[書摘] The Time that Remains: Hans-Georg Geyer in the Intellectual Debate about a Central Question in the Twentieth Century

The Resurrection from Grünewald's Isenheim Alt...


Gerrit Neven, ‘The Time that Remains: Hans-Georg Geyer in the Intellectual Debate about a Central Question in the Twentieth Century’ in Theology as Conversation: The Significance Of Dialogue In Historical And Contemporary Theology: A Festschrift For Daniel L. Migliore, Bruce McCormack and Kimlym J. Bender eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 67-81

My Summary:

Whereas initially Nietzsche and Marx only proclaim the death of God, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze proclaim with equal force the death of a man (cf. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things, 1994, esp. the last chapter, and Gilles Deleuze, The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, 1993).

Following Barth, Geyer gives the Parousia the determinative role concerning various theological aspects of reconciliation. The Messiah’s having drawn near is the precondition of a future-oriented and therefore a dialogical mode of thinking. The Parousia points to a nearness of salvation that does not supernaturally demolish time and history, but rather breaks open time and history from within [messianically] by turning to the risky expectation of the Messiah, for whom each moment in time is an open entrance.

This expectation leads to intensive forms of discussion and debate with not just  theologians but also with [critical and phenomenological] thinkers like Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger , Horkheimer, Bloch, Sartre, and so on. The focus is the humanity of Christ.

(Hans-Georg Geyer [1929-1999]  studied in Frankfurt during 1950-1954 with Hans-Georg Gadamer, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, and Wolfgang Kramer before he turned to the study of systematic theology (at Gottingen, Berlin, Wuppertal, and Bonn.)

As early as 1962, Geyer declared his agreement with Walter Benjamin’s Theological-Political Fragment. According to Benjamin, only the Messiah himself will consummate all that is happening historically, in the sense that only he himself will redeem and consummate the creation in its relation to the messianic.[1] Therefore, nothing historical can relate itself to something messianic on its own account. With this, he distanced himself from the idea that historical convictions, scientific achievements, or political opinions have in themselves the potential to make “the jump-ahead” to a time which is qualitatively new and different. Our knowledge is determined by economic and political factors. The desire to know is driven by a force consisting only of what can be [pragmatically or in a utilitarian manner] calculated. This [social/structural] force and the history of freedom contradict each other (analogous to the tension between poststructuralism and structuralism/rationalism).

Geyer here introduces the topic of faith in the post-liberal sense. He says, “faith, getting involved with and trusting upon the message concerning Christ, is at the same time radically renouncing the desire to discover the truth of the proclamation and past history”.

This criticism of metaphysics (of absolute certainly) is also part of the thinking projects of Moltmann and Pannenberg, for whom the future became the paradigm of transcendence. But both of them have felt that they have to leave Barth behind for they deem Barth’s system closed and ahistorical. Geyer does not share this view.

Geyer inherits early Barth’s dialectical theology. He is convinced that our time is an implication of the Parousia of Jesus Christ. His intensive debate with Moltmann and Pannenberg  is concerning the epistemology of hope. That is to say, if God’s new coming in the Parousia is an implication of the concrete identity of Jesus Christ, then how do we find his identity? He doubts whether for Moltmann and Pannenberg “the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ” are constitutive–and as opposed to merely illustrative— of the exegesis of biblical texts and of the practices of the Christian community. For according to Geyer, Moltmann and Pannenberg’s definition of history and Parousia did not clearly distinguish “the future as an end that we should strive for” (the anthropocentric) from “the future as the goal of God’s exclusive act” (the theocentric). His ultimate criticism is that the theology of Moltmann and Pannenberg is enclosed by a metaphysical correlation between God and the world. Transcendence is devoured by immanence.

To solve this problem, Geyer here uses Husserl’s concepts of protention (the succession of the historical accordance and its end) and retention. The protention in Jesus denotes the continuity between the character of Jesus’ conduct and his fate—death. According to Geyer, this historical fate can undergo an intensification or an ontological deepeningonly by the event of the meta-historical resurrection in Easter” [out of theological necessity].

By retention, it means when we look back, the attempts to ignore this fact or to place this death within an unduly higher framework can only lead to an idealization of his death or a degradation of it to an empirical fact (which is an unduly anthropologized theology full of liberal residues). Namely, the declaration that this historical death implies a [whether phenomenological, hermeneutic, or ontological] jump-ahead should be fiducially rooted only in the meta-historical domain, in [the post-Easter] remembrance, which runs backwards. This solution does not have to leave behind the aporia of this [historical] death. For at any rate, doctrinal or impersonal statements are not possible in the face of this death. Anamnesis and commemoration of this death can only give us non-metaphysical and personal truth. The redemptive history is inherently incomplete if all we have is this death of Jesus.

On the other hand, knowledge concerning the identity of this Jesus can only be acquired by participation in the process of the actuality of this meaning question in the medium of human language. That is why the question concerning the meaning of the cross is characterized by an infinite openness— as opposed to the enclosure of totalitarian metaphysics. For Geyer, the hope is the qualitative feature of faith, which is a prerequisite for new non-metaphysical mode of thinking.

In accorance with the nature of hope, Parousia concerns the future of which no one has sure knowledge of the time and the hour— it is beyond human calculation: Although we are vitalized by images of the future (e.g., Luke 21:7-33), these do not lead us into the future itself.

rhızomıng ındεxatıon dıs-choıcεs . .

There is a remarkable parallelism in the thinking of Geyer and Badiou about metaphysics. Badiou establishes that « the death of God » and « the death of man » go hand-in-hand in the ethos of 20th century philosophy and theology. He calls them “the joint disappearances of Man and God”.

On one hand there is in the 20th century philosophy the movement that radicalizes Kant’s approach by enslaving man in his own emancipation (i.e., German idealism: our [finite] subjectivity creates our world). This line runs from Kant via Fichte and Sartre (man is condemned to freedom; man is programmed to be a man and cannot be freed from this program). On the other hand, there is the way of the radical anti-humanism of Nietzsche and Foucault: the absence of God is one of the names for the absence of man.

As Foucault (he criticizes Levinas and Derrida’s anthropology as religion or theology), Badiou does not think this either or situation leaves room for postmodern thinkers like Levinas or Derrida. For Levinas’ appeal to God’s radical otherness in order to safeguard the otherness of the human other falls short to attest to a radical alterity. (This means that in order to be intelligible, ethics requires that the other should be in some sense carried by a principle of alterity which transcends mere finite experience. cf. Badiou, Ethics [2001], 22). As for Derrida’s deferral of presence (différance), a sort of religion of messianic delay, Badiou sees something too artificial in its ramification upon the relation between philosophy and religion (cf. P. Hallward, Badiou: A Subject to Truth [2003], 157). Postmodernity has become boring.

Badiou searches for what is empty and open in a time when the [human and divine] subject has disappeared. There is no other possibility than to accept this aporia, this emptiness, and to retain a prospect to point beyond death. For Geyer, this means the resurrection and the coming of the Messiah— within the perspective of time. Biblically speaking this is the time that remains, a time of intense expectation (cf. Isa 21:11). [2]

Giorgio Agamben, Benjamin’s disciple, in The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans declares “what remains is what separates us from the Messiah”. More than the Messiah’s coming close is the Messiah himself.

Giorgio Agamben descubre el limbo

[1] The polemical context which Geyer (and possibly Benjamin) set out to argue against includes the following features (i.e., wrong assumptions):

1)       non-realism,

2)       post-structuralism,

3)       the totalitarian features of modernity in the 1960s (for which Geyer thinks Horkheimer’s treatment in the 1930s is exemplary. He lost faith but has not abandoned the project of human transformation of the society into a utopia).

4)       reciprocal freedom: the promises that somebody gives to someone else are ruled by a relationship of absolutely free reciprocity and by a reciprocal freedom.

