林德貝克的贈言:將《教義的本質》的典範移往公共神學 邁向「現實感的理想主義」

 

Re-adaptating of the paradigm Lindbeck offered in The Nature of Doctrine in Postliberal public theology

將 Lindbeck 《教義的本質》中,提供三種宗教權威自我理解的典範。

  • Cognitive-Propositionalism
  • Experiential-Expressivism
  • Cultural-Linguistic model

除了 Lindbeck 自己提倡最後一種之外,過去在將基要福音派、自由派分別對號入座到前兩種範型時,其實都受到不少「過度簡化」的抱怨。

我認為,將上述典範視為一種公共神學據以發想的贈言,建設性地應用在公共神學的 typology上,可簡單達至:

Cognitive-Propositionalism 對應 理想主義(idealism)
Experiential-Expressivism 對應 現實主義(realism)

最後,Cultural-Linguistic model 作為 「理想化的現實主義」(idealized realism ) 或是「現實感的理想主義」(realistically driven idealism)

這樣一如 Cognitive-Propositionalism、Experiential-Expressivism 所碰到的理論和實踐障礙,

  • 神學政治的如果採取單純的理想主義,意味著它放棄了實證邏輯當中所可以得到的細膩辯證和藉由問責與實踐不斷修正的機會。這是保守基要神學在教義上,以及在社會參與過程中體現的巨大問題。
  • 神學政治的現實主義則沒有為「理想的現實妥協」設定停損點。這是自由神學被認為可能一路滑坡成為「不信派」的最主要的邏輯機制。
  • 因而最後,得出理想化的現實主義 or 現實感的理想主義 這兩種新的參與可能。

我們一定會問,怎麼 Cultural-Linguistic model 會得出兩種解答?

其實,Lindbeck 本人的 Cultural-Linguistic model 是提供了能夠發展兩種解答的土壤。但如果要看他本人,或是《教義的本質》對Cultural-Linguistic model 的原初描述,那麼學者多會同意,Lindbeck 更傾向「理想化的現實主義」(idealized realism ),把包含基督教在內的宗教信仰當作社會文明的一種「實存面向」來理解。

然而,既然都說是Lindbeck 的贈言了,已經分頭進擊的後自由神學並不需要以這裡狹隘的 Lindbeck 理解為唯一依歸,尤其是「理想化的現實主義 」這個路線已經由 Reinhold Niebuhr、Langdon Gilkey、Jeffrey Stout 親自演繹過,在一種「已然略微大於未然」的懸置末世觀,和 « Blessed are the Organized » 這樣的原則成為最大共識,變難以再有太多進展時。

因而此時,「現實感的理想主義」一路人從 Dietrich Bonhoeffer 的 « World Come of Age« 、 « Sanctorum Communio« 、 »Life Together« 的血肉神學下,彷彿正開往水深之處的漁場;或像約書亞在以色列人往應許地出發前所說的:「因為這條路,你們向來沒有走過。」

 

Third-Law-of-Theology-Brunner-Barth

[Muvi] Kevin Vanhoozer on biblical inerrancy at 2013 ETS

“Poorly-versed accounts of inerrancy- accounts that fail to understand the nature of language and literature- harm the cause of biblical authority and truth.” As most objections against biblical inerrancy arise from the impoverished state of its contour, “a well-versed Augustinian inerrancy is the way forward for evangelical biblical scholars and theologians,” argues Kevin J. Vanhoozer on the occasion of 2013 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting.

Vanhoozer agrees with J. I. Packer: inerrancy ought always to be held as an article of faith « not capable of demonstrative proof but entailed by dominical and apostolic teaching about the nature of Scripture. » Perhaps, in order to be at peace with as many evangelicals as possible, we could agree that inerrancy, if not essential, is nevertheless expedient.

To be well-versed is to have a literate understanding of the literal sense. Whereas the early Christians had « an addiction to literacy », Vanzooer’s primary concern about inerrancy today is that too many contemporary readers lack the literacy needed for understanding the way the words go, or for rightly handling (2 Tim. 2:15: Orthotomeo) the word of truth. Biblical inerrancy in the context of biblical illiteracy makes for a dangerous proposition.

