幾周前，我有幸與一位猶太領唱進行了幾個小時的交談，她將這個角色簡單地定義為歌唱的拉比。我們的談話範圍很廣，從為什麼安息日不能演奏樂器到一些生死攸關的問題。當中她提到了一個令我很有興致的猶太傳統概念：為了天堂而爭辯。這個概念可能看起來很奇怪，特別是我們很多時一想到可能會與別人發生爭辯時，就會更想朝相反方向走！也許你會想：爭論本身怎麼可能是一件好事呢? 難道我們不希望儘快結束爭論，為所有人帶來和平嗎？
 
《塔木德經》是一本關於猶太法律和傳統的著作集，其中有一個故事很好地説明了“為了天堂而爭辯”的想法 。這個故事是關於猶太法的兩個主要學派：希勒爾學派和沙邁學派。《塔木德經》解釋説，猶太法律傾向於遵循希勒爾學派，因為“他們善良而謙虛。他們不僅研究自己的主張，還研究沙邁學派的論據，什至有時會教授沙邁學派的學說先於在他們自己的論說。他們之所以研究對手的學説，甚至先於自己一派的學說，是因為他們的爭辯不是為了追求勝利，而是為了追求真理。
 
在我們的教會和更廣泛的爭論社會中，有很多例子，雙方都在追求某種勝利條件。當我們從一開始就認定我們是正確的時候，我們就會進入這種爭論。目的是向我們的對手（或將決定誰“贏了”的公正方）證明我才是正確的。但這一系列猶太思想的重點揭示了：為勝利而爭論是一種雙輸的局面。參與這類爭論的人最終都在尋求凌駕於對手之上的權力——正因為如此，雙方都會遭受損失。如果你贏了，我就輸了。但如果我贏了，我也會輸——因為在貶低你的同時，我也貶低了我自己。
 
與此相反，為真理而爭辯是雙贏的局面。如果我贏了，我就贏了。但如果我輸了，我也贏了——因為被真理擊敗是唯一一種失敗亦同時勝利的結果｡ 為了天堂而爭辯的命題並不需要儘快結束，反而我們應該盡量擴展我們的好論點，以便我們能夠繼續一同發現真理。
這種對爭辯的觀點可以幫助我們探索福音，因為這一切都是從一場巨大的爭論開始的！就在我們今天讀到馬可福音告訴我們，十二個門徒和耶穌步行穿過加利利地區到達迦百農。當他們到達時，耶穌説：“你們在路上議論什麼？”沒有人願意回答，因為他們一直在爭論他們中誰是最大的｡
 
耶穌用一個終結性的信息回應他們：“若有人願意作首先的，他必作眾人末後的，作眾人的用人。“（誰想成為最大的，就必須自願成為所有人中最後的一個，併成為所有人的僕人。）耶穌的教導顛覆了傳統的社會秩序。他要求他的弟子們把自己放在最底層，為那些傳統上被忽視的人服務，因為這樣做強調每個人都是重要的。這樣，耶穌將門徒的雙輸爭論變成了雙贏。
 
就在我們開始的福音經課中，約翰問耶穌一個問題，進一步探討了這一教導。他們應該如何回應那些不跟隨他們卻奉耶穌之名趕鬼的人呢? 由那時起，耶穌的教導已經擾亂了門徒與社會階層其他成員的關係。他們與其他尋道者的關係又該如何呢？有分等級制度嗎？只有他們是對的，其他門徒都是錯的嗎? 他們應該與這些奇怪的、另類的門徒合作——還是應該與他們作對？
 
事實證明，馬可筆下的耶穌是廣大教會的粉絲｡他説，“不要禁止他，因為沒有人奉我名行異能，反倒輕易毀謗我。” 換句話説，重要的是人對耶穌的信任，其他的都是次要問題｡ 這是教會廣闊的視野——而這裏的十二個人並不該做某個專屬俱樂部，相反，大門敞開着，可以容納各種各樣的人。
 
我認為耶穌的教導對我們所有人提出挑戰，因為我們在某程度上參與了目前在教會中激烈討論的許多不同話題的爭論，從牧區會議上辯論的國家問題一直到圍繞在哪裏放置鮮花的爭論，什至何時提供咖啡.都導致我們面對一項任務:要注意那些使我們為了追求勝利而陷入爭論的微妙行為模式。是什麼東西使我們自己的信仰變得堅定和僵化.無論我們是保守派還是自由派，無論我們是高教會還是低教會，還是介於兩者之間? 是什麼東西限制了我們欣賞細微差別和創造力的能力，是什麼東西導致我們把許多灰色地帶當成黑白分野？是什麼因素導致我們尋求權力來壓制那些與我們意見不同的人？
 
