4. 邁向合一神學的方法

作者在最後一章論及當代做神學，是要邁向合一神學(Ecumenical Theology)。合一神學要求天主子民在「信、望、愛」中團結，其實此三超德也在教會以外的人們身上看見，29教會以外的人類也可以分沾天主救恩計劃，因為耶穌基督交出自己的性命，是為大眾作贖價(谷10:45)。

合一神學的基礎，是要宗教交談，這樣才可以令教會更新(UR6,9)。教會之外實存有救恩，與不同宗教交談，更豐富神學，刺激教會內信徒的反省，使他們更明白天主的超驗奧秘。

作者所贊同的合一神學，是梵二所認可的交談方法，牧者與信徒要一致的，按天主的旨意行基督化生活(UR5)。大公主義的精神要基督徒聯合祈禱，為教會合一作證(UR8)。在交談中，天主教神學家要遵循教會的訓示，與分離的弟兄們探討天主的奧秘(UR11)，在愛德內，摒棄敵對成見(UR18)，使所有追隨基督的信徒，能融入基督的教會內(UR24)。

作者評論，宗教交談與互相尊重在後批判神學是極之重要，因為這樣才能刺激神學的反省。作者極力的推崇合一神學的方法，是先由追隨基督的信友做起，在愛德的共融下，把耶穌基督的福音展示在人類世界內，使人人有機會認識天國的喜訊，皈依天主。然後再與其他宗教交談，因為他深信天主救恩普及全人類。為此他對甘衛(W. Cantwell Smith)的世界神學(World Theology)雖表示同意，認為信仰可以在非基督徒身上存在，但對世界神學的看法卻有所保留。30他也欣賞漢斯龔( )的宗教交談(inter-religious dialogue)，但卻不擁護他的中性神學(Neutral Theology)。

現今神學有其合一性時刻 ── 就是透過交談、對話，雖然其中有困難、有彰礙，但作者深信真誠的內心皈依(UR7)、聯合祈禱(UR8)、彼此認識(UR23)，合一神學定可以在後批判神學大放異彩，邁向圓滿的境界。

結論

在後批判領域中，多元文化影響著神學的發展，為此作者強調要重建一個更廣闊的講道團體，故此，公開討論是重要的，因為透過交談，幫助信徒去判斷、去偵察，探求真理。教會既然為基督的身體，做神學的人，其首先責任要為教會服務，教會所保存的三種信仰寶庫 ── 聖經、聖傳和教會訓導，是神學方法的重要元素，是神學家必須尊重的。神學家可以以不同方式去研究其神學工作的專長，訂立不同的神學假設，但必須為教會服務，建立神學成為一共同事業。

我欣賞杜勒斯那種堅持神學要反省，以生活作見證的方法態度，他認為交談對話是有效的通傳媒介，因為它使信徒更易投入信仰的見證內。他以平和態度提供後批判神學的方向，除注意交談對話外，一定要尊重教會所保存的傳統，以古證今，才可以迎接未來。信友在愛德共融下，以聖經、聖傳及教會訓導作神學方法的元素，更配合開放坦誠的交談，邁向教會的合一，神學才可有健康的發展。

縮略語

LG = Lumen Gentium　《教會憲章》

DV = Dei Verbum　《天主啟示教義憲章》

GS = Gaudium et Spes　《論教會在現代世界牧職憲章》

UR = Unitatis Redintegrato　《大公主義法令》

GE = Gravissimum Educationis　《天主教教育宣言》

29. 參閱同上 179: As late as a few decades ago, Catholics frequently spoke as though faith did not exist beyond the confines of their own Church, but today they generally recognize that divine and salvific faith exists among members of other Christian communities, among adherents of non-Christian religions, and even among people who are not formally religious. The Second Vatican Council, in several important texts, encouraged this new tendency. In its Decree on Ecumenism it stated that faith, hopes and charity "can exist out-side the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church."1 In its Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity it declared that "God, in ways known to himself, can lead people who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the gospels to that faith without which it is impossible to please him."2 Since the council, Catholics such as Raimundo Panikkar have argued that faith is a "constitutive dimension of man,"3 while Protestants such as Wilfred Cantwell Smith contend that faith is "generically human" and "constitutive of man as human"4

30. 參閱同上 181-182: In recent years Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a scholar with
exceptional competence in Islam and other living faiths, has set forth a very ambitious proposal for what he calls a "world theology" Such a theology, he
maintains, "will not displace but subsume its erst-wllile sectional parts", that is, the particular theologies of the distinct religions.8 In this new theology, as he envisages it, there should no longer be any talk of "we" and "they"; no barrier should stand between insiders and outsiders. Adherents of different religions will strive to speak about their own faith only in ways that members of other religious communities "can rationally approve of (or, at the very least, rationally understand)".9

I can agree with Smith up to a point. With him I would hold that faith can exist among people who are not Christian, and indeed among those who have never had historical contact with biblical religions. The Christian theologian should listen empathetically to what such people say about their own religious life, and seek to discern how their statements are rooted in their own experience and history. Conversely, Christians should strive to set forth their own faith in such a way that well-disposed members of other communities might be able to make sense of it. But I would express reservations about the claims of any common "world theology" to subsume or supersede the specific content of each particular religions. Christians, since they believe in the three-personed God and in Jesus Christ as the incarnation of the second divine person, will not be content to do theology as thoug the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were not true. I see no reason for forbidding Christians to mention aspects of their own faith that cannot be "rationally approved" apart from Christian revelation. Based on God's special revelation in Christ, Christian theology continues to differ from that of all other religions. No one could admit the truth of the Trinity or the Incarnation (with the meaning these doctrines have for Christian) without being convened to Christianity.

My difference with Smith is rooted in his concept of faith. For Christians of the classical tradition, faith and belief are correlatives, if not synonyms. To have faith is always to believe something as well as someone. Responding to Smith's interpretation of Thomas Aquinas, Frederick Crosson shows that for the Angelic Doctor faith necessarily involved a content, a material object which was communicables at least in some measure, by teaching or doctrine.12 For Catholics (ands I would think, for most Protestants) faith continues to have a definite content. In the Christian act of faith Jesus Christ plays an indispensable role. Jesus, moreover, is believed and confessed to be the Son of God, the risen Savior, according to the Scriptures and the creeds. This doctrinal content, inseparable from Christian faith, cannot be subsumed or left behind in some new "world theology".