OPENING 開幕

- /4".
FIELD
PRACTYOAL THEOLOGT
- /4". 實地神學

Chapter Eight 第八章

Hermeneutics in Protestant Practical Theology
新教實踐神學中的詮釋學

Sally A. Brown 莎莉·A·布朗

A radio show I tune into from time to time features interviews with up-andcoming singer-songwriters. Asked what first inspired their passion for making music, many of these musicians cite key mentors in teenage years, but others describe challenges they faced in childhood or young adulthood, and explain that making music emerged as a way of making sense of their lives in such times. May be something similar happens in the making of a theologian. Dilemmas of childhood or young adulthood prompt us to ask questions. Sometimes these very questions set us on journeys that turn into a life-work, and traces of the questions we faced in formative years may still surface in the teaching and writing we do years later. At least, this has been true for me.
我不時收聽的一個廣播節目專訪一些新興的創作歌手。當被問及最初是什麼激發了他們對音樂的熱情時，許多音樂家提到青少年時期的關鍵導師，但也有一些人描述了他們在童年或年輕成年時期面臨的挑戰，並解釋說，創作音樂成為了他們在那段時期理解生活的一種方式。也許在神學家的形成過程中會發生類似的事情。童年或年輕成年時期的困境促使我們提出問題。有時這些問題會引導我們踏上轉變為一生工作的旅程，而我們在成長過程中面對的問題的痕跡可能在多年後的教學和寫作中仍然浮現。至少，對我來說這是如此。

Ilearned and embraced my Christian faith in the evangelical wing of what was once called “mainline” Protestantism. We worshiped twice on Sundays and sometimes on Wednesday nights. Sunday school teachers taught us to sing our way through the sixty-six books of the Bible, the twelve sons of Jacob, and the twelve disciples of Jesus. Memorizing scripture was a core form of catechesis; at summer camp I memorized whole chapters of the Bible at a time.
我在曾經被稱為“主流”新教的福音派中學習並接受了我的基督教信仰。我們在星期天崇拜兩次，有時在星期三晚上也會崇拜。主日學的老師教我們唱出聖經六十六卷書、雅各的十二個兒子和耶穌的十二個門徒。背誦經文是教理教育的核心形式；在夏令營中，我一次背誦整個章節的聖經。

My growing aspirations to serve Christ and the church were encouraged at the church of my childhood, but one thing was always clear: at my church, the path to ordained ministry was closed to women. Sunday school teachers applauded my intellectual curiosity but steered me toward missionary teaching or nursing. Perhaps, they said, I would marry a pastor someday.
我對於服務基督和教會日益增長的抱負在我童年的教會得到了鼓勵，但有一件事始終很清楚：在我的教會，通往受任事工的道路對女性是封閉的。主日學的老師讚賞我的求知慾，但引導我走向宣教教學或護理。也許，他們說，我將來會嫁給一位牧師。

In my teens, I accepted my church’s teaching on this subject. Occasionally, though, I attended other churches with friends. There I discovered that other communities read scripture less literally than mine did. This heightened
在我十幾歲的時候，我接受了我教會對這個主題的教導。不過，有時我會和朋友一起去其他教會。在那裡，我發現其他社群對經文的解讀不如我的教會那麼字面。這加深了
my curiosity about certain tensions in my own community’s way of interpreting key texts about the place of women in the church. We took for granted that the prohibition in 2 Timothy chapter two against women teaching men was timelessly binding; yet we also seemed to take for granted that other prohibitions in the same context (for example, no jewelry for women and no braided hair) were culture-dependent and simply “represented” a concern for female modesty. While I never thought specifically about interpretation theory and certainly had never heard the word “hermeneutics,” my curiosity grew about the different reading strategies my community used. So began my lasting interest in interpretation.
我對自己社區在解釋有關女性在教會中地位的關鍵文本時所產生的某些緊張感感到好奇。我們理所當然地認為，提摩太後書第二章中禁止女性教導男性的規定是永恆有效的；然而，我們似乎也理所當然地認為，同一背景下的其他禁令（例如，女性不應佩戴珠寶和不應編辮子）是依賴於文化的，並且僅僅“代表”了對女性端莊的關注。雖然我從未特別思考過詮釋理論，並且肯定從未聽過“詮釋學”這個詞，但我對我社區所使用的不同閱讀策略的好奇心逐漸增長。這就是我對詮釋持久興趣的開始。

Human beings are nonstop interpreters. A mother interprets the cries of her infant, an investor interprets minute-to-minute market data, and millions of cell phone users interpret incoming texts and e-mail, deciding what to read and what to ignore. The cultures we grow up in shape the way we interpret our world. Interpreting texts, even sacred texts, is only a special case of what human beings do all the time.’ Reading is an interpretive process, and the cultures we inhabit, including the subcultures that are our faith communities, shape how we read texts, from the daily newspaper to the latest novel to scripture. The culturally shaped assumptions we bring to any act of reading, reinforced in daily practices and conversations, are like the air we breathe: they seem like “givens” of human experience, not socially shaped choices. For example, if we grow up, as I did, in a community that lives out in many ways the assumption that women and men do not have equal access to church leadership, this will shape our way of making sense of scripture on this subject.
人類是不斷的詮釋者。母親詮釋著嬰兒的哭聲，投資者詮釋著每分鐘的市場數據，數百萬的手機用戶詮釋著來自短信和電子郵件的訊息，決定閱讀什麼和忽略什麼。我們成長的文化塑造了我們詮釋世界的方式。詮釋文本，甚至是神聖文本，只是人類不斷進行的一種特殊情況。閱讀是一個詮釋過程，而我們所處的文化，包括作為我們信仰社群的亞文化，塑造了我們如何閱讀文本，從每日報紙到最新小說再到經文。我們在任何閱讀行為中帶入的文化塑造的假設，在日常實踐和對話中得到加強，就像我們呼吸的空氣：它們看起來像是人類經驗的“既定事實”，而不是社會塑造的選擇。例如，如果我們像我一樣，在一個以多種方式體現女性和男性在教會領導中沒有平等機會的假設的社區中成長，這將塑造我們對這一主題的經文理解方式。

Modern hermeneutics, or interpretation theory, is the study of the human experience of interpretation. Hermeneutical theory has had a profound impact in Christian theology in the past century, including practical theology. In a way, the impact of hermeneutics on practical theology is intensified, since practical theologians focus on the shared practices of Christian communities, including practices like the interpretation of Scripture in pulpit and pew. In turn, a community’s habits in biblical interpretation shape many other core practices. In fact, many of the practices on which practical theologians focus are explicity interpretive-practices like preaching, providing or receiving counsel, or discerning how to lead a community through conflict. Each of these actions is a lived interpretation of faith. If a practical theologian wants to understand the interpretive practices she is observing, and how these both shape, and have been shaped, by the social context where they are taking place, she will turn to the field of hermeneutics for theoretical approaches that can help her. Thinking critically about the activity of interpretation is not something that practical theologians can take or leave; it is part and parcel of every effort to understand the way communities of faith function, both internally and in relation to the cultures in which they are embedded.
現代詮釋學或解釋理論是對人類解釋經驗的研究。詮釋學理論在過去一個世紀對基督教神學產生了深遠的影響，包括實踐神學。在某種程度上，詮釋學對實踐神學的影響更加強烈，因為實踐神學家專注於基督教社群的共同實踐，包括在講壇和教堂中對聖經的解釋等實踐。反過來，社群在聖經解釋中的習慣塑造了許多其他核心實踐。事實上，許多實踐神學家關注的實踐都是明確的詮釋性實踐，如講道、提供或接受輔導，或辨識如何引導社群度過衝突。這些行動都是對信仰的具體詮釋。如果一位實踐神學家想要理解她所觀察到的詮釋實踐，以及這些實踐如何塑造並受到它們所發生的社會背景的影響，她將轉向詮釋學領域尋求可以幫助她的理論方法。對於詮釋活動進行批判性思考並不是實踐神學家可以隨意選擇的事情；這是理解信仰社群如何運作的每一個努力中不可或缺的一部分，無論是在內部還是在與其所嵌入的文化之間的關係中。

Understanding the origins and development of hermeneutical theory is a first step toward grasping the role it has played and continues to play in protestant practical theology. In the chapter’s next section I review how hermeneutical theory emerged from its beginnings in classical Greece to become what it is in the twenty-first century, a body of theory about the human process of interpretation. Next, I look at how twentieth-century developments in practical theology had the effect of strengthening practical theologians’ interest in hermeneutics. The chapter’s third section may be most important for understanding how integral to practical theology hermeneutics has become. There, I sketch diverse ways that practical theologians today are weaving interpretation theory into their work. Finally, I explore the way a scholar’s hermeneutical commitments can affect four key dimensions of practical theology: sources and norms; the relationship between theory and practice; how theological and social-scientific insights are coordinated; and the manner in which social context is engaged.
理解詮釋學理論的起源和發展是掌握它在新教實踐神學中所扮演的角色及其持續作用的第一步。在本章的下一部分，我回顧詮釋學理論如何從古希臘的起源發展成為二十一世紀的樣貌，即關於人類詮釋過程的理論體系。接著，我探討二十世紀實踐神學的發展如何加強了實踐神學家對詮釋學的興趣。本章的第三部分可能對理解詮釋學在實踐神學中變得多麼重要最為關鍵。在那裡，我勾勒出當今實踐神學家如何將詮釋理論融入他們的工作中。最後，我探討學者的詮釋學承諾如何影響實踐神學的四個關鍵維度：來源和規範；理論與實踐之間的關係；神學和社會科學見解的協調；以及社會背景的參與方式。

This chapter focuses in particular on Protestant practical theology. In retrospect, I realize that the rethinking of my received tradition that I did as a teenager was a cinaracteristically “Protestant” thing to do. Bracketing some of the dominant theological teachings of the church of their day, preachers and teachers of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries re-read Scripture in confidence that the Spirit still speaks to those who read with faith and humility. It is worth remembering that the Protestant Reformation was guided not only by the watchwords sola gratia, sola fides, sola Scriptura (grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone), but emerged, as well, amid cries of “ad fontes!” (“to the sources”). The Reformers were well trained in the discipline of philology, the study of ancient texts. Hermeneutics, in its early form, was a subdiscipline of philology-specifically, sets of guidelines for interpreting different classes of obscure texts, including Greek and Arabic classics and the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts of scripture. From these beginnings, hermeneutics became what it is today: critical reflection on the interpretive nature of all human experience.
本章特別關注新教的實踐神學。回顧過去，我意識到我在青少年時期對我所接受的傳統的重新思考是一種典型的“新教”行為。在某種程度上排除當時教會的一些主導神學教義，十五和十六世紀的傳教士和教師們自信地重新解讀聖經，堅信聖靈仍然對那些以信心和謙卑閱讀的人說話。值得記住的是，新教改革不僅受到“唯恩典”、“唯信心”、“唯聖經”（sola gratia, sola fides, sola Scriptura）的口號指導，還是在“回到源頭！”（“ad fontes!”）的呼聲中出現的。改革者們在古典文獻學的學科上受過良好的訓練，這是對古代文本的研究。詮釋學在其早期形式中是文獻學的一個子學科——具體而言，是針對不同類別的晦澀文本（包括希臘文和阿拉伯文經典以及希伯來文、希臘文和拉丁文的聖經文本）進行解釋的指導方針。從這些起源開始，詮釋學發展成為今天的樣子：對所有人類經驗的詮釋性質進行批判性反思。

HISTORICALCONTEXT

The Story of Hermeneutics: An Overview
詮釋學的故事：概述

We trace the roots of modern hermeneutics to the Greek classical period, roughly the late sixth to late fourth century BCE, when hermeneia referred to methods for properly interpreting ancient texts, especially the poems of Homer, which originated several centuries earlier.

^{2}

In later centuries, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars also developed hermeneutical rules to guide interpretation of their ancient texts, particularly sacred scriptures.
我們將現代詮釋學的根源追溯到希臘古典時期，大約公元前六世紀末到四世紀末，當時的詮釋（hermeneia）指的是正確解釋古代文本的方法，特別是幾個世紀前出現的荷馬詩篇。在後來的幾個世紀中，猶太、基督教和穆斯林學者也發展了詮釋規則，以指導他們古代文本的解釋，特別是神聖經文。

Sally A Brown 薩莉·A·布朗

118

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was among the first to suggest general hermeneutical procedures for interpreting all types of written texts.

^{3}

Schleiermacher’s “general hermeneutics” included two complementary tasks. First, “grammatical” interpretation required applying reliable tools for studying the building blocks of the text. This included establishing the meaning of words and attending to matters of syntax, genre, and style. Equally indispensable, argued Schleiermacher, was “psychological” interpretationgrasping intent of the author. Schleiermacher was famous for declaring that the interpreter should strive to understand the text better than the author himself.
弗里德里希·施萊爾馬赫（1768-1834）是最早提出解釋各類書面文本的一般詮釋程序的人之一。施萊爾馬赫的「一般詮釋學」包括兩項互補的任務。首先，「語法」解釋需要應用可靠的工具來研究文本的基本要素。這包括確定單詞的含義，並關注語法、體裁和風格等問題。施萊爾馬赫認為，同樣不可或缺的是「心理」解釋，即理解作者的意圖。施萊爾馬赫以宣稱詮釋者應該努力比作者本人更好地理解文本而聞名。

Two generations after Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) took up Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics in the pursuit of his own project. Dilthey wanted to establish a “scientific” method for the human sciences distinct from the empirical method appropriate to the natural sciences. While he never truly succeeded in that quest, Dilthey made a lasting contribution to the hermeneutical tradition: he insisted that texts have to be read with historical consciousness. This meant, among other things, taking into account the historical “life situations” to which any text refers.

^{4}

在施萊爾馬赫之後的兩代人中，威廉·迪爾泰（1833-1911）承接了施萊爾馬赫的詮釋學，追求自己的計劃。迪爾泰希望為人文科學建立一種“科學”的方法，與適用於自然科學的經驗方法有所區別。雖然他從未真正成功於這一追求，但迪爾泰對詮釋學傳統做出了持久的貢獻：他堅持認為文本必須以歷史意識來閱讀。這意味著，除了其他方面，還要考慮任何文本所指涉的歷史“生活情境”。

Into the early twentieth century, hermeneutics retained this historical emphasis. In biblical studies, the historical-critical movement gained traction. Investigating the historical setting that gave rise to a text-as well as its functions and subsequent redactions-became primary clues to meaning. Today, historical-critical sensibilities still play a significant role in biblical interpretation.
進入二十世紀初，詮釋學仍然保留了這種歷史重點。在聖經研究中，歷史批評運動獲得了動力。調查產生文本的歷史背景以及其功能和隨後的修訂，成為理解的主要線索。今天，歷史批評的敏感性在聖經詮釋中仍然扮演著重要角色。

At about the midpoint of the twentieth century, however, hermeneutical thought took a decisive turn. A single event broadened the field of hermeneutics dramatically, shifting its focus away from text interpretation to the much larger claim that all human existence is inescapably interpretive and interpreted existence. The pivotal event was the publication of the masterwork of philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Zein und Zeit (Being and Tine).

^{5}

Heidegger argued that human beings are not born as blank sensing machines confronted with objective sense impressions, but that we are born into an already-interpreted world that we grasp through our own interpretive activity. Human beings have no direct access to “reality as such”; instead, we are “thrown” into the world mediated to us by the communities into which we are born. We become conscious amid a social matrix that already “has” its world in a particular way. We inherit our culture’s predispositions and way of engaging the world. Understanding is not a matter of interpreting pure empirical experience; rather, we move from interpretation to interpretation.
然而，在二十世紀中葉，詮釋學思想發生了決定性的轉變。一個事件大幅擴展了詮釋學的領域，將其焦點從文本解釋轉向一個更大的主張，即所有人類存在都是不可避免地詮釋的和被詮釋的存在。這一關鍵事件是哲學家馬丁·海德格（1889-1976）的代表作《存在與時間》的出版。海德格主張，人類並不是作為面對客觀感知印象的空白感知機器出生，而是出生於一個已被詮釋的世界，我們通過自己的詮釋活動來理解這個世界。人類無法直接接觸到“現實本身”；相反，我們是被“拋入”由我們出生的社群所中介的世界。我們在一個已經以特定方式“擁有”其世界的社會矩陣中變得有意識。我們繼承了文化的傾向和與世界互動的方式。理解不是詮釋純粹經驗的問題；相反，我們在詮釋之間不斷移動。

Heidegger’s philosophy triggered a sea change in hermeneutical thought. A student and eventual colleague of Heidegger’s, Hans Gcorg Gadamer (1900-2002), took up Heidegger’s central ideas to posit a general theory of hermeneutics.

^{6}

In Truth and Method, first published in German in 1960,
海德格的哲學引發了詮釋學思想的重大變革。海德格的學生及最終同事漢斯·喬治·伽達默爾（1900-2002）採納了海德格的核心思想，提出了一個通用的詮釋學理論。《真理與方法》於 1960 年首次以德文出版，

Gadamer insisted that the proper concern of hermeneutics is not methods for text interpretation, but the core process of human understanding itself. Gadamer proposed that coming to understand any phenomenon is a gradual, dialogical process of acquiring deeper insight through listening and questioning, literally or metaphorically. Interpretation is the meeting of two “horizons” of meaning, that of the interpreter and that mediated to the questioner by the artwork, text, practice, or conversation he or she seeks to understand. Understanding, argued Gadamer, requires humility and openness toward the subject matter, rather than an attitude of methodological domination or mastery. He used such metaphors as conversation or playing a game to describe the back-and-forth that leads to a “fusion” of these horizons in a new event of understanding.
加達默爾堅持，詮釋學的正確關注點不是文本解釋的方法，而是人類理解本身的核心過程。加達默爾提出，理解任何現象的過程是一個逐漸的、對話式的過程，通過聆聽和提問獲得更深的洞察，無論是字面上還是隱喻上。詮釋是兩個意義的“地平線”的相遇，即詮釋者的地平線和藝術作品、文本、實踐或對話所傳遞給提問者的地平線。加達默爾主張，理解需要對主題保持謙遜和開放，而不是一種方法論的支配或掌控態度。他使用對話或玩遊戲等隱喻來描述導致這些地平線在新的理解事件中“融合”的來回過程。

Another leading figure in twentieth-century hermeneutics is Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005). Ricoeur both agreed and disagreed with Gadamer. With Gadamer, Ricoeur described the process of coming to understand any phenomenon as a back-and-forth, dialectical movement; however, unlike Gadamer, Ricoeur recognized an essential place for method, or tools of analysis.

^{7} Gad

amer, in his concern to underscore humble submission to the text or artwork instead of mastery, resisted associating critical method with interpretation. In contrast, Ricoeur described the interpretive process as a hermeneutical “arc.” One begins with an initial “hunch,” or guess, about the text or phenomenon to be understood. Next, methods of critical investigation and assessment come into play to test the reliability of the initial hunch. Testing leads to revised understanding.

^{8}

In some contexts, Ricoeur has referred to this revised understanding as the “second naïvete.” This becomes the new point of departure for ongoing interpretation. Ricoeur’s critical hermeneutics explicitly recognizes that both the horizons of understanding that we inherit, as well as those mediated to us by texts or other phenomena, may be distorted by various political and social interests, interests that only critical inquiry can reveal.

