Using Partial Truth to Blur Boundaries: How Concepts Are Mixed in a Sermon on the Mount Class / 用部分真理模糊界限——从一堂山上宝训的课看概念怎样被弄混

【64tianwang, 12:31 p.m. PDT, November 1, 2026】(Edited by Tianwang Volunteer)

【天网美西时间2026年11月1日中午12时31分讯】（天网义工编辑）

On November 1, 2026, a Bible study at a century-old church in Seattle (recently renamed) covered the Sermon on the Mount. The handout placed Jesus’ words to the disciples—“do not resist an evil person, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, go the extra mile, give to the one who asks”—almost entirely on the personal level. Using a “culture vs. kingdom” contrast, it put standing up for rights, fighting back, and protecting oneself on the side of “questionable cultural values.” It did not address whether disciples or those in authority should intervene when evil is directed at others, the weak, or the whole community.

美西时间2026年11月1日，西雅图一间百年教会（近年改名）的查经课讲山上宝训。讲义把耶稣对门徒说的“不要与恶人作对、转过另一边脸、爱仇敌、多走一里、给向你求的人”，几乎全程放在个人层面。并用“文化 vs 天国”的对照，把站出来争权利、反击、保护自己都放在“可疑的文化价值观”一边。它没有处理：当恶针对别人、针对弱者、或针对整个共同体时，门徒或掌权者该不该介入制止。

Jesus’ words are true. They were spoken to those who follow him, about how to respond when one is personally offended. Scripture also says that governing authorities do not bear the sword in vain; they are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:4). If personal instructions are expanded into “never resist and always give more in every situation,” the clear boundaries become blurred: when to forgive, when to stop evil; when personal yielding is required, when protecting others is required. After the class, people can easily feel that justice, boundaries, and protection have become suspect.

耶稣那些话是真的，对象是跟随他的人，讲的是自己被冒犯时的回应。圣经同时说掌权者不是空空佩剑，是神的用人，刑罚那作恶的（罗马书13:4）。如果把个人要求讲成“任何情况下都不要抵抗、都要多给”，就把清楚的界限弄模糊了：什么时候该饶恕，什么时候该制止；什么时候是个人退让，什么时候是保护他人。听完之后，人容易觉得正义、边界、保护都变得可疑。

This selective emphasis on obedience or yielding is not unfamiliar. When the Tianwang volunteer was in China, she saw teachers organized to go into communities to teach traditional Confucian culture. They focused on filial piety, loyalty, obedience to parents, obedience to leaders, and obedience to superiors. These concepts have a place in Confucianism, but when they are taken out alone and repeated while the discernment of injustice or the principle “follow the Way, not the ruler” is rarely taught at the same time, the effect is to make people more ready to accept existing power relations and less ready to ask whether a demand is right or whether a leader should be obeyed. Observers have also noted that some content promoted by Confucius Institutes at overseas universities is selective: more emphasis on “harmony,” “obedience,” and “the golden mean,” while the parts of the Confucian tradition that criticize power and insist on moral principle are downplayed. The result is the same: listeners are inclined to accept rather than to discern.

这种只取一面、强调顺从或退让的讲法，并不陌生。天网义工在中国时，曾见过一些老师被组织去社区讲儒家传统文化。他们重点讲的是孝、忠、顺从父母、顺从领导、顺从上司。这些概念在儒家里本有位置，但当它们被单独拿出来反复讲，而很少同时讲对不义的分辨、或“从道不从君”时，效果就是让人更容易接受现有的权力关系，少问这个要求对不对、这个领导该不该听。孔子学院在海外大学所推动的一些内容，也常被观察者指出存在选择性：较多呈现“和谐”“服从”“中庸”的一面，而淡化儒家传统中批判权力、坚持道义的部分。结果同样是让听众更倾向于接受，而不是分辨。

In the United States, similar selective framing appears in certain political expressions. Real values such as “compassion,” “fairness,” and “inclusion” are expanded so that questions about borders, crime, biological sex, or personal responsibility become morally suspect. Systemic explanations are emphasized while personal responsibility and clear cause-and-effect are downplayed. Once categories become blurred, people find it harder to state directly what they see.

在美国，类似的选择性框架也出现在某些政治表述里。拿“同情”“公平”“包容”这些真实价值，扩大到让关于边界、犯罪、生理性别或个人责任的问题变得道德上可疑。强调系统性解释，同时淡化个人责任和清楚的因果关系。类别一旦变模糊，人就更难直接说出自己看见的东西。

Today’s class did not use political slogans; it used Scripture. But the action is similar: take a true statement, expand its scope greatly, emphasize only one side, and mix together things that can be kept separate. Personal forgiveness and the authority’s duty to stop evil are not the same thing; loving enemies and protecting the weak do not cancel each other out. When they are presented as if “kingdom values” can cover every form of resistance and every boundary, listeners easily lose the ability to distinguish. This is structurally close to the “obedience only” teaching heard in Chinese communities and to the selective presentation of certain Confucius Institute materials—not an immediate call to do wrong, but a blurring of clear boundaries that tilts people toward yielding rather than asking whether evil should be stopped.

今天这堂课没有使用政治口号，它使用的是圣经。但动作相似：用一段真的话，把范围扩得很大，只强调其中一面，让原来可以分开看的事情混在一起。个人饶恕和掌权者制止恶，本来不是同一件事；爱仇敌和保护弱者不互相取消。把它们讲成好像“天国价值观”可以覆盖一切抵抗和边界，听的人就容易失去分辨。这和以前在中国社区听到的“只讲顺从”、以及孔子学院某些选择性呈现，在结构上是相近的——不是立刻叫人做坏事，而是让清楚的界限变模糊，让人更倾向于退让而不是问该不该制止。

After concepts are mixed, people do not immediately become bad; they gradually dare not or cannot see things clearly. The CCP treats this as a tool of rule; in a free society the same rhetoric, repeated from pulpits, classrooms, media, and institutions, can also leave people unable to distinguish justice from yielding, or protection from harm. Today’s class offers a concrete example: even when the words quoted are Jesus’, taking only one side without balance can still blur clear boundaries.

概念被弄混之后，人不是立刻变成坏人，而是逐渐不敢或不能把事情看清楚。中共把这当成统治工具；在自由社会里，同样的修辞通过讲台、课堂、媒体和机构反复出现，也会让人对正义与退让、保护与加害分不清。今天这堂课提供了一个具体例子：即使引用的是耶稣的话，如果只取一面、不讲平衡，仍然可以让清楚的界限变模糊。

God gives people life not so they may live in conceptual confusion. Light is meant to reveal the truth, including when to forgive and when to stop evil. Those who believe do not remain in darkness, and should not remain inside boundaries that have been deliberately blurred.

上帝给人生命，不是让人活在概念混乱里。光要照出真相，包括什么时候该饶恕，什么时候该制止恶。信的人不住在黑暗里，也不该住在被弄混的界限里。

（完）

Related /天网相关链接：

https://64tianwang.net/archives/5104 https://64tianwang.net/archives/5078