Mu-tien Chiou @Chicago (blogging in 中文, English, and Français)

Articles tagués ‘Miroslav Volf’

[省思] The courage of Chai Ling… was it induced by a dose of spiritual opium?

Referral Link: http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=16407303&category_guid=vice&category=daily

‘I Forgive Them’: On the 23rd Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989

By  (Founder of All Girls Allowed)

Two decades ago, the Chinese government’s crackdown in Tiananmen Square left hundreds of my fellow students dead. Since then a new generation has grown up in China, and many of them are kept in the dark about what happened on this day in China’s history.

To me it seems like just yesterday. I began that day with great hope and anticipation for a new China, but it ended as a day of unspeakable sorrow. Now, 23 years have passed. Many things have changed: people grew older, and some key Communist Party leaders from 1989 have passed away. But many people — whether they say this openly or not — know that this chapter of China’s history has not closed yet.

How will this chapter be written? How will the story end? The world still watches China with great interest, as the recent cases of Chen Guangcheng and Bo Xilai proved. For the past 23 years, I too, have tried to understand the meaning of Tiananmen. I vividly recall that last hour: standing at Tiananmen Square, watching in disbelief as a disaster unfolded around us.

As I was writing A Heart for Freedom, I finally understood. There could only be two futures for China: an outcome of continued fear, or a destiny that opens the door to true freedom — and forgiveness.

In the Hebrew scriptures, King David’s son Absalom rebelled and took the throne from his own father by force. Even in the face of this betrayal, David forgave his son. He told his generals that they should show mercy if they overcame the rebel army and captured the wayward son: "For my sake, deal gently with young Absalom." (2 Samuel 18) But when Absalom was found alone and vulnerable, the generals chose to ignore David and kill Absalom — thus continuing the pattern of violence.

I know that those responsible for oppression in China will also find themselves vulnerable one day, just like Absalom did. And so the question stands: When that day comes, will China continue with a pattern of harsh retribution, or a will it begin a path of grace, mercy and compassion?

You may wonder how China’s seemingly immovable leadership will ever be vulnerable. The answer is: it is human, it has always been vulnerable, and it is more vulnerable now than ever before.

There is little true security in China, even for leaders. Power, money and military or police forces can give a few people temporary wealth and stability, but these things cannot provide lasting security.

In 1989, the number two leader Zhao Ziyang lost all his power and freedom for disagreeing with Deng Xiaoping’s decision to use force against students at Tiananmen. Later, so did a strong hardliner who initially supported the move: former Beijing mayor Chen Xitong was sentenced to 16 years in jail. And now Bo Xilai has fallen from grace. These leaders may have looked invincible from the outside, but they lost everything. As Chen Xitong confessed recently in a Chinese interview, "In all those high level political battles, each side is trying to outdo the other side by being more cunning, more malicious, and more brutal."

The system in China suppresses humanity and compassion. It imprisoned and persecuted Chen Guangcheng, a blind attorney, for advocating on behalf of 130,000 women who underwent forced abortions and forced sterilizations. The climate of fear and self-preservation can affect all levels of society. A woman named Mei Shunping testified last month that two of the five forced abortions she suffered in China came after her co-workers reported her pregnancies to officials. Last fall, over a dozen people walked right past a dying toddler after she was run over by a van in a street.

This is the atmosphere that we students wanted to see end at Tiananmen. It is painful for me to remember what happened on that June 4th, 1989, when I witnessed the death of a dream. I still mourn for what "could have been." And for a long time, I battled bitterness and anger whenever I thought of the leaders who chose to take a path of destruction that day.

But then I was confronted with the example of Jesus. He loved women, children, the poor and the oppressed in a way that was radically countercultural — and he called me to do the same.

He also forgave the very people who ridiculed him and nailed him to a cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 24:34)

And again, he called me to do the same. (read more)

Chai Ling: forgiveness is not forgetfulness

Chai Ling: forgiveness is not forgetfulness

For those who did not know, Chai Ling is the Chinese expatriate (currently residing in Washington DC) who is renowned for her leadership and involvement in the Tiananmen Square incident 23 years ago. After exiling to the USA, she became a believer of Jesus Christ, which consequently dramatic transformative effect in her personality. Jesus Christ has has purportedly set her free from her hatred (against the Chinese government) and guilt (for the death of her compatriots/companions).

However, her public self-disclosure of such an attitude has provoked the Chinese people and the media. On the one hand, her speech is diametrically against the grain of those 180,000 demonstrators just rallied in Hong Kong at the night of June 4th, which is about undoing the injustice. On the other hand, the fact that she just forfeited her accountability to those dead demanded on her part -in plain conscience- sounds obnoxious to those who expect her to fulfill her part in bringing justice to the victims/martyrs.

To be honest, I I sense that I am on the same page with Chai Ling. As my life is honed by God and as I genuinely take Christianity inside of my heart, I no longer consider poverty, failure, and celibacy a curse or something unbearable. I totally understand how and why she is encouraged and impelled to say these by the sort of gospel she receives.

The Apostle Paul in Romans 12:19 says, ‘Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.’

And King David instructs us in Psalms 37:1, "Do not fret because of those who are evil or be envious of those who do wrong."

Again and again, the Bible plainly discourages any kind of negative attitude that was somehow paradoxically the uniting theme among the 180,000 demonstrators rallied in HK. In addition, the Bible also discourages any association with earthly power as a means to achieve justice, because otherwise we just won’t have genuine peace- either externally or internally.

As a reward of our Christian faith, I am granted inner peace that frees me from resentment, anxiety, and jealousy, as Chai Ling’s inner peace frees her from hatred and guilt.  Common to both of our spiritual pilgrimage is a phase of conversion called ‘inner healing’ that is supposed to take away our negative feelings and hurt in exchange for a sense of tranquility in our heart.

However, there is no denial that genuine peace could by no means be divorced from the pursuit of justice. Justice requires concrete actions to attain and maintain.

The real challenge for Christians (Chai Ling and me) is to be no less radical in our insistence for social justice while being less committed/passionate in matters of the world. For the more I can endure hunger, poverty, pain, loneliness, and failure, naturally, the less I tend to feel compassionate to those who suffer from shortages of food, wealth, medical care, and want of upward social mobility. My faith has alleviate my negative feelings about these things. And as I see no need of bothering myself so such and striving so hard to get myself rid of these "miserable" condition (since I no longer feel ‘miserable’ being as such, and now my motivation of life is to imitate the mind of Christ, instead of ‘getting fed, getting rich, getting well, or getting successful), I naturally feel less urged to identify myself with these [leftist and materialist] causes.

It boils now to this: Can we still be for the world as much once we feel that we are only in the world but are not of the world?

Karl Marx has a reason to think that we are victimized by spiritual-opium overdose, if the cure which the Christian belief brings to us is through making us more insensitive/numb to pain.

However, this should not be the case and is never the case for Jesus, Son of God and Founder of Christianity, who, according to the Epistle of Hebrews, is perfectly capable of empathizing with us precisely because He also suffered and endured. His passion drives His Passion as he acts out to redeem us with His life- not just praying for us.

Divine impassivity is a big doctrinal lie, a foreign (Greek) notion to the revelation of the Christian scripture, and our modelling after God should not be built upon such a lie.

Back to Chai Ling, we might say that since she prays for external peace, her faith is far from inactivity. But if this means that the divine justice she longs for has to be brought out by others committing their lives and getting their hands dirty, then she is really closer to Anabaptists than she is to Jesus.

In this sense, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is closer to the example of Jesus- he is willing to get his hands dirty, but such a willingness is driven by compassion- for people’s lives, rather than hatred- against the Nazis.

As Mirosalv Volf correctly says, reconciliation could never be achieved without the repentance and a degree of justice being done.

Thus, it is one thing to say that we are ready to forgive (ourselves as well as the offenders), but quite the other to say that genuine reconciliation could take place in this way. Reconciliation requires forgiveness on the victim’s part, repentance on the offender’s part, and justice on the external structural level.

As we can see from the gospels, Jesus’ forgiveness of the tax collector Zacchaeus is only the first step to set his relation right with God, but his reconciliation with God and the whole world did not take place until his true repentance led to corresponding actions (sharing his wealth and repaying fourfold for those unjustified gains).

We Christians all enjoy the soft and loving gospel, and it is a temptation:

  • we forgive ourselves and everyone (but we are not fixing it with concrete, in-person, measures);
  • we pray for those who suffer (but we do not feel compelled to fight for them as we cannot identify with their ‘un-Christian’ and overly ‘materialist’ causes);
  • we pray for those offenders (but we are not as committed in taking their wicked claws/power off as if God could not make this happen without human collaboration on our part).

These are all good. Nonetheless, the gospel is more than these. If we have not grappled with the controversial gospel of Jesus, we probably have not gotten our Christian faith right.

Controversial gospel and spiritual sensitivity, hum? Indeed. Let’s remember, God in Jesus Christ never loses His spiritual sensitivity. He is by no means of incapable of identifying with our groaning and mundane causes (all the while he could never be subdued to it). He feeds the hungry, heals the wounded, liberates the oppressed, and vindicates the wronged. There is also no compromise to structural evil in the cause of Jesus Christ.

Our imitation of Christ is far from the real deal, if we cannot "rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who." (Romans 12:15)

Specifically, Chai Ling might not need to become the ‘queen’ over the HK crowded who rallied under the Tiananmen cause. As a follower of Christ, she should not.

However, she must not let her speech discourage such causes: justice and vindication. A step further for we Christians after attaining inner peace must lead us to act more resolutely and [com]passionately for the broken souls of the world.

That is the one extra mile we need to walk with our Lord and with the world.

[Foto] SBL/AAR 2011 (增加一些感想)

經濟學人〈紐約的文化經濟〉一文介紹了 Elizabeth Currid 在 The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art, and Music Drive New York City (2007) 一書中的觀察。

她說,文創產業興盛最重要的條件是聚落和第三空間。各種藝術家聚在一起交換資源、觀念。這是美國紐約最獨特且成功的地方。

我感到學術研究也是如此。不大量地和有才華、有天分的人互動,閉門造車的成果必然是上不了台面的。

雖然網路已經很好用,但「見面三分情」更是真的。「聽君一席話,勝讀十年書」說明教育的關鍵在於有人點撥、將知識貫通為學問、道理。叫我受益最深的是這屆 AAR 及 SBL 時的「夜生活」(因為白天都在開會,晚上則是大展拳腳的社交時光)。與在亞伯丁的學長 Justin 重逢後,他帶我闖蕩普神的歡迎酒會、和亞伯丁系統神學學派的一票學人吃美式漢堡噴八卦,又到 T&T Clark 包下的酒吧場子跟他們編輯喝紅酒談出版,還認識了幾位前途看好的劍橋博士與博後學人和從劍橋轉到愛丁堡的年輕教授 Paul Nimmo。Justin 不停向人用一個我自己聽了都非常臉紅(也不以為然)的方式介紹我:「Mu-tien 他現在是全三一裡最聰明的人。」但總之,這讓我與許多學術先進們有話可聊、建立橋樑。

此外,我自己還去跟芝大神學院那邊搭了幾條線。Jean Bethke Elstain 教授和 Dwight Hopkins 教授都分了很長的時間回答我的問題,即使圍繞在他們身邊的還有同事以及自己的學生。與普神的 Bruce McCormack、George Hunsinger 見面時也充滿親切感。