^{10}

另一位二十世紀詮釋學的領軍人物是保羅·利科（Paul Ricoeur，1913-2005）。利科既同意又不同意加達默爾（Gadamer）。利科與加達默爾一起，將理解任何現象的過程描述為一種來回的辯證運動；然而，與加達默爾不同，利科認識到方法或分析工具的重要性。加達默爾在強調對文本或藝術作品謙卑服從而非掌控的關注中，抵制將批判方法與詮釋聯繫起來。相對而言，利科將詮釋過程描述為一種詮釋學的“弧”。人們從對要理解的文本或現象的初步“直覺”或猜測開始。接下來，批判性調查和評估的方法開始發揮作用，以檢驗初步直覺的可靠性。測試導致修正的理解。在某些情境中，利科將這種修正的理解稱為“第二次天真”。這成為持續詮釋的新出發點。里科的批判詮釋學明確承認，我們所繼承的理解視野以及文本或其他現象所傳遞給我們的視野，可能會受到各種政治和社會利益的扭曲，而只有批判性探究才能揭示這些利益。

^{10}

None of these thinkers-Heidegger, Gadamer, or Ricoeur-believed that the process of interpretation leads to absolute knowledge or truth; interpretation is always open-ended and subject to revision. Ricoeur especially emphasized the plurivocity of texts, the idea that any text may quite properly yield multiple possible meanings. " Further, contrary to the Romantic hermeneutics of Schleiermacher, Ricoeur argued that an author’s intended meaning cannot control the possible meanings of a text. A text’s range of possible meanings is not infinite, given its particular grammatical structure; but where, why, and how it is read can generate different meanings for different readers and circumstances. Fundamentally, said Ricoeur, the function of any text is to “propose a world” to the reader and invite her to inhabit it. By “inhabiting” the text’s world, the reader sees the contemporary world and even herself in a fresh way.

^{12}

這些思想家——海德格、加達默爾或里科——都不相信詮釋的過程會導致絕對的知識或真理；詮釋總是開放的，並且可以修訂。里科特特別強調文本的多義性，即任何文本都可能產生多種可能的意義。此外，與施萊爾馬赫的浪漫詮釋學相反，里科特主張作者的意圖無法控制文本的可能意義。文本的可能意義範圍並不是無限的，因為它有特定的語法結構；但閱讀的地點、原因和方式可以為不同的讀者和情境產生不同的意義。里科特說，任何文本的基本功能是向讀者“提出一個世界”，並邀請她去居住其中。通過“居住”在文本的世界中，讀者以全新的方式看待當代世界，甚至看待自己。

Sally A Brown 薩莉·A·布朗

120
A fourth twentieth-century theorist of special interest to practical theologians is Jürgen Habermas (1929-). Habermas’s work is difficult to summarize; it is complex and constantly under development.

^{13}

One aspect of Habermas’s work that has interested practical theologians particularly is his theory of “communicative action.” Habermas posits a form of fair, accessible public discourse where participants representing varied interests and social locations participate in public conversation for the sake of strategic changes in praxis. Habermas calls for a model of discourse in which full inclusion, noncoercive participation, and equal access are guaranteed to all participants in public discourse, and all come to the table prepared to defend publicly accessible claims.

^{14}

This model has interested practical theologians oriented toward strategic social change.
對實踐神學家特別感興趣的第四位二十世紀理論家是尤爾根·哈貝馬斯（Jürgen Habermas，1929 年－）。哈貝馬斯的工作難以總結；它複雜且不斷發展。哈貝馬斯的工作中，特別引起實踐神學家興趣的一個方面是他的“交往行動”理論。哈貝馬斯假設了一種公平、可及的公共話語形式，參與者代表不同的利益和社會位置，為了在實踐中進行戰略變革而參與公共對話。哈貝馬斯呼籲一種話語模式，在這種模式中，所有參與者在公共話語中都保證完全包容、非強制性參與和平等的進入權，所有人都準備好為公開可及的主張辯護。這一模式引起了面向戰略社會變革的實踐神學家的興趣。

The work of Ricoeur and Habermas can be regarded as transitional, leading us from the mid-twentieth-century philosophical-linguistic tum of Heidegger and Gadamer toward a diverse array of interpretation theories by the late twentieth century.
里科爾和哈貝馬斯的工作可以被視為過渡性的，將我們從二十世紀中葉海德格和加達默的哲學語言轉向二十世紀末多樣的詮釋理論。

Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Key
後現代語境中的詮釋學

A primary characteristic that marks the turn from modern to postmodern hermeneutical theory is the concern of postmodem thinkers to reflect critically on the way that both the construction of texts, as well as interpretations of those texts, can be distorted by the vested interests of authors and interpreters. In other words, what a text appears to present as normative or “the way things are” may in fact be a version of reality that benefits certain powerful agents in society who wish to maintain their prerogatives. This has led to the postmodern interpretive principle of approaching texts with a “hermeneutic of suspicion”-that is, with alertness to the possible distortions embedded in texts, and in interpretations or applications of those texts.

^{is}

一個標誌著從現代到後現代詮釋理論轉變的主要特徵是後現代思想家關注批判性地反思文本的建構以及對這些文本的詮釋如何可能受到作者和詮釋者的既得利益的扭曲。換句話說，文本所呈現的規範性或“事物的本來面貌”實際上可能是某些社會中希望維持其特權的強大代理人的現實版本。這導致了後現代詮釋原則，即以“懷疑的詮釋學”來接近文本——也就是對文本中可能存在的扭曲，以及對這些文本的詮釋或應用保持警覺。

Liberation hermeneutics, first developed as an approach to biblical interpretation, has become a hermeneutical stance characteristic of many late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century theologians, including many practical theologians. Liberation hermeneutics proceeds on the assumption that the interests of the privileged-whether privilege derives from gender, ethnicity, class, wealth, or a combination of these-are inscribed into a religious community’s texts and social practices. These systematic distortions protect the prerogatives of the dominant, creating unjustly subjugated populations (women, persons of different ethnicity, or those of lesser class or wealth). In a theological context, this can mean that religious texts and practices, which appear on the surface to convey unassailable truth, work to sustain the social status quo. Liberation hermencutical approaches distrust the purported “objectivity” of textual claims, including religious ones.

^{16}

解放詮釋學最初作為一種聖經詮釋的方法，已成為許多二十世紀末和二十一世紀初神學家的特徵，包括許多實踐神學家。解放詮釋學基於這樣的假設：特權者的利益——無論特權源自性別、族裔、階級、財富或這些的組合——都被寫入宗教社群的文本和社會實踐中。這些系統性的扭曲保護了主導者的特權，創造了不公正的被壓迫群體（女性、不同族裔的人或那些階級或財富較低的人）。在神學背景下，這可能意味著宗教文本和實踐表面上看似傳達無可辯駁的真理，實際上卻在維持社會現狀。解放詮釋學的方法不信任文本主張的所謂“客觀性”，包括宗教的主張。

Liberation hermeneutics has both deconstructive and reconstructive aspects. Such a hermeneutics seeks, first, to unmask vested interest. The work of liberation does not stop there. Feminist, black, and queer hermeneutics often supplement strategies of suspicion with strategies of retrieval, seeking to claim and reconstruct liberating elements in scripture and tradition that can empower those on the margins for self-determination and dignity. The interpreter herself is not exempt from the critical gaze: she must inquire into her own vested interests in privilege, which easily distort one’s vision and one’s conclusions.
解放詮釋學具有解構和重構的雙重面向。這種詮釋學首先尋求揭露既得利益。解放的工作並不止於此。女性主義、黑人和酷兒詮釋學通常將懷疑的策略與檢索的策略相輔相成，尋求在經文和傳統中主張和重構能夠賦予邊緣人群自我決定和尊嚴的解放元素。詮釋者本人也不例外於批判的目光：她必須探究自己在特權中的既得利益，這些利益很容易扭曲一個人的視野和結論。

A second family of approaches that privileges a hermeneutics of suspicion is postmodern discourse theory. Discourse theory, which draws on multiple disciplines including sociology, political theory, history, and literary theory attends to the many ways human beings generate and establish meaning, including not only texts and practices but institutions, legal codes, symbolism, and even the arrangement of space. All of these are “discursive” in that they are constructions that convey meaning and legitimate values.
第二種重視懷疑詮釋學的方法論是後現代話語理論。話語理論借鑒了社會學、政治理論、歷史和文學理論等多個學科，關注人類生成和建立意義的多種方式，包括文本和實踐、機構、法律法規、符號，甚至空間的安排。所有這些都是“話語性的”，因為它們是傳達意義和合法化價值的建構。

At the “macro” level, culture itself can be thought of as a web of interrelated discourses that, functioning together, construct and reinforce certain beliefs and behaviors around gender, race, and sexual orientation. French sociologist Michel Foucault (1926-1984) argued that dominant cultural discourses do not just happen to be there; they are strategic deployments of social, political, and economic power. In other words, the values and interests of the powerful are kept in place by “regimes of truth”-an interweaving of practices and narratives that are mutually self-sustaining.

^{17}

For example, slavery in the American South was kept in place by multiple, overlapping practices and narratives relating gender and race, economics and politics to religious ideas about a divinely established order. This “regime of truth” assigned America’s black population a less-than-human status.
在“宏觀”層面上，文化本身可以被視為一個相互關聯的話語網絡，這些話語共同運作，構建並強化圍繞性別、種族和性取向的某些信念和行為。法國社會學家米歇爾·福柯（1926-1984）認為，主導文化話語並不是偶然存在的；它們是社會、政治和經濟權力的戰略部署。換句話說，強權的價值觀和利益是通過“真理體系”來維持的——這是一種相互自我維持的實踐和敘事的交織。例如，美國南方的奴隸制是通過多種重疊的實踐和敘事來維持的，這些實踐和敘事將性別和種族、經濟和政治與關於神聖建立秩序的宗教觀念聯繫起來。這個“真理體系”將美國的黑人群體賦予了一種低於人類的地位。

Today, the boundaries between social philosophy, history, discourse theory, and hermeneutical theory are fluid. Thus, to critically assess and revise religious practices, contemporary practical theologians often weave together elements of two or more of these fields, in concert with theological resources.
今天，社會哲學、歷史、話語理論和詮釋學理論之間的界限是流動的。因此，當代實踐神學家在批判性地評估和修訂宗教實踐時，經常將這些領域的兩個或更多元素與神學資源結合在一起。

Twentieth-Century Practical Theology in Conversation with Hermeneutical Theory
二十世紀實踐神學與詮釋學理論的對話

Tiwentieth-century developments in hermeneutical theory have had far-reaching impact in Protestant practical theology. Yet this might not have been the case were it not for some key developinents in practical theology itself in roughly the same period. These developments had the effect of opening lines of lively conversation between hermeneutics and practical theology.
二十世紀的詮釋學理論發展對新教實踐神學產生了深遠的影響。然而，如果不是在大約同一時期實踐神學本身的一些關鍵發展，情況可能不會如此。這些發展促成了詮釋學與實踐神學之間生動對話的開展。

Sally A Brown 薩莉·A·布朗

Friedrich Schleiermacher, an important figure in the story of hermeneutics as we have seen. also plays a key role in the story of practical theology. His Brief Outline of the Study of Theology makes a case for the inclusion of practical theology among the theological “sciences” within German universities. In a threefold arrangement of the theological fields, Schleiermacher envisioned practical theology as the “crown”-yet, practical theology’s primary role is to bring to bear the fruits of other theological disciplines in the church’s life through ministerial practice-that is, the work of the professional clergy.
弗里德里希·施萊爾馬赫，正如我們所見，是詮釋學故事中的重要人物。他在實踐神學的故事中也扮演著關鍵角色。他的《神學研究簡要大綱》主張將實踐神學納入德國大學的神學“科學”之中。在神學領域的三重安排中，施萊爾馬赫將實踐神學視為“皇冠”——然而，實踐神學的主要角色是通過牧職實踐，將其他神學學科的成果帶入教會的生活中，也就是專業神職人員的工作。

By the 1950s and 1960s, practical theologians in the United States were beginning to criticize Schleiermacher’s model. The clerical paradigm of ministry failed to reflect newer understandings of ministry as the work of the people. The notion that practical theology can generate only technique rather than original theological insights left practical theology in a second-tier position in the academy. Some began to argue that the study of practices themselves does, in fact, produce new knowledge-knowledge, in fact, that can instigate revised readings of scripture and tradition.
到 1950 年代和 1960 年代，美國的實踐神學家開始批評施萊爾馬赫的模型。神職人員的事工範式未能反映出對事工作為人民工作的更新理解。實踐神學只能產生技術而非原創神學見解的觀念，使實踐神學在學術界處於第二級的位置。一些人開始主張，對實踐本身的研究實際上確實產生了新知識——事實上，這些知識可以引發對聖經和傳統的修訂解讀。

Such ideas resonated well with the writings of Gadamer, Ricoeur, Habermas, and others. A collection of essays edited by Don S. Browning. Practical Theology, gives evidence that hermeneutical theory was shaping these revisionary initiatives. Catholic theologian David Tracy, whose work has had widespread impact in both Catholic and Protestant practical theology, saw practical theology as that form of hermeneutical theology that seeks “mutually critical correlations between the meaning and truth of an interpretation of the Christian fact and the meaning and truth of an interpretation of the contemporary situation.”

^{18}

Dennis McCann, another contributor to that collection of essays, took seriously both critical theory and liberation theologies in his work, although he also argues that the critical pressure of God’s as-yetunrealized eschatological future, derived from scripture, norms present praxis. Leander Keck writes that “hermeneutics has come to the fore as a primary task, indeed mode, of theological work” and characterizes the process of interpreting a text in Gadamerian terms as dialogue leading to understanding.

^{19}

這些想法與加達默爾、里科爾、哈伯馬斯等人的著作產生了良好的共鳴。由唐·S·布朗寧編輯的《實踐神學》一書提供了證據，表明詮釋學理論正在塑造這些修訂性倡議。天主教神學家大衛·特雷西，他的作品在天主教和新教的實踐神學中都有廣泛的影響，將實踐神學視為一種詮釋學神學，旨在尋求“基督教事實的詮釋的意義和真理與當代情況的詮釋的意義和真理之間的相互批判關聯。”

^{18}

丹尼斯·麥肯，這本論文集的另一位貢獻者，在他的工作中認真對待批判理論和解放神學，儘管他也主張，來自聖經的上帝尚未實現的末世未來的批判壓力，規範當前的實踐。利安德·凱克寫道：“詮釋學已成為神學工作的主要任務，實際上是一種模式”，並將加達默爾式的文本詮釋過程描述為通往理解的對話。

^{19}

Not all practical theologians have embraced a hermencutical model of human existence. Some practical theologians are wary of the open-ended, provisional view of human knowledge (including religious knowledge) that it implies. Confident that wise biblical interpretation can and does produce sufficient and objective knowledge of God and the human situation, they prefer to limit the role of hermeneutics in practical theology to biblical interpretation. The work of practical theology is to translate and apply biblically grounded truths to human situations without prejudice or distortion. One example of this approach is the “biblical counseling movement” which had its beginnings in the work of Jay Adams. The foundational premise of this
並非所有的實踐神學家都接受人類存在的詮釋學模型。一些實踐神學家對其所暗示的開放性、臨時性的知識觀（包括宗教知識）持謹慎態度。他們相信，明智的聖經詮釋可以並且確實能夠產生足夠且客觀的關於上帝和人類處境的知識，因此他們更願意將詮釋學在實踐神學中的角色限制於聖經詮釋。實踐神學的工作是將以聖經為基礎的真理翻譯並應用於人類情境中，而不帶有偏見或扭曲。這種方法的一個例子是“聖經輔導運動”，其起源於傑伊·亞當斯的工作。這一基礎前提
school of thought is that “the Bible is the sufficient foundation and guiding authority of counseling.”

^{20}

In other words, the foundational premises sufficient for all theological knowledge and practice are contained completely, without remainder, and in an unchanging way, within the limits of the canon of the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Scriptures. A second generation of practitioners in this tradition is somewhat more interdisciplinary, acknowledging the legitimate role of psycho-social diagnostic insights to guide a counselor’s application of biblical truth.
思想學派認為「聖經是輔導的充分基礎和指導權威。」

^{20}

換句話說，所有神學知識和實踐所需的基礎前提完全包含在基督教聖經的舊約和新約的範疇內，沒有遺漏，並且以不變的方式存在。這一傳統的第二代從業者在某種程度上更具跨學科性，承認心理社會診斷見解在輔導者應用聖經真理中的合法角色。

KEY FEATURES AND REPRESENTATIVE FIGURES
主要特點和代表性數字

Hermeneutical theory nearly always has some role to play in a practical theologian’s work, although not all foreground hermeneutics as a primary structuring influence on their thought. Some who do include Don S. Browning, Rebecca Chopp, Elaine Graham, Gerben Heitink, Dale P. Andrews, Donald Capps, Susan Dunlap, John McClure, Hans Pieterse, and Nancy L. Gross.

^{21}

Others, like Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger, make hermeneutical judgments that are more implicit, yet no less decisive for their practicaltheological approach.

^{22}

詮釋學理論在實踐神學家的工作中幾乎總是扮演著某種角色，儘管並非所有人都將詮釋學作為其思想的主要結構性影響。一些包括唐·S·布朗寧、瑞貝卡·喬普、伊萊恩·格雷厄姆、赫爾本·海廷克、戴爾·P·安德魯斯、唐納德·卡普斯、蘇珊·鄧拉普、約翰·麥克克勞爾、漢斯·皮特斯和南希·L·格羅斯。

^{21}

其他人，如黛博拉·范·德尤森·亨辛格，則做出更隱含的詮釋判斷，但對於他們的實踐神學方法同樣具有決定性。

^{22}

In the section to follow, I examine the role of hermeneutics in three distinct types of practical theological projects. First, Don S. Browning and Elaine Graham have proposed comprehensive new models for practical theology as a unified discipline. Second, Dale Andrews is also interested in practical theology in the broad sense-but for a specific socio-ecclesial context, in this case, African American churches in North America. Finally, Susan Dunlap and Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger are pastoral theologians who have crafted hermeneutically distinctive approaches for a particular practice-in the case of these scholars, pastoral counseling. By examining each of these in turn, we will get a sense of some ways that practical theologians today are putting hermeneutical theory to work.
在接下來的部分中，我將探討詮釋學在三種不同類型的實踐神學項目中的角色。首先，唐·S·布朗寧和伊萊恩·格雷厄姆提出了實踐神學作為一個統一學科的綜合新模型。其次，戴爾·安德魯斯對實踐神學也感興趣，但他關注的是一個特定的社會教會背景，在這種情況下，是北美的非裔美國人教會。最後，蘇珊·鄧拉普和黛博拉·范·德尤森·亨辛格是牧靈神學家，他們為特定的實踐（在這些學者的情況下，是牧靈輔導）創造了詮釋學上獨特的方法。通過逐一檢視這些內容，我們將了解當今的實踐神學家如何將詮釋學理論付諸實踐。

Don S. Browning

The work of Don S. Browning (1934-2010) has had wide impact in practical theology for over four decades. Toward the end of his career, Browning studied families closely; but as an example of the way hermeneutical theory can be woven into constructive practical theology, his book Fimdamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals is instructive. Browning took as a starting point something very close to David Tracy’s definition of practical theology cited earlier. Practical theology sets up a correlation between two bodies of interpretation: on one hand, an interpretation of the theory and praxis of Christian faith and on the other, an interpretation of theory and praxis of the human “situation.” Notice that neither Chris-
唐·S·布朗寧（1934-2010）的工作在實踐神學領域影響深遠，持續了四十多年。在他職業生涯的末期，布朗寧密切研究家庭；但作為詮釋學理論如何融入建設性實踐神學的例子，他的著作《基本實踐神學：描述性和戰略性提案》具有啟發性。布朗寧以非常接近大衛·特雷西早前引用的實踐神學定義為起點。實踐神學在兩個詮釋體系之間建立了相關性：一方面是對基督教信仰的理論和實踐的詮釋，另一方面是對人類“情境”的理論和實踐的詮釋。注意到基督教信仰的詮釋和人類情境的詮釋之間並沒有明確的界限。

Sally A. Brown 莎莉·A·布朗

tian faith nor human experience or theory and praxis are taken as objectively “given”; both are inevitably “interpreted.” Further, each resource-Christian tradition and human experience-can influence the other. Study of a social practice such as divorce could impact the way a scholar interprets scripture.
天信仰或人類經驗或理論與實踐並不是客觀的“給定”；兩者都不可避免地是“被詮釋的”。此外，每一種資源——基督教傳統和人類經驗——都可以影響另一方。對於離婚等社會實踐的研究可能會影響學者對經文的詮釋。

Browning drew on Gadamer to describe the revisable type of knowledge that practical-theological reflection yields. Neither objectivity nor certitude is possible or necessary, although norms will be developed out of the interpretive dialogue, which is always provisional and open to revision. Browning emphasized Gadamer’s point that “application” is the driving force of all inquiry. For practical theology this rules out a two-step process that “applies” abstract universals to a situation: “Application to practice is not an act that follows understanding. It guides the interpretive process from the beginning.” For practical theology specifically, notes Browning, “Cadamer’s theory of understanding . . . breaks down the theory-to-practice model in the humanities and theology . . . [and] in the social sciences as well.” Practices themselves are theory laden, and theory is practice driven.