[2] Here one may become somewhat apologetical over against Badiou. Badiou teaches with Nietzsche that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is dead. According to Nietzsche, faith in God as a supernatural power in general will no longer have any real influence, since God is not ascribed any power anyway. There is no such metaphysical God. However, it is precisely this faith that would be necessary to determine the convictions and the actions of man. This may be the case, Geyer answers Nietzsche. But even if God has lost his power over man and that super-sensual heaven has no meaning for the sensual earth, it does not necessarily follow the death of Christian theology.

Through Barth, Geyer has found a way forward: Christian theology has the task to lead faith out of its dogmatic identification with the concept of religion that is still metaphysically determined. Geyer rejects Nietzsche’s analysis that lumps together the God of metaphysics and the God of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unlike the metaphysical God, the God of the Bible can die.

On the basis of this God’s death, people in faith received the power to be really earthly finite and to be able to die. In the Christian faith, God’s identity can only be thought of appropriately when we take as point of departure the view that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is God’s act on behalf of all.

The occurrence of cross in history demands remembrance and mimesis: the imitation of God in the praxis of love for one’s neighbor. God is a name that has to be continued in a passionate plea to practice love, as opposed to a concept that asks for ideological representation. Remembrance implies mimesis, through which we anticipate the coming of God in the Parousia.


回應:「身為基督徒對真愛聯盟的疑惑」-現象學、參與、與類比 vs. kuopohung 2

Image via Wikipedia

kuopohung @ PTT says:


[關於](神學)形上學擔保的外來倫理? 是奧古斯丁和聖多馬斯嗎?能否仔細一點的談?

為什麼要把宗教的那套哲學當成是整個哲學? ( 或許這整段我是沒仔細看)


2. 康德(Immanuel Kant) 倫理學和實踐理性推論,是和他的整個認識論框架、三大批判結合在一起的。這三本的概念連在一起的我知道。

我舉個例子好了: 康德說不可以殺人,但是實然還有殺人,甚至死刑的存在
那你要怎麼把應然推論到實然? 很難,聽學長說還是有書,七種論證還是什麼的?
PS: 分析的倫理學我不熟,比較熟的是應用倫理還有一般倫理學

康德在知識論把神和知識一刀切開,但是第二批判又引入神的概念。沒記錯的話康德在第二批判拿上帝來擔保行為的後果:<<實踐理性批判>>鄧曉芒 譯,楊祖桃 校定,聯經出版社出版
p148 ,上帝存有,作為純粹理性的一種假設…
ps: 普遍性法則,目的王國,無上律令(Categorical Imperative),其實就可以了
但我在<<道德底形上學之基礎>> 沒看到有關上帝和神的東西

3. 那你要如何反對同性戀的課程教綱?

按照高達美(Hans-Georg Gadamer)的說法,人們不可能逃離歷史效果意識的影響

PS: 意識形態一堆定義沒錯拉

4. 整篇對象是對於偏激的基督徒?

我根本不認為需要有政治神學(political Theology)這種東西。對於宗教而言,最好的態度是敬政治而遠之

5. 不知道您說的現象學導論是哪一個版本的?


從維根斯坦(Ludwig Wittgenstein)之後,大多數的歐陸哲學學派都興起XX語言轉向
PS: 講不出必要性那論文應該也不用發了。


謎之音: 我再做關於這部分的報告的時候,有問過林維杰老師

│ 文章代碼(AID): #1Dimcskr (W-Philosophy) [ptt.cc] Re: [問題] 哲學的正統   │
│ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/W-Philosophy/M.1303579062.A.BB5.html    
│ 這一篇文章值 292 Ptt幣                                                   │

« 主要是希望從歐陸哲學的角度和分析哲學對話 »
« 現象學轉詮釋學和神學的這一塊 »

若是我沒理解錯誤的話這兩個加起來根本不能做的吧。前輩應該也知道分析哲學否定宗教,而現象學,胡塞爾(Edmund Husserl)把笛卡兒(René Descartes)的上帝拿掉,認為笛卡兒是不夠徹底的懷疑,就算是胡塞爾不否認宗教,他也是把神的意向性當作經驗對象而懸割掉,轉成知識論討論。
我是不清楚呂格爾(Paul Ricoeur)( 那本有買) 怎麼轉換,沒記錯的話海德格(Martin Heidegger)論證的徑路也不是透過上帝,而是透過真理的開顯論,整個也是沒上帝這塊。宗教現象學和胡塞爾的關係並不大。現象學轉詮釋學從海德格著手就可以了。

現象學轉詮釋學和神學,從語言著手?(1)詮釋學主要的對象不是: 作者論-文本論-讀者論 嗎?
(2)就算現象學的懸割可以探討其中的語言,那為什麼非要用到詮釋學不可?和分析哲學(analytical philosophy)扯上關係的必要性又在哪裡?

神學不清楚,但我看過的文獻是David West 寫的歐陸哲學,在高達美那篇,物自身不可知影響高達美,無法完全看到真相,但是現象學則認為還原能看到事情真相。



(2) »現象學藉由語言轉變詮釋學和神學 »,本身也不是這樣轉變
PS: 主要是主觀和客觀或者是海德格認為胡塞爾只是存有者而不是存有的這幾個部分吧

(4)要討論這三者的語言差異,或許只能從 »語言學轉向 »著手,但是現象學就會漏掉…


現象學的還原要的是 »意識對象 »的事實

6. 我以為 »罪 »是一種世俗的犯法的才是,基督宗教的這套我是不了解。



1. *形上學擔保的外來倫理? 能否仔細一點的談?

the Wrath of God)?如何從終末論(eschatology)的角度理解人的靈魂本質。所謂的
審判是將邪惡者的靈魂消滅(annihilationism)還是地獄永火(eternal conscious
torment aka “ETC”)、還是普救(universalism)、還是隔絕論(separationism)?


耶魯大學的Mirosalv Volf 在Exlcusion and Embrace (1996) (中譯:擁抱神學
台北:校園) p.148-150分析兩種約:「契約」和「盟約」,值得一讀。
一般倫理框架下講的是契約,如Rousseau 的社會契約。
基督教神學倫理講的是盟約:基督教的盟約神學(covenant theology; cf. Michael
Horton (2006). God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology)。



2. 康德這邊,第一次讀這段,我想回的是:您的問題,在「約」的脈絡下就可以解決。但第二次再看,我認為自己並不明白您這段的問題是什麼。

重點是,這麼做,他的神學已經不神學了。他的神也不神,只是一個空泛能指。他的Categorical imperative: « Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. »

3. 那你要如何反對同性戀的課程教綱?




4. 「整篇對象是對於偏激的基督徒?做法上採用溫和的方式,目的卻沒改變,這還是不尊重同性戀…」「對於宗教而言,最好的態度是敬政治而遠之,就算遭到迫害,應以以自身的修為去面對,這樣反而能增加影響力和信徒」?



好,現在的情況是,John Hick說宗教經驗非常主觀、不具有普遍性,但是日常經驗其實也是主觀的。David Hume大家都很熟了:懷疑論,每一組經驗和現象之間都只存在著偶然的對應關係。所以對我來說,從三樓跳到一樓是頭破血流、不死也殘,但說不定小鳴從小是練少林輕功的,從三樓跳下只是一種特技表演或抒壓方式?