我對諸多 transatlantic 神學界的學閥局勢都在這時候掌握起來或得到印證。那時是我第一次感覺到自己接近並且已經一腳踏入這個世界。

另一頭 SBL,我陪小涵一起奔赴新約和保羅研究的一線戰場。但除了能瞻仰 N.T. Wright, R.B. Hays, Daniel Boyarin 這些大師(以及精彩的交鋒外,因為沒有學長引進門(福音派如三一的神學研究整個就置外於這圈子裡),只能跟會場隨機遇到的華人學者交流。而這裡說的華人學者絕對不是指那些學術上有辦法走出門戶外的。

我在後自由神學大會師場合和歐陸解構現象學派高峰會的兩條線嘗試開展時也是無力感重。我只能欣羨瞻仰那些耶魯後自由學派出來的大師,卻苦無搭橋的手腕,也無人引見。至於歐陸那頭,雖然我在提問時刻也表現得很積極,但學者之中除了一個年輕教授和 Kevin Hart 之外都不太親切。於是最後我去搭上的是同場與會的中原阿豹。

意外收穫倒是,自己竟在北美改革宗學會那邊如魚得水。我捎來亞洲的、新一代人的聲音,彼此都特別有結交新伙伴的感覺。

大會閉幕前我們最後一個參加的議程是北美華人學會,除了和 2008 是一模一樣的一批人之外,我和盧龍光、彭國瑋都有一點點互動。但整體感覺仍然是大失所望:不但選題的建設性(未來性)和發表的水準,和其他一流場子落差明顯,會後交流間,也感覺這些同文同種的華人們只對「自己人的圈圈」有熱情,甚至體會不到華人學者間互相拉攏提攜的互助風氣。當我和小涵起身想和人認識交流,這些師生們不是已經黏在一個個早已形成的小圈圈裡,就是走在形成小圈圈的路上。每個圈子不超過四人。

孤證不立,此情此景簡直就是三年前的翻版。2008 在波士頓 SBL 我在同一個時間段參加同一個北美華人學會,和一位台神出來在 Viriginia 長老會神學院博班的學長當下認識。一起步出會場的過程中,他向我介紹了一位台神老師。這位老師講話時一直不用眼神正對我就罷了,知道我以立志將來專攻神學-而非聖經研究-時(但我當時只是第二年),竟語出譏諷:「希望你有一天會開始重視聖經。」我們無言以對地向前走了十步後,他又加了一句:「我開玩笑的。」但能輕易感覺到他對我這個非相同研究領域的新人「毫無興趣」。

在不知目的地的情況下,我走進了為數共四人的台神幫。還沒來得及認識其他兩人是誰,這位老師又開尊口:「你還在這裡做什麼?」在我還不及答上話之時,他又補上一句:「我們(幾個台神的)還有事情要討論。」我整個人這才自討沒趣地灰溜溜離開,當下只有那我大我四屆的同輩台神學長出聲和我道別。

我向來是喜歡與後進分享的人,特別是對於那些有心上進、求知若渴、態度正向的年輕人,我總希望能將自己所知的傾囊相授,學術冤枉路盡量少走。這也是這篇文章和這個網誌存在的目的。

在神學的道路上,我一直嚮往能追隨真正的大師。但我慢慢才知道,大師太有魅力,他們身邊總是圍繞著許多門徒與追隨者。當施洗約翰指出基督的身份後,連約翰自己門徒都棄了他去跟隨耶穌。但在主的眾多門徒之中,只有十二位是使徒,而誰又能成為當中的彼得、約翰、雅各呢?誰又能像耶穌主動又親切地說:「讓小孩子到我這裡來,不要禁止他們」呢?

希望那將成為神學教育的「使徒」者,也能存基督無私、溫柔的心提攜和關懷那些學術上奮鬥掙扎的門徒。

Hover the mouse to see names/tags, click for larger images

see more below

[Muvi] 彼岸‧四海學踪

這部長僅一小時的海外留學生見證集錦由遠志明牧師的神州差傳協會製作。

特別感動的是最後劉崢的見證。他 2000年時在挪威嚴重車禍的遭遇,若是放在中國,根本就不可能有活命、甚至復健到今日這般健康地步的可能。即使是在美國,要將他治起來,那吃人的保險制度也絕對會要掉這外籍學生父母家中全部的房產。

挪威真是何等的國家!北歐那是何等的社會福利、社會信任以及對生命、人權的重視。更深刻重要的是覆蓋這國家各個角落的基督徒們大愛的力量!

影片中有一個鮮明的對比:劉崢的奇蹟導致中國中央電視台、鳳凰衛視紛紛報導採訪,但是在劉崢的見證與他們的報導中,劉崢為自己的幸運歸根結底的是講「愛」這個字,這與《彼岸》紀錄片中他殷勤為主作見證的內容是有差別的。約翰一書4:7 說:「愛是從神來」。然而不論是「神」、「基督」或是「教會」這些明顯的字眼,在中國的報導採訪中都是不提的,因為不能提。

由於我現在在做「宗教在公領域的角色」(Religion in the Public Square)的政治/神學理論研究,加以從臺灣自由的視角,我就挑選這點來分析片中呈現的矛盾事實。

Miroslav Volf、Nicholas Wolterstorff、David Ford、Jean Bethke Elshtain 英美基督教神學家在這方面是一個學派的。他們認為,我們這世代所處的,是一個 宗教與文化傳統交融充斥的多元社會(traditions-saturated society)。一個公民社會立基於這個多元現實,應當有目標和有義務來保障各種宗教和神學的語言原汁原味地在公領域呈現。而非把像現在「基督的愛」、「上帝的真實臨在」約化、強迫轉譯成「人間大愛」、「社會溫情」、「人民素養」等被剝奪了宗教本體論意義、又被強植入社會主義意識型態的辭令。

當我看到那些多年幫他復健、曾帶他做動作如同陪幼兒玩耍般的年長女護士與他重逢時那真摯又毫不造作的擁抱,我知道那絕對不是文明的力量而已,那是基督的愛。

能忠實地保留這樣一種觀點、讓這樣的見證自由地在輿論社會中發光發熱的,是一種民主包容性。它與社會溝通素養的水準息息相關。

一般以臺灣的報導習慣而言,我們並不需要去改換、也不會去省略宗教詞彙。但基於避免向社會大眾傳教的疑慮,大多的報導還是習慣切頭去尾,或是用「信仰」一詞來概括那些在中華社會儒家道統下應當被視為怪力亂神的那些東西。如:「小白後來因為認識了上帝,靠著上帝的幫助重新站了起來」這句話,多半會被編輯重寫為「小白後來因為接觸了信仰,靠著信仰的幫助重新站了起來」。

大家能接受和理解信仰作為一種社會性的東西,不能接受和理解上帝作為一個超社會性的實體。 關鍵就在於神學上建立上帝的社會性。

Traffic sign alerting drivers for Amish Buggie...

Traffic sign alerting drivers for Amish Buggies on the road, near Arcola, Illinois

當然,臺灣至少是個容許各種宗教媒體存在的地方,基督教媒體不需要這樣做。只是繼續邁向多元開放,就仍待努力。我認為這個理想的達成對普及的宗教通識教育有相當高的要求。而社會風氣的轉化和教育資源的重新分配則不是一時半會就能成事。

Volf、Wolterstorff、Ford 、 Elshtain都期盼社會能透過教化而更能夠容納這些宗教語言。讀者和觀眾可以自行在腦內做轉譯或接受的工作,而不會覺得被擾亂或冒犯。媒體不需要遂行管制、做齊頭式的修剪和統一「外交」辭令。

然而幾人之中,Wolterstorff (and Elshtain maybe)的思想又是比較過頭的。他認為這類宗教領域的發言可以擴及到所有的公領域,甚至包含對公共政策制訂的討論(如稅法、戰爭、司法裁決等)。從這裡我們看到進一步的問題。

我認為當宗教語言涉及公權力和公眾資源的使用時,它便必須承擔要被全部參與者理解的疏導義務。Wolterstorff確認為不必。那麼佛教徒透過民選程序掌控議會,是否就可以基於宗教理由立法通過全民吃素及不可殺生呢?

從政教分離的立場,我支持的是站在另一邊的學者們如 John Rawls、Robert Audi、Jürgen Habermas等。Audi 認為在公領域的宗教語言負有必須將自己轉譯為世俗語言的責任和能力。

從Ford 和 Volf 的立場我也會說,有許多神學中關於信仰告白的內容,是無法在任何社會學系統中被轉譯為其他語言的。例如神告訴猶太教徒:「當守安息日為聖日」,但卻沒有任何其他世俗理由可以讓猶太教徒要求國家制訂週六為例假日,甚至「歇了一切工」。美國的 Amish 人是和平主義者,卻無法要求國家不用聯邦稅款去增兵在伊拉克和阿富汗打仗(所以他們曾發起拒繳稅的公民不服從運動)。臺灣的基督徒在政府取消行憲紀念日之後,也沒有理由要求國家為他們在 12月25日放聖誕節假日。

就像如今 Amish 族群在美國的特殊地位(不繳Social Security tax、不領健康保險、不受戰爭條款限制、不用電也不接社區電纜)是無數的溝通、尊重、包容,以及爭取來的,我們的基督徒社群如果沒有這種「分別為聖」的決心和魄力、我們的社會如果沒有這麼高度的理解和尊重終極價值差異的素養,就不會有Volf、 Ford、Elshtain口中理想的多元社會(Wolterstorff我則是確定他不會滿意於非基督教的多元社會)。

至此,我目前仍相信,最好能維繫政教各自的理想和平衡的,仍是偏向於 Rawls、Audi 和 Habermas 這邊的公民社會模型。

而建基在這兩組人的對話之中,我則是開始發展區分為 見證者先知 兩個層面宗教公民的社會參與範疇。 見證者的語言不涉及公權力和公眾資源的使用和分配,先知的語言必然涉及公權力和公眾資源的使用和分配。

個人草擬的文字敘述可見於

我相信,當片中這些中國基督徒留學生成為海歸後,很快就要檢視和面臨這一問題。這是下一代中國多元社會的挑戰。

[文摘] Book Review: Allah: a Christian Response

The name of الله Allāh, written in Arabic call...

Name of Allah

Source Link: Do We Worship the Same God? A Review by Mark Durie of Miroslav Volf’s "Allah".

By Mark Durie

“Do we worship the same God?”  This has become a hotly contested and divisive question, posed in these troubled days by many Christians about Muslims and Islam.  Influential theologian Miroslav Volf, who is Henry B. Wright professor of Systematic Theology at Yale, offers an answer in his latest book, Allah: a Christian response (HarperOne 2010).  Volf’s influence is considerable, and this book deserves careful consideration.

