1.前言

今天的社會，受多元文化的沖擊影響，面對知識領域的擴闊，神學亦不能脫離此動盪的浪潮。誠如作者杜勒斯(A. Dulles)言：

梵二後的教會的確開放了，能接納頗多神學意見，為神學營造了一種新氣候，使神學的發展更絢燦。但一些前進的神學家，卻在已制定的正統信理上作爭論，造成現今天主教神學情況之混亂。1

他坦誠地評論現在羅馬天主教之神學情況 ── 是神學家缺乏一種共同言語、共同目標及共同準則；再加欠缺文明的作風，爭論與不信任情況隨之出現。2 正在神學領域探索的我，必須要弄清神學家們的思維路向，才可以發展個人的神學路向。

在探索杜勒斯的神學方法，吾人採用了他的最新著作《神學的工藝：由象徵到系統》(The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System 1992)。本文的探索方法是：先由書本的內容闡釋他認為現在如何做神學方法，然後加以評論。透過此種闡釋方法，希望藉杜勒斯神父之照明，有助我要走的神學路向。

為方便了解此書，我先閱覽一些書評，3再細讀書中的整體內容，4發覺每一章書都有極大的貢獻。我最欣賞是在第一章，他提醒當代做神學的人，不可以忽視二十世紀九十年代的社會，是一個日新月異的新時代，這個社會的新氣候，有特別名詞稱呼之，如後現代(Postmodern)、後自由(Postliberal)及後批判(Postcritical)。他勸人要以一種後批判的精神去做神學。在第十二章，他以首尾呼應的手法，強調後批判要有合一精神，在宗教上交談、對話，才可以使教會更新，在合一運動基礎上互相交換意見，更能刺激人在神學上作反省，把神學以更豐盛的姿態展示人前，使人人可以接受天主的救恩，皈依祂。

為此神學方法的主旨內容不可脫離聖經、聖傳及教會訓導等信仰要素，教會就是此信仰要素的保存者與傳遞者，作者認為做神學要清楚認識教會特質，為教會服務，神學才能健康地發展。他努力尋找與重建一個更廣闊的講道團體，最後認為神學方法可建基在合一神學(Ecumenical Theology)上。他引用教宗若望保祿二世的通諭《救主使命》(Redemptoris Missio)，要信徒重視交談的重要性。

後批判神學鼓勵神學家必須在教會信仰團體內做神學，因為教會是神學事業(theological enterprise)的泉源。

1. 當前神學的路向

杜勒斯在第一章先介紹早期的前批判神學(Precritical Theology)，是以權威的口吻講出此是天主的聖言，使人不敢質疑神學上的疑問，為此它有其超越地位，不可被質疑與挑戰。到中古時代，人開始對此種神學有所懷疑，另一種新神學 ── 批判神學(Critical Theology)出現，它成為中古世紀的神學寵兒，但太注重以批判的角度作研究，使神學窒息，令大多數的神學家拒抗防範。

到十八世紀副批判神學(Paracritical Theology)出現，主張神學與科學的討論要分開。到二十世紀初期，反批判神學(Countercritical Theology)堅持以強而有力的或以奇蹟作為證據，利用此種方法作護教之用，基督教與天主教雙方都各自努力，把此種神學方法推至極點。5出現反批判神學皆因受第一次世界大戰之影響。

杜勒斯接著在第一至四章講述當代做神學的方法。他在第一章介紹現今社會是要走向後批判神學(Postcritical Theology)的領域去，皆因以往的方法過份集中在思想批判的範疇。第二章他著重象徵性通傳(Symbolic Communication)，第三章利用模式做神學，第四章指出現代的基本神學與動態的皈依(Fundamental Theology and Dynamics of Conversion)。

杜氏在第一章中，開宗明義的說明他個人的信仰是鍾情於後批判神學，以此方法做神學，不要以猜疑態度去挑戰神學，其基本態度是要信賴詮釋學(Hermenentics)，目的為建設神學，豐富神學的內涵，不是去毀滅神學。6後批判神學給古典神學一種新生命力 ── 堅定信仰的意識(the sense of the faithful)，7為此它要注意其有的緘默幅度，避免作理性主義的批判與有護教色彩的反批判，不會在一些不可爭辯的證據(indisputable evidence)上作信仰的爭辯，它鼓勵信友以其認知力(cognition)去尋找信仰，不可盲目或感情化地信賴。作者認為後批判神學家指導信徒要「自我開放」，坦誠的對天主作出個人的皈依，這樣才可以堅定信仰，自願向天主委身，奉行祂的旨意。8

作者認為後批判神學的優點是在當代神學的不穩定情況中找出一動態的平衡(dynamic equilibrium)，為神學的延續與改革的情況找一新路向。9他更指出後批判神學不可以脫離教會，因為教會為基督的奧體(LG7)，是信仰最早的目擊者與傳信者(LG19)；為此，後批判神學必須要有教會特質，才可以使神學健康地發展。10