^{23}

布朗寧引用加達默爾來描述實踐神學反思所產生的可修訂知識類型。雖然將會從詮釋對話中發展出規範，但客觀性和確定性既不可能也不必要，詮釋對話始終是臨時的並且開放於修訂。布朗寧強調加達默爾的觀點，即“應用”是所有探究的推動力。對於實踐神學來說，這排除了將抽象普遍性“應用”於具體情境的兩步驟過程：“對實踐的應用不是理解之後的行為。它從一開始就指導詮釋過程。”布朗寧特別指出， “加達默爾的理解理論……打破了人文學科和神學中的理論到實踐模型……[以及]社會科學中的模型。”實踐本身是充滿理論的，而理論則是由實踐驅動的。

Ricoeur’s dialectical model of hermeneutics helped Browning describe the relation between insights from theological sources and the fruits of so-cial-scientific research. Just as Ricoeur’s hermeneutical “arc” leads from an initial hunch about meaning, through critical methods of analysis, and then to better understanding, so practical theologians work dialectically, drawing on the root narratives of the religious tradition and at the same time on insights from social-scientific research to understand any human situation. Browning cited Ricoeur’s theory of narrative meaning to remind us that the stories of a religious tradition, both the canonical ones and those communities tell (like confessions), are tensive and metaphorical, not literal, in the meaning they convey. In yet another hermeneutical move, Browning took up the communicative action paradigm of Jürgen Habermas to propose that practical theology can only bring about significant and lasting social change by learning to engage in public reasoning about human well-being.
里科爾的辯證模型幫助布朗寧描述神學來源的洞見與社會科學研究成果之間的關係。正如里科爾的詮釋學“弧”從對意義的初步直覺出發，經過批判性分析方法，然後達到更好的理解，實踐神學家也以辯證的方式工作，既汲取宗教傳統的根本敘事，又同時借鑒社會科學研究的洞見，以理解任何人類情境。布朗寧引用里科爾的敘事意義理論提醒我們，宗教傳統的故事，無論是經典的還是社群所講述的（如告白），在所傳達的意義上都是緊張和隱喻的，而非字面上的。布朗寧在另一個詮釋學的轉變中，採用了尤爾根·哈貝馬斯的交往行動範式，提出實踐神學只有通過學習參與有關人類福祉的公共推理，才能帶來顯著和持久的社會變革。

Elaine L. Graham 伊萊恩·L·格雷厄姆

Like Browning, Elaine L. Graham is interested in rethinking practical theology as a whole. A researcher in social and pastoral theology at the University of Chester affiliated with the Anglican communion, Graham reimagines pastoral theology (by which she means the entire range of fields that comprise practical theology) for a postmodern world marked by pluralisin and a loss of moral consensus. In Transforming Practice: Pastoral Theology in an Age of Uncertainty, Graham argues that practical theology must take situated praxis itself as both its point of departure and its goal. Only this local, concrete, embodied starting point is sufficient to launch the kind of radical questioning
像布朗宁一樣，伊萊恩·L·格雷厄姆對整體實踐神學的重新思考感興趣。作為切斯特大學社會與牧靈神學的研究者，格雷厄姆重新構想了牧靈神學（她所指的是構成實踐神學的整個範疇），以適應一個以多元主義和道德共識喪失為特徵的後現代世界。在《轉變實踐：不確定時代的牧靈神學》中，格雷厄姆主張，實踐神學必須將具體的實踐本身作為其出發點和目標。只有這種地方性、具體的、具身的起點，才能啟動這種激進的質疑。
of monolithic and totalizing traditions that will truly be liberative in a world of pluralism.
在多元化的世界中，真正能夠解放的單一和全盤的傳統。

Graham takes the inherently hermeneutical nature of human experience as given. Since we live our lives in particular local, historical contexts, Graham believes practical theologians need to pay attention to what local, situated praxis can teach about human thriving and change instead of relying on purportedly universal theological ideas to guide the human future. She commends a critically revised version of Charles V. Gerkin’s narrative hermeneutics for developing local visions of change.

^{24}

Graham worries, however, that narrative theorists like Gerkin and Stanley M. Hauerwas tend to assume that Christianity is undergirded by a univocal and monolithic narrative. Hauerwas, says Graham, “over-simplifies the actual construction of the biblical tradition” and fails to take seriously the messy process that produced it.

^{25}

In Graham’s model, biblical stories interweave with the stories communities and individuals tell, stories that emerge from faith-driven praxis. Feministcritical methods of interpretation guide Graham’s reading of scripture and theological traditions. While norms for future action are informed by these textual resources, ultimately praxis-guiding norms arise from a critical hermeneutics of praxis itself.
格雷厄姆認為人類經驗的內在詮釋性是理所當然的。由於我們的生活是在特定的地方和歷史背景中進行的，格雷厄姆認為實踐神學家需要關注當地的、具體的實踐能夠教會我們有關人類繁榮和變革的知識，而不是依賴所謂的普遍神學觀念來指導人類的未來。她讚揚查爾斯·V·格爾金的敘事詮釋學的批判性修訂版本，以發展當地的變革視野。然而，格雷厄姆擔心，像格爾金和斯坦利·M·霍華斯這樣的敘事理論家往往假設基督教是由一個單一且單一的敘事所支撐的。格雷厄姆說，霍華斯“過於簡化了聖經傳統的實際建構”，並未認真對待產生這一傳統的混亂過程。在格雷厄姆的模型中，聖經故事與社區和個人所講述的故事交織在一起，這些故事源於信仰驅動的實踐。女性主義批判的詮釋方法指導著格雷厄姆對聖經和神學傳統的解讀。雖然未來行動的規範受到這些文本資源的啟發，但最終指導實踐的規範源自於對實踐本身的批判詮釋學。

Dale P. Andrews

In Practical Theology for Black Churches Dale P. Andrews seeks to reconstruct practical theology for the black church context. Practical theologians for the black churches in North America today, observes Andrews, must face two growing gaps. First, they must acknowledge the divide between, on one hand, the pastor-centered folk paradigm of ministry in historically black churches, sometimes referred to as the “refuge” paradigm, and, on the other, the “prophetic” paradigm that drives black academic theology. These two ecclesiological paradigms rarely interact.

^{26}

Second, practical theologians must take more seriously the growing distance between the church and two significant black demographics: black urban youth and the growing black middle class.
在《黑教會的實踐神學》中，戴爾·P·安德魯斯試圖重建黑教會背景下的實踐神學。安德魯斯觀察到，今天北美黑教會的實踐神學家必須面對兩個日益擴大的差距。首先，他們必須承認歷史上黑教會中以牧師為中心的民眾範式（有時被稱為“避難所”範式）與推動黑色學術神學的“預言”範式之間的鴻溝。這兩種教會學範式很少互動。其次，實踐神學家必須更加認真地對待教會與兩個重要的黑人人口統計之間日益增長的距離：黑色城市青年和日益增長的黑色中產階級。

Andrews reminds us that while ecclesiology in predominantly white churches is grounded in doctrinal formulae, black churches’ self-understanding emerged in the era of chattel slavery in the United States. Birthed in the chains of slavery, the black church functioned as spiritual, emotional, and (later) economic “refuge” for an enslaved population. Black academic theology, however, tends to see continuance of the “refuge” paradigm as irrelevant and insufficient to contemporary issues. Black theology sponsors a politically oriented “prophetic” paradigm for black Christianity informed by critical theory and liberation social analysis. Yet this vision has not been articulated in a way that connects with people in the pews.

^{27}

安德魯斯提醒我們，雖然以白人為主的教會的教會學是基於教義公式，但黑人教會的自我理解是在美國奴隸制時代中產生的。黑人教會在奴隸的枷鎖中誕生，作為被奴役人口的精神、情感和（後來的）經濟“避難所”。然而，黑人學術神學往往認為“避難所”範式的延續與當代問題無關且不足夠。黑人神學支持一種以政治為導向的“預言”範式，這一範式受到批判理論和解放社會分析的啟發。然而，這一願景尚未以能夠與會眾產生聯繫的方式表達出來。

Neither paradigm is addressing the critical problem of black alienation from black churches. The black middle class, largely shaped by the “libera! individualism” of white America, does not see the church as a galvanizing force for its aspirations. Black urban youth find themselves mired in the social, educational, economic, and political deprivations of neighborhoods victimized by public neglect, on one hand, and, on the other, by “shadow” institutions like drug networks and gangs. Black practical theology, argues Andrews, must be guided by a new paradigm, one that has immediate relevance to the demographics that are drifting away from the church. Andrews constructs a “faith-identity formation” paradigm that joins peoplehood (a strong sense of the distinctive historical and communal roots of black identity) with personhood (a strong sense of the goal-directed self). Such a model for human flourishing can reconnect both the black middle class and disengaged urban youth with the redemptive, transformational vision of black churches.
兩種範式都未能解決黑人與黑人教會之間的關鍵問題。黑人中產階級在很大程度上受到白人美國“自由個人主義”的影響，並不將教會視為實現其抱負的催化力量。黑人城市青年發現自己陷入社會、教育、經濟和政治的剝奪中，這些社區受到公共忽視的侵害，另一方面，則受到毒品網絡和幫派等“影子”機構的影響。安德魯斯主張，黑人實踐神學必須受到一種新範式的指導，這種範式與正在遠離教會的人口統計有直接的相關性。安德魯斯構建了一個“信仰-身份形成”範式，將人群（對黑人身份獨特歷史和社區根源的強烈認同感）與個人（對目標導向自我的強烈認同感）結合在一起。這樣一個人類繁榮的模型可以重新連接黑人中產階級和脫離的城市青年與黑人教會的救贖性、轉型願景。

Like Graham, Andrews turns to a critically revised version of Gerkin’s narrative hermeneutics to envision new practices for the black church. Andrews expands Gerkin’s model, thinking in terms of communal rather than individual narratives, and a more complex understanding of the biblical witness.

^{28}

像格雷厄姆一樣，安德魯斯轉向對格金敘事詮釋學的批判性修訂版本，以構想黑人教會的新實踐。安德魯斯擴展了格金的模型，從社群而非個人敘事的角度思考，並對聖經見證有更複雜的理解。

The black churches’ deep tradition of communal “re-narration” or present experience using biblical metaphors holds promise for today, says Andrews. Black leaders and congregations together can reframe experience, whether of the growing black middle class or urban youth, “coauthoring the liberating story in the life of the church and God’s people.”

^{29}

安德魯斯表示，黑人的教會深厚的社區“重敘述”傳統或使用聖經隱喻的當前經驗對今天充滿希望。黑人領袖和會眾可以共同重新框架經驗，無論是日益增長的黑人中產階級還是城市青年，“共同創作教會和上帝的人民生活中的解放故事。”

Susan J. Dunlap and Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger: Hermeneutics for Pastoral Care
蘇珊·J·鄧拉普和黛博拉·范·德森·亨辛格：牧靈關懷的詮釋學

Susan J. Dunlap wrote Counseling Depressed Women propelled by a concern that standard treatments for depression in women, combining pharmacological therapies with pastoral counseling, was failing to take into account the sociocultural context of women’s lives, and thus was failing to empower women to deal with that context’s potentially damaging messages.

^{30} A

client struggling with depression steps out of her counselor’s office into a world where powerful cultural norms and media messages often reinforce negative attitudes toward women’s competency, feelings, and bodies. A depressed woman may have few tools for resisting media portrayals of women as childish or needy, vulnerable to violence, and lacking in self-determination.
蘇珊·J·鄧拉普撰寫了《輔導抑鬱女性》，因為她擔心標準的抑鬱治療方法，將藥物療法與牧靈輔導相結合，未能考慮女性生活的社會文化背景，因此未能賦予女性應對該背景中潛在有害信息的能力。

^{30} A

一位與抑鬱作鬥爭的客戶走出她的輔導員辦公室，進入一個強大的文化規範和媒體信息經常強化對女性能力、情感和身體的負面態度的世界。一位抑鬱的女性可能缺乏抵抗媒體對女性描繪為幼稚或需要幫助、易受暴力侵害和缺乏自我決定能力的工具。

Dunlap argues that depressed women need a therapeutic approach that equips them to discern and resist these negative cultural messages. Dunlap draws on three bodies of theory to reconstruct pastoral work with women suffering from depression. First, the critical discourse hermeneutics of Mich-
鄧拉普認為，抑鬱的女性需要一種治療方法，使她們能夠辨識並抵抗這些負面的文化信息。鄧拉普借鑒了三個理論體系，以重建對抑鬱女性的牧靈工作。首先，米希的批判性話語詮釋學。
el Foucault provides analytical tools to understand how cultural practices and messages, overt or covert, can warp women’s assessment of themselves. "1 Second, cognitive therapy stresses the importance of critical thinking to help clients construct new ways of understanding their past, present, and future.

^{32}

Third, argues Dunlap, although Christian texts and teachings have been coopted to legitimate subjugating messages about women, a feminist-critical hermeneutics of retrieval and reconstruction can provide tools for creative change.

^{33}

Using these strategies, client and counselor together can “rewrite” the story of the client’s past and present.

^{34}

Out of that revised self-understanding, a redemptive future of self-determination and hope can emerge.
福柯提供了分析工具，以理解文化實踐和信息（無論是明顯還是隱蔽）如何扭曲女性對自身的評估。 "第二，認知療法強調批判性思維的重要性，以幫助客戶構建理解他們過去、現在和未來的新方式。

^{32}

第三，鄧拉普主張，儘管基督教文本和教義已被挪用以合法化對女性的壓迫性信息，但女性主義批判的詮釋學的檢索和重建可以提供創造性變革的工具。

^{33}

使用這些策略，客戶和輔導員可以一起“重寫”客戶的過去和現在的故事。

^{34}

在這種修訂的自我理解中，一個自我決定和希望的救贖未來可以出現。

Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger
黛博拉·范·德尤森·亨辛格

Pastoral counseling is also the focal practice for pastoral theologian Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger in Theology and Pastoral Care: A New Interdisciplinary Approach. In contrast to Dunlap’s approach, Hunsinger privileges theological description over social-scientific description. Using a metaphor of “bilinguality,” Hunsinger posits that successful pastoral intervention depends on both theological and social-scientific interpretations of a client’s situation.

^{35}

Hunsinger is clear that both interpretive perspectives are essential to diagnosis and treatment. Theological description grounded in Hebrew and Christian scriptures describes the human situation as one distorted by sin and captive to evil. At the same time, psychological analysis provides indispensable insight into the psychodynamics of any situation. Neither language is substitutable for the other; that is, theology is not simply saying in different words what psychology is telling us, or vice versa. Psychological theory has its own valid insights and claims in any situation.

^{36}

牧靈輔導也是牧靈神學家黛博拉·范·德尤森·亨辛格在《神學與牧靈關懷：一種新的跨學科方法》中的核心實踐。與鄧拉普的做法相比，亨辛格更重視神學描述而非社會科學描述。亨辛格使用“雙語性”的隱喻，認為成功的牧靈介入依賴於對客戶情況的神學和社會科學解釋。亨辛格明確指出，這兩種解釋視角對於診斷和治療都是必不可少的。基於希伯來和基督教經文的神學描述將人類情況描述為一種被罪扭曲並被邪惡所囚禁的狀態。與此同時，心理分析為任何情況提供了不可或缺的心理動力學洞察。這兩種語言不能相互替代；也就是說，神學並不僅僅是用不同的詞語重述心理學所告訴我們的，反之亦然。心理學理論在任何情況下都有其有效的洞察和主張。

Hunsinger appeals to the Chalcedonian Christological model (early Christianity’s description of the relation between the human and divine natures in the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ) as a paradigm for drawing the two descriptive languages, theological and social-scientific, into appropriate relationship. These descriptive frameworks are not equal partners; their contributions are distinctive and nonsubstitutable, yet their relationship is “asymmetrical” and ordered. Theological description is privileged, drawing psychological description into its orbit, rather than vice versa. Although the role of hermeneutical theory is not made explicit in Hunsinger’s work, its importance for her “bilingual” approach is clear. Guidelines for both biblical-theological interpretation and psychological interpretation will play a prominent role in assessing any counseling situation. Ultimately-in Gadamerian terms-the horizon of theological understanding will reshape (but not absorb) the horizon of psychological insight.
漢辛格援引了迦克墩基督論模型（早期基督教對於道成肉身的耶穌基督中人性與神性關係的描述）作為將神學和社會科學這兩種描述語言納入適當關係的範例。這些描述框架並不是平等的夥伴；它們的貢獻是獨特且不可替代的，但它們的關係是「不對稱」且有序的。神學描述是特權的，將心理學描述納入其範疇，而不是反之。雖然漢辛格的作品中並未明確指出詮釋學理論的角色，但其對她的「雙語」方法的重要性是顯而易見的。聖經神學詮釋和心理學詮釋的指導方針將在評估任何輔導情境中扮演重要角色。最終——用加達默的術語來說——神學理解的視野將重塑（但不會吸收）心理洞察的視野。

These five “snapshots” of contemporary practical-theological work demonstrate the significant, constructive role that hermeneutical theory is playing
這五個當代實踐神學工作的「快照」展示了詮釋學理論所扮演的重要且具建設性的角色
in practical theology today. My final task is to explore how a practical theologian`s hermeneutical perspective might impact four key dimensions of her work: the sources and norms on which she relies; how she sees the theorypractice relationship; the interdisciplinary coordination of theological and social-scientific insights; and the degree to which specific contexts are engaged in her work.
在當代實踐神學中。我的最後任務是探討一位實踐神學家的詮釋學視角如何影響她工作的四個關鍵維度：她所依賴的來源和規範；她如何看待理論與實踐的關係；神學與社會科學見解的跨學科協調；以及她的工作中具體情境的參與程度。