全文中文翻譯(Chinese Translation):我們崇拜同一位神嗎? (馬克・狄利評點米洛斯拉夫·沃爾夫的《安拉》一書

本篇文章摘要重點如下:

Volf 的 Allah 一書認為,基督徒和穆斯林敬拜的是同一位上帝。單純是教義、倫理教導、和傳統方面的分歧,導致了雙方成為兩種衝突的宗教系統。要化解這種衝突,Volf 強調求同存易的觀點(p.91)。

Volf 從以下六點來展開基督教與伊斯蘭教的共通點:

(1)只有唯一真神。(2)神創造了一切非神的萬事萬物。(3)神與一切非神的萬物有根本的區別。(4)神是良善的。(5)神要求我們愛神。(6)神要求我們愛我們的鄰舍如同愛我們自己。

然而,Durie 認為 Volf 對伊斯蘭教的觀點太過友善而欠缺批判性,以致於產生不少盲點。

例如:

  1. Volf 論證,一個篤信古蘭經的一般穆斯林不會贊同自殺式恐怖主義。然而當代許多具有影響力的伊斯蘭宗教領袖卻是許可並讚揚這類殉教行動(Fedaii)的。他們只是使用語言轉化的方式,不把聖戰中的殉教行動(martyrdom)看做是自殺(suicide),並稱這些人是舍希德(Shahid,殉教者)。這些人包含Shaikh Ali Jumu’ah,埃及的大穆夫提(Grand Mufti-伊斯蘭教法敘述官)、al-Buti教授、Shaykh Ahmad Al-Khalili,安曼的大穆夫提等。
  2. Volf 斷言使用軍事力量擴張伊斯蘭是「今天所有領導性的穆斯林學者們所拒絕的」(p.210),但是事實顯示,伊斯蘭教的政治神學仍然是充滿侵略性的。他們反對使用武力強迫皈依,卻贊成使用軍事手段達成對非穆斯林的統治。擴張伊斯蘭這個軍事聖戰的目的得到正統學者派的一致認同和支持,包括沙菲儀學派(Shafi’i)法學家 al-Ghazali,一位Volf 也承認是代表性穆斯林神學家(p.169頁)。此外還有Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajid、M. Taqi Uthmani、以及著名的埃及學者、教士Muhammad Salim Al-Awwa。
  3. 甚至,按照 Sharia(伊斯蘭教法)的經典觀點,不生活在吉瑪(dhimma契約之下的非信徒,他們的血是哈拉勒halal,可合法殺的,意即允許殺害他們)。雖然法律禁止殺害婦女和兒童-這些人應該被奴役而不是被殺戮,以及那些那些生活在伊斯蘭法律之下的人,但為了統治和攻擊成年男性異教徒,將婦女和兒童的犧牲視作附帶傷亡(collateral damage)也是允許的。
  4. 上述的問題,凸顯 Volf 對「愛鄰舍如同愛自己」有很深的誤解。基督信仰中的鄰舍可以指異族、異教者,但是伊斯蘭信仰中這純粹是指自己人而言的(見Abdul Hamid Siddiqui 共同語公開信第 18章、古蘭經 9:123 )。伊斯蘭神學中有很深的排外主義。Volf 應該花上篇幅來探討伊斯蘭不相互平等對待吉瑪人dhimmis即生活在伊斯蘭社會下的非穆斯林)所基於的原因和基礎是甚麼。但他在這本書中並沒有做到。

因此總結來說,雖然Volf 想將這本書呈現給西方的基督徒看,以化解西方人的恐回情節(Islamophobia),但該書對身為穆斯林的人是沒有說服力的、對生活在伊斯蘭教國家壓迫統治下的吉瑪人(如印尼的基督徒)是不公平的。如此一來,欠缺學術公正性的 Allah 一書,只剩下一種空泛的、甚而是對正統基督信仰有損害的政治神學議程。

個人觀點:

希望能看到 Volf 教授更進一步的回應。 Durie 雖然指證歷歷,但我感覺這可能類似非基督徒和無神論者引用舊約和十字軍東征的例子來攻擊基督教,稱耶和華是一位暴君、濫殺無辜一般,是未能設身處地的門戶之見。我們如果不進入伊斯蘭神學的詮釋體系來作神學化的宗教比較,恐怕還是難有真正帶建設性的結論。

Book Review: Exclusion and Embrace

Not [yet] a formalized review but some remarks:

Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness and Reconciliation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996, 192 pp., no price given pbk.)

Eventually I have reviewed Exclusion and Embrace in its totality. As I pressing toward the end, it’s a pain (for i have invested so much) to see how Volf, after failing dealing with Deleuze adequately (ch.7), got inscreasingly dogmatic (which I never thought he would be or would want to be): throwing cheap comments on [feminist] non-realist eschatology, leaving his "realist premillennialism" unfoundded, and a practical outline of Christian political theology wanted- let alone the lack of clarification about postliberal boundary awareness (characteristic of East and North European theologians) and the inconsistency in his perspective on ‘memory and forgetfulness’ vis-a-vis Gregory Jones’.

  1. ‎ In ch.4, he thinks Karl Barth‘s Trinitarian theology will perpetuate male dominance. His solution is that gender equality must be based on the difference of sexed bodies, which is good. but I’m not convinced that he has read Karl Barth too well, for the way he describes immanent Trinity and economic Trinity can raise many classical problems against which Barth has already warned us.
  2. In ch.5, he disagrees with the post-liberal Proposal that McIntyre offers in dealing with the oppression and violence that follows any promotion of any ‘brand-name justice’. McIntyre insists that Christians dwell in and enrich their own Christian traditions while engaging in [second order] inter-tradition dialogue on justice with others. Volf rejects this view and contends that no tradition is an inherent protective shield. Relegating postliberal solutions to sectarianism, Voif thinks it is enough that a Christian insists basic Christian responsibilities in a pluralistic world shaped by many traditions, just like the earliest Christians have thrived in the dye vat of pagan Roman world without the protection of a theological system/tradition. But I think it’s false, not least because N.T. Wright has already pointed out that the early Christians were not without systematic backup (Judaism), but also because succeeding McIntyre, Hauerwas has rightfully argues for the possibility and necessity of the "catholic" tradition for Christians to carry on their mission, without which the so-called "basic Christian responsibilities" can hardly hold on its own.

回應:「身為基督徒對真愛聯盟的疑惑」-他者、多元、與啟示 vs. kockroach 1

Gilles Deleuze

Gilles Deleuze

kockroach @ PTT Christianity says,

1. 你在「分辨陳述性(descriptive)語言的現象描繪和作為規範性(prescriptive)語言的意識型態入侵」的這一段先主張應該把多元現象放入現象學的括號(bracketing)中,採取存而不論(epoqué )的態度,避免主觀的判斷。

2. 但是到了後面一段,卻又先驗的主張「我們認為是罪的…」。
似乎在你的立場中,已經存在著一個「我們」的主體,可以代表所有的基督教現象,而這個主體可以輕易、不需任何驗證地發言,說「這就是基督教的立場、聖經的立場」?

你是在尊重他者(多元性)的口號下,假裝有一個「他者」的存在,但你其實是在「我」與「他」之間劃下一道無法逾越的界線,讓他者在自己的門外喧嘩,把他們稱為「罪人」,而自己卻躲在 ghetto 之中相信自己才是倖存的先知。

所以你所謂的「先知」和「見證者」這兩種身份其實是大同小異的,(就所我知,與「先知」相對應的另一個身份應該是「神秘主義者」,但在這裡先不討論)這兩者都脫離不了在一個異己的環境中堅持、主張自己的立場,並試圖透過不同方式說服他人自己的立場是正確的。

而你所謂『也將自己納入「罪人」的範疇』從這點來看,其實是一種矯揉造作。他者其實不存在於你的論述之中,他們被客體化(objectified),然後被你當作異己、需要被「循循善誘」的對象,然後整個切除了。他者並沒有任何發聲的權利,他們作為一個「罪人」,一個需要被「尋尋善誘」的對象存在於你的論述裡面,維持你的主體作為正義的一方的權利。

但這和你最後面所說,其他人也「具備上帝形象(imago Dei)」的神學立場其實是完全相反而牴觸的。

3. 上帝形象的神學並不是告訴我們「要愛罪人」,而是告訴我們「那不是罪人,那是主所愛的,在他身上也有著上帝的形象」。基督徒的責任,是讓所有的人都能暢行無阻地、自願地到神面前,把自己的香膏打破,澆在耶穌頭上。

因為上帝的形象存在於「他者」身上,而且上帝本身就是最終極的他者(the Other),因此認識到他者也有自己的發話權,認識到自己的主體論述可以隨時被他者所中斷(interrupt),同時認識到「我」是一個開放而非封閉的主體,才有可能在這個面對「絕對他者」的信仰中,打破自己,被他感召、啟示和救贖。

只有認識到主體本身也是多元而複雜的(即使在基督教內部,對同性戀的態度也是多元的),認識到上帝有著「他者」的臉龐,才能在視域融合(fusion of horizon)的企圖中,接近它者害怕的面容,聽到他虛弱的聲音:「不要殺我」。

因此,我不能接受你所謂「基督徒應該尊重性別認同多元的客觀現實,但不接受多元性向的教育價值灌輸」的論點。多元現象不僅是一個「現實」,它還是一種打破主體偏執的契機。多元的價值並不絕對與基督教的信仰衝突,基督教的信仰可以是面對他者的信仰,可以是打破自己,容許自己的主體論述被他者中斷的信仰。基督徒在「多元性向的價值觀」面前,應該承認自己作為先知和見證者的身份,提出自己的質疑和批判,但同時也應承認,自己的論述可以被他者所中斷,自己的價值有可能被他者所影響,這不是信仰的失落,而是在離開自我的過程中,看到他者所看到的,聽到他者所聽到的,體會到他者所體會而我自己所不知道的。

說得形而下一點,基督教應該要認識到,即使是在他們自己的教會中,也有許多同性戀的人,生活在所謂「基督徒倫理觀」的壓迫之下(而且這個壓迫只會比外面社會的歧視更嚴重)。一個堅持基督教主體必須反對同性戀的神學,只能讓這些人以低人一等的「罪人」存在於社群裡面,而不是真正的讓這些人感受到神的愛。

相反地,多元性向教育能讓這些人發聲,讓其他人體認到他們的感受,讓他們在互為主體性的價值觀下被接納到社群之裡面,獲得同儕和信仰的支持。

—————————

我認為kockroach 的第一點和第二點是誤讀和誤解我的立場。第三點則才真正展現我們的神學立場衝突和差異。

1. 在現象學還原和屬靈爭戰辨別的這段,我談的是「現象」。

如同Zheng Fuyao在一段FB同志家庭長大的青年公開見證影片下的一段聲明:

基督徒若把民主社會裡必然出現的文化價值衝突理解成屬靈爭戰無疑是致命的失誤,錯把應該細心呵護關懷的對象當成"敵人"或"有問題的人"予以批判潔淨(要求先認罪才配得被愛),既忘了自己根本是在不配愛的情況下被上帝無條件地接納,也忘了那真正需戒慎面對的對手是看不見的靈性勢力,以及那迫使受壓迫者無法自由呼吸的社會文化結構。

再者,「存而不論」(epoqué)不是永久性的。純粹的懷疑論不是倫理學。Richard Hays, Miroslav Volf 等神學倫理學家都強調我們無法避免在僅擁有「局部知識」的不得以情況下採取道德立場。(例如,如果小鳴看似要跳樓,儘管我不知道發生什麼事,我需要第一時間上去拉他。結果可能是我判斷錯誤了,但這就是「無法避免在僅擁有局部知識的不得以情況下採取道德立場」的倫理折衷。)

2.「我們認為是罪的,他們不認為!」

這段談的是基督教罪的定義,「何為罪?」
就像「偷竊是罪」。而今天發生了「麥可用右手從他叔叔脫下的襯衫中拿出五百元」的這個還原後的現象。我要挑戰基督徒的是,「你怎麼知道麥可偷錢了?而不是他叔叔請他拿這五百塊去還他爸?」

這與「基督徒能否從閱讀出埃及記和約書亞記七章猶大支派亞干的故事而一致認定偷竊在上帝眼中為罪」是兩碼子事。存而不論的「論」並非現象學的關注,而是倫理學的。我要求基督教會在兩者的聯繫之間,先將「論」所使用的聖經標準給釐清。

此外,「我們」是在耶穌基督的救恩盟約維繫下的共同體宣稱:「一主一信一洗」(以弗所書四:5)
驗證機制有,但是存在於內部(本於大公會議框架、聖經)。「我們認為是罪的,他們不認為!」是要強調,即使通過內部機制(對罪的認定),也尚未通過外部(世俗社會」驗證機制(「基督徒,別自信的太早!」)

並不是肯定「基督教反同性戀立場已經通過內部驗證機制」。從一個條件句型的條件從句(protasis)導出其肯定了一種實然現象,是分析哲學上的一種邏輯謬誤。
我覺得這篇文章一開始就是對基督徒的呼籲,你們要跳進來回其實我也歡迎,只是需要麻
煩你們嘗試進入盟約架構中思考,以免容易一再誤解語境。

3.

