靈修何時真屬靈？（反思靈修之定義的一些問題）WhenIs Spirituality Spiritual? Reflections on Some Problems of Definition
作者:卡森（D. A. Carson）
近來，人們對靈修問題十分感興趣，這一方面是件好事，一方面卻也令人擔憂。The current
interest in spirituality is both salutary and frightening.
為論述方便起見，我把這些考驗分成幾個部分。
說它是件好事，是因為人們對靈修問題產生合宜的興趣，總比就接受物質主義哲學思想要好得多。物質主義主導了很多人的思想，不僅在西方如此，在許多其他地區也是一樣。如今很多教會都為著某種深刻的虛幻感所苦。如果這種興趣代表我們正在對這種虛幻感進行有意識的反抗，那便更有益處。我們說我們要「認識」、「遇見」並「敬拜」永活的神，但是很多人感到這種群體敬拜的實踐有些敷衍了事的味道，非常不實際。在最安靜的時刻，他們暗自思想，究竟哪裡出了問題。It is salutary
because in its best forms it is infinitely to be preferred over the assumed
philosophical materialism that governs many people, not only in the western
world but in many other parts as well. It is salutary wher- ever it represents
a self-conscious rebellion against the profound sense of unreality that
afflicts many churches. We speak of "knowing" and "meeting
with" and "worshiping" the living God, but many feel that the
corporate ex- ercises are perfunctory and inauthentic, and in their quietest
moments they wonder what has gone wrong.
說它令人擔憂，是因為「靈性／靈修」（spirituality）這個詞已經被扭曲了，變成了一個模糊不清的抽象概念，涵蓋各種各樣的表像。在上一代那些更注重紮實思考的基督徒看來，這些表像可能是錯誤的，甚至是屬於「不信者」或「異教徒」的。【1】現在，「靈性／靈修」卻成為一個大受歡迎的詞語。也就是說，只要有人說出這個詞，人人都會給他鼓掌。在很多圈子裡，「靈性／靈修」成了屬靈範疇裡最吸引人的話題，就像談論美食的人都喜歡聊聊蘋果派一樣。無人夠膽出言提醒，更遑論批判！毫無疑問的是，這個話題目前已經引發了眾人的興趣。It is frightening
because "spirituality" has become such an ill-defined, amorphous
entity that it covers all kinds of phenomena an earlier generation of
Christians, more given to robust thought than is the present generation, would
have dismissed as error, or even as "paganism" or
"heathenism."1 Today "spirituality" is an
applause-word—that is, the kind of word that is no sooner uttered than everyone
breaks out in applause. In many circles it functions in the spiritual realm the
way "apple pie" functions in the culinary realm: Who is bold enough
to offer a caution, let alone a critique? What is quite certain is that the
topic currently generates enormous interest.
一、當下的一些定義，包括明言的和含蓄的I. SOME CURRENT
DEFINITIONS, EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT
J. W.
Conn 認為「靈性／靈修」最初乃是「基督教用語，出自保羅書信」，【2】不過，事實不然。的確，「靈」和「屬靈」這兩個詞在新約聖經中都出現過，但是，談論靈性問題的作家，很少有人首先對這些詞語進行歸納性研究，從中構建「靈修」這個詞的意思。其實，「靈修」這個詞是從法國天主教思想中產生出來的，在過去一個世紀左右的時間裡，這個詞在更正教界也變得越來越普遍，但這起初並不是更正教徒使用的詞彙。早期作者可能談到「屬靈生命」，而且意思可能沒有保羅在哥林多前書二章說「屬靈的人」時所指的那麼寬泛，但正是對「屬靈生命」的這種關注，最終令基督徒造出「靈修」這個詞。Despite the
contention of J. W. Conn that originally spirituality was "a christian
term—from Paul's letters,"2 it is nothing of the kind. True,
"spirit" and "spiritual" are found in the NT, but very few
writers on spiri- tuality begin with inductive study of such terms in order to
establish what "spirituality" means. As a term
"spirituality" emerged from French Catholic thought, though for the
last century or so it has been common in Protes- tantism as well. Earlier
writers could speak of "the spiritual life" and mean something rather
more narrowly defined than Paul meant by "the spiritual man" in 1
Corinthians 2, but it is this focus on "the spiritual life" that ul-
timately led to Christian coinage of the term "spirituality "
事實上，在基督教會的歷史上，宗教改革之前，屬靈生活涉及許多不同的方面，其中只有少部分在某時某地獲得主導地位，壓過其他的因素—— 聖禮、團契生活、禱告、苦修、殉道、發誓守貧或／及獨身、聖像、修道主義等等。屬靈生活越來越多地和追求完全聯繫在一起，就是在我們最終完全、與神面對面的相見（visio Dei）之前，盡我們所能地追求完全。因此，這不是指著所有基督徒說的，而是指著那些特別渴慕神的人說的。所以，如果用「靈修」一詞表明從前所說的「屬靈生活」，它雖然跟生命的每個層面有關，卻只涉及部分信徒的全部生命。18世紀早期，耶穌會的Giovanni Scaramelli（1687-1752）基於長期的傳統，將苦修神學和神秘主義神學明確區分出來，作為屬靈生命研究的主要對象。前者主要涉及的是所有渴慕完全的基督徒都要致力操練的，而後者主要處理超自然狀態的意識，以及伴隨著人們在與神奧秘聯合而來的一些表現。因此，「靈修」成為一門學科，即「靈修神學」，與教義神學和道德神學有所區分。教義神學告訴我們，我們必須相信什麼，而道德神學告訴我們，我們的行為舉止應當如何。P.Pourrat 處理這個問題的經典方式，就是以這些重要區別為主的。【3】In fact in the history of the Christian Church
until the Reformation there were many different elements connected with
spiritual life, only a few of them achieving prominence at any time or place
sacraments, community, prayer, asceticism, martyrdom, vows of poverty and/or
celibacy, images, mo- nasticism, and much more Increasingly, spiritual life
came to be associated with the pursuit of perfection, so far as that is
possible this side of the con- summating Visio Dei Thus it was not for all
Christians It was for those who particularly panted after God Thus although
spirituality (to use the term anachromstically) embraced all of life, it
embraced all of life only for some believers By the beginning of the eighteenth
century Giovanni Scaramelh (1687-1752) of the Society of Jesus, building on long-established
traditions, sharply distinguished ascetic and mystical theology as the primary
compo- nents of the study of spiritual life The former has to do with the
exercises to which all Christians who aspire to perfection will devote
themselves, while the latter deals with the extraordinary states of
consciousness and their secondary manifestations during times of mystical union
with God Thus "spirituality" became a discipline, "spiritual
theology," to be distin- guished from dogmatic theology, which tells us
what must be believed, and from moral theology, which tells us how we must act
These are the essen- tial distinctions that govern the classic treatment by Ρ
Pourrat 3
Bouyer
在他的三卷本《基督教靈修學史》中做出了一個更明確的定義： 【4】In his three-volume
history Bouyer sought a more precise definition 4
基督教的靈修學（或其他類型的靈修學）是和教義有所區別的，因為教義主要研究或描述信仰的客觀實體，是抽象的，而靈修學則研究這些客觀實體在宗教意識中引發的反應。但是，公正地說，靈修學並不是偽科學。有人認為，對客觀實體的理解使宗教意識兩極化，但這是一種偏見，完全是不可取的，與理解這種意識本身有重大差異。相反地，靈修學研究這個意識，只有在於它與那些客觀實體的活潑關係，也只有在於這一意識對信仰的真實理解上。因此，靈修神學必須總是以教義神學為前設和基礎的，儘管靈修神學對教義神學資料的關注只有在於這些資料與宗教意識的關係。Christian
spirituality (or any other spirituality) is distinguished from dogma by the
fact that, instead of studying or describing the objects of belief as it were
in the abstract, it studies the reactions which these objects arouse in the re-
ligious consciousness But, rightly, it does not entertain the
pseudo-scientific, and in fact wholly extravagant, prejudice that the
understanding of the objects polarizing the religious consciousness is
essentially foreign to an understand- ing of this consciousness itself On the
contrary, spirituality studies this consciousness only in its living
relationship with those objects, in its real ap- prehension of what it believes
Dogmatic theology, therefore, must always be presupposed as the basis of
spiritual theology, even though the latter con- cerns itself with the data of
the former only under the relationship that they entertain with the religious
consciousness
最後這一點，即靈修神學以教義神學為前設，是 Pourrat 和 Bouyer 都十分強調的，但如今被一些作者否定了。【5】 這些作者的觀點剛好與此相反，他們認為靈修體驗塑造我們的神學，我們必須先體驗到一些東西，然後才能以教義的形式來表述這些體驗。有人認為這兩種觀點之所以不同，是因為第一種觀點在大多數個體的經驗層面指出體驗和教義有關，而第二種觀點則是在一個運動的起源和形成過程中看到教義的形成通常和體驗有關。That last point,
that spiritual theology presupposes dogmatic theology, a point emphasized by
both Pourrat and Bouyer, is denied today by some au- thors,5 who maintain the
reverse Spirituality is what shapes our theology We must experience something
before we proceed to articulate it in dog- matic forms Part of the difference
between these two perspectives, one sus- pects, stems from the concern of the
former to relate dogmatics to experience in the experience of most individuals,
and the concern of the latter to relate experience to dogmatics in the genesis
and formation of a movement.