In asking whether the Chicago statement is well-versed, Vanhoozer has four major concerns:

  1. whether its definition of inerrancy is clear;
  2. whether it gives primacy to a biblical-theological rather than a philosophical understanding of truth;
  3. whether it is sufficiently attentive to the nature and function of language and literature;
  4. whether it produced a theological novelty.

In contrast, Vanhoozer is much more willing to speak about Augustine as the patron saint of well-versed inerrancy, because

  1. his thinking was thoroughly theological and he judged Scripture to be entirely true and trustworthy, and
  2. he was not only familiar with but also proficient in the liberal arts, writing on the nature and interpretation of language, concerned for what he called the literal meaning of Genesis,
  3. but also alert and attentive to biblical figures of speech.

Vanhoozer is adamant that Augustine would agree with the judgment expressed by his definition of inerrancy: the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations), and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers read rightly).

By corollary, a well-versed Augustinian inerrancy pays special care

  1. first to speech-act content but also to form
  2. to the plurality of genres and various types of discourses in the Scripture
  3. more to the Speaker (the Author of the text)  than to « sentence meaning »
  4. and inevitably to the illumination of the Holy Spirit on the part of the reader

However, given the propensity of scribes to smooth-en textual wrinkles, our insistence on textual inerrancy can be called a well-versed one only if we are willing to bear the textual problems preserved in what we [scientifically] deem the most reliable text, by typically preferring of the more difficult readings, rather than by using inerrancy  as a cheap device to oppress the communicative integrity of God’s Word and circumvent hard sayings.

Now I have a question.

On the hermeneutic ethics of the discipline of textual criticism, Vanhoozer seems ambitious but becomes a bit ambivalent. What is implied yet remains unspecified here is an ethical evaluation of the scribal work:

In what way can Vanhoozer say the scribes/copyists are working along God’s communicative business in their interpretation/ »dynamic » preservation of the Scripture they receive? It seems their labors are excluded from our positive hermeneutic considerations because, on the one hand, by flattening textual problems they point to us an « easy hermeneutic road » uncharacteristic of the nature of the Cross of Jesus we are asked to bear.

On the other hand, they give our enemies a stock to hold against us that our Scripture is corrupted and unreliable (while without their works, we would never have had the chance to stand here as the people of the Word, either).

A pneumatology of textual transmission and textual criticism is thus wanted in our dealings with the doctrine of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, in my view.

Questions aside, Vanhoozer’s conclusion is a robust and ethically holistic one: that right-minded interpreters of the Scripture are necessarily its truthful witnesses that are willing to endure textual difficulties (on the intellectual/Sophia  level), as well as truth-seekers capable of responding to, loving, and participating in the calling of the Scripture (on the practical/Phronesis level)- they listen to God’s Word, comprehend it, and do it.

Now available for viewing, the video features Dr. Vanhoozer outlining and explaining his position, presented more fully in Five Views. A transcript of the video is also available for Download.

Appendix: Vanhoozer on Peter Enns in Five Views on Inerrancy:

I endorse Enns’ call to conform our doctrine of Scripture to the Bible that we actually have rather than the one we think God ought to have written. My own essay contrasts an “inerrancy of glory” (aka “perfect book inerrancy,” a cultural construct) with an “inerrancy of the cross.” I draw this distinction in order to urge an inerrancy of the cross that recognizes the wisdom of God in the surprising textual form he has given it rather than the form we may think it ought to have had. Enns simply identifies inerrancy with perfect book theology, however, and then devotes most of his essay to exposing its nakedness. I agree that perfect book inerrancy, “by placing on it expectations it is not designed to bear”, fails to do justice to Scripture. However, in my own chapter, I explore a constructive alternative. I wish Enns had tried to do this too.

