後現代與靈修神學

POSTMODERNITY AND SPIRITUALITY

廖炳堂(Herrick P. Liu)

《建道學刊》 15期 (2001/01) Pp. 145-164

摘要

本文先從歷史角度了解後現代主義的特質，從它對現代性和現代主義的倚賴性、以及它的拆毀性和內在矛盾性，認定它不可能取代現代主義而成為一長期穩定的時代精神，而只是一極具影響力之歷史插曲。因此，福音派不應急於尋求神學代模之根本改變，而應借助其解構精神去除現代主義中不合信仰的異質。本文第二部分就後現代主義之影響討論幾個重要的靈修神學課題。筆者首先－剖析後現代之宗教多元化和互相包容觀點其實只是一個不可兌現的神話，它包容一切兼容性宗教卻不能包容排他性上帝信仰，原因是它帶了很多不願公開、也不容別人解構之前設：包括拒絕神學語言的有效性和根據人主體認知之無能在邏輯上跳步來否定客觀世界存在等等。其次，後現代的解構價值觀中所包括的表面性，割裂性，中斷性，凌亂性基本上都是違反人靈性上要求真善美的本質。最後，後現代催化了跨宗教對話和全球化靈修的趨勢，也促進了天主教之靈修著作中的包容主義和宗教多元主義。福音派若要保存信仰之統全性，就不能以對話代替護教與見證。但另一方面，後現代帶來了更多基督教、天主教和東正教之間交流互動的機會，福音派要面對的挑戰將是如何突破一貫偏重於教義層面討論，以既批判又富建設性的角度重新詮釋靈修學歷史和傳統，建立一套既符合改教原則、又有歷史基礎的靈修神學。

並列摘要

In the first part of this paper we study the nature of postmodernism from a historical perspective. Because of its dependence on modernity and modernism, its destructive character and its inner inconsistency, we conceive it not as a stable and permanent spirit of a new age that can replace modernism, but only as an influential episodic phenomenon within modernity. So there is no need for evangelicals to seek prematurely for a foundational change in theological paradigm, but we can utilize its deconstructive spirit to deconstruct certain aspects of modernity that are incompatible with the biblical faith. In the second part we discuss several issues about the relationship between spirituality and postmodernism. We propose that the idea of religious tolerance and pluralism within postmodernism is in fact a biased tolerance. It tolerates pluralism, inclusivism but not exclusivism. It has its own unexamined meta-narratives, such as the denial of the validity of theological language, and of the existence of an objective and monistic reality. On the other hand, postmodernist values cannot satisfy human spiritual quest for truth, goodness and beauty. Its ephemerality, fragmentation, discontinuity, and chaotic spirit are going against the inborn spiritual nature of humanity. Finally, postmodernism popularizes the trend of inter-religious dialogue and globe spirituality, and also the idea of religious inclusivism and pluralism within Catholic spirituality. To keep the integrity of the faith, evangelicals cannot replace the task of evangelism and apologetics by dialogue. Yet on the other hand, as there are more opportunities now to interact with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, evangelicals have to face a new challenge to broaden the agenda of exchange. Currently, there is a great demand for an evangelical spirituality that is sound both theologically and historically. In fulfilling this task, evangelicals cannot limit the focus of exchange anymore just on the dogmatic aspect of the faith, but will have to endeavor to reclaim and to reinterpret the catholic spiritual traditions both critically and constructively.