NORMS AND SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
規範與權威來源

How we think of the nature of the knowledge available to human beings is a basic decision that shapes not only scholarly endeavors but all of life. Is all human experience, including religious experience, inescapably interpreted and interpretive, as Heidegger suggested, so that our knowledge of God and ourselves may be sufficient, but never more than provisional? Or is theological understanding revealed to human beings in ways that entirely transcend the limitation and flux of our cultural and historical horizons of experience? Does the truth lie somewhere between? A practical theologian’s answer to questions like these will affect the sources on which she draws and the norms she uses to decide the reliability of different insights.
我們對人類可獲得知識的本質的看法是一個基本決定，這不僅塑造了學術努力，也塑造了生活的方方面面。所有人類經驗，包括宗教經驗，是否如海德格所建議的那樣，無法避免地被解釋和解釋，因此我們對上帝和自己的知識可能是足夠的，但永遠不會超過臨時的？還是神學理解以完全超越我們文化和歷史經驗的限制和變遷的方式向人類顯示？真理是否存在於某個中間地帶？實踐神學家對這些問題的回答將影響她所依賴的來源以及她用來決定不同見解可靠性的標準。

Say, for example, that a practical theologian embraces the “ontological turn” in hermeneutics, represented by Heidegger, Gadamer, and Ricoeur. He may be convinced that “objective” knowledge, even objective religious knowledge, is neither possible nor necessary to human faith and thriving. This scholar might look both to religious traditions and nonreligious experience and research as valuable sources of insight. He might seek norms for practice out of a robust conversation between insights and practices, involving both religious and nonreligious “conversation partners.” For him, there would be no interpretation-free “first principles,” empirical or revealed, against which all other knowing is measured. He may believe that God comes to be known by many avenues, but in ways sufficient to enable divinehuman relationship and to yield life-transforming insight.
例如，假設一位實踐神學家接受海德格、伽達默和里科的詮釋學中的“本體轉向”。他可能相信“客觀”知識，甚至客觀的宗教知識，對於人類的信仰和繁榮既不是可能的也不是必要的。這位學者可能會將宗教傳統和非宗教經驗及研究視為有價值的洞見來源。他可能會尋求從洞見和實踐之間的深入對話中獲得實踐的規範，這涉及到宗教和非宗教的“對話夥伴”。對他來說，沒有任何不受詮釋的“第一原則”，無論是經驗的還是啟示的，作為所有其他知識的衡量標準。他可能相信，上帝可以通過多種途徑被認識，但這些途徑足以促進神人關係並產生改變生命的洞見。

If such an onto-hermeneutical view stands at one end of the spectrum of possibilities in practical theology, then at the other extreme would be practical theologians who believe the scriptures constitute the sole source of reliable knowledge about God, and that all norms for practical-theological thought and practice must be derived from its pages. This is not so much a view about hermeneutics, of course, as it is a confessional stance-that is, a conviction about the nature of divine revelation with far-reaching hermeneutical consequences. We have seen that practical theology undertaken from this confessional starting point tends to see hermeneutics strictly as guidance for reliable biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics helps establish the timeless truths in scripture which will function as norms for the practices of ministry.
如果這樣的本體詮釋觀點位於實踐神學可能性光譜的一端，那麼在另一端則是那些相信聖經構成有關上帝的唯一可靠知識來源的實踐神學家，並且所有實踐神學思想和實踐的規範必須從其頁面中得出。這當然不僅僅是關於詮釋學的觀點，而是一種信仰立場——也就是對神聖啟示本質的信念，這具有深遠的詮釋學後果。我們已經看到，從這一信仰起點出發的實踐神學往往將詮釋學視為可靠聖經解釋的指導。詮釋學有助於確立聖經中的永恆真理，這些真理將作為事工實踐的規範。

Many practical theologians would locate themselves between these positions. One might, for example, hold a view that life-transforming understanding of God is finally a divine gift. One might say that God makes use of, but is not dependent upon, the human struggle to interpret texts or experiences. A scholar with this view would not be rejecting the ontological turn in philosophical hermeneutics; yet, she may be persuaded that scripture conveys insights that transcend the flux, provisionality, and instability of everyday interpretive experience.
許多實踐神學家會將自己定位於這些立場之間。例如，有人可能會認為，對上帝的生命轉變理解最終是一種神聖的恩賜。有人可能會說，上帝利用人類對文本或經驗的詮釋奮鬥，但並不依賴於此。持有這種觀點的學者不會拒絕哲學詮釋學中的本體論轉向；然而，她可能會被說服，聖經傳達的見解超越了日常詮釋經驗的變化、暫時性和不穩定性。

One can imagine other variations in the “middle ground” between a strong “onto-hermeneutical” stance and the view that revelation bypasses the uncertainties of interpretive experience. An example is the Trinitarian, “Christopraxis”-centered practical theology of Ray S. Anderson. Trinitarian divine praxis (meaning-laden action), rather than particular confessional formulations, is the source of criteria for guiding faithful human action.

^{37}

人們可以想像在強烈的“本體詮釋學”立場與啟示繞過詮釋經驗的不確定性之間的“中間地帶”中的其他變體。一個例子是雷·S·安德森的三位一體“基督實踐”為中心的實踐神學。三位一體的神聖實踐（充滿意義的行動），而不是特定的信條表述，是指導忠實人類行動的標準來源。

VIEWS OF THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP
理論與實踐關係的觀點

My discussion of sources and norms in some ways anticipates the impact of hermeneutics on the theory-practice relationship. Consider the practical theologian who takes scripture as the sole and comprehensive authority for all matters of Christian belief and action. Such a view would logically lead to the conviction that the Bible governs theology, theology governs theory, and theory in turn governs practice. The vector of influence would never run in the opposite direction (from study of practices to theory and theology).
我對來源和規範的討論在某種程度上預示了詮釋學對理論與實踐關係的影響。考慮一下那位將聖經視為所有基督教信仰和行動事宜的唯一和全面權威的實踐神學家。這種觀點邏輯上會導致這樣的信念：聖經主導神學，神學主導理論，而理論又主導實踐。影響的向量永遠不會朝相反的方向運行（從實踐研究到理論和神學）。

Imagine that another practical theologian embraces the ontological “hermeneutical turn” of the mid-twentieth century, discussed above. She will likely envision a more fluid, back-and-forth critical dialogue in which one’s best understandings of the tradition’s texts will certainly critique practices, but understanding gleaned from studying practices could also push back against one’s settled understanding of texts and traditions. Traffic would travel both ways between theory and practice.
想像另一位實踐神學家接受上述提到的二十世紀中期的本體論“詮釋學轉向”。她可能會想像一種更為流動的、來回的批判對話，在這種對話中，對傳統文本的最佳理解無疑會批判實踐，但從研究實踐中獲得的理解也可能會對一個人對文本和傳統的既定理解提出挑戰。理論和實踐之間的交流將是雙向的。

Certain liberationist approaches privilege practice (or, more technically, liberative praxis) as the only trustworthy criterion of truth. Praxis would test the veracity of the tradition, scripture included. The lived struggle of marginalized groups to realize dignity and self-determination would test the redemptive potential of both received theological traditions and social-scientific theories.
某些解放主義的方法將實踐（或更技術性地說，解放實踐）視為唯一可信的真理標準。實踐將檢驗傳統的真實性，包括經文。邊緣化群體為實現尊嚴和自我決定而進行的生活鬥爭將檢驗既有神學傳統和社會科學理論的救贖潛力。

ROLE OF AND APPROACH TO CONTEXTS
上下文的角色和方法

Human lives unfold amid the particularities of unique cultural contents. The role context plays in a practical theologian’s work can vary. Generally, the
人類的生活在獨特文化內容的特性中展開。情境在實踐神學家工作中的角色可能有所不同。一般來說，
greater emphasis a scholar lays on the details of lived practices, or praxis, as a source of practical-theological knowledge, the more prominent the role of context in his or her theory. Of the thinkers discussed above, Andrews and Dunlap give the greatest attention to context and the difference it makes.
學者對生活實踐或實踐作為實踐神學知識來源的細節越重視，背景在他或她的理論中所扮演的角色就越突出。在上述討論的思想家中，安德魯斯和鄧拉普對背景及其所帶來的差異給予了最重視。

Andrews’s practical theology for African American churches is context driven from the start. The challenges his practical theology must meet are context specific. If existing paradigms for ministry are failing, what ecclesiological and pastoral paradigm might reconnect with disengaged black demographics?
安德魯斯的非裔美國人教會實踐神學從一開始就是以情境為導向的。他的實踐神學必須面對的挑戰是特定於情境的。如果現有的事工範式失敗，那麼什麼樣的教會學和牧養範式可以重新與脫離的黑人群體建立聯繫？

Susan J. Dunlap’s work is context sensitive in two ways. First, she focuses on women’s experience of depression. Second, she attends to the sociocultural dynamics that tend to construct negative images of women, ones that depressed women may be particularly prone to internalize. Paradoxically, Dunlap’s work (measured by twenty-first-century standards) may have a weakness related specifically to matters of context: her account of depressed women’s experience is somewhat general or “universalized,” as is her characterization of the social construction of women’s characteristics. In reality, both the details of depression and the details of public messages about women vary in different cultural contexts. The implications of her theory for black, Asian, Latina, Arabic, or women in different age ranges or of different sexual orientations merit closer attention.
蘇珊·J·鄧拉普的工作在兩個方面都是情境敏感的。首先，她專注於女性的抑鬱經歷。其次，她關注那些傾向於構建女性負面形象的社會文化動態，這些形象可能特別容易被抑鬱的女性內化。矛盾的是，根據二十一世紀的標準，鄧拉普的工作可能在與情境相關的問題上存在一種弱點：她對抑鬱女性經歷的描述有些一般化或“普遍化”，她對女性特徵社會建構的描述也是如此。實際上，抑鬱的細節和關於女性的公共信息在不同的文化背景中有所不同。她的理論對於黑人、亞洲人、拉丁裔、阿拉伯人，或不同年齡層或不同性取向的女性的啟示值得更深入的關注。

One set of context-related questions that are important in all practicaltheological work is this: What are the interpretive practices of this individual or this community? How does this community read scripture? Do different generations or demographics within this community read differently? Is it common in this community to expect spiritual insight from sources outside the Christian tradition, or is that ruled out? Does this community practice a narrative hermeneutic along the lines that Andrews describes to make sense of their past, present and future? Being aware of different theories of interpretation itself can help a practical theologian study and describe the interpretation practices she observes.
在所有實踐神學工作中，一組與背景相關的重要問題是：這個個體或社群的詮釋實踐是什麼？這個社群如何閱讀聖經？這個社群內的不同世代或人口統計是否有不同的閱讀方式？在這個社群中，期望從基督教傳統以外的來源獲得靈性洞見是否普遍，還是被排除在外？這個社群是否按照安德魯斯所描述的敘事詮釋學來理解他們的過去、現在和未來？意識到不同的詮釋理論本身可以幫助實踐神學家研究和描述她所觀察到的詮釋實踐。

INTERDISCIPLINARY CONVERSATION PARTNERS
跨學科對話夥伴

Consider a scholar who is studying the way a congregation incorporates mentally disabled adults into its fellowship. How should she relate the insights of theology to the fruits of social-scientific research in helping the congregation understand and revise their practices? The approaches to Protestant practical theology reviewed earlier in this chapter suggest some alternatives. Don S. Browning, for example, assumed epistemological parity between theological sources and norms and psychosocial ones, while llunsinger’s work, no less robust in its interdisciplinarity, privileges theological
考慮一位學者，她正在研究一個會眾如何將智力障礙成年人納入其團契。她應該如何將神學的見解與社會科學研究的成果結合起來，以幫助會眾理解並修訂他們的實踐？本章早些時候回顧的對新教實踐神學的不同方法提供了一些替代方案。例如，唐·S·布朗寧假設神學來源和規範與心理社會來源和規範之間存在認識論上的平等，而伊倫辛格的工作，無論在跨學科性上都同樣強健，則更重視神學。
norms in an asymmetrical, ordered relation between the distinctive and indispensable languages of theology and psychology. Graham and Dunlap, on the other hand, relate theology and social theory in ways more similar to Browning.
在神學和心理學這兩種獨特且不可或缺的語言之間，存在著不對稱的有序關係的規範。另一方面，格雷厄姆和鄧拉普將神學與社會理論的關係更類似於布朗寧。

Notably, both Graham and Andrews set up a three-way conversation that recognizes distinctive and important claims derived from academic theology. on one hand, and the “lived” theology of a faith community, on the other. The “lived” theology of a community comes to expression in things like the sort of music the community sings in worship, how God is named in prayer, and whether men and women bear equal responsibility and authority in leadership. A community’s faith language is shaped by different reward systems, and for different purposes, than the language of the academy; but this does not mean it is not truthful or important. For example, the practical theologians who want to understand how a community relates to mentally disabled adults might learn much by spending time with these adults themselves, watching and listening. A growing edge in practical theology is incorporating such “lived” theology into one’s theological reflection on any local situation.
值得注意的是，格雷厄姆和安德魯斯建立了一個三方對話，承認源自學術神學的獨特且重要的主張，一方面，以及信仰社群的“實踐”神學，另一方面。社群的“實踐”神學表現在社群在崇拜中唱的音樂、在祈禱中如何稱呼上帝，以及男性和女性在領導中是否承擔平等的責任和權威等方面。社群的信仰語言受到不同獎勵系統的影響，並出於不同的目的，與學術界的語言有所不同；但這並不意味著它不真實或不重要。例如，想要了解一個社群如何與智力障礙成年人互動的實踐神學家，可能會通過與這些成年人相處、觀察和傾聽來學到很多。實踐神學的一個增長邊緣是將這種“實踐”神學納入對任何地方情況的神學反思中。

AREAS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH
當前和未來研究領域

Human experience is dynamically hermeneutical, and thus, so is practical theology. The question is not whether a practical theologian will deal with matters of interpretation, but how. Interpretation lies at the heart of all practical theological inquiry and is part of the practical theological models and theories scholars are constructing today.
人類經驗是動態的詮釋學，因此，實踐神學也是如此。問題不在於實踐神學家是否會處理詮釋的問題，而在於如何處理。詮釋是所有實踐神學探究的核心，也是學者們今天所構建的實踐神學模型和理論的一部分。

Future preachers must be alert interpreters not only of Christian scripture, but of theological tradition, cultural images, the evening news, and the triumphs and tragedies of ordinary lives. Youth leaders know they need to be hermeneuts, interpreting faith to young explorers of spiritual terrain, interpreting youth to parents and parents to youth, and helping young adults discern what in their expanding world is worthy of their passionate commitment, and what is not. Pastoral counselors and chaplains are co-interpreters of individual life stories and family systems, of inevitable passages of ordinary life one day and sudden, traumatic change or loss the next.
未來的傳道者必須成為敏銳的解釋者，不僅要解釋基督教經文，還要解釋神學傳統、文化形象、晚間新聞，以及普通生活中的勝利與悲劇。青年領袖知道他們需要成為詮釋者，向年輕的靈性探索者解釋信仰，向父母解釋年輕人，向年輕人解釋父母，並幫助年輕成年人辨別在他們擴展的世界中，什麼是值得他們熱情投入的，什麼不是。牧靈輔導員和牧師是個人生活故事和家庭系統的共同解釋者，解釋普通生活中不可避免的過渡，以及隨之而來的突發、創傷性的變化或損失。

Practical theologians and the leaders whose interpretive work they guide have a common confidence: In the back-and-forth dance of interpretation, the Spirit moves. God draws us by the Spirit into deeper understanding of ourselves and each other as we continually interpret and reinterpret our past and present, reframed in the fathomless mercy of God. God, the master interpreter, works alongside us, until that day when, as the apostle says, “[we] shall know fully, as [we] have been fully known.”

^{38}

實踐神學家和他們所指導的解釋工作領導者有一種共同的信心：在解釋的反覆舞蹈中，聖靈在運行。上帝通過聖靈引導我們更深入地理解自己和彼此，因為我們不斷地解釋和重新解釋我們的過去和現在，這些都在上帝無窮的憐憫中重新框架。上帝，這位大師級的解釋者，與我們並肩工作，直到那一天，正如使徒所說，“[我們]將完全知道，正如[我們]已經被完全知道。”

Sally A Brown 薩莉·A·布朗

Chapter Nine 第九章

Hermeneutics in Roman Catholic Practical Theology
羅馬天主教實踐神學中的詮釋學

Claire E. Wolfteich 克萊爾·E·沃夫泰克

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 歷史背景

The final document of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Gaudium et Spes, aptly captures the tasks of practical theology: “The Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. . . . To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.” ’ To read the signs of contemporary cultures and contexts, to know and describe the world deeply and accurately, and to interpret these faithfully in light of the saving good news: these are central tasks of practical theology. Toward what end is this work done? To further Christ’s mission. Whose work is this? The work ultimately is Christ’s, with the colaboring duty entrusted to the Church. How are the hermeneutical tasks accomplished? Not in isolation but in the company of the Church, led by the guiding friendship of the Holy Spirit. As this Vatican II document makes clear, practical theology is a hermeneutical, ecclesial, and spiritual labor. This is a Catholic vision of practical theology.
第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議（1962-1965）的最終文件《喜樂與希望》恰如其分地捕捉了實踐神學的任務：“教會只尋求一個孤獨的目標：在友善的聖靈的引導下推進基督的工作……為了完成這樣的任務，教會始終有責任審視時代的跡象，並在福音的光照下解釋它們。” 讀懂當代文化和背景的跡象，深入準確地認識和描述世界，並在拯救的好消息的光照下忠實地解釋這些：這些是實踐神學的核心任務。這項工作的目的何在？是為了推進基督的使命。這是誰的工作？這項工作最終是基督的，並將共同合作的責任託付給教會。詮釋的任務如何完成？不是孤立地，而是在教會的陪伴中，由聖靈的引導友誼所引領。正如這份梵蒂岡二世的文件所明確指出的，實踐神學是一種詮釋性的、教會性的和靈性的勞動。這是對實踐神學的天主教視野。

If the vision is clear, the decades since the Council have shown that its implementation is far more complex. Indeed, the hermeneutical task, the very nature of interpretation, is hotly contested in Catholic contexts of ecclesial life and academic theology. It is not surprising, then, that Catholic theologians would be engaged with such issues. Indeed, in scholarship and the development of theological reflection models that address hermeneutics, lived experience, discernment, and teaching, Catholics have made significant conributions to practical theology.
如果願景清晰，自大公會議以來的幾十年顯示出其實施要複雜得多。事實上，詮釋學的任務，即詮釋的本質，在天主教的教會生活和學術神學中是備受爭議的。因此，天主教神學家參與這些問題並不令人驚訝。事實上，在學術研究和發展針對詮釋學、生活經驗、辨識和教學的神學反思模型中，天主教徒對實踐神學做出了重要貢獻。

Claire E Wolficich

Practical theology encompasses a range of methodologies, approaches, and disciplinary partners. While no one approach encapsulates the entire field, hermeneutics has become highly important in conceptualizing the work of practical theology and as a more specific method in that work. The understanding of practical theology as a dialogical, interpretive task has been central in my own formation of a practical theology, shaped at the University of Chicago, particularly by the work of Don S. Browning (1934-2010) and David Tracy. In Browning’s vision, practical theology is all about conversa-tion-specifically, a mutually critical conversation between “Christian sources and other communities of experience and interpretation with the aim of guiding its action toward social and individual transformation.”

^{2}

Browning characterized practical reason as “a broad-scale interpretive and reinterpretive process; it is, as Gadamer would say, a ‘hermeneutic’ process.”