我認為我們還需要利用我們所擁有的一切機會來促進天國的討論。在這些論點中，我們可以把對手的觀點放得儘可能最好及認真對待，甚至被研究並呈現在我們自己的觀點之前 。如果我們想終有一天停止爭論誰最大，我們必須轉向另一種深度喜悦中進行的爭論，並相信我們從一開始就已經贏得了爭論。

​A few weeks ago I had the privilege of speaking for a couple of hours with a Jewish cantor, a role which she defined briefly as a singing Rabbi. Our conversation ranged all the way from why you can’t play musical instruments on the Sabbath through to matters of life and death – and along the way she mentioned a concept from the Jewish tradition that I found fascinating: arguing for the sake of heaven. This concept might seem strange, especially if the thought of having an argument with someone else makes you want to run in the opposite direction! We might wonder: how can an argument actually be a good thing in itself? Isn’t an argument something that we hope to end as quickly as possible, to bring peace to everyone involved?

There’s a story in the Talmud (a collection of writings about Jewish law and tradition) which illustrates well this idea of ‘arguing for the sake of heaven’. The story is about two leading schools of Jewish law: the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. The Talmud explains that Jewish law tends to follow the school of Hillel, because ‘they were kindly and modest, because they studied not only their own rulings but also those of the School of Shammai, and because they taught the words of the School of Shammai before their own’. The reason why they studied the teachings of their opponents and even presented these before their own, is because they were arguing not in pursuit of victory, but in pursuit of the truth.

There are plenty of examples in our church and in wider society of arguments in which both sides are pursuing a victory condition of some kind. This is the kind of argument that we enter into when we know from the outset that we are right, and our task is to prove this to our opponent (or to a third party who will decide who has ‘won’). The contention of this train of Jewish thought is that in fact, arguing for the sake of victory is a lose-lose situation. People in these kinds of arguments are ultimately seeking to have power over their opponents – and because of this, both sides suffer. If you win, I lose. But if I win, I also lose – because in diminishing you, I diminish myself.
In contrast to this, arguing for the sake of truth is a win-win situation. If I win, I win. But if I lose I also win – because being defeated by the truth is the only form of defeat that is also a victory. Rather than needing to end an argument as quickly as possible, arguing for the sake of heaven suggests that we should extend our good arguments as much as we can, so that we can continue to discover the truth together.

This alternative perspective on arguments can help us as we explore our Gospel reading, because it all started with a huge argument! Just before our reading today, Mark’s Gospel tells us that the twelve disciples and Jesus walked across the region of Galilee to Capernaum. When they arrive, Jesus says, ‘what were you arguing about on the way?’ No-one wants to answer, because they have in fact been arguing about which one of them is the greatest.

Jesus responds to them with a disruptive message, ‘Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.’ Jesus’s teaching upends the conventional social order. He asks his disciples to place themselves at the bottom and serve those who are traditionally disregarded, because in this way all are emphasized as important. In this way, Jesus takes his disciples’ lose-lose, and turns it into a win-win.

It’s at this point that our Gospel reading begins, as John asks Jesus a question that probes this teaching a little further. How should they respond to people who are not following them, but cast out demons in the name of Jesus? Jesus’s teaching so far has disrupted the relationships that the disciples have with the rest of the social hierarchy. But what about their relationships with other followers of the Way – is there a hierarchy here? Are they right, and other disciples wrong? Should they work with these strange, alternative disciples – or should they work against them?

It turns out that Mark’s Jesus is a fan of the broad church. ‘Do not stop him,’ he says ‘for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.’ In other words, what is important is someone’s belief in Jesus – anything else is a second order issue. This is an expansive view of the church – here the twelve aren’t part of some exclusive club, instead the doors are flung open to include a wide range of other people.

I think Jesus’s teaching challenges all of us as we participate to some degree in the arguments which currently rage in our church over so many different topics, all the way from the national issues debated at General Synod through to arguments around where to put the flowers or when to serve the coffee. There is a task before us of being attentive to the subtle patterns of behaviour that drag us into arguments in pursuit of victory. What are the things that harden and make rigid our own beliefs (whether we are conservative or liberal or high church or low church or anywhere in between)? What are the things that close down our capacity to appreciate nuance and creativity, the things that cause us to turn many shades of grey into black and white? What are the things that cause us to seek power over those with whom we disagree?

I think we also need to use whatever agency we have to facilitate arguments for the sake of heaven. These are arguments in which the views of our opponents are seen in the best possible light, are taken seriously, are even studied and presented before our own. This is essential if we are to finally, one day, stop arguing about which one of us is the greatest, and instead argue from a place of deep joy, confident that we have all already won the argument from the very first word.