是在尊重他者(多元性)的口號下,假裝有一個「他者」的存在, 但你其實是在「我」與「他」之間劃下一道無法逾越的界線,自己躲在 ghetto 之中相信自己才 是倖存的先知。

我只能說基督教就是這麼可悲。難道基督徒連根據聖經認罪悔改,幻想自己是在審判之日將是神義怒(indignation)之下的倖存者都沒有?大家都是都是發現自己有罪而且很可悲,才聚集在廢墟之中仰望神的憐憫(參約翰福音五章畢士大池邊病人群集的敘事)。我們看自己和別人都有罪。想拉別人進來,別人不來。那還有什麼辦法?界線誰劃的?想進來,就認罪。我們都是突破了心理障礙,相信自己是罪人才去畢士大池的。

界線從來就不是不可逾越的啊~


請你來,不來(因為你不願跨過「我是罪人」這個象徵性門檻)在外面,就是尊重你自願留在外面的權利,卻又要說我們排擠你。
(我知道這個比喻如果精確地邏輯推敲還會有一些衍生觀點需要說明,我已經把後面幾步棋也想過了。)

您如果要進入完全的意識型態批判,和列維納斯(Emmauel Levinas)倫理系統的激進詮釋,我只能同意它也說得通,但您必須紮實的有神學根基去解構現下的基督教神學。Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 1996已經針對這點給了有力的回應(見第二章:排斥、第三章:擁抱、第五章:欺壓與正義)。他提出,「他者」在基督教救恩論中沒有被客體化,而是重建主體性。特別是在擁抱的隱喻中(如浪子回頭後與父親的擁抱),「先展開雙臂、等待對方回抱」(循循善誘)正是他者無法被切除的證據。
性別剛好也是他的一個重要舉證。(參第四章:性別身份)

上帝形象的神學並不是告訴我們「要愛罪人」,而是告訴我們「那不是罪人,那是: 主所愛的,在他身上也有著上帝的形象」。基督徒的責任,是讓所有的人都能暢行: 無阻地、自願地到神面前,把自己的香膏打破,澆在耶穌頭上。

暢行無阻的條件必須是經過神人之間唯一的中保耶穌,而不是說「他者」可以不必與耶穌建立關係、不必接受基督十架救贖寶血、維持其原本的樣貌和所作所為而不必在基督裡面重建主體性。否則請您解經,告訴我有一種上帝形象的神學,不包含

「世人都犯了罪、虧缺了神的榮耀。 如今卻蒙神的恩典、因基督耶穌的救贖、就白白的稱義。」
「我們若認自己的罪、神是信實的、是公義的、必要赦免我們的罪、洗淨我們一切的不義。」

這些基要真理。

其實您整篇回覆,誠實地說,我覺得我回這段就夠了。您所提的,既是田立克(Paul Tillich)面對終極關懷的態度,又是列維納斯(Emmauel Levinas)的他者,還有德勒茲(Gilles Deleuze)非此、非彼之主體性游牧的況味。
我對這些人都是開放的。我是先接觸哲學和自由神學,才學習福音神學(evangelical theology)和大公神學(catholic theology)。我一直以來的都企圖在正統神學框架下延展更多外來聲音衝撞的可能性。但是所有的神學都有個底線:上帝的啟示。

按照正統神學來說,上帝的啟示有沒固定的內容?有!

上帝透過虛弱的他者啟示。
上帝透過教會傳統的智慧和口傳福音啟示。
上帝透過經驗和良知啟示。
上帝透過自然律啟示。
上帝透過聖經啟示。
上帝道成肉身,在基督身上的啟示。

這些啟示之中,基督耶穌是啟示的高峰。

基督耶穌的啟示卻只有透過傳統和聖經保存,所以正統基督教神學無法像Deleuze那樣地完全「在其中」、「從自我出走」。它的穩定性是被聖經、傳統所鞏固的,而且還有「救恩之約、洗禮」這樣的會員制,其神學注定無法完全地向非信徒開放。
拉赫納(Karl Rahner)將天主教完全對外開放的努力值得敬佩,但我老師和我都覺得他失敗了:從左派角度不夠解構,從右派角度更不用說,完全守不住聖經啟示的救恩論(太多經文他根本解不過去)。

Tillich 處理啟示的方式是完全將它坍塌到文化、經驗中。他的存在主義神學,叫人不是透過讀經認識耶穌、瞭解上帝心意,而是像您說的,在「存在性邂逅」( existential encounter )遭遇「絕對他者」,打破自己,被他感召、啟示和救贖,發掘一種新生命的可能性。

從前我愛死 Tillich了(現在還是很愛,他的「嗣子」基督論是我不停反思和想要引渡的一塊),但他的系統所要付出的代價太大:十字架的死、復活、永生,全都變成一種道德寓言,可以不按照「歷史」、「猶太-基督文化傳統下」律法、啟示、恩典等神學概念的脈絡理解。

在這個意義下,基督可以不必是耶穌,祂可以是任何人。
連基督教都可以繞過聖經來承認多元性別認同和基督教本質有相容性的話,基督教也就不存在任何實質了,只是一種「大公精神」,美其名為「自由、平等、博愛」,實則成為個人和「被淘空既成啟示的根基的上帝」之間的個人協定,不但沒有弟兄姊妹平行的當責關係(accountability),也根本就不具備任何神聖盟約的忠誠度:

「 我是耶和華你們的 神、所以你們要成為聖潔、因為我是聖潔的」(利未記十一:44)
「你們要歸我為聖、因為我耶和華是聖的、並叫你們與萬民有分別、使你們作我的民。」(利未記二十:16)

全聖經有十次相同片段。

因此,我回頭承襲歷代以來正統神學所傳承的模型:所有外部聲音、人物想要進入到修改教義內容的程度,都必須要回到解經。現在有些同志神學,如哈佛(Harvard Divinity School)、范德堡(Vanderbilt Divinity School)、耶魯(Yale Divinity School)的,都做得不錯,原因在於能從解經立場上扭轉基督徒對創世紀、羅馬書、哥林多書信的定見。

否則,基督徒最多能做到傾聽之神學、溝通之神學、現象學之保留。但無法以聖經明文啟示之是為非。就算被溝通被打斷無數次,最後還是要說:「我相信同性戀性行為(非傾向)是神所不喜悅的,一如婚外情、婚前性行為是神所不喜悅的。」(Martin Luther "sola scriptura": 請用聖經說服我。)

Pastor or Scholar? Ethics or epistemology?

IMG_2852

Source: http://theotherjournal.com/2011/03/07/joining-the-communion-of-saints-and-writing-the-unwritable-word/

In Basil’s day, people were arguing over how exactly to describe the relationship between Jesus and the One who sent him, between the Father and the Son—are they the same, different, or sort of both? And there were of course the naysayers, the people who said it didn’t matter, who argued that we should be out there helping the poor instead of poring over this esoteric academic nonsense. Basil had an answer:

Those who are idle in the pursuit of righteousness count theological terminology as secondary, together with attempts to search out the hidden meaning in this phrase or that syllable, but those conscious of the goal of our calling realize that we are to become like God, as far as this is possible for human nature. But we cannot become like God unless we have knowledge of God, and without lessons there will be no knowledge. Instruction begins with the proper use of speech, and syllables and words are the elements of speech. Therefore to scrutinize syllables is not a superfluous task.[5]

Sure, Basil says, those who don’t care about holiness don’t care about language. But those who want to love God know that our only way to do that is to love language—as theologians, future pastors, and educators, as writers, all we have is words from God to give out to other people. And words are enough.
————————————————–

Well, I think then Richard Hays is one of the naysayers, for whom ethics means that we have to act without complete knowledge (c.f., the preface of The Moral Vision of the New Testament).

In Exclusion and Embrace, Miroslav Volf also suggests that we cannot suspend the action of active embrace as we seek knowledge of the Other (and vice versa). Namely, the interpretiion elements of speech and the scrutint od syllables do not precede- let alone being performed in isolation from- the use of language, which does by all means carry weight of meaning/justice in social dimensions.

So why defending the priority of academic theology over social justice (e.g., helping the poor)? I do not buy into the scholastic thesis, nor do I consider Basil’s response to the critique of academic theology an adequate one.

[文摘] 美國最佳神學院校排名(2010)

Source: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/10/schools-of-thought

以排名神學院引起爭議和聲名大噪的R.R. Reno又出招了。

前四名與去年相比毫無更動。但這次他作風更大膽,一口氣排到十名開外。

  1. 杜克大學神學院強項神學院總體、聖經神學、對後自由神學的凝聚力。 弱項:杜克大學其他與神學相關的人文學科所展現的信仰氛圍並不像一所基督教大學。
  2. 聖母大學神學系(與第一名並列)-強項:大學神學系以外的人文學科和科學也有明顯的建構神學風氣。這是一所基督教大學真正該有的樣子。 弱項:系統神學
  3. 普林斯頓神學院強項:新教系統神學(特別是巴特和後自由神學)、和普大合作。
  4. 普林斯頓大學宗教系(與第三名並列)-強項:經費寬裕、對學生慷慨照顧、宗教與社會倫理學、和普神合作 弱項:聖經神學
  5. 多倫多大學神學院威克理夫學院強項:對後自由神學的凝聚力
  6. 美國天主教大學弱項:資源分散、經費欠缺
  7. 馬奎特大學神學系強項:有一兩位名師 弱項:整體學風散慢、競爭意識強度不足
  8. 波士頓學院神學系強項:規模大而平整、經費充裕
  9. 耶魯大學神學院強項:有一兩位名師 弱項:學風墮為剩下「宗教多元」模糊定向的新自由派、聖經研究與教會脫節
  10. 南衛理公會大學柏金斯神學院強項:有一兩位名師 弱項學風墮為剩下「宗教多元」模糊定向的新自由派
  11. 惠頓學院強項:有一兩位名師、對福音派聖經神學的凝聚力、平均畢業時間短 弱項:年輕
  12. 聖母頌大學(Ave Maria University)(與惠頓並列)-強項:對天主教神學的凝聚力
  13. 戴頓大學(與惠頓並列)-強項:有一兩位名師