在這裡我們需要停一下，仔細看看已經顯露出來的若干特點。It is worth pausing
to draw attention to several features that have al- ready come to light.
1. 天主教（東正教在這一點上也是一樣的）投入「靈修學」領域的研究比更正教多很多，而大部分（直到近期都是如此）都是在強調一些基督徒對完全（有時被認為是一種奧秘的聯合）的追求。這些基督徒是「精英」（儘管他們當然從未想過自己會被冠以這樣的頭銜），其中不乏許多的修士。天主教的這種傳統觀點也仍然反映在一些細節上，比如與此有關的內容在最近出版的天主教及福音派神學詞典，【6】以及天主教的 Paulist、與福音派的Zondervan 和 Eerdmans 出版社出版的大量有關靈修這類主題的書籍中所占的相對篇幅。1. Catholicism (and Orthodoxy
too, for that matter) has invested far more heavily in "spirituality"
studies than has Protestantism, owing in no small measure to the emphasis
(until very recent times) on the pursuit of perfec- tion (sometimes thought of
as mystical union) by a subset of Christians, by "elite" Christians
(though of course they would never think of themselves under such a term), not
infrequently monastics. This traditional Catholic interest is still reflected
in such details as, say, the relative amounts of space given to the subject in
recent Catholic and evangelical dictionaries of theology,6 or the number of
books congregating around the theme of spiri- tuality published by Paulist
Press and by Zondervan or Eerdmans.
2. 最晚從18世紀開始，「靈修」便可以指認識神（這個詞也仍需定義）的特定方式，也可以指對這些特定方式的研究。2. At least since
the eighteenth century "spirituality" could refer either to certain
approaches to the knowledge of God (still being defined) or to the study of
such approaches.
3. 在前面那段 Bouyer 的引文中括弧裡所說的「或其他類型的靈修學」，反映出靈修領域另外一個發展趨勢，是比較難以處理的。在上下文中，「其他類型的靈修學」指的是非基督教領域內的靈修學，如印度教、伊斯蘭教、佛教、精靈崇拜論者的靈修觀念等。Bouyer 這本書是講基督教靈修史的，而基督教的靈修絕大多數情況下是以文本依據為基礎的。在這整本書中，非基督教領域的靈修可能是個突出的類別：它是指非基督宗教類別裡教義和宗教意識之間的相互作用，而且同樣是以文本（或者其他大量的現象）證據為基礎的。然而，這些例子牽涉的教義都是正確的嗎？這很重要嗎？如果與之息息相關的教義是錯的，那麼與這些互相排斥的教義體系相關的「靈修」是有意義的嗎？是真實的嗎？是有用或有幫助的嗎？我們僅僅是在討論和人的思想及意識有關的事情嗎？如果我們堅稱靈性有一個超越的層次存在，那麼，相信福音的基督徒，和那些探索一個胖孩子精神世界的精靈崇拜論者，雙方所談論的超越層面是一樣的嗎？我們會和激進的多元主義者站在同一個立場，認為其實任何一種形式的靈修都和其他形式一樣有意義，並且其本身就能證明與之相關的教義是真理嗎？當然，在這個問題上，持多元主義論者必須說一些模棱兩可的話，例如辯駁說雖然這些教義系統明顯是彼此衝突的，但是它們都指向一個更大的系統，而這個系統超越了它們當中每一個的理解範疇。對於這類問題，我稍後會簡單回應一下。3. The
parenthetical remark "or any other spirituality" (in the extended
quote from Bouyer above) reflects another development that is harder to han-
dle. In the context this refers to spirituality in non-Christian religions:
Hindu spirituality, Islamic spirituality, Buddhist spirituality, animist
spirituality, and so forth. In the context of Bouyer's work—a study of the
history of Christian spirituality, based for the most part on textual
evidence—non- Christian spirituality may be an eminently useful category: It
refers to something like the interplay between dogma and religious
consciousness in non-Christian religions, based, once again, on textual (or
other largely phe- nomenological) evidence. But is the related dogma true in
each instance? Does it matter? Is the "spirituality" related to these
mutually exclusive sys- tems of dogma valid or true or useful or helpful when
the dogma to which it is tied is not true? Are we dealing only with the mind,
the stuff of human consciousness? Or if we are insisting that there is a
transcendent dimension to spirituality, is that transcendent dimension the same
for the Christian who believes the gospel and for the animist who is imploring
the spirits for a fat baby? Do we adopt the position of the radical pluraliste
who assume that virtually every form of spirituality is as valid as any other
form, and this in itself becomes a way of authenticating the relative
truthfulness of all dogma? In that case, of course, one must say something
fuzzy—for example, argue that although these systems of dogma transparently
contradict one another they all point equivalently to some greater system
beyond the ken of any one of them. To such questions I shall briefly return.
在梵二會議（Vatican II）後，天主教靈修學的主要關注點漸漸不再只是精英份子對完全的追求，而更多轉向所有天主教徒在信仰經歷上的成長。因此，《教義憲章》（Dogmatic
Constitution on theChurch）發出了成聖的普世性呼召：「任何身份與地位的所有基督徒，都被號召走向基督徒的豐盛生命及愛心的完全境界」（L. G. 40）。《禮儀憲章》（The onstitution of the Sacred
Liturgy）宣稱：整個梵二會議的主要目標是加強基督徒的靈性，「日漸加強天主教徒的基督化生活」（S.C.1），這是使人人都可以參加聖禮，尤其是彌撒的原因之一（S.C.2）。同時，我們必須承認的一點是，梵二會議之後的天主教對靈性問題的觀點是非常具有多樣性的，其中有許多觀點都漸漸地越來越不以聖餐為中心了。目前，很多人在關注女性靈修、貧窮生活的靈修和社會變革的靈修等等。在靈修學這個領域裡，有很多當代著作在探索著，有哪些層面的東西應該被納入其中，包括哲學、心理學、神學、神秘主義、社會學等。想把哪樣排除在外都越來越困難，幾乎所有的東西都可被納入靈修學的範疇之中，只要裡面有些許經驗的成分即可。在這種環境下，追求這種「靈修」就早已不僅是一種天主教式的興趣了。【7】這樣看來，最近在一本天主教出版物中出現的一個對「靈性／靈修／靈修學」的定義就比較符合現狀了。這個定義的涵蓋面之廣甚至讓人望而卻步： 【8】This side of
Vatican II, Catholic emphases on spirituality have been less associated with
the pursuit of perfection by the elite than with growth in Christian experience
by all Catholics. Thus the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church issued a
universal call to holiness: "All the faithful of whatever rank . . . are
called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of
charity" (L.G.40). The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy asserts that the
primary goal of the entire Vatican II council is to intensify Christian
spirituality, "the daily growth of Catholics in Christian living"
(S.C.I). This is given as one of the reasons for making the liturgy, and
especially the mass, more accessible (S.C.2). At the same time it can scarcely
be denied that post-Vatican-II Catholicism has fostered a diversity of views on
spiri- tuality, many of which are less and less eucharistically centered. Now a
great deal of attention is focused on feminist spirituality, the spirituality
of a life of poverty or of social transformation, and so forth. A great deal of
con- temporary publication in the area of spirituality explores what are judged
to be complementary dimensions: the philosophical, the psychological, the
theological, the mystical, the social, and so forth. It is becoming exceedingly
difficult to exclude anything—absolutely anything—from the purview of
spirituality, provided that there is some sort of experiential component in the
mix. In this environment the pursuit of such "spirituality" is far
from being a merely Catholic interest.7 In this light one of the most recent
defi- nitions of spirituality to appear in a Catholic publication is entirely
coher- ent, even if so all-embracing as to be rather daunting:8
「靈性／靈修／靈修學」這個詞既指一種生命體驗，也指一門學科。對基督徒來說，靈性指的是一個人的整個生命，這生命是在基督耶穌裡、與神連接、靠聖靈得力的基礎上被理解、感知、想像和決定的。而這個詞同時也指對這種宗教體驗的跨學科研究，包括想要促進這種體驗趨於成熟的努力。The term
spirituality refers to both a lived experience and an academic disci- pline.
For Christians, it means one's entire life as understood, felt, imagined, and
decided upon in relationship to God, in Christ Jesus, empowered by the Spirit.
It also indicates the interdisciplinary study of this religious experience,
including the attempt to promote its mature development.