再繼續追溯John Hick從Wittgenstein 的鴨兔圖(見上圖)而啟發的經驗相對論(experiencing-as)
,他整理出一個基本的分別(參:An Interpretation of Religion, (2005 Revised),
Part III “Epistemology”, pp.129-170):日常經驗具有立即的可證偽性(Karl Popper’s falsifiability),但是宗教經驗的證偽卻是多方、且長時間的。但就因為區間長和需要倚賴多方證據,並不能說明宗教經驗或論述就不具備知識的合法地位。

***附帶一提,John Hick的宗教論述當年抵禦Karl Popper和Bertrand Russell 以及維也納學派(Vienna School)對宗教知識論地位的攻擊,在1960年代贏得重要一役,免除神學和宗教研究被全面趕出高等教育系統的危機。


您若對這個議題就興趣,同時關注其所引發的「多元宗教」以及「宗教非實在論」(non-realism)的挑戰,請閱讀An Interpretation of Religion Part IV和以下(最好全書讀完)。我也寫過小論文和報告闡述並反駁。有些可以公開,有些則還不能公開。



1)      他要跳就跳,還說跳樓爽、跳樓沒事,還要帶更多人跳!
2)      我真心相信他跳了會死,他父母也會傷心,儘管他不認為。但本著人的良知




所以您可以看到,並沒有真正意義上敬政治而遠之的可能性。就只有宗教完全順服、緘默、或當既得利益者惦惦吃三碗公、或被政治吃死(小眾群體主義:sectarianism)。或是宗教積極入世攝政打著建立太平天國的口號(參Christian Reconstructionism的維基相關詞條),還有一種是Martin Luther所提出,我個人認為是相當精神分裂的兩國論(two-kingdom theology,參維基相關詞條),最後就是我所提出的,依據後自由神學(postliberal theology)版本的先知—見證者模型。


~Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945


基督徒若是能逃到天堂,或許早就逃了。但一來逃不掉,二來耶穌竟說:「因為他們不屬世界、正如我不屬世界一樣。我不求你叫他們離開世界、只求你保守他們脫離那惡者。…你怎樣差我到世上、我也照樣差他們到世上。」(約翰福音十七:14, 15, 18)






5. 現象學轉詮釋學和神學,從語言著手?嚴格來說並沒有歐陸哲學這種東西。怎麼看你這部分的研究架構太龐大(兩個系統太大),不太可能做的出來:



那篇現象學分析宗教意識的期刊投稿,我只有針對哈佛宗教學家Wilfred Cantwell Smith最關鍵的”reification”這個觀念作文章。您說的「分析哲學否定宗教」這句,完全是誤解。就我個人有熟人並且造訪的聖路易大學哲學系、聖母大學哲學系來說,就都是用分析哲學在處理宗教陳述,當中有非常認真的基督教哲學家。

分析哲學的重點在於分析語義,和一組陳述的epistemic justifiability or condition or warrant,已經早就不是維也納學派的實證論了。

推薦您入手Alvin Plantinga 這一位美國分析哲學界極負盛名的基督教哲學家:Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, Warrant: the Current Debate, Warranted Christian Belief等這三本我都在課堂中讀過。

Nicholas Wolterstorff, John Hick 也都是使用分析哲學切入神學和宗教議題的佼佼者。



一、海德格(Martin Heidegger)、德希達(Jacques Derrida)和馬利翁(Jean-Luc Marion)可以說是「現象學的神學轉向」的代表性思想家, 海德格1967年出版過以《現象學與神學》為題的著作,文中他提到神學仍是信仰的科學:「神學本身原初地由信仰來論證」。








現象學,從胡賽爾開創至今已有一個世紀了,然而,後繼研究者卻並非以「胡賽爾現象學」為尊亦步亦趨地跟隨著,許多具有原創性的現象學家並不認為必須受胡賽爾的方法所約束,舍勒(Max Scheler)和海德格都在某種程度表現出了他們的「背叛」,成了胡賽爾哲學上的競爭者,甚至有人說現象學是一連串表現為背叛胡賽爾的故事,也不足為奇。的確,胡賽爾之後,一連串「現象學家」的名字,從德國到法國,包括海德格、列維納斯(Emmanuel Levinas)、梅洛龐蒂(Merleau-Ponty)、亨利(Michel Henry)、呂格爾(Paul Ricouer)、德希達(Jacques Derrida)、馬西翁(Jean-Luc Marion)等,都表現出了現象學的「異端史」。不論如何,沒有人會懷疑,這些人與現象學的關係,他們都在某個面向上對現象學做出貢獻,儘管學界仍為此爭吵不休。

多年前在法國學界有過一場規模不小、涉入人物極廣的現象學與「神學轉向」之爭論(Phenomenology and the “Theological Turn”: The French Debate),看來法國現象學界要比德國更直面「神學」,從列維納斯、利科、德里達到馬西翁的貢獻可以證實這個現象,充份地應證了列維納斯所說的一句話:「歐洲就是指聖經與希臘」,可見「神學」一直都沒有離開過歐洲思想家的視界,只是它以不同的面目出現,若即若離。


列維納斯把「作為他者的他者」理解為上帝,而且這樣的上帝是具有面容的,只是這張面容不是我們佔有的對象,而是一張喚起我們的責任的面容。關鍵就在於,列維納斯避開了存有論而轉向倫理學,所以「傾聽」在此不是停在海德格式的存有論層次中獨白的良知式召喚,因為真正的「傾聽」不喚起什麼,而是必須伴隨以應答和責任(response and responsibility),以避免傾聽之後依然是冷眼旁觀,傾聽開啟的是責任,構成對同一張面容的倫理關係,因而主張「倫理學是第一哲學(prote philosophia)」。


為什麼是謙卑的呢?因為神學家必須恆常地暴露己身於上帝之前,活在上帝所施行的審判之危機中,人不僅是尋求理解地信(credo ut intelligam),而且還必須盡最大的信(optimum partem bona fide),委身於上帝之言。為此神學必然為一種批判的科學。






專注在Le tournant théologique de la phénoménologie‎ 中Dominique Janicaud, Jean-Luc Marion, Paul Ricoeur, Emmanuel Levinas在外加Gadamer, John D. Caputo的現象學神學區塊。Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty反倒會處在比較背景的位置。





基督教神學的「愛」與世俗道德的「愛」有可類比性,但不等同(參 C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, 1971),基督教神學的「罪」與世俗道德的「罪」有可類比性,但也不等同(Augustine)。基督教稱神為「父」 ,自然也和一般的「父親」可類比而不等同。

發展這個類比的,以天主教見長。過去有Anselm和 Aquinas,當代我推Hans Urs von Balthasar,尤其是他的analogia entis 這個系統和評注Karl Barth時的那著名的「1931類比轉向」。

[文摘] Kevin Vanhoozer’s Interview with Gospel Coalition

2010-04-17 10-15-16 IMGP8273
(Photo by Mu-tien Chiou on the occasion of Wheaton Annual Conference 2010)
Source:  http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/05/11/interview-with-kevin-vanhoozer/
原文作者(author): Justin Taylor
訪談時間點為 2009.5,時當 Dr. Vanhoozer 離開芝加哥三一福音神學院,並接下同處芝加哥的惠頓大學資深教授教席。

談到惠頓大學的博士班,Vanhoozer表示, 惠頓大學神學博士班的特在在於結合並折衷英美之長。有英國的獨立研究、科際整合的研究題目取向,又有美的研究資源和廣博課程可供選擇:

« The integrative nature of the program and the mid-Atlantic blend (fewer courses, more intensive personal direction) is a good recipe for making theological chamber music. I’m also delighted to be returning to a context in which theology is able to converse with the liberal arts (and sciences). »

此一動向,自然也反映了 Vanhoozer幾個主要的學術關懷,其一是聖經詮釋:「有無讓聖經自己說話、而不需依靠任何外在理論框架的可能?」

« One of my main concerns about evangelicals in the academy today pertains to the interpretation of the Bible. It is tempting to read the Bible like all the other respectable scholars–historians, literary critics, scientists–so that we will be accepted as intellectually respectable, but at what cost? Is there an alternative to imposing [any] theoretical frameworks onto the Bible? »