Reno 評定標準包含學術氛圍、屬靈空氣、對於化育英才的認真態度、對教會有關懷的神學導向等。

與去年相比,更多的天主教學校浮上抬面。值得注意的是,耶魯神學院自2010年秋天得Kathryn Tanner從芝加哥大學轉任後,(搭配原有鎮院之寶中生代的Volf )現終於被Reno視為可以在「正統基督教」框架下討論的學校了-儘管除此之外,耶魯整體距離「好人當道」還有相當一段的…我們說「改進空間」。

Reno並指出當前的北美學界有幾個似是而非的論調:

學術歪風一:大家學術齊頭並進、無須比較與競爭互動。因標榜自由,學程進度自理即可,個人造業個人擔。

真相*其實學術嚴謹的學校,一定會讓人有某種緩不過氣的壓力。世上沒有所謂輕鬆快樂無壓力學習,又能得到卓越學術成果的地方。

學術歪風二:名師應時常在外講學、在國際研討會露臉、上各州縣教區講壇「服事眾教會」。這樣榮神益人也打響學校知名度。

真相*其實不安內何以攘外。若教授一年到頭四處演講授課或講道,使自己的導生要見上一面卻難、電郵也從來不回,研究生一定會被「餓」壞,最終發育不全、出去沒一個能代表學校。依過去經歷,這似乎在影射芝加哥大學的一些大牌人物。

學術歪風三:所有的老師都在追求一種最高境界,即無事一身輕。升等到最後,不用行政、不用教課,只要作自己的研究、甚至將來作榮休教授、掛牌顧問,可以不帶義務地隨時行使發言權,且有高薪、優退、終身俸。

*其實學術機構的向心力、凝聚力是很重要的。各自為政、師生位階差距懸殊的地方不啻將人放逐到一座座學術孤島。唯有老師真正地付出時間、心力、關心學生、扮演屬靈導師的工作,才能把學風帶起來。

最後也不得不說此番Reno 在文末署名中的頭銜,不再如06 和09年撰排名文時用「Creighton University神學倫理學教授」這樣的個人學術立場,而是稱「First Things資深編輯」,這某種程度上意味著Reno的排名文到了今年已經默默代表了 First Things這份「普世合一」性刊物的公開立場。

因雜誌背書而增加的排名公信力,一些新上榜的學校傳開的歡騰幅度(如惠頓、聖母頌、威克理夫學院等),因為這對他們是更為實質的肯定。原網址底下的讀者回應還在不斷增加,當持續關注。

.

Related articles

以下是原文。

===================================

Schools of Thought

When choosing a graduate program in theology, the best is not always not the brightest

R.R. Reno

It’s not easy to answer, the simple question of where to study theology. Interests, backgrounds, convictions, and levels of academic preparation combine in complicated ways when choosing a graduate program in theology. Still, certain qualities always matter: intellectual climate, commitment to students, corporate personality, and the atmosphere of faith at the institution. Keeping these factors in mind, we can try—or at least I can try—to work up a rough ranking of graduate programs in theology. Let’s start with intellectual climate. Am I smart enough? Am I working hard enough? Are my standards high enough? Taken to an extreme, the pressure of such questions becomes demoralizing. But the more common danger in academic life is lassitude and self-congratulating mediocrity. All of us tend to walk when we don’t have to run—a universal human tendency made worse by a very American egalitarian ethos that prizes amiable stupidity over demanding intelligence.

Academic reputation can serve as a rough proxy for high standards. But beware programs whose big names fly in for a semester here or there. Academic culture cannot be built in airport lounges.

The same holds for professors in endowed chairs, who function as lofty aristocrats, removed from the faculty members who actually advise students and oversee dissertation research. Professors who won’t answer emails or meet with students are worse than useless. They encourage a selfish atmosphere that injures their less famous but more committed colleagues. The latent (or not so latent) rancor can make the experience of graduate school sour indeed. Like clergy of old, professorial superheroes scramble for sinecures. More than fifty years ago, Jacques Barzun correctly identified the academic flight from students: “The highest prize of the teaching profession is: no teaching. For the first time in history, apparently, scholars want no disciples.”

So, when looking for a graduate program in theology, don’t get starry-eyed over big-name schools or celebrity professors. A unified, committed group of professors at any university is far, far superior to famous professors who are rarely around. Graduate programs flourish when professors give more time and attention to graduate students than to their own careers.

In other words, assess the moral character of any graduate program you consider. An uneven academic climate can be overcome by the special chemistry that often develops between a few superb professors and their graduate students. A culture of selfishness or conflict among faculty almost always leads to the neglect or mistreatment of graduate students.

A good graduate program in theology doesn’t just have high academic standards and a commitment to students. It needs to stand for something—neo-Thomism, or Barthianism, or postliberalism, or neoorthodoxy, or some other angle of vision. The labels never fully capture the complex interplay of faculty interests, but they do suggest a theological culture—a corporate personality capacious enough to allow for interesting arguments yet defined enough to give the arguments weight and focus.

Too often, students, faculty, and administrators—in their different ways—underestimate the importance of corporate personality. Not long ago, Harvard Divinity School stood for something. So did Claremont, Yale, the University of Chicago, and Union Theological Seminary. They were alive with the urgency of the mainline Protestant project, which reflected the needs of a living community of believers negotiating the relations between modern identity and the traditional demands of faith.

The dramatic decline of the once dominant Protestant establishment has set these programs adrift. With little sense of purpose, they tend to divvy up faculty appointments: some historical specialists, a feminist, a liberationist, somebody doing world religions, perhaps a Jewish scholar or a Muslim—even a faculty member or two who represent a moderately traditional outlook. The whole is far less than the sum of the parts. Education in its fullest sense “will never issue,” as John Henry Newman wrote, “from the most strenuous efforts of a set of teachers with no mutual sympathies and no intercommunion.”

The same trend toward ungrounded diversity can be found in some Catholic programs. The liberal Catholic project, less rich and significant than the liberal Protestant project, also has become increasingly marginal. Losing touch with the reality of the Church, these theological programs are sometimes animated by a spirit of protest against magisterial authority. For the most part, however, they just drift, often becoming programs of “Religious Studies,” a title that almost always signals the death of theological seriousness.

Unlike the study of philosophy or mathematics, and more like the study of history and literature, the study of theology is given sharp outlines by the coherence and integrity of a historical community. The reality of the Church—her doctrines, her endless problems, and her alluring beauty—sets the agenda for theology. The best programs have a connection—not necessarily official, not always happy, but still fundamental—to living churches.

Intellectual rigor, commitment to students, a church-oriented theological personality—all these factors are important, but none more than a healthy spiritual atmosphere. You are no more likely to mature as a theologian outside an atmosphere of prayer and piety than to progress as a scientist without intimate experience with the experimental work of the laboratory.

Graduate study in any discipline always involves the formation of the intellect, a disciplining of desire, and a training of habits. Of the intellectual life in general, the Dominican A.G. Sertillanges once wrote, “We must give ourselves from the heart if truth is to give itself to us. Truth serves only its slaves.”

In theology the spirit of devotion is all the more important, for theological wisdom is rooted in an act of intellectual submission to God’s revelation in Christ. As St. Bonaventure warned, we must ground our life of study in prayer, setting aside the illusion “that it suffices to read without unction, speculate without devotion, investigate without wonder, examine without exultation, work without piety, know without love, understand without humility, be zealous without divine grace, see without wisdom divinely inspired.”

Not every professor and graduate student must be Christian. Not all scholarship has to crackle with the ardor of faith. Committed Jewish or Muslim or Hindu scholars can contribute to a spirit of faithful inquiry at a Christian school. In fact, their witness in our contemporary academic culture of antinomianism and unbelief can be far more powerful than the example of a Christian scholar who bows to the latest academic fashions.

A program in theology is worth undertaking only if it includes the possibility of a spiritual formation that complements intellectual formation. That spiritual formation may, perhaps, be only latent, perhaps only partial, perhaps emerging from fellow students rather than from official goals. But it must be a real possibility.

And what about specific programs? Here is my crib sheet—a necessarily imperfect and idiosyncratic ranking of graduate programs. I’ll begin by cheating. I’ve ranked two schools in the number-one spot: Duke and Notre Dame. They have different strengths. Duke projects a stronger corporate personality, while Notre Dame offers an overall academic environment more profoundly and extensively sympathetic to the intellectual significance of Christian faith.

A Methodist institution, Duke features some of the bright lights of Protestant theology: Stanley Hauerwas, Geoffrey Wainwright, Jeremy Begbie, Amy Laura Hall, and J. Cameron Carter. Reinhard Hütter is a Lutheran turned Catholic, and his work moves in a strongly Scholastic direction. Paul Griffiths, another Catholic professor, is a polymath who combines a remarkable plasticity of mind with a vigorous defense of orthodoxy.

These folks do not agree about everything, but, taken together, most are committed to the postliberal project. Understood broadly, postliberalism means taking seriously the venerable liberal project in Protestantism: Contemporary Christians need to come to terms with the intellectual, moral, and spiritual challenges of the modern world. Yet, unlike the liberal project, which looked for philosophical or sociological concepts to mediate or soften the clashes between classical Christian faith and modernity, postliberalism returns to the specific language and practice of Christianity—the Bible, the Nicene tradition, and the liturgy—for solutions.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Duke is the best place for someone who wants to integrate theology with biblical studies. Richard Hays, now acting dean, has consistently broken down artificial barriers between historical study of the Bible and theological analysis. Kavin Rowe, Stephen Chapman, and Ellen Davis encourage their graduate students to be formed in theology as well as biblical studies. Stanley Hauerwas and Paul Griffiths have written substantial commentaries on books of the Bible, and Reinhard Hütter plans to do so as well.

The main problem with Duke is, well, Duke. The Ph.D. program is run through the university’s department of religion, not the divinity school, and this has tended to restrict artificially the number of students admitted. A few years ago, however, the divinity school inaugurated a Th.D. program, thereby allowing more students to be trained at the doctoral level.

This institutional adjustment cannot overcome the larger fact that Duke is a typically secular elite university. The intellectual firepower of the professors of history, literature, philosophy, and classics—all disciplines that a good program in theology should draw on to some degree or other—remains largely alien and unsympathetic, a reminder that theology has an eccentric place in the intellectual culture of late modernity.

Where Duke is weak, Notre Dame is strong—very strong. As the flagship Catholic university in America, Notre Dame attracts a great deal of attention, not all of it positive. Many—and I include myself—gripe that Our Lady’s university doesn’t do as much as it could, or that it compromises unnecessarily with the academic status quo. But, such criticisms duly noted, Notre Dame still has a remarkable array of Christian scholars in many different disciplines. The upshot: A theological student can get a real sense of theology as the queen of the sciences.

The department of theology itself is huge and, although uneven, nonetheless contains many superb professors. Graduate students sing the praises of Cyril O’Regan, as generous with his time as he is brilliant. Brian Daley is one of the most influential figures in Catholic theological education, not only because his scholarly work commands the respect of his peers but also because he mentors students and builds a community of theological scholarship. John Cavadini, the longtime chair, is one of the best contemporary interpreters of St. Augustine and another professor who cares about students. Ann Astell provides a unique theological and literary expertise. Gary Anderson unites theological study with the modern tradition of historical study of the Bible.