^{3}

As communities exercise practical reason, they are communities of interpretation, seeking to understand the complexities of contemporary situations in critical dialogue with the texts, contexts, and practices integral to their tradjtion. Browning’s work was influenced by a range of philosophical, theological, and social scientific conversation partners, including his colleague, Roman Catholic theologian David Tracy. Tracy’s analysis of hermeneutics, classics, and conversation profoundly influenced Browning’s work in practical theology. As a Catholic laywoman and graduate student in the 1990s, I soaked up this atmosphere, drawn to the idea of taking contemporary contexts and experience seriously in dialogue with religious tradition and a wide range of interdisciplinary partners. Practical theology seemed to offer a way to bridge a commitment to ecclesial life with a vocation to scholarship and teaching. Desire to participate in this kind of conversation was at the heart of my own entry into the field.
實踐神學涵蓋了一系列的方法論、途徑和學科夥伴。雖然沒有一種方法能夠概括整個領域，但詮釋學在概念化實踐神學的工作中變得非常重要，並且作為該工作中的一種更具體的方法。將實踐神學理解為一種對話性、詮釋性的任務，對我自己形成實踐神學的過程至關重要，這一過程是在芝加哥大學塑造的，特別受到唐·S·布朗寧（1934-2010）和大衛·特雷西的工作的影響。在布朗寧的願景中，實踐神學完全關乎對話——具體而言，是“基督教來源與其他經驗和詮釋社群之間的相互批判對話，旨在引導其行動朝向社會和個體的轉變。”布朗寧將實踐理性描述為“一個廣泛的詮釋和再詮釋過程；正如加達默所說，這是一個‘詮釋學’過程。””

^{3}

當社群運用實踐理性時，它們是解釋的社群，尋求在與其傳統中不可或缺的文本、背景和實踐的批判對話中理解當代情境的複雜性。布朗寧的作品受到一系列哲學、神學和社會科學對話夥伴的影響，包括他的同事、羅馬天主教神學家大衛·特雷西。特雷西對詮釋學、經典和對話的分析深刻影響了布朗寧在實踐神學方面的工作。作為一名天主教的平信徒和 1990 年代的研究生，我沉浸在這種氛圍中，對於在與宗教傳統和廣泛的跨學科夥伴對話中認真對待當代背景和經驗的想法感到吸引。實踐神學似乎提供了一種將對教會生活的承諾與學術和教學的職業相連結的方式。渴望參與這種對話是我進入這個領域的核心動力。

As can be seen from this brief description of my education, hermeneutical approaches in practical theology emerge from both Protestant and Catholic authors, who often are in dialogue with one another.

^{4}

At the same time, there are distinctive Catholic sources, trajectories, contexts, and stakes that can be named. This chapter will offer a view of Catholic pastoral and practical theologies in the post-Vatican II era-focusing on the use of hermeneutical theories and methods within the theological task. Kathleen A. Cahalan’s later chapter paints the picture of Catholic pastoral theology before and after the Second Vatican Council. While practical theology as an academic field has gained traction only recently in Catholic contexts of theological education, its antecedent roots can be traced far back in the tradition.s This chapter picks up post-Vatican II hermeneutical approaches that highlight the epistemic value of experience and open up methodological space for attending to the ordinary life of faith as part of theology. Cahalan notes shifting practical theological paradigms-clerical, ecclesial, public, and praxis. Those paradigms are not mutually exclusive, I would argue, and we will see that herme-
從我教育的簡要描述中可以看出，實踐神學中的詮釋學方法源自於新教和天主教的作者，他們之間經常進行對話。

^{4}

同時，也可以指出獨特的天主教來源、軌跡、背景和利益。本章將提供對第二次梵蒂岡大公會議後的天主教牧靈和實踐神學的看法，重點在於在神學任務中使用詮釋學理論和方法。凱瑟琳·A·卡哈蘭的後一章描繪了第二次梵蒂岡大公會議前後的天主教牧靈神學。雖然作為一個學術領域的實踐神學在天主教神學教育的背景中最近才獲得關注，但其前身可以追溯到很久以前的傳統。本章探討了第二次梵蒂岡大公會議後的詮釋學方法，強調經驗的認識價值，並為關注信仰的日常生活作為神學的一部分開辟了方法論空間。卡哈蘭指出了不斷變化的實踐神學範式——神職、教會、公共和實踐。那些範式並不是互相排斥的，我會這樣說，我們將看到那個赫爾墨斯-
neutical approaches encompass and intersect with all of these dimensions. Moreover, it should be noted that this discussion represents only a slice of the larger developing conversation in Catholic approaches to practical theology. The representative figures named here do not capture the full range of Cathofic work in practical theology or scholarship related to practical theology, but they do represent significant voices and trajectories.
神學方法涵蓋並交織了所有這些維度。此外，應該注意到這一討論僅代表天主教實踐神學中更大發展對話的一部分。這裡提到的代表性人物並未涵蓋天主教在實踐神學或與實踐神學相關的學術工作的全部範圍，但他們確實代表了重要的聲音和發展方向。

A word about terminology: while practical theology as a discipline largely has moved beyond an exclusively “clerical paradigm,” in some contexts (for example, the United Kingdom and many Catholic contexts of theological education) the term “pastoral theology” remains widely used. This chapter will primarily use the terminology of “practical theology,” recognizing that terminology is context-dependent and that practical theology can encompass and sometimes be equated with pastoral theology. Cahalan has outlined the difficulties in situating practical theology within Catholic contexts of theological education, as “pastoral theology” is often located in seminaries or schools of pasto:al formation that are separated from the systematic and moral theology that drives university-based departments of theology. This gap between pastoral and systematic theology undercuts the institutional viability of Catholic practical theology; risks depriving Catholic theology of sustained attention to pastoral ministry and parish life; and impoverishes pastoral theology, separated from natural dialogue partners in systematic theology and theological ethics. Still, there are vibrant Catholic centers of practical theology and emerging scholarship that seeks to bridge this divide. As with other communities, a search for practical theology in Catholic contexts has to scan broadly to notice scholars who are more obviously trained in and identified with practical theology as well as many others located in more traditional Catholic disciplinary areas.

^{6}

Thus, the representative figures discussed in this chapter will include several who identify more clearly as pastoral or practical theologians but also several who locate themselves primarily in systematic theology. I will focus on the ways in which these Catholic authors draw upon hermeneutical theory and method and how, in so doing, they open up the field of practical theology.
關於術語的一句話：雖然實踐神學作為一個學科在很大程度上已經超越了專門的“神職人員範式”，但在某些背景下（例如，英國和許多天主教神學教育的背景）“牧靈神學”這一術語仍然被廣泛使用。本章將主要使用“實踐神學”的術語，認識到術語是依賴於上下文的，並且實踐神學可以包含並有時等同於牧靈神學。卡哈蘭已經概述了在天主教神學教育背景下定位實踐神學的困難，因為“牧靈神學”通常位於神學院或牧靈培訓學校，這些學校與推動大學神學系的系統神學和道德神學相分離。牧靈神學與系統神學之間的這一鴻溝削弱了天主教實踐神學的制度可行性；有可能使天主教神學失去對牧靈事工和教區生活的持續關注；並且使牧靈神學貧乏，與系統神學和神學倫理學的自然對話夥伴分離。儘管如此，仍然有充滿活力的天主教實踐神學中心和新興學術，試圖彌合這一鴻溝。與其他社群一樣，在天主教背景下尋找實踐神學必須廣泛掃描，以注意到那些更明顯受過實踐神學訓練並認同於此的學者，以及許多位於更傳統天主教學科領域的其他學者。因此，本章討論的代表性人物將包括幾位更明確認同為牧靈或實踐神學家的學者，但也包括幾位主要定位於系統神學的學者。我將專注於這些天主教作者如何運用詮釋學理論和方法，以及他們如何在此過程中開拓實踐神學的領域。

Forming a backdrop to this discussion are figures such as Pope Benedict XVI, institutions such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and new ecclesial movements such as Focolare or Communion and Liberationall of which promote particular versions of what they consider to be authentic Catholic hermeneutics. The chapter will offer only a glimpse of this complicated story but it should remain in view-for here there are pressures, powers, and competing claims about interpretation that are very much part of the context of emerging Catholic work in pastoral and practical theologies.
這次討論的背景包括教宗本篤十六世等人物、信仰教義部等機構，以及福傳運動或共融與解放等新教會運動，這些都推廣他們所認為的正統天主教詮釋學的特定版本。本章將僅提供這個複雜故事的一瞥，但應該保持在視野中——因為在這裡有壓力、權力和關於詮釋的競爭主張，這些都是新興天主教在牧靈和實踐神學工作背景中非常重要的部分。

KEY FEATURES AND REPRESENTATIVE FIGURES
主要特點和代表性數字

Briefly put, hermeneutics addresses interpretation. Interpretation is a critical practice of everyday life and of theology. Experience and understanding cannot be separated from interpretation; we interpret in order to understand and we interpret as we pass on knowledge. As Tracy writes, "Every time we act, deliberate, judge, understand, or even experience, we are interpreting."7 Interpretation is a skill and a practice that we can do well or poorly-and it is integral to human life. As such, it also is essential for the doing of theology. Within that larger understanding, in which hermeneutics is part of all theology, some practical theologians explicitly draw upon hermeneutical theories and articulate a hermeneutical method as central to their work. This is the case for a number of Catholic theologians who arose in the post-conciliar era and did much to shape conceptions of theology and thecicgical method as well as practices of ministry and religious education.
簡而言之，詮釋學涉及解釋。解釋是日常生活和神學中的一項重要實踐。經驗和理解無法與解釋分開；我們解釋是為了理解，我們在傳遞知識的同時也在解釋。正如特雷西所寫的：“每當我們行動、思考、判斷、理解，甚至經歷時，我們都在解釋。”解釋是一種技能和實踐，我們可以做得好或不好——它是人類生活中不可或缺的一部分。因此，它對於神學的實踐也是必不可少的。在這種更大的理解中，詮釋學是所有神學的一部分，一些實踐神學家明確地借鑒詮釋理論，並將詮釋方法作為他們工作的核心。這對於一些在會議後時代出現的天主教神學家來說是如此，他們在塑造神學和神學方法的概念以及事工和宗教教育的實踐方面做出了很大貢獻。

In texts used widely in theological education and adult formation, pastoral theologians such as Evelyn and James Whitehead, Robert Kinast, and Patricia Killen proposed models of theological reflection that emphasize interpretation as a key task and experience as a locus theologicus. There is a dual task here of interpreting the theological import of contemporary experience and interpreting the tradition, each in light of the other, with the aim of shaping ongoing praxis. Thomas Groome’s “shared praxis” approach draws heavily on hermeneutic theory as he characterizes religious education as “essentially a hermeneutical task”-that of interpreting with a community both contemporary praxis and the Christian Story/Vision in a critical and dialectical movement. U.S. Hispanic theologians also engage and shape hermeneutics. Ada Maria Isasi-Díaz drew upon a hermeneutics of suspicion as she developed a mujerista theology that asserts the descriptive, hermeneutical, and epistemological significance of lo cotidiano, everyday experience and practice of the people. Roberto Goizueta similarly argues that U.S. Hispanic popular religion is a locus theologicus, the starting point of the hermeneutic circle that structures his theological work. These writings represent a significant turn from preconciliar approaches in pastoral theology, which tended to proceed in more of a unidirectional, application model that gave little weight to experience.
在神學教育和成人形成中廣泛使用的文本中，牧靈神學家如伊夫琳和詹姆斯·懷特海德、羅伯特·基納斯特和帕特里夏·基倫提出了強調詮釋作為關鍵任務和經驗作為神學位置的神學反思模型。這裡有一個雙重任務，即詮釋當代經驗的神學意義和詮釋傳統，彼此相互照亮，旨在塑造持續的實踐。托馬斯·格魯姆的“共享實踐”方法在很大程度上依賴於詮釋學理論，他將宗教教育描述為“本質上是一項詮釋任務”——即與社群一起批判性和辯證性地詮釋當代實踐和基督教故事/願景。美國西班牙裔神學家也參與並塑造詮釋學。阿達·瑪麗亞·伊薩西-迪亞茲在發展女性主義神學時借鑒了懷疑的詮釋學，該神學主張日常生活、人民的日常經驗和實踐的描述性、詮釋性和認識論意義。羅伯托·戈伊祖埃塔同樣主張美國的西班牙裔流行宗教是一個神學中心，是結構化其神學工作的詮釋循環的起點。這些著作代表了從會議前的牧靈神學方法的一個重要轉變，後者往往採取更單向的應用模式，對經驗的重視程度較低。

Catholic pastoral and practical theologians draw upon multiple sources in framing their hermeneutical approaches. They point to influences such as the Second Vatican Council, leading twentieth-century Catholic theologians Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan, Latin American comunidades de base and liberation theologians such as Gustavo Gutiérrez, and feminist theology. Others are influenced by Catholic Action or by clinical pastoral education (CPE) models of theological reflection. Social, literary, and educational theorists such as Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jürgen Uabermas, Paul Ricocur, and Paolo
天主教的牧靈和實踐神學家在構建他們的詮釋學方法時，借鑒了多種來源。他們提到的影響包括第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議、二十世紀的主要天主教神學家卡爾·拉納和伯納德·隆納根、拉丁美洲基層社區和解放神學家如古斯塔沃·古鐵雷斯，以及女性主義神學。其他人則受到天主教行動或臨床牧靈教育（CPE）神學反思模型的影響。社會、文學和教育理論家如漢斯-喬治·伽達默爾、尤爾根·哈貝馬斯、保羅·里科和保羅。

Freire have influenced Catholic pastoral and practical theology just as such theorists have profoundly shaped Protestant practical theology. Catholic practical theologians today do not work in a vacuum. Some have trained in ecumenical contexts of theological education, studying with both Protestant and Catholic theological mentors. Some are members of professional organizations such as the Association of Practical Theology and the International Academy of Practical Theology (which has a working group in Catholic Approaches in Practical Theology), where they engage a wide range of scholarship. One can note similarities between and conversations across Protestant and Catholic hermeneutical methods in practical theology. At the same time, hermeneutical approaches in practical theology have distinctive roots in Catholic theology, including a new openness to conversation, experience, and the interpretive tasks of theology expressed at Vatican II. As noted earlier, the Council asserts the leading role of the Spirit in the ecclesial work of interpretation. I would assert that this pneumatological dimension of practical theology (and, specifically, of hermeneutics) is insufficiently addressed in practical theological scholarship and could be an important Catholic contribution to the discipline. We will see that a number of the Catholic authors discussed below frame hermeneutical processes at least partially in the language of Christian spirituality.
弗雷雷對天主教的牧靈和實踐神學產生了影響，就像這些理論家深刻地塑造了新教的實踐神學一樣。當今的天主教實踐神學家並不是在真空中工作。有些人在神學教育的合一背景下接受過訓練，與新教和天主教的神學導師一起學習。有些人是實踐神學協會和國際實踐神學學院等專業組織的成員（該學院在實踐神學中有一個關於天主教方法的工作組），他們參與各種學術研究。可以注意到新教和天主教在實踐神學中的詮釋方法之間的相似性和對話。同時，實踐神學中的詮釋方法在天主教神學中有其獨特的根源，包括對對話、經驗和在第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議上表達的神學詮釋任務的新開放性。如前所述，該會議強調聖靈在教會詮釋工作中的主導作用。我會主張，這種實踐神學（特別是詮釋學）的靈氣學維度在實踐神學的學術研究中未受到充分重視，並且可能是對這一學科的重要天主教貢獻。我們將看到，以下討論的一些天主教作者至少部分地以基督教靈性語言來框架詮釋過程。

The Hermeneutical Task of a Public Practical Theology: David Tracy
公共實踐神學的詮釋任務：大衛·特雷西

David Tracy has played a significant role in advancing hermeneutical approaches in theology, which he understands as critical to Christian theolo-gy-fundamental, systematic, historical, and practical. While he would not be identified as a practical theologian per se, his revised or mutually critical method of correlation and his emphasis on theology as conversation has strongly influenced the field. Tracy, a Catholic priest and philosophical theologian, works within and across the university context of the University of Chicago. He has contributed some important writing on practical theology, though his fully developed practical theology is still awaited. Tracy positions practical theology firmly within hermeneutics; practical theology is "the mutually critical correlation of the interpreted theory and praxis of the Christian faith with the interpreted theory and praxis of the contemporary situation."8
大衛·特雷西在推進神學的詮釋學方法方面發揮了重要作用，他認為這對基督教神學——基礎、系統、歷史和實踐——至關重要。雖然他不會被認定為實踐神學家，但他修訂或相互批判的相關方法以及他對神學作為對話的強調對該領域產生了深遠的影響。特雷西是一位天主教神父和哲學神學家，在芝加哥大學的學術環境中工作。他對實踐神學做出了一些重要的著作，儘管他完全發展的實踐神學仍在期待中。特雷西將實踐神學堅定地定位於詮釋學；實踐神學是“基督信仰的詮釋理論和實踐與當代情境的詮釋理論和實踐的相互批判相關。”

In his book Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology, Tracy argues that Christian theology involves a critical correlation of the results of investigating the two sources of theology: Christian texts and common human experience. Contrasting his method to the model of correlation proposed by Paul Tillich, Tracy argues that correlation must entail a method of critically correlating both the questions and the answers of the “situation” and those of the Christian “message.” It is not adequate to assume that the
在他的著作《祝福的秩序之怒：神學中的新多元主義》中，特雷西主張基督教神學涉及對兩個神學來源的研究結果進行批判性關聯：基督教文本和共同的人類經驗。特雷西將他的方法與保羅·蒂利希提出的關聯模型進行對比，主張關聯必須包含一種批判性關聯“情境”的問題和基督教“信息”的答案的方法。假設這些

Claire E Wolfick 克萊爾·E·沃利克

situation produces only salient questions while Christian texts hold all the answers. Tracy relies on a phenomenological method to investigate the “religious dimension” present in everyday experience and language. This dimension is encountered particularly in “limit-questions” of scientific and moral inquiry and “limit-situations” in everyday life. Historical and hermeneutical methods are employed to investigate classic Christian texts.

^{9}

情境只產生顯著的問題，而基督教文本則擁有所有的答案。特雷西依賴現象學方法來探討日常經驗和語言中存在的“宗教維度”。這一維度特別在科學和道德探究的“極限問題”以及日常生活中的“極限情境”中出現。歷史和詮釋學方法被用來研究經典基督教文本。

In this work, Tracy briefly outlines an interdisciplinary revisionist practical theology-one that is in dialogue with empirical social scientists, critical theory, and ethics. He holds that the historical theologian’s major task is the “reconstruction of past meaning for the present.” The fundamental and systematic theologian’s task is to construct the “present meaning, meaningfulness, and truth of the Christian tradition.” The practical theologian depends on these two as she projects “the future possibilities of meaning and truth on the basis of present constructive and past historical resources.” The practical theologian’s distinctive task then is “rigorous investigation of the possibilities of praxis which a reconstructed historia and a newly constructed theoria may allow.” 10
在這項工作中，特雷西簡要概述了一種跨學科的修正主義實踐神學——這種神學與經驗社會科學家、批判理論和倫理學進行對話。他認為，歷史神學家的主要任務是“為當前重建過去的意義”。根本和系統神學家的任務是構建“基督教傳統的當前意義、意義性和真理”。實踐神學家依賴這兩者，因為她在“基於當前的建設性和過去的歷史資源上，展望未來的意義和真理的可能性”。因此，實踐神學家的獨特任務是“對重建的歷史和新構建的理論所允許的實踐可能性進行嚴格調查。”

Tracy further develops his claims about the public nature of theology and its fundamentally hermeneutical task in The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism. Theology must not simply repeat the past; it must interpret tradition and “all interpretation is a mediation of past and present, a translation carried on within the effective history of a tradition to retrieve its sometimes strange, sometimes familiar meanings.”