  • 06
  • Comment: I don’t think so. But the only legitimate imposition will be reading it within our ecclesial redemptive framework by the virtue ethics that the HS is demanding. 我相信從現象學、後結構、後殖民、後現代,走到後自由,康德式「先天直觀」或「超驗統覺」能被恢復的機會愈發渺茫。倒是天主教法國現象學有機會重燃阿奎那、並讓迪卡兒枯骨復生,「新基礎主義」的自然神學/基督教形上學的「Neo-」說不定很快就要和那一票「Post-」打對台了。但不論如何,「聖經」一定不會是「認識論金字塔」的底層,而是頂層。這就意味著它的崇高、權威地位仍需要有穩固的下部理論基礎支撐(歷史研究、語言學研究、教會論、基督論、倫理學、人類學、宇宙科學…等)。無論後自由還是新基礎,都是在為這個金字塔工程服務,但其目的不是建造「聖言巴別塔」(bibliolatrous Babel ),而是讓聖書成為連結神格三位一體(父子靈)或哲學三維(存有論、認識論、倫理學)的頂錐–亦即一個三維立體(3 dimensional)並動態的神學。

Pyramids on the beach

Vanhoozer的學術關懷其二,便是神學認識論的實踐面向,亦即與知識建構和傳承相關的教育學和知識繫譜學(epistemic geneology [中])。自啟蒙運動起,這表現在了「自然科學」、「實用科學」、「哲學」、「人文科學」、「社會科學」紛紛從「神學」中獨立出來的現象。更進一步的則是十九世紀高等批判、低等批判等歷史和語文研究進路所造成的神學院內部知識鴻溝和裂解,「系統神學「和「聖經研究」之間斷裂已經超過一世紀–更不用說「新約和舊約」、「理論神學和實踐神學」之間的疏離了–,但如何修補?

« A related issue concerns the conversation between exegetes and systematic theologians about biblical interpretation. We have a long way to go fully to heal the Enlightenment split between biblical studies and dogmatics. No one–neither church nor society nor academy– really benefits from this balkanization of theological studies. »

  • Comment: This is a legit diagnosis. clip_image001[1] But Duke is healing this split by doing postliberal holistic ecumenical theology. Wheaton is not the only one, nor has it to start the enterprise from Ground Zero.

訪談的第三部分牽涉到宗派傳統:如果沒有一個傳統能代表真理的一方,是否意味著傳統也需要繼續演進及學習?傳統好比施工中的房子,在大雨滂沱雖會漏水,但若基本能遮風避雨,也總好過身無片縷地濕身在外。 他話是如下面這麼說的:

 » It’s encouraging that evangelicals have not abandoned the church, though too often our churches are islands unto themselves, cut off from confessional continents and susceptible to being carried along by the prevailing cultural currents.I’m concerned that the attitude that “no one can really know the truth” has seeped into the evangelical mind. From the (correct, in my opinion) premise that no tradition gives us exclusive access to absolute truth, some infer (incorrectly, in my opinion) that it really doesn’t matter which, if any, tradition we inhabit. For my own part, I’d rather reside in a house with a leaky roof or basement than rough it on the street. . . . »



« It’s encouraging that evangelicals have not abandoned the academy, though a Christian presence is more palpable in some disciplines (e.g., philosophy) rather than others (e.g., English lit.).

The most important thing is to be aware that culture is always, already there–something in which we live and move and have our historical being–and that it is always actively cultivating, always forming habits of the heart and habits of perception.


The image of the church as maritime vessel (ship) in the sea (the world) is a good one: Throughout Scriptures, water is often a symbol for powers that can engulf us. You need to know the ship and know the sea. But the church should not be wholly anti-world either, for the sea, as part of the created order, is in another sense what sustains us. Ultimately it is the wind–the breath of the word-ministering Spirit–that allows the churchto be counter-cultural and to set her course against the prevailing intellectual currents. »


« I have two books coming out next year. The first, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, will be published by Cambridge University Press in their Studies in Christian Doctrine series. It is a sustained reflection on the claim that God speaks to us and that we speak to God. I develop a communicative or dialogical theism that develops its understanding of the God-world relationship largely out of the biblical depictions of human-divine conversation. I then bring this communicative focus to bear on the twin vexed issues of divine action and divine suffering through a critical engagement with the “new orthodoxy,” namely, versions of open theism and panentheism that insist on seeing God’s suffering as entailed by God’s love. The result is what I am calling a post-Barthian Thomism. It’s a “retooling” of classical theism that makes interpersonal dialogue rather than impersonal causality the keystone of the God-world relation. It also revisits several long-standing controversies such as the relations of God’s sovereignty to human freedom, time to eternity, and suffering to love. »

  • Comment: 所謂的後巴特湯瑪斯主義應該是繼續走在批判實在論的路線上,「後」巴特意味避開了「唯信主義」這一塊的偏狹,同時保留了後自由神學對上帝在救恩歷史中的啟示特殊性。湯瑪斯主義則是溫和唯實論(moderate/critical realism),只要能小心使用,並且輔助現象學,應該很快就能和後自由神學以及天主教的新基礎主義會合了。我一直感覺當前Vanhoozer的認識論應該是走在林貝克(George Lindbeck)和馬希翁(Jean-Luc Marion)之間、詮釋學吸收了呂格爾(Paul Ricoeur)和提瑟頓(Anthony Thiselton)卻因為改革宗框架太重而缺少了兩人往前突進的勇力和魄力。當然,Vanhoozer不需要成為上述任何一人的接班人,他在福音派神學的地位也已經不是別人可以取代,「後巴特湯瑪斯主義」若是能將改革宗教會重新帶回「普世教會合一運動」的對話框架當中,「再神話化神學」(Remythologizing Theology)一書的寫作也是功不可沒了。(福音合一運動中的林貝克?)(我個人則需要在手邊工作忙完後盡快將這本書細讀。)

以Vanhoozer作為編輯的另一個出版計畫「聖經畫展」( Pictures at a Biblical Exhibition)則是一個透過「圖畫」和「圖像」觀念反差
(Picture vs. Scene)的三W(worship, witness, and wisdom)恢復計畫。圖畫是完整的、圖像是局部的。因此圖畫的展示變隱含了實踐神學的工作:Vanhoozer提倡,將自身的救贖敘事,與聖經中的拯救劇場整合成一幅圖畫,需要依靠「聖化的想像力」( Sanctified imagination)。

 » The second, Pictures at a Biblical Exhibition: Theological Scenes of the Church’s Worship, Witness, and Wisdom, will be published by InterVarsity Press. It’s a collection of essays that attempts to make what I’ve been working on over the past few years a bit more accessible–hence “scenes” rather than the big picture. I argue that we need to recover a biblically rooted, theologically formed imagination for the sake of the church’s worship, witness, and wisdom. If a picture has indeed held the evangelical church captive, then this book could be seen as an exercise in liberation theology! »

On Sanctified imagination: « I find that the imagination is a vital ingredient in my sanctification. I need the big biblical picture (creation-fall-redemption-consummation). To keep the gospel story [together with its presuppositions and implications] in mind requires imagination to connect our own story to that of Jesus. Thus, the imagination is “sanctified” because it is “set apart” for the purpose of making just these kinds of connections. On the contrary vain imaginings are those that mislead us to see our lives as part of either godless or pagan pictures. »

培育「聖化想像力」,有兩個實踐的指引。第一點在我看來說的就是後自由神學陣營苗圃中的「敘事神學」( Narrative theology):

« First, reading. Martha Nussbaum has some wonderful essays in her book Love’s Knowledge on how the novels of Henry James train us to attend to the moral significance of the details of human life. If we can learn moral sensitivity from Henry James, how much more can Christians learn, say, about speech ethics from the epistle of James, not to mention all the Old Testament narratives, Jesus’ parables, and the Gospels themselves. »

« My concern is that many Evangelicals are suffering from malnourished imaginations. This impedes their ability to live coherently in the world–that is, according to a meaningful metanarrative. We want to believe the Bible, but we are unable to see our world in biblical terms (this is a major theme of my Pictures at a Biblical Exhibition that I mentioned above). That leads to a fatal disconnect between our belief-system and our behavior, our faith and our life. If faith’s influence is waning, as two-thirds of Americans now think, I believe that it is largely because of a failure of the evangelical imagination. »

  • Comment: I would substitute ‘critical/fiduciary framework’ for the word « metanarrative » just for political or confessional reasons. 第一點我基本完全同意,僅有的小意見就是用詞術語,對後自由陣營的用語我還是覺得較為親切和舒服吧(其實這詞是Vanhoozer自己從前也借用的)


« Reading, then, is a kind of strength-training that flexes the muscles of our imagination. Those who read widely are often those who are able to employ metaphors that connect ordinary life to the wonderful real world of the Bible.