But in systematic theology proper—Cyril O’Regan aside—Notre Dame has remained bland, hobbled by the legacy of the liberal project in post–Vatican II Catholic theology. This important movement in modern Catholic theology has intellectual integrity, but, too often, figures such as Richard McBrien think of theology almost entirely in light of contemporary Church politics.

Turning theology into an instrument of church politics remains a problem for many Catholic programs in theology. Fordham provides a sad case in point. As the old agenda of the 1970s calcifies, it becomes more a list of talking points than a living theological project. “Theology must take history seriously!” The first time I heard the slogan I yawned; the hundredth time, I sighed.

Fortunately, new hires in systematic theology have strengthened the Notre Dame program. John Betz, a fine young scholar of modern theology, joins the faculty this year, along with Francesca Murphy, one of the most creative and forceful theological writers of her generation.

After Duke and Notre Dame the rankings get murky and I have to cheat a bit more, identifying the odd and strictly unofficial hybrid of the Princeton department of religion and Princeton Theological Seminary as the third-best place to study. The seminary, founded in 1812, has always been independent of the university. They are, however, contiguous, and in recent years a spirit of cooperation has developed. As a consequence, doctoral students at the university can draw on the very intense and sophisticated theological atmosphere of the seminary, while graduate students at the seminary can participate in the supportive department of religion and the first-rate intellectual environment of the university.

Princeton Theological Seminary has a very strong corporate personality. George Hunsinger and Bruce McCormick are world-renowned interpreters of Karl Barth. But one doesn’t get all Barth all the time. Ellen Charry provides an alternative voice, and John Bowlin brings St. Thomas to the Calvinists. A Protestant doctoral student will find a rich atmosphere in which classical debates continue. By my reckoning, Princeton Theological Seminary is the best place in the United States to study Protestant dogmatics.

The Princeton University department of religion may be the Ivy League program that has remained truest to the liberal Protestant ethos that long dominated private East Coast institutions. Jeffrey Stout, the presiding presence, is preoccupied with the social and cultural influence of Christianity in American democratic culture. Eric Gregory advances similar concerns, working closely with such classical Christian theologians as St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

Other professors are good as well. Leora Batnitsky can help students see the ways in which modern Judaism has negotiated the conflicts between tradition and modernity. But more important, perhaps, is the reputation that the Princeton department of religion has for lavishing love and attention on graduate students. I’ve read many recommendations for recent Ph.D.s looking for jobs in theology. The slapdash, almost bored letters graduate professors write often shock me. Not so those from the faculty of the Princeton department of religion.

If you are a young Catholic, neither the seminary nor the department of religion at Princeton will provide anything approaching the depth and breadth of Catholic theology available at Notre Dame. Yet the accidents of history have made Princeton spiritually congenial. An intellectually engaged Opus Dei house in town provides a healthy spiritual center of gravity. If your interests run in the direction of social ethics or the classic Vatican II question of the role of the Church in the modern world, Princeton might be for you.

Fourth on my list is Wycliffe College, an Anglican institution that is part of the Toronto School of Theology, a consortium of programs affiliated with the University of Toronto. Developed under the leadership of George Sumner, Wycliffe shares with Duke a strong postliberal corporate personality. Joseph Mangina is an astute interpreter of Karl Barth, and Ephraim Radner has articulated one of the most compelling and richly theological accounts of the Christian experience of modernity. Chris Seitz approaches biblical scholarship with theological depth and penetration.

You need not be Anglican to study at Wycliffe. In fact, many of the doctoral students are evangelicals of various stripes. Yet I think it is fair to say that graduate study at Wycliffe has a churchy, pious atmosphere. It’s a place where St. Bonaventure’s warning is heeded.

In the fifth and sixth slots I put two Catholic institutions: the Catholic University of America and Marquette University.

Catholic University proper offers degrees through the School of Theology and Religious Studies. It’s an uninspired program limited by inadequate resources, a clerical past that no longer corresponds to reality, and a tendency to teach post–Vatican II theology as if it were 1970. But there are other options: the John Paul II Institute and the Dominican House of Studies. David Schindler, Michael Hanby, Nicholas Healy, and others at the John Paul II Institute introduce graduate students to the enduring achievements of twentieth-century Catholic theology. At the Dominican House of Studies, students can find several fine professors devoted to reformulating a Thomistic synthesis for twenty-first-century Catholicism.

Overall, inadequate funding for graduate students and the fragmentation of faculty into distinct institutes and programs can make Catholic University a difficult environment for graduate students. But the university’s problems largely reflect the reality of the Catholic Church, which lacks a clear theological consensus; thus, paradoxically, the raggedy-edge atmosphere has a genuine ecclesial integrity. And at Catholic University the discipline of theology remains utterly central, and the role of Church doctrine as the foundation of the discipline is presumed and debated.

Alone among Jesuit doctoral programs, the theology department at Marquette has as its greatest strength the fact that it is not hobbled by the increasingly superannuated agenda of liberal Catholic theology. The faculty in historical theology and systematic theology don’t necessarily jell into a corporate personality, but professors such as Ralph Del Colle and Susan Wood are pushing forward, trying to discern the possibilities for Catholic theology in North America after the collapse of the short-lived but once ruthlessly dominant Rahnerian consensus. Some of the avatars of the declining Rahnerian approach still teach at Marquette, but the theologies of Hans Urs von Balthasar and St. Thomas are also well represented.

Marquette’s biggest liability is Marquette. It’s a fine institution, but it lacks the overall atmosphere of academic excellence that one finds at most elite universities, and this invariably holds back the theology department as well.

Two problem children rank seventh and eighth: Boston College and Yale University. Both schools have ample resources and many fine professors, but both lack robust theological cultures.

Boston College has a large faculty, made even larger by the recent absorption of the Jesuit faculty of the nearby Weston School of Theology. There are plenty of professors who are fine scholars, and among them Khaled Anatolios shines the brightest. His approach to the Church Fathers trains aspiring graduate students to think theologically.

The corporate personality at Boston College isn’t always congenial. Since the 1970s the Society of Jesus has thrown most of its weight behind the liberal Catholic project in theology, and the programs at Boston College suffer from the soft authoritarianism that has arisen to prevent a younger generation from deviating. Don’t be deterred, however. I know some very fine young theologians who have emerged from Boston College, suggesting that the vast resources of the school can be mobilized to support good work.

Yale has some fine professors as well. Miroslav Volf and the recently hired Kathryn Tanner make an excellent pair. Volf has a vivid phenomenological imagination guided by liberal evangelical sensibilities, while Tanner has an almost purely conceptual mind put to the task of preserving as much of classical orthodoxy as possible for twenty-first-century liberal Protestantism.

But, as an institution, Yale lacks a corporate personality. Only a few students are accepted for doctoral study in theology in the department of religious studies. Meanwhile, the Yale Divinity School has been demoralized by the decline of mainline Protestantism. A lack of contact with a living church has led to the almost unconscious but complete alienation of biblical studies from the classical traditions of theological analysis. The resources of Yale provide many opportunities, but the aspiring theologian will need to find a mentor and colleagues to anchor a theological vocation.

In the ninth slot I put Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University. Once a hotbed of an intellectually formidable process theology, Perkins now suffers from liberal Protestant political correctness. But Bruce Marshall, one of the most important Catholic theologians currently training doctoral students in North America, teaches there, as does William Abraham, a vital Protestant voice in contemporary theology. They make an otherwise uninteresting program a potentially exciting place.

The tenth and final school? Perhaps it’s better to consider up-and-coming programs. Wheaton College, for example, recently launched a doctoral program in theology, hiring Kevin Vanhoozer, perhaps the most interesting contemporary evangelical theologian today. Ave Maria University has a fine faculty and a clear corporate personality as a theology program loyal to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The University of Dayton recently hired Matthew Levering, thereby strengthening a group of younger scholars who won’t bore smart graduate students with the usual liberal Catholic pieties.

I hope my prejudices are clear. The people under whom and with whom we study do far more to shape our theological vocations than systems such as Barthianism or Thomism and certainly more than the grand reputations of places such as Harvard, Yale, or Berkeley. Good theological formation requires peers and professors who encourage our trust in the essential truth of the Christian tradition. A big library, generous graduate-student stipends, the name recognition of a school—all are empty without this spirit of confidence and commitment.

R.R. Reno is a senior editor at First Things.

Things my supporters might be happy to know about me (updated)

Please briefly describe how and when you became a Christian and your Christian life to date:

Born in a Christian family, I was blessed to bath in an ecclesiastical atmosphere during my childhood. Saturated with narratives of biblical testimonies and proverbs of Scripture, I knew nothing better could be in my life than God’s love.

The Christian education I received also serves as a backdrop for my conviction that our raison d’être lies is in the glorification of God’s kingdom through our lives. Since the age of eight, I have constantly made known to others that I want to be a pastor once I grow up— one admirable and who handles God’s word with erudition and charm, through which guidance
and comfort are provided for the  wanderer in soul and brokenhearted.

In my pursuit for a vocational ministry my mother has played a significant role. Serving in chief leadership role for a Christian newspaper, she stays well-connected with many church
leaders across different denominations from which I also acquired an overview of what “being church” would actually look like in our culture and time.

But on the other hand, this “ministry of God” has kept her busy throughout the years and it was an unwarranted theology that her diligence into this Christian evangelistic ministry shall be rewarded with a blessed family relationship that I cast doubt upon and wanted to challenge. As a typically atypical situation, my life then displayed every single negative character that one could expect from a PK.

Subsequently there came to be a lot more turbulence in my high school life. In the quest of my own identity and destiny I thought I must forgo the Christian indoctrinations and confront the standardization of personhood characteristic of our education system. I was convinced that both of them reflect a reductionistic worldview that treats individuals as objects. It turns out to be a war that practically benefits no one. My mother’s attempt to control my behavior only provoked my anger, and I one-sidedly chose to end our relationship by regarding her totally nonexistent person in this world. For 5 years, we have not talked.

At school, I caused a series of trouble and was suspended. I ended up in another high school that is a private one and began indulge myself with online games as a drug to cure my disillusion of the reality until I was repeatedly put onto the verge of failing the college.

But through my Christian classmates God communicates to me that He has a plan for my life and my true identity shall be found in Him. I started to go to our campus fellowship, and at the same time, my family ties were also amending. It is His love that moved me away from online game addiction and from a presumptuous lifestyle. As church kid I was finally baptized at Easter in 2004.

Three months later I went to France as an international volunteer of Emmanuel’s pilgrimage retreat. They are a Catholic monastic order that holds nationwide camping retreat each year for whoever wants to experience the renewal of their spirituality and faith in Christ.

I did experience some sort of spiritual exuberance there that can be roughly described as the baptism of Holy Spirit. But the most important thing is that our God is beyond those church institutions of Taiwan— the grandeur of the cathedral, the solemnity of the sacraments, and the life narratives and smiles of my foreign brothers and sisters all testify to this. It is huge for me to see Christ as the Lord who unites us in and through all the diversity that we as individuals
may represent.

And it is on this basis that God has further called me to serve Him with my life. In the course of pursuing the specific focus of a lifelong ministry to make His name known and His kingdom come, my entire personhood and temperament are also being molded and shaped.

Recalling my childhood ambition, I truly believe that God is in control of my life. He has a marvelous plan for me, and I shall never be faint in faith or strength, as I will stand rock-firm in His unfailing promise.