^{11}

Theologians interpret, in particular, religious classics-texts, events, persons of the tradition that make a claim for attention, disclose meaning and truth, and hold power to transform. Classics and their interpretation are public in this sense; while they always emerge from particular contexts, they make uider claims for truth that must be wrestled with, responded to, and taken seriously. Tracy sees “conversation” as the paradigm for understanding. Understanding happens in the to-and-fro of authentic conversation; this is an “intersubjective,” “public,” “historical” event.

^{12}

Tracy expands upon his understanding of hermeneutics as conversation in Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics. Religion, and Hope.
特雷西在《類比想像：基督教神學與多元文化》中進一步發展了他對神學公共性及其根本詮釋任務的主張。神學不應僅僅重複過去；它必須詮釋傳統，而“所有的詮釋都是過去與現在的中介，是在傳統的有效歷史中進行的翻譯，以重新獲取其有時奇怪、有時熟悉的意義。”神學家特別詮釋宗教經典文本、事件、傳統中的人物，這些都要求關注，揭示意義和真理，並擁有改變的力量。在這個意義上，經典及其詮釋是公共的；雖然它們總是源於特定的背景，但它們對真理提出了更廣泛的主張，必須被掙扎、回應和認真對待。特雷西將“對話”視為理解的範式。理解發生在真誠對話的來回之中；這是一個“互主觀的”、“公共的”、“歷史的”事件。特雷西在《多元性與模糊性：詮釋學、宗教與希望》中擴展了他對詮釋學作為對話的理解。

Tracy identifies three distinct but related disciplines in theology: fundamental (or philosophical), systematic, and practical. Considering his three “publics” of theology-academy, church, and society-he identifies practical theology most closely with the public of society. Practical theologians analyze situations of “ethical-religious import,” drawing upon philosophy, cultural analysis, social science. There is a prophetic edge to practical theology, and the “notion of truth involved will prove a praxis-determined, transformative one.”

^{13}

特蕾西在神學中識別出三個不同但相關的學科：基礎（或哲學）神學、系統神學和實踐神學。考慮到他所提到的神學的三個“公共領域”——學術、教會和社會——他將實踐神學與社會的公共領域最為密切地聯繫在一起。實踐神學家分析具有“倫理-宗教意義”的情境，借鑒哲學、文化分析和社會科學。實踐神學具有預言性的邊緣，而“所涉及的真理概念將被證明是一種以實踐為決定的變革性概念。”

More recently, Tracy’s conceptualization of practical theology has moved to more engagement with spirituality, apophatic mysticism, and art-merged
最近，特蕾西對實踐神學的概念化已轉向更深入地與靈性、無言神秘主義和藝術融合進行互動
with the more dominant focus on ethics and prophetic action commonly seen in practical theology literature. His 2009 address to the International Academy of Practical Theology aptly expressed the deep intuition that mysticism, acsthetics, and prophecy cannot be separated: “The emphasis on the ethicalpolitical in contemporary practical theology continues the prophetic center of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. At the same time, however, I now wish I had also emphasized in that early article [1983] a further need for correlational practical theology: a theological correlation with the aesthetic, the contemplative-metaphysical and the several spiritual traditions of Christianity.” Tracy here sets out an agenda for practical theology, one which I see as quite consonant with Catholic hermeneutical approaches broadly speaking: realizing the vision of an “aesthetic-ethical correlation” toward the end of developing not simply prophetic but rather “mystical-prophetic practical theologies.”

^{14}

在實踐神學文獻中，對倫理和預言行動的更主導關注。他在 2009 年對國際實踐神學學院的演講恰如其分地表達了這種深刻的直覺，即神秘主義、美學和預言是無法分割的：“當代實踐神學中對倫理政治的強調延續了猶太教、基督教和伊斯蘭教的預言中心。然而，同時，我現在希望我在那篇早期文章[1983]中也強調了進一步的關聯實踐神學的需求：與美學、沉思-形而上學以及基督教的幾個靈性傳統的神學關聯。”特雷西在這裡為實踐神學設定了一個議程，我認為這與天主教的詮釋學方法廣義上是相當一致的：實現“美學-倫理關聯”的願景，以發展不僅僅是預言性的，而是“神秘-預言的實踐神學”。

Theological Reflection and the Practice of Ministry
神學反思與事工實踐

James and Evelyn Whitehead
詹姆斯和伊夫琳·懷特黑德

The Whiteheads’ Method in Ministry: Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry became a widely used resource in Catholic pastoral theology. Evelyn Whitehead is a developmental psychologist while James Whitehead is a pastoral theologian. Long affiliated with the Institute of Pastoral Studies at Loyola University in Chicago, their collaborative work has been international, including teaching in China. The Whiteheads developed a method of communal theological reflection that draws upon three sources (experience, tradition, and culture) and proceeds through three stages (attending, assertion, and pastoral response). Attending is a kind of deep listening to each of the three theological sources. What information resides in experience, tradition, and culture? The second movement, assertion, “instigates a dialogue among these sources of information in order to clarify, challenge, and purify the insights and limits of each.”

^{15}

The third movement then brings the reflection to bear on personal and communal action. Experience is taken seriously as the starting point of theological reflection, although the Whiteheads state that they privilege the Christian tradition and its information in the process of theological reflection.

^{16}

In the fifteen years between the original release of Method in Ministry and the revised edition, the Whiteheads were influenced by practical theologians such as Don Browning, Thomas Groome, Bernard Lee, and David Tracy. Thus, their work interacts with the developing discipline of practical theology as it represented one of the major resources in Catholic pastoral theology and ministerial formation in the 1980s and 1990s.
白海德夫婦的事工方法：神學反思與基督教事工已成為天主教牧靈神學中廣泛使用的資源。伊夫琳·白海德是一位發展心理學家，而詹姆斯·白海德則是一位牧靈神學家。他們長期與芝加哥洛約拉大學的牧靈研究所有關聯，他們的合作工作具有國際性，包括在中國的教學。白海德夫婦發展了一種社群神學反思的方法，該方法基於三個來源（經驗、傳統和文化），並經過三個階段（關注、主張和牧靈回應）。關注是一種對這三個神學來源的深度傾聽。經驗、傳統和文化中存在什麼信息？第二個運動，主張，“促進這些信息來源之間的對話，以澄清、挑戰和淨化每個來源的見解和局限。”第三個運動則將反思應用於個人和社群行動。經驗被視為神學反思的起點，儘管懷特海夫婦表示他們在神學反思的過程中優先考慮基督教傳統及其信息。在《事工中的方法》首次發行與修訂版之間的十五年間，懷特海夫婦受到實踐神學家如唐·布朗寧、托馬斯·格魯姆、伯納德·李和大衛·特雷西的影響。因此，他們的工作與實踐神學這一不斷發展的學科互動，因為它代表了 1980 年代和 1990 年代天主教牧靈神學和事工培訓的主要資源之一。

Rolert Kinast

The Whiteheads have influenced many Catholic pastoral theologians, including Robert L. Kinast, who developed models of theological reflection for ministerial formation and practice and a center dedicated to this work. For Kinast, theological reflection begins with experience; it focuses on “learning from one’s experience” and particularly concrete experiences of ministry. 17 In the act of reflecting, one seeks to identify the theological dimension already imbedded in a specific experience while also drawing upon "a larger theological framework to name, elaborate, and enrich the theological meaning within the experience."18 The process of theological reflection entails using experience to illustrate theology as well as applying theology to particular, complex situations-and so testing and rethinking theology in the process. Experience is never uninterpreted; interpretation is part of the process of theological reflection. Theological reflection moves ultimately toward enactment or praxis, shaping personal identity, ministerial practice, and theological knowing. Kinast draws upon process theologian Alfred North Whitehead throughout his work, particularly to ground his argument for the divine presence in all experience.
懷特海家族影響了許多天主教牧靈神學家，包括羅伯特·L·基納斯，他為牧靈培訓和實踐開發了神學反思的模型，並設立了一個專門從事這項工作的中心。對基納斯來說，神學反思始於經驗；它專注於“從經驗中學習”，特別是具體的牧靈經驗。在反思的過程中，人們試圖識別已經嵌入特定經驗中的神學維度，同時依賴“更大的神學框架來命名、闡述和豐富經驗中的神學意義。”神學反思的過程涉及使用經驗來說明神學，以及將神學應用於特定的複雜情境，從而在過程中測試和重新思考神學。經驗從來不是未經詮釋的；詮釋是神學反思過程的一部分。神學反思最終朝向實踐或行動，塑造個人身份、牧靈實踐和神學認識。 Kinast 在他的作品中引用了過程神學家阿爾弗雷德·諾斯·懷特海，特別是為了支持他對神聖存在於所有經驗中的論點。

Kinast’s understanding of theological reflection brings it close to spiritual practice or even encounter with God: “theological reflection is akin to prayer or spiritual direction (guidance, counseling). It is not satisfied with learning more about God but with leading a person more directly to encounter God.”

^{19}

This personal encounter with God then bears fruit in the discernment of action (praxis) in this light.
基納斯對神學反思的理解使其接近靈修實踐甚至與神的相遇：“神學反思類似於祈禱或靈性指導（引導、輔導）。它不滿足於僅僅了解更多關於神的知識，而是希望更直接地引導一個人與神相遇。”這種與神的個人相遇隨後在行動的辨識（實踐）中結出果實。

Kinast points to several influences on the development of methods of theological reflection-and its affirmation of experience as the starting point. These influences include Latin American liberation theology and the practices of base Christian communities, the rise of feminist theology and African American theologies, and the Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) movement that began in the 1920 s and became influential in Protestant ministry training. Kinast notes that experience-based approaches bring critical perspectives to religious traditions, institutions, and norms-and so may meet resistance. He asserts a mutually critical relationship between experience and theology; experience can critique theology as theology also critiques experience. Kinast is careful to note that by “experience,” he intends the “authentic experience of God’s presence in our midst.”

^{20}

How can one identify what is authentic and inauthentic experience of the divine? Kinast, like Patricia Killen, frames this task in terms of spiritual discernment, a practice which, in my reading of this literature, becomes an integral part of the hermeneutical process.
基納斯特指出了幾個影響神學反思方法發展的因素，以及將經驗作為起點的肯定。這些影響包括拉丁美洲解放神學和基督教基層社區的實踐、女性主義神學和非裔美國人神學的興起，以及始於 1920 年代並在新教事工培訓中變得有影響力的臨床牧靈教育（CPE）運動。基納斯特指出，基於經驗的方法為宗教傳統、機構和規範帶來了批判性的視角，因此可能會遭遇抵抗。他主張經驗與神學之間存在相互批判的關係；經驗可以批判神學，正如神學也批判經驗。基納斯特小心地指出，所謂的“經驗”，他指的是“上帝在我們中間的真實存在經驗”。

^{20}

如何識別什麼是真實的和不真實的神聖經驗？基納斯特像帕特里夏·基倫一樣，將這一任務框架化為靈性辨識，這一實踐在我對這些文獻的閱讀中，成為詮釋過程的不可或缺的一部分。
patricia Killen
parricia Killen’s work in theological reflection also adopts a hermeneutical model of conversation. While associated with the Institute of Pastoral Studies at Loyola University in Chicago, Killen taught theological reflection methodology to parish groups, community organizations, and dioceses. Her book The Art of Theological Reflection, coauthored with religious educator John de Beer, presents their method. According to Killen and de Beer, theological reflection “is the discipline of exploring individual and corporate experience in conversation with the wisdom of a religious heritage.”

^{21}

The dialogue entails an openness to confirm, challenge, and expand understandings of both experience and tradition. The act of interpreting the contemporary situation is a movement of discernment, and this method of theological reflection represents then a kind of spiritual training: “it trains us to discem the presence of God’s spirit in the social events and movements of our time.”

^{22}

According to Killen, theological reflection is an "artful practice"23 that can be done by individuals and groups and can be adapted for use by other faith communities. Theological reflection deepens the practice of ministry and “nurtures ministers’ souls.”

^{24}

帕里西亞·基倫的神學反思工作也採用了對話的詮釋學模式。在芝加哥的洛約拉大學牧靈研究所任職期間，基倫向教區團體、社區組織和教區教授神學反思方法。她與宗教教育者約翰·德·比爾共同撰寫的書籍《神學反思的藝術》介紹了他們的方法。根據基倫和德·比爾的說法，神學反思“是探索個人和集體經驗與宗教傳承智慧對話的學科。”這種對話意味著對確認、挑戰和擴展對經驗和傳統理解的開放性。詮釋當代情況的行為是一種辨識的運動，而這種神學反思的方法則代表了一種靈性訓練：“它訓練我們辨識上帝的靈在我們時代的社會事件和運動中的存在。”根據基倫的說法，神學反思是一種“藝術性的實踐”，可以由個人和團體進行，並可以適應其他信仰社群的使用。神學反思深化了事工的實踐，並“滋養了牧者的靈魂”。”

^{24}

"Shared Praxis" and the Hermeneutical Tasks of the Religious Educator: Thomas Groome
「共享實踐」與宗教教育者的詮釋任務：托馬斯·格魯姆

Thomas Groome has done much to shape the field of religious education and represents a key Catholic practical theological voice. For many years, he served as director of the Institute of Pastoral Ministry and Religious Education at Boston College, where he continues to serve on the faculty. While he has been a longtime member of the International Academy of Practical Theology, his writing has recently more explicitly engaged practical theology as a discipline.

^{25}

His method of “shared praxis”-which involves a critical dialogue between present praxis and the Christian Story and Visionbears much in common with Browning’s four movements of a fundamental practical theology. In his method, the hermeneutical task figures prominently.
托馬斯·格魯姆在宗教教育領域做出了重大貢獻，並代表了一個關鍵的天主教實踐神學聲音。多年來，他擔任波士頓學院牧靈事工與宗教教育研究所的主任，並繼續在該校任教。雖然他一直是國際實踐神學學院的長期成員，但他的著作最近更明確地涉及實踐神學作為一個學科。他的“共享實踐”方法——涉及當前實踐與基督教故事和願景之間的批判性對話——與布朗寧的基本實踐神學的四個運動有很多共同之處。在他的這一方法中，詮釋學任務佔據了重要地位。

Groome’s Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision came on the scene concurrently with a revival of practical theology in the Protestant theological world in the 1980s, with the publication, for example, of Edward Farley’s Theologia, Browning’s edited volume Practical Theology: The Emerging Field in Theology, Church, and World, and Joseph Hough and John Cobb’s Christian Identity and Theological Education. While Groome did not use the term “practical theology,” his method had clear resonance with developing approaches in the field. Browning pointed to Groome’s work as “a powerful practical theology of Christian education.” 26
Groome 的基督教宗教教育：分享我們的故事和願景與 1980 年代新教神學界實踐神學的復興同時出現，例如愛德華·法利的《神學》、布朗寧編輯的《實踐神學：神學、教會和世界的新興領域》以及約瑟夫·霍夫和約翰·科布的《基督教身份與神學教育》。雖然 Groome 並未使用“實踐神學”這一術語，但他的方式與該領域發展中的方法有明顯的共鳴。布朗寧指出 Groome 的作品是“基督教教育的強大實踐神學”。26

Groome outlines his method of “shared praxis,” which he expands upon in his later work Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral A finistry:

^{27}

Groome 概述了他的“共享實踐”方法，他在後來的著作《共享信仰：宗教教育和牧靈事工的綜合方法》中進一步闡述了這一點

In Groome’s vision, the educator’s task “is essentially a hermeneutical one”-that of interpreting with a community both present praxis and the Christian Story/Vision in a critical and dialectical movement. Educators need to be aware of their pre-understandings as they approach a text with a “hermeneutics of retrieval, suspicion, and creative commitment.”

^{28}

According to Groome, the five movements of shared Christian praxis are: naming/expressing “present praxis”; critical reflection on present action; making accessible Christian Story and Vision; dialectical hermeneutics to appropriate Christian Story/Vision to participants’ stories and visions; and decision/response for lived Christian faith.

^{29} He

adopts a movement of mutually critical correlation: participants ask how the Christian Story/Vision affirns and challenges present praxis, as they also ask how present praxis affims and critically appropriates the Christian Story/Vision.

^{30}

For Groome, the “reign of God” provides the “ultimate hermeneutical principle for what to teach from the tradition, the primary guideline for how to teach it, and the direction of its politics.”

^{31}

在格魯姆的願景中，教育者的任務“本質上是一種詮釋性的任務”——即與社群一起批判性和辯證性地解釋當前的實踐和基督教故事/願景。教育者需要意識到他們的前理解，當他們以“檢索、懷疑和創造性承諾的詮釋學”來接近文本時。根據格魯姆的說法，共享基督教實踐的五個運動是：命名/表達“當前實踐”；對當前行動的批判性反思；使基督教故事和願景變得可接近；辯證詮釋學將基督教故事/願景適用於參與者的故事和願景；以及對活出基督教信仰的決策/回應。採用相互批判的相關運動：參與者詢問基督教故事/願景如何肯定和挑戰當前實踐，同時也詢問當前實踐如何肯定和批判性地適用基督教故事/願景。對於格魯姆來說，“上帝的國度”提供了“從傳統中教導的最終詮釋原則、教導的主要指導方針以及其政治方向。”

Groome does not restrict his method of shared praxis to the tasks of religious education. Shared praxis is a liberative style of Christian ministry that "reflects commitments to engage and empower people in their whole ‘being’ as agents-subjects-in-relationship in the world, to honor the tradition and community of Christian faith and their import for life, to bring people to partnership, mutuality, and dialogue in an inclusive community of participants.

^{32}

As such, it has implications for all tasks of pastoral ministry, including liturgy, preaching, pastoral care, and social justice ministries.
Groome 並不將他的共享實踐方法限制於宗教教育的任務。共享實踐是一種解放性的基督教事工風格，它“反映了對於在世界中作為關係中的代理人-主體-整體‘存在’的參與和賦權的承諾，尊重基督信仰的傳統和社群及其對生活的意義，促使人們在包容的參與者社群中建立夥伴關係、互惠和對話。”因此，它對所有牧靈事工的任務都有影響，包括禮儀、講道、牧靈關懷和社會正義事工。

Like other Catholic authors, Groome links his methodological discussions to the language of spiritual practice. He describes the task of interpretation in terms of “discernment”: “the educator’s task is to discem both what to make accessible from the Story/Vision and how to make it accessible to participants.”

^{13}

When shared praxis is done in the context of the Christian faith community, it reflects and cultivates a Christian spirituality marked by respect for the freedom of the human person, right relationships, attending to God’s Spirit, and commitment through ecclesial community to God’s reign.