Viewing self as part of the ongoing biblical narrative: My task as a disciple of Jesus Christ is to continue the theodramatic action–the plot of salvation history–in a manner that is consistent with what the Father, Son, and Spirit have already done and are still doing. To some extent, the theologian is a worker in dramatic fittingness whose task is to help us understand the drama of redemption, both theoretically and practically. We need practical understanding of the gospel so that we can speak and act faithful and orthodox lines in new cultural scenes.

New player on the academic scene: the theological interpreter of Scripture. Is it a kind of exegete? historical theologian? systematic theologian? a mixture of all three? Be that as it may, the issues that my book is about–the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of meaning–continue to demand our attention. »

  • Comment: Vanhoozer 這裡是為平信徒才問的問題,其實從自己2005年和 N.T. Wright合編了「聖經神學詮釋辭典」(Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible)時相信早有答案。我同樣認為杜克大學早已用行動耕耘來回答這問題有十餘年了:clip_image001[4] Should not neglect the fact that theological interpretation of Scripture is already done by persons from all the abovementioned positions.

最後,談到詮釋學和倫理學的關係。晚近現代自尼采和海德格等人對形上學和認識論的一輪百年大戰,留下的是近乎被淘空根基的倫理學。詮釋學則 70年代後半路殺出。考量阿圖塞( Louis Althusser)已降法國左派政治哲學和文學批評對「意識型態」問題的處理和激辯(並承認「「積極後現代」與「消極後現代」兩造對此議題的調解),我們可以說詮釋學其實是倫理學的思想衍生物(subset)嗎?
作為系統神學家又是詮釋學家的 Vanhoozer提出了非常符合自己定位的回答:「不如說詮釋學、倫理學、以及一切都是神學的思想衍生物。 」

« Let me begin by saying that my subtitle alludes to Van Harvey’s important work, The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief. Harvey argues that it is immoral to believe something except on the basis of sufficient evidence. This makes criticism more “moral” than faith. So much for the modern morality of knowledge. What I wanted to call attention to was that some postmoderns move in the opposite direction, succumbing not to intellectual pride but sloth by maintaining that it is immoral (they say “violent”) to make claims about a text’s determinate meaning. »

« Hermeneutics is a subset of ethics because interpretation aims at a certain kind of good, namely, understanding. In my book I argue for the importance of what I call the interpretative virtues: habits of mind that are more conducive [than not] to getting understanding. In particular, humility is a key interpretive virtue without which readers cannot do justice to authors as “others.” Other interpretive virtues include honesty, openness, and attentiveness. Ultimately, the interpretive virtues are not merely intellectual, nor even moral, but spiritual and theological, for truly to be honest, humble, self-critical, and open is to be a person with certain dispositions, many of which are related to the fruit of the Spirit. »

  • Comment: 他的這段回答很直接就能與歐陸(特別以法國為中心)近代「詮釋學的神學轉向」、「現象學的神學轉向」、「保羅研究的哲學轉向」等思潮移轉看出關連性。 It is theological and spiritual also because that it involves phenomenologically setting the order of things (les mots et les choses) in a right relation.



就全美神學學術圈中,目前想讓我在博士班跟定的大師級人物有四個人,Wheaton College 的范浩沙(Kevin Vanhoozer)、Duke University的侯活士(Stanley Hauerwas)、Southern Methodist University的馬歇爾(Bruce Marshall)、University of Chicago的馬希翁(Jean-Luc Marion)。








  1. 「認識論的詮釋學轉向」:重建認識論中主體意識與客體的經驗/表達關係
  2. 「認識論的倫理學轉向」-重建認識論中的主體意識與他者(包含上帝)以及平行意識(包含人)的關係
  3. 「認識論的意識型態轉向」-重建認識論中主體意識與意識型態(即認知工具本身具備的社會建構性、生理性和權力模態)之間的關係。

[文摘] Kevin Vanhoozer’s Interview with Gospel Coalition


Kevin J. Vanhoozer theopedia: http://www.theopedia.com/Kevin_Vanhoozer


侯活士(1940-)是美國最有影響力的基督教公眾神學家。他的神學視界是我在當代看到最貼近聖經中對於先知和耶穌的描述的,就有如上個世紀的潘霍華(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)、尼布爾兄弟(Reinhold Niebuhr & H. Richard Niebuhr)、或魯益師(C. S. Lewis)。在倫理學、道德神學、政治神學這幾個領域,應該沒有人的課堂會比侯活士的精彩了。美中不足的是,侯活士大多數時間不是一個非常理論化的學者,恐怕不會對指導有關法國現象學、後結構主義的研究感到太大興趣。但杜克大學具有當代美國最活潑的正統新教神學氛圍,這股向上的力量從神學系蔓延到其宗教系、英文系、法律系、哲學系,故這點可以加很多分。

Stanley Hauerwas Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hauerwas



但是馬歇爾鴨子划水的「後自由神學藍圖」似乎和南衛理公會大學已經倒向自由派天平的「北美主流宗派神學」相當背道而馳,這對於想要經由學術來推動及維持正統基督教信仰的人是不利的。馬歇爾2000年的著作「三一與真理」(Trinity and Truth)是一本深沈有洞見的書,卻因「作者的缺場」而沒有引發「讀者的補完」,遭埋沒十載。我感覺他鑽進中世紀的歷史和神學體系而壓抑著時代先知的呼喊也算是一種明哲保身。南衛理公會大學在達拉斯,處於保守基要派勢力強的南方;呼吸著舊時代思想混戰留下的瘴氣,未必有助於全球化時代神學思想的勃發。

Bruce D. Marshall Faculty Page: http://www.smu.edu/Perkins/FacultyAcademics/DirectoryList/Marshall.aspx

  • Ph.D., Yale University, 1985; M.A.R., Yale Divinity School, 1979; B.A., Northwestern University, 1977


馬希翁(1946-)在神學學術圈的歷史地位高出上述各人不止一截(至少現在看來)。所謂當代法國現象學的神學轉向(tournant théologique de la phénoménologie française),他就是核心推手之一(身處這個運動中的還有Emmanuel Lévinas, Paul Ricoeur, Michel Henry, Jean-Louis Chrétien等幾人。除了最後一人之作品我不太熟之外,其他每個名字可無一不是如雷貫耳!)馬希翁語言的前衛如海德格(Martin Heidegger),觀念的創新能比巴特(Karl Barth),但也由於學術上太過厲害,寫東西只能給少數思想頂尖的現代人看,加上口頭英語表達並不是他的強項(法文口音極重且不流暢),因此理解他思想而首當其衝的恐怕大多不會是這一代、而是未來的人。

最大的遺憾是,馬希翁可以與後自由神學有極多互動和影響,但他本身並不是一位基督教後自由神學家,而是法國天主教徒。使情況更加不明朗的是芝加哥大學新自由主義宗教多元論的整體神學研究框架。這個事實,即使神學院中聖公會和天主教身為佔優勢的信仰群體,也無法改變。但若換個角度把焦點從芝大的校園再放寬,也是芝加哥人文薈萃的多元性,使多所正統的基督教神學院在此矗立,其中包括三一福音神學院、慕迪神學院、惠頓大學這些保守的聲音。更令人驚喜的是圍繞在Hyde Park附近的幾所神學院(馬考米克神學院McCormick Theological Seminary、芝加哥神學院Chicago Theological Seminary 、芝大神學院University of Chicago Divinity School)和教會自發性集結了一個暱稱為the Chicago Group的後自由神學人陣營,真的很有耶魯學派的影子!

