（按上圖或按此免費下載）

撮要

本文質疑利用敘事作為護教策略，以滿足現代主義要求的做法，認為這並不可行。作者對以敘事作神學反省的做法，抱審慎認可的態度。敘事本身只是帶有基督教認信的文學體裁，而非神學基礎，「敘事神學」這描述的缺點是誇大了敘事的重要性，甚至比上帝還重要。作者強調故事的概念及分析層面，不同意把基督教宣信還原為普遍經驗，因這忽略了基督信仰的真實性，他更質疑是否應以敘事護教。作者舉麥堅泰的例子，指出他後期仍以傳統概念取代了敘事概念。另一方面，作者同意米爾班克的說法，認為敘事是比解釋或理解更基本的種類，因為這顯示著我們對真實的理解，而不單顯示出對自我的認識。總的來說，作者肯定敘事的神學及形而上意義，認為這從現代主義來說仍是有效的。

ABSTRACT

The aim of this article is to argue against the use of narrative as an apologetic strategy in fulfilling the demand of modernity. The author offers a critical appreciation of the use of narrative for theological reflection. Narrative is by itself not the foundation of theology, but a literary type conveying Christian convictions. The disadvantage of the description “narrative theology” is exaggerating the importance of narrative rather than God. The author emphasizes the conceptual and analytical dimension of stories. He disagrees the reduction of Christian claims into general experience in which the truthfulness of Christian faith is being neglected. He questions the use of narrative for apologetical purpose. He uses Alasdair Maclntyre as an example that the concept of narrative is replaced by tradition in the later stage. On the other hand, he agrees with John Milbank that narrative is a more basic category than either explanation or understanding, because narrative reveals not only our self-understanding, but also the understanding of reality. In conclusion, he affirms that the theological and metaphysical claims of narratives are still valid for modernity.

Abstract by Benedict H. Kwok

原載於《建道學刊》21期（2004年1月），頁1-17。