^{34}

像其他天主教作者一樣，格魯姆將他的研究方法討論與靈修實踐的語言聯繫起來。他將詮釋的任務描述為“辨識”： “教育者的任務是辨識從故事/願景中應該使參與者能夠接觸的內容，以及如何使其能夠接觸。”

^{13}

當共享實踐在基督教信仰社群的背景下進行時，它反映並培養了一種基督教靈性，這種靈性以尊重人類自由、正確關係、關注上帝的靈，以及通過教會社群對上帝國度的承諾為特徵。

^{34}

U.S. Hispanic Catholic Theologies: Theology as Liberative Hermeneutical Praxis
美國西班牙裔天主教神學：作為解放詮釋實踐的神學

Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz
As a mujerista theologian, Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz (1943-2012) described theology as liberative praxis, a kind of liberative hermeneutics. A longtime professor of ethics and theology at Drew University, Isasi-Diaz brought a hermeneutics of suspicion to bear on practical theology as she also offered a constructive vision of a liberative hermeneutics centered on Latina experience. For example, she read claims of scientific “objectivity” with a hermeneutics of suspicion-seeing oppressive power dynamics underlying such claims. Instead, she argued for the importance of self-location whenever interpreting biblical texts. Her biblical and theological hermeneutics was deeply shaped by her experience of ethnic prejudice as a Cuban exite in the United States; her work with the poor in Lima, Peru, which shaped her commitment to a preferential option for the poor; and her experience of oppression as a woman in the Catholic church. Her hermeneutics focuses on the lived experience of Latinas, lo popular, the realities of oppression, and the goal of liberative praxis and moral agency: "My biblical hermeneutics, then, has as its central focus the binomial oppression-liberation.

^{"}^{35}

Lo cotidiano, the everyday experience of Hispanic women, plays a central role in seeing, interpreting, and knowing: “In mujerista theology, then, lo cotidiano has descriptive, hermeneutical, and epistemological importance.” Still, everyday experience is not an ethical or theological norm, principle or criterion; rather, liberative praxis is the norm by which experience is judged: “It is only insofar as lo cotidiano is a liberative praxis, a daily living that contributes to liberation, that lo cotidiano is considered good, valuable, right, salvific.”

^{36}

作為一位女性主義神學家，阿達·瑪麗亞·伊薩西-迪亞茲（1943-2012）將神學描述為解放實踐，一種解放的詮釋學。作為德魯大學的倫理學和神學教授，伊薩西-迪亞茲將懷疑的詮釋學應用於實踐神學，同時提供了一種以拉丁裔經驗為中心的解放詮釋學的建設性願景。例如，她以懷疑的詮釋學來解讀科學“客觀性”的主張，看到這些主張背後的壓迫權力動態。相反，她主張在解釋聖經文本時，自我定位的重要性。她的聖經和神學詮釋學深受她作為古巴流亡者在美國的族裔偏見經歷的影響；她在秘魯利馬與貧困者的工作，塑造了她對貧困者的優先選擇的承諾；以及她作為天主教會女性的壓迫經歷。她的詮釋學專注於拉丁裔女性的生活經驗、流行文化、壓迫的現實，以及解放實踐和道德行動的目標：“因此，我的聖經詮釋學的核心焦點是壓迫-解放的二元對立。”

^{"}^{35}

日常生活，西班牙裔女性的日常經驗，在看見、詮釋和認識中扮演著核心角色：“因此，在女性主義神學中，日常生活具有描述性、詮釋性和認識論的重要性。”然而，日常經驗並不是倫理或神學的規範、原則或標準；相反，自由實踐才是評判經驗的標準：“只有在日常生活是一種自由實踐、貢獻於解放的日常生活的情況下，日常生活才被認為是好的、有價值的、正確的、救贖的。””

^{36}

Roberto Goizucta

Like many Catholic Latino/a theologians, Roberto Goizueta gives strong attention to praxis, though he locates his work primarily in systematic theology. Goizueta makes a particularly interesting contribution in bringing Latin American liberation theologies and theories of human action into conversation with theological aesthetics. A professor at Boston College, he also has given leadership to the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States (ACHTUS). Goizueta argues for practice or praxis-and specifically the practices of popular religion of Latinos/as-as locus theologicus, site and source of theology. In Caminemos con Jesis: Toward a Hispanic/Latino Theology of Accompaniment, Goizueta structures the theological inquiry as a “hermeneutical circle” (drawing here on Latin American liberation theologies)-beginning in experience (particularly popular U.S. Hispan-
像許多天主教拉丁裔神學家一樣，羅伯托·戈伊祖埃塔對實踐給予了強烈的關注，儘管他主要將自己的工作定位於系統神學。戈伊祖埃塔在將拉丁美洲解放神學和人類行動理論與神學美學進行對話方面做出了特別有趣的貢獻。作為波士頓學院的教授，他還為美國天主教西班牙裔神學家學會（ACHTUS）提供了領導。戈伊祖埃塔主張實踐或實踐，特別是拉丁裔的民間宗教實踐，作為神學的場所、地點和來源。在《與耶穌同行：朝向西班牙裔/拉丁裔陪伴神學》中，戈伊祖埃塔將神學探究結構化為一個“詮釋學循環”（在此借鑒拉丁美洲解放神學）——從經驗開始（特別是美國的民間西班牙裔）。
ic experience). moving to analysis of the experience, and returning to experience in a new light. Through this hermeneutical process, Goizueta argues, one comes to understand the historical and religious praxis that is the focus of the inquiry and to understand theology as grounded in a praxis of solidarity and accompaniment. Through his study of U.S. Hispanic popular relig-ion-including devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe, domestic practices, and public Santa Semana rituals-Goizueta argues that praxis has both liberative and aesthetic dimensions, which are integrally interrelated and mutually dependent. He critiques instrumentalist understandings of praxis-seeing the importance of beauty in U.S. Hispanic spirituality. Goizueta’s use of the hermeneutical circle, his attention to aesthetics and the receptive dimension of practice, and his focus on popular religion as the locus of theology open up paths for Catholic work in practical theology.

NORMS AND SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
規範與權威來源

As this brief exploration of authors reveals, methodology and normativity are interrelated. Particular hermeneutical methods clearly carry implicit and explicit norms-for example, liberation, the reign of God, beauty, the value of even day experience of the people. Norms of interpretation can be challenged, contested, cherished, and potentially a source of division in communities. To see this more clearly, we can point to the tensive story and struggles of post-conciliar Catholicism. In many ways, this story is a debate precisely about the norms and authorities that govern interpretative processes. What normative or epistemic weight should experience be given vis-à-vis scripture and tradition-and whose experience is considered or marginalized? How adjudicate among conflicting interpretations of scripture, tradition, and culture? Which interpretations of Vatican II are more accurate? How does the Holy Spirit guide interpretation and understanding-through what channels, institutions, and charisms? What is or should be the magisterium’s role in the hermencutical process? These are simply critical, contested questions in contemporary Catholicism.
正如這段對作者的簡要探索所揭示的，方法論和規範性是相互關聯的。特定的詮釋方法顯然承載著隱含和明確的規範——例如，解放、上帝的統治、美、甚至人民日常經驗的價值。詮釋的規範可以被挑戰、爭論、珍視，並可能成為社群中的分歧來源。為了更清楚地看待這一點，我們可以指出後大公會議天主教的緊張故事和掙扎。在許多方面，這個故事正是關於支配詮釋過程的規範和權威的辯論。經驗應該在聖經和傳統面前被賦予什麼樣的規範性或認識論的權重——誰的經驗被考慮或邊緣化？如何在聖經、傳統和文化的相互矛盾的詮釋中進行裁決？對於第二次梵蒂岡大公會議的哪些詮釋更為準確？聖靈如何引導詮釋和理解——通過什麼渠道、機構和恩賜？教導權在詮釋過程中應該扮演什麼角色？這些在當代天主教中都是簡單而關鍵的爭論問題。

The Vatican II documents support the idea that theology is a hermeneutical task and that experience (including the experience of laity) is a valid theological source. The conciliar ecclesiological shift to emphasize the church as the “People of God” and to affirm the priestly, prophetic, and kingly mission of the laity also supports a dialogical approach to theology and pedagogy (seen, for example, in Groome’s emphasis on shared praxis). The Holy Spirit guides not only the teaching authority of the Church but also the whole body of the Church, the whole People of God. Thus, the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) is a norm to be accounted for in the hermeneutical process. At the same time, Vatican II continues to assert magisterial
梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議的文件支持神學是一項詮釋學任務的觀點，並且經驗（包括信徒的經驗）是一個有效的神學來源。會議的教會學轉變強調教會作為「天主的人民」，並確認信徒的祭司、先知和君王使命，也支持了一種對話式的神學和教學方法（例如，在格魯姆強調的共同實踐中可見）。聖靈不僅引導教會的教導權威，還引導整個教會的身體，即整個天主的人民。因此，信徒的感知（sensus fidelium）是詮釋過程中需要考慮的標準。同時，梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議繼續主張教導權威。
guthority in the hermeneutical process. The first conciliar constitution, the “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” (Dei Verbum), asserts the indispensable role of the teaching office of the church in interpretation: "But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.

^{- 37}

在詮釋過程中的權威。第一部公會憲章《關於神聖啟示的教義憲章》（Dei Verbum）斷言教會教導機構在詮釋中的不可或缺的角色：“但真實詮釋上帝之道的任務，無論是書面還是傳承的，專門委託給教會的活生生的教導機構，其權威是以耶穌基督的名義行使的。”

What is “authentic interpretation”? What is at stake in this question? These are indeed major points of division in the contemporary Church-and a sore question for theologians. Pope Benedict XVI (who as Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 to 2005), has pointedly argued that post-conciliar struggles in the Church come down to a problem of competing and false hermeneutics: "The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or-as we would say today-on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other.

^{38}

Benedict contradicts those who seek a “hermeneutics of rupture” in the “spirit” of Vatican II and he explicitly calls theologians to task for their role in advancing a hermeneutics of rupture: "On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.

^{339}

Instead, Benedict calls for a “hermeneutics of reform” that emphasizes instead the continuity of pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Catholicism and (citing his predecessor John XXIII) the Council’s “faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine” of the Church.

^{10}

什麼是「正統詮釋」？這個問題的關鍵是什麼？這確實是當代教會中的主要分歧點，也是神學家們的一個棘手問題。教宗本篤十六世（他在 1981 年至 2005 年間擔任信仰教義部部長時的拉辛格樞機主教）尖銳地指出，教會在會後的鬥爭歸結於競爭和錯誤的詮釋學問題：「問題是：為什麼在教會的大部分中，會議的實施至今如此困難？這完全取決於對會議的正確詮釋，或者—如我們今天所說—對其適當的詮釋學，正確的詮釋和應用的關鍵。其實施中的問題源於兩種對立的詮釋學相遇並互相爭吵的事實。本笃教宗反对那些在第二届梵蒂冈大公会议“精神”中寻求“断裂诠释”的人，并明确要求神学家对他们在推动断裂诠释中的角色负责：“一方面，有一种我称之为‘不连续和断裂的诠释’的解释；它经常利用大众媒体的同情，以及现代神学的一个趋势。相反，本笃教宗呼吁一种“改革的诠释”，强调前大公会议和后大公会议的天主教的连续性，并引用他的前任约翰二十三世的话，强调会议对教会“真实教义”的“忠实和完美的符合”。

^{10}

The “battle for meaning”-to use a phrase of historian Massimo Faggio-li-has left or exposed deep fault lines in the Catholic community.

^{41}

Richard John Neuhaus commented in 1985: “In all the changing definitions of sides and alignments, the contest over the interpretation of Vatican II constitutes a critical battlefront in our society’s continuing cultural wars.”

^{12}

Catholic practical theologians are imbedded in this contest of interpretations. With their keen attention to practice and theology, they also can contribute to the growing body of research about the hermeneutics of Vatican II-the interpretation processes at work in the Council and in its subsequent reception over the past decades.

^{47}

Faggioli sees the hermeneutical debates as multi-layered and not simply an ideological clash between liberal and conservative Catholics; rather, he locates the roots of alternate hermeneutics in deep Christological and ecclesiological theological differences.

^{44}

Ormond Rush shows how philosophical, literary, and historical hermeneutical theory can be brought to bear on theological analysis of interpretation of Vatican II-directing methodo-
“意義之戰”——用歷史學家馬西莫·法焦利的話來說——在天主教社群中留下或暴露了深刻的斷層線。

^{41}

理查德·約翰·紐豪斯在 1985 年評論道：“在所有不斷變化的立場和陣營定義中，對第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議解釋的爭奪構成了我們社會持續文化戰爭中的一個關鍵戰線。”

^{12}

天主教實踐神學家深深嵌入這場解釋的競爭中。憑藉他們對實踐和神學的敏銳關注，他們也能為有關第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議的詮釋學的日益增長的研究貢獻力量——這些詮釋過程在大公會議及其在過去幾十年中的後續接納中發揮作用。

^{47}

法焦利認為詮釋學的辯論是多層次的，而不僅僅是自由派和保守派天主教徒之間的意識形態衝突；相反，他將替代詮釋學的根源定位於深刻的基督論和教會論神學差異中。

^{44}

奧爾蒙德·拉什展示了如何將哲學、文學和歷史詮釋學理論應用於對第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議解釋的神學分析——指導方法。
logical attention to the hermencutics of the conciliar authors, texts, and receivers, all seen in light of the other in a hermeneutical circle or spiral.

^{45}

對會議作者、文本和接收者的詮釋學進行邏輯關注，所有這些都在詮釋學的圓圈或螺旋中相互照亮。

These debates about the letter and the spirit of Vatican II, rupture or continuity, reception and nonreception can be framed as critical Catholic practical theological issues. Hermeneutics is a theory-laden practice with deep normative theological dimensions and serious implications for the ongoing life of the Church. For Catholic theologians, work with hermeneutical theories and methods inevitably leads to these complex questions about the norms of “authentic interpretation”-and related issues of the criteria for authenticity, the definition and authority of the magisterium, and the role of the Spirit in communal processes of interpretation. The stakes of hermeneutics are high-as has been made abundantly clear by recent moves of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to interpret, correct, censure, and silence Catholic theologians.

^{46}

這些關於梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議的字面與精神、斷裂或延續、接納與不接納的辯論，可以被框架為關鍵的天主教實踐神學問題。詮釋學是一種充滿理論的實踐，具有深刻的規範神學維度，並對教會的持續生活產生嚴重影響。對於天主教神學家來說，與詮釋理論和方法的工作不可避免地引發了關於“真實詮釋”規範的複雜問題，以及與真實性標準、教義權威的定義和權威、以及聖靈在共同詮釋過程中的角色相關的問題。詮釋學的利害關係很高，這一點已被教義信仰部最近對天主教神學家的詮釋、修正、譴責和沉默的行動充分表明。

Because pastoral or practical theologies are directly concerned with the life of the Church and the formation of religious leaders, they reflect these hermeneutical debates. One key question: What is the relationship between pastoral or practical theology and doctrine? While most authors discussed above give strong weight to the epistemic value of experience in practical/ pastoral theology, the Institute of Pastoral Theology at the ultra-orthodox Ave Maria University (founded in 2003) asserts a stronger role for doctrine in the work of pastoral theology, which it defines as “the continued reflection of the Church on the unchanging truth of doctrine in view of its being lived in faith, hope, and charity, and in view of giving direction to all of the pastoral activity of the Church. Pastoral theology studies doctrine in order to uncover its significance for the human person and build up the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”

^{47}

Like others discussed above, the Institute claims Vatican II as the inspiration for its vision of pastoral theology, yet underscores the unity of doctrinal and pastoral theology, echoing here Cardinal Ratzinger’s understanding of Vatican II: “This Council is pastoral in its fusion of truth and love, ‘doctrine’ and pastoral solicitude; it wished to reach beyond the dichotomy between pragmatism and doctrinalism, back to the biblical unity in which practice and doctrine are one, a unity grounded in Christ.” 48
因為牧靈或實踐神學直接關注教會的生活和宗教領袖的培養，因此它們反映了這些詮釋學的辯論。一個關鍵問題是：牧靈或實踐神學與教義之間的關係是什麼？雖然上述大多數作者對實踐/牧靈神學中經驗的認識價值給予了很大的重視，但超正統的阿維瑪利亞大學（成立於 2003 年）的牧靈神學研究所則主張教義在牧靈神學工作中扮演更強的角色，並將其定義為“教會對不變的教義真理的持續反思，以便在信仰、希望和慈愛中生活，並為教會所有的牧靈活動提供指導。牧靈神學研究教義，以揭示其對人類的意義，並建立那一位、聖潔、普世和使徒的教會。””

^{47}

像上述其他人所討論的，該研究所聲稱第二次梵蒂岡大公會議是其牧靈神學願景的靈感來源，但強調教義神學和牧靈神學的統一，這裡呼應了拉辛格樞機對第二次梵蒂岡大公會議的理解：“這次大公會議在真理和愛、‘教義’和牧靈關懷的融合中是牧靈性的；它希望超越實用主義和教義主義之間的二分法，回到實踐和教義合而為一的聖經統一，這一統一根植於基督之中。48

Contemporary Catholic practical theologians do not disregard doctrine or tradition, though post-Vatican II hermeneutical approaches have asserted a heretofore neglected role for experience. Still, the Catholic context and conversation raises to the forefront the normative dimensions of hermeneutics and theological method. Catholic pastoral and practical theologians cannot avoid addressing issues of norms, doctrine, ecclesiology, and authority: far from being abstract or distant concerns, these are relevant to how we define our work, train pastoral leaders, teach theology, and envision the future of the Catholic community. The struggles over “correct” or “authentic” interpretation within post-conciliar Catholicism may well point to a growing edge for
當代天主教實踐神學家並不忽視教義或傳統，儘管第二次梵蒂岡大公會議後的詮釋學方法強調了以往被忽視的經驗角色。然而，天主教的背景和對話將詮釋學和神學方法的規範維度推向了前沿。天主教的牧靈和實踐神學家無法避免討論規範、教義、教會學和權威等問題：這些問題遠非抽象或遙遠的關切，而是與我們如何定義工作、培訓牧靈領袖、教授神學以及展望天主教社群的未來息息相關。在會後天主教中對“正確”或“真實”詮釋的爭論，可能指向一個日益增長的邊緣。
practical theology more generally: the need to work more closely with systematic theology; to address more squarely the relationships between doctrine, lived experience, and pastoral theology; to explore more deeply the normative dimensions of methodological options.

^{49}

Here the Catholic context of practical theology intersects with current debates in practical theology on the international, ecumenical scholarly circles-seen, for example, in recent debates among Protestant scholars published in the International Journal of Practical Theology, including British practical theologian Pete Ward’s critique of practical theology’s “angst about doctrine.”

^{50}

There is need for more sustained attention to such issues and more practical theological thinking about how to facilitate dialogue across competing hermeneutical perspecfives and powers in faith communities. For in many communities-not just among Catholics-hermeneutical principles are sharply contested and discerning right principles of interpretation is a practical theological task of the highest importance for the community. Catholic practical theologians can contribute here to practical theology more broadly as well as to the flourishing of the contemporary Catholic community in struggle.
實踐神學更一般地說：需要與系統神學更緊密地合作；更直接地處理教義、生活經驗和牧靈神學之間的關係；更深入地探索方法選擇的規範性維度。

^{49}

在這裡，實踐神學的天主教背景與當前在國際、普世學術界的實踐神學辯論交織在一起，例如，最近在《國際實踐神學期刊》中發表的基督教新教學者之間的辯論，包括英國實踐神學家皮特·沃德對實踐神學“對教義的焦慮”的批評。

^{50}

需要對這些問題進行更持續的關注，並進行更多實踐神學的思考，以促進在信仰社群中跨越競爭的詮釋學視角和權力的對話。因為在許多社群中——不僅僅是在天主教徒之中——詮釋學原則受到激烈的爭議，辨識正確的詮釋原則對於社群來說是一項極其重要的實踐神學任務。天主教實踐神學家可以在這裡更廣泛地為實踐神學做出貢獻，並促進當代天主教社群在掙扎中的繁榮。

VIEWS OF THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP
理論與實踐關係的觀點

The hermeneutical approaches discussed here assume a dialogical relationship between theory and practice, typically expressed in the form of practice-theory-practice. It should be noted that some authors use the category of “experience” as much as or more than “practice,” and some use the terms interchangeably. Theology (including the scriptures and tradition) arises from experience, and experience must be reflected upon in dialogical relationship with theory and theology. Reshaped practice flows from the reflection upon experience in dialogue with theology and tradition. Further reflection on the centrality of the category of “practice,” as compared to the category of “experience,” will be important for the discipline of practical theology. Practice seems to be the dominant category in the practical theology literature as a whole. Authors such as Hans-Günter Heimbrock, James Poling and Donald Miller, and Ruard Ganzevoort appeal to “experience” or “lived religion” as the focus of study in practical theology. Latina/o theologiansincluding Isasi-Diaz, Goizueta, Nancy Pineda-Madrid, and Carmen Nanko-Fernandez-point to lo cotidiano as source and center of theologizing.