Jean-Luc Marion Wiki (Fr): http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_Marion

  • Disciple du théologien Hans Urs von Balthasar
  • Ancien élève de Jean Beaufret, de Ferdinand Alquié et de Jacques Derrida (École normale supérieure, 1967-1972),
  • Spécialiste de Descartes et de phénoménologie. Sa philosophie est emblématique de ce que Dominique Janicaud a nommé le « tournant théologique de la phénoménologie française »[
  • Concept de donation (Notion of Gift): Réduction et donation, Étant donné, De surcroît
  • Phénoménologie de l’amour (phenomenology of love): Prolégomènes à la charité, Le phénomène érotique
  • Dieu sans l’être (God without being)

Prolegomena on Theological Epistemology




Kevin Vanhoozer on Epistemology: Do Biblical Scholars REALLY Need to Know Philosophy?

I agree with the postmodern insight that human reasoning is situated. I also agree with Lesslie Newbigin that the postmodern critique of foundationalism has shown that human thinking always takes place within “fiduciary” frameworks. Even the Enlightenment project began with a “faith” in the omnicompetence of reason, with a faith in a certain way of mapping the world and our way in it. The question, then, is not whether we can avoid subscribing to some fiduciary framework or another, but rather, which one enables us to make cognitive contact with reality?

All human thinking takes place within fiduciary frameworks, but only the biblical frameworks enable us rightly to interpret the nature of ultimate reality. »

Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views (Myron B. Penner, ed., 2005) pg. 86 (Emphasis mine)


至此後現代神學與後現代哲學出現分野。後者所抱持的是平等主義,與多元理性主義的「條條大路通羅馬」相對的是他的「阡陌縱橫皆死巷」。他的盡頭早在德希達(Jacques Derrida)、傅柯(Michel Foucault),和德勒茲(Gilles Deleuze)三頭法國後現代馬車之下呈現,也就是:解構、權力、和混沌。






又如我之前所說的,在「物自體不可知」(noumenon)的情況下,誰先將胡塞爾(Edmund Husserl)—海德格(Martin Heidegger)所設立的現象界結界打破誰就贏了。然而成功破壞的或然率卻隨著人們更多的嘗試而愈形渺茫。猶如被繩捆索綁的嬌羞夥伴,她的掙扎在那興致盎然的偉大挑逗者面前顯得可盼而逗趣。量子物理、黑洞和奇點理論把這個結界搞得愈來愈厚,且深不可測。唯物論和邏輯實證論已經完全走死。人們窮盡自己智慧而發狂的探索豈無啻一場徒勞的掙扎,是否就在那造物者的眼中成為一場娛興饗宴?

表面上未來十五年真是神學詮釋學得意的大好階段,至少呂格爾(Paul Ricoeur)和高達美(Hans-Georg Gadamer)是這麼想的。他們站在挑逗者的那一邊,脈衝律動十足地配合祂。




人從受造時,無論以墮落或是如何地不完整,是被離心力甩在螺旋的最外圍的。而以我來看,人的天生認知是以「自我中心」而非「宇宙中心」、「他者中心」、「基督中心」、「上帝中心」的。而這就是墮落的問題,也是伊甸園悲劇所指向的「原罪」咒詛。它需要透過一個救贖轉變的過程才能導正,而無論沙特(Jean-Paul Sartre)存在主義或基督教神學都認同這個轉變過程是由外力介入而肇始的。只有尼采版本的存在主義才認為只要透過「內力」就足夠。1890年尼采在馬背上發瘋,這伙計自詡以內在超人意志貫徹存在性救贖,就是內力太強足以攻心才走火入魔的。

nietzche 「尼采死了,上帝還在。」原來那些說「上帝以死」的人通通死了,齊克果(Søren Kierkegaard)、布特曼(Rudolf Bultmann)、田立克都感謝這個幫助確立神有神學(theism)論述的反面試驗。這個是相對於「老我」(ego)的救贖「外力」,基督教版本存在主義卻必須將它逆轉過來看。雖是「外力」,卻非真正「外來」,而是在本體上居於內。「外來」一詞在語言結構主義上相對應的是「內有」(inherit),它前設是「內在自我」(ego)被當成核心。但基督教哲學真正強大的核心在於以他者為中心,尤其是那位「絕對他者」(The Absolute Other)。真正的救贖是來自於螺旋中心的引力。引力就是上帝的愛和自我啟示。

歷史上很多基督徒在神學上錯誤地理解了這個上帝啟示的引力,以為是它的運作方式是像磁鐵吸附鐵沙般,而信徒在受洗後,就是一下被吸附到上帝本體之中。然而實際情況是,我們先藉著「信」,而感受到這個引力並認識其螺旋軌跡。此一「行星入軌」[5]的調整在神學上的定位為「因信稱義」(justification by faith)。接著藉由「愛」,信徒得到順著軌跡往中心運行的動力,也就是基督徒的成聖道路(toward Christlikeness; sanctification),此一動力並非行星自身獨具,乃是由核心發出引力轉介到行星自身,成為神學上信徒個體的自轉(個人靈修成聖)和公轉(教會聖徒相通)現象。最後是「望」,因著盼望我們定睛在中心點那位耶穌基督、掌管天地萬有且為我們信心創始成終的主、上帝最大最實質的啟示。盼望的重點在於我們雖然都是終其一生也無法真正得到那所看見仰望的應許,但有人會為我們接續,且一切的不足在末世都將由上帝補完(參希伯來書11-12)[6],將我們帶到軌跡的中心與祂合一(參約翰福音14-17)[7]




此處我們將先批判的是此一二元迷思。它既落入符號結構主義的巢臼,也是後現代(後結構—解構、後殖民)所要逆轉的典範,就不得不予以揚棄。但事實上,他們對立的只有基礎信念(foundational belief)的前設罷了。只要加上適當的扣環做成連環船,絕大多數被解構的論述都還有機會救活。


第二現代的認識論典範[9]將會說明, 符號的詮釋理解將較結構主義所陳述的遠為複雜且生機蓬勃。它的精密和連動性表現在「視域融合」(fusion of horizons)、「言說理論」(speech-act theory)和實踐理性(practical reason)之中。

一、社會科學可以作為靈命的一個視角,使基督徒史學家研究出與印度教導師(Bhagwan; maharishi; guru)或穆斯林阿訇(imam)的區域發展認同或語意學,即為多元視角的視域融合。這是上帝的一般啟示。血之所以被定義為紅色,是絕多數人的眼球構造和大腦認知系統使他們產生共同的經驗,經驗達成一種共識,而後再被經驗實證論者上綱為真理[10]。如果沒有色盲等「異常者」的「病理學」經驗加上傅柯的幫助,恐怕實證論者將永遠不會知道還有重新檢述自身前設立場的必要。Vanhoozer所說的「信託框架」(fiduciary frameworks)就是任何思想方法論都無法避免的「信心前設」(presupposition of faith ),而這導致了神學本體論的永恆性和超驗性,也是保羅神學的「一般啟示」。[11]

