- 學位論文
麥葛福與林貝克教義觀之比較
A Comparison between McGrath’s & Lindbeck’s Viewpoint of Doctrine
摘要
於1995年在美國的惠頓神學院的研討會中，一群福音派學者與後自由主義者們展開了對話，針對教義觀與真理觀互相提出自己的觀點。此次對話的內容被編輯成《信條的本質》(The Nature of Confession)一書。這是自卡爾•亨利和漢斯•弗萊的對抗與衝突以來，福音派與後自由主義學者之間的關係的突破。因此筆者在這樣的脈絡中來比較林貝克和麥葛福的教義觀。 林貝克的成名大作《教義的本質》(The Nature of Doctrine)於1984年問世，提出了「文化—語言」的進路來詮釋教義。此觀點有別於他對前現代(「認知—命題」論)和現代(「經驗—表現」論)的分析，是基於普世教會合一對談無法和解而對「教義本質」的觀點所做出的「典範轉移」。這進路視教義是群體內部的規則，不牽涉外部歷史或形而上的指涉。與此進路一致的讀經方式稱為「內於文本」的閱讀，它有別於自由主義將聖經文本轉譯為聖經外的觀念，而是讓聖經吸納世界。麥葛福在1990年發表了《教義的起源》一書(The Genesis of Doctrine)，先是回應了林貝克的觀點，並且提出了教義的本質與功能的四項論題(教義扮演社會定位的角色、教義是敘事的解釋、教義是經驗的解釋、教義是真理的宣告)，視教義為一種是歷史的現象，而這四項論題彼此之間也產生微妙的關聯。他一方面批判林貝克將認知與經驗視為相互獨立的元素；另一方面，他也將林貝克所提及的教義具有「系統內一致性」納入自己複雜的教義觀當中。麥葛福與林貝克最大的不同在於他認為教義必須做出真理的宣告，並且「基督事件」作為一個歷史事實是扮演關鍵的重要性。 麥葛福與林貝克的教義觀比較，刻畫出當代福音派與後自由主義之間的最主要的衝突，即是「真理觀」與所產生的「福音宣揚」之意義。林貝克的「文化—語言」教義觀和「內於文本」的閱讀進路，指出了他的真理觀是反對任何的基礎和外在的評鑑標準。而麥葛福引用了許多學者的觀點來豐富其多元的教義觀，但問題就在於有什麼方法或後設理論能使這些差異頗大的觀點彼此調和。兩者的共通點在於對聖經與教義的重新重視，是自自由主義以來的恢復。
並列摘要
In 1995, a group of evangelical scholars had a conversation with a group of postliberal scholar at Wheaton Theology Conference. The focus of their dialogue was on the concept of truth and the nature of doctrine. Later, this conversation was published as The Nature of Confession. It was a breakthrough between evangelicalism and postliberalism since Hans Frei counteracted against Carl Henry. It is within this context, this author seeks to compare Alister McGrath’s and George Lindbeck’s understandings of doctrine. Lindbeck’s famous writing The Nature of Doctrine was published in 1984, proposing a “cultural-linguistic” approach to the understanding of doctrine, differentiated from both the pre-modern approach (“cognitive-propositionalist”) and the modern approach (“experiential-expressive”). Due to the failure of ecumenical movement, Lindbeck attempts to promote a “paradigm-shift” on the concept of doctrine. He regards doctrine as an inner rule of a community, having no outer historical or metaphysical reference. In affinity with this is the “intratextual” way of reading the scripture, allowing the Bible to absorb the text, rather than, as liberals would read the scripture, translating the Bible into the world. McGrath in 1990 published his book The Genesis of Doctrine. In this book, he responded to Lindbeck’s proposal and presented four theses concerning the nature of doctrine (doctrine as social demarcation, interpretation of narrative, interpretation of experience, truth claim). He regards doctrine as a historical phenomenon; and these four theses are viewed as mutual interacting constituents of a greater whole. On the one hand, he criticizes Lindbeck of viewing cognitive and experiential elements as something isolating and irrelevant. On the other hand, he incorporated the “internal consistency of doctrine” into his conception of doctrine. The most important difference between McGrath and Lindbeck is whether doctrine involves truth claim and the importance of “Christ event.” Comparing McGrath’s and Lindbeck’s concepts of doctrine reveals the conflict between contemporary evangelicalism and postliberalism, i.e., their different understanding of the concept of truth and the meaning of evangelism. Lindbeck’s “cultural-linguistic” theory and “intratextual” reading shows that his conception of truth opposes both foundationalism and outer criterions. McGrath, quoting on numerous theologians and scholars, and their theories, enriches his own concept of doctrine, but whether these theories cohere with one another remains a problem. The common ground between McGrath and Lindbeck is that both think highly of the Bible and of doctrine, a recovery from liberalism.