^{51}

Catholic attention to experience in the hermeneutical process of theology may widen the scope of practical theology and generate important reflection about how experience relates to theory and theology in particular religious traditions.
這裡討論的詮釋學方法假設理論與實踐之間存在對話關係，通常以實踐-理論-實踐的形式表達。值得注意的是，一些作者使用“經驗”這一類別的頻率與“實踐”相當或更高，並且有些作者將這兩個術語互換使用。神學（包括經文和傳統）源於經驗，而經驗必須在與理論和神學的對話關係中進行反思。重塑的實踐源於對經驗的反思，並與神學和傳統進行對話。進一步反思“實踐”這一類別的中心性，相較於“經驗”這一類別，對於實踐神學的學科將是重要的。實踐似乎是整體實踐神學文獻中的主導類別。漢斯-君特·海姆布羅克、詹姆斯·波林和唐納德·米勒、以及魯阿德·甘澤沃特等作者將“經驗”或“生活宗教”作為實踐神學研究的重點。拉丁裔神學家，包括伊薩西-迪亞茲、戈伊祖埃塔、南希·皮內達-馬德里德和卡門·南科-費爾南德斯，則指出 lo cotidiano 是神學化的來源和中心。

^{51}

天主教對於神學詮釋過程中經驗的關注可能擴大實踐神學的範疇，並產生重要的反思，關於經驗如何與理論及特定宗教傳統中的神學相關聯。

Clare E Wolfrech

ROLE OF AND APPROACH TO CONTEXTS
上下文的角色和方法

The turn to experience in Catholic practical theology goes hand in hand with keen attention and rigorous study of context. Following the vision of Vatican II. practical theologians “scrutinize the signs of the times and interpret them in light of the gospel.” This ecclesial task implies the necessity of rigorous study of the particularities of contexts and communities as integral part of the work of theology. Catholic feminist and liberationist approaches have widened the range of contexts that demand attention. So, too, lay theologians bring new, textured study of everyday contexts such as the home, neighborhood, and workplace. While practical theology naturally focuses on contemporary contexts, historical-contextual study also can be seen as highly relevant to Catholic practical theological approaches-opening understanding of the contexts which have shaped the transmission of tradition and the rich and varied contextuality of Catholic faith past and present.
在天主教實踐神學中，對經驗的轉向與對背景的敏銳關注和嚴謹研究密切相關。根據第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議的願景，實踐神學家“審視時代的跡象，並根據福音解釋它們。”這一教會任務意味著對特定背景和社群的嚴謹研究是神學工作不可或缺的一部分。天主教女性主義和解放主義的方法擴大了需要關注的背景範圍。同樣，平信徒神學家也帶來了對家庭、社區和工作場所等日常背景的新穎而細緻的研究。雖然實踐神學自然專注於當代背景，但歷史背景的研究也被視為與天主教實踐神學方法高度相關，開啟了對塑造傳統傳承的背景以及過去和現在天主教信仰的豐富多樣的背景性的理解。

INTERDISCIPLINARY CONVERSATION PARTNERS
跨學科對話夥伴

Hermeneutical approaches in practical theology rely on a wide range of disciplines and competencies. Theological anthropology is critical for studying human experience, just as biblical and historical studies are essential for interpreting classic texts and contexts of a tradition. Hermeneutical approaches should accentuate and make explicit their theological suppositions as they substantively engage the range of relevant theological disciplines. At the same time, hermeneutical approaches necessarily draw critically upon a range of disciplines in order to describe contemporary contexts and to understand processes of understanding and interpretation. These cognate disciplines include critical theory, sociology, anthropology, semiotics, educational theory, philosophy, literary studies, political theory, economics, and psychology. Because hermeneutical approaches in practical theology foster dialogical engagement between contemporary experience and practices and the tradition, it depends upon a full range of human knowledge and scholarly investigation. This presents a challenge to individual practical theologians, who cannot master all the disciplines that could inform the hermeneutical process. Thus, practical theologians will emphasize some particular theological and cognate disciplines in their work. Collaborative scholarship would be a useful means of advancing hermeneutical approaches that draw upon and critically engage a wider range of relevant disciplines, methods, and discourses. Moreover, the openness of hermeneutical approaches to a wide range of human sciences, while quite consonant with Catholic understandings of the role of reason in theological knowing, makes even more critical
實踐神學中的詮釋學方法依賴於廣泛的學科和能力。神學人類學對於研究人類經驗至關重要，就像聖經和歷史研究對於詮釋傳統的經典文本和背景是必不可少的。詮釋學方法應該強調並明確其神學假設，因為它們實質性地參與相關神學學科的範疇。同時，詮釋學方法必然批判性地借鑒多種學科，以描述當代背景並理解理解和詮釋的過程。這些相關學科包括批判理論、社會學、人類學、符號學、教育理論、哲學、文學研究、政治理論、經濟學和心理學。由於實踐神學中的詮釋學方法促進當代經驗和實踐與傳統之間的對話性參與，因此它依賴於全面的人類知識和學術研究。這對個別的實踐神學家提出了挑戰，他們無法掌握所有可能影響詮釋過程的學科。因此，實踐神學家在他們的工作中將強調某些特定的神學及相關學科。合作學術將是一種有用的手段，以推進詮釋學方法，這些方法依賴並批判性地參與更廣泛的相關學科、方法和話語。此外，詮釋學方法對廣泛人文科學的開放性，雖然與天主教對理性在神學認識中角色的理解相當一致，但使得這一點更加關鍵
the need for reflection about normativity in interdisciplinary, hermeneutical forms of practical theology.
對於跨學科、詮釋學形式的實踐神學中規範性反思的需求。

AREAS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH
當前和未來研究領域

Catholic hermeneutical approaches advance a conception of practical theology as public, dialogical, contextual, ecclesial, and liberative. They take contemporary experience seriously and bring it into conversation with the tradition in a discerning process for the sake of future praxis. We have seen that a number of Catholic pastoral and practical theologians frame the theological task in terms of spirituality and spiritual practices such as discernment. I have argued elsewhere that practical theology and spirituality share many key features and can inform one another.

^{52}

The dialogue with spirituality is a growing edge for practical theology and a potentially significant contribution of Catholic authors.
天主教詮釋學方法推進了一種將實踐神學視為公共的、對話的、情境的、教會的和解放的概念。它們認真對待當代經驗，並將其與傳統進行對話，以便在明辨的過程中為未來的實踐服務。我們已經看到一些天主教的牧靈和實踐神學家將神學任務框架化為靈性和靈性實踐，例如明辨。我在其他地方已經論證過，實踐神學和靈性共享許多關鍵特徵，並且可以相互啟發。與靈性的對話是實踐神學的一個增長邊緣，也是天主教作者可能的重要貢獻。

For example, spirituality scholars offer important insights about the role of hermeneutics as transformative practice throughout Christian history. Postconciliar Catholic hermeneutical approaches actually have deep echoes in the traditions of Christian spirituality. Douglas Burton-Christie, for example, discusses the “cost of interpretation” in early monasticism, “the pervasive sense among the monks that language . . . had real power. . . . To interpret a word meant striving to somehow realize it in one’s life and to be transformed by that realization.”

^{53}

Studies of the monastic encounter with scripture support the argument that interpretation is not simply academic inquiry but a transformative spiritual practice. Catholic practical theologian Marc Lavallee has traced a “hermeneutics of discernment” in several traditions of Christian spirituality—particularly early monastic, Benedictine, and Ignatian texts.

^{54}

例如，靈性學者提供了有關詮釋學在基督教歷史中作為轉化實踐的角色的重要見解。會後的天主教詮釋學方法實際上在基督教靈性傳統中有著深刻的回響。例如，道格拉斯·伯頓-克里斯蒂討論了早期修道主義中的“詮釋成本”，“修士們普遍感受到語言……具有真正的力量……詮釋一個詞意味著努力在生活中以某種方式實現它，並被這種實現所轉化。”對修道士與聖經相遇的研究支持了詮釋不僅僅是學術探究，而是一種轉化的靈性實踐的論點。天主教實踐神學家馬克·拉瓦萊在幾個基督教靈性傳統中追溯了一種“辨識的詮釋學”——特別是早期修道、聖本篤和聖伊納爵的文本。

Spirituality studies also show the complexity of the hermeneutical process, particularly in interpreting historical and mystical texts. While practical theologians bring contemporary experience into dialogue with “classics” (Tracy), “Christian Story/Vision” (Groome), and “normative texts that are already part of our effective history” (Browning), Jesuit philosopher, cultural critic, and mysticism scholar Michel de Certeau (1925-1986) moves from an initial “hermeneutic of continuity” to a deep skepticism about the possibility of “awakening the dead” for integration with the present.

^{ss}

Certeau problematized the reading of history and historical texts, pointing to the rupture, ambiguity, and excessiveness of the mystical experience in history. There is no simple act of translation or appropriation, as there is no simple act of reading religious experience in history. Certeau’s work, then, has significant implications for hermeneutical approaches in practical theology. What sort of hermeneutical skills does the practical theologian need to read and interpret
靈性研究也顯示了解釋過程的複雜性，特別是在解釋歷史和神秘文本方面。雖然實踐神學家將當代經驗與“經典”（Tracy）、 “基督教故事/願景”（Groome）和“已經成為我們有效歷史一部分的規範文本”（Browning）進行對話，但耶穌會哲學家、文化批評家和神秘主義學者米歇爾·德·塞爾托（1925-1986）則從最初的“連續性詮釋”轉向對“喚醒死者”以便與當前整合的可能性深感懷疑。塞爾托對歷史和歷史文本的閱讀提出了問題，指出了歷史中神秘經驗的斷裂、模糊和過度性。翻譯或挪用並不是一個簡單的行為，正如在歷史中閱讀宗教經驗也不是一個簡單的行為。因此，塞爾托的工作對實踐神學中的詮釋學方法具有重要的啟示。實踐神學家需要什麼樣的詮釋技能來閱讀和解釋
“unsaying” texts? Here work in spirituality studies-and particularly attention to mystical texts-raises complex questions about hermeneutical approaches in practical theology.
“unsaying” 文本？在靈性研究中，特別是對神秘文本的關注，提出了有關實踐神學的詮釋學方法的複雜問題。

The creativity of contemporary hermeneutical approaches in Catholic thought and practice emerge too with interest in dialogue and the communicative nature of theology and religious practice. Given the ecclesial fault lines exposed in the “battle for meaning,” as well as larger cultural wars and the increasing importance of interreligious understanding, this attention to dialogue is indeed an important practical theological direction for future work. Bradford Hinze’s book Practices of Dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church: Aims and Obstacles, Lessons and Laments argues for a dialogical ecclesiology as he paints a picture of post-Vatican II practices of dialogueincluding studies of local parish councils, diocesan synods, the Catholic Common Ground Initiative, the chapters of women religious, and ecumenical and interfaith dialogues.

^{56}

Hinze’s work advances hermeneutical approaches in practical theology by locating hermeneutics and dialogue in the concrete praxis of the church; attending to the cost of dialogue in his discussion of impasse and lament; and advancing theological arguments for dialogue as ecclesial, pneumatological, and theological practice. So too Stephen B. Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder make a case for mission as “prophetic dialogue” reflecting the communicative character of the Triune God.

^{57}

German Catholic theologians Matthias Scharer and Bernd-Jochen Hilberath seek to advance the practice of “communicative theology.” 58 And liturgical scholar and practical theologian Edward Foley is forging an intercontextual and interreligious reenvisioning of the Whiteheadian dialogical model of theological reflection.

^{59}

當代天主教思想和實踐中的詮釋學方法的創造力也隨著對對話和神學及宗教實踐的交互性質的興趣而出現。考慮到在“意義之戰”中暴露出的教會斷層線，以及更大的文化戰爭和宗教間理解的重要性日益增加，對對話的關注確實是未來工作的一个重要實踐神學方向。布拉德福德·欣茲的著作《羅馬天主教會的對話實踐：目標與障礙、教訓與哀嘆》主張對話的教會學，因為他描繪了第二次梵蒂岡大公會議後的對話實踐，包括對地方教區委員會、教區會議、天主教共同基礎倡議、女性宗教團體的章程以及基督宗教和宗教間對話的研究。欣茲的工作通過將詮釋學和對話置於教會的具體實踐中，推進了實踐神學中的詮釋學方法；在他對僵局和哀嘆的討論中關注對話的成本；並推進了對話作為教會、聖靈論和神學實踐的神學論證。斯蒂芬·B。 Bevans 和 Roger P. Schroeder 提出了將使命視為“預言對話”的觀點，反映了三位一體上帝的溝通特性。

^{57}

德國天主教神學家 Matthias Scharer 和 Bernd-Jochen Hilberath 旨在推進“溝通神學”的實踐。58 而禮儀學者和實踐神學家 Edward Foley 正在重新構想懷特海的神學反思對話模型，並進行跨背景和跨宗教的再構建。

^{59}

Hermeneutical approaches in practical theology are complex and imbedded in contentious debates within Catholicism about the role of the magisterium and the theological import of contemporary experience (as well as the multiplicity of experiences for which there needs to be accounting). For a church that continues to struggle with how to read the signs of the times in light of the gospel, however, hermeneutical approaches in practical theology are significant trajectories and potentially transformative leaven.
實踐神學中的詮釋學方法是複雜的，並且嵌入了天主教內部關於教導權的角色和當代經驗的神學意義（以及需要考量的多重經驗）之間的爭論中。然而，對於一個仍在努力理解如何根據福音解讀時代跡象的教會來說，實踐神學中的詮釋學方法是重要的軌跡，並且可能成為變革的酵母。

OPENING 開幕

- /4". FIELD PRACTYOAL THEOLOGT- /4". 實地神學

Chapter Eight 第八章

Hermeneutics in Protestant Practical Theology 新教實踐神學中的詮釋學

HISTORICALCONTEXT

The Story of Hermeneutics: An Overview詮釋學的故事：概述

Sally A Brown 薩莉·A·布朗

118

Sally A Brown 薩莉·A·布朗

Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Key後現代語境中的詮釋學

Twentieth-Century Practical Theology in Conversation with Hermeneutical Theory二十世紀實踐神學與詮釋學理論的對話

Sally A Brown 薩莉·A·布朗

KEY FEATURES AND REPRESENTATIVE FIGURES主要特點和代表性數字

Don S. Browning

Sally A. Brown 莎莉·A·布朗

Elaine L. Graham 伊萊恩·L·格雷厄姆

Dale P. Andrews

Susan J. Dunlap and Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger: Hermeneutics for Pastoral Care蘇珊·J·鄧拉普和黛博拉·范·德森·亨辛格：牧靈關懷的詮釋學

Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger黛博拉·范·德尤森·亨辛格

NORMS AND SOURCES OF AUTHORITY規範與權威來源

VIEWS OF THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP理論與實踐關係的觀點

ROLE OF AND APPROACH TO CONTEXTS上下文的角色和方法

INTERDISCIPLINARY CONVERSATION PARTNERS跨學科對話夥伴

AREAS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH當前和未來研究領域

Sally A Brown 薩莉·A·布朗

SUGGESTED READINGS 建議閱讀資料

Chapter Nine 第九章

Hermeneutics in Roman Catholic Practical Theology 羅馬天主教實踐神學中的詮釋學

HISTORICAL CONTEXT 歷史背景

Claire E Wolficich

KEY FEATURES AND REPRESENTATIVE FIGURES主要特點和代表性數字

The Hermeneutical Task of a Public Practical Theology: David Tracy公共實踐神學的詮釋任務：大衛·特雷西

Claire E Wolfick 克萊爾·E·沃利克

Theological Reflection and the Practice of Ministry神學反思與事工實踐

James and Evelyn Whitehead詹姆斯和伊夫琳·懷特黑德

Rolert Kinast

"Shared Praxis" and the Hermeneutical Tasks of the Religious Educator: Thomas Groome「共享實踐」與宗教教育者的詮釋任務：托馬斯·格魯姆

Roberto Goizucta

NORMS AND SOURCES OF AUTHORITY規範與權威來源

VIEWS OF THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP理論與實踐關係的觀點

Clare E Wolfrech

ROLE OF AND APPROACH TO CONTEXTS上下文的角色和方法

INTERDISCIPLINARY CONVERSATION PARTNERS跨學科對話夥伴

AREAS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH當前和未來研究領域

SUGGESTED READINGS 建議閱讀資料

- /4".
FIELD
PRACTYOAL THEOLOGT
- /4". 實地神學

Hermeneutics in Protestant Practical Theology
新教實踐神學中的詮釋學

The Story of Hermeneutics: An Overview
詮釋學的故事：概述

Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Key
後現代語境中的詮釋學

Twentieth-Century Practical Theology in Conversation with Hermeneutical Theory
二十世紀實踐神學與詮釋學理論的對話

KEY FEATURES AND REPRESENTATIVE FIGURES
主要特點和代表性數字

Susan J. Dunlap and Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger: Hermeneutics for Pastoral Care
蘇珊·J·鄧拉普和黛博拉·范·德森·亨辛格：牧靈關懷的詮釋學

Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger
黛博拉·范·德尤森·亨辛格

NORMS AND SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
規範與權威來源

VIEWS OF THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP
理論與實踐關係的觀點

ROLE OF AND APPROACH TO CONTEXTS
上下文的角色和方法

INTERDISCIPLINARY CONVERSATION PARTNERS
跨學科對話夥伴

AREAS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH
當前和未來研究領域

Hermeneutics in Roman Catholic Practical Theology
羅馬天主教實踐神學中的詮釋學

KEY FEATURES AND REPRESENTATIVE FIGURES
主要特點和代表性數字

The Hermeneutical Task of a Public Practical Theology: David Tracy
公共實踐神學的詮釋任務：大衛·特雷西

Theological Reflection and the Practice of Ministry
神學反思與事工實踐

James and Evelyn Whitehead
詹姆斯和伊夫琳·懷特黑德

"Shared Praxis" and the Hermeneutical Tasks of the Religious Educator: Thomas Groome
「共享實踐」與宗教教育者的詮釋任務：托馬斯·格魯姆

NORMS AND SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
規範與權威來源

VIEWS OF THE THEORY-PRACTICE RELATIONSHIP
理論與實踐關係的觀點

ROLE OF AND APPROACH TO CONTEXTS
上下文的角色和方法

INTERDISCIPLINARY CONVERSATION PARTNERS
跨學科對話夥伴

AREAS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH
當前和未來研究領域