Instead, Enns spends most of his chapter reacting to what I judge to be a caricature of inerrancy— what David Dockery, whom I discuss in my own chapter, calls “naive” rather than “critical” inerrancy. Enns would have been better off discussing the original drawing— namely, the definitions offered by John Frame or Paul Feinberg— rather than demeaning the assumptions and interpretive practice of anonymous inerrantists. Who are these faceless villains (“ is it I, Peter”)? Enns nevertheless makes a valid point: the doctrine of inerrancy has been hijacked by various bands of exegetical pirates who insist that the gold of true Bible knowledge is secure only in their own interpretive treasure chests.

Enns thinks the core issue is “how inerrancy functions in contemporary evangelical theological discourse”. Why should the function rather than the nature of inerrancy be the crux of the matter? We don’t throw away other doctrines, like divine sovereignty or the atonement, just because some people misunderstand or misuse them. No, we try to set them right. Curiously, Enns is not interested in definitions. Even his title focuses on function: “Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does.” This is strange. Why should inerrancy— the claim that the Bible is without error— describe what the Bible does? Enns’ essay suffers from two confusions: (1) a failure to distinguish the nature of inerrancy from its use and (2) a failure to distinguish inerrancy’s right use from various abuses.

Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Zondervan, 2013, 83-4 [Kindle Edition]

[文摘] Kevin Vanhoozer’s Interview with Gospel Coalition
Photo by Mu-tien Chiou on the occasion of Wheaton Annual Conference 2010

[文摘] Eerdmans 100 Interview Series: Anthony Thiselton

Cover of "Hermeneutics of Doctrine"
Cover of Hermeneutics of Doctrine

Source Link: Eerdmans 100 Interview Series: Anthony Thiselton

Matthew: Hermeneutics is a complex discipline that cannot be performed with an overly reduced concept of the term. Indeed, it draws on many fields for its practice and coherence. Will you, briefly, outline what hermeneutics is and explain its relationship to other disciplines both scientific and artistic?

Thiselton: Although it entails, first, biblical hermeneutics, it is vital that Biblical Studies is not isolated from Systematic Theology. This occurs all too often, to the impoverishment of both. Hence the second discipline is Theology. Third, Linguistics has to be studied for a serious Hermeneutic. Fourth, because modern Hermeneutics since Schleiermacher is “the art of understanding”, it must involve epistemology, or the theory of knowledge. The fifth essential discipline is sociology of knowledge, since all interpretation is not purely “objective”, but depends on pre-understanding, or what Habermas calls “interest”. Preliminary understandings (English, rather than German!) can be negotiated like “horizons”; they are not fixed like “presuppositions. Nowadays, sixthly, Literary Studies are indispensible, both for an understanding of genre (as in Umberto Eco), but also on “intention” and Reader Response Theory.

We might add, seventh, Reception History or Reception Theory, which has now become a sub-discipline in Biblical Studies, Theology, and Literary Theory. I cannot think of any of these eight which we can easily omit. It is tragic that some relegate Hermeneutics only to a branch of Biblical Studies or oh Church History. I have explored more on the Hermeneutics of Doctrine in my book, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Eerdmans, 2007).

Matthew: Postmodern thought has been preoccupied with the task of hermeneutics and the relationship of readers to texts. Yet, many in Christian circles have had a difficult time recognizing the value it might add to our reading of texts generally or to the Bible specifically. What positive contributions (if any), in your view has postmodernism made to hermeneutics?

Thiselton: I must confess that I suspect all “-isms” as overgeneralizations.  I speak to my students only specifically about Lyotard, Derrida, Rorty, Foucault, and others.  For the most part, I am grieved that many Evangelicals retreat from robust, rational discussion because many postmodernists say that I can say only how it is with me, i.e. testify to what has worked for me. But there are some positive features: (1) an attack on the standardization of knowledge, especially making everything correspond to technology (especially Lyotard); this applies to what is said above about “science”. (2) I share their dislike of generalities; but we need caution about rejecting all “meta-narratives”, of which the Bible may be one. (3) Roland Barthesearly work “Mythologies” is fascinating, and assists Ricoeur’s “Hermeneutic of Suspicion”, although this may be too early to call it “Postmodern”. (4) Jean Baudrillard exposes fantasy and simulacra, together the idolization of utility and media-created, and media-centred “celebrities”. But specifically on Hermeneutics I have some sympathy with Vanhoozer’s exposure of Derrida as too near to atheism, and I would add Lyotard on incommensurability and the plurality of “paganism” as negativeIn the U.S.A., I find it difficult to find merits in Rorty and Fish.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians

[省思] 你還在害怕自己教會的講壇變成聖經與世俗學問、笑話、時事評論的競技場嗎?

