之间得到了淋漓尽致的发挥。耶稣在人间成就和睦也被表达地清晰无疑。
一点小结：这样的剧情编排与构思可以看出编剧和导演的确煞费苦心。我想不是每一个人都会看见我上面所写的这些。但是我相信，基督徒来看这部电影时所看到的绝不应该仅仅还停留在“爱的死去活来”的层面上。我猜，编导肯定也是“醉翁之意不在酒”。
（2）新型绝症的预警
孙艺珍是我最喜欢的一个韩国女影星。之前的《向左爱、向右爱》里面她因得了血液病而死去。不是每个人都有得血液病得机会，于是我们看起来也是在看别人得故事，“事不关己、一边挂起”，顶多也是几滴眼泪罢了。而这里，一种叫做“阿滋海默症”记忆丧失症把我们每个人都拉入现实处境中。这种病不仅仅只有老年人才得，年轻人也会，就如电影中的女主人公一样。病因大概是由于基因的问题引起，至今没有解药。谁又知道自己的基因就是那么的好，不会得这种病呢？用google搜索阿滋海默症，就可以读到很多相关资料。这种病可怕在于病人的记忆慢慢丧失以至于所有的事情都忘光。这种病也会致命。
在一段甜美温柔的爱情过后遇上这样的一种病的确是人生一大灾难。我也佩服编导能够想的出来这样的新招让观众流泪。流泪是小事儿。大事儿是我们能否借此机会想一想我们自己的处境。谁敢说我们就不会得阿滋海默症呢？谁敢为明天夸口呢？看到这里，我们除了庆幸自己现在还没有得这种病之外，更多的是要思考今生怎么活更有意义！我很感谢韩影，因为韩影的这种悲剧设置让每个观众都有一种“存在主义”的焦虑。让人顿时、当下产生一种对自己生命之不确定性的怀疑。这种健康的怀疑是合乎圣经的，因为没有人能够掌管明天。掌管明天的是上帝。这种焦虑让人问自己的第一个问题就是，“如果我得了这种病，我怎么办？”很好！这种问题问得值得，这种焦虑应当有！现在多少人沉浸在醉生梦死中不知今朝为何日。这种产生“顿醒”功用的处理把人带到了绝望的边境。不单单是我们若是得了这种病怎么办，更是在我们没有得这种绝症得时候，我们怎样有意义地过一生？我们该怎么办－－this is THE question. 所谓绝望就是绝对的希望，于是乎人的尽头就是神的开端。借由上面所评析的圣经主题，本部电影终归旨在把人引向耶稣－－“唯一的道路、真理、生命”。
没有记忆的人生的痛苦的。没有记忆的爱情是无法想象的。这就是为什么当Cheol-Su和Su-jin得知这个噩耗时，两人绝望与无助的原因了。但是他们没有放弃。他们艰难地共同往前走，直走到天堂。在电影的末尾，Su-jin问Cheol-Su“这是天堂吗？”Cheol-su说“是的”。我也想说“是的”。因为天堂就在这里，在有耶稣的地方就是天堂。在有他的爱与宽恕的地方，就是他百姓聚集的地方，那里就是天堂。人世间的爱情固然短暂，但是当电影结束的那一个镜头打向高速公路的远方，Cheol-su和Su-jin彼此说“我爱你”的时候，其寓意是深远的。在永恒的路上说“我爱你”是需要一个大前提的保证的。那就是首先接受那永生的礼物。
总结
任何一部艺术创作都不会有所谓完美的程度。任何一个艺术家欲想达到完美必先承认自己作品之不完美。于是我这点评论也不能只“报喜不报忧”，否则不仅不符合事实，更有夸其所爱之嫌。若说这部电影有什么不甚完美之处，我认为第一就在于对于“宽恕”的定义。“宽恕...就是把你心里的仇恨只留一点小小的空间”是这样的吗？圣经里面的宽恕是完全的饶恕，就如天父通过基督耶稣完全地饶恕我们一样。而那个一点小小的空间的仇恨却仍然聚集了愤怒的力量，犹如导火索，一碰就会膨胀爆发。但是正如20世纪英国的C.S.Lewis说过“二战中的英国国民要学习饶恕并不是一下子就要彻底原谅盖世太保的恶行，而是先从原谅邻居开始；正如学数学是先从基本算术开始，然后学到微积分。”由此观之，暂且将宽恕定义成片中的样子可以看成是学习宽恕的第一步。以下附上C.S.Lewis著名的Mere Christianity中的论饶恕一文加以补充。
我的一点浅见就敷述至此。绝对不敢说这一点文字包含了全部的精彩内容。要想知道更多的一手资料，还请自己细细品尝。好电影的一个共同特点就是于细微末节处道出设计者的精心，没有一点浪费的笔墨。这部电影就是如此。
亮 于多伦多
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
7. Forgiveness
I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. But I am not sure I was right I believe the one I have to talk of today is even more unpopular: the Christian rule, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Because hi Christian morals "thy neighbour" includes "thy enemy," and so we come up against this terrible duty of forgiving our enemies.
Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. "That sort of talk makes them sick," they say. And half of you already want to ask me, "I wonder how you'd feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?"
So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I must not deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying to tell you in this book what I could do—I can do precious little—I am telling you what Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us." There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly dear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do?
It is going to be hard enough, anyway, but I think there are two things we can do to make it easier. When you start mathematics you do not begin with the calculus; you begin with simple addition. In the same way, if we really want (but all depends on really wanting) to learn how to forgive, perhaps we had better start with something easier than the Gestapo. One might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children, or the nearest N.C.O., for something they have done or said in the last week. That will probably keep us busy for the moment. And secondly, we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbour as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?
Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and 1 do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently "Love your neighbour" does not mean "feel fond of him" or "find him attractive." I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do 1 think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it, is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief.
For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.
For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life—namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.
Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again.
The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, "Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that," or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker.
If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything—God and our friends and ourselves included—as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.
Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I still think so now that we are at peace.
It is no good quoting "Thou shalt not kill." There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major—what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight—the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause—is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken.
What I cannot understand is this sort of semipacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage— a kind of gaity and wholeheartedness.
I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the first world war, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it.
I imagine somebody will say, "Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?" All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating.
We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one's own back, must be simply killed. I do not mean that anyone can decide this moment that he will never feel it any more. That is not how things happen. I mean that every time it bobs its head up, day after day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head.
It is hard work, but the attempt is not impossible. Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves— to wish that he were not bad. to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, jot feeling fond of him nor saving he is nice when he is not.
I admit that this means loving people who have nothing lovable about them. But then, has oneself anything lovable about it? You love it simply because it is yourself, God intends us to love all selves in the same way and for the same reason: but He has given us the sum ready worked out on our own case to show us how it works.
We have then to go on and apply the rule to all the other selves. Perhaps it makes it easier if we remember that that is how He loves us. Not for any nice, attractive qualities we think we have, but just because we are the things called selves. For really there is nothing else in us to love: creatures like us who actually find hatred such a pleasure that to give it up is like giving up beer or tobacco. ...更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net