Please describe your calling to ministry/seminary:

After my graduation from university in 2006, I worked as copy editor for Christian Tribune Newspaper, where I picked up and was equipped with an evangelical filter lens for the kaleidoscopic actualities in our society. Courses concurrently taken at the extension site of China Evangelical Seminary also helped. At the same summer, I switched into a fuller-time seminary student and serve a part-time ministry role at Studio Classroom of Oversea Radio & Television Inc. (ORTV). There I was able to share the visions in mass media missions of many foreign missionaries.

The work in seminary and in Christian organizations both helped broaden my theological horizon to see God’s ministry in global terms. I began my research on studying theology
abroad.

It would never be enough if my calling was merely cognitively confirmed. It is God who arranged a series of events around me to make it possible. Back in college, I was diagnosed of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) and started to take medications to prevent internal bleeding. Then at the final exam week of my first semester in seminary a taxi hit me and broke my right arm. Even when Trinity accepted me, I still did not have the founding of my first year if it was not the dissention among Christian Tribune’s board of trustees that forced my mother to retire and take away the pension. God has healed my wound and through real life lessons to teach me to rely solely on Him for His steadfast love and faithfulness.

With those fading stigma testifying my spiritual life to date, I know this is a love and
faith that I must passionately seek to articulate through my academic endeavor in narrative theology and Christian ethics.

Please describe your career goals:

Today one of the greatest struggles of our generation is the lack of serious understanding of God’s word— a sort of knowledge that can be lived out as a worldview to account for the vicissitude of world whiling circumventing tendencies oversimplification and dualistic reductionism. The efforts required to meet this need therefore must be both missiological and apologetic, both pedagogical and formational, both intellectual and practical, both contextual and
ecumenical, for we are in a secularizing society that is postmodern in its consumers’ collective behavior which is characterized by short-sightedness and dominated by pragmatic desires.

There are other thoughts beyond what I can articulate given the space here. To say the least, I hope to be able to lead spiritual formation and discipleship of young intellectuals based on college classroom while keeping constructive and ecumenical dialogue with the best of orthodox theologians of our day (Stanley Hauerwas, Stephen Long, George Hunsinger, R.R. Reno, Bruce Marshall, Richard Hays, Hans Frei, Nicolas Wolterstorff, Miroslav Volf, John Milbank, Anthony Thiselton, N.T. Wright, Jean-Luc Marion, Johann Baptist Metz, Kevin Vanhoozer, David Ford, etc.) I will also try to include many other contemporary philosophers of continental school of thoughts as intellectual conversation partners. The goal is to develop a theological framework (in cooperation with Christian professionals from different contexts and expertise) to help Christians unite their efforts and live out a radical discipleship of Jesus Christ.

 

Please talk about your family:

I was born in a Christian family with two of my two younger sisters. My father was a businessman in the auto industry for the majority of his early careers until a major policy change stroke down his business. My mother devoted all her career prime to evangelical mass media
ministry. For these many years we have been experiencing God’s blessings in great measure. Our family members love each other and support each other. Two years ago, my mother retired from Christian Tribune, the news press company where she served for eighteen years, only to start a new evangelical outreach news media “Awakening Taiwan (awakeningtw.com), which has become now our family’s common ministry focus. My family also sponsors my education without reservation. Without their support, it is impossible for me to be at Trinity.

Please talk about your hobbies:

I cultivate a hobby to benefit from it spiritually, mentally, and physically. Sustainability is the key. Accordingly, basketball and weight training are two of my favorite physical exercises, besides swimming, mountain hiking, and badminton. On the other hand, I love to investigate a wide range of topics in philosophy and the humanities through reading, language learning, and writing practice. I like listening to music (classical, metal, rock, and alternative) and playing musical instruments as a band (bass, guitar, and violin). I enjoy preparing salubrious diet for myself. I am also an amateur photographer and an active blogger.

[文摘] 美國最佳神學院校排名(2006)

Reno: Best Schools for Theology

By R.R. Reno

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=447

譯/邱慕天

Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 9:14 AM

U.S. New & World Report has just published its annual rankings of higher education. In addition to calling the horse race for No. 1 university, the magazine also puts out rankings of graduate programs. By their reckoning, the best place to study political theory is Harvard. Harvard is tied with Cal-Berkeley for No. 1 in medieval and renaissance literature, and Michigan is tops in behavioral neuroscience.

美國New & World Report的年度高等教育排行剛出爐,除了最高學府之爭,該雜誌也就各領域的研究所做出了排行。哈佛是政治理論的翹楚;醫學和文藝復興文學等領域由加州柏克萊大學與哈佛大學各據山頭;密西根大學( 安那堡分校)則稱霸行為神經科學領域。

The ratings game got me thinking. The magazine has nothing to say about theology (or religious studies, as it is called at many universities). So I thought I might throw out some observations about the best places to pursue a doctoral degree in the sorts of fields I study—theology and ethics. I haven’t developed any objective method of analysis, but this is not the first time I have thought about graduate programs. Students often ask me for advice, so over the years I have formed some impressions about how the programs compare to one another. Here are the best schools, to my mind, followed by some comments about the also-rans.

這些評比活動給了我一些想法。該雜誌對神學領域(有些學校叫「宗教研究」)未曾提及隻字片語,這讓我打算就自己專攻的神學、倫理學領域發表一些觀察,比較各學校博士班的優劣。我手邊並沒有什麼客觀的評比標準,就是憑藉多年下來的學術經驗,對學校間特色強弱所累積的心得。由於這個問題我並非初次思考,也常有正在準備申請的學生來向我諮詢意見。因而接下來要提出的就是我心目中的頂尖神學院校,另外也會把遺珠之憾列出,並加上個人註解。

duke6 (Duke University)

At the top of my list is Duke. Richard Hays and Ellen Davis are leading a strong cohort of biblical scholars toward the recovery of a theological voice in biblical interpretation. Add to that the creative mind of Stanley Hauerwas, the rigorous mind of Reinhard Huetter, the learned mind of Geoffrey Wainwright, and the outspoken voice of David Steinmetz, as well as some excellent younger faculty (Amy Laura Hall, Warren Smith, Steve Chapman, and others), and you have a program firing on all cylinders. Three cheers for the Dean, Gregory Jones. He has done wonders in bucking the trends toward the banality and post-Christian distraction that afflict other mainline institutions. It isn’t perfect, but it’s as good as we have now in the United States.

在我排行榜裡領銜的是杜克大學。Richard Hays和Ellen Davis領銜一票精銳聖經學家,奪回神學在聖經詮釋中應有的一席之地。看看Stanley Hauerwas的新穎思維、Reinhard Huetter的嚴謹邏輯、Geoffrey Wainwright的學富五車、David Steinmetz的發聾振聵,外加一群頭角崢嶸的後起之秀(Amy Laura Hall、Warren Smith、Steve Chapman…等等),一同建立起了這個人才濟濟、頭角崢嶸的學術研究院。應該給院長Gregory Jones幾聲喝采!當其他主流神學機構不是愈形迂腐就是陷在「後基督化」的泥沼無法自拔時,他簡直展現了奇蹟。杜克神學院並非十全十美,但至少在美國要算是檯面上最出色的了。

82F6D011-0AA6-4EEF-8336-899B306ABF66 (Notre Dame University)

In the No. 2 spot, I put Notre Dame’s Department of Theology. It’s not firing on all cylinders. The biblical scholars pretty much follow the tired old distinction between “what it meant for them” and “what it means for us.” This guarantees their marginal relevance to the study of theology. Most of the systematic theologians are still living in the 1970s and 1980s. But this is a huge department with some great people. Notre Dame is the best place to study the Church Fathers (Brian Daley, John Cavadini, Robin Darling Young). Gary Anderson and Cyril O’Regan are first-rate Christian intellectuals capable of inspiring a wide range of doctoral students toward genuine vocations in theology rather than careers of expertise. Jean Porter and Jennifer Herdt have creative things to say in moral theology. It’s a strong program, and it is getting better every year.

第二名的席次我給了聖母大學神學系。它的缺點就很明顯。聖經學者食古不化,墨守解經和釋經的二分法。他們的東西跟真正的神學研究難說能沾上什麼邊。這裡的系統神學家大概都還活在70、80年代。但話說回來以這個學系的龐大規模,是少不了大師級人物的。聖母大學是研究早期教父的聖地(Brian Daley、John Cavadini、Robin Darling Young坐陣)。Gary Anderson和Cyril O’Regan是一流的基督教知識份子,能夠給予博士生廣泛的啟發,使其走出象牙塔內的學術、迎向神學真正的呼召。Jean Porter和Jennifer Herdt研究道德神學亦頗有創見。這是個優秀的學院,且每年還在蒸蒸日上。

Duke and Notre Dame are clearly top choices. I’m less sure as I move down the list. Other choices involve compromises and limitations. At No. 3 and No. 4, and in something of a tie between two very different options, I put Princeton and Boston College.

杜克和聖母作為首選是肯定的。再往下我就不太敢打包票了。無論怎麼選都不免有妥協和限制。第三名和第四名不同特色且各擅勝場–嗯,我選了普林斯頓大學和波士頓學院。

puuvoi (Princeton University)

If you are interested in “the problem of faith in the modern world,” then Princeton University’s Department of Religion is a good place to be. Eric Gregory and Jeffrey Stout are occupied with the role of Christian faith and Christian churches in a liberal democratic society, and Leora Batnitzky has interesting things to say about Judaism’s engagement with modernity. Another positive is the fact that the department has a stellar reputation of supporting and forming graduate students. The negatives are two-fold. First, this is not a place with strong resources for study of theology in either its historical or systematic forms. Second, the historians of ancient Christianity, which includes New Testament studies, are pretty antagonistic to the idea that what the Church has taught over the centuries is, in some important and legitimate way, to be found in the Scriptures. Overall, then, Princeton has nothing like the depth of Christian scholarship that you can find at Duke and Notre Dame.

如果你對信仰與當代性的議題感興趣,普林斯頓大學宗教系會是個絕佳的去處。Eric Gregory和Jeffrey Stout致力於基督信仰與教會在當代自由民主社會的議題。Leora Batnitzky對猶太教與現代性互動有獨到的見解。此外一個優點是:這個系所大力栽培與支持研究生是出了名的。缺憾則是雙重的:一是這個學校欠缺足夠資源可讓你揮灑歷史神學和系統神學的研究計畫。二來這裡研究早期基督教(當然包括新約研究)的史學家對於教會傳統的敵意很重,不管就重要性或合理性而論,他們認為教會歷來的教導是錯讀聖經。總之,像杜克和聖母大學那樣深厚的基督教學術,普林斯頓看不到。

bcyel (Boston College)

Boston College has depth. Like so many Catholic schools, required theology courses for the undergraduates guarantees a big faculty. Moreover, Boston College has money, and they support their graduate students well. The problem is that the faculty is solid but not stellar. BC is a good place to study, and certainly a graduate student will learn the Christian theological tradition well. But unlike Duke and Notre Dame (and Princeton in its own, more limited way), I don’t think Boston College is pushing theological questions forward in interesting ways.