二、言說理論則與海森堡的測不準定理(Heinsberg’s Uncertainty Principle)[12]相呼應,顯現的是符號本身的可異性/可議性。符號並非單純地將「表述」事物,它將事物貼上標籤的同時,將改變的將不僅是事物的本體,還有是意識投射到它之後產生的現象觀感。如一件衣物若標價五百時,能引起人們搶購的慾望,若標價五千時則可成為人們心中所鄙夷的黑心貨。衣物本身在「理論上」仍是同一件,但標價行為並不如前現代結構主義者所假定地中性,只是單純反應該事物的特性與價值。它乃是帶有主觀能動性的詮釋行為,而其價值還會隨著他者反應而波動,故成為絕對的測不準[13]。同時他者的反應還有衣物本身更是隨著三維進程(temporal)的,衣物本身因擺放而累積灰塵、因多人試穿而漸鬆舊、因換季而必須面臨折扣、又因復古潮流興起而重新翻紅。時間與歷史以各種方式改變了真理的框架,言說的本身也沒有實證性可言。言說理論用「發語內容觀點」( locution)、「語內表現行為」(illocution,在特定語境中一講出話即完成的言語表達行為,如答應、允許、要求、謝罪等),和「言語表達效果」(perlocution,指使人信服、 激動等的說話效果),說明了符號能指(signifying)與所指(signified)絕非任意或可斷開的二元系統。可觀的所指造成能指,而所指回頭形塑能指。



實踐理性對傳統認識論和後現代的打擊非常顯而易見,因為實踐理性的存在使得「純粹理性」(pure reason)必須受到限制,同時還有「判斷力批判」(critiques on Judgment)也為理性認識的有效性預留了狡兔三窟。當純粹理性在後現代徹底覆亡之時,實踐理性還存在。第二現代只要抓住這一點就足以全面吹起反攻後現代的號角。

總結以上,神學真正要做的,應該是把科學吸納在自身的框架之下(sublation),承認它們作為表述世界及推動歷史的途徑是能夠螺旋行進上做出貢獻的系統。反之,專注在不可知其然的「特殊啟示」(special revelation)所做的系統性論述—即系統神學—說不定該緩緩了。

或是,重新定義Vanhoozer所說的「聖經框架」會變成非常重要的一件事。拉扯過後的框架並定會比後現代更大、更包容。有時候避免混淆、並要達至真正的包容我們必須在學界認知上給予這框架一個新詞彙,甚至要大膽的去掉「聖經」二字。近代自由神學樹立典範的代換做法有田立克的「終極關懷」(ultimate concern)之於救贖(salvation)、存有場域(ground of being)之於上帝。…然後他就會變得很不「基督教」,也會引起改革宗和基要派的揣揣不安。但其實除了「基督耶穌」和YHWH的字元是「絕對的啟示能指」(absolute signifying of revelation)之外,基督教神學根本沒有什麼是不能處境化(contextualize)的。然而憂心的是,人們永遠是背著文化處境包袱來到這場永恆的賽道前,一場迭無休止的意識型態大戰呈現給祂的不過是一場愚神禮讚(Encomium Moriae)[18]




但一如激進正統派(Radical Orthodoxy)所指出的,如果這奧秘的啟示真有如此巨大,基督教神學便斷無可能以忽略與它者(及其他學科)交會的方式支撐自身的宏大,唯恐這樣的冇斷吹噓又導致自貶為意識型態陣營的一支,最後只能以政治或軍事權力手段來解決疆域問題(如中古歐洲歷史上的基督王國Christendom和十字軍Crusade)。


在愚者看來,在沒有尚未與外邦人世界觀談得中間地帶(middle ground)前的一切「勉人入教舉動」,都是在破壞上帝審判的中立性。什麼叫中間地帶?它不是妥協或藉由批判他者攻城掠地的成果,而是理解與入情(empathy)對方的處境,領對方從她自身的處境看見基督。如此一來,一種更接近神學上的利他主義(theological altruism)、就是一種包含詮釋行為與實踐性言說符號的終極關懷,才有可能徹底破壞、及替換掉壓在福音派神學上頭的後現代系譜學解構框架。



[1] Baudrillard, Jean, and Sylvère Lotringer. Forget Foucault, Semiotext(E) Foreign Agents Series. New York, NY: Semiotext(e), 1987. Baudrillard, Jean, and Sylvère Lotringer. Forget Foucault. Los Angeles, CACambridge, Mass.: Semiotext(e) ;Distributed by MIT Press, 2007.

[2] Ockham, William of (c 1300-1349) British theologian influenced by Duns Scotus; against Aquinas; reason cannot give us knowledge of God only revelation and faith can; Occam’s Razor In its simplest form, Occam’s Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]


Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.

For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms tends to indeed indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances, their ability and desire to (non-)intentionally knock down trees and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 metres tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferable.

[3] 參見Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral : A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006. 中譯《基督教釋經學手冊:釋經學螺旋的原理與應用》,台北:校園,1999。

[4] Gaarder, Jostein. Svetot Na Sofija : Roman Za Istorijata Na Filozofijata. Skopje: TRI, 2002. 英譯Gaarder, Jostein, and Paulette Møller. Sophie’s World : A Novel About the History of Philosophy. Pbk. ed. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2007.

[5] 注意希臘文planaw(wander)一詞與planet的同字源關係(homogeneity)。

[6] 希伯來書 11:1-2 信就是所望之事的實底,是未見之事的確據。2古人在這信上得了美好的證據。…33 他們因著信,制伏了敵國,行了公義,得了應許,堵了獅子的口,34 滅了烈火的猛勢,脫了刀劍的鋒刃;軟弱變為剛強,爭戰顯出勇敢,打退外邦的全軍。35 有婦人得自己的死人復活。又有人忍受嚴刑,不肯苟且得釋放(原文作贖),為要得著更美的復活。36 又有人忍受戲弄、鞭打、捆鎖、監禁、各等的磨煉,37 被石頭打死,被鋸鋸死,受試探,被刀殺,披著綿羊山羊的皮各處奔跑,受窮乏、患難、苦害,38 在曠野、山嶺、山洞、地穴,飄流無定,本是世界不配有的人。39 這些人都是因信得了美好的證據,卻仍未得著所應許的;40 因為神給我們預備了更美的事,叫他們若不與我們同得,就不能完全。

[7]羅馬書 5:5 盼望不至於羞恥,因為所賜給我們的聖靈將神的愛澆灌在我們心裡。

約翰福音 17:20 -26我不但為這些人祈求,也為那些因他們的話信我的人祈求,21 使他們都合而為一。正如你父在我裡面,我在你裡面,使他們也在我們裡面,叫世人可以信你差了我來。22 你所賜給我的榮耀,我已賜給他們,使他們合而為一,像我們合而為一。23 我在他們裡面,你在我裡面,使他們完完全全的合而為一,叫世人知道你差了我來,也知道你愛他們如同愛我一樣。24 父啊,我在那裡,願你所賜給我的人也同我在那裡,叫他們看見你所賜給我的榮耀;因為創立世界以前,你已經愛我了。25 公義的父啊,世人未曾認識你,我卻認識你;這些人也知道你差了我來。26 我已將你的名指示他們,還要指示他們,使你所愛我的愛在他們裡面,我也在他們裡面。

[8] 來源要求增補

[9] 屬於筆者還在嘗試建構的一塊領域,大致方向都將類同於呂格爾和高達美的詮釋學,只是會從哲學層面再退化回認識論的科學層面,以求與認知科學、腦神經科學、宇宙科學達致互動。另框架本身則將是神學性的。

[10] 有趣的是,經驗實證論者的創啟人休模原先是極度懷疑任何這類型的經驗連結足以成為任何理性的依據的。

[11] 羅馬書 1:20 自從造天地以來,神的永能和神性是明明可知的,雖是眼不能見,但藉著所造之物就可以曉得,叫人無可推諉。

[12] 科學家原本相信這個宇宙自然律是可以完全被科學掌控的,如此可以精確預言宇宙的未來。例如只要引力定律,即可推知地球在太空中任何一刻之相對位置。然而測量粒子之位置,必須利用光頭投射粒子令它繞射而指出其位置。光的波長愈短得出的粒子定位愈加精確(如以兩個波峰夾粒子度其位置, 短波度得比較準確),然而波長愈短,粒子擾動愈加厲害(就像用衣夾拑波子),並以一種不可測的方式改變粒子之速度。粒子位置的不確定性(p)x粒子質量x速度的不確定性(q)不可小於普朗克常數。

若連粒子當下位置也不知,當然更不用說預言它未來之位置。要注意的是,現下的困難並不在於測量儀器之精密度與校準極限,而是粒子在任何一刻都沒有準確之速度及位置。誇大一點可說,如果電子確切知道自己之去向,就不知自己身在何方,反之亦然。同時因粒子之位置及運動速度不可是零,即保持一定能量起伏,叫做零點脹落(Zero Point Fluctuation),如此「絕對真空」或「絕對零度」就只是一個如數學般的幻想理論。測不準定理有補足性(complementarity)作為但書,即同時測不到的是兩樣東西的值,如動量+位置,時間+能量等等。

[13] 例如在這事件中,原本接受五千為合理預算範圍的潛在購買者,因畏懼周遭將他貼上「凱子」標籤而轉變對該衣物價值的看法。而後續還會有其他人因為這潛在購買者所表現的心理而轉變看法。該衣物的所見價值(perceived value)便產生了永恆波動性。

[14] “A type of logical reasoning that develops from a commonly accepted proposition until reasons are found to alter the acceptance or understanding of the original proposition.” –Oxford Talking Dictionary.

