評估柯瑞福的神學方法論和權能轉移觀／廖炳堂

撮要

作為一個世界性的宗教運動，靈恩第三波的內在醫治有一個很不健康的現象，就是各內在醫治者各師各法，百花齊放。時至今日，不同人士進行着不同版本的内在醫治。很多內在醫治者都未會清楚交代其神學或理論基礎，不少理念都很零碎和片面，柯瑞福是罕有可以較全面交代他的神學理論基礎的內在醫治者。

和很多靈恩第三波的領袖一樣，柯瑞福不斷強調自己是「福音派」的宣教學者，但我們認為他已偏離了福音派的神學基礎：他否定「文法一歷史」釋經而提倡「新詮釋學」，否定「唯獨聖經」而提倡「經驗神學」，他對救恩歷史作為人超自然本質和能力之復原的教導，缺乏重要之基督教釋經書或系統神學著作的支持。他在建構他的神學方法和權能轉移觀的過程中，並沒有和福音派神學有認真的互動和回應。他宣稱他的理論是靈界的科學，但研究和方法抽樣並未達到社會科學一般客觀性和代表性的要求。因此我們認為他的觀點只屬引發研究命題的研究初始階段，仍必須接受嚴謹和全面的神學和科學的討論及檢定。我們認為他以此基礎向普世推廣這事工，在神學和牧養上並不是負責任的表現。靈恩第三波若要真正長遠成為教會的祝福而非咒詛，必須盡快在釋經及神學上建立認真研究的氛圍。

ABSTRACT

As a worldwide religious movement, the Inner Healing Movement of the Third Wave (or called Neocharismatics) has an unhealthy aspect that different healers adopt different versions of inner healing concepts in their practice, some of which are quite piecemeal or fragmented. Charles Kraft is one of the few practitioners who can articulate his theological views more comprehensively.

Like many Third Wave leaders, Kraft often emphasizes that he is an Evangelical missiologist. Yet we found that his views have deviated in many ways from traditional Evangelical theological foundation: he rejects the grammatical-historical exegesis and accepts the New Hermeneutics, and he rejects the scripture-only principle but adopts an empirical approach to theology. He regards salvation as a restoration of the supernatural nature and power of humankind, but this view finds little support from major works of Evangelical Bible Commentaries or systematic theologies. When he develops his theological method and formulates his theory of “Power Transferal & Restoration,” we found that he has just very limited interactions with Evangelical theological writings.

Although he claims that his teaching is “a science of Spiritual realm,” we found that his methodology and sampling cannot meet the basic social scientific requirement in objectivity and representativeness. We think that his study is just at a very early stage of hypothesis generation that requires much theological and scientific discussion and evaluation. Yet he is earnest in promoting inner healing ministry globally in spite of such a weak and controversial theoretical foundation. We do not consider this as a responsible act both theologically and pastorally. If the Third Wave leaders really want the movement to become a blessing rather than a curse to the church, they have to be more serious in exegetical and theological studies.

原載於《建道學刊》33期（2010年1月），頁111-138。