大約在上個世紀時，「靈性／靈修」成了更正教徒的常用詞之一。直到近幾十年，在自由派更正教徒對靈性／靈修的定義涵蓋的面越來越廣，漸漸擴展到和梵二會議後天主教的定義一樣之前，更正教在靈修方面的興趣，主要還是在於敬虔及傳統福音派所說的信仰生活。舉例而言，儘管「靈修」在英國清教徒中並不是流行語，但是我們的確看到他們強調效法基督、省察個人道德、認罪、默想神的話、全心使用「恩典之道」。勞威廉的《呼召過聖潔生活》（William Law, A
Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life）【9】便是在這一傳統之內寫就的靈修經典。更晚近一些，傅士德（Richard Foster ）和勒弗雷斯（Ri c hard Lovelace）也談到類似的呼召。【10】這兩位作者屬於福音派大家庭，只是神學體系和我們稍有不同。巴刻（J. I. Packer）有不少著作都是基於清教徒思想的，基本上（至少有部分）是為了培養屬靈生命。【11】During the last century or so,
"spirituality" has become part of the regular vocabulary of
Protestants. Until the last few decades, when liberal Protes- tantism's
conception of spirituality has gradually expanded to roughly the same
dimensions as that within post-Vatican-II Catholicism, Protestantism's interest
in spirituality has largely been that associated with godliness and the
devotional life in traditional evangelicalism. Although
"spirituality" was not a term in vogue among the English Puritans,
for instance, it is hard not to appreciate their emphases on conformity to
Christ, personal moral exami- nation, confession of sin, meditation on the
Word, full-hearted use of "the means of grace." William Law's A
Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life9 is, within this tradition, a classic in
spirituality. Much more recently, and from a slightly different doctrinal
structure within the heritage of evangelicalism, Richard Foster and Richard
Lovelace have issued somewhat similar calls.10 Building on the Puritans, not a
few of Packer's books are essentially works designed, at least in part, to
nurture the spiritual life.11
這是個基礎，接下來，大量關於靈性/靈修（先不管他們怎麼定義這個詞）的書籍和文章正在湧現出來。下面我要談談這些可用資源。例如，關於東正教的靈修，有一部非常重要的文學作品。要瞭解東正教傳統，最容易的一個切入點可能就是一本小書，這本書是東方教會的一位匿名修士寫的。【12】這本書非常出色，探索了一些天主教和東正教信徒的生活方式，這些人都是準備「為基督的緣故成為愚拙的」。 【13】自願守貧和追求完全之間的關聯，是中世紀所強調的，如今仍然有支持者。【14】女性靈修的大浪潮推動了男性靈修的誕生，【15】兩者的前設是一樣的。讀者若對基督教以外的靈修學問題感興趣，也許可以先從瞭解猶太人的靈修傳統入手。【16】這時代的主流就是多元主義，也可能是混合主義！因此，最近有本書試圖將靈修與西方的深層心理學、東方的冥想、基督徒的思想、和作者自己的經驗聯繫在一起。【17】社會學家提醒我們，嬰兒潮一代正努力以一種新的方式詮釋什麼是靈性。【18】另一位作者堅持認為，從印刷文化到電子文化的改變，「正在使我們對自己的認知和我們對宗教經驗及靈性體驗的定義發生變化」（我在電腦上用力敲出這段話時，也覺得緊張哩）。【19】This is the matrix, then, out of which so many
books and articles on spirituality (whatever that word means) are now being
produced. I have barely begun to mention the resources available. For example,
there is a substantial literature on Orthodox spirituality. Perhaps one of the
most accessible entry points to this heritage is a little book by an anonymous
monk of the eastern Church.12 A very remarkable book explores the pat- terns of
life of several Catholic and Orthodox believers who are prepared to be
"fools for Christ's sake."13 The medieval emphasis linking voluntary
poverty and perfection still finds its advocates.14 The great boom in femi-
nist spirituality is now calling forth, from within the presuppositions of that
heritage, reflections on male spirituality.15 For readers interested in the
understanding of spirituality outside Christianity, perhaps one should start
with Jewish spirituality.16 The rage of the age is pluralism, or per- haps
syncretism. Thus one recent book attempts to tie spirituality to west- ern depth
psychology, eastern meditation, Christian thought, and the author's own
experience.17 It takes a sociologist to advise us that baby boomers are
attempting to define spirituality in a new way.18 Another writer insists that
the change from a typographic culture to an electronic culture "is
altering our sense of ourselves and our definition of religious experience and
spirituality" (I am getting nervous as I pound this out on my computer).19
有些問題是與用語有關的。比如，福音派人士不僅寫學術性的註釋書，也寫一些「靈修式」（devotional）註釋書，同時，天主教人士不僅寫學術性的註釋書，也寫一些「屬靈的」（spiritual）註釋書。【20】最近，一位更正教徒也採取類似的策略：巴頓（Barton）的福音書註釋並不關注對福音書的「靈修式」解讀，而是要探索四福音的內容，以便從中發現：關於「對神同在的感知，及生活在這同在的光中 」這個問題，四福音書能給我們什麼啟發。【21】他找到了福音書中許多談到「靈性問題」的地方，即福音書中展示出對神同在的感知或提倡這種做法的部分，這些都在耶穌的靈修中展現出來（就是在耶穌自己對神同在的經歷當中）。在這本書裡，更多是以耶穌為一個榜樣或典範，而不是一位救主或主。當然，這兩方面並不是絕對對立的，但是在那本書裡我們完全看不到另外那方面。Some of the
problems are terminological. For instance, while evangeli- cals write not only
technical commentaries on Biblical books but also "de- votional"
commentaries, Catholics write not only technical commentaries but also
"spiritual" commentaries.20 Recently a Protestant has adopted a
somewhat similar tack: Barton's book on the gospels is not interested in the
"devotional" approach but on exploring the gospels to find out what
they can tell us about "the sense of the divine presence and living in the
light of that presence."21 He locates a great deal of the
"spirituality" of the gospels—that is, the sense of the divine presence
illustrated in or advo- cated by the gospels—in the spirituality of Jesus (i.e.
in Jesus' own expe- rience of the divine presence). There is much more of Jesus
as example or prototype than of Jesus as Savior or Lord. The two themes do not
have to be antithetical, but one of them is hardly heard in this book.
對靈修的歷史性研究也在繼續地迅速開展，而且對靈修學通常抱持強烈支持的觀點。與 Pourrat 和Bouyer 的早期歷史記載相比，這類作品談到「靈修」的時候，通常給予它更加寬闊的定義（包括明言的和含蓄的）。近30年來情況益形嚴重，因為學界飽受哲學多元主義的強烈影響。【22】因此，在一本關於亞洲基督徒靈修的書籍中，印度的耶穌會神學家Samuel Rayan 開宗明義地對靈修提出這樣一個定義：「要成為屬靈的人，就要比以往更加開放，更負責任地面對現實。」【23】最近出版的另外一本靈修史不斷強調女性靈修的重要性，並表示樂於見到基督教靈修的多元化（東正教、天主教、更正教，隨便都可以），也為基督教靈修必然在文化上發展得更加多元而感到欣喜，儘管這本書也同時警告說：「在這個不斷擴張的運動中，找不到自己的『根』是無益的，無目的地在多種靈修文化中遊蕩也是無益的。人們必須首先對自己所屬的傳統具備一種真實的歸屬感，才能投入另外一種傳統，並從中獲益。」【24】最近出版的一本關於改革宗靈修的書，觀點特別多元，以至於很多改革宗傳統的信徒可能都無法察覺這是一本跟改革宗有關的作品。【25】甚至近來一些神學方面的重要著作都深受當代靈修趨勢的影響。【26】福音派學者也加入了討論。【27】最近的一位福音派作者，先是指出福音派對自己豐富的靈修傳統（他特別指的是清教徒傳統）很無知，因此正處於不斷借用其他傳統的形式的危險中，【28】然而，非常奇怪的是，他又堅持認為現代人的生活節奏太快，要求基督徒每天讀聖經和禱告是「十分不切實際的」。【29】但令我們納悶的是，從福音派的靈修歷史的頂峰期中，究竟是要學到什麼呢？豈不是植根於「以道（神的話語）為中心的靈修」嗎？The discipline of
the historical study of spirituality also continues apace, usually from a
vantage point of strong advocacy. As compared with the earlier histories of
Pourrat and Bouyer, these works tend to reflect much broader definitions
(explicit or implicit) of spirituality, typical of the last three decades that
have suffered from the driving impact of philosophical pluralism.22 Thus in a
book on Asian Christian spirituality the opening ad- dress by Samuel Rayan, a
Jesuit theologian from India, proposes this defini- tion for spirituality:
"To be spiritual is to be ever more open and response- able to
reality."23 Another recent history of spirituality constantly stresses the
importance of feminist spirituality and rejoices that Christian spiritu- ality
is plural (Orthodox, Catholic, Reformed, whatever) and must become more
culturally diverse, even while warning that "in this movement out- wards,
it is not helpful to be rootless or to wander aimlessly from one spiri- tual
culture to another in search for somewhere to be at home. To enter fruitfully into
the unfamiliar one needs a real sense of where one belongs."24 A recent
book on Reformed spirituality includes a breadth of perspectives that many
believers in the Reformed tradition would find hard to recog- nize.25 Even some
recent important works on theology have been heavily influenced by contemporary
trends in spirituality.26 plunged into this discussion. ' One recent
evangelical writer, after arguing that evangelicals who are ignorant of their
own rich heritage of spirituality (he was thinking not least of the Puritans)
are in danger of constantly bor- rowing the forms of other heritages,28 rather
strangely insists that the mod- ern pace of life makes it "quite
unrealistic" to present Christians with the demand to read the Bible and
pray daily.29 One wonders exactly what one is to learn from the historical
highpoints of evangelical spirituality, which were very much rooted in the
"spirituality of the word."