波士頓學院有深度。一如大多的天主教學校,他們大學部規定了一些必修神學課,這讓他們必須維持龐大的神學師資。此外,波士頓學院有的是錢,自然少不了對研究生的「照顧」。遺憾就是他們師資陣容雖整齊但並不突出。波士頓學院是個好學校,研究生可以將基督教神學正統一字不漏地習得。但是不像杜克和聖母(以及普林斯頓–附帶但書),波士頓學院的神學走向就欠缺了開創性。

catholic (Catholic University)

pts2 (Princeton Theological Seminary)

TIU_6 (Trinity International University)

I’m going to cheat and put three schools in the No. 5 spot: Catholic University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. These are radically different places. Catholic University has lots of problems, but it’s not a place where the liberal-revisionist Jesuits have hired an anti-magisterial majority. PTS and Trinity Evangelical are primarily places for training ministers, but both offer doctoral programs as well. PTS has living and breathing Protestant dogmatic theologians who know the Reformed tradition thoroughly—and Karl Barth especially. Trinity Evangelical has Kevin Vanhoozer, a creative mind committed to thinking through an ecumenically minded and biblically sophisticated evangelical theology. I’m not sure I would want to be a Presbyterian at Catholic University, or a Catholic at Princeton Seminary, and I think Trinity Evangelical is probably best for someone whose theological vocation is in the evangelical movement. But all three have the advantage of being very engaged in the reality of the Church.

我準備要耍賴了,我把三所學校並列第五:天主教大學普林斯頓神學院三一福音神學院(照起首字母排列)。它們是風格相差十萬八千里的學校。天主教大學自己問題一堆,但至少沒有自由派修正主義耶穌會搞來的一票反威權人士(譯註:第二次梵諦岡會議天主教回應自由派的批判,決定發起內部改革以修正不合時宜的傳統。這股運動卅餘年的今天仍由教廷外部組織及耶穌會旗下的眾多學術機構持續推動)。普神和三一主要是訓練教牧人員,但是都有不俗的博士班。普神一幫活躍的教義神學家,對改革宗傳統(特別是卡爾巴特)鑽研透徹。三一神學院則有Kevin Vanhoozer這個具開創性的思想家,致力於合一導向和在聖經基礎上縱深的福音神學。

但是長老會人應該不會想去天主教大學,天主教徒也大概不會來念普林斯頓神學院(譯註:普神為長老會創辦的神學院)。神學志向在於福音運動的人,三一應該是最適合了。至於三者的共同優點是都具有務實面向,關注教會現實面的需要。

You may have noticed that I’ve left some of the famous schools off the list. In doctoral study, it’s the professors and fellow grad students who make the program, not the general reputation of the university. Take Harvard, for example. If you want to study theology at Harvard, then you need to do a Th.D. at Harvard Divinity School. There are some good minds there who are interested in thinking about the living form of faith in our time (Ron Thiemann, Sarah Coakley, and Jon Levinson), but the overall atmosphere of HDS is aggressively post-Christian. I’m all for challenging intellectual environments, but its just foolish to try to swim upstream all the time.

你大概已經發現我的名單上刻意遺漏了某些名校。以博士研究而言,教授和研究同儕就是一切,大學整體的名望應該放到一邊去。例如,你若想在哈佛念神學,就必須在哈佛神學院讀神學博士。那兒的確有幾位了不起的思想家(Ron Thiemann,Sarah Coakley,以及 Jon Levinson),企圖在我們當代演繹出信仰的鮮活形式;但是哈佛神學院整體呈現的氛圍是一種後基督化的侵略性。當然我絕不是反對充滿智性挑戰的[學術]環境,但沒事刻意逆流而上還滿自討苦吃的。

Harvard_U_Shield Vanderbilt_logo emory

Most of the old-line, mainline divinity schools suffer from this problem. Vanderbilt, Emory, and Yale have seen a decline in serious intellectual life brought on by the intensely ideological agendas of Christian feminism, gay and lesbian liberation, as well as recycled versions of liberal Protestantism. Again, some great folks teach at these places. Lewis Ayers at Emory is one of the most exciting scholars working in patristic theology. I cannot say enough good things about Gene Outka, my mentor, who teaches ethics at Yale, and Miroslav Volf has a fine mind. But, again, the larger currents of these schools are flowing in the direction of post-Christian “theology.”

大多主流傳統神學院校都在面臨同樣的問題。范德堡大學艾墨瑞大學耶魯大學這些學校成天光開庭審理一堆意識型態議題就沒完沒了,包括基督教女性主義、同性戀解放運動,還有一些新教自由神學的冷飯。當然,這些地方還是有不少大咖。艾墨瑞的Lewis Ayers就是研究教父神學最令人驚豔的學者之一。耶魯開授倫理學的Gene Outka是我的屬靈長輩,我再怎樣也道不盡他的好;何況還有Miroslav Volf這位傑出思想家。但無論如何,這些學校的大趨勢是朝向後基督化「神學」靠攏的。

Yale_04_1024 full-color-sm (University of Chicago)

The Divinity School at the University of Chicago has problems as well. It has some famous names on staff, but some recent graduate students have told me that the professors are never around. Choosing the right program is very important. Doctoral study is all about intellectual formation, and that cannot be done by faculty who live hundreds of miles away or who are always out lecturing elsewhere.

芝加哥大學神學院也有問題。教職員名單上是有些響叮噹的大名,但近年他們研究生告訴我那些教授從來不見人影。選對學校是很重要的。博士學習最重要就是智性塑造,但如果你的老師要不一年到頭四處演講、就是處在他那幾百哩開外的老家,這只能是緣木求魚。

The Catholic world has it own set of difficulties. Historically, the Jesuits have dominated graduate study in the United States, and I don’t think I am revealing any secrets when I tell you that the Society of Jesus has committed itself and its institutions to a liberal-revisionist agenda. In the 1970s and 1980s, this may have seemed cutting-edge, but these days it’s pretty tired, and tiresome.

天主教界本身可說是遭遇一系列困境。回顧歷史,耶穌會的確是一度掌握美國高等教育半邊天。但現在無論組織本身還是旗下的學術機構,他們倒向修正主義早已是公開的事實,我不覺得這有啥天機不可洩漏。話說自由修正主義在70和80年代可以稱上前衛創舉,但時至今日實在是沒完沒了、甚至窮極無聊了。

This complacent liberalism has hurt Jesuit graduate programs even at Boston College, and it has badly injured places like Marquette, Fordham, and St. Louis University. Rahnerians, feminists, liberationists—these places carry some serious ballast. In my experience, intellectual life is too easily perverted into postures of protest and a quixotic quest against the long dead Catholic ghetto. Again, some excellent faculty teach at these places: Ralph Del Colle, Michel Barnes, and Susan Wood, for example, are at Marquette. But because it is a Jesuit program, the 1970s is still going strong.

這種自爽的自由主義對耶穌會研究所造成了傷害,還累及波士頓學院。馬奎特大學福特翰大學聖路易大學則是遭到重創。這些地方現在要算是拉赫納[教義]派、女性主義者、解放主義者的重鎮(譯註:拉赫納可謂天主教自由修正主義的神學先驅)。我的經驗是,學術生命是禁不起這樣的扭曲的:一群人挾帶虛幻的理想、犬儒作態地糾著天主教廢墟死纏爛打,殊不知後者早已是過去式。

讓我重申:這些地方不乏傑出的教授。Ralph Del Colle、Michel Barnes、Susan Wood,都在馬奎特。但就因為是個耶穌會學校,70年代思想氛圍還是濃烈瀰漫。

I have painted some negative pictures, and I may not be winning popularity contests anytime soon. I’m not saying that a person cannot obtain a serious theological education at Harvard, Yale, Emory, and Chicago, or, for that matter, Marquette and Fordham. But prospective students should know they will have a harder row to hoe.

如此繪聲繪影地道人是非,看來我一時半載是別想拿人氣王了。我並不是說在哈佛、耶魯、艾墨瑞、芝大等地方無法獲得嚴謹的神學教育,馬奎特和福特翰同理;只是有志就讀的學生最好能預期遭受更艱辛困苦的耕耘過程。

As I thought about this casual assessment of programs and the quick drop-off from the top two programs to a list of less-than-ideal choices, I was struck by the fact that three individuals whom I would very much like to send my best students to study with are largely out of the picture.

當我發現這個非正式評比在前兩名之後產生了急遽的斷層時,腦海就立時湧現了三個名字,三個我很想推薦自己最優秀的學生去跟隨的名師,而且是沒有涵蓋在前面的圖像之中的。

smu

When Bruce Marshall published Trinity and Truth, I wrote a positive review. After teaching and rereading the closely argued book a couple of times, I have come to see that his analysis of theology and truth is as fundamental and revolutionary as Karl Barth’s strange and difficult discussion of Anselm, published in the 1930s. Unfortunately, Marshall teaches at Perkins School of Theology (at Southern Methodist University), a school apparently locked in a liberal Protestant death-spiral. You can’t take all your classes with Marshall, and most of the rest of the program will leave you swimming upstream against a hard current.

Bruce Marshall出版《三一與真理》時,我寫了個書評回應讚賞。在教學使用和反覆閱讀這本論證繁瑣的書之後,我發現這本書真理和神學分析跟卡爾巴特是同樣地基要且帶有革命性,尤其是卡爾巴特上世紀30年代的作品中討論安瑟倫時呈現的那種詭譎深奧。不幸地是,Marshall任教的珀金斯神學院(屬於南衛理公會大學)完全就是困在新教自由派的死亡漩渦裡。你總沒有辦法除了Marshall的課以外誰都不修吧?而整個學院除了Marshall以外的一切都會讓你人感到處在急湍逆流。

Ephraim Radner’s extraordinary book The End of the Church is the most creative, erudite, and important book of historical theology since Henri de Lubac’s Surnaturel. David Hart’s The Beauty of the Infinite is a bold (and to my mind brilliantly successful) theological campaign that carries the fight for truth into the deepest reaches of our sad, failing, postmodern academic culture.

Ephraim Radner的鉅著《教會的盡頭》,可說是Henri de Lubac的《超自然》之後最博學、有創造力,且不同凡響的歷史神學著作了。David Hart的《無窮之美》則是膽識不凡(在我看來是成就輝煌)的神學宣言,為真理而戰、直搗黃龍進入那可悲墮落的後現代學術文化核心。

These two remarkable theological minds are not just in less-than-ideal places for an aspiring, adventuresome graduate student interested in serious theology in the service of the Church, as is the case with Marshall. Radner and Hart are totally inaccessible. Radner is a parish priest in an Episcopal church in Pueblo, Colorado. Hart has a temporary, one-year appointment at Providence College. For all intents and purposes, both have been excluded from academia. It is a sign of the times. The United States, a wealthy country with vibrant churches, has only two graduate programs in theology that get even a relatively strong thumbs up.

這兩位了不起的神學思想家所處的崗位不像Marshall,後者的學校對一個胸懷大志且有心以嚴謹神學事奉教會的研究生來說僅是較不理想,但Radner和Hart是根本遙不可及。Radner是科羅拉多州「普部落」(譯註:為印第安人村莊且地處沙漠)的教區牧師。Hart在攝理大學只有一年的短期教職。總之他們兩位不啻與學術界絕緣。這是時代的記號。美國,一個富裕且教會如此活躍的國家,竟然只有兩所神學研究院能讓人堅定地豎起拇指叫好。

(About the author: Dr. Russell R. Reno [PH.D Yale University] is a professor of Christian Ethics at Creighton University who recently joined the Roman Catholic Church.

相關資料:[英國衛報]英國神學院與宗教研究大學部排名1-36

Nuage de Tags

Suivre

Recevez les nouvelles publications par mail.

Joignez-vous à 60 followers

%d bloggers like this: