作者：梁雅明

前言

圣神年谈圣神，这是理所当然的。我们对祂的认识实在太少了！

我们现在从新约中提供有关圣神的资料，好让读者们直接从天主的启示中强化对天主第三位的认识和交往，因为是祂要领导我们进入一切真理。

但我们得声明：这篇东西只是资料的提供(本文原先是今年司铎学习营中的一次分享)，至于深入和整合，则由读者在圣神和教会领导下去发掘内蕴的全部真理。在谈新约中的圣神之前，我们愿意先指出新旧约中有关圣神的不同点：

一. 在旧约中，圣神一般来说，是「非位格的」，只指「上主的德能」(创11:2)；但在新约中，圣神是「有位格的」：「我要求父，祂要赐给你们一位护慰者，使祂永远与你们同在」(若14:16)。这里我们看到三个位格：「我 - 父 - 祂」。

二. 在旧约中，圣神常是独立地被提及的；但在新约中，每次提及圣神，都同耶稣基督有关。

我们就在这框子里，谈谈新约中的圣神。这圣神在新约中又有其他的称号，如：天主自己儿子的圣神(迦4:6)、耶稣的神(宗16:7)、基督的圣神(伯前1:11)、耶稣基督的圣神(斐1:19)、光荣的神(伯前4:14)、天主的神(伯前4:14)、天主的七神(默3:1; 4:15; 5:6)。

1. 圣神与耶稣基督个体

1.1 圣神与耶稣的童年生活

圣言降生成人时，天使对玛利亚说：「圣神要临于妳，至高者的德能要庇荫妳」(路1:35)。这里的「临于」和「庇荫」，与创1:2的「运行」，有同样意义。那就是说：耶稣人性的生命来自天主圣神。因此，天使要解若瑟对玛利亚的疑惑时，直接了当地对他说：「你不要怕娶你的妻子玛利亚，因为那在她内受生的，是出于圣神」(路1:20)。

既然是圣神将耶稣带到这世上来，圣神也负起责任给有关人士显示耶稣的身份。因此依撒伯尔发现表妹是「吾主的母亲」(路1:43)和匝加利亚歌颂天主「兴起了大能的救主」时(路1:69)，路加刻意指出他和她都「充满了圣神」(路1:41.67)。尤其是当年老的世默盎手抱着婴孩耶稣而肯定「祂」就是自己一生期待的「上主的受傅者」而自觉死而无憾时(路1:25-32)，路加更刻意三次强调圣神的临在(路1:25.26.27)。

1.2 圣神与耶稣的公开生活

1.2.1 与耶稣的关系

耶稣领受若翰的洗礼踏入公开生活时，对观福音都记载圣神藉着鸽子的形状临在耶稣头上(玛3:16；谷1:10；路3:22)，若望也有同样记载，但好像刻意强调圣神的临在，因为三次重覆「圣神」的字眼：「我看见圣神彷佛鸽子从天降下……你看见圣神降下，停在谁身上，谁就是要以圣神施洗的人」(若1:32-33)。圣神不但参与耶稣公开生活的开幕礼，而且更成为耶稣传教工作的动力：「以圣神施洗」。因此若望有感而说：「天主所派遣的，讲天主的话，因为天主把圣神无限量地赏赐了祂」(若3:34)。值得注意的，是「无限量地」的字眼，因为「天主圣神住在祂内」(玛12:18)。

从此我们可以说：圣神参与耶稣整个传教生活，并作耶稣传教工作的动力。事实上，领洗后，是圣神领耶稣进入旷野(玛4:1)，也是圣神领耶稣前往加里肋亚(路4:14)。同样，耶稣以圣神的德能(天主的手指)驱魔(路11:20)，以圣神施洗(谷1:8；若1:33)，也因圣神而欢欣歌颂上主(路10:21)。对圣神在自己生活上的临在，耶稣也有全面意识(路4:16-21)。这就是日后圣保禄在他的赞歌里所说的：「受证于圣神」(弟前3:16)。

1.2.2 耶稣有关圣神的启示

对观福音只记载耶稣在四次场合下提及过圣神。祂告诉我们：圣神是天父大方主动赐与的恩惠(路11:13；玛7:11)；祂是我们的发言者，在挑战和迫害我们信仰的人面前，祂会教我们应说什么(路12:12)，甚至是祂代我们说话(玛10:20；谷3:11)。但耶稣提醒我们千万不要犯上亵渎圣神的罪(路12:10)，因为「出言干犯圣神的，在今世和来世，都不得赦」(玛12:32)，必成为「永久罪恶的犯人」(谷3:29)。此外，派遣门徒四出传福音及给人施洗时，耶稣也提及过圣神：「因父及子及圣神之名给他们授洗」(玛28:19)。

若望福音对耶稣有关圣神的启示，却有相当详尽的记录。在若望福音里耶稣告诉我们：圣神从永恒就发自圣父(若15:26；参阅默11:11)，但在时间里，却是祂由父那里所派遣(若14:15.26; 16:18)。这圣神是有位格的(若14:16)，是耶稣自己的接班人(16:12-14)；祂是「真理之神」(14:17; 15:26; 16:13)，是「护慰者」(14:16.17.26; 15:26; 16:7)；这两个身份，是耶稣所非常强调的。这由三翻四覆的提及，可见一斑。

圣神的使命，对子来说，是为耶稣作证(若15:26)、光荣子(若16:14)和传递由子所听来的一切(若16:13-14)。对门徒来说，是与他们同在(若14:17)，叫他们记起耶稣的话(若14:26)，引他们进入一切真理(若16:13)。对世界来说，祂虽不被世界所认识(若14:17)，但却要「指证世界关于罪恶、正义和审判所犯的错误」(若16:8-11)。

1.2.3 圣神与耶稣的逾越

圣保禄说：「假如基督没有复活，那么我们的宣讲便是空的，你们的信仰也是空的……如果基督没有复活，你们的信仰便是假的，你们还是在罪恶中……但是，基督从死者中实在复活了……」(格前15:14.17.20)。

耶稣的复活，为我们来说，是信仰的基础；但为耶稣来说，可视为祂的「第二次诞生」。就如第一次诞生，由于圣神的「庇荫」(路1:35)，圣言降生成人，取得人性的生命；同样，耶稣藉圣神献出了自己以后(希9:14)，也是圣神「使耶稣从死者中复活」(罗8:11)，也就是说，再得回生命。这就是「再生」。不但如此，而且使祂从死者中复活以后，圣神还使祂「被立为具有大能的天主之子」(罗1:4)，升天后，「由父领受了所恩许的圣神」(宗2:33)。由此我们明白为什么保禄说：「最后的亚当成了使人生活的神」(格前15:45)。

既然成了使人生活的「神」，因此也成了分施圣神的「人」。事实上，复活的基督显现给门徒时，向他们嘘了一口气，说：「你们领受圣神吧！你们赦免谁的罪，就给赦免；你们存留谁的，就给存留」(若20:22)。赦免罪恶就是使人一再生活在天主内。就在这事例上，耶稣基督因着圣神，同时使人生活，也同时分施圣神：祂是分施圣神使人生活的「人而天主」！

2. 圣神与基督奥体

教会是耶稣基督的身体(弗1:23)，耶稣是头(哥1:18)，我们是肢体(格前12:27)，我们与祂结成一个身体(格前12:12-14)。圣神既然给生命与耶稣的个体，祂也同样是耶稣奥体生命的泉源。

2.1 宗徒大事录

耶稣升天时曾授命宗徒们走遍普世传扬福音，可是初期的教会仍是死气沉沉的一群，没有生气。但是，圣神降临给教会行了一个隆重的开幕礼(2:1-13)，更把新的气息给了教会，使宗徒们先后如出两人，勇敢大胆地走出晚餐厅宣讲被钉死的耶稣基督(2:14-47; 3:11-26等)，虽死不辞(4:1-22等)。立时，隐匿在晚餐厅里的小教会(若20:19)，成了一个世界性的信仰团体(宗2:9-11)。

教会藉圣神的降临向世界大开中门后，圣神就成了教会的最高领导者和有力的支柱。祂充满了要服务教会的执事的心灵(6:3.10; 7:55)，藉宗徒们的覆手坚固刚领洗的信友(8:15-17; 19:1-6)，叫斐理伯开导厄提约丕雅的太监(8:29)，认可保禄的回头(7:19)，训示伯多禄向外教人开放(10:19)，也降到外教人身上，诱导他们信仰耶稣(10:44-47; 11:15-16)，认可巴尔纳伯(11:24)和阿加波先知(宗11:28)，给保禄禁止(16:6-7)或指示传教的路线(13:3.4.9; 20:22-23)，决定宗徒会议的议案(15:28)，选立教会牧者(20:28)，鼓励教会的发展(9:31)，在信仰考验中支持殉道者(6:10)……。

2.2 保禄书信

保禄提及圣神的经句不少，大致可综合为两点，就是(1)圣神是教会合一的基础，因为谈及圣神时，除了罗8:2; 9:1；格前7:40关乎他个人外，都是指向团体，指向「我们」(格前12:13)、「你们」(格后3:3；迦3:3)「你们众人」(格后13:13)或所有人「凡……」(罗8:14)。因此他非常强调彼此的合一：「所以我……恳求你们……凡事要谦逊、温和、忍耐，在爱德中彼此担待，尽力以和平的联系，保持心神的合一，因为只有一个身体和一个圣神，正如你们蒙召，同有一个希望一样；只有一个主、一个信德、一个洗礼；只有一个天主和众人之父……」(弗4:1-6)。

但同时(2)圣神也是教会多元化的基础，因为「神恩虽有区别，却是同一圣神所赐……这一切都是这唯一和同一的圣神所行的，随祂的心愿，个别分配与人」(格前12:4.11)。但「多元化」的危机就是混乱和自我膨胀。因此保禄也定下些必要须遵守的原则，就是：神恩人人都有(弗4:7)，因此必须尊重自己及他人身上的神恩，不可消灭它(得前5:19)，因为圣神是神恩多元化的主干(格前12:4-6)，但神恩的使用必须是「为人的好处」(格前12:7)，对教会有所建树(格前14:1-12.17.26；参阅弗4:7-16)。要有效地到达这神圣目的「建树教会」，必须有教会合法权威的认同、指导和派遣。只有如此，教会才能在圣神内进到天主父面前(弗2:18)，成为天主的住所(弗2:22)。

保禄自己就是个很好的榜样：他虽获得了极大的神恩，由仇教者变成耶稣基督「拣选的器皿」(宗9:15)，可是他并没有因此自把自为，却先求得教会权威的认同和派遣，才放胆传扬福音(迦2:1.2.9)。这就是充满神恩的保禄的成功秘诀。

2.3 其他书卷

若望的其他着作相当强调「圣神是真理」(若一5:6)。他以相当形像化的字眼称圣神为「傅油」(若一2:27)。油有渗透、滋润、防腐、治疗、发热、温暖等作用。这正好是「圣神是护慰者」形像化的表达。可是若望却特别强调真理那一面。他说：「至于你们，你们由祂所领受的傅油，常存在你们内，你们就不需要谁教训你们，而是有祂的傅油教训你们。这傅油是真实的，决不虚假。所以，这傅油怎样教训你们，你们就怎样存留在祂内」(若一2:27)。经文中所说的「祂」，就是那「圣者」(若一2:20；参阅格后1:22)。因此圣神的特别使命就是「教训」教会，祂是「预言之神」(默19:10；参阅伯后1:21)，即「代言之神」(参阅若16:14-15)，祂要「作证」(若一5:6)，为真理(＝耶稣)作证(默19:10)。这圣神是非常富有的，祂是「天主的七神」(默3:1; 4:5; 5:6; 1:4)。因此教会必须「听圣神向各教会说的话」(默2:7.11.17.29; 3:6.13. 22)。值得注意的是默示录一连七次反覆这同一句说话，可见「听圣神的话」的重要性。(这句话也叫我们看见保禄所强调的同一思想，即在同一圣神领导下，教会是至一的，却同时是多元化的：整个教会或地区教会得听圣神向「各」教会说的话)。圣神不但在现世教导教会，祂更领导教会迈向永生，因为，正如初期教会与圣母一起热切祈祷，期待圣神降临(宗1:13-14)；同样，圣神也与教会一起热切期待耶稣基督的再来：「你来吧！」(默22:17)。可见圣神实在是教会的最高领导人，必须听从祂。正因如此，若望郑重提醒我们要明智：「不要凡神就信，但要考验那些神是否出于天主，因为有许多假先知来到了世界上」(若一4:1)，更给我们提供分辨「真理的神」和「欺诈的神」的原则(若一4:2-6)。

3. 圣神与基督肢体

3.1 圣神对教友

3.1.1 天主的恩赐

身为教友，我们是「受圣神祝圣的」一群(伯前1:1)。这圣神是天主给人最好的恩赐(路11:13；参阅玛7:11)。这是「恩赐」，不是应得的，而是白白施与的。新约虽然也说天父给我们「派遣」祂的圣神(若14:25; 16:7；迦4:6；伯前1:12)，但更多用「赐与」的字眼(若14:16；格后1:22; 5:5；迦3:5；得前4:8；若一3:34; 4:13)，而且这赐与是慷慨大方的，是「倾注」下来的(宗2:17.18.33；罗5:5；铎3:6「丰富地倾注」)，使人可以拥有(罗8:9；格前7:40)，甚至整个人「充满圣神」(若7:38-39；宗：很多例子)，而且由充满而涌溢(若7:38-39)；圣神还居住在人内(罗8:9；格前3:16)，使人成为祂的宫殿(格前6:19; 3:16-17)。

3.1.2 生命之神

耶稣个体和基督奥体的生命来自圣神，奥体的肢体也不能例外。事实上，我们是「透过重生和更新的洗礼」(铎3:5)，「由水和圣神」得到新生命(若3:5)，成为有份于圣神(希6:4)和天主性体的人(伯后1:4)，成为自由人(罗8:2；格后3:17)，能怀有成义的希望(迦5:5)。实际上，透过洗礼我们「实在洗净了、祝圣了、成了义人」(格前6:11)，更成为天父的女子(迦4:4)，天国的继承人(迦4:7；罗8:17)，因此今世生活在圣神的喜乐中(罗14:17)，不断在灵性生活上长进(弗3:16)，来世更获得劳苦的赏报(默14:13)，且得永生(迦6:8)。

3.1.3 真理之神

天主藉圣神给我们启示一切(格前2:10；若16:13)，因为祂认识天主的一切(格前2:11)；祂教我们称天主为「阿爸」(迦4:6；罗6:16)，教我们正确地认识基督(格前12:3)，在教难时教我们说话(玛10:20)，祂更作我们的「抵押」(格后1:22; 5:5)。

3.2 教友对圣神

3.2.1 消极一面

不可欺骗圣神(宗5:3)，不可使圣神忧郁(弗4:30)，不可成「没有圣神的人」，分党分派(犹19；参阅格前3:1-3)，不可由圣神开始由肉结束(迦3:3；格前2:14)。希伯来书的这段经文，很值得我们细嚼：「那些曾一次被光照，尝过天上的恩赐，成了有份于圣神，并尝过天主甘美的言语及未来世代德能的人，如果背弃了正道，再叫他们自新悔改，是不可能的，因为他们亲自又把天主子钉在十字架上，公开加以凌辱……如果我们认识真理之后，还故意犯背信的罪，就再没有另一个赎罪祭了，只有一种等待审判的怕情，和势将吞灭叛逆者的烈火。谁若废除梅瑟法律，只要有两三个证人，他就该死，必不得怜恤。那么，你们想一想，那践踏了天主子，拿自己藉以成圣的盟约的血当作了俗物，而又轻视了赐恩宠的圣神的人，应当受怎样更严厉的惩罚啊！……落在永生天主手中，真是可怕！」(希6:4-8, 10:26-29)。

3.2.2 积极一面

要进行出于「神」的心中的割损(罗2:29)，拥有耶稣的精神(罗8:9)，学习为耶稣吃苦，使圣神安息在我们内(伯前4:14)，怀着圣神的喜乐接受真道(得前1:6)，在圣神内祈祷(弗6:18；犹20；罗8:26-27)，以圣神作利剑(弗6:17)，尤其是应随从圣神的指引而生活(迦5:16-26；罗8:1-17)。如此，才真是天主的子女(罗8:14)，使人属于基督(罗8:9)，导人进入生命与平安(罗8:6)，藉着住在我们内的圣神而得肉身的复活(罗8:11)，拥有圣神的佳果，那就是仁爱、喜乐、平安、忍耐、良善温和忠信、柔和、节制(迦5:22-23)。这样，天主也藉着圣神住在我们内(若一3:24)，而我们也存留在祂内(若一4:13)。

作者：陈继容

前言

香港教区这个夏季由于公教报一些文章而引起某些神学问题的争论，使得本来已经酷热的天气，因为争论的热切而再升温。这篇文字的产生，(1) 非为趁热闹，加入论战行列，因为实在看不到有此需要，而是因为是次争论的主题牵涉到研究神学的方法，但从参与讨论的文章之内容看，发现似乎多数都未能把握到要点，只在问题的边缘绕圈。结果是越多人讨论，意见也跟着多起来，众说纷云之下，不少人看了那些文字后，觉得比前更加无所适从。

是否如某些人所想，任何问题都可以从几个人，或甚至几十人的讨论得到结果和解决办法，而不用理会参与讨论的人，对该问题是否有相当程度的认识？答案是：不一定。没错，王充于其《论衡》中之「物势篇」内说过：『一堂之上，必有论者；一乡之中，必有讼者。讼必有曲直，论必有是非。非而曲者为负，是而直者为胜。亦或便辩口利舌，辞喻横出为胜；或诎弱缀跲，蹇不比者为负』。王充的思想当然是对的，生活的经验告诉我们的确如此，甚至放到一般学术研究上有时也可行，除了神学之外。

此文之目的，是希望根据历代教父与圣师的训示，和教会教授神学的缘因，握要地解释什么是教会的信仰，及为这信仰服务的神学。包括神学之内容、目的、方法，教会对从事神学研究者：神学家、神学教授和神学生有何要求，并为什么有这些要求。让对教会的信仰和为这信仰服务的神学，及其相关问题有兴趣的人士，能够有更清晰的观念。另外，本文所讨论的信仰和神学，专指天主教会，即英语所称The Roman Catholic Church的信仰及神学。其他的，一概不在本文讨论范围，谨此声明。

全文除前言和结论外，共分七点：一. 神学要求方法，二. 奥思定的神学方法，三. 信德作前导，四. 神学方法的内容，五. 信仰的托管，六. 托管的方式，七. 没有训导，便没有「圣事的团体」。(2)



1. 这篇文章曾以「信仰、神学和教会训导」为题，以普及形式自本年9月26日起，一连七周，刊载于《公教报》。又「信仰、神学和教会训导」这题目及文中之小标题乃《公教报》编辑所改。

2. 本文之主要参考资料计有：教会训导文献：Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II To the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason, 14, September 1998, Vatican; 其他资料：中文：方奉天着、陈继容编译「信仰小引导」，《神学年刊》n17 (1996) 1-103；蔡元培着，《中国伦理学史》，台北，中央文物供应社1950；外文：B? GUERIE Philippe-DUCHESNEAU Claude, How to Understand the Sacraments, London, SCM Press Ltd. 1991; CAPPELETTI Lorenzo, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, in 30 Giorni, n. 1 (1998), 68-75; CORALLO Gino, Il lavoro scientifico. Fondamenti e metodi, Bari 1966; Dizionario di Spiritualita‘ biblico-patristica. I grandi temi della S. Scrittura per la “Lectio Divina”- l:Abba’-Padre, diretto da Salvatore A. Panimolle, Roma, Borla 1992; DULLES Avery, “Orthodoxy and Social Change”, in America, Vol. 178, No. 21 (1998), 8-17; FARINA Raffaelo, Metodologia. Avviamento alla tecnica del lavoro scientifico = Biblioteca di scienze religiose 71, Roma, LAS 19944; FISHER George Park, History of Christian Doctrine = The International Theological Library, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark 1949; Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, hrsg. von Michael Schmaus, Leo Scheffczyk, Aloys Grillmeier, 5 vol., Freiburg Br. 1956ss; KAVANAGH Aidan, “Liturgical inculturation: Looking to the Future”, in Studia Liturgica, Volume 20, Number 1 (1990), 95-106; SPICQ Ceslas, Saint Paul. Les Epitres pastorales, Paris, Ed. Gabalda 1947; TIXERONT Josef, Histoire des dogmes, 3 vol., Paris 193011; TRAPE‘ A., “Agostino di Ippona”, in Dizionario patristico e di antichita‘ cristiane, diretto da Angelo Di Berardino, Volume I, Casale Monferrato, Marietti 1994, I Ristampa, 91-103.
另外，本文所用之略语如下列：ACO = SCHWARZ E., Leonis Papae I Epistularum Collectione: ACO II, IV, Berling-Leipzig 1932; CCL = Corpus Christianorum, series latina; PL = MIGNE Jean Paul, Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina; TD = SILVA-TAROUCA, Textus et Documenta, series theologica 9, 15, Roma 1932-1934.

一. 神学要求方法

任何人接触教会的神学时，要谨记不可拿神学和一般大学同专上学院提供的任何学科比较。因为两者不论在本质、内容、目的，尤其是学习态度和研究方法，都截然不同。神学不是知识的传授，神学老师授课的目的，不是要学生听课后，只曾长其学问便够，而无须理会他们如何生活。

固然，知识和学问的增长，可以改善个人道德和伦理生活，但并非必然。广东俗话不是有句「斯文败类」吗？所以，除了一些会严重伤害到自己和别人生命的行为，例如自杀或杀人等，世界上没有一个国家立法严格规限每个国民的生活方式(回教国家可能除外)。主要为两个原因：首先，没有任何立法机构拥有这份绝对权力，因为组成这些立法机构的成员都是人。而人不只有生老病死，且常常为了一己之私和感受，改变其思想及原则。个人如此，国家亦然，连联合国这些国际组织都不能例外；其次，人的生活方式不但随着时代的更替不断在变，不同的地域环境，亦形成不同的生活方式和观念，很难选定那一种方式作模式。届时被选中的故然高兴，选不中的肯定抗议，与其如此，不如任其自由。

事实上，不能以人，而须要以神的意愿，或天道为社会法则之思想，我国古已有之，例如墨子对这问题便有非常独特的见解。以下所引载的，是着名学者蔡元培先生就墨子的《法仪篇》中法天的思想之分析：

『天下从事者不可以无法仪，无法仪而其事能成者，无有。虽至士之为将相者皆有法，虽至百工从事者亦皆有法，百工为方以矩，为圆以规，直以绳，正以县，无巧工不巧工，皆以此五者为法，巧者能中之，不巧这虽不能中，放依以从事，犹逾已。故百工从事皆有法所度，今大者治天下，其次治大国，而无法所度，此不若百工办也。然则吾人之所可以为法者何在？墨子曰，当皆法其母奚若，天下之为父母者众而仁者寡，若皆法其父母，此法不仁也。当皆法其学奚若，天下之为学者众，而仁者寡，若皆法其学，此法 不仁也，当皆法其君奚若，天下之为君者众，而仁者寡，若皆法其学，此法不仁也，法不仁不可以为法。夫父母者，彝伦之基本，学者，知识之原泉，君者，于现实界有绝对之威力，然而均不免于不仁，而不可以为法。既在此世界中，势不能有保其绝对之尊严者也。而吾人之所法，要非有全知全能永保其绝对之尊严，而不与时地为推移者，不足以当之，然则非天而谁？故曰，莫若法天。天之行广而无私，其施侯而不德，其明久而不衰，故圣王法之。既以天为法，动作有为，必度于天，天之所欲则为之，天所不欲则止。由是观之，墨子之于天，直以神灵视之，而不仅如儒家之视为理法矣』(3)

至于神学，包括教理传授，其目的是「生活方式的传授」，而非知识的交流。为什么会这样呢？因为神学的内容：教会的信仰，即英语的Christianity，不是一套人自己思考出来的理念或学

说，却是「某一位」- Someone。这「某一位」就是降生成人的天主子 - 耶稣基督。而耶稣督和祂的父及圣神，今天不但仍然生活着，而且通过祂自己创立的教会，以一种目前我们无从理解的方式，与祂的信徒一起生活，为全人类的得救，继续不停地在世上工作。

对于这一点，两位国际着名的神学家Philippe B? guerie和Claude Duchesneau在他们合着的一部讲论圣事的书中清楚指出“Christianity is first and foremost a way of life, an ethic, before it is a philosophy or a theology”.

并且进一步澄清他们所说的a practical exercise, 并非指一种宗教、礼仪或圣事行动，而是指「与其他人类生活在一起时的一种生活方式和态度」：

“When we say‘a practical exercise’, we do not just mean a religious, liturgical or sacramental practice, but a type of behaviour, a way of living amongst other human beings”.(4)

因此，神学的目的只有一个：帮助那些听到福音的宣讲，相信基督，并愿意接受祂为主的人，进入圣父从创世之初，便已为他们准备好的永福内。要达到这目的，神学传授的并非知识资讯，而是一种能导引人进入三位一体的天主内的生活方式。即是明确地要求那些相信，并愿意接受基督为主的人，依照基督的要求，也就是依照福音的要求生活。

福音要求我们怎样生活呢？最简单的，比方福音要求我们要懂得爱人和爱自己，因为生命来自天主。每一个人都是天主照着自己的肖像做出来，信友不但是圣父的子女，他们的身体更是圣神的圣殿。所以我们要尊重、爱惜每一个人。进而尊重生命、爱情、家庭，彼此相爱、互相照顾。为此，时下流行的一夜情、人工避孕、安乐死及堕胎等；和索罗斯之辈那样，精研经济、金融等问题后，发动一个跨国队伍，跑到别人的地盘，把该处整个国库的钱抢过来，弄到人家一国哀鸿遍野。所有这一切，是绝对不符合福音的要求。

为了确保神学能达到其目的：令一切接受教会信仰的人，都依照福音的要求生活。所有神学工作者，即神学家、神学老师和神学生，在讲授和处理神学问题时要讲究「方法」。换句话说，神学的「传与受」，都要采用属于神学的「正确方法」。事实上，今日从事学术研究的人都知道，每一种学科的专家及研究员，都应该认识清楚属于自己范围的研究方法。否则无从研究、无法解决问题，永远不会有成果。所以，没有人会用医学方法来研究历史，文学方法也不适用于哲学。正为了这原故，今日的学术界非常注重「方法学」。



3. 蔡元培著，《中国伦理学史》，34-35。

4. B? GUERIE-DUCHESNEAU, How to Understand the Sacraments, xiii.

二. 圣奥思定的神学方法

神学所用的方法有别于哲学和数学，不以明显的逻辑为根据，即一般所指的Metodo teorico-deduttivo -「理论演绎法」；亦不同于其他实验科学，例如化学、物理、生物等所用的，以经验或实验为基础的Metodo sperimentale「实验方法」。神学所用的方法跟历史学一样，称为Metodo storico -「历史方法」以「原泉的权威」- Autorita‘ delle fonti 为基础，「原泉」(fonti，即英语 sources) 主要指圣经、教父和训导。(5)

教会采用「历史方法」来研究神学，始于一千五百多年前。这方法由圣奥思定 (354-430) 提倡。圣奥思定自己的整个神学思想，和他在神学方面的成就，(6) 便是根据这方法研究所得的成果，奥思定之后至今这十多个世纪的神学研究，基本上都是采用这方法。

圣奥思定为什么会提出，须要用特别的方法来处理神学问题？这方法内容又如何？为什么经过一千五百多年，这方法仍然被教会奉为圭臬？下面我们会握要地介绍。

读过教会史的人都知道，公元四至五世纪时，教会如何因为异端的影响而埋伏着分裂的危机。当时最重要的异端有好几派，譬如亚略派(Arianism)、多拿狄派(Donatism)、摩尼派(Manichaeism)，特别是白拉奇派 (Pelagianism)等。正是在如此纷乱扰嚷，一片嘶杀声的喧闹叫嚣中，圣奥思定为了保持教会信仰之完整和纯净，加入反驳这些异端的行列。他以圣经为凭藉，尤其是以保禄的思想为导引，开始认真和深入地探究一些重要的神学问题，例如圣三、原罪、恩宠等。结果不但给教会留下宝贵的神学作品，奠定教会的神学基础，更以其反省、深思所得，为教会的神学研究，提供了一套模式。

是什么事情令到圣奥思定明白，处理信仰和与其相关的神学问题，须要采用特别的方法？答案是他个人追寻信仰的经验。对圣奥思定生平稍有认识的人，都知道他的皈依过程不只漫长，经过十多年，而且相当于迥曲折。皈依前可谓障碍重重，而这些障碍的产生，正是因为他在追寻信仰一事上，用错方法。圣奥思定一直以怀疑论的方法，去解决天主教会的信仰与相关的神学问题。结果是把他带进摩尼派，并依附其中几近十年。

幸好他终于发现自己的错误，明白怀疑论的方法并不适用于信仰和神学研究。即是说，在处理教会的信仰与神学问题时，他不能采用怀疑论的方法，在信德与理性之间选择其一，却是信德与理性兼容并用，(7) 而且该以信德作前导。这发现最后更成为他研究神学的第一守则：「为了要明白先要相信」：“Credo ut intelligam”。(8) 奥思定这思想对后世影响之大，可能连他自己都估计不到。例如中世纪的士林神学家，都是依着这守则，从事他们的神学研究，其中的表表者有被誉为「士林学派之父」的圣安瑟莫(St. Anselm of Canterbury 1033-1109)。(9)





5. 参看CORALLO, Il lavoro scientifico, 84-85. 180-195; FARINA, Metodologia, 41.

6. 圣奥思定是西方教父中最重要的一位，其神学上的成就，可以说后无来者。他给教会和整个西方思想界带来的贡献，一直流传到现在。教会大部份教义的神学依据及灵修传统，均来自圣奥思定，例如圣三、创造、原罪、基督学、教会学、救恩论、末世论、祈祷等。

7. 说到信德与理性的关系，现任教宗若望保禄二世最新的一篇通谕《信仰与理性》当然不可不读。参看：Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II To the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Relationship between Faith and Reason.

8. 圣奥思定，Sermo CCXII,1=PL XXXVIII,1059: “Credite, ut intelligatis, Nisi enim credideritis, non intelligetis”. 同样思想见于圣人的另一篇讲道，Sermo CCIV,10=PL XXXVIII,1071: “Hoc audiendo credite, ut intelligatis; ut quod creditis, intelligere proficiendo valeatis”.

9. 参看圣安瑟莫著，Proslogion。

三. 信德作前导

然而，不知是否有人对这方法感到疑惑。什么？「为了要明白先要相信」。那怎么可能呢？不明白又如何能相信？可是，事实的确如此。有很多事情，除非我们先相信，没办法明白，我们每天实际上是这样子生活。

本年七月号的《读者文摘》有段小文章，或许能够帮助我们明白圣奥思定的思想，谨引载于下。『妻子和我都是社会工作者。四岁儿子对我们的工作一知半解，无论我们如何解释，对儿子来说，我们的工作毕竟不如计程车司机、售货员或老师来得具体。不久前，电视肥皂剧内有社会工作者的角色，儿子边看边问：「爸爸，你和妈是否像他一样工作？」我们说是，然后问他：「你现在知道社工做些什么了吧？」「知道了，」儿子自信地说：「你们都是拍戏的」』。

的确，要一个四岁幼儿明白成人社会的事，根本没有可能。所以我们都是在孩子能够明白之前，给他们安排整个生活：衣食住行外，当然还有教育、医疗等。社会上也从来没有人批评成人这样做不对，因为经验告诉他们，若不如此，一切待孩子长大，都明白后才决定，已经太迟。所以，在生活中有很多事情，我们会要求孩子相信我们，不要问「为什么」，但照我们的要求和意思去做，到他们长大时自然会明白。

神学也是一样。神学故然是人的事，因为神学的目的正是要救人。不过，神学更加是神的事。因为策划、执行和完成这件救人工作的，是神自己。而人跟神的距离，又岂只是一个四岁幼儿与生育他的父母的距离。四岁幼儿长大后，可能在各方面都超越生育他的父母。人，却永远无法超越创造他的神。

因此，要研究一个神学论题，绝对不能单从人的角度去理解分析。只看某些人，以至某个社会、年代的人之文化背境、内心感受、生活情况及方式，某个时代之潮流和思想形态等。所有这一切，肯定都是研究神学问题时，应该参看和考虑的资料，却永远不能作为解决神学问题的基础和最后依据。谁要是坚持非这样做不可的话，他只是一厢情愿地，硬要把神变成一个和自己有同一思想的人而已。

既然神学要处理的是人的救赎，而救人的又是天主，不是任何一个人，包括教宗和所有神学家与神职在内。那么，教宗和所有神学家与神职，在处理神学问题时，理所当然要以神的计划和旨意为依据。若是神的旨意，肯定超乎人的理解，否则也不能称为神。

依此推断，若在处理神学问题时，一定要好像处理生活上其他事情般，要对这些神学问题完全掌握理解后才相信，那无异于要求前面所提的四岁小孩，一定要他明白什么是社工，尤其是要他明白为何社工可以由演员来做，大家都知道完全没有可能。

所以，圣奥思定所说的：「为了要明白先要相信」，不只合理，根本上我们每天是这样生活。



四. 神学方法的内容

现在让我们回头看看圣奥思定的神学方法，究竟这方法内容如何？这方法包括以下各点：1. 依附着基督的训导权，(10) 2. 热爱所接受的信仰，3. 明白奥迹的意义，4. 对基督宗教之创新的信服 。即是说，研究神学的人，他们要意识到，自己有责任和义务保守传统所称的「信仰的托管」，必要时甚至加以捍卫。

以下谨逐点解说：

1.依附着基督的训导权。由于在形体上，我们现在无法见到基督。因此，基督的训导权，是透过以下这几处显示出来：在圣经中，圣经不但是神学的灵魂，更是第一处把基督的训导权显示给世人的地方。圣奥思定更声明并非任何圣经，而是教会所传授和诠释的圣经。关于这一点，圣奥思定曾说过，如果要他相信一部福音，除非该部福音能够把他带引到天主教会的权柄那里(The Authority of the Catholic Church)，他不会相信该部福音；“Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae commoverent auctorias”.(11) 在传统内，即是从宗徒传下，那个来自远古，并且是普世性的传统；(12) 在教会内，即是由基督亲自创立，订定圣经「正典」，(13) 和把承接自宗徒的传统，向千秋万代的后世传下去的教会。教会更同时肩负起解释两者，即圣经和传统的责任。

换言之，自第五世纪初叶，研究天主教会神学的方法就是：依附着基督的训导权。即是依据教会传授和诠释的圣经，依据教会的传统，依据教会的训导。

2.热爱所接受的信仰。(14) 这点比较简单，意思也很清楚，无需要再解释。

3.明白奥迹的意义。(15) 然而，奥迹是什么？我们试以圣人的「教会学」为例，解说一下何谓奥迹。圣奥思定把这个属于基督、由基督亲自创立并显示的教会，分成若干团体：a)以宗徒为基础的信友团体，b)自亚伯尔直到天地终穷时，生活于世上的义人团体，c)现今已活在永生福乐中的真福者团体。

a. 以宗徒为基础，尤其是以伯多禄这盘石为基础(玛16:18)的信友团体。奥思定称它作「圣事的团体」(communio sacramentorum)。如我们的圣人所说，这团体的成员虽然良莠不齐，大家一起在主教、(16) 公议会(Councils)(17)和伯多禄的继承人(18) 的带领下，一起生活在世上。不过，好信友的圣德并不会受到坏信友的玷污。此外，由于教会的圣事在本质上是基督和圣神的工作。因此，后者所领受的圣事都有效，但不带来应有的效果。

b. 自亚伯尔直到天地终穷时，生活于世上的义人团体。这团体虽然在基督降生成人之前已经存在，并指向末世，这并不代表基督不在这团体内。因为作为圣言，基督自始就与这团体一起生活。

c. 现今已活在永生福乐中的真福者团体，即是圣奥思定所称的，蒙甄选者的团体。这团体由那些在世时忠信地为基督和祂的教会作证的信友组成，代表天主光荣的国度。

4.对基督宗教之创新的信服。意思是，研究神学的人要有这个最基本的观念：要知道教会的信仰跟其他宗教信仰完全不同，这信仰的内容是天主自己亲自启示和教导，而非来自人。所以，被基督选作传信者的，都是忠诚地，一代一代，完整无缺地把这信仰传下去。简言之，每一个神学工作者的身份，是保禄所称的「信仰的托管人」。若是如此，他们便有责任和义务保守传统所称的「信仰的托管」，必要时甚至加以捍卫。(19)



10. 此处所指的训导权，英语可译作 Teaching Authority。

11. 参看圣奥思定，Contra epistolam Manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; 另请参看Contra Faustum 28,2 = PL XLII,486.

12. 参看圣奥思定，De baptismo contra Donatistas IV,XXIV,31 = PL XLIII,174.

13. 参看圣奥思定，Contra epistolam Manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; Contra Faustum 28,2 = PL XLII,486.

14. 圣奥思定，Epistola CXX,III,13 = PL XXXIII, 459: “Intellectum vero valde ama”。

15. 圣奥思定，Sermo XXVII,III,4 = PL XXXVIII,179:“Melior est enim fidelis ignorantia, quam temeraria scientia”。

16. 参看圣奥思定，Sermo CXLVI,1 = PL XXXVIII,796.

17. 圣奥思定，Epistola LIV, 1 = PL XXXIII,200: “Primo itaque tenere te volo, quod est hujus disputationis caput, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, sicut ipse in Evangelio loquitur, leni jugo suo nos subdidisse et sacrinae levi (Matth. XI,30): unde Sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit, sicuti est Baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius, et si quid aliud in Scripturis canonicis commendatur, exceptis iis quae servitutem populi veteris pro congruentia cordis illorum et prophetici temporis onerabant, quae et in quinque libris Moysi leguntur. Illa autem quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis conciliis, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicuti quod Domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in coelum, et adventus de coelo Spiritus sancti, anniversaria solemnitate celebrantur, et si quid aliud tale occurrit quod servatur ab universa, quacumque se diffundit, Ecclesia“.

18. 圣奥思定，Epistola XLIII,7 = PL XXXIII,163: “Cum se videret et Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus”.

19. 参看TRAPE‘, “Agostino di Ippona” , 100.

五. 信仰的托管

关于这最后一点，有详细说明的必要。因为这其实是圣奥思定所提的神学方法的基础，直接影响前面几点，特别是第一点。

这最后一点的关键，完全涵容在「信仰的托管」这句话内。何谓「信仰的托管」？「信仰的托管」译自拉丁文Depositum Fidei，这句话通常译成「信德的宝藏」或「信德的宝库」。其实最好译作「信仰的托管」，因为最贴近Depositum Fidei完来的意思。

「信仰的托管」这词有段长远的历史，这词并非出自别人，却是出自圣保禄宗徒。在保禄的书信中，有两封写给弟茂德，他的爱徒，就是我们熟悉的《弟茂德前后书》。在这两封书信中，保禄先后两次勉励弟茂德要「保管所受的托管」。第一次出现在《弟茂德前书》的结语，(20)第二次在《弟茂德后书》的信首。(21) 在这之前，保禄从未用过这词。事实上，其他新约经书的作者，也一次都未用过。

要明白「保管所受的托管」这句话的意义，先要理解这句话里面所说的「托管」到底是何所指。「托管」之原文是拉丁文depositum (思高圣经译作「寄托」)。保禄在写给弟茂德的两封信中，将depositum译成希腊文。(22) 在保禄所生活的罗马社会，depositum是法律词汇，意思是一个人把一些物品交托另一位看管。答应代人看管物品者，于物主要求时，会无条件地原物奉还物主。换言之，所谓depositum即是中文的「托管」：一人答应暂时替另一人保管一些物品，而非物权的转移。代人保管物品者，并不拥有托管物之主权，物品仍然百份之一百属于托物者。为了这缘故，托管之事一般都是请相熟的友好代劳。由于托管时，托物的一方只是简单地将物品traditio -「交给」代保管者，完全不用签署任何文件，或经过任何法律程序、形式。所以整个托管事件并不受任何法律的管制，也不具有任何法律效能。(23)

保禄在罗马居住期间，当时社会上正流行此种托管物品方式，虽然算不上是个新兴事物，历史却也不长。据史家研究，这种方式大概始于罗马皇帝奥古斯都在位期间，即公元前30至公元14年之间。(24) 其最新颖之处，是这种无法律约束力的托物方式，实际上可以说是非正式合约的滥觞。因而引起保禄的注意，并把他深深地吸引起保禄的注意，并把他深深地吸着。最后，令到他在信仰处于考验、危险之时，将这方法应用到信仰的保管上。(25)

事实上，在这之前，保禄一直执着的，是对本身所接受之职务的忠心，和对自己门人的诚信。可是现在，他眼见有些异端开始出现，于是担心这些异端会危害到教会所相信之「健全道理」(弟后4:3)的完整，而他自己正是被立作传授这真道的先锋、宗徒及导师。(26) 当年基督亲自在往大马士革途中，把这信仰交给他，正是要他把这信仰传留下去。这信仰并非他所有、并不属于他。于是保禄开始意识到，他对这信仰其实有一个很重要的责任：他一定要好好捍卫这信仰的完整、他要把这信仰完好地保管着，不能让其丝毫受损。换句话说，直到天主所定之时刻来到前，他一定要好好保管这-「信仰的话」(弟前4:6)，不让这话受到任何错误或腐败的损害。

保禄会有这种心态，其实很容易理解。自从于往大马士革的路上相遇后，在主基督和保禄师徒之间产生了一份默契。什么默契呢？是主和保禄师徒二人心灵上的一个共识。而这共识，正是保禄对自己在传授福音，即主交给他的托管物时，应有之责任的根源：他对这托管物没有任何权力。因为通常在一个类似的托管行为中，非特别立约，书写清楚，否则保管人不得随意处理任何交他保管之物。所以，面对基督交托他保管和传授的信仰，保禄一向都只把自己看作一位uJphrevth"-管理人，和oijkovnomo" - 分施者。(27) 因此，有别于一个学派的创始人，将自己所发明的新学说教给自己的门生，保禄晓得他只不过是个受委托者。他所传受的，并非他自己发明，却是接受自另一位。所以，为了不负所托，他有责任将这托管之物 - 信仰 - 完整地传给别人。

另一个使保禄有这种思想的缘因，是保禄知道自己离世的日子已不远。再过不久，他便会见到天上那位把信仰交托他保管的主，向祂交待一切。有如保禄自己说的，他的仗已打完，赛跑已跑到终点。(28) 因此，保禄迫切感到有需要提示弟茂德，勉励他在自己离开世界后，好好地保管所接受的托管物。(29)



10. 此处所指的训导权，英语可译作 Teaching Authority。

11. 参看圣奥思定，Contra epistolam Manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; 另请参看Contra Faustum 28,2 = PL XLII,486.

12. 参看圣奥思定，De baptismo contra Donatistas IV,XXIV,31 = PL XLIII,174.

13. 参看圣奥思定，Contra epistolam Manichaeum 5,6 = PL XLII,176; Contra Faustum 28,2 = PL XLII,486.

14.圣奥思定，Epistola CXX,III,13 = PL XXXIII, 459: “Intellectum vero valde ama”。

15. 圣奥思定，Sermo XXVII,III,4 = PL XXXVIII,179:“Melior est enim fidelis ignorantia, quam temeraria scientia”。

16.参看圣奥思定，Sermo CXLVI,1 = PL XXXVIII,796.

17. 圣奥思定，Epistola LIV, 1 = PL XXXIII,200: “Primo itaque tenere te volo, quod est hujus disputationis caput, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, sicut ipse in Evangelio loquitur, leni jugo suo nos subdidisse et sacrinae levi (Matth. XI,30): unde Sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit, sicuti est Baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius, et si quid aliud in Scripturis canonicis commendatur, exceptis iis quae servitutem populi veteris pro congruentia cordis illorum et prophetici temporis onerabant, quae et in quinque libris Moysi leguntur. Illa autem quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis conciliis, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicuti quod Domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in coelum, et adventus de coelo Spiritus sancti, anniversaria solemnitate celebrantur, et si quid aliud tale occurrit quod servatur ab universa, quacumque se diffundit, Ecclesia“.

18. 圣奥思定，Epistola XLIII,7 = PL XXXIII,163: “Cum se videret et Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus”.

19. 参看TRAPE‘, “Agostino di Ippona” , 100.

20. 保禄给弟茂德写道：『弟茂德啊！要保守所受的托管，要躲避凡俗的空谈，和似是而非的知识之名的反论。有些人自充有这知识，但终于失落了信德』(6:20)。

21. 保禄勉励弟茂德说：『你要以信德及在耶稣基督内的爱德，把从我所听的健全道理奉为模范，且依赖那住在我们内的圣神，保管你所受的美好托管』(1:13-14)。

22. 弟前1:14『且依赖那住在我们内的圣神，保管你所受的美好寄托』的原文是：

23. 参看 SPICQ, Saint Paul, 331.

24. 此处所说的罗马皇，即是路加福音第二章有关耶稣出生在白冷的记载中，所提到的那位出了一度上谕的凯撒奥古斯都 (Augustus)，参看路2:1。

25. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 329.

26. 弟后1:11:『为这福音，我被立为宣讲者，为宗徒，为导师』。

27. 参看格前4:1

28. 弟后4:6-7:『因为我已被奠祭，我离世的日期已经近了。这场好仗我已打完；这场赛跑，我已跑到终点。这信仰我已保持了』。

29. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 332-333.

六. 托管的方式

然而，对年轻及羞怯内向的弟茂德来说，保禄几句激励的话，是否就已足够帮助他保管所受的托管物呢？答案当然是否定的。所以保禄除了鼓励弟茂德好好保管所接受的信仰外，更指点、教导他忠于职务的方法。保禄首先告诉弟茂德这差事并不好办，(30) 加上有很多人放弃信仰，(31) 保禄自己又快要离开此世。可是，保禄依然充满信心地告诉他的爱徒，圣神居住在教会内，祂自会光照及坚强祂的圣职人员。让我们听听保禄怎样跟弟茂德说：

『为了这个缘故，我提醒你把天主藉我的覆手所赋予你的恩赐，再炽 燃起来，因为天主所赐给我们的，并非怯懦之神，而是大能、爱德和慎重之神』(弟后1:6-7)。

以上这两节经文，是天主教会一切与传统有关之教导的基础。宗徒们从主那儿接受了基督宗教信仰的真理，之后他们以口传的方式，把这真理再传给那些跟他们合作的人，尤其是那些继承他们职务的继任人。为此，这些宗徒的继任人，有责任保存这份他们从宗徒那儿得来的真理之完整和纯净。而且不可以随便把这真理传递给人，除非他们肯定对方以后有能力忠诚地把这真理传留下去。一如保禄对弟茂德所要求的：『应把你在证人前由我所听的，传授给忠信可靠的人，使他们也能够教导别人』(弟后2:2)。

从保禄的话，可以见到他非常清楚，这个保管和忠诚地传授教会信仰的工作，只靠人力是绝对办不到，唯有圣神才能负起这个责任。因为实际上，是圣神一直在教会内工作，避免让这真理遭受到任何更易或替代。或更正确点说，根据上面所引载第7节经文的意思，圣神这个保管信仰的行动，在教会的圣职人员身上，即是在那些藉着覆手礼领受了牧职的人身上，特别显着和有效。(32) 也就是说，为了要做好保管所接受的「托管」，弟茂德一定要，并且应该依靠那份来自保禄藉着覆手礼授予他牧职的神恩。事实上，保禄这样告诉弟茂德：

『为了这个缘故，我提醒你把天主藉我的覆手所赋予你的神恩，再炽 燃起来，因为天主所赐给我们的，并非怯懦之神，而是大能、爱德和慎重之神。所以，你不要以给我们的主作证为耻，也不要以我这为主被囚的人为耻，但要依赖天主的大能，为福音同我共受劳苦。天主拯救了我们，以圣召召叫了我们，并不是按照我们的行为，而是按照祂的决意和恩宠：这恩宠是万世以前，在基督耶稣内赐予我们的，如今藉着我们的救主基督耶稣的出现，显示了出来；祂毁灭了死亡，藉着福音彰显了不朽的生命。为这福音，我被立为宣讲者，为宗徒，为导师。为了这个原故，我现在受这些苦难，但我并不以此为耻，因为我知道我所信赖的是谁，也深信祂有能力保管我所受的托管，直至那一日。你要以信德及在耶稣基督内的爱德，把从我所听的健全道理，奉为模范；且依赖那住在我们内的圣神，保管你所受的美好托管』(弟后1:6-14)。

在这两封写给弟茂德的信中，保禄两次向弟茂德提到覆手礼，即上面第六节和弟前4:14。33 保禄称天主藉着覆手礼赋予牧者的礼物为 - 神恩，(34) 而这两段经文都与牧职(或铎职)有关。为了这缘故，圣经学界都同意保禄选择这字一定别有用意。根据圣保禄，是一种特别的 - 恩宠(grace)。而保禄要突显的，是天主白白把这赐给一位牧者的缘因：非为领受者个人之用，却是为了团体的益处 - l'utilit? comune (格前12:4-11)，和为建立教会 - per edificare la Chiesa (格前14:12)。(35)

弟茂德因为领受了这成为教会内一个具有公职的人物，即英语所称的official。这等如说，教会的神职在圣秩圣事中，藉着覆手礼所领受的正是此圣事的「圣事印记」- il carattere sacramentale。换言之，教会的圣统制乃来自一种超自然的，即是神的权力和能力。(36)

尚有一点不能忽略，保禄在弟茂德后书1:6-7节所说：『天主... 赋予你的神恩；天主所赐给我们的...神』这两句话，(37) 其实和我们一直所提的托管 παραθ?κη有相当密切的关系。因为如前面所说，这托管工作正是由『那住在我们内的圣神』完成：“δι? Πνευματο? ?γ?ουτο? ?νικο?υτο? ?υ ?μ?ν“ (弟前1:14)，这表示是圣神在教会内，确保教会正统教义之永恒性。(38)

当然，没有人会否认，在保存教会教义的完整一事上，如保禄告诉弟茂德，部份实有赖神职们『不要教授异端道理』﹣﹣ mh; eJterodidaskalei'n (弟前1:3)。然而，说到底，最重要和首席保管者还是圣神自己，亦只有祂能够保护教会的神职免陷于错误。因此，在某程度上，可以把藉着覆手礼给予的神恩，等同圣神那份内在的，保护教会接受自基督的「托管」- 信仰 - 避免损毁和被别的事物取代的行动。综结上述，可以肯定地说，教会的牧者，藉着从圣秩圣事所获得的神恩，在宣扬和保管福音真理一事上，享受着圣神的特别帮助。所以保禄称教会为『永生天主的教会，真理的柱石和基础』：“Ekkhlsiva qeou' zw'nto", stu'lo" kaiv eJdraivwma th'" ajlhqeiva"“(弟前3:15)。正是基于这份肯定和信心，弟茂德既然领受了覆手礼，保禄知道圣神一定会赋予他这个徒儿力量和才能，让他妥善地完成其牧职。(39)

换句话说，神职因圣秩圣事的神恩而得的力量，并非他们个人苦修而得的成果，却是他们对天主藉着此圣事赋予他们的神恩的忠贞 (弟后1:6-8, 12)。在这事上，保禄的思想非常清楚，并把这思想向弟茂德解释。保禄告诉弟茂德，虽然明知在履行自己的牧职时，免不了要辛劳受苦，但他一点都不用胆怯和担心，他只要尽己所能，好好地运用天主藉着圣秩圣事赐给他的神恩和力量，他一定能够保管所接受的托管，并且忠诚无误地把这托管传递下去。(40)

圣保禄这两封牧函除了指出教会信仰的保管，是受到教会建制 (l'istituzione ecclesiastica) 中之圣事印记(il carattere sacramentale) 的保证外，尚让我们看到另一点，亦是最重要的一点：保禄以他这些牧函为基础所构成的「建制教会」(Chiesa-istituzione)，并非为把教会自俗世中孤立起来。相反地，是要以一种鲜明和强烈的乐观和肯定，将教会植根于俗世中。因为教会的存在，正是为邀请每一个人于入教成为信友后，回到社会上，继续和他们那些依然耽搁于罪恶或歧途中的旧伙伴生活在一起，不是为攻击或向他们显示不屑，而是为了让他们看到，天主的恩宠如何改变一个人。因此，可以说，保禄这些牧函是教会大公精神的一个最极致表现，一如他在弟前2:1-5所写的：(41)

『首先我劝导众人，要为一切人恳求、祈祷、转求和谢恩，并为众君王和一切有权位的人，为叫我们能以全心的虔敬和端庄，度宁静平安的生活。这完是美好的，并在我们的救主天主面前是蒙受悦纳的，因为祂愿意所有的人都得救，并得以认识真理，因为天主只有一个，在天主与人之间的中保也只一个，就是降生成人的基督耶稣』。



30. 参看弟后1:8。

31.参看弟后1:15。

32. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 320; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 70.

33.弟前4:14:『不要疏忽你内心的神恩，即从前因预言，藉长老团的覆手赐予你的神恩』。

34. 思高版圣经这两节经文用两种不同译法，弟前4:14译作「神恩」，弟后1:6则译成「恩赐」，但希腊文圣经则两处都用

35. 参阅SPICQ, Saint Paul, 325; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 71.

36.“La gerarchia sacra e‘ fatta di autorita’ e di capacita‘ ugualmente soprannaturali”: CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 71.

37. 原文：“τοχ ?ρισμα το? θ?ο?...?υ σο?...: ?δωκ?υ ?μ?υ οθ?? ? πυ??μα“.

38. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 325-326; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 72.

39. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 325-326; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 72.

40. 参看SPICQ, Saint Paul, 340; CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 72.

41. 参看CAPPELETTI, “O Timoteo, custodisci il deposito”, 72.

七. 没有训导，便没有「圣事的团体」

看完上面这段详尽的解释，相信没有必要重申教会训导的重要、教会训导和信仰与神学的关系，特别是教会的训导，如何影响着每一个信友的生活方式。亦无须重覆神学工作者需接受教会训导的缘因。尤其是，为何圣奥思定提出，研究天主教神学的方法是依附着基督的训导权：即是依据教会传授和诠释的圣经，依据教会的传统，依据教会的训导。

可是，明白一件事，并不代表就可以同意，甚至甘心情愿地接受该事。尤其是关于教会的训导这一点，或许有人仍然觉得教会这种训导方式，实在低估，甚至莫视今日信友，尤其是神学生的智慧。事实却恰好相反，正因为教会肯定和信任自己的子女，有足够的智慧明白自己的用心，她才会向他们作这要求。而教会之所以如此肯定，是因为她对自己所事奉的主有信心，晓得祂一定会以祂的恩宠帮助信友，圣神亦会光照扶助他们。教会尤其肯定的，是圣父对人的情与爱。(42) 教会知道天主正是因为爱人，才会到来救人，才会定下一个救人计划，并且以种种方法，帮助人通过个人的生活，切实参与这计划而获救。天主对人的爱，才是教会全部希望的所在。教会永远不会把自己的希望放在任何人身上，包括教宗、神职、神学家和神学生。

又有些人或许会怀疑，照着上面所说的方法研究神学，如此服从教会的训导，教会的神职和神学家，岂不是都变成教会的传声筒、变成一件工具，还能做什么学术研究呢？对于这问题，有几点先要弄清楚。

首先，打从教会正式开始工作的第一天：圣神降临节翌日，宗徒们作什么呢？他们不是坐下来撰写一篇洋洋大观的神学论文、一本教理书，或一部神学手册。他们有一个使命：他们要向人宣讲一个讯息。于是他们走到街上，向人传报喜讯。一如保禄在致格临多人前书中说的：把「从主那儿领受到」的传给别人 (11:23)。(43)

所以，学术研究成果并非教会的神学家从事神学研究的目标。自第二世纪神学出现到现在，可以说教会的神学研究都是为解决信仰，或教义上的问题，而非为获得或提升个人的学术成就。(44)所以，正如B? guerie及Duchesneau这两位神学家所说，在处理神学问题时，「从主那儿领受到」这基础，比一切其他的理性解释和神学反省都更为坚固。(45)

其次，是否神学家服从教会的训导，就不能在学术研究上更上层楼？似乎历史给我们的答案，刚好相反。试列举一些大家熟悉的名字，比方圣奥思定，圣安瑟莫，圣文德、圣多玛斯等，相信没有人怀疑他们的神学成就。尤其是圣奥思定，实际上他是教会的神学方法之肇始者，这方法不但没有影响其神学研究工作，适得其反，圣人在神哲学上的成就，至今好像还没有人能望其背项。就连其他基督教派的学者，对圣奥思定在神哲学上的成就，同样推崇备至，兹在下面摘录其中一位有关圣奥圣定的评语：

“Augustine is the most influential of all the teachers of the Church since the Apostolic age. Pre? minent in the West, as Origen was among the theologians of the East, his sway was not like that of Origen, disputed and broken. It was of far longer continuance. This unrivalled influence grew out of the depth and variety of his powers, and the sincerity, energy, and fervor of his religious character. In him the dialectical and mystical elements. He was at once a philosopher and a saint. At the same time he was a man of letters and an orator. His Confessions are an outpouring of his heart in the form of a converse of his soul with God. Yet among devotional expressions full of ardor we find him interweaving distinctions respecting the divine attributes. The subtilty of his genius and his dialectical turn, together with his doctrine respecting faith and knowledge, not to speak now of others parts of his teaching, made him the founder of the mediaeval theology“.(46)

复次，教会从来没有要求任何人作她的传声筒。教会永远不会、亦不能这样做，她没有这个权。因为教会本身也只是个工具而矣。(47)教会是从天上来的恩典，是天主所肇始的。教会是基督为了在自己升天后，通过训导，即是福传，和礼仪行动，在世上继续其救世工作，特别「生产」- generate - 的工具，而且正如教宗圣理奥一世所说的，生产过程非常痛苦：在十字架上。(48)

根据教宗圣理奥一世的教会观，教会的出生分两个阶段。第一阶段在基督降生时：Incarnation，由于基督是教会的头(或元首)，所以当基督出生时，理所当然的，其肢体 - 教会 - 已在基督内潜在性出生：potential birth；(49)教会实际的出生：effective birth，是在第二阶段，在加尔瓦略山上；而教会正式投入救世的行动，则是在圣神降临节开始。(50)

从以上的分析，可以理解为何教会没有权更改任何基督决定的事。她唯一能做的，就是服从基督，听祂的话行事，如同基督服从圣父一样。(51) 所以，教会的训导来自基督。换言之，基督是教会整个福传工作，及导师身份的基础：『天上地下的一切权柄都交给了我，所以你们要去使万民成为们徒，因父、及子、及圣神之名给他们授洗，教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切。看！我同你们天天在一起，直到今世的终结』(玛28:18-20)。这正是圣奥思定所说的，依附着基督的训导权之意。而自宗徒时代开始，教会内每一位传信者都非常清楚自己的身份，知道他们所传的是谁的信息：

『我们不断地感谢上主，因为我们所传授的天主的信息，你们已听到了，也接受了，没有把它视为人的信息，而确实当作天主的信息，这信息在你们信徒身上发挥着效力』(德前2:3，常年期第三十周「日课」，星期一晚祷之短经诵读)。

为什么我们说教会的训导，即是教会的福传呢？相信大家不难从以上引载的两段经文找到答案。实际上，所谓福传，即是向人，包括非信友和信友，(52) 介绍、讲解、教导教会的信仰。这信仰的内容是耶稣基督和祂的福音。目的则为了让一切相信耶稣基督，并接祂为主的人，依照福音所要求的方式生活，以获得救恩。

如果是这样的话，我们可以作出另一个推断，一如美藉神学家达拉思 (Avery Dulles, SJ) 神父在最近一篇以《正统与社会改变》为题的文章中指出，教会的训导永远不会投大众所好，只教导人们爱听的话。因为如此一来，这训导会丧失其全部可信性：“The Magisterium was never intended to seek popularity. It would forfeit all credibitlty if it taught only what people wanted to hear”.(53)

然而，为何相信耶稣基督，并接受祂为主的人，一定要依照福音的要求生活，才可以得救？因为所有相信耶稣基督，接受祂为主的人，藉着所领受的入门圣事，不但成为信友，成为教会的一份子，基督奥体的一个肢体。他们同时成为天主圣父的子女。即是说，这些人的身份，有了一个本质上的改变：是人，亦是圣父 - 神 - 的子女。而福音的要求，正是要这些同时是圣父子女的人，不但跟普通人一样过活。他们的生活方式，更应该与他们天主子女的身份相称。

可是，信友从何得知要怎样生活，才算与自己的天主子女的身份相称呢？答案是藉着教会的训导，即是教导。所以，训导其实就是前面，圣奥思定所说的「圣事的团体」之存在，其中的一个主要缘因。(54) 保禄写给厄弗所人书中的一段，对这问题有很清楚的解释，兹引载于后供各位参考：

『为此我说，且在主内苦劝你们，生活不要再像外邦人，顺从自己的虚妄思念而生活；他们的理智受了蒙蔽，因着他们的无知和固执，与天主的生命隔绝了。这样的人既已麻木，便纵情恣欲，贪行各种不洁。但你们却不是这样学了基督。如果你们真听过祂，按照在耶稣内的真理，在祂内受过教，就该脱去你们照从前生活的旧人，应在心思念虑上改换一新，穿上新人，就是按照天主的肖像所造，具有真实的正义和圣善的新人。

所以你们应该效法天主，如同蒙宠爱的儿女一样；又应该在爱德中生活，就如基督爱了我们，且为我们把自己交出，献于天主在为馨香的供物和祭品。至于邪淫，一切不洁和贪婪之事，在你们中间连提也不要提：如此才合乎圣徒的身份。同样，猥亵、放荡和轻薄的戏言，都不相宜；反要说感恩的话，因为你们应该清楚知道：不论是犯邪淫的，行不洁的，或是贪婪的 - 即崇拜偶像的 - 再天主和基督的国内，都不得承受产业』(弗4:17-24; 5:1-5)。

话说回头，虽然教会从来没有要求任何人作她的传声筒，当日基督为了展开其传教工作，确实选了十二位宗徒(谷3:13-19)，连同保禄一共十三人(宗9:1-9)，帮助祂的传教工作，基督称他们作「器皿」，并且旦白告诉他们，让他们了解自己的身份，从来没有隐瞒过他们。宗徒大事录第九章关于保禄的归化，其中一段这样写着：『主却向他(阿纳尼雅)说：「你去吧！因为这人是我所拣选的器皿，为把我的名字带到外邦人、国王和以色列子民前」』(15节)。而且还加上一句：『因为我要指示他，为我的名字，该受多么大的苦』(16节)。(55)

可以想像阿纳尼雅一定把基督向他所说的每一个字都告诉保禄。所以，打从一开始，保禄对自己被召的身份，心中是清清楚楚的。他不但晓得自己只不过是基督手中的一件传教工具；他更一早就知道，为了基督的名字，他不知要吃多少苦头。

所以，教会从来没有要求任何人作她的传声筒。倒是基督，祂却真的清楚告诉那些愿意为祂服务的人，他们只是祂手中的一个「器皿」而矣。

当然，并非每一个被基督选中的人，都一定要接受祂，福音中的富少年，就没有接受基督的邀请；也不是所有接受基督的邀请的人，之后就不能再改变主意，甚至反对祂、出卖祂。茹达斯虽然被选中，也跟随了基督，却也没能慎始慎终。

可是谁若被基督看上，又真的愿意接受祂的「拣选」，作祂的「器皿」的话。那最好能谨记自己的身份，明白自己只是基督手中的一件工具而矣，传声筒也好，录音机可能更贴切。因为他们的工作，就如他们的前辈 - 十二位宗徒、保禄、弟茂德等曾经做过的一样：依照基督所那所吩咐的，教训其他人：『教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切』(玛28:20)。他们这样作，并非如有些人所想的，为了维护某种权力或权势，却是他们的责任感所催迫。被基督和天主圣父选作祂们的教会的牧者的，都自觉到本身面对universam fraternitatem - 普世弟兄 - 的责任。一如教宗圣理奥一世所直言，他们所讲授的，都是他们学自历代教父的教导。(56)



42.著名义藉神学家方奉天神父 (Bruno Forte) 称圣父为「永恒的爱人」，圣父爱人是绝对出于自发和自动，完全不受任何外界事物的牵制或引发。圣父从一开始便爱人，并会一直爱下去。圣父在爱中是全能的，祂永远忠贞不二：『我的救恩永远常存，我的正义永不会废除』(依51:6)，参阅方奉天着、陈继容编译「信仰小引导」21-31。此外，有关圣经及历代教父对天主圣三的第一位：圣父的训导、介绍和理解，请参看：Dizionario di Spiritualita‘ biblico-patristica. I grandi temi della S. Scrittura per la “Lectio Divina”, 1: Abba’-Padre.

43. B? GUERIE-DUCHESNEAU, How to Understand the Sacraments, xiii.

44. 请参看有关天主教会教义的历史：Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, hrsg. von Michael Schmaus, Leo Scheffczyk, Aloys Grillmeier, 5 vol.; TIXERONT, Histoire des dogmes, 3 vol.

45. “But receiving them from the Lord has always had a much more solid basis than rational explanation or theological reasoning” : B? GUERIE-DUCHESNEAU, How to Understand the Sacraments, xiii.

46. FISHER, History of Christian Doctrine, 176.

47. 有关基督与教会的关系，可参看保禄的书信，例如致厄弗所人书5:21-33，见常年期第三十周，星期二，双数年读经一。

48.“De Spose carne prodiit quando ex latere crucifixi manante sanguine et aqua sacramentum redemptionis et regenerationis accepit”: ACO II, IV p. 36; TD 15 15b, p. 45. 基于主基督生产教会的缘因，教宗圣理奥一世称经历降生、苦难、死亡、复活、升天的基督为「历史基督」，称教会为「奥秘基督」。而紧随着教会 3/4 「奥秘基督」的出现，圣神亦开始其圣化使命。

49. 教宗圣理奥一世，Tractatus 26,2 = CCL 138, 126 = “Generatio enim Christi erigo est populi christiani et natalis capitis natalis est corporis”.

50. 教宗圣理奥一世，Tractatus 78,1 = CCL 138A,494 : “Principibus nascentis Ecclesiae tota Patris Filiique Diuinitas in praesentia sancti Spiritus Praesidebat”.

51. 有关教会的本质，请另参看参阅方奉天着、陈继容编译「信仰小引导」，62-70。

52. 注意以上所引载经文的内容，『教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切』这句话的对像主要是指已受洗的信友。说真的，若非信友，根本没有义务要听从福音的要求生活。

53. DULLES,“Orthodoxy and Social Change”, 8.

54. 另一个主因当然是举行圣事等礼仪行动，玛28:19-20:『你们要去使万民成为们徒，因父、及子、及圣神之名给他们授洗，教训他们遵守我所吩咐你们的一切』。

55. 事实上，主耶稣一早已说过，跟随祂的人都会受迫害：『你们自己要谨慎！人要把你们解送到公议会，你们在会堂里要受鞭打，并且也要为我的原故，站在总督和君王面前，对他们作证』(谷13:9)。

56.“Non aliud nos praedicare repperies quam quod sancti patres nostri toto orbe docuerunt” = TD, 9,3, p.57.

结论

着名美藉礼仪学家贾蕴能 (Aidan Kavanagh, OSB) 神父，多年前在一次国际会议中，曾就礼仪本地化一事，向与会的学者提出几项忠告。由于礼仪学是神学的一门，所以贾神父的忠告对任何从事神学工作者都适用，特别是其中一点。谨节译于下，供各位参考，并作为这篇文字的结语。

贾神父提醒大家，不要忽略中产阶层给今日社会带来的影响，特别是中产阶层基督徒给教会做成的影响。从实质上说，中产阶层基督徒之宗教生活，或宗教热诚的动力来自「文明宗教」，即英语所称的civil religion，而非来自福音。可以说，这些中产阶层基督徒把福音「再次本地化」到他们的中产阶层价值观内。这些价值观的特性包括：要有足够的舒适和方便，只参与自己认可的团体，消费主义，只注重现实。

这些价值观使人变成失忆和近视，往昔的事故然不复记得，未来更是遥不可及，于是人都把注意力集中在眼前的生活上。结果是无可避免地，人对福音那股震撼人心，向人的彻底要求，完全失却了品尝的能力。(57)

如大家所知，基督真的非常爱人，也极其体贴人。然而，基督对人的要求亦相当高。所以贾蕴能神父说福音对人的要求是震撼性的，说得一点不错。除非一个人真的很爱基督和祂的教会，并有足够的智慧去理解，否则面对福音那些要求，尤其是现代人，一定感到十分迷惘甚至不安。

『于是耶稣对门徒说：「谁若愿意跟随我，该弃绝自己，背着自己的十字架来跟随我」』(玛16:24；谷8:34；路9:23)。

主，你实在不理解现代人的心理。难道你不知道，今日的人都不爱吃苦，也不能受苦吗？无论什么事，包括宗教在内，一定要够「好玩」，合他们心意。所以，如果今日的人再不肯背自己的十字架跟随你，你只好怪你自己，怎么两千年前建立教会时，没有把现代人的心理，也考虑在内。

『正在耶稣出来行路时，跑来了一个人，跪在祂前面，问祂：「善师，为承受永生，我该作什么」？耶稣对他说：「你为什么称我为善？除了天主一个外，没有谁是善的。诫命你都知道：不可杀人，不可奸淫，不可偷盗，不可做假见证，不可欺诈，应孝敬你的父母」。他回答耶稣说：「师傅，这一切我从小就都遵守了」。说耶稣定晴看他，就喜爱他，对他说：「你还缺少一样：你去，变卖你所有的一切，施舍级穷人，你必有宝藏在天上，然后来，背着十字架跟除我」！因了这话，那人就面带愁容，忧郁地走了，因为他有许多产业』(谷10:17-22；路18:18-23)。

主，你真是不食人间烟火，完全不晓得人间疾苦。你大概没看过近期报章的新闻，也没有留心电台或电视的报道。所以不知道这一阵全世界都在为钱伤透脑筋。你晓得吗？香港的股市和楼价都跌了很多，有一阵「恒指」一泻万点，楼价则下调超过五成。而你竟然说，如果我们想跟随你，守那一大堆诫命还不够，竟然要连我们所有的，也要我们卖掉。还说你爱我们你，主，请问这算是那门子的爱呢？

『有些法利塞人来到祂跟前，试探祂说：「许不许人为了任何缘故，休自己的妻子」？祂回答说：「你们没有念过，那创造者自起初就造了他们一男一女；且说：“为此，人要离开父亲和母亲，依附自己的妻子，两人成为一体”的话吗？这样，他们不是两个，而是一体了。为此，凡天主所结合的，人不可拆散」。他们对祂说：「那么，为什么梅瑟还吩咐人下休书休妻呢」？耶稣对他们说：「梅瑟为了你们的心硬，才准许你们休妻；但起初并不是这样」。如今我对你们说：无论谁休妻，除非因为姘居，而另娶一个，他就是犯奸淫；凡娶被休的，也是犯奸淫』(玛18:2-9)。

主，说起这一点，非要大吐苦水不可。一听你这样说，主，就知道你是生于什么年代。只有两千年前的人，才会有这样「老土」(广东俗话，意指过时)、不合潮流、不近人情的思想。

告诉你吧，主，如果今日还有人肯正正式式结婚，不乱搞男女关系、随便同居，或搞同姓恋等，已经非常给你面子。所以，主，请你最好设法迁就一下，顺应「人意」，尤其是体贴一下那些怨偶。你没有结婚，你的神职也是独身，你们当然不能明白，和一个自己已经不爱，或一个已经不爱自己的人，生活在一起是什么滋味。

甚么『凡天主所结合的，人不可拆散』。老实说，主，我们从来没有亲眼见过天主如何结合一对男女，我们却天天见到受不幸婚姻折磨的兄弟姊妹，你完全不能想像他们的境况。

因此，虽然你是天主，主，也拜托你，请别再唱如此「和寡」的「高曲」，说甚么信友的婚姻是圣事。如果你不想你的信友徨徨恐恐、凄凄、惨惨、戚戚地，带着沉重的罪恶感进入第三个千年的话，主，请你最好也学学我们特区政府，懂得听取民意。最近香港因为经济低迷，特区政府马上作出回应，减了好些税项，以纾缓民困。请你也学习听取「人意」，赶快给你那个宝贝教会下一度命令(闻说教会不能改变任何你决定的事)，叫她up date 一下自己的mentality (对不起，香港人讲话，总是这样子，半中半英的)，修改修改她的训导。不但准许信友离婚，其他诸如人工避孕，安乐死，甚至堕胎等，最好通通都准许人可以随自己意思，选择做或不做。

不过，最教人震撼，或该说，最要命的，还是这一句：

『吃完早了饭，耶稣对西满伯多禄说：「若望的儿子西满，你比他们更爱我玛？」』(若21:15)。

看吧，不只要爱祂，尚要比别人爱得更多。而且连续把问题重覆问三遍(若21:16-17)，唯恐人们听不到一样。

主，我们终于发现，原来你竟然与时代脱节得这么励害。你要不是活在广寒宫里，就是住在九宵云外，不知人间已过了几多回的汉唐风月。

主，难道你竟然不知道，今日很多人，不但不爱人，他们有时连自己都不爱吗？现在的人，特别是香港人，就算父子、兄弟、父妻之间，都只会讲金，不作兴讲心啦。要求他们比别人更爱你，唉，主，你真是在痴人说梦话！怪不得你的教会年年闹圣召荒。恐怕踏入第三个千年后，所有圣堂都会门堪罗雀。

可是，福音记载伯多禄回答主说：『主，是的，你知道我爱你』(若21:15)。并且重覆回答三次 (若21:16-17)。

『主，是的，你知道我爱你』。整个天主教会信仰的核心，都包容在这句话内；同样地，教会的神学和伦理，亦是从这句话开始。



57. 参看KAVANAGH, “Liturgical inculturation: Looking to the Future”, 102-103.

作者：周景勋

为香港宗教历史

注下结谊与交谈的光辉史实－－ 六宗教的脉膊互动




一. 导言：香港六宗教的共识与认同

在「香港六宗教袖座谈会十周年纪念特刊」中，六宗教领袖都强调了：「当明乎时代精神和需要，打破宗教间限止的框框，相互尊重，彼此交谈合作，建立友谊，和谐共融，和衷共济地为社会谋求幸福，推动文化交流，重整和提升人的生命道德等」。转瞬间，六宗教领袖座谈会于今年(一九九八年)十一月二十六日庆祝二十周年纪念，这证实了不同宗教在互相尊重、互相欣赏、互相接纳中，保持坦诚开放的胸襟，是可以和衷共济，携手合作，为社会谋福利。

同样地，在面对着新纪元的来临，香港六宗教领袖们本着二十年来一直关心着教内外的转变，也有一份新的期望，以配合时代的转变和挑战，且对社会带来的冲击，作出适当的回应；更将宗教所关注的「心灵提升」和「道德理念」融化在社会文化中，希望人人能在宽容中走向相亲相爱，让社会享有安宁，世界能实现和平。因此，宗教应该同心迈向二十一世纪，使人人认清生命的价值与生存的意义；宗教间的交谈当以真与善的实践作共鸣；如此，各宗教要自我改变，以智慧和勇气回应社会民生的需求，保障人权和致力社会正义，更要「自觉」地本着信仰自由，以「仁爱」、「慈悲」、「民主」、「平等」等信念，齐心发挥合作与友爱的精神，弘扬「宽容精神」为共识，促进社会的整合与济世渡人的服务。

二十年来，六宗教为巩固互相间的共融和友谊，自然而然地已找到了交谈的共识和认同：

共同以维护与追求「真、善、美、圣」为目的。

发扬「自由、平等、博爱」的宽容精神。

大家要有坦诚、开放和豁达的胸襟。

态度上保持：谦卑、明智、慎思的智慧。

互相爱慕和尊重，互让和互谅。

互相欣赏和接纳，信任和保密。

在思想和行为上不怕有净化、改进和革新。

不排斥异己者(包括人与思想)，尽在异中求同。

彼此交换经验和学习，好能互相贡献和补充。

同心维护社会的和谐、民主与繁荣。

我们相信：宗教交谈在不同的时代中都有「觉醒」的启迪，不单是使宗教与宗教之间的距离缩短，建立共融的友谊，更可以为社会提供令人信服的确证，同时也给人类提供一颗充满希望的历史心，帮助他们在社会的转变中，切实地配合生活的改变，追求生命的终极以显示宗教的「真」。在「真」中，宗教具体地指出一个方向，要求人作自我的空虚，实践「仁爱」、「慈悲」与「宽恕」，活出生命的「善」，给社会带来「和平」，藉以提升人的生命，使人在科技和经济的发展下就不会出卖自己的人格，反而整合与调和人的生命，使人格升华以达到至善的圣境，即在修德中展露生命的光明，活出生命之「美」。

二. 香港六宗教结谊与交谈的缘起

每一件事情的发生，或每一个组织的形成，必有其前因缘起，六宗教领袖座谈会在二十年来能有卓着的成就和真诚的交往，亦有其因缘的。

1.天主教梵蒂岗第二届大公会议的启发

香港天主教在六十年代的末期，已深深感到有随着时代变迁的需要，加上梵蒂岗第二届大公会议后的更新指示，便落实地执行《教会对非基督宗教态度宣言》的内容 －－

自古迄今，各民族都意识到，某种玄奥的能力，存在于事物的运行及人生的事故中，有时竟可体认此一「至高神明」或「天父」。此种意识与体认，以最深的宗教情感贯澈到他们的生活中。但是，与文化进步有关联的宗教，更以较精确的概念和较文明的言词，设法解答同样的问题。……世界各地的其他宗教，也提供教理、生活规诫，以及敬神礼仪，作为方法，从各方面努力弥补人心之不平。天主公教绝不摒弃这些宗教里的真的圣的因素，并且怀着诚恳的敬意，考虑他们的作事与生活方式，以及他们的规诫与教理。……因此，教会劝告其子女们，应以明智与爱德，同其他宗教的信徒交谈与合作，为基督的信仰生活作见证，同时承认、维护并倡导那些宗教徒所拥有的精神与道德，以及社会文化的价值。(《宣言》2)

大公会议鼓励也劝告所有天主教徒，应以明智、了解和接纳的态度与其他宗教的信徒交谈与合作；因此，凡因种族、肤色、生活方式或宗教不同而产生任何歧视与虐待的，都视作是违反基督精神，而当予以谴责；教会剀切吁请全体基督信徒要真挚地与所有的人和平相处。(《宣言》5)

2. 天主教香港教区会议的强调和落实

一九六九年一月，徐诚斌主教发表召开教区会议的原因说：

召开教区会议的目的，乃根据第二届梵蒂岗大公会议的精神，检讨本教区的工作，并拟订将来的发展方针。……(《香港天主教掌故》58)

于是，香港教区会议在一九七○年至一九七一年两年间召开，在〈福音传播〉的条目中之「教会和其他宗教」的内容里，强调教会当尊重其他宗教所有的教训、生活规律和礼仪：

教会实在很殷切地希望能从这些(不同)宗教的精神宝库中，学习并丰富她自己，以更清楚地明白她自己的使命……。由此，基督信徒的生活，始能与不同文化的优秀部份和对立部份，尤其是那些能接受福音之光启示的文化传统，取得调协和适从。同时在这个协调中，教会与非基督宗教的关系，亦可作为一项为对方的服务。(《香港教区会议文宪》之一、参)

在会议中，大家肯定了对不同宗教的尊重，和积极地作出彼此的联络与交谈是必须的，藉以帮助我们欣赏生命的价值；因此，在神学的新观点下，教会相信天主亦会将自己显示给其他的宗教团体；于是，为落实与不同宗教的交谈，会议的结果便作出两项具体的建议：

i. 我们提议当地的教会，尽力与这些(不同)宗教人士，在社会福利方面合作，共同研究，寻找东方社会神学的表达方式，希望藉着本地人民的文化传统，而将基督的喜讯清楚和简易地表露无遗。

ii. 我们建议香港的教会能与非基督徒的团体共同商讨、策划、厘定一些在信仰表达上所通用的礼仪，为使所有崇拜上主的人能合而为一。(《香港教区会议文宪》之一、建议)

为能实现梵二精神和教区会议的建议，香港教区主教(已故徐诚斌主教)便在一九七二年初成立了「天主教教区非基督宗教联络委员会」(现称「天主教教区宗教联络委员会」)，委员们随即「拜访」香港其他的宗教团体，更邀请各宗教来访及参加天主教的重要庆典；各宗教的反应都很积极和主动，就在「拜访 -- 回拜」的互相联系中组织了「教际」的不同活动和聚会交谈；渐渐地，六宗教团体便交上了朋友，互相推动了「宗教思想交谈会」，也组织了「六宗教领袖座谈会」。

三. 宗教思想交谈会

从一九七二年至一九七六年的四年间，香港的六宗教团体透过「拜访 -- 回拜」的交往，互相的接触逐渐频密，互相间的开放亦较宽大，便有相同的感觉和意见：倘若六宗教只着重在社交的接触，便会流于表面的交谈，不能有深入的对话和认识；如要深入交谈，非从教理与心灵持修的思想上开始不可。因此，在一九七七年初，六宗教选派代表：天主教的杜逸文神父和冼梓林先生、佛教的源慧法师和永惺法师、道教的梁省松道长、基督教的李景雄牧师、回教的脱维善先生和羽智云先生，以及孔教的梁隐盦先生。天主教还邀请了田英杰神父和周景勋修士等在中环公教进行社的会议室开会，着手筹备宗教思想交谈会，商讨「思想交谈」的可能性及推行方法；期间合共举行了四次会议，确定了宗教思想交谈会的组织、目的和举办方法。

组织：

由六宗教选派一至二位代表组成「宗教思想交谈会」筹备委员会，商讨思想交谈会的主题，举办地点和日期。至于讲者，则由各宗教各自安排或邀请。

目的：

为不同信仰的六宗教教友善信，提供更广博的知识交流，藉以增加大家对各宗教的教义、始创、演变及其文化背景等的认识和了解为首要和终极的目的；因此，交谈会更以促进参与者之间互相尊重、彼此瞭解、共同欣赏和接纳为基本的目的。

举办方去：

由六宗教(香港佛教联合会、香港孔教学院、中华回教博爱社、香港基督教协进会、香港天主教教会及香港道教联合会)派代表组成的筹备委员策划、议定主题、交谈会之日期、时间、地点及有关详细应办的事项。在意见交换下，大家都认为每年举办交谈会三次至四次，由六宗教派代表轮流担任交谈会主席，每次交谈会则由另二教敦请教内德高望重或学者为主讲作演说，其后由听众自由发言作交流；至于会场及茶点便由另一宗教提供。周而复始地举办思想交谈会。及至一九八六年，由于每年举办三次思想交谈会，在安排上有些困难，故经商议后，改为每年举办一次思想交谈会，每次皆由六宗教敦请教内人士为主讲，由六位讲者就不同的思想角度发表演说；此外，每次讲座都由宗教思想交谈会筹备委员会邀请一位会内的委员出任主席；这期间，筹备委员会成员皆由六宗教领袖座谈会的秘书处成员担任。近年来，由于其他事务之故，宗教思想交谈会乃每隔一年至二年才举办一次。

历年举办思想交谈会的主题如下：

一九七七年 「祈祷」、「修持」与「祷告」
一九七八年 「礼拜」
一九七九年 「七件圣事」、「三位一体」、「成道三法」、「佛之三身」、「伊斯兰教之五功」与「三达德五达道」
一九八○年 「教育」
一九八一年 「灵修与修身之道」
一九八二年 「教会办福利事业 -- 其原则及哲学或教理背景」
一九八三年 「成圣之道」
一九八四年 「宗教自由」
一九八五年 「鬼神」
一九八六年 「来生」
一九八七年 「命运」
一九八八年 「苦与乐」
一九八九年 「神与偶像」
一九九○年 「心灵的环保」
一九九三年 「生命何价」
一九九五年 「宽容」
一九九八年 「宗教同步迈向二十一世纪」

四. 宗教领袖座谈会的成立及其发展

香港六宗教团体的接触交往，已经在一九七七年间成立的「宗教思想交谈会」中跨进了一步。然而，六宗教团体在接触交往上的希望不是作形式上的交谈，也不愿意只停滞在基层的思想交流，或一些有心于宗教交谈的人士的趣致表达；大家更希望透过宗教团体间的团结，可以落实地为香港社会作出一些贡献，以发挥宗教间的推动力，而最能够代表六宗教，且给予支持、鼓励和发挥实效的就是六宗教领袖的携手合作、齐心关注社会的精神需要，为香港社会大众树立一个共融的见证。于是，六宗教代表在思想交谈会中更呼吁各宗教团体的首长组成「宗教领袖座谈会」。其实，这呼吁已在一九七三年的「互访」中提出，但未能有六宗教的代表作整体而全面的探讨。在一九七七年间获六宗教团体首长的支持和赞同，组织了「六宗教领袖座谈会」的筹划小组，且派代表作策划与筹备；六宗教代表如下：

天主教 李亮神父、冼梓林先生
基督教协进会 郭乃弘牧师
佛教及孔教 区洁名先生
道教 梁省松道长
伊斯兰教 羽智云先生

代表们经过数月的细心筹划与考虑，把握了「友谊第一」的共识，打开了宗教领袖间的沟通结谊渠道，且意识到真诚的友谊可将隔膜消解于无形中。为了使小组能更有效力作出维系，小组便推举天主教冼梓林先生为召集人，负责联络和召集等工作。

筹划小组为使领袖们在座谈会中顺利进行和交谈讨论，便预先提供六个可能讨论的主题，其内容大致着重于宗教间的互相合作、为社会服务和思想交谈等：

(1)传播媒介之道德水准问题。

(2)青少年问题。

(3)宗教团体目前面临的困难。

(4)宗教之发展在本港面临的问题。

(5)西方文化对宗教的冲击。

(6)宗教思想交流。

除了提供座谈会的会议内容主题外，必须关注的就是在举行时之「主席权」和座位安排的问题；因此，筹划小组经过详细的商议后，决定第一次的「六宗教领袖座谈会」不设主席权，以自由发言方式进行。至于座位安排，则决意根据各教团体的英文名称之字母次序排列：

香港佛教联合会 (Hong Kong Buddhist Association)

香港基督教协进会 (Hong Kong Christian Council)

香港孔教团体联会 (Hong Kong Confucian Association) (现为：香港孔教学院)

香港中华回教博爱社 (Hong Kong Chinese Cultural Fraternal Association)

香港天主教教会 (Roman Catholic Church of Hong Kong)

香港道教联合会 (Hong Kong Taoist Association)

另一个问题就是探讨有关首次座谈会会议的日期和举行地点。于是，在筹划小组精细的安排下，第一次的「六宗教领袖座谈会」便于一九七八年六月十六日在香港会议中心召开，为香港的宗教历史创造了不同宗教合作的首页，亦为香港历史打开了中西方宗教领袖对话的新一页。

其后，「六宗教领袖座谈会」每年举办二次会议，由不同宗教的领袖轮流担任「座谈会」主席，会议记录则由该委任秘书负责；会议后的半年(至下次会议)期间所要署理的事务及联络都由该教负责。至于开会地点亦以轮流的方式，到各宗教所安排的场地举行。会议内容的安排则由六宗教领袖各派代表组成的「六宗教联合秘书处」，将各宗教的意愿和期望，在「联合秘书处」的会议中策划与商议，制订会议内容的讨论和程序，再由各宗教领袖核定，方能在「座谈会」作讨论；过去曾讨论过的问题很广泛，如：宗教、社会公义、道德、教育、青年、老人福利、家庭、环保等问题。每年为针对社会的种种需要，更向全香港市民发表一年一度的新年文告。在实践宗教共融的交往上，更举办有益世道的活动，计有宗教青年营、家庭营、慈善步行、植树等活动。同时为了保存宗教间的情谊和尊重，互相参与个别宗教团体的特殊庆典，也支持各宗教的持别庆日，如支持佛诞成为公众假日、孔诞为学校的教师日等。其他还有参与香港回归庆典、致函恭贺香港首任特区首长的当选、庆祝国庆、以及赤立角新机场祈祷室的设计等。

在每次的座谈会和活动中，大家都能保持着互相礼让、互相欣赏、互相尊重的精神，使不同的宗教朋友能共融相聚和交谈，正显示了宗教求真求善求美求圣求和谐的本质。

六宗教领袖座谈会自一九七八年开始至今，已有二十年了。二十年所建立的「友谊」已经根深蒂固，且扎根于真诚的尊重与信任的精神上，更确定了共同目标－－ 为社会的安定和福利作出贡献，更为了消除教与教之间的障碍作出了努力的改善。香港六宗教领袖能跳出自己宗教的框框，以宽容与开放的心与其他宗教领袖交谈结谊，实是历史上罕有的事实。

五. 结语：六宗教同步迈向二十一世纪的新纪元

面对着新纪元的来临，人人都有着新的期望。香港六宗教领袖们二十年来一直关心着教内教外的转变，亦面对着香港的回归祖国和特区的新政策，好能配合时代的挑战给宗教及社会所带来的冲击，作出适当而有益于社会的回应，希望将宗教所关注的「心灵环保」、「人格提升」和「道德的正确理念」融化在社会文化中，希望人人能在困境中自强不息，努力奋斗；在工作中不要存着侥幸心理，贪求不劳而获的利益；在生活中能以宽容走向相亲相爱，使社会享有安宁，世界能呈现和平，人心光明伟大。

倘若香港六宗教领袖欲为新纪元打开幸福之门，实在是任重而道远的，必定要继续保持「有容乃大」及「和为贵」的精神，唤醒人的「自觉」性，在教育上帮助人认清生命的价值与意义，不怕正视社会的种种问题，如：现代化与传统文化的冲突、文明进步不能提高人的生活质素、人与人之疏离、道德伦理的分歧与崩溃、宗教的言行不一等作出剖释与落实地面对，以宗教智慧和勇气回应社会民生的需求，不流于形式上依时依节内部的联谊。既然宗教的精神可以作为社会的良心，唤醒人的生存意识和道德意识，助人发扬人性的精神价值，为社会的发展提供新的方向；六宗教领袖当从过去历史上的纷争得到启迪和觉悟，为香港市民的益处，为香港社会的人权与正义等，作出有具体表现与实质贡献的事，使香港这块土地化作人间净土。

作者：周景勋

摘要
本文为作者在1998年出席台湾中央研究院”中、港、台、澳”二岸四地的近代历史研讨会会议中所宣读的论文。文章内容乃根据历史事实，刻划了自一八四零年至今的近代中国－－中、港、台两岸三地的护动关系，特别是「香港」这一块土地，在两岸三地上所扮演的角色。于是文中所强调的是：同脉相连的中港台两岸三地，大家都是中华民族的子孙，拥有中华文化的五千年瑰宝，究在此时此刻，大家希望中华祖国会变成如何的祖国呢？再者，在同根护动下探索近代中国历史的变化，即从历史悲刻中看到香港是两岸三地护动关系的桥梁。其后更从两岸三地的历史脉络中作另类的反思，以描述两岸三地的实况。在结论中则也能在异中求同，不怕面对改变，好能达到统一的认同，且提出了切诊的方法。

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

　

一. 导言
黄仁宇教授在其《新时代的历史观》一书的结论中，有这样的一段精湛且发人深省的话语：

古人说「继绝世举废国，柔远人，来百工」，虽然免不了自高的语气，却为其他世俗文学里所无，只有宗教的经典里才有类似的说法，尚且未曾说得如是割切。今日中国为着本身之安全和对全人类的贡献，都有继续着此传统精神之必要。可是将这些响亮的名目付诸实施前，台湾海峡的两岸三方务必增强互信。过时的名号可以就此放弃，打破许多不能评议的禁忌。以历史代替意识型态，也就是接收历史的仲裁。

因为每一民族和每一国家，在其发展的过程中，已经用整个民族的血汗，将其文化精髓，每论是好是坏，都刻划成生命的历史，且创造其本身的独特风格；而历史乃整个民族以具体的生活在文化中长期累积而成的，实不容临时制造之凭藉，也不容强权所否定或篡改的。(1)

再者，历史是人心迹的记录，也是人与人共同生活的具体事迹的记录；历史的智慧就是人的智慧，都是活生生具体的事实，不是神秘虚玄的。虽然有些历史学家认为历史不过是一大堆偶然事件和人物的巧合，谁也无法寻觅到一条历史演进的规律作为未来的明鉴；但我却接纳另一些史学家的思想：

历史乃根据历史哲学循序而变的，自有其完整的逻辑系统成为重要的渊源，亦有其事实性的互联系统作为重要的证据。(2)

就是这些重要的渊源和证据提升了历史的价值，唤醒人心底的意识。意识乃是人对自我内心生命状态的瞭解，对自我经验的认知，能分辨出「自我、行为与对象」的价值与意义，好使自我在个别的经验中有着不变的原则，且能维持自我、自我与别人、自我与社会彼此之间有明显的互相连接的关系；于是，每一个活在历史中的人，都有责任地维护历史的确实性，亦参与为历史作监督的判断。(3)现代人对历史的体认不够深刻，对自己的生命历史演进也没有深刻的体认，故未能意识到历史的重要性，更不会明白以历史代替意识型态，(4)也就是接收历史的仲裁。无怪乎先圣贤人为人留下了对历史仲裁的「忧患意识」。

孔子说：

德之不修，学之不讲，闻义不能徙，不善不能改，是吾忧也。(论语．述而)

孟子亦说：

知生于忧患，而死于安乐。(告子下篇)

范仲淹则说：

先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐。

直到今日，我们可以从历史实况中，看到历史智慧的累积，作为前车之鉴，亦能得到思想上的启发，作深堪的反思，以建立美好的家国。反之，人若太过享受逸乐，专权霸道，会趋向颓废与糜烂，便会招致灭亡。

二. 同脉相连的中港台两岸三地
历史告诉我们，中港台两岸三地本是中国不可分割的版图。中国大陆与香港本来就是在同一块土地上；由于中国地大物博，香港这块位于珠江流域的滨海地带，数千年来就是一块没有被注意的边区土地。可是，这块边区土地因满清政府的腐败，让英国政府看在眼中，便随着危害人心人身的鸦片战争，被满清政府放弃了，在不平等的南京条约中将「香港」这块土地割让了，给了英国政府；又在第二次鸦片战争的北京条约中，将九龙割让给英国政府(一八六○年)；又在一八九八年春，英国政府以法国政府租借广州湾为危害香港之理由，要求租借九龙半岛以北的新界地区。如此，香港便在中国的同一块土地上，却被英国所占有，变成英国的殖民地；但生活在香港这块土地上，百分之九十或以上皆是流着中华民族同一血源的中国人。

至于台湾，在地理上乃一海岛，但在经营开发中，几乎都是闽南漳泉人与粤省客家人，皆由中原迁徙而至的。在历史上说，自远古至第十七世纪，台湾与中国已成为一体的关系。我们可从追溯到尚书中所言的「禹贡」中所提及的「岛夷卉服，厥篚织具，厥包橘柚，锡贡」的记事中作引证；又从陈寿的「三国志」及范晔的「后汉书」东夷传中所记载的「夷洲」可明之为现今的台湾。再者，自隋唐至元朝的「流求」时代，期间亦有留仇、流　、　求、或琉球之称。到了明朝，台湾的地位逐渐开朗，不再以「琉球」称之，另以「小琉球」述之，以别于琉球群岛的「大琉球」。期间亦出现过不同的名称：鸡笼山、大鸡笼、北港、东番、台员、大湾、大冤、台湾等不同的名字。最值得一提的乃荷兰侵入台湾，台湾初次沦陷，时为一六二二年(天启二年)的七月。荷兰占据台湾达三十八年，到一六六○年六月十七日(永历十四年)，郑成功初次光复台湾，便更清晰地证实台湾乃属于中国的领土。其后，台湾这块美丽的土地受到列强的侵扰，尤其在十九世纪鸦片战争以后，台湾的危机逐渐地升级，如一八五八年的天津条约已直接地涉及台湾，此时英美法俄四国要求与台湾通商；一八六一年以后，德、荷、丹麦、西班牙等国相继与中国订约，均享有通商之权。由此，台湾与外国的纠纷愈来愈频，如一八六七年的美国商船罗发(Rover)在红头屿冲礁击碎，船长与十三人驾划逃生，在琅　登陆，被龟仔角生番戕害事件等。最忍痛的一次乃是甲午战争中，北洋海军大败，而与日本签订「马关条约」，便将台湾割让给日本，时为一八九四年四月十七日，自此，台湾乃受日本统治达五十一年，至一九四五年日本在第二次世界大战中失败投降为止；台湾在中华民国政府于一九四五年十月二十五日在台北接纳日本的投降，于是台湾又回祖国怀抱。(5)现时的台湾，在中华民国政府的治理下，已是亚洲经济富裕，人民生活稳定的地方。在这块土地上居住的都是中华民族的子孙，也是中华文化的保存地，除了一部份人要求台湾独立自治外，大部份人都盼望着中国能统一。

从历史上肯定，两岸三地的人民生活、经济、政治体系、文化教育都不同，却都流着同一的血源，却因政治的意识型态所束缚着，不能反省历史的教训，只是从推翻帝制的封建社会，但却走入另一个专制的自我独尊的政府，不能活出文化中的「和为贵」与「有容乃大」的民族精神。究竟中华民族的子孙们心底渴求的是怎样的政府？盼望活在什么制度下的国家？两岸三地的中国人是爱中国、爱香港、爱台湾、爱资本、爱共产、爱共产党、爱国民党、爱民进党、爱自由、爱极权专政、爱民主、爱斗争、爱和平……这都是「夹缝想像」，两岸三地的政府都会说：

我们都拥有中华文化的五千年瑰宝，渊源流长；我们的执着和倔强是一份的涵养；我们是礼仪之邦，也是孝道的恩义民族；我们经济富裕，大家都能舒舒服服地享受吃的文化……

就在同脉相连的语气下，分成了两岸三地的不同政府，而美其名为「一国二制」、或「一国三制」……再发展下去，会不会又在「夹缝想像」提出「六点八点」，以至于「一制二国」、「三制二国」；然后，大家都会说：「安定繁荣」、「平稳过渡」、「循序渐进」、「以不变应万变」等等，口号多多，最后的一句永远都是以「回归祖国怀抱」作为结论。究竟是什么祖国？??传统历史文化熏陶下的祖国？党政下的祖国？同一天空下的这块土地的祖国？抑或是中华民族血脉相连相融的祖国？大家心中有一个答案，不必多问了。

三. 从历史悲剧中栽种了同根护动的机缘
从一八四○年的近代中国史实中，我们看到中国在满清政府的腐败下，孕育了中国的种种悲剧，也在悲剧中塑造了以「香港」为桥梁的两岸三地之护动关系。

1. 中国历史中悲剧的序幕
一八四○年一月，英国政府因林则徐禁烟事件，认为这是破坏了通商的法律，故决定对中国用兵；经过二次的北犯，战胜了中国，于一八四二年八月廿九日在英舰高华丽号上签了中国的第一条不平等之南京条约，将香港割让给英国，从始香港的中国人便生活在殖民主义权威下的统治。然而，事实上，英国军队早在一八四一年一月二十六日，已在香港岛西北部登陆，举行了隆重的升旗仪式，宣布占领香港；当时，满清政府向英国宣战，却战败，所以不能有所作为；英国政府更在一八四一年二月一日以统治的姿态，张贴第一张告示：「准许居民有宗教信仰或集会结社的自由」，又在当年六月七日，正式宣布香港为远东第一个自由港，以吸引更多外来的居民，带来资金和劳动力，以凑成香港宝贵的资源；「南京条约」签订后，在一八四三年六月七日砵甸乍爵士(Sir Henry Pottinger Batt)乘炮艇「女王号」抵港，宣誓就职成为第一任香港总督，此时便正式宣布港岛为「香港殖民地」(The Colony of Hong Kong)。(6)

虽然香港割让给英国是中国历史上的悲剧；幸好，在这块殖民地上，由于是自由港，中国人要出入香港都很方便；于是，香港便成为中国大陆广东区沿海人民的避难所，有很多人逃来香港发展。

2. 香港成为辛亥革命成功的护动踏板
从历史的记载得知：领导辛亥革命的同盟会创立于一九○五年八月，期间，孙中山先生是最重要的革命领袖，他的行踪是清政府所不容的。话说回来，孙中山先生在一八九二年毕业于香港西医学院，随后在澳门和广州两地行医，日益关心国家民族的安危，酝酿了反清政治活动。一八九五年，孙中山在香港成立香港兴中会，决定举行武装起义，夺取广州为革命根据地。但起义失败，便在一八九六年流亡海外，是年九月，在伦敦被中国驻英公使逮捕，经过他的老师康德黎(在香港读书时的老师)的营救才得脱险。可见，孙中山先生的革命精神乃在香港读书时渐渐地孕育在心中，一九○五年八月二十日，中国同盟会在东京召开成立大会，会中通过以孙中山先生提出的「驱除鞑虏、恢复中华、建立民国、平均地权」为纲领；其后，孙中山先生在同年的十一月十七日提出了民族、民权、民生的三民主义，作为同盟会领导革命的方向。至于后来在一九一一年四月二十三日所策划的起义，乃是黄兴在香港秘密安排，再到广州作策划。一九一一年四月二十七日，黄花岗起义爆发，黄兴率领党员一百多人攻总督衙门，与水师提督部队相遇，起义失败，这是同盟会的第十次起义。然而，同盟会没有因为失败而放弃理想，于是，在一九一一年十月十日爆发了武昌起义，且获得各省纷纷的响应，两个月内，有十五个省先后宣布成立革命政权，满清政府终于解体，革命党员组织「军政府」，建立「中华民国」，史称「辛亥革命」。是年十二月廿五日，孙中山先生从海外回国，到达上海，十二月廿九日，十七省代表会议，大家通过选举孙中山先生为临时大总统，又议决改用阳历；一九一二年一月一日孙中山先生在南京就任临时大总统，宣告中华民国成立。(7)

虽然，香港是殖民地，但也为中国带来了西方自由的文化，也是革命的后援跳板。及至辛亥命成功，香港的中国人在生活方式和服装上很自然，也很容易地作出改变，在适应上也较容易。

然而，在中华民国成立后的十年中，广州陷于军阀割据与混战的大乱中，民生不安，香港便成为广东一带人民的避难所，发展了两地护动的力量。

3. 香港扮演国共两岸分治的中介与收容所
在第二次世界大战结束后，日本在中国的破坏很多，国民党与共产党皆希望内战亦可以结束，而且在一九四五年的十月十日国共相方却感到需要定下协议，共同为国家的和平而努力，故双方签订了〈双十协定〉，强调了：

坚决避免内战，建设独立，自由和富强的新中国。

可惜，好景不常，双方未能根据协定行事而形成了国共的斗争；于是，内战开始，其结果便是国民政府战败，退守台湾，共产政府在一九四九年十月一日由毛泽东以人民革命军事委员会主席身份，发表中华人民共和国中央人民政府成立公告，向全世界宣布中央人民政府为中国唯一合法政府。

此刻，香港自由港的地位便吸纳了反对共产政权的人，也吸纳了国民政府军来港，在调景岭设立了反共基地；于是，香港便成为两岸的中介。尤其在共产政府下所发起的种种政治斗争的运动，使很多人逃难到香港，特别是五十年代的大逃亡潮，为香港带来了上百万的生产与消费的人口，还有很多教育文化界的学者，他们带动了香港学术界的起步，特别是在中国文化、历史与哲学方面的兴起；也有学者专家来回港台两地作学术交流，如罗香林、钱穆、唐君毅、牟宗三等，现简单地介绍共产政府的十项政治斗争运动于下：

抗美援朝：中共全力支援韩战中的北韩。(一九五○年)

土地改革：乃一场改变农村生产关系(即所有制)的斗争，中共所实行之土地改革所遵循的路线是：「依靠贫雇农、团结中农、孤立富农、消灭地主」；具体的做法是没收地主、富农的土地和财产，分配给贫雇农和中农。改革的时间约为一九四八年至一九五二年间，(北部地区较早，南方地区约一九四九年下半年才开始)。其目的在于提高农民的生产积极性，进行经济改革，实现对农业、手工业和资本主义的工商业的社会主义改造。而在对农业、手工业和私营的商业的社会主义改造，(即三大改造)，是在一九五三年开始于第一个发展国民经济的五年计划，即镇压反革命，土地改革、民主改革、三反五反之后，完成于一九五六年初；其具体做法为在农村成立农业生产合作社；城市之手工业改造为集体所有制、私营商业改造为公私合营的企业。事实上，所谓「三大改造」也是中共继续其生产关系(即所有制)变革的步骤。在城市，则是中共与民族资产阶段的第二次较量。(第一次是三反五反)

镇压反革命份子：对反对共产党及其政权者，特别是未及撒退而留在大陆的原国民党军政人员，实行残酷之镇压措施(即大部份被枪毙)。(一九五○年至一九五二年)

民主改革：为实现社会主义，以确立工人阶段的领导，以工农联盟为基础的人民民主国家政体。(一九五二年至一九五三年)

三反五反：三反乃反贪污、反浪费、反官僚主义，对象乃针对国家机关的工作人员，即政府的公务员；五反则针对资本家而言，就是反行贿。反偷税漏税、反骗窃国家资产、反偷工减科、反盗窃国家经济情报。「三反五反」是中共与城市中之民族资产阶级的第一次较量。(一九五二年至一九五三年)

肃清反革命份子：针对共产党内部的队伍，清查出一批暗藏的敌对份子。(一九五五年)

反右派份子：中共党政府在一九五七年间提出「百花齐放、百家争鸣」方针，号召人民帮助党整风，一些右派份子在鸣放中提出反对共产党领导，和反对走社会主义道路。于是中共发起了全国的进行反右派斗争，其中所针对的人乃文化教育界、科技界、医务界及民主党派等人。(一九五七年至一九五八年)

三面红旗：中共政府提出「鼓足干劲、力争上游，多快好省地建设社会主义」的「总路线」；全国生产出现了「大跃进」，和农村推行的「人民公社」。(一九五八年至一九六二年)

反右倾：主要是党内部的思想肃清，凡不与党思想配合的都被套上右倾的帽子。(一九六四年)

文化大革命：这是中共建国以来最重大的政治运动，目的在于「整党内走资本主义道路的当权派」，乃从「社会主义教育运动」中再出现的大斗争，掀起了轰动世界的无产阶级专政的大革命，斗争甚为激烈，其斗争规模之大包括了文化教育、科技、宗教、政治、经济……等等。

4. 两岸三地的三通问题在香港的中途站上产生护动
国共分治两岸，却不能分隔人民心灵中的亲情互通，于是，香港便肩负了这份互通的中途站，在护动中变成了亲情互通的转运点。所谓三通就是「通邮、通航、通商」。虽然国共分治的两岸至今还未达成三通的协议，但暗地里由香港扮演了凑合三通的角色。究竟何时开始有三通？我们可说自一九四九年国共分治二岸至今，若要明确地说，则由一九七二年中华民国在国际政治上失利而离开联合国席位，中华人民共和国被接纳成为联合国一员起，三通开始频密，尤其是八十年代至今，中共实行经济开放政策后，虽说未能直接三通，三通也算是直接的，究竟何时能两岸直接三通，不必由香港作为护动的转运，相信在不久的将来必能实现。

我们可由香港被不平等条约中割让给英国的悲剧事实作反省：若以神话的思域言之，那一刻根本没有想到中国会产生了国民党和共产党之争，更没有想到两党分别产生中华民国及中华人民共和国，这是同根的分治两岸，而香港则被上苍安排作两岸的护动的中介联络。香港的地位表面上是殖民地，内里却是一个自由港，代表着政治跳板的力量，经济跳板的互通，思想与文化自由的交流，两岸相通的踏板；香港能不能再扮演两岸统一的红丝线(月下老人囊中的赤绳)，就让我们拭目以待吧！

四. 二岸三地历史脉络的另类反思
－－以中国近代历史(1842-1980年)中所引 发的护动所看到的影响为焦点
从一八四二年南京条约中，落实了满清政府将香港割让给英国，到一九一二年孙中山先生领导辛亥革命取得成功，建立了中华民国；其后又历经国共两党的军事及政治斗争，却由于日本侵华导致全民进入八年抗战，形成国共两党暂时的合作；而且到一九四五年八月日本战败无条件投降也保持了合作的景况。其后，国共又再出现大规模的军事冲突，以至席卷全国，直到一九四九年十月一日共产党控制全大陆而成立中华人民共和国，中华民国政权则偏居于台湾、澎湖、马祖、金门地区。自此两岸进入了关闭时期，互不往来；自此，近五十年来，形成了两岸三地的情怀、思想、习惯、及心理与政治意识之差异很大，实在是尽在不言中。

国父孙中山先生领导辛亥革命成功，建立中华民国，乃以三民主义为立国大纲，其思想意识基本上是属于中华民族的道统：儒家思想。加上期间至四十年代，西方物质文明、文化思想和宗教精神传入中国，对国民之心理状态和文化素养有很大的影响，我们可从北平、南京、上海、武汉和广州等大都会的社会现况可见一斑。

不能忽视的一点：满清政府末期之腐败，引致列强入侵；以至民初的军阀混战所导致战祸频凡、民不聊生，社会矛盾之激化而引致马克思主义之入侵。在当时的教育界(尤其是高等学府)、文化界等都是马克思主义的广泛市场。一九一九年之「五四」运动所提倡的新文化运动，虽有其反封建、争民主的一面，但潜在的另一面实是马克思主义之「左派」思潮开始公开地登上中国历史的政治舞台，这是中国共产党极力推崇「五四」运动是中国新民主主义革命之开端的原因；此新民主主义乃有别于孙中山先生领导的旧民主主义的革命(即辛亥革命)和中国资产阶级的革命；共产主义因此而发动日后的无产阶级的革命。

从一九一九年「五四」运动到一九二一年「七一」中国共产党在上海成立，以及一九二七年四月十二日蒋介石取得中国国民党之绝对领导权，发起「清党」命令，在上海发动政变，逮捕和杀死共产党人和工农群众五千多人等，国共便形成决绝关系。其后，一九二七年八月朱德之「南昌起义」，到建立江西井岗山根据地；其后数年，蒋介石发动五次围剿江西井岗山，而导致在一九三四年十月中央红军被迫退出中央革命根据地，实行战略大转移，开始了中外闻名的二万五千里长征，至一九三五年十月到达陕西的吴起镇，中共便另外开辟了陕甘宁边区根据地；直至一九三六年十二月十二日的「西安事变」为契机，国共双方再度合作全面投入抗日战争，期间虽有多次的摩擦和斗争，(如一九四一年一月四日的「皖南事变」，国民党发动第二次反共高潮，在皖南地区包围九千余新四军，大部份的军民牺牲)，但抗日终可获得胜利。抗日战争刚刚结束，国共双方又马不停蹄地进行备战，由东北之争夺 ??辽沉战役开始，便爆发了全面的内战，最后结果便是二岸的分治。

我们再以一九四九年十月一日中华人民共和国成立的时期开始，反省两岸三地的中国人，大家都是中华民族炎黄子孙，但生活在完全不同的社会政治制度之下：共产党的社会主义政权、殖民地政权、国民党的三民主义政权，政治意识、宗教意识和道德意识之不同与分歧是显而易见的，但也互相影响。大陆的共产党政权基本上向全民推行极「左」之所谓社会主义思想教育的政治路线，强调「统一意志」，也强调「集体主义」，这实际是当年德国希特勒的法西斯主义的翻版；在共产政权之初期，此类教育颇有成效，但随着大陆推行大规模政治运动(如抗美援朝、镇反、土改、民主改革、肃反、三反五反、反右派份子、三面红旗、反右倾、文化大革命等。)社会矛盾进一步激化，中共开始借助警察及保甲制度去镇压和控制百姓。至于对香港及台湾之存在认识，乃通过无线电波(香港电台、绿村电台、自由中国之声)及有限度的往来(大陆与台湾的往来几乎是完全隔绝的)。大陆民间颇为向往香港丰足的资本主义社会(对台湾的三民主义制度则颇不了解)，故除了五十年代的逃港潮外，在六十年代初期(一九六○年至一九六二年)及七十年代末八十年代初(一九七九年至一九八一年)，再引发了二次大规模的逃港潮，每次逃港人数皆以拾万人计算。此期间，大陆南方地区及华东沿海地区民间老百姓，甚至共产党之党政内部之所谓「社会主义思想意识」已逐渐淡化，资本主义的意识和物质享乐思想逐渐渗入社会的各阶层。

至于台湾，在七十年代中期，蒋经国实行开放政策，走民主路线，以及推动十大建设，期后更开放党禁，于是在经济上突飞猛进，人民生活富裕，尤其有土地的暴发户增多，虽然与大陆不能有三通的交往，在暗地里却透过香港的护动，已间接地与大陆亲友互通，也在经济上给予很大的支援。

以一九七八年中共十一届三中全会为契机，中共组织部长胡耀邦拋出了：「实践是检验真理之唯一标准」，贬废了华国锋(党主席、总理、军委主席)，一大批被毛泽东打倒的高干及开国元勋得以回朝；其后，邓小平第三次正式复出，高举开放和改革之大旗，推行为拯救共产党衰亡的新政治路线，即所谓「设计有中国特色的社会主义」，强调坚持一党专政、一党独裁，但经济则推向「市场经济」的策略，于是在经验上需要香港作为转运站，亦欢迎台港两地商人回大陆经营；香港便自然地成为台商转入大陆的踏板。

大陆南方地区及华东沿海地区由于自七十年代中已开始受到「港风」的影响，遂逐渐加强「自由经济」及伴随着的自由经济文化之侵入也日渐明显，促使自一九七八年中共实行开放改革以后，这些地区之经济发展特别迅速的原因和效果。目前大陆的社会，特别是较开放的东南沿海各省及城市，受香港之独特资本主义意识的影响颇为广泛和全面，甚至无论在社会、文化、教育以及生活习惯，更甚的连常用的口语等方面，都在模仿香港的做法。

由于台湾方面的开放比较迟，尤其是对大陆的开放皆有条件性的开放，故台湾的文化、教育和社会对大陆的影响要到八十年代中末期才得以加强。饶有趣味的乃是邓丽君的歌曲，在七十年代末已在大陆广为传播，且甚受欢迎，这对于当时大陆仍是流行歌曲之沙漠来说，无疑是一股甘露的滋润，故当时大陆民间有此一传言：「日间是邓小平，夜间是邓丽君」。

近廿年来大陆奉行之改革开放政策，及台湾开放；中、港、台三地在刻划护动的历史意识，以及在经济意识和文化交流的意识上的互动和渗透是明显的。首先是大陆不断地从香港和台湾吸收自由经济的精髓，以及其附属之上层建筑 ??文化、教育和民主、自由的思想体系。香港和台湾也逐渐地了解曾经封闭了卅年的大陆社会之政制架构，及其社会、文化、教育的面貌，特别是其独特的社会主义思想体系之意识型态。加上台湾及香港所保存的传统儒家思想渐渐被大陆的文化智识界所接纳，而且唤醒学术界的文化前辈的重新反省思索，这对于在大陆社会中千千万万被历次政治运动(特别是文化大革命)所扭曲或吓怕了的人性之矫正，肯定发挥了正面的影响。

尽管共产党强调他们是无神论者，其宗教政策是「有信教的自由，但没有传教的自由」。就在开放的廿年以来，大陆人民自身已有或祖传的宗教信仰也由地窟中走出来；加上各类宗教透过不同渠道进入大陆，也给予支援；于是，使原来颇为低调的或在暗地里生存的各类宗教，都能在民间蓬勃的发展。再者，除了传统上已存在中国文化中的道教、佛教和儒教，外来的天主教、基督教、回教外，民间不同的各类宗教(民间宗教)及新兴的宗教都不断地发展，台湾某些新兴宗教或教派亦在福建及广东一带均有一定程度的发展；发源于大陆而传入台湾的民间宗教也回大陆寻根和迎神。虽然，有部份宗教依然屡被取缔，但这些植根人心与发自人心的宗教是无法予以禁绝的。

五. 结论
当我们览观中国历史时，都可发现每一个新朝代新政府上任时，都必定有新的改革，这正是应验了易经所言的「生生之谓易」了；宇宙在变、天在变、地在变，人也在变，一切万事万物皆在变，「变」也就是「改革」吧！

然而，在「变」中，究竟是产生「相合」的变，抑或是「分散」的变；「统一」的变，抑或是「分裂」的变。中国谚语有云：「合久必分，分久必合」，这是一个大道理吧！现今的中国正处于国共的「分」治情况，这个「分」算是「久」抑或「不久」？也有一句话笼括着中国今后动向，也宣扬着继蒋介石、毛泽东后中国长期革命中第三阶段的主题，那就是：「只有改革才是大道理」(8)。 美国记者白修德(Theodore White)在他的书中提出：「中国若不改革，只有灭亡」(9)， 不改革就是不变，不变就不能生生，不能生生，就只有灭亡，实在也是易经的大道理。

因此，在历史的反省中，我们要分辨清楚：「脓头要根除」的意思。也肯定了：若不是脓头，就不必根除，而要好好地护理，不使它受伤而含脓。(10)现今中港台二岸三地的分歧实是共产主义与资本主义的分歧，这些分歧能否截长补短呢？或者，是重要的不在于截长补短，而是要正视背后的真正问题呢？于是，我们可以简单地说：「资本主义为了利润，利用一切价值包装人的欲望；共产主义为了权力，利用一切价值包装人的理想。一个是经济性的异化，一个是政治性的异化。」(11) 如此，人心会失调、历史也会因人心的失调而失调；社会文化也会失调。人心便没有希望，历史也没有希望了。

所以，本文所强调的「同根」，就是要强调中港台的人民都是同出一源的中华民族，有着血脉相连的历史文化，若在血脉中有受伤而含脓，便要忍痛地根除脓头，以保存一体的生命；若中港台有分歧之处，便要以「和为贵」地作出协调，以达到有同一的共识。至于「护动」，则有着两种不同的情况，其一为互相排斥的抗争，这种情况重点放在「动」中。另一则是互相包容的爱护与互相帮助的互动，虽然中港台二岸三地在意识上有不同之处，也能在异中求同，不怕面对改变，好能达到统一的认同，这也是本文的希望。于是，我们尝试提出切诊的方法：

放弃唯我独尊的历史包伏，走向民主的共融，使人人活出自由、平等与博爱的精神；其原则在于「贞定其异，感应其同」与「同则相感，异则相动」，就是要人开放心胸，尤其是当权者；然后不断地寻找生命与政制体系中的相同点，在变中走向同；若有异，则彼此学习。(12)

从历史中吸取经验，保护传统文化的优良点，开创现代化的动力；同时也接收历史的仲裁，使传统与现代化产生互动关系，其内发挥纠正(修正)作用与续程作用，发展互信、自由与开放；就是说，传统可以帮助现代化的发展，现代化可以促成一些传统的复兴。(13) 所以，千万不要破坏历史中的传统文化，让传统文化本身可以再发展下去，吸纳现代化的精华，作出一种互动的交谈。

发展历史性的全人教育，与全民教育，培育新的一代，以开创新纪元。其实，教育的重点在于发展人性，使人人能尽性而行；其次是使人明瞭社会文化的需求，且学习哲学的思考，创新和解决问题等方法。同时，必须加强民主教育，因为民主的真缔是「自由」与「平等」；「自由」与「平等」的基础是「真理」。(14)

懂得在历史中定位，所谓「名实相符」，而不是妄自菲薄。因此，知行合一，言行一致是很重要的。

　

注释
黄仁宇，《新时代的历史观 ??西学为体，中学为团》，台湾　商务　1998年初版　71-74, 58。

王逢吉，《人生之旅 ??绿川随笔精选》，叶强出版社　1988年初版　「历史的心」92-95。

周景勋，《让自己成为自己 ??心灵的追索》，台北　上智　1994年初版三印　128-131。

所谓「意识型态」(ideology)，其意义异常混杂，纷歧含混，扑朔迷离，学者对它的定义和主张很多。故国内有以译名说明之，如译作「主义」、或「意理」、或「观念丛」，亦有音译为「意底牢结」。因为「意识型态」影响了廿世纪人类的思潮，一般以为意识型态是国际间政治对抗的因素；实际上，它的影响广及人类生活的各个层面，他不只存在于政治层面指导政治斗争，甚至跨过界指导人的经济活动，即使在纯学术活动中，也能发挥巨大的影响力。其实，意识型态理论的产生和发展的时间并不很长；首先提出意识型态这个字的人是十八世纪法国唯物论哲学家德拉西(Antvine Claude Destutt de Tracy)。他在一八○二年创用这一名词时，原意是用来表示一种对哲学思想的研究方法，要求以自然科学严密实证的方式，来研究人类的思维活动。他更依据洛克(John Lock)和康第拉克(EB de Condillac)的感觉论观点，说明意识型态(思想、观念、科学)是由三部份组成：一是合理的意识型态、二是生理的意识型态、三是比较的意识型态。然而，在廿世纪，意识型态此一名词又和极权主义信仰相结合，使此名词令人望而生反感。这种视意识型态为可恶反感的情形，在民主国家中，尤其普遍。若就政治层面来说，政治意识型态是一信仰的体系，它为既存的或构想中的社会，解释与辩护为人所喜好的政治秩序，并且为其实提供策略(过程、制度、计划)。政治意识型态包括一套与人性、与社会有关的规范性与经验性的基本命题。这些命题用来解释与辩护人类的情况，及指导与维护人们所喜好的政治秩序之发展。因为它是一种信仰，所以它能引起信仰者的狂热，为了维护其主张，为它牺牲、为它奉献，使他们的生活行动，对反对者予以反击，或设法使之同化。现代学者一般认为：意识型态含有四种组成系统。现以日本学者高桥彻和田中义久两人的说法作介绍：

分析体系：针对现实生活的社会情景，从事科学及客观的分析和判断，建立合理的认识。

价值体系：表明团体的积极且具有创造性存在的理由，指示团体的目标或方向，对于成员灌输神圣的使命感。其内，有一评价的力量，以说明理想价值目标及个人的根本意义。

信仰体系(神话体系)：描绘出一个理想远景，其内含有浓厚的情绪色彩，使人有共同向往的追求意志，而为高度的行动取向。

政治策略：乃根据其理想远景所拟订出来的具体策略，此包含了远程策略和近程的行动步骤。

参阅(1) 陈明仁撰，《先秦儒家价值思想中天人观念和演变》，1991年5月　辅仁大学哲学研究所博士论文　罗光教授指导。
    (2) 斐鲁佝(Lucian W. Pye)，《中共的改革与方励之》，台湾联合报　民77年11月21日三版。
    (3) 巨克毅，《意识型态传播与国家发展》，台湾　正中书局　民76年5月初版　31。
    (4) 思格尔等着(张明贵译)，《意识型态与现代政治》，台湾　桂冠图书公司　民75年　5。

郭廷以，《台湾史事概说》，台湾　正中书局　民43年三月初版。

张月爱，「香港一八四一至一九八○」，《香港与中国》历史文献资料汇编，广角镜出版社　1981年12月版　82-88。

《中国近百年历史图集》，香港天地图书有限公司出版　1979年二版　第八章　辛亥革命　153-201, 687-688

黄仁宇，《新时代的历史观 ??西学为体，中学为团》，台湾　商务　1998年初版　54。

同上，17。

王镇华，《百年中国的反省 ??源头既清，波澜自阔》德简文集(1)，德简书院．觉觉出版社　1992年11月出版　3。

同上，7。

王镇华等，《两岸文化的关怀》，德简书院．觉觉出版社　1993年九月初版　15。

王镇华等，《两岸文化的关怀》，德简书院．觉觉出版社　1993年九月初版　18。

林生传，《新教学理论与策略》，五南图书出版公司　民77年　30-37。

by Fr. Lionel GOH O.F.M.(吴岳清)

“... The Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel... ”
Some Aspects of the Holy Spirit in early Judaism

Abstract
The author analyzes the attitude to the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible, with particular attention to the differences in Pre-exilic and Post-Exilic Israel. Before the exile the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was richer and more extensive, for there were the Prophets who spoke on behalf of God. After the Exile, given the absence of prophecy, there was a difference in attitude to the Holy Spirit but a greater theological openness.

摘要
本文從舊約中分析聖神的看法，尤其是在以色列民充軍前後都有不同。充軍前因為有先知作上主的代言人，故對聖神的看法很豐富也廣闊；在充軍後，因沒有了先知的預言，看法上又有不同，但神學的開放性比較大。

* * * * * * * * * *

　

In Israel’s history, the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 AD) and after marked an interesting development in the understanding of the Holy Spirit. Once considered the divine inspiring force behind the ministry of the prophets, the Spirit was active and common among the Jewish community. In Second Temple Judaism (till the end of the Tannaitic period, i.e. c.300 CE) a flourishing of various ideas regarding the Holy Spirit occured.

The common view is that the Holy Spirit during this period was said to cease. This cessation of the Spirit of prophecy occurred because prophecy had fallen badly into disrepute. The prophet Zechariah in 13:2-6 speaks of the Day of Yahweh when the prophetic ministry will end, possibly because of the abuses of false prophets. Such abuses are recorded as early as the time of Jeremiah (23:11-40). In the Second Temple period, 1Macc 9:27 affirmed the belief that prophecy had ceased. Hence the Holy Spirit, the source of prophecy, is said to have ceased to be active. The tractate Sotah 13:3a in the Tosefta.(1) reiterates this belief: When the latter prophets died, that is, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, then Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel. Interestingly, however, it also adds: ”but even so, they made them (Israel) hear [God] through an echo.

This “echo” or mysterious voice was identified in earliest Judaism as the Bat Kol or “daughter of a voice”. God’s communication with Israel was not totally severed by the absence of the Holy Spirit after the end of prophecy. This Bat Kol was a substitute means of communication. It was a disembodied voice and was so called probably to “avoid saying that men heard the actual voice of God”.(2) A Second Temple period example of the working of the Bat Kol is found in Dan 4:28-29, when a voice from heaven rebuked Nebuchadnezzar. Ancient records preserved in the Tosefta Sotah also tell of the time when the High Priest Yohanan (John Hyrcanus 135-104 BC) heard a Bat Kol in the Holy of Holies announcing the victory of the Jewish young men warring against Antiochus (13.5a). It also tells of a time in 41 AD when the High Priest Simon heard in Aramaic a Bat Kol announcing the death of the Emperor Caligula (13.6).

It is interesting to note that the Gospels record a voice from heaven during the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22) as well as during the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36). What is striking about the Baptismal scene is that the Holy Spirit descends and then the voice speaks. Traditional Judaic belief, on the other hand, is that the Bat Kol speaks only because there is no Holy Spirit. The voice from heaven in Jn 12:28 is inferred from the context to be that of the Father, although in v. 30 Jesus refers to it as simply “this voice” and not “my Father’s voice”, as would have been expected. Judeo-christians accept this voice in the Gospels to be Bat Kol.(3) Acts 9:4 also records a disembodied voice speaking, but this time it is identified with Jesus.

After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Bat Kol was noted to continue to function on several occasions in Judaic history. A gathering of sages in Jamnia to settle a halakhic dispute between the followers of Hillel and Shammai was ultimately settled in favour of the former by the intervention of a Bat Kol. In Jericho, a Bat Kol declared Hillel the Elder to be worthy of receiving the Holy Spirit.(4)

But contrary to this idea that “the Spirit ceased in Israel”, other alternative views of the Holy Spirit of prophecy also exist. These views maintain that the Spirit never really ceased in activity but existed or functioned differently from that of prophecy with which it is traditionally associated.

One such view holds that the Spirit of prophecy was given to a group of persons other than the prophets. This is tersely pronounced by Rabbi Yohanan ben Nappaha (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Baba Bathra 121b) in the late 3rd century CE: Since the destruction of the Temple, the gift of prophecy has been taken away from the prophets and given to fools and children.

No doubt the “Temple” here refers to the Second Temple. That the gift of prophecy was taken away from the prophets was no doubt due to the reasons spelled out above. There is no Bat Kol. The Holy Spirit of prophecy does not cease but is said to be given to fools and children. No doubt this concept drew its inspiration partly from Joel 3:1 and perhaps also from Jeremiah as the “madman” who was the true prophet (Jer 29:26).

Lest it be said that this pronouncement regarding the Spirit of prohecy is dated to the late 3rd century CE, it should be noted that a parallel idea is found in Mt 11:25: I bless you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for hiding these things from the learned and the clever and revealing them to mere children. We may also elicit 1Cor 1:26, where Paul explains the role of the foolish in God’s plans. The essence of the Spirit of prophecy as inherited by fools and children is hence an ancient concept developed before the destruction of the Second Temple.

Yet another Second Temple concept of the Holy Spirit holds that while prophecy is ended, the Holy Spirit now is given to only the virtuous. This seems to be a reaction against unworthy persons who claimed to be prophets. In Wis 1:4-5, we hear of the Holy Spirit of instruction as shunning deceit, and disassociating itself from reckless purpose and iniquity. An interesting fact suggested by the Book of Wisdom is worthy of note: the Spirit is now identified with Wisdom (1:4.6). It does not reside in crafty souls “nor stay in a body that is in debt to sin” (1:4). Wisdom is a spirit and a friend to man (1:6), i.e. the virtuous man. It refuses to pardon the blasphemer. In 7:22-23, Wisdom is described as a spirit with 21 positive attributes. Taking up the concept of spirit as ruah, 7:25 says that Wisdom is a breath of the power of God.

This identification of Wisdom with the Spirit continued after the destructuion of the temple in 70 AD. It functions primarily as an instructor, as the Canticle of Canticle Rabbah (5) notes in 1.8: Rabbi Judan said: It is to teach you that whoever preaches on the Torah in public merits that the Holy Spirit should rest on him. From whom do you learn this? From Solomon; for, because he discoursed on the Torah in public, he earned the privilege that the Holy Spirit rested on him and he composed three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Songs of Songs.

The virtuous here are said to be those who preached or taught the Torah publicly, and the reward for such an act was the gift of the Holy Spirit. In keeping with tradition, the Spirit here is understood to be the inspirer of Holy Scriptures.

This concept of the Holy Spirit as gift is found also in the synoptic Gospels and especially in John’s Gospel. However a major difference is immediately noted. While in the gospels the gift of the Holy Spirit is totally gratuitous, in Judaic literature it is a reward to be merited by virtuous persons. A virtuous life hence is a prerequisite to the attainment of the Holy Spirit.

Rabbi Phinehas ben Jair (2nd century CE) adds an interesting note in his famous “steps of holiness” (Sotah 9.15): (6)  Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, and cleanliness leads to purity, and purity leads to abstinence, and abstinence leads to holiness, and holiness leads to humility, and humility leads to the shunning of sin, and the shunning of sin leads to saintliness, and saintliness leads to the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead. And the resurrection of the dead shall come through Elijah of blessed memory. Amen.

The Holy Spirit is seen as a gift but based on the requisite of saintliness, of a virtuous life wihtout sin. But in turn this Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead. That the Spirit is life-giving is nothing new in ancient Judaism. Genesis presents the creative, life-giving power of the ruah of God. In Ezekiel 37, the role of the Spirit to revive the dry bones is noted, albeit a metaphor for the restoration of the House of Israel. These texts have not been explicit in associating the role of the Holy Spirit with the resurrection. R. Phinehas’ dictum spells out in no uncertain terms the direct relationship between the resurrection of the dead and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Frederic Manns *10* has done extensive research on another view of the Holy Spirit. No longer a gift to prophets, this Spirit is described through the image of water. Based on ancient biblical texts, e.g. Isaiah 32:15-20; 44:3-4; Joel 3:1 etc., it can be seen that, from the Second Temple period onwards, this Spirit-Water functioned to purify people (Qumran), and acted to bring about a virtuous life (not the reward) of justice and integrity. *11* An interesting aspect of the Holy Spirit is associated with the Water Libation Ritual celebrated on the last day of Sukkot (Sukkah 5.4). According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 5.1, 55a) the joy of the participants during this festival was the result of the Holy Spirit. Such joy was possible only when one was inspired by the Spirit. The Spirit-Water image also assumes the other various views of the Holy Spirit mentioned above but always in terms of water.

This cursory look at the many aspects of the Holy Spirit as understood during the Second Temple period and beyond has merely scraped the surface of the prolific literature that merits greater study on this topic: from the Deuterocanonicals and the Apocrypha to the Jewish legends of the Tannaitic period. To those who were disillusioned with the abuses of the false prophets, the Spirit ceased in Israel. No one was found worthy of this gift. To others, more optimistic of God’s fidelity and love for his Chosen People, the Spirit continued to exist though no longer for the purpose of prophecy. Prophecy ceased but the Spirit of joy, wisdom and life continued to be active.

*10* Le Symbole Eau-Esprit dans le Judaisme Ancien. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1983.

*11* Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18, 116-117.

　

Note
Neusner, The Tosefta translated from the Hebrew: Third Division Nashim. New York: Ktav, 1979. All quotations from the Tosefta are taken from this series by Neusner.

G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. 1. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1960. p. 422.

D. H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary. Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992.

Tosefta Sotah 13:3c

Midrash Rabbah. Song of Songs. (H. Freedman & M. Simon eds., M. Simon trans.). London / New York: Soncino, 1983.

The Midrash (H. Danby ed.). London: Oxford Uni.versity Press, 1933.

by Gianni Criveller (柯毅霖)

Trinitarian and Christological Bases for a Christian Theology of Inter-religious Dialogue

Abstract
This article discusses the modern attitude of the Church towards inter-religious dialogue. Especially in the 1980s, the Church had a more open attitude, perceiving the advantages of inter-religious dialogue. Nowadays the attitude tends to be more conservative, stressing rather the dangers in inter-religious dialogue. For this reason, The author approaches a discussion of inter-religious dialogue from the perspectives of a theology of Trinitarian communion and a theology of the Cross of Christ. He hopes that this consideration will facilitate a more open attitude within inter-religious dialogue. He stresses that those engaged in inter-religious need to remember several things. Part of the meaning of the suffering encountered in inter-religious dialogue stems from the fact that, within the dialogue, Christians cannot forfeit their Christian identity. From the perspective of faith, the reason for religious suffering lies in the fact that Christ suffered for us. On a human level, human beings suffer, and therefore there is a need for a liberation of life, and a need to suffer on behalf of those who suffer and are oppressed.

摘要
本篇以天主教圣三论基督论观点来讨论宗教交谈的论文，内容分析了现今教会对宗教交谈的观念，尤其在八十年代，教会的态度比较开放，注意到宗教交谈的好处。现今的教会则比较保守，强调在宗教交谈上的危险。 因此，作者从圣三共融神学和基督十字架神学与宗教交谈上立论，希望为宗教交谈打开一个解放性的态度，也强调在交谈中使人了解到：宗教受苦的意义，故基督徒在宗教交谈上不可失去自己的身份，在信仰上也要明白宗教受苦的原因，因为基督为人受苦，从人的现象上看，人也受苦，因此，需要有生命的解放，也具体地为穷苦者，受迫害者受苦......。

* * * * * * * * * *

　

Part I: The Theological Problem of Inter-religious Dialogue
1. The present-day debate on inter-religious dialogue
Inter-religious dialogue arouses a certain amount of interest in the Church as a whole and in the missionary world in particular. At the same time, it sparks off widely diverse reactions, which can be loosely synthesized in two opposing views. The first sees in dialogue a royal road to relativism, with the risk of undermining not only the absolute value of Christianity but also the need for missionary work and conversion to Christ. A leading Protestant theologian of the present day, E. Jungel, states significantly with regard to dialogue: “I believe that there are many roads which lead to Rome, but few which lead to God. The New Testament tells us there is just one: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”(2)

The second attitude grants to dialogue an enthusiastic reception, not only as a solution but also as a substitute for all missionary endeavors. Those who hold this view include Catholic and Protestant authors such as P. Knitter, R. Pannikar, J. Hick, D. Cupitt, W. C. Smith and others. These authors affirm, though in different ways, the urgency of replacing traditional Christ-centred theology with God-centred or Salvation-centred theology.

P. Knitter states in direct opposition to Jungel: “There are therefore, not just various paths leading to the summit of Mount Fuji, but these paths must criss-cross and learn from one another, if they want to continue on their journey.”(3)Other authors, while taking care not to distance themselves from New Testament Christological positions, propose a thorough revision of traditional Christology. These include among others, H. Kung, A. Pieris, T. Balasuriva, G. M. Soares Prabhu, I. Puthiadam. Catholic Theologians who are from the Asiatic region propose a clear-cut distinction between the Christ of History and the Cosmic Christ. The first is the founder of Christianity and, insofar as he was a historic personage, just one of the many religious prophets, while the second is the ultimate fulfillment of religions, of humanity and of the cosmos.

From what we have briefly mentioned above, it is evident that the Christological question is the central and determining one in this debate. Here it follows the two apparently opposite aspects of the Christological dilemma. On one hand we have the absolute value of the Paschal Kerygma, the impossibility of evincing the mystery of Christ from the collective hopes of humankind and the unique salvific mediation of Christ. On the other hand we have the great esteem and trust in the human religious experience that reveals and mediates the Absolute to human beings.

2. The Church takes an active part in inter-religious dialogue
The Catholic Magisterium has issued several strong pronouncements in favor of dialogue, in particular two documents from the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. The first, issued in 1984, is entitled The attitude of the Church towards the followers of other religions. Reflections and guidelines on Dialogue and Mission. In this document, dialogue is seen, together with evangelization, as a constituent part of the mission of the Church.

The second document, published in 1991, Dialogue and proclamation, Reflections and Guidelines on inter-religious dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, offers mostly explanations of technical terminology. Mission and Evangelization are seen as synonyms embracing the whole ambit of the Church’s action in the world.

According to this second document the Church’s mission of evangelization comprises various activities, including dialogue and proclamation. These two activities are distinct, each possessing its own status and enjoying its own value. Proclamation naturally constitutes the foundation, the center and summit of evangelizing, since the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the aim at which the entire evangelizing mission of the Church is directed. Other religions are viewed in this document with great open-mindedness: their adherents are saved by Christ, not in spite of their religion but through the faithful practice of that religion, and in some wondrous manner, precisely by virtue of that religion (n. 29). According to J. Dupuis, this last affirmation is a theological novelty in the official teaching of the Church.(4)

There were also extraordinary events which one would have deemed impossible of realization until a few years ago, events which marked memorable moments in the field of official dialogue. Let us mention here only some of the most important. The Prayer Meeting at Assisi in 1986; the meeting at Trastevere in October 1996 marking the 10th anniversary of the Assisi meeting; the meeting “Buddhism and Christianity: Points of agreement and disagreement” held at the monastery of Fo Kuang Shan in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, in the summer of 1995, which was organized by Cardinal F. Arinze and the venerable Hsing Yun, the Abbot of the monastery.

The 1986 meeting in Assisi attracted world-wide attention because of its strong symbolic significance and evocative appeal. Through its emotional impact, John Paul II gave a powerful boost to inter-religious dialogue. On 22 December 1986, the Holy Father spoke to the Roman Curia about the Assisi meeting and its spirit, replying to criticisms and quandaries which had arisen within the Church. He expressed himself in words which, in my opinion, are amongst the most significant he has ever spoken on the subject of inter-religious dialogue: “The Church is called upon to work, to the limits of its strength, (including Evangelization, Prayer and Dialogue) to settle the divisions and partitions among men (¼ ). What took place at Assisi can be seen as a clear illustration, a factual lesson, a catechesis understood by all, of what the ecumenical concern and the concern for inter-religious dialogue, both recommended and championed by the Vatican Council, presuppose and signify. The very identity of the Catholic Church and the Church’s knowledge of herself were both strengthened at Assisi. Indeed, the Church, and all of us in the light of that happening, came to understand more clearly the real meaning of the mystery of unity and reconciliation that the Lord has entrusted to us, and which he himself was the first to practice when he offered his life ‘not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God’ (Jn 11:52).”(5)

In this statement of the Holy Father, in his symbolic gestures, and also in the documents of the Secretariat for Dialogue, we notice that an emphasis is now placed on the need for the dialogue, and that dialogue is also defended against criticism and proposed for general practice.

3. Recent misgivings about inter-religious dialogue
Recent expressions of theological opinion on dialogue seem to have slightly changed their tone, becoming more thoughtful and more subdued.(6) See the series of editorials in La Civilta Cattolica under the title “Christianity and other religions,”(7) an article of H. Waldenfels which also appeared in La Civilta Cattolica,(8) and an exacting article of Cardinal Ratzinger.(9) While affirming the good points of inter-religious dialogue, these articles mention also the risks, the difficulties, the dangers and the limits of dialogue, especially when it is motivated by theological suppositions which are a betrayal of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith.

In the worst of the scenarios described by critics, inter-religious dialogue is depicted as a constituent element of religious pluralism and modern syncretist tendencies, a form of modern relativism and the product of the failure of ideological certainties.

4. The theological question of inter-religious dialogue
Is inter-religious dialogue indeed a species of relativism spawned by extreme forms of syncretism such as the New Age? To put this problem in its proper perspective it is necessary to make various distinctions. First of all, we must distinguish between inter-religious dialogue and the theology of religions. Though they are in a certain sense inter-related, they are two entirely different matters. The theology of religions consists in a theological interpretation of other religions; it explains the role they play in the Catholic outlook of the world and its salvation. It is also necessary to distinguish the theological question of the salvation of non-Christians from the theology of inter-religious dialogue.

The theology of inter-religious dialogue must in turn be carefully distinguished from the problems raised by liberation theology, even though some promoters of inter-religious dialogue (such as P. Knitter,(10) A. Pieris and T. Balasuriya) are also proponents of the Asian version of liberation theology. Moreover, the evolution of contemporary Church-consciousness towards inter-religious dialogue is totally unrelated to the collapse of formerly widely held ideologies and the consequent rise of modern day relativism. This evolution commenced, if we wish to fix a date, with the Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam of Paul VI (1964) - the encyclical of dialogue. Most certainly, it was not the aim of this encyclical to establish inter-religious dialogue. From that very moment, however, this new attitude towards other religions, which then developed and matured with the Council, “acquired the name of Dialogue, and from that moment this word, as a name and an ideal, began to be used frequently in the Council and in ecclesiastical speech.”(11)

In order to appreciate the value of inter-religious dialogue it is quite important keep in mind the Church’s first steps in this direction, such as the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam. It is also important to keep alive the memory of the pioneers of dialogue, such as Paul VI and other prominent figures of the Council Vatican II. One should also properly distinguish the specific problems of inter-religious dialogue from those of the theology of non-Christian religions, liberation theology, religious pluralism, and contemporary religious syncretism and relativism. Only after such clear distinctions will one avoid lumbering inter-religious dialogue with problems that are not its own, or accusing it of defects it does not have.

5. Two distinct directions and objectives
Inter-religious dialogue, I think, proceeds simultaneously in two directions, to which correspond two distinct yet complementary aims.

The first aim is fundamental: it takes faith as the starting point and reflects, according to theological principles, on the legitimacy or otherwise of dialogue. This method can be called deductive since it starts from the principles of Christian theology and must remain faithful to these principles. The second aim has to do with content, and has to do with the direct encounter of religions. The theology of dialogue is the arena where Christianity is directly confronted and compared with other religious traditions, and their correspondences, similarities, differences and contrasts are reflected upon. One can also choose one particular aspect of the doctrine of Christian life (such as the transcendence and the uniqueness of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Commandment of Love, morality, rites, monastic life etc.) and, in a comparative study, investigate its affinities with and diversities from other religions.

This second concern of the theology of dialogue evidently requires a certain competence in both areas of reference, Christianity and other religions. It also requires inter-disciplinary work. Hence, the contribution given by sciences such as phenomenology, the philosophy of religious, and cultural anthropology, can offer great help. This last mentioned theological procedure is quite stimulating since it calls for both team-work and field-work and a sharing of concrete experiences. It is a process that may be described as inductive, since it proceeds from the particular, arguing from the plurality of religious experiences.

Both of these procedures have their legitimacy and validity but, as is to be expected, their limits also. The first runs the risk of remaining no more than a premise failing to reach the concrete religions. The second faces the danger of becoming so disperse that it would be incapable of reaching a theological conclusion in accordance with Christian doctrine.

It is in this sphere, then, that missionaries can make a valid contribution, formulating from their experience a global theology, which would have as its method both the praxis of dialogue and reflection upon it.

6. The charism and ministry of dialogue
Although there is much talk about dialogue, some of it alarmist and some favorable, it is my opinion that in reality dialogue is little practiced. My own limited experience in a Taiwan Buddhist monastery is, to the best of my knowledge, almost unique in that island.(12) Yet Taiwan is ideally suited as a place for dialogue, especially with Buddhists. Among the many missionaries with whom I am acquainted in Asia, in areas where almost the whole of the population belongs to other religions, the number of those who have undertaken any significant projects in dialogue is minimal.

While we do not lack good theological and missiological magisterial documents, still there are several open questions for the theology of dialogue. In the first place there is the problem of the relationship between dialogue and mission, and between dialogue and proclamation. In this regard, I believe that the most urgent problem is not that of finding theoretical solutions. Perhaps we shall never reach a solution that will convince all parties. There will always be those who stress the urgency and the originality of proclamation, and those who defend the dignity and the proper status of dialogue. Such being the case, what is needed is not so much theoretical solutions as multiple experiments. When the day comes that the praxis of mission and dialogue is widespread and effective there will be no lack of guidelines, originating from these experiences, to bring about a correct theological approach to the problems. Perhaps what is required is Christians who, in a prophetic manner, live out meaningful experiences of inter-religious dialogue, and are capable of reflecting on them. Dialogue ought to be lived in the Church as a charism, a gift from on high. The actual living out of the charism ought to become a shining lamp for the protagonists of dialogue themselves, for the Church and for the adherents of the religions. In the mission of the Church the charism and the ministry of dialogue must be ever more clearly delineated. There must be those who make dialogue the aim of their service to the Church and their fellows. If that does not come about, no matter how many publications are printed or demands are made, dialogue will always remain no more than an exercise in theological discussion.

With this I do not intend to make any unreasonable claim for the supremacy of praxis. There is still the problem of formulating a theology that will serve as a sure guide for dialogue so that it may be carried out as a charism and a ministry within the Church and thus be well founded in fidelity to the faith.

7. Theology of Dialogue and Theology of the Cross
I mentioned earlier that the greatest stumbling block is the absoluteness of Christ, the Christian paradox: We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (¼ ). I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1Cor 1:23; 2:2). An investigation should be made into the link between Christology (and, in particular, of the most Christological and paradoxical of all theologies, the theology of the Cross) and the theology of inter-religious dialogue. It would seem that the theology of the Cross was for a long time either neglected by the theology of dialogue, or considered only in contrast with it. A link between the theology of the Cross (the bulwark of Christology) and the theology of dialogue is now needed. This would prevent the theology of dialogue from debarring Christology and so, in the long run, emptying the Christian faith of its fundamental mystery. On the other hand it would prevent the theology of the Cross from falling into the “Christological Straits”, an expression used by H. Von Balthasar in his critical synthesis of the thought of K. Barth.(13) In Barth’s interpretation, the catchword ‘solo Christo, sola scriptura, sola fide’ leads inevitably to the elimination of all other religious experiences.

But what kind of link can be forged between the theology of the Cross and the theology of dialogue? This question will be dealt with in part two of this paper.

Part II: Theology of the Cross and theology of inter-religious dialogue
8. Theology of the Cross as Christian Theology
The theology of the Cross can be understood in such a way as to present the Christian message in a one-sided or biased manner. The theology of the Cross, or of the Crucifix or of Christ Crucified and Forsaken,(14) to which I am referring cannot be understood except in conjunction with the resurrection. The centre-point of Christian faith is best expressed in the words of the kerygma of the New Testament: God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:36). The theology of the Cross, as I understand it, moves from the kerygma of the primitive Church. Moreover, the Cross makes known to us the depths of the love of the Trinity(15) so that the theology of the Cross is at the heart of Christian theology.

9. God’s forbearance
The Cross of Jesus makes it impossible to create an image of God that is simply in accordance with our own ideas: No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him (Jn 1: 18). The New Testament bears witness that the revelation of God as Father came about substantively on the Cross. In the Gospel of St. John, the Cross is seen as the glorification of the Father, ‘Abba’ (Jn 17:1-6) as he is called by Jesus. The Christological canticles of Paul (Col 1:15; Eph 1:3) explain further this profound relationship between the crucified Jesus and the Father. God the Father (1Tim 1:2) wishes that everyone be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim 2:4). Indeed the Epistle goes on to say that Jesus Christ gave himself as a ransom for all (1Tim 2:6). Now the universal salvific will of God cannot be considered theologically as anything but efficacious. How should this efficacy be judged? Y. Raguin states: “God in the person of Jesus appeared at a relatively late stage in the history of humankind, at least so it seems to our way of thinking. Every nation had its own patriarchs and prophets. When Christ came among us he did not rush headlong in all directions, as though there was no time to lose. In fact he had ample time, and never gave the impression that the salvation of the world depended on his frantic activity. Yet he was aware that he was bringing salvation.(16) His followers, too, are invited to live their lives and mission with the same sense of freedom and the same gratuitous service. Dialogue is an expression of that gratuitousness and freedom which Jesus first employed. Only God knows the times and the seasons. The document issued by the Secretariat for Non-Christians in 1984 defines the times in which salvation will be efficaciously brought about as “the times of the forbearance of God (... ), since no-one can oblige God to act more hurriedly than He chooses."(17)

The theme of God’s forbearance, which was already figured in the Old Testament, is developed in a special manner by the authors of the New Testament. They take up the theme of God's forbearance and expound it more deeply, in the light of the death and resurrection of Christ. These two events, insofar as they initiate the final stage of human history, are considered the objective towards which the forbearance of God was directed. At the same time, insofar as they mark the beginning of a new era of waiting, they are presented as the starting point of a new manifestation of God’s forbearance.(18)

There are two types New Testament passages which speak of God’s forbearance. Some refer to the period before Christ (Rom 2:3-5; 3:25-16; 9:22-24; 1Pet 3: 9-15). The second type tries to assign a theological value to the delaying of the Parousia. During this period of delay the Lord exercises forbearance, not wishing that any should perish (2Pet 3:9). Therefore, consider the patience of the Lord as salvation (2Pet 3:14). The time of this forbearance is the time of salvation (Cf. 2Pet 3:9-15). Now the fruit of God’s forbearance is that patience which the believer in turn exercises towards all (Cf. 1Thess 5:14). According to Hebrew (6:11-15) patience is the same as faith, the faith exercised during the time until the promise is fulfilled. In the letter of James (5:7-11) patience is depicted as a virtue at the core of Christian life: Be patient therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. You also be patient. (... ) Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered with patience. You have heard of the patience of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because the Lord is compassionate and merciful. In this weighty text of James the forbearance of God is shown as synonymous with mercy and compassion.

The Biblical theme of God’s forbearance sheds special light on theological reflection on inter-religious dialogue. The patience, mercy and compassion shown by God when passing judgment on history and on human affairs, become the patience, mercy and compassion exercised by the believer. Forbearance, therefore, is not a lightweight virtue. On the contrary, it is a virtue which calls for a deep spiritual maturity which enable one to penetrate, so to speak, into God’s own way of thinking. Dialogue, first of all, requires forbearance to enable us to approach the spiritual identity of those with whom we dialogue. Dialogue, to use a powerful and suffered expression coined by P. Monchanin, calls for a geological patience.(19) Patience requires that we die to ourselves, and be detached from our own timetables, deadlines and programs, while awaiting the early and the late rains. Patience means surrounding oneself completely to the Father, the only Lord of history, and the only one who knows the ways of salvation. Indeed, the crucified Christ gives us the most sublime and exemplary manifestation of patience. On the Cross, he renounced his desire to comprehend the mystery, abandoning himself instead to the times and ways decreed by the Father. In a word, the theological value of the patience of God and of the believer is revealed to us in all its fullness by Jesus on the Cross, our supreme model of patience.

10. The Messianic Secret
The ‘messianic secret’ deeply marks the Gospel of Mark. The true identity of Jesus, the meaning of his mission, the value of his words and miracles will be revealed only on the Cross. The signs and words of Jesus are not self revelatory but are only revealed in their time and profound significance at the supreme moment of the crucifixion. Only at that moment is the ‘messianic secret’ made known. It was not made known, however, to the priests and to the scribes (religious officials), to the passers-by (devoted believers on their way to the Holy City for the Passover) nor to the two criminals condemned with him. All these people challenged Jesus to come down from the Cross. A spectacular gesture which would have provided sensational evidence for them to see and believe. They were prisoners of a religious sense based on outward show, on the spectacular, on force, on victory over others. Jesus had rejected that kind of religiosity. The secret was revealed instead to one who officially was not a religious person, to a Roman centurion, a member of a pagan nation. He had witnessed the darkness which descended on Jesus and on the world which had condemned him as a criminal is condemned. This man, a pagan, heard the cry of Jesus forsaken and dying. Then and then only, in the darkness, a prey to helplessness and in the presence of a man who had died alone and forsaken, this unknown soldier from a far distant, pagan and enemy land, proclaimed the wondrous identity of Jesus: Truly this man was the Son of God (Mk 15:39). This is the crowning point of Mark, the first Gospel.

The Messianic secret is revealed sub contraria specie, in a manner precisely contrary to the religious and human expectations of the priests and scribes, the passers-by and the malefactors condemned with Jesus. It was revealed instead to a man who had no part in established religion. Only the Cross, the scandal of the Cross reveals in unexpected ways and to unexpected persons the messianic secret, the true identity of Jesus. Yet Jesus had, over a long period and with meticulous care, prepared his disciples to come to the knowledge of his mystery. In the second part of Mark’s Gospel (and also in Luke) Jesus no longer works miracles. Instead, he concentrates his attention on teaching his little band of disciples in unequivocal tough language. Yet not even they understood the mystery of the Cross. It was not they who revealed the messianic secret.

Reflection on the messianic secret and on the Cross of Jesus seems particularly fitting when interpreting the figure of Jesus in the context of the theology of inter-religious dialogue. It is only through the Cross that Jesus reveals his identity. It is not possible to reduce Jesus to a religious concept, to any abstract interpretative category. Within the scope of the theology of religions and theology of dialogue, it is not only possible and legitimate but also necessary to speak of Christ the Liberator (preacher of the Kingdom, not of himself) with P. Knitter; of the cosmic Christ with R. Pannikar and T. Balasuriya; of Christ the prolepsis of history with W. Pannenberg; of Christ the critical catalyst with H. Kung; and of Christ the Eternal Word (as distinct from Jesus of Nazareth) with C. Molari.(20) Be that as it may, however, we must never distance ourselves from the Cross as the theological center which reveals to us the identity of Jesus. No manner of theological interpretation of Jesus’ identity can ascribe to him any aspect or function which did not have its origin in the scandal of the Cross. This holds good also for a truly Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue. So let it never happen that, while we are pondering wise solutions, the Cross of Christ be emptied of its meaning (1Cor 1:17).

The theological value of the messianic secret revealed in the Cross stands out in clearer relief when considered in conjunction with the patristic concept of seeds of the word. The word seed has a deep biblical significance. In the synoptic gospels, in various parables, the seed is presented as a synonym of the Word (Lk 8:9), and of the kingdom (Mk 4:31). In John (12:20-24), Jesus describes his destiny, using the figure of the grain of wheat or seed, which can only bear fruit if it dies. In the first epistle of Peter (1:25) the immortal seed which regenerates and remains for ever, is nothing other than the word that has been proclaimed to you. In short, the seed of the New Testament signifies, at various times, the Word of God, the Gospel proclaimed, the kingdom of God or Jesus who dies. In all of these examples the seed is considered as potent and active. The smallest of all seeds is destined to become the largest of all plants. The seed (i.e. the Word, the Gospel, the Kingdom, Jesus himself) though small in its origins, is destined to increase to a great size. The inference here is not merely that of a fragment compared with the whole, of a percentage compared with the totality, the particular compared with the total, of one minute coloured plug conferred with the completed mosaic. No! The seed has the intrinsic dynamic force to devolope, to be reborn, to be transformed and to grow into a plant. The generative force of the seed lies in its dying in order to produce fruit, a reproduction which occurs in spite of, or perhaps precisely because of, the gap between life and death. For this reason Jesus foretells the meaning of his forthcoming death and resurrection using the forceful expression of the “fruit-bearing seed.”

The seeds of the Word scattered throughout the world among peoples and religions should be viewed against this New Testament background. They are not scattered fragments to which it would be difficult to assign any theological significance. They are, rather, an entity which has an inner strength of growth and possesses within itself the power of signifying the logic of the Cross, the Word, the Gospel and even Jesus Christ himself. As seeds of the Word, they are seeds of Christ.