因此，在對靈修問題的這一簡短綜覽中，我希望能夠指明這些作品中出現的對靈修的定義，包括明言的和含蓄的。我這個綜覽既缺乏深度又缺乏廣度，但是也許它能提供足夠的憑據，讓我們就靈修的定義問題做一些有益的反思。My concern, then,
in this potted survey of spirituality is to bring to light the implicit and
explicit definitions that the literature casts up. My survey has been neither
deep nor broad, but perhaps it has cast up enough evidence for some useful
reflection on the problems of definition.
二、反思「靈修」一詞目前的用法II. REFLECTIONS ON THE CURRENT
USE OF "SPIRITUALITY"
接下來這部分，我想引用一些作品，談談「靈修」一詞目前是如何被使用的。In what follows in this
section I wish to articulate a number of inferences from the literature cited
about the way "spirituality" as a term is used.
1. 靈修是一個神學概念。假如我們要通過聖經中討論靈修的經文，來直接探討靈修的好壞，或有關靈修學的任何特殊的研究，那麼，我們幾乎什麼都找不到，因為就著「靈修」一詞而言，聖經根本沒有使用它。1. Spirituality is
a theological construct. There is no way of getting di- rect access to what is
good or bad about spirituality, or about any particular study of spirituality,
by appealing to, say, Biblical texts that discuss spir- ituality because, so
far as the term is concerned, none does.
甚至可以說，「靈修」都算不上是一個神學概念，因為神學概念中包含哪些因素，通常是人們普遍達成一致的。例如，三位一體的教義也是一個神學概念。有人相信它，也有人否認。我們可以用很多種方式來說明這個概念，用很多不同的方式把這個概念和基督徒的神學觀及日常生活聯繫在一起。若要清楚地界定三位一體的概念，或是堅持某些細微的部分，爭論可能會非常激烈，而且會非常複雜，是，無論如何，這個教義的本質對於那些有見識、和公開認信、能思考的人來說是無可爭議的，【30】特別是其基本的神學要素。換言之，人們無論在三位一體教義上有何爭議，所有陣營都知道在爭些什麼。與此相反，「靈修」是一個人言人殊的綜合神學概念。我們必須時時刻刻弄清楚，一位作家在提倡或採用特定的「靈修」概念時，在這個概念中摻入什麼要素，又剔除了什麼要素。這通常是很少明言的。讀者要不斷地努力，去推斷作者前設的神學基礎是什麼。Moreover it is not
a theological construct whose constituent components are widely agreed on. For
example, the doctrine of the Trinity is also a theological construct. It may be
believed or denied, articulated in a number of ways, set into the fabric of
Christian theology and life in quite different arrays. But the substance of the
doctrine, not least the array of its basic constituent theological parts, is
not under dispute among informed confes- sional thinkers,30 however warm and
complex the dispute may be when it comes to precise and refined definition and
defense of the details. To put the matter another way, however disputed the doctrine
of the Trinity may be, all parties know what the dispute is about. By contrast,
spirituality is a person-variable synthetic theological construct: One must
always inquire as to what components enter into the particular construct
advocated or as- sumed by a particular writer and what components are being
left out. Only rarely are such matters made explicit. Readers are constantly
trying to in- fer what theological underpinnings are presupposed.
2. 由於構成這些人言人殊之靈修定義基礎的神學體系之間存在衝突，要在探討靈修這一主題的作品中找到真正一致的定義就幾乎不可能了。2. Because mutually
contradictory theologies may undergird these person- variable definitions of
spirituality, the degree of real commonality among those working on the topic
may be minimal.
例如， 耶魯大學伯克利神學院的「安南靈命成長中心」（Annand Center for Spiritual
Growth at the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale University）的小冊子上寫著，他們的董事會中有極力主張宗教混合主 義的人，有自由派更正教徒，有天主教徒，也有一位印度的吠陀教靈修大師。【31】他們的老師中包括本地聖公會的靈恩派信徒（Episcopalian
charismatics）。問題是，世界各大宗教對靈修的理解不同，我們需要仔細界定這些不同。【32】單單從在「靈修」背後這許多分歧的神學概念看來，就意味著「靈修」這個詞的含義會退化到僅僅是「一種超自然體驗」而已，而且每個人會把自己對「超自然」的理解摻入其中。這裏存在一個前設，就是假定一切超自然的體驗都是好的，不管這個所謂的超自然是由什麼組成的。靈修突然變成了「特洛伊木馬」，把最極端的宗教多元主義帶進了一個打著基督教旗號的帝國。For example, the
Annand Cen- ter for Spiritual Growth at the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale
University, according to its brochure, has on its board strong syncretists,
liberal Protes- tants, Catholics, and a Hindu spiritual master in the Vedic
tradition.31 Its teachers include local Episcopalian charismatics. The fact
remains that the different understandings of spirituality represented by
different world reli- gions need careful delineation.32 The sheer diversity of
the implicit theolog- ical structures means that the meaning of
"spirituality" degenerates into something amorphous like "an experience
of the numinous," in which every- one loads "numinous" with that
which is right in his or her own eyes. It is presupposed that such experiences
of the numinous are a good thing, what- ever the numinous consists in. Suddenly
spirituality becomes something of a Trojan horse that introduces the most
radical religious pluralism into what is nominally a Christian enterprise.
從基督徒的角度來看，敬拜不僅是動詞（正如Robert Webber常常提醒我們的），【33】更是一個及物動詞，而且，最重要的正是它的直接受詞。我們敬拜神，就是主耶穌基督的父神，而其他的所有敬拜都是不同形式的偶像崇拜，無論在這些異教徒的敬拜中存有多少普遍恩典，令他們得以一瞥屬靈的世界的面貌。換句話說，從新約聖經的角度來看，並不是所有超自然的體驗都可以被稱為「屬靈體驗」，無論人們是從心理學角度理解這種體驗，還是認為這個人在某種程度上進入了屬靈世界。簡而言之，並非所有的靈修都是屬靈的。From a Christian
perspective, worship is not only a verb, as Robert Web- ber likes to remind
us,33 but a transitive verb, and the most important thing about it is its
direct object. We worship God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
all other worship is in some measure idolatrous, however much the gifts of
common grace have preserved within such alien worship some insight into
spiritual realities. To put the matter another way: Not every experience of the
numinous, whether understood psycholog- ically and/or as some engagement with
the spiritual world, can be properly considered a "spiritual"
experience in any NT sense. In short, not all spir- ituality is spiritual.
3. 靈修可能會退化為一種技巧。人們通過一些特定的操練方式來尋求對超自然存在的親密體驗，比如研習、禁食、禱告、捨己等，無論他們怎麼理解這個超自然存在。這樣，我們必須提出兩個問題：(1) 這些技巧在多大程度上是無關價值判斷（value-neutral）的？(2)這些技巧在多大程度上是可以移植過來的呢？3. Spirituality may devolve
into a technique. By the application of cer- tain disciplines—study, fasting,
prayer, self-denial, whatever—one seeks a more intimate experience of the
numinous, however the numinous be un- derstood. The two questions that must
then be asked are these: (1) To what extent are such techniques value-neutral?
(2) To what extent are they transportable?
這兩個問題並不簡單，很難給出一個通論的回答。但是，要想出幾個例子來說明不同的問題是很容易的。下面我們看四個例子。These are not easy questions
about which to give generalizing answers, though it is fairly easy to think up
examples that illustrate quite different problems. Consider four examples.
例一： 對於受過教育的印度教徒而言，靈修（指靈修的技巧與操練）是要仔細閱讀《吠陀經》（Vedas）和印度教其他經典。那麼，福音派基督徒可以把這種方式移植過來嗎？閱讀神聖的典籍，或那些被認為神聖的典籍，不就是一種無關價值判斷的方法嗎？First, part of
spirituality (in this sense of technique and discipline) for the educated Hindu
will be the careful reading of the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures. How well
can that be transported to, say, evangelical Christi- anity? Is not the actual
reading of sacred texts, or texts perceived to be sa- cred, value-neutral?