Cover of "Hermeneutics of Doctrine"
Cover of Hermeneutics of Doctrine

我聽過很多教導叫傳道人不要講哲學、心理學、社會學、歷史,因為那些「在教會外也聽得到」,「台下的人比你更懂、更能講」、「不要耍花招,乖乖講聖經」。這部分也算是前華神院長林道亮的贈言。

然而這難免引發一種避世的態度,導致很多保守教會神學的學術只好鑽到希臘文希伯來文裡面裝高深,覺得好好搞原文就是嚴謹解經了。聖經原文學習的課程表和師資,紛紛成為嚴謹保守的神學院引進的對象,成為道學碩士學習的重頭戲。

但是仔細想想,使用(一般)語言學所建立的古希臘文、希伯來文系統,在本體論的什麼地方上比「哲學、心理學、社會學、歷史」更聖潔、更忠於福音、更貼近上帝心意了呢?

當十八世紀以降聖經鑑別文獻學研究清楚說明了所謂原文說穿了也只是在「世俗」(一般)語言學的基礎上所建構起來的浮動人為系統時,它比起其他的人文科學,在講台上能樹立所謂神話語權威的客觀優勢,會不會只是因為「台下的平信徒中你大概不會碰到比你更懂的人」?

我相信這不是林道亮前院長的本意。可是因為「台下有人比你更懂、更能講」所以就不能在解經講壇使用人文科學和自然科學的邏輯,卻無法為我們為何鑽入原文提供一個更高尚和有說服力的理由。

講到花招,Charles Finney 這個近代福音派和敬虔派的祖師爺之一,就是發明了一堆「花招」的講台魔術師:講台呼召(alter call)、音樂炒氣氛、當代復興運動的諸多佈道與敬拜方式都要歸功給他的創見。

這些「花招」,我們現在的佈道會,還有一些牧者平時主日講台還都在用。真要這樣定義且一視同仁地追究下去,現在教會哪有什麼東西是自己能夠獨佔的傳統,而不是在教會外面也找到的?

這個意識型態化的哲學問題,勢必會將我們帶回到三、四個世紀前清教徒和聖公會的敬拜之爭(Adiaphora vs. Latitudinarianism Controversy)。一直以來,前者(清教徒)持的是Regulative principle of worship,也就是聖經沒明制訂的東西,教會崇拜裡都不能出現(最好是吉他跟鋼琴也都別用了),而後者持normative principle of worship,意思是聖經裡沒禁止的東西,都可以考慮在教會崇拜中採納,這些次要的敬拜元件,個別地方教區有自己的決議空間。

但是在近代許多人看來,這個把聖經當「百科全書」和「律法書」來貼聖俗標籤的做法是過時的。更正確地說,道成肉身的耶穌基督,既聖也俗。被人類作者用人類文字系統和人類文明記載方式留下來的「聖經」,既聖也俗。如果按照John Milbank的看法,根本就沒有什麼「講道中不能講哲學、心理學、社會學、歷史這些『人學』」,也不會說「John R. Stott 味如嚼蠟、完全排斥後現代解構理論、不偏不倚的宣講才是百分百按照正義分解上帝的道這種說法」。他甚至更大膽地說,只有在教會中才能做出真正的政治學、社會學、經濟學等等。重點是靠神的智慧與聖靈,叫一些的知識—考古學、生物學、數學—都能被用來闡明聖經,引人歸向聖經中所指示的那位耶穌基督。

「一切的真理都是神的真理。」如果不是這樣的話,使徒約翰在那邊大談希臘人的邏格司、耶穌還敢在那班門弄斧跟一堆農民講撒種、無花果樹、尋羊理論等農經畜產學,我看來到今天林道亮前院長的的華神通通畢不了業。(參見上個月First Things 的一篇文章「St. Paul Would Have Failed My Hermeneutics Course 」。)