The seeds of the Word are not related merely to human religious research. They rather express an authentic Christology in the religions and, in a certain sense, they denote the presence of the mystery of the Cross in all human affairs and in the various religious experiences and traditions. As Jesus imposes the messianic secret in the Gospel, so the seeds of the Word scattered in the non-Christian world take on the characteristics of concealment and secrecy. The seeds of the Word reveal their secret as signs of Christ’s presence only in the light of the Cross and according to the logic of sub contraria specie. Through the Cross, Jesus experienced, in his own person, the scandal of evil: the betrayal of his friends, the perjury of false witnesses, the hypocrisy of his judges, the torture of the soldiery, the injustice of his condemnation, the mockery of the crowds, the pain of crucifixion, the abandonment not only of his followers but even of God, and also loneliness, helplessness, humiliation. There are no human sufferings that cannot be united to the sufferings of Jesus. Through them Jesus revealed, to the utmost degree, the mutual love of the Blessed Trinity when, from the depths of his abandonment, he offered himself to the Father in full and trusting obedience. Giving his life on the Cross to give life to the world just like the Good Shepherd, Jesus manifested in his total self-giving the greatest love that one could possibly conceive. The seeds of the Word are scattered precisely where individual or communities suffer torment yet place complete trust in God, and are capable of making the ultimate gift of themselves. In the light of the above reflections, we find revealed in the last discourse of Jesus before his passion (a discourse on the final judgment, Mt 25:31-46) a wealth of theological and salvific doctrine of which we would otherwise be unaware. Any exegesis of this discourse based merely on natural ethics would not do justice to its dramatic context, nor adequately explain the reasons for the radical conclusions it draws.

11. The Cross’s critique of Religion
At the foot of the Cross the messianic secret is made known by the Roman centurion, a national enemy, an alien to the official religion. According to the Synoptics, at the very moment of Jesus’ death, the veil of the temple was rent in two (Mk 15:38 and parallel verses). Jesus entered into the place reserved to the high priest and opened up the way into the new sanctuary (Heb 9:8), being the first so to enter in (Heb. 10:19-20). The theologians J. Moltmann and P. Coda have conducted more investigation than others into the theme of the Crucified Jesus ‘cast out’ of the Jewish religion. They show how Jesus, overcoming all religious exclusiveness, embraces everyone. He dies as one cursed by God, made to be sin (2Cor 5:21), outside the gate (Heb 13:12), outside the community of God, outside the Holy City, outside the vineyard which is Israel, outside the encampment consecrated by God. In this way, the crucified Jesus concentrates in himself the divine presence freed from the constricting limits of the Jewish religion. It is thanks to him that the dividing wall of enmity (Eph 2:14) between Jews and Greeks was broken down. Thanks also to him, God’s blessing to Abraham was extended to the whole of humankind (Gal 3:14). Thus Jesus succeeds in reaching from the inside all those outside of Israel and outside the visible structure of the Church. Therefore the starting point of the Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue will be that to which the Epistle to the Hebrews invites us: Let us then go to him outside the camp (Heb 13:13). “Let us go towards the Crucified and forsaken Christ who, far from denying and condemning the religions without any right of appeal, makes of these, instead, so many grounds for theological reflection (loci theologici).”(21)

However, we must bear in mind that in the thinking of the authors of the New Testament for the Cross of Christ to be “outside” signifies “outside” of the Jewish religion. It is only in a subsequent manner that the relationship between the Cross and Judaism can be identified with the relationship between the Cross and religions in general. In my opinion there are two reasons why it is legitimate to apply the essential form of the Cross-Judaism relationship to the Cross-religions relationship.

The first reason is based on the New Testament’s unanimous affirmation that the Cross of Jesus reaches out to all people. The many mentioned in the Synoptics (Mt 26:28 and parallel verses) for whom Jesus gives his life are the multitudes, i.e. all peoples.(22) He has tasted death for everyone (Heb 2:9). God handed his son over for us all (Rm 8:32). He gave himself as ransom for all (1Tim 2:5-6). Lifted up on the Cross, Jesus will draw all people to himself (Jn 12:32). This reaching out and drawing all by means of the Cross is certainly not just a manner of speaking. It must rather be seen as something real, actual and effective. This is what a well known deliberation of the Vatican Council affirms: “We must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS n. 22). It would seem to me that the reflection I propose above does not allow a loose interpretation of the Council’s deliberation, one lacking in practical efficacy. Instead it offers an interpretation which reflects the importance and incisiveness of that deliberation.

The second reason I suggest for extending the form of the Cross-Judaism relationship to the Cross-religions relationship is based on my opinion that the theology of the Cross which is presently developing as a product of this reflection calls religion ‘into scrutiny’. The theology of the Cross makes us rethink the faith-religion relationship in a new and dialectical manner. The crucifixion of Christ, who died outside of the established religion, is a dramatic epilogue of Jesus’ long drawn out and persistent critique of religiosity, and of his mortal conflict with the religious (allied with political) authorities. Jesus resists and unmasks that religious piety which too easily degenerates into unwarranted presumption, such as can be seen, for example, in the episode of the woman who was a sinner in Simon’s house (Lk 7:36-50), or in the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector (Lk 18,:9-14). Jesus sternly criticizes religion when it is reduced to hypocrisy and exhibitionism (Mt 6:1-17), into a credulous search for sensationalism prompted by lack of true faith, into the enslavement to personal or social conventions, into a smug legalistic observance which is an end in itself or which, even worse, harms humanity (Mk 7:1-13 and parallel passages), or into a quest for dominance (Cf. Lk 11:46). Jesus goes on to unmask a religiosity which has become an ideology and which, in the name of God and Law, seeks to justify itself, adhering to the letter of the law rather than to its spirit and seeking to wield power over others, while legitimate religious expectations become bigoted and incapable of adapting to new ideas. In a word, Jesus denounces that excessive religiosity which leads to hardening of the heart (Mk 3:5, 12:13; Lk 6:10). In the Gospels Jesus is consistently seen to be on the side of the victims of religion: sinners, publicans, lepers, prostitutes, the sick, the handicapped, the possessed and children. Hardness of heart brings about the rejection and blacklisting of these who should be made welcome, forgiven and loved. The pervading religious outlook and religious structures played a decisive role in this turmoil in which man loses what he holds most dear: love. Jesus did not meet the messianic expectations of his contemporaries. He was different. Passages of the Gospel which describe episodes of criticism, invective and argument between Jesus and religious groups are neither few nor far between. There were painful rifts that, in the space of a few short months, brought about violent attacks on Jesus and led to his execution.

At the present time, too, all religions, whether Christian or not, run the same risk of becoming ideologies which are opposed to the true welfare of the person. How many examples can be found of this in both Christianity and other religions. Even in the 90s religions have too often become vehicles of suffering and death instead of salvation and life. Today in many parts of the world, the groans of those undergoing hardships caused by religion are rising up before the throne of God, as Nicholas of Cusa stated as far back as 400 years ago.(23) However, I am certainly not unaware that religion also has many positive aspects and qualities. But religiousness, since it is a human phenomenon, is ambiguous and may posses negative qualities. The effects of religious ideology may even be aberrant: The time will come when anyone who kills you will think he is doing a holy duty to God (Jn 16:2).

Violence in and of religion is a topic which neither a Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue nor inter-religious dialogue itself can, with any semblance of decency, avoid. In my estimation, it is precisely the theology of the Cross which can offer a contribution which, though uncomfortable at time, goes to the heart of the matter and is indispensable for dialogue between followers of difference religious. The Cross, on which Jesus was hung as an enemy of religion, transcends any religious particularity. At the same time, it reaches out for and attracts to itself all varieties of religion, to judge them and cleanse them. The Cross has the power to distinguish true faith from religious ambiguity.

12. Dialogue at the foot of the Cross
The theology of the Cross extends an open invitation to those who engage in inter-religious dialogue, to overcome their reticence and to abandon their self-assuredness. We cannot hide ourselves behind our religion, while at the same time standing at the foot of the Cross. We are called upon to leave our encampment and to go out to meet Christ (Heb 13:13), and thus avoid seeking the comfort of a religion that tends to become an ideology. Those who engage in dialogue are invited to look on the one whom they have pierced (Jn 19:39). This requires a continual conversion, a courageous change and a humble openness to criticism.

At the foot of the Cross, dialogue becomes a reciprocal evangelization on account of the cleansing of one’s faith and the increase in the sincerity of one’s actions which it promotes. We do not clearly know what will be ultimately achieved by the dialogue between people of different religions which Jesus arouses by drawing everyone to himself. John Paul II suggests the possibility that “the firm belief of the followers of non-Christian religions (... ) might, somehow, put Christians to shame.”(24) At the foot of the Cross no one is a master, but rather all are disciples, whatever religion they may profess, disciples primarily of Christ, but also of one another.

On the Cross, God revealed in the Crucified Jesus his weak aspect, his vulnerability, his decision to show himself sub contraria specie. At the foot of the Cross dialogue too reveals its limits and weaknesses. Inter-religious dialogue often appears to rest on shaky ground, with motivations which are sometimes ambivalent, mutual acquaintance which is scant or even biased, and aims which are not always clearly defined. Dialogue is often dogged by suspicion and fear, both among these inside and those outside the Church. Inside the Church there is a fear of compromising the truth or of starting a gradual descent into syncretism or indifferentism. Adherents of other religions are sometimes unenthusiastic or fail to take part, or have reservations because of the fear that dialogue may be just a method of proselytism updated to suit the times. Significant and successful attempts at dialogue are indeed rare. For the most part, the attempts are timid and the results fitful, not to say, delusory.

Objectively speaking, dialogue encounters dilemmas which seem to have no solution. The chief of these, in my opinion, is the relationship between the necessity of proclaiming Jesus Christ and the very nature of dialogue. Now I am of the belief that in a very important sense there is an irreconcilable divergence between dialogue and proclamation. Inter-religious dialogue cannot shrink from the judgments put forward by the Cross of Christ nor from the judgment which the Cross of Christ lays down. There is a demarcation line beyond which the Crucified Christ can no longer be engaged in dialogue. The scandal and the foolishness of the Cross take precedence over the claims of dialogue. But this does not denote that the dialogue has terminated or that it is an impossible and useless undertaking. It has merely shown its limits, just as all religious activities and theological discussions have their limits. Dialogue is both possible and necessary, because it is not held between abstract systems and religious theories but among flesh and blood believers. These believers, touched and attracted, more or less consciously, by the Cross of Christ, plunge themselves in the daily round of those who share, as Jesus did, the crucified reality of the people.

13. Dialogue of Liberation
In Jesus Christ, God did not merely become man, he became an infant, the son of simple folk. He knew poverty and made common cause with the poor and oppressed. He was humbled and suffered the shame of the Cross. Jesus is indeed the man of sorrows and his Gospel is the Gospel of the suffering.(25) The scourged Jesus, with his face disfigured by blows and by the crown of thorns, is brought out before his tormentors: Behold the man, says Pilate (Jn 19:5). Indeed, in that unsightly face which they behold, and from which men hide their faces (Is 53:3), there is the face of suffering people, of all those on earth who have been crucified. In that face can be seen the sufferings of the whole of humanity. There is no human suffering which has not been united with Christ crucified, nor is there any human suffering which has not been borne by him. Jesus makes common cause also with those who throughout the course of history have been, so to speak, nailed to the Cross. On that Cross, all disparities between human beings vanish. On the Cross, Christ achieved to the full what he had chosen as his aim in life: to announce the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind and to let the oppressed go free (Lk 4:18-19).

At the present time, to follow Jesus bearing our cross means to make the same choice that Jesus made, to throw in our lot with those who, like Jesus, are humbled, downtrodden and put to death. The face of the Crucified One is seen today in those who are nailed to the Cross with Christ, for in the sufferings of those lowly ones Christ is present. It is also certain that even those who have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of Christ (Lord, when did we see you hungry¼ cf. Mt 25:3-46) encounter Christ when they show love for the poor and solidarity with the needy, and are judged by Christ with encomium (Crux omnia probat). For it is the crucified Jesus who passes judgement on each one‘s responsibility in one’s dealings with the world, and in one‘s cooperation in evil and in the unspeakable sufferings of so many human beings. It is the Crucifix which brings us face to face with the fearful consequences of sin, of pride, of injustice and of power. The suffering now inflicted on a great part of humanity may, at times, be no less devastating than that borne by Christ himself.

While suffering, on the one hand, reveals the reality of the Cross of Christ and his continuing solidarity with the crucified ones, on the other hand it seems to constitute the overriding problem of humankind and religions alike. Inter-religious dialogue, which does not confront this challenge, and does not heed the cry of the crucified ones nor stand shoulder to shoulder with the poor and downtrodden, is a dialogue that is tragically flawed. It is not even theo-logical nor, for a Christian, is it authentic in its Christianity. The theology of the Cross prevents inter-religious dialogue from becoming merely academic, inconclusive and wrapped up in itself. Instead, the theology of the Cross points out the common ground of inter-religious dialogue in solidarity with the crucified, which will become the theological meeting point for common concerns. In the face of suffering, dialogue is no longer a mere discussion, nor even a summit meeting of religious authorities, but a practical commitment undertaken together as a sign of hope for the liberation of people.

Pope John Paul II himself has stated that “the human person is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission. We are not dealing with the human person in the abstract, but with the real, concrete, historical human person. We are dealing with each and every human person, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption.”(26) The inter-religious dialogue that the Holy Father calls for does not aim at doctrinal convergence nor at solutions based on religious syncretism or indifferentism, which he decisively rejects. It aims rather at mutual understanding, respect and esteem which will lead to combined efforts for justice and peace and worldwide reconciliation. The aim of the Assisi meeting - and of those which followed it - was peace, and, whenever he meets followers of other religions, the Holy Father promotes common efforts for the good of humankind.

In this respect liberation theology makes a valuable contribution. It shows that salvation history becomes a concrete reality in the liberation of the people. It expresses the concerns and the engagement of local churches as they come together with people who are struggling for deliverance. Liberation theology and the theology of dialogue make common cause insofar as they demonstrate different aspects of the evangelizing mission of the Church. They collaborate more closely in Asia where they address the fundamental challenges which confront the Asian peoples: poverty and religions.(27) It should be noted that nowadays less is being said about liberation theology, even though the Holy Father himself has stated that this theology is not only legitimate, but even necessary. Unfortunately, less is being said also of the poor and of the Church of the poor. Since communist ideology has ignominiously failed, and Marxist philosophy can no longer defile the minds of Christians who struggle for justice, it is to be hoped that liberation theology will reacquire its dignity and importance in the efforts of all believers to bring about justice and peace. This should be done in conjunction with the believers of all religions and all men and women of good will who have at heart the well-being of humankind.

14. Christ Crucified and the Holy Spirit
At times, in the course of theological debate on inter-religious dialogue, we tend to assign to the Holy Spirit all-embracing attributes, with no barriers or restrictions. This raises the risk of losing theological understanding of the Holy Spirit, who then becomes so abstract and indeterminate that anything may be attributed to him. I shall now try to show the strong bonds which unite the Spirit with Christ: Pneumatology united with Christology and particularly with the theology of the Cross.

In the Gospel of John we read that Jesus on the Cross bowed his head and yielded up the spirit (Jn 19:30). The use of the Greek word paredoken is unusual. It is not used in any other Greek text to denote the idea of expiring. The Synoptics themselves use more common words. According to exegetes, “in using such an unfamiliar word to announce the death of Jesus, John intends to tell us that Jesus’ death had the effect of granting the Holy Spirit to the Community.”(28)

In St. John’s account of the death of Jesus (Jn 19:34), there is another allusion to the Holy Spirit: a soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. The water is a symbol of the Spirit and recalls the words of Jesus (Jn 7:38-39): Whoever believes in me, as scripture says, Rivers of living water will flow from within him! He said this in reference to the Spirit which those who came to believe in Him were to receive. There was of course, no spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. The moment of glory in John’s Gospel is the moment of the Cross and Resurrection. The true outpouring of the Spirit was the work of Jesus crucified and risen again. The Spirit comes with the breathing of the risen Christ, and our thoughts turn to the Cross from which flowed forth the water of the Spirit. If the outpouring of the Spirit began from the Cross, the Spirit is radically bound up with the death of Jesus, and bears the signs of the paschal mystery.

A further reflection leads us to the conclusion that the action of the Holy Spirit is the same as that of Jesus on the Cross. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit the Comforter was pre-announced by Jesus during the Last Supper on two occasions.

The first is Jn 15:26-27: When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. And you also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning. The Holy Spirit Paraclete, sent not to the world but to the disciples, is called upon to take part as a crucial witness in that great trial between Jesus and the world, which forms the background against which the whole life of Jesus is set. This trial leads to the condemnation of the world and to the exaltation of Jesus on the Cross. The Spirit’s role is to testify to the fickleness of the world and to help in safeguarding the faith of the disciples.

A little later, John returns to the same theme: It is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Paraclete will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation (Jn 16:7-8). Here again we see that the role of the Spirit in this great trial, which is contested in the full light of human history, is to bear witness for Jesus against the world by revealing the world’s guilt, its empty pride and its inconsistency. Exegetes have difficulty in clearly defining the terms: sin, righteousness and condemnation. But it is clear that the presence of the Spirit in the process corroborates what was achieved on the Cross: the triumph of Jesus and the exposure of the falsity and injustice of the world which obstinately rejects him. The work of the Spirit is carried on in total continuity with the work of justice and judgement achieved on the Cross. Later statements in John’s Gospel do no more than confirm the perfect communion between Jesus and the Spirit. The teaching of the Spirit will be that of Jesus, who will not speak on his own, but will speak what he hears (16:13-15). Moreover the subject of the Spirit’s teaching will be Jesus: He will glorify me, because he will take from me what is mine and declare it to you (Jn 16:14). Finally, the Spirit will guide the disciples to and into the fullness of truth (Jn 16:13). This, according to B. Maggioni, is the exact meaning of the Greek expression hodogesei eis: towards and into the fullness of truth. According to exegetes, in this revelation of the Holy Spirit we do not look for new truths, but for a progressive deepening of our knowledge by working from the exterior towards the interior, into the centre which is Jesus.

This analysis of the role of the Holy Spirit does not intend to exhaust all the aspects that may be developed in Biblical or Johannine Pneumatology. What is intended here is to establish the point that the Holy Spirit’s role is never separated from that of the crucified and risen Christ. There can be no divergence or alternativity between Logos and Spirit, as some theologians of inter-religious dialogue would seem to suggest.(29) Opinions which consider the Holy Spirit as engaged in a role that either distances him from the role of Jesus, or is mutually exclusive of the role of Jesus crucified, or in which attempts are made gradually to abandon the concrete, historical fact of the Cross of Jesus in favour of a cosmic view of Christ, are all definitely groundless. On the contrary, it is precisely the Holy Spirit, who was gifted to us from Christ’s death on the Cross, who guarantees the identity between the crucified Jesus and the risen Jesus, between the crucified Jesus and Christ Pantocrator. “When the Holy Spirit leads us onwards it is always, in effect, a leading us back to Jesus.”(30)

We should always bear in mind the intimate link between Jesus and the Spirit when, in the light of the same Holy Spirit, we read of the signs which foreshadow the Gospel (preparatio evangelica). These signs may be the influence of the Spirit on the founders of religions, on the drawing up of the sacred texts of the various religious, and also on the prayer experiences and schools of prayer in the various religious traditions. The Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the non-Christian religious world, not in spite of Christ, but exactly starting from the crucified and risen Christ, and in sight of him.

The salvation which, even in the non- Christian world, comes as a gift through the mediation of Christ, finds “the transcendental-theological condition for its realization”(31) in a theology which conceives the Holy Spirit as a gift of Christ crucified and risen. The special bond between the Spirit and the crucified Jesus suggests that there is an additional route through which salvation can reach every single human being. “It is the history of suffering in the world. Ever since the Cross of Christ was first raised on earth there has been no human suffering which has not in some measure been touched by the Holy Spirit and united with Christ’s Cross.”(32)

Even prayer as part of inter-religious dialogue must be subjected to scrutiny. Is it right to pray together? How should we pray? When organizing the Assisi meeting - and other meetings which followed -, this problem was raised. The Spirit comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groaning. And the one who searches the heart knows the intentions of the Spirit for the Spirit intercedes for the holy ones according to God‘s will ” (Rom 8: 26-27). I am of the opinion that no other passage from Scripture sheds greater light than this on the question of prayer in inter-religious dialogue. The Holy Spirit himself urges us to adopt an attitude of trust. Notwithstanding our dullness of understanding and uncertainly, during our prayers the Holy Spirit may awaken certain words and desires that not even we ourselves can fully comprehend but that are nevertheless the work of the Holy Spirit. It is quite right, therefore, that prayer should be considered one of the foremost experiences of inter-religious dialogue. It may, moreover, be said that, so far, the principal experiences of inter-religious meetings have been prayers in common for peace.

We can, furthermore, without hesitation, pinpoint the moment of prayer in common as a goal in the meetings of the followers of the various religions. Their reciprocal dialogue is the fruit of that dialogue which together they establish with God under the assistant and unutterable action of the Spirit. Prayer guarantees that the nature of the dialogue is spiritual, and prevents it from becoming an instrument of power and predominance over others. And it is, in all probability, thanks to the unsuspected fruits of our weak and spasmodic prayer, bolstered by the Spirit who searches the heart, that God’s designs may, somehow, lighten the path of believers, since all things work together for the good for those who love God (Rom 8:28).

15. Three brief thoughts in conclusion
The reflections presented above lead to the consideration that, when participating in an inter-religious dialogue, there must be no relinquishing nor deflating of one’s personal identity. Such a manner of acting could give rise to a sense of personal insecurity and even of insecurity regarding what one has to offer. It could even result in an inability to receive fully what others offer. Dialogue presupposes humility and a deep awareness of one’s own faith.

Christ crucified is not an inconvenient and embarrassing obstacle to be overcome by ridding ourselves of Christ-centred theologies. On the contrary, while revealing to us the Triune face of God, the crucified Lord also reveals clearly the foundation, the terms of reference and the objectives of our dialogue with people of all religions. The theology of the Cross declares unequivocally that the doctrine of the Triune God cannot be pared down. God is God and the human is the human. This bears out the conviction that, for the purpose of engaging in dialogue, it is by no means necessary to betray one’s faith, nor to hold it in abeyance, nor to consider it as having merely a relative and not an absolute value. Instead, it is necessary to acknowledge humbly that the ways of God toward humankind are not always known and understood by humanity.

Concern for the afflicted, for the liberation of the poor and for reconciliation among people is the principal aim of inter-religious dialogue at the present time. The spiritual nature of dialogue is highlighted and safeguarded by prayer is common.