作為基督徒，我會這樣回應：從某種程度上說，基督教可以很好地把印度教的這種方式移植過來。當然，我們讀的東西是很不一樣的，我們的聖經和他們的經典大相徑庭。儘管如此，我們肯定也希望基督徒的靈修是跟慎思明辨地閱讀聖經緊密相連的。所以我們可以說這種做法，這種技巧是可以移植的。但是，我們真正移植的，究竟是什麼呢？如果我們移植的是「閱讀被接納為聖典的文本」這種方式，那麼儘管這種實踐方式可以移植，但我們仍不能說它本身是無關價值判斷的。因為有很多經典都被人們奉為聖典，但在我看來那些根本就不是聖典，包括《摩門經》和《薄伽梵歌》（Bhagavad-Gita）。因此，我不認為閱讀某種被認為是聖典的文本本身是件好事。我甚至不認為這種行為是無關價值判斷的。我只能說這種閱讀的藝術在操作方面是無關價值判斷的，但這其實等於什麼也沒說。As a Christian I
would respond by saying that at one level the Hindu ex- ample can be
transported to Christianity fairly well. Of course what is read is different:
Our Scriptures are not their scriptures. Nevertheless we would surely want to
tie Christian spirituality to the thoughtful reading of the Bible. So I suppose
it could be said that this practice, this technique, is transportable. But
what, exactly, is being transported? If it is something like "the reading
of texts perceived to be sacred," then although the practice is
transportable it is not value-neutral. For there are many texts that are
perceived to be sacred that are not, from my perspective, anything of the
kind—including the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad-Gita. I deny, there- fore,
that the reading of texts perceived to be sacred is inherently a good thing. I
deny that the act is value-neutral. It is merely the mechanical art of reading
that is value-neutral—which is surely not saying very much.
例二：我們再來看看瑜伽中的呼吸（吐納）和集中注意力的練習。這些方法能夠恰如其分地被基督教採納嗎？它們是無關價值判斷的嗎？Second, suppose I
turn to the breathing and concentration exercises con- nected with yoga. How
well can they be transported to Christianity? And are they value-neutral?
從某種程度上說， 呼吸練習（吐納）完完全全是無關價值判斷的，有些人為了預備順產也會學習與此類似的呼吸方法。但是，在進行特定的呼吸練習（吐納）的同時，還要將注意力集中在一片白色之中的一個黑點上，同時要唱誦禱文，以達到一種與自我分離的境界、一種更高層次的「靈性」水平，這就完全是另一回事了。基督教能在多大程度上採納這種方法？我想只能採納一點點，至少不會採納那些禱文，那種將注意力集中在一片白色中的一個黑點之上的默想方法就更甭提了。我想，採取某種呼吸和放鬆練習，幫助過於緊張的人放鬆下來，這並沒有什麼可反對的。而且，如果放鬆的目的，是為了讓人更好地集中注意力，專注在默想聖經和禱告上，我想這應該被列為基督徒靈性成長的一種技巧。我們頂多只能說，這是一種技巧，預備人們進入那可以稱得上是基督教的屬靈操練，但這操練本身並不就是靈修。但那已經離題相當遠了。At one level,
surely the breathing exercises are intrinsically value-neu- tral: One learns a
slightly different set in preparation for natural child- birth. But the association
of certain breathing exercises with concentration on a black dot on an expanse
of white, coupled with the chanting of mantras in order to achieve a state of
dissociation associated with achieving a higher state of
"spirituality," is something else. How much ofthat is transportable
to Christianity? Not very much—certainly not the chanting of mantras, still
less the kind of meditation that is characterized by concentration on a spot on
a blank expanse. I suppose certain breathing and relaxation exer- cises that
help some uptight people to relax are unobjectionable. And if the purpose of
such relaxation were to enable the person to concentrate in med- itation and
prayer on the Bible, I suppose this could be labeled part of a technique for
growing in Christian spirituality. But it is getting pretty far removed: It is
more like a technique in preparation for the discipline that could then
genuinely be labeled Christian rather than an exercise in "spir-
ituality" per se.
例三： 想一想主的晚餐——聖餐。一個真正的基督徒參加聖餐禮，總是好事吧？如果有任何屬靈操練不是無關價值判斷的，那麼肯定就是這個吧，不是嗎？但是，這個方式可以被移植嗎？Third, consider the
Lord's supper, holy communion. Is participation by a genuine Christian always a
good thing? Surely if any spiritual discipline is not value-neutral, this is
it, is it not? But is it transportable?
對這個問題的答案， 再次讓我們體認到，事情並非如我們期望的那麼簡單。聖餐禮中任何重要的部分，肯定都不可能被移植到其他宗教系統裏面去。的確，其他一些宗教也有吃飯的儀式，但是跟聖餐有關的一切，都和其他宗教的用餐儀式有很大的不同。如果僅僅是吃飯，那可能是無關價值判斷的，但是聖餐可不僅僅是吃飯。Once again the
answers are not as simple as one might like. Surely noth- ing of significance
here is transportable. True, some other religions have rituals of eating, but
all of the associations connected with the Lord's table are quite radically
unlike the eating rituals of other religions. The naked act of eating may be
value-neutral, but the Lord's table is not a naked act of eating.
甚至連真正的信徒參加聖餐禮，都不見得一定是好事。保羅用「是的⋯⋯但是」，來回答哥林多教會中的很多問題：「我說男不近女倒好。但要免淫亂的事，男子當各有自己的妻子。」（林前七1∼2）。「我們知道偶像在世上算不得什麼⋯⋯但人不都有這等知識」（林前八4、7）諸如此類。然而，關於主的晚餐，保羅這樣寫道：「我現今吩咐你們的話，不是稱讚你們；因為你們聚會不是受益，乃是招損」（林前十一17）。之所以會這樣，並不是因為慶祝主的晚餐這件事有任何本質的邪惡，而是因為會眾變得自私、罔顧他人，人們沒有意識到自己的罪，也沒有認罪。所以我們知道，聖餐這種屬靈操練的方式並不是無關價值判斷的（從本質上來說它肯定是好的），也不可移植，卻可以完全變成一件壞事，不是它的本質改變，而是參與的會眾中有未認的罪。Nor is
participation, even by genuine believers, always a good thing. For many of the
problems in the Corinthian church Paul has a sort of "Yes, but"
answer: "Yes, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but since there
is so much immorality each man should have his own wife" (1 Cor 7:1-2);
"Yes, an idol is nothing at all in the world, but not everyone knows
this" (8:4, 7); and so on. But with respect to the Lord's table Paul
writes: "In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your
meetings do more harm than good" (11:17). This is not, it transpires,
because the celebration of the Lord's supper becomes an intrinsically evil act
but because relation- ships within the congregation are selfish and
thoughtless, and the sin is both unconfessed and unrecognized. So here we have
a spiritual discipline that is not value-neutral (it is surely intrinsically
good), not transportable, but can become thoroughly bad, not on intrinsic
grounds but because of sins in the congregation.
例四：再來想想中世紀修士所發的各種各樣的捨己誓言吧。這些方式可以被移植嗎？它們本身是否並無好壞之分，所以我們可以從中世紀天主教那裏借鑒一二？Finally, what about
various vows of self-denial practiced by medieval monastics? Can they be
transported? Are they value-free, so that they can be detached from medieval
Catholicism?
當然，我們這代人也可以做一些律己的操練。我們記得保羅在哥林多前書九章24至27節中的決心，也為自己的懶散感到羞愧。但是，已婚信徒不應該起誓守貞，除非是在一段有限的時間裏，經配偶同意，為要專心禱告方可（林前七5）。守貞誓言對獨身的人來說可能是好的，但是如果只是為了抑制情欲，這種努力是會令人灰心的（林前七9）。在這個享樂主義至上的放蕩的世代，自願守貧或過某種程度的貧窮生活的誓言可能是全然可敬的，但是同樣可能助長驕傲或高舉功德神學。守靜的誓言又如何呢？在這個喧囂的、過度表達的世代，少許安靜可能是非常好的。但是這也會帶來問題，比方說，我們實在很難把梅頓（Thomas Merton）所發的特拉比斯特派（Trappist）修士的守靜誓言，和他對「神的母親」馬利亞的深刻委身拆分開來看待。那麼，鞭打自己又如何？神通過祂兒子耶穌基督的死與復活賜下恩典的自由，如果我們牢牢抓住這自由，這種自我鞭打在我們的思想體系裏又怎能有立足之地？從本質上來說，這種方式豈不是和中世紀對精英人士達至完全的思想緊密相關，是平常的基督徒不能做的？Certainly our
generation could do with some self-discipline. We remem- ber, say, Paul's
determination in 9:24-27, and we are ashamed of our sloth and indolence. But
vows of chastity are not something that a married be- liever should undertake,
unless it is in agreement with one's spouse for a strictly limited period and
in order to set aside time for prayer (7:5). A vow of chastity undertaken by a
celibate person might be a good thing, but not if it is merely a frustrating
attempt to suppress lust (7:9). Vows of poverty or relative poverty might be
entirely salutary in this hedonistic and profli- gate age, but they might also
prompt pride or foster merit theology. What about vows of silence? Some quiet
in our noisy, self-expressive age would surely be a good thing. But how easily
can, say, the Trappist vows of silence undertaken by Thomas Merton be
disassociated from his deepening devo- tion to Mary as the "mother of
God"? How about self-flagellation? Can it have any place whatever in a
system of thought that has truly grasped the freedom of the grace of God provided
in the death and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ? How intrinsically is it
tied to medieval notions of elitist perfectionism not open to ordinary
Christians?
簡而言之，我們無法認為所有的靈修方法都是沒問題的，都是不需要加以警惕的，儘管這些都只不過是一些方法而已。In short, one
cannot assume approaches to spirituality that are little more than discussions
of technique, as if there were no hidden shoals to avoid.