作者評論以往的神學方法只集中在思想批判範疇，的確使神學窒息不前，欠缺活潑動力的皈依。後批判神學要重建一個更廣闊的講道團體，刺激神學家的反省，重視交談對話，但切記要做神學必須為教會服務，神學才能發展得更健康、更豐盛，我個人非常欣賞作者以上的評論。但我認為後批判神學所面對的環境更複雜、涉獵的知識範圍更廣闊，教會與神學家之間要互相尊重，才可以真正的把天國的喜訊透過今天的時空領域，展示人前，使人能按清晰良心的指引行事。

天主「自我通傳」(self-communication)給人類，藉耶穌基督親臨人間，彰顯祂的奧秘，故啟示被視作為神聖的教條。信徒要真正明白天主的啟示，須參與教會生活，以禮儀崇拜表達出對天主的敬畏，因為禮儀是紀念、是祈禱，是信徒以生活表達出基督奧蹟臨現人間，是真正教會的純正本質。(SC2)11

禮儀行動充滿了象徵性通傳，使人藉此與天主聖三的契合，明白天主啟示的奧秘。新約聖經以不同圖像來描述耶穌基督 ── 如善牧、新郎、葡萄樹、光明、判官等。這等象徵性通傳(Symbolic Communication)，是做神學的方法，教會為表達出耶穌基督真實臨在教會內，會透過教條宣言(doctrinal statements)、禮儀(liturgy)及文化語言(cultural-linguistic) 的表達，闡釋天主的啟示，清晰指出天主藉聖子降臨人間，把天主聖三自我通傳給世人。

在象徵性通傳的過程中，利用模式的表達，能幫助信徒更明白神學真理。因為隨著經院神學的沒落，神學家出現門戶派系的成見，神學之間交談困難，作者利用模式方法論(models' methodology)，為方便進行真正的交談、對話。

他提出模式在神學上的用處，方便神學家把領悟到的天主的超驗奧秘，以「模式」向天主子民講解傳授，藉著對信仰的見證，神學家們可以進行交談。例如在他的著作《教會的模式》(Models of the Church)中以不同的隱喻(different metaphors)來稱呼教會，其目的為方便交談與和好；在他另一著作《啟示的模式》(Models of the Revelation)中，也以不同模式的表達來談論啟示。

在後批判神學時代，模式是有局限的，而其在當代神學領域使用裡也有些不合時宜，12但作者深信模式與系統神學(Systematic Theology)的實踐頗有相關。13

作者評論在後批判的轉變中(postcritical turn)，教條語言、禮儀及文化語言等要配合現時代社會的需要，才能有效地把天主自我通傳的奧秘彰顯人前。作者認為在後批判神學領域裡，信徒要明白象徵對啟示和教義的關係，14 才可以做好神學。他認為佐治•林白(George Lindbeck)之三類神學方式，15 其中第三類「文化語言神學」(cultural-linguistic theology)，作者稱之為「教會轉化性的」(ecclesial-transformative)，16 正是說明教會在這個新時代中，要闡釋天主自我通傳的奧秘，必須適合當代社會的需要。現代做神學的方法不可以只套用中古時代的經院主義(Scholastism)，而利用「模式」的確存有困難，因為神學再不能只滿足在自身描述或現象論(phenomenology)上的研究，必須嚴謹地抓緊問題的恆久一致性與真實性才是。17

以上三種神學方法 ── 即前期所注重的批判思想所扮演的角色(the role of critical thinking)，其後著重象徵性通傳及利用模式，是深受經院神學的把持，不適合現時代的需要，當前的路向是要走向後批判神學。

既然模式就是象徵，取自人性經驗的理解，故在今天的社會中，經驗神學(Empirical Theology)的確使人在宗教上有深徹的反省，基本神學(Fundamental Theology)需要人充滿動力的皈依，信仰作為徹底的皈依，除了問我們如何走向天主外，信友也要清楚知道天主如何走近我們，為此基本神學必須放在人學的焦點上(anthropological focus)。

在第四章，他講論現今的天主教神學家，其中一些：他們的言論已被肯定接納，如卡•拉內神父(K. Rahner)及伯爾納•朗列根神父(B. Lonergan)的先驗方法(transcendental method)，都是建立在神學的人學上(theological anthropology)，由人內在經驗，辯證神的存在。18

作者評論先驗方法確能助人經驗到神的存在，使人充滿動力的皈依，它要信徒摒棄信仰上一些不合理性的跳躍。透過聖經的啟示，它有照明、轉化的力量，使信徒明白天主給人白白的恩賜，是藉耶穌基督一次而永久的賞賜給全人類，使人人可分沾天主的救恩。

但切記：此方法雖然由人性經驗出發，若只著重用心辨明神的存在，漠視聖經事實資料，則流於空洞，欠實證的功夫；為此，跟隨者必要重視聖經，特別在詮釋學上研究。

1. DULLESs Avery, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York:
Crossroad 1992) vii: At Vatican II (1962-65) a certain number of theological opinions that had previously been suspect seemed to win official endorsement. This shift contributed to a new theological climate in which novelty was not only tolerated but glorified. Many took it for granted that the heterodoxy of today would become the orthodoxy of tomorrow. To be a leader, then, was to venture onto new and dangerous territory, and to say what no Catholic theologian had yet dared to say. Abetted by journalists craving for headlines and publishers eager to market their latest wares, certain "progressive" theologians have been outdoing one another in originality . Practically every doctrine that had been constitutive of Catholic orthodoxy has been contested by some prominent author. Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, the virginal conception of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity itself were either denied or radically reinterpreted to mean what they had never before been thought to mean.

2. 參閱同上 viii: Today, however, we are faced by the opposite problem. The different theological schools have drifted so far apart that what seems false and dangerous to one school seems almost self-evident to another. Theologians lack a common language, common goals, and common norms. Civil argument has ceased to function, and in its absence opposing parties seek to discredit one another by impugning the motives or competence of their adversaries.

3. 參閱O'DONOVAN L. J., Book Review of The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System in Theologlcal Studies, Vol.54, No.4 (Dec. 1993) 759-761 . WOOD S., Book Review of The Craft of Theologly From Symbol to System in Review of Religions, Vol.52, No.4 (July-August 1993) 629-630.

4. DULLES: (l) Toward a Postcritical Theology
(2) Theology and Symbolic Communication
(3) The Problem of Method: From Scholasticism to Models
(4) Fundamental Theology and the Dynamics of Conversion
(5) The Uses of Scripture in Theology
(6) Tradition as a Theological Source
(7) The Magisterium and Theological Dissent
(8) Theology and Philosophy
(9) Theology and the Physical Sciences
(10) University Theology in Service to the Church
(11) The Teaching Mission other Church and Academic Freedom
(l2) Method in Ecumenical Theology

5. 參閱同上4-5: Paracritical theology claims, "Theology dictates of religious feelings. The dichotomy between scientific and religious discourse, having received its philosophical charter from Immanuel Kant" " Countercritical theology insisted strongly on miracles as evidential signs, reached its culmination in early twentieth-century apologetics, both Protestant and Catholic"

6. 參閱同上7: Postcritical theology, as I use the term, begins with a presupposition of prejudice in favor of faith. Its fundamental attitude is a hermeneutics of trust, not of suspicion. Its purpose is constructive, not destructive. This is not to deny that people are entitled to doubt what they have reason to regard as false or unfounded. The doubter can be a serious thinker, candidly examining the claims made for religion. But theology, as commonly understood, is the kind of inquiry that takes place from with a religious commitment. drawing on the convictions instilled by faith, the theologian uses them as resources for the proper task to theology, which is the understanding of faith.

7. 參閱同上9: Postcritical theology gives new vitality to classical thological loci such as the "sense of the faithful". Johann Adam Mohler maintained that the Holy Spirit had imprinted on the Church "a peculiarly Christian tact, a deep sure-guiding feeling" that leads it into all truth.

8. 參閱同上14: Not least among the merits of postritical theology, in my view, is its ability to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between continuity and innovation.

10. 參閱同上viii: For the better health of theology I believe that its ecclesial character needs to more clearly recognized. Theology must serve the Church and be accountable to it.

11. 參閱同上8-9: Liturgy has regularly been recognized as a prime theological source and it is securely established in this role by postcritical theology. The rule of prayer, as the axiom has it, establishes the rule of belief. The liturgy and the sense of the faithful are particular forms of tradition, which is likewise reckoned among the sources of theology.

12. 參閱同上50-52:
(l) Some contend that concept of models, taken from the physical and behavioral sciences, is inappropriate for theology.
(2) the method involves an unfair pigeon-holing of theologians.
(3) by paying respect to a plurality of mutually incompatible models one falls into relativism and agnosticism.
(4) method of models is booklish and increative.
(5) the method is impugned on the ground that it stops short of being truly
systematic .

13. 參閱同上 8: Theology is the methodical effort to articulate the truth implied in Christian faith, the faith of the Church... the method depends on a kind of
connoisseurship derived from personal appropriation of the living faith of the
Church. The meaning of the Christian Symbols is learned as an an acquired through familiarity in the community...

52: the method of models is helpful not only for mediating between different theological systems but for analyzing the inner tensions within a single approach through models and the practice of systematic theology.

14. 參閱同上21: symbol in relation to revelation and doctrine have considerable
importance for one's understanding of the relationship between communications and theology.

15. 參閱同上17-21: George Lindbeck discusses three styles of theology: the propositionaliste-cognitive' the experiential-expressive, the cultural-1inguistic.

16. 參閱同上 18: instead of cultural-linguistics I shall call it ecclesial-transformative.

17. 參閱同上vii-ix: While theology needs to have a measure of autonomv in order to perform its distinctive service, it loses its identity if it ceases to be a reflection on the faith of the Church.

18. 參閱 MUELLER, J. J. What are they saying about Theology Method? (Ramsey: Paulist 1984)