確實,今日的傳道人在聖經上所下的功夫必不可少。我們從前的華人教會界資源不足、篳路藍縷。前段所提的林道亮前院長也是忠心主僕,告誡我們不可在無法清楚透析上帝旨意之下貪圖人間學問的捷徑,在講壇上引證失敗又類比錯誤,導致上帝的話語受虧損、福音的信息被稀釋、甚至扭曲。甚至,對普世基督教有相當關懷的今日基督教雜誌(Christianity Today)資深主任編輯Mark Galli,也在近日一篇文章中提及:當前天主教講壇的「缺少福音靈魂的泛道德化信息」是他所難以接受的(“moralistic, lift-yourself-up-by-your-willpower motivational speech, combined with a fair bit of guilt”)。

然而,我輩中人現在應該思想,被神交付了三千兩、五千兩的華人教會還應當用避世藏財/才的方式當上帝話語的「好管家」嗎?一個律師退休的牧者,他的法律知識和從業經驗難道不能成為他在台上得著靈魂的工具,而非要希臘文才能ποιεῖ/θέλει πάντας ἀνθρώπους σωθῆναι καὶ ἐλθεῖν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας 嗎?

我們的講壇難道還迴避當代遺傳學、基因工程學、臨床心理學對人的自然狀態(State of Nature)所展開的普遍啟示嗎?

近年許多神學詮釋學的作品紛紛在西方學界面世,如John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (1990), Anthony Thiselton, The Two Horizons (1980), Hermeneutics of Doctrine (2007), Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text (1998), The Drama of Doctrine (2005) 等等,坊間也陸續翻譯引進。還有更多已經貫徹神學性詮釋的建構神學著作,進入國關、經濟、農業、醫學、社關、心理學等領域。我們還在因為自己舞不動哲學這把關刀,就說思想工具本身是無用、甚至邪惡、敵擋神的「世俗小學」(worldly principle)嗎?

我相信如果使徒行傳十三章的彼得能夠透過神讓一切俗物成為潔淨的異象,明白這個普世的神、超越的神所要教導他的功課,21世紀的我們沒有道理還活得像個「隨夥裝假」(加二:13)的一世紀猶太基督徒。

我們的講道學勢必要更注意不是假借「實踐神學」的保護大傘傳授溝通傳播理論或修辭學的話術,因為要小心,這些進到神學院的東西也很「俗」,也非常像是「講台花招」,所以要告訴學子們「為什麼這樣做符合聖經?」及「為什麼使用這些方式傳講能榮耀神?」

我個人非常熱愛聖經原文,但是教授聖經原文的老師應該讓學生明白,不是這些句法理論或詞法學重建古文字義的「假說」有什麼神力,而是因為在我們的歷史中,有一位超越宇宙萬物的神願意在這最平凡的文字、最平凡的事物、最平凡的歷史上,做那神蹟奇事和顯現祂那不平凡的心意。

我們的釋經學更勢必要變得堅固嚴謹,不囿於亞歷山大學派(The Alexandrian approach to exegesis)或安提阿學派(Antiochene methods of interpretation)的極端。慢慢我們就會發現「字面與寓意」、「一般與特殊」、「字義和句法」、「信仰的基督—歷史的耶穌」這幾組概念之間,更多時候不是二元辯證的對立關係,而是存在著詮釋螺旋(hermeneutical spiral)這樣交叉解釋的向心性關係,甚至是不可分割的附隨關係(supervenience)。

我們的系統神學必須成為一種建構神學,幫助我們建設性地看待一切知識、以基督中心的方式批判及超越一切文化。我們的講台,要講聖經,因為聖經裡有大福音

Colossians 1:28  ὃν ἡμεῖς καταγγέλλομεν νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἵνα παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ· (我們傳揚祂, 是用諸般的智慧, 勸戒各人, 教導各人, 要把各人在基督裡完完全全的引到神面前 [CUV]/為了要使各人在基督裡得到完全 [CNV]。)