三、基督徒最優先看重的事III. SOME PRIORITIES FOR
CHRISTIANS
我寫這一切都是基於福音派的信念而寫。接下來幾點簡單的看法，會非常坦誠地反映出我的這種神學傾向，儘管我無法在此為這些信念辯護。而且，這些觀點其實只是點到為止，而不是極具權威的滔滔雄辯，其中每一項幾乎都可以單獨寫成一整章的內容。I write out of
evangelical convictions. The following brief points frankly reflect those
commitments, though of course I cannot here defend them. Moreover the few
points I make are rather more in the nature of priming the pump than of magisterial
articulation. Almost every item could do with a lengthy chapter.
我擔心， 很多靈恩派人士和越來越多非靈恩的福音派人士，在脫離了那些帶有地域性的狹隘傳統的陰影、融入基督教歷史的廣闊河流中的同時，面臨著矯枉過正的危險，幾乎要把一切打著「靈修」招牌的東西都兼容並蓄進來。當然，我並不否認，關於屬靈生命，我們可以從與我們觀點不同的人那裏學到很多，正如在神學方面一樣。可是，如果我們不以靈修及伴隨靈修在知識層面的模糊性為一個新的「至善」（summum bonum），即檢驗一切事物的標準，而是把和靈修有關的問題放在一個必須接受聖經檢驗的位置上，那麼，我們可以考慮哪些重要的事情，才能不落入根深柢固的傳統主義，而對此持有一個健康的觀點？My fear is that
many charismatics and, increasingly, many noncharis- matic evangelicals, having
emerged from the shadows of a fairly narrow and parochial heritage into the
broader streams of Church history, are in danger of overcompensating and taking
on board almost anything, provided it falls under the rubric of
"spirituality." Yet at the same time there is much to learn about
spiritual life, as about theology, from many of those with whom we dis- agree.
If spirituality, with all its intellectual fuzziness, is not to become the new
summum bonum by which all things are to be tested but must itself be brought to
the test of holy Scripture, what priorities can help us preserve a healthy
perspective without retreating into entrenched traditionalism?
1.靈修必須和福音放在一起考慮。1. Spirituality must be
thought of in connection with the gospel.
從一個完全無關價值判斷的角度來理解靈修（是一種超自然的經驗，或對這種經驗的研究，諸如此類）可能有些啟發式的、歷史性的價值。但是，從一個公開認信的基督徒的角度看來，這種觀點不僅無用，而且還更糟——這種觀點非常危險。坦白講，如果福音是真實的，那麼到五百億年之後，花時間去默想一片白色中間的一個黑點、同時唱誦禱文，究竟有什麼價值？【34】諸如靈修的本質、想像中的超驗體驗的目的、一位做這體驗之終極源頭的神的本質、這位神啟示自己的核心所在、以及我們通過何種形式和技巧便能更認識祂（至少在表面上是如此）這類的問題，必須經過福音的檢驗。因為福音是神拯救的大能，我們因著相信神的兒子才能認識天父；乃是因著十字架和復活，我們這些與神隔絕的人，才同我們的造物主、審判者，也是我們救贖主重新和好。There may be some
heuristic and historical value in conceiving of spirituality in purely neutral
terms (the experience of the numinous, the study of such ex- perience, or the
like). But from a confessional, Christian perspective it is worse than useless.
It is dangerous. To put matters bluntly, if the gospel is true, what will be
the value, fifty billion years from now, of spending time in this life
meditating on a black spot on a white expanse while chanting mantras?34
Questions as to the nature of spirituality, the purpose of the pu- tative
experience of the transcendent, the nature of the God who is the ul- timate
source of the experience, the locus of the revelation he has given of himself,
and the techniques and forms by which we may ostensibly know him better, must
be brought to the test of the gospel. For it is the gospel that is the power of
God unto salvation; it is by faith in God's Son that we know the Father; it is
by the cross and resurrection that we who were alien- ated from God have been
reconciled to our Maker, Judge and Redeemer.
2.基督徒對靈修的反思必須從問題的核心開始。2. Christian
reflection on spirituality must work outward from the center.
在過去20年左右的時間裏，有一種非常可怕的趨勢，那就是我們往往還沒有搞清楚問題的核心，就被吸引到外圍去了。其實，大趨勢是我們越來越關注外圍的一些因素，投入很多熱情、興趣和時間。我的意思不是基督徒不應該思考清楚信仰外圍正在改變的一些議題——我們必須思考這些。但是，如果我們把所有的時間和熱情都傾注於這類跟聖經神學的核心相距甚遠的問題上，比如墮胎、敬拜形式、女性是否可以做牧師、教會管理、協談技巧及最新的社會學報告，或者是哪個婚姻講座的廣告做得最好等，那麼這些外圍問題早晚會威脅到核心——至少是剝奪了我們對核心問題的熱情和精力，也許也會侵蝕我們的神學，或者對我們的下一代造成影響。回頭看看靈修問題吧。如果靈修本身成了我們的目的，遠離核心，而且大部分沒有以聖經或神學的規範去限定它、將它紮根在客觀的福音之中，那麼，對靈修的追求就會退化成為只不過在追求特定的經歷，無論我們對靈修的定義多麼寬泛、模糊。【35】 我必須重申：我並不是基於追求特定經歷的理由來反對人們追求所有形式的靈修；在下面的第三點中我會多談談這個問題。我想強調的是，思考靈修問題也好，在這方面有所追求也好，都應該在聖經神學核心的基礎上進行。During the past
twenty years or so there has been a quite frightening ten- dency to assume the
center without really being able to articulate much about it, and then to gravitate
to the periphery. Indeed the tendency has been to focus on some element on the
periphery, which then attracts our pas- sion, interest and time. It is not that
Christians should avoid thinking through the changing agendas on the periphery.
We must. But if all our time and passion are devoted to abortion, styles of
worship, women's ordination, church government, counseling techniques, the
latest sociology report, or the best advertised marriage seminar, largely
detached from the core of Bib- lical theology, then sooner or later the
periphery is in danger of displacing the core—at least in our affections and
energy, and perhaps in our theology (or that of our children). So it is with
spirituality. If spirituality becomes an end in itself, detached from the core
and largely without Biblical or theological norms to define it and anchor it in
the objective gospel, then pursuit of spirituality, however nebulously defined,
will degenerate into nothing more than the pursuit of certain kinds of
experience.35 I must reiterate that I am not for that reason writing off all
pursuit of all forms of spirituality. I shall say more about that in my next
point. But spirituality must be thought about and sought after out of the
matrix of core Biblical theology.
3.與此同時，我們也必須對只關注嚴密思想架構的神學形式保持適當的警惕，這樣的神學只強調信心、委身和順服，根本不涉及情感，更不要說培養對於神的同在的敏銳了。3. At the same time
we should be rightly suspicious of forms of theology that place all the
emphasis on coherent systems of thought that demand faith, allegiance and
obedience but do not engage the affections, let alone foster an active sense of
the presence of God.
如果神的國在乎「公義、和平並聖靈中的喜樂」（羅十四17），們就絕不可把它縮減成只剩下公義和思想架構。耶穌賜給祂門徒的聖靈，是屬於應許中之新約的「新」（結三十六章／約三章；珥二章／徒二章）：祂不僅叫世人知罪（約十六章），也住在信徒的心裏（羅八9），引導他們（羅八14），與他們的靈同證他們是神的兒女（羅八16）。If the kingdom of God has to do with
"righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 14:18), we
must not reduce it to righteousness and systems of thought. The Spirit whom
Jesus bequeathed to his followers is the Spirit announced as part of the
newness of the new covenant (Ezekiel 36/John 3; Joel 2/Acts 2): He not only
convicts the world (John 16) but also lives in believers (Rom 8:9), leading
them (8:14) and testifying with their spirit that they are God's children
(8:16).
這並不是說，經歷聖經所啟示的這位超越的、同時又有位格的神的臨在，是和聖潔生活、自律、彼此相愛、莊嚴而熱情的讚美、恨惡罪、效法基督、持續不斷的認罪悔改、更多理解神的話語等這一切完全無關的。我的意思是，的確有一類福音派人士認為，以上所談的這一切和對聖靈的任何經歷是截然分開的兩回事。「我信聖靈」變成一種教條，根本沒有實質性意義。有時，這只是對明顯過度的靈恩運動的一種過激反應。但是，不管其產生的原因是什麼，這種想法都與聖經不符，且與整個基督教最寶貴的傳統相牴觸——正是在這樣的傳統中，我們這些男男女女，藉著神的恩典得以認識神。當然，經由聖靈賜給我們的有關神的知識，是和我在上面所列出的那些條目緊密相關的，還有很多我沒有一一列舉。但是，真正幫助我們建構我們稱為「神學」的思想架構的，是我們對永活的神的真知識，而不是我們腦中的意象（比如說我們腦中對彼得·潘的意象）。This is not at all
to suggest that the experience of the presence of the transcendent/personal God
of the Bible should ever be considered as some- thing entirely apart from holy
living, self-discipline, love for others, solemn and enthusiastic praise,
hatred of sin, conformity to Christ, ongoing con- fession and repentance,
growth in understanding God's Word, and more. It is to say that there is a
certain kind of evangelicalism that tries to think of holy living,
self-discipline, love for others, solemn and enthusiastic praise, hatred of
sin, conformity to Christ, ongoing confession and repentance, growth in
understanding God's Word, and more, as discrete factors divorced from any
experience of the Spirit. The Spirit becomes a creedal item and nothing more.
Sometimes this stance is simply an overreaction to the obvi- ous excesses of
the charismatic movement. But whatever its cause it stands against both
Scripture and the entire heritage of the best of Christianity where men and
women, by God's grace, know God. True, that knowledge of God, mediated by the
Spirit, is concomitant with the things I have just listed, and more besides.
But it is real knowledge of the living God, not a mere mental image (like a
mental image of, say, Peter Pan) that serves no real purpose other than to
order the system of thought we call theology.
在復興的年代（ 我提到「復興」的時候，使用的是這個詞過去的含義，而不是已經退化了的現代含義），基督徒深知神的同在有如此巨大的力量，因此人們帶著聖潔的崇敬活在祂面前，也真實、一貫地承認祂是尊貴的，承認祂的恩典可以改變生命。其實，即便是在普通的年代也會出現這樣的事情。如果認識真神和祂所差來的耶穌基督就是永生（約十七3），我們就必須仔細考察有關神的真知識，然後全面地接受這真理。如果所謂的「靈修」聚焦於這種可以改變生命的對神的認識，它就反對僅僅依附於傳統認同的某個信經（不論該信經有多正統），那麼我們就應該強調這樣的「靈修」。Certainly in times
of revival (I use the term in its historic sense, not in one or more of its
modern, degenerate senses), but at other times as well, Christians have known
the presence of God so powerfully that they walk before him with a holy
reverence and a genuine, persistent acknowledg- ment of his majesty and grace
that is life-transforming. If the knowledge of the true God and of his Son
Jesus Christ whom he has sent means eter- nal life (John 17:3), we must examine
very carefully what the knowledge of God really is and embrace it wholly. If
such life-transforming knowl- edge of God lies at the focus of what is meant by
"spirituality," which then stands over against a merely traditional
adherence to a creed no matter how orthodox, then let us stress spirituality.
4.然而，我們必須謹慎地描述神用以培養這種與福音相合的靈修的一切途徑。4. Nevertheless,
what God uses to foster this kind of gospel spirituality must be carefully
delineated. Only God himself gives life.
唯有神賜下生命。是神啟示了祂自己，不僅在救贖歷史的偉大工作中，也是藉著祂的聖靈向一切「屬血氣的人」顯明祂自己。而所有屬血氣的人，無論男女（林前二14），都是沒有神的聖靈、無法理解神的事的。祂向成熟的、以聖經的觀點看待事情的基督徒啟示自己（腓三15）。然而，神通常會使用一些途徑來啟示自己，什麼途徑呢？ It is God who
discloses himself, not only in the great acts of redemptive history but also by
his Spirit to "natural" men and women (1 Cor 2:14) who do not have
the Spirit of God and cannot understand the things of God. He reveals himself to
Christians who mature and take on board a Biblical view of things (Phil 3:15).
But normally God uses means. What are they?
正是在這一點上， 福音派人士需要重整他們的傳統。現在人們都在談論聖禮、貧窮、靜默等靈修方式。的確，在貧窮的時候，神對祂的子民來說會顯得尤其真實。的確，共同慶祝主的晚餐是一個自我省查、認罪、饒恕和在聖靈裏喜樂的好時機。恩典會透過各種途徑降下。但是，恩典最重要的途徑，也許也是在最近關於靈修的出版物中完全沒有提到的恩典之道，就是神的話語。It is precisely at
this point that evangelicals need to reclaim their her- itage. People speak of
the spirituality of sacraments, or the spirituality of poverty, or the
spirituality of silence. It is true that God may become very real to his people
in the context of poverty. It is true that the corporate cele- bration of the
Lord's supper may be a time of self-examination, confession, forgiveness, joy
in the Holy Spirit. There are many means of grace. But perhaps the most
important means of grace, certainly the means of grace almost entirely
unmentioned in current publication on spirituality, is the Word of God.
當主耶穌被賣的那一夜，祂這樣禱告：「求你用真理使他們成聖；你的道就是真理」（約十七17）。除了真理的道，沒有任何東西能使人成聖。神的話語帶來亮光。智慧人與愚拙人的區別、義人和惡人的區別，就在於是否持續默想神的律法（詩一篇）。我不否認，有些查經課程實在是毫無生命力，也毫無信心，僅僅流於形式，跟聖餐禮一樣，有時只是招損，而不是令人受益（林前十一17起）。但是，在聖經中極力強調，我們需要理解、反復咀嚼、不斷默想、宣告其中的真理、背誦（「藏在心裏」）、閱讀、及聆聽神的話，到一個地步，我們若忽略，只會招損。就是因為這個緣故，福音派傳統中最重要的部分，就是一直強調專注於神的話語的靈修。On the night he was
betrayed, Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is
truth" (John 17:17)—and there will never be much sanc- tification apart
from the word of truth. It is the entrance of God's Word that brings light. It
is constant meditation on God's law that distinguishes the wise from the
unwise, the just from the unjust (Psalm 1). I do not deny that certain kinds of
Bible study can be singularly arid, skeptical, merely for- mal, just as certain
approaches to the Lord's table may do more harm than good (1 Cor 11:17 ff.).
But the heavy stress in Scripture on understanding, absorbing, meditating upon,
proclaiming, memorizing ("hiding it in one's heart"), reading, and
hearing the word of God is so striking that it will be ignored at our peril.
That is why the best of the evangelical heritage has al- ways emphasized what
might be called the spirituality of the Word.
在這個框架下， 適當運用其他的「技巧」可能是有些價值的。如果捨己僅僅是為了蒙神喜悅，或是為了讓自己感覺良好（我們通常把這種感覺錯當做屬靈），那就是非常危險的。但是，如果我們因神藉著祂兒子的死向我們顯明最大的捨己，於是以捨己的方式向祂表示感恩和信靠，並且這也幫助我們更專注於神的話語、更加順服且在其中喜樂，那麼這種捨己的操練當然是好的，會幫助我們的屬靈生命成長。我們可以通過這種以神的話語為核心的檢測方式，對現在大部分可供使用的「技巧」做一個評估，比如寫靈修日記、花時間安靜退修、督責／禱告小組，等等。It is within this
framework that other "techniques," rightly deployed, may be of some
value. If self-denial is merely an attempt to commend our- selves to God, or a
way of feeling good about oneself (which feeling we then mistake for being
spiritual), it is positively dangerous. But if self-denial is part of our
response of gratitude and faith to the God who has manifested the greatest
self-denial of all in the death of his Son, and if it thus aids our
concentration on his Word, our obedience of it and our delight in it, then it
is surely a good thing that will foster spiritual growth. One may work through
most of the proffered "techniques" with the same word-centered
perspective controlling the evaluation: journaling, quiet days, accountabil-
ity/prayer groups, and so forth.
5. 最後，這種以神的話語為核心的反思，會讓我們重新回到一個事實，那就是，靈修學是一個神學架構，正如我們已經看到的。5. Finally, such
Word-centered reflection will bring us back to the fact that spirituality, as
we have seen, is a theological construct.
我們需要根據在聖經裏找到的一切來修改我們的架構。如果「靈修」是通過聖靈才能認識神，那麼真正的靈修體驗就必須與「何謂擁有聖靈」息息相關。因此，在某種意義上說，一切靠著神的恩典、藉著相信耶穌基督而領受救恩的人，都是擁有聖靈的人（羅八9），且是「屬靈的」（林前二14∼15）。但是接下來，我們就需要「靠聖靈而活」（道德和倫理層面。聖靈同時也是加給信徒力量，使信徒能夠為耶穌作見證的那一位（約十五26∼27；徒四8等）——靈修學還包含宣講的層面。聖靈是憑據（arrabōn），是所應許的產業的預嘗和保證——靈修學也包含著末世論的層面，教會好比新娘，與聖靈一同高喊：「主耶穌啊！我願你來！」（啟二十二章）。我們可以繼續下去，只要在神的話語的掌管下，在任何一個靈修學架構中加入各種層面的內涵，用聖經來糾正我們和我們的體驗，這樣，我們就能享受在耶穌基督裏賜給我們的各樣豐盛的產業，同時也就不會甘願追隨時尚，隨波逐流了。只有這樣，我們才能找到一條充滿生命的靈修之路，讓人類存在的每個方面，無論是個人的還是集體的，都降服於神的話語的管束之下，也都意識到我們因著神的恩典、為著祂的榮耀而活在神的同在中。我們應當呼求神，盼望我們所有關於靈修體驗的表達都是真正屬靈的。】We will be forced
to revise our construct in terms of what we find in the Scriptures. If
spirituality is related to the knowledge of God by his Spirit, then the expe-
rience of genuine spirituality must be tied to what it means to have the
Spirit. In one sense, then, all those who by God's grace exercise saving faith
in Christ Jesus have the Spirit (Rom 8:9) and are "spiritual" (1 Cor
2: le- lo). But then we are to "live by the Spirit" (Gal 5:16), and
that means self- consciously putting to death the "acts of sinful
nature" and producing the "fruit of the Spirit": There is a
profoundly moral and ethical dimension to spirituality. The Spirit is also the
one who enables and empowers believers to testify about Jesus (John 15:26-27;
Acts 4:8; etc.): There is a kerygmatic dimension to spirituality. The Spirit is
the arrabön, the down payment and guarantee of the promised inheritance: There
is an eschatological dimen- sion to spirituality, as the bride, the Church,
joins the Spirit in crying, "Come, Lord Jesus!" (Revelation 22). And
so we could go on, adding dimen- sions to any construct of spirituality
controlled by the Word of God, correct- ing ourselves and our experience by
Scripture, so that we may enjoy the fullness of the heritage that is ours in
Christ Jesus while remaining entirely unwilling to be seduced by every passing
fad. Only then shall we approach an all-of-life approach to spirituality—every
aspect of human existence, personal and corporate, brought under the discipline
of the Word of God, brought under the consciousness that we live in the
presence of God, by his grace and for his glory. We shall cry to God that all
our expressions of spir- ituality may be truly spiritual.36
1.參 G. R. Lewis, “The Church and the New Spirituality,” JETS 36 (1993)433-444，作者在文中針對著「新的靈修形式」，即與新紀元有關的神秘主義的各種形式，提出了非常全面且深刻的警告。
2.參 G. R. Lewis, “The Church and the New Spirituality,” JETS 36 (1993)433-444，2. J. W. Conn,“Spirituality,”
The New Dictionary of Theology (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1987), 972。
3. P.
Pourrat, Christian Spirituality, 4 vols (Westminster，1953-55)。同時也參見一本重要著作：C. Jones, G.
Wainwright and E. Yarnold，The Study of
Spirituality (Oxford: Oxford University, 1986)。
4. L.
Bouyer et al., History of Christian Spirituality, 3 vols (London: Burns and
Oates, 1963-68) 1viii。
5. 例如R. N. Flew, The Idea of
Perfection (Oxford: Oxford University,1934)，G. Wainwright, Doxology (London: Epworth, 1980)。
6. 前面已經提到過的J. W. Conn的論文，在全書1106頁中花了14頁來談論這個問題；與此相應的是T. R. Albin在New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester:
InterVarsity, 1988) 中的一篇專文（《當代神學辭典》［台北：校園，1997）, 1103-1105），在總篇幅738頁的書中作者花了不到2頁探討這個問題。我們也應當關注天主教那本書在相關主題方面收集的大量文章，InterVasity的那本書中很少有與之相似的。
7. 參：如 The Westminster Dictionary of
Christian Spirituality (ed. G. S. Wakefield, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983)。
8.
Conn，“Spirituality,” 972。
9.寫於1728年。
10.傅士德，《屬靈操練禮讚》（香港：學生福音團契）=R. J. Foster,The
Celebration of Discipline (2d ed.，San Francisco:
Harper, 1978), R.Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life (Downers Grove:
InterVasity, 1979), Revival as a Way of Life (Downers Grove: InterVasity, 1985)。
11.例如：巴刻，《認識神》（香港：證主）=J. I. Packer , Knowing God
(London Hodder and Stoughton, 1973); A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision
of the Christian Life (Wheaton Crossway, 1990)。
12.佚名，Orthodox Spirituality: An
Outline of the Orthod ox Ascetical and Mystical Tradition (2d, London: SPCK,
1978)。
13.J.
Saward, Perfect Fools: Folly for Christ's Sake in Catholic and Orthodox
Spirituality (Oxford: Oxford University, 1980)。
14. 例如M. D. Guiñan, Gospel Poverty
Witness to the Risen Christ: A Study in Biblical Spirituality (New York:
Paulist , 1981)。
15. 例如P. Culbertson, New Adam: The
Future of Male Spirituality (Minneapolis: Fortress , 1992)。
16. 參Jewish Spirituality from the Bible through the
Middle Ages (ed. A. Green, New York: Crossroad, 1985), Jewish Spirituality from
the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present (ed. A. Green，New York: Crossroad, 1988)。
17.
D. Evans, Spirituality and Human Nature (Albany: State University of New York,
1993)。
18.
W. C. Roof, A Generation of Seekers: The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom
Generation (San Francisco: Harper, 1993)。
19.
R. Thieme,“Computer
Applications for Spirituality: The Transformation of Religious Experience,”ATR 75 (1993) 345-358。
20. 例如L. Doohan, Luke The Perennial
Spirituality (Santa Fe: Bear, 1982)。在大量參考書目中僅舉一個例子，參Michael Glazier關於「為屬靈閱讀」而出版的不同的註釋書系列。
21.
S. C. Barton, The Spirituality of the Gospels （London: SPCK, 1992)。
22. 關於這一點，可參D. A. Carson,“Christian Witness in an Age of Pluralism,”God and Culture, Festschrift for Carl F. H.
Henry（D. A. Carson and J.
D. Woodbridge, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993）, 31-66。
23.
Asian Christian Spirituality: Reclaiming Traditions （ed. V. Fabella, P. K. H. Lee and D. K. Suh, Maryknoll:
Orbis, 1992）, 22。
24.
P. Sheldrake, Spirituality and History: Questions of Interpretation and Method（New York Crossroad, 1991）, 210
25.
H. L. Rice, Reformed Spirituality: An Introduction for Believers （Louisville Westminster / John Knox, 1991）, esp. 210。
26. 例如J. Moltmann, The Spirit of
Life: A Universal Affirmation（London: SCM, 1992），其中第一部分討論「聖靈體驗」，包括一段探討了耶穌的靈修問題。Moltman在此處勾勒一種「神秘體驗的神學」，「神秘」指的是「在信心中強烈地經歷神」。一位評論家儘管承認這部著作的價值，卻評論道：「整本書充滿熱情且令人印象深刻，儼如一部真正的文學創作，但叫人玩味的是，作為對討論主題的理性陳述，這本書卻了無新意，令人無法滿意」（G Newlands, in
ExpTim 104 [1993] 148）。當然也有些人會把這一點看成是優點。
27.
Alive to God: Studies in Spirituality. Festschrift for James Houston（ed. J. I. Packer and L. Wilkinson; Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 1992）。
28.
A. E. McGrath，Evangelical
Spirituality: Past Glories, Present Hopes, Future Possibilities（London: St. Antholin's Lectureship Charity
Trustees, 1993）;“Borrowed Spiritualities,”Christianity Today 37/13（November 8, 1993）, 20-21。
29.
McGrath, Evangelical, 13。
30. 我加上了「有見識的」（informed）這個詞，因為我想把很多對三位一體真理的激烈諷刺的——其實是誤導人（misinformed）——描述排除在外。舉例而言，只有初級水平的伊斯蘭教的觀點，以為基督教信奉的神的三個位格是聖父、聖母馬利亞和耶穌（第一位和第二位結合生出第三位）。
31. 即Pundat Ravi Shankar，雖然有人告訴我他現在已經退出董事會了。我很感謝J. Ashley Null牧師，是他讓我知道這件事的。
32. 想要區別印度教、佛教和穆斯林對靈修的理解，可參見Teach Us to Pray:
Prayer in the Bible and the World（ed. D. A. Carson;
Exeter:Paternoster, 1990）的相關章節。
33.
R. E. Webber, Worship Is a Verb（Waco: Word, 1987）。
34. 有些朋友堅持宗教混合主義和哲學多元主義觀點；我相信他們會對這個觀點感到非常吃驚，並且會駁斥說我的觀點既無知又自大。然而，在目前的作品中處處可見的絕對命題，就更加自大了，更不要提文化歧視——他們認為所有宗教在真理上都是一樣的，沒有誰比誰更強。我試圖在註腳22引用的“Christian Witness”討論這些問題，也希望能在The Gagging of God:
Christianity Confronts Pluralism （Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996）一書中花更大篇幅進一步討論。
35. 在這一點上，我有時會對盧雲（H. J. M. Nouwen）看重的一些事情感到憂慮（當然，我們可以從盧雲那裏學到很多東西）。例如，他的作品《活出有愛的生命》（香港：基道，1999）=Life of the Beloved: Spiritual Living in a
Secular World（New York:
Crossroad, 1993）。幾乎在所有基督宗教信徒當中，他的作品都廣受歡迎，我想這可能正是因為他在談論靈修時談到的那些具有吸引力的強調點，都沒有很好地紮根於福音之中。
36. 此論文的較短版本已經以葡萄牙文發表：“Quando a Espiritualidade é Espiritual: Reflexōes Sobre Alguns Problemas de Definiçāo,”Chamado Para Servir. Festschrift for Russell Shedd
(ed., A. Pieratt; São Paulo: Ediçōes Vida Nova, 1994)。
*原文“When Is Spirituality
Spiritual? Reflections on Some Problems of Definition", JETS 37/3, 381-394，經作者允許翻譯刊載