“Similar to induction, but predicated on a known or assumed relationary rule(s) and an observation(s) that contains at least one of the predicates(predictors) of the rule. Another predicate(s) of the relationary rule is then generalized to the observation due to the coincidence of the other predicate(s) in both the observation and the rule.” –Wikipedia

[15] “A reasoning procedure aimed at coming up with good hypotheses to explain observed cases.  The success of abduction is compromised if all rival hypotheses are equally compatible with the evidence (i.e., underdetermined .)  Abduction was an area of philosophy expanded upon by Peirce.” – A Dictionary of Postmodern Terms

abduction<logic> The process of inference to the best explanation. « Abduction » is sometimes used to mean just the generation of hypotheses to explain observations or conclusionsm, but the former definition is more common both in philosophy and computing. The semantics and the implementation of abduction cannot be reduced to those for deduction, as explanation cannot be reduced to implication. Applications include fault diagnosis, plan formation and default reasoning. Negation as failure in logic programming can both be given an abductive interpretation and also can be used to implement abduction. The abductive semantics of negation as failure leads naturally to an argumentation-theoretic interpretation of default reasoning in general.” –[« Abductive Inference », John R. Josephson jj@cis.ohio-state.edu].

“Raisonnement par lequel on restreint dès le départ le nombre des hypothèses susceptibles d’expliquer un phénomène donné. ”—Larousse Multidico

[16]“ [Bx] In the Preface to B, Kant speaks of theoretical reason as « determining » a given concept and of practical reason as « making it actual ». In addition to distinguishing the practical employment of reason from its speculative employment, Kant opposes practical and transcendental freedom. [Bxxv] He suggests that in practical reason we may pass beyond the limits of possible experience, and characterizes the Critique’s limitation of speculative reason as essential for clearing the way for practical reason, « the necessary practical employment of pure reason–the moral–in which it inevitably goes beyond the limits of sensibility. Without the negative aspect of the Critique, the practical employment of reason is in jeopardy because reason is « brought into conflict with itself ».” –Kant Glossary

practical reason: Rational capacity by which (rational) agents guide their conduct.
In Immanuel Kant‘s moral philosophy, it is defined as the capacity of a rational being to act according to principles (i.e., according to the conception of laws). Unlike the ethical intuitionists (see intuitionism), Kant never held that practical reason intuits the rightness of particular actions or moral principles. For him, practical reason was basically formal rather than material, a framework of formative principles rather than a source of specific rules. This is why he put such stress on his first formulation of the categorical imperative. Lacking any insight into the moral realm, humans can only ask themselves if what they are proposing to do has the formal character of law, namely, the character of being the same for all persons similarly circumstanced. ” –Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (emphasis mine)

[17]創世紀 3:1-6 耶和華神所造的,惟有蛇比田野一切的活物更狡猾。蛇對女人說:「神豈是真說不許你們吃園中所有樹上的果子嗎?」2 女人對蛇說:「園中樹上的果子,我們可以吃,3 惟有園當中那棵樹上的果子,神曾說:『你們不可吃,也不可摸,免得你們死。』」4 蛇對女人說:「你們不一定死;5 因為神知道,你們吃的日子眼睛就明亮了,你們便如神能知道善惡。」6 於是女人見那棵樹的果子好作食物,也悅人的眼目,且是可喜愛的,能使人有智慧,就摘下果子來吃了,又給他丈夫,他丈夫也吃了。

[18] Encomium Moriae: The Praise of Folly (Greek title: Morias Enkomion (Mwriaj Egkw,mion), Latin: Stultitiae Laus, sometimes translated as In Praise of Folly, Dutch title: Lof der Zotheid). an essay written in 1509 by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam and first printed in 1511, In Praise of Folly is considered one of the most influential works of literature in Western civilization and one of the catalysts of the Protestant Reformation.

[19] 700萬億億、7以後加22個零,這數字比全地球沙漠和沙灘的沙粒總和還大上N倍。垓為數詞單位,列於億、兆、京之後。

[20] 見Gadamer, Hans Georg, Joel Weinsheimer, and Donald G. Marshall. Truth and Method. 2nd, rev. ed, Continuum Impacts. London ; New York: Continuum, 2004.

[21]羅馬書 12:1-2 所以弟兄們,我以神的慈悲勸你們,將身體獻上,當作活祭,是聖潔的,是神所喜悅的;你們如此事奉乃是理所當然的。2 不要效法這個世界,只要心意更新而變化,叫你們察驗何為神的善良、純全、可喜悅的旨意。

[22]路加福音 10:27 他回答說:「你要盡心、盡性、盡力、盡意愛主你的神;又要愛鄰舍如同自己。」

[23]馬太福音 5:43 「你們聽見有話說:『當愛你的鄰舍,恨你的仇敵。』44 只是我告訴你們,要愛你們的仇敵,為那逼迫你們的禱告。

[24]馬太福音 19:18 他說:「什麼誡命?」耶穌說:「就是不可殺人;不可姦淫;不可偷盜;不可作假見證;

馬太福音 19:19 當孝敬父母,又當愛人如己。」

馬太福音 22:37-40 耶穌對他說:「你要盡心、盡性、盡意愛主你的神。38 這是誡命中的第一,且是最大的。39 其次也相仿,就是要愛人如己。40 這兩條誡命是律法和先知一切道理的總綱。」

馬可福音 12:28-34 有一個文士來,聽見他們辯論,曉得耶穌回答的好,就問他說:「誡命中那是第一要緊的呢?」29 耶穌回答說:「第一要緊的就是說:『以色列啊,你要聽,主我們神是獨一的主。30 你要盡心、盡性、盡意、盡力愛主你的神。』31 其次就是說:『要愛人如己。』再沒有比這兩條誡命更大的了。」32 那文士對耶穌說:「夫子說,神是一位,實在不錯;除了他以外,再沒有別的神;33 並且盡心、盡智、盡力愛他,又愛人如己,就比一切燔祭和各樣祭祀好的多。」34 耶穌見他回答的有智慧,就對他說:「你離神的國不遠了。」從此以後,沒有人敢再問他什麼。

羅馬書 13:8-10 凡事都不可虧欠人,惟有彼此相愛要常以為虧欠;因為愛人的,就完全了律法。9 像那不可姦淫,不可殺人,不可偷盜,不可貪婪,或有別的誡命,都包在愛人如己這一句話之內了。10 愛是不加害與人的,所以愛就完全了律法。

加拉太書 5:14 因為全律法都包在「愛人如己」這一句話之內了。

雅各書 2:8 經上記著說:「要愛人如己。」你們若全守這至尊的律法,才是好的。

利未記 19:18 不可報仇,也不可埋怨你本國的子民,卻要愛人如己。我是耶和華。

[26]另參http:// waytohome.blogspot.com/2006/11/faithchurch.htm