This special issue of Modern Theology gathers together full research essays that were first presented, in summary form, at the 2021 online conference Theological Genealogies of Modernity. For both the original event and now this collection, theological genealogies of modernity serves as a term of art referring to any complex, broad-sweep narrative account of the rise of a modern Western cultural order that highlights theology's role within that process. The conference organizers deliberately employed the term in a capacious sense out of a desire to find a rubric under which to include a range of narratives and disciplinary perspectives on them. Defined broadly, the terminology extends both to stories celebrating the Enlightenment for bringing about progress and also to narratives stressing the need constantly to recur to a pre-modern cultural synthesis from which people today should continue to receive instruction. Of course, this simplistic distinction deserves to be challenged, and several of the essays here contest this stark division of options. The overall aim of the inquiry into genealogies is to help theologians understand how these narratives work, regardless of which account is attractive to them, so that they may develop a well-informed position on how (and even whether) to employ them.

Suppose that we define theologians inclusively as those who speak about God. Theologians assume different stances on genealogies. Marcus Borg invokes a common story about modern progress by claiming that during the previous two centuries historical scholars have learned that the picture of Jesus emerging from the ecumenical councils of the church does not actually match up well with the life and ministry of Jesus himself, but instead is the work of the early Christian movement in the years following his death.1 Advances in historical research supersede prior understandings, no matter how firmly ensconced ecclesial tradition has become. By contrast, John Milbank argues that Christians must take their cue from a medieval participatory ontology in order properly to conceive the identity of Jesus.2 Failing to see the relevance of this ontology entails starting with another set of fundamental commitments, ones that from the outset undermine offering a non-identical repetition of what the classical creeds say about who Jesus is. Borg and Milbank employ substantively different genealogies, but each one uses a single story that conforms, more or less, to a recognizable type—progress in the first case and declension in the second, at least in the eyes of its critics. Other theologians blend these options together. Georges Florovsky, for example, works with a complicated combination of narratives. On the one hand, he insists that all Christian theology should trace itself back to the fathers of the church, who articulated the deposit of faith. Contemporary constructive theological reflection requires strict fidelity to a synthesis of patristic thought; anything else counts as defection from this standard. On the other hand, Florovsky values modern historicism and other forms of thought that were not elements of the patristic synthesis. Only by a sleight of hand is he able to mingle together a declension narrative and his appreciation for the fruit of progress.3 It is also possible to find arguments for being wary of any whole genealogy and, instead, limiting oneself to gleaning insights from several of them. Joel Rasmussen reads Søren Kierkegaard as casting suspicion on any attempt to take the measure of ourselves, the whole of recent history, and our place within it, without ideology infecting these evaluations. The best strategy, in light of these problems, is to select insights from a plurality of approaches that perpetually vie with each other.

Whether theologians employ a single genealogy, whether they use multiple stories, or whether they are suspicious of any story on such a grand scale, they can hardly avoid taking some stance on genealogies of modernity. Therefore, theologians should think through the issues these accounts raise and how to deal with them. This work is worth undertaking because theologians need to make recourse to one or more genealogies in the process of sustaining their substantive claims. Those who incline toward a progress narrative press it into service to explain how entrenched traditions block the future trajectory of research and must be resisted for this reason. Those working with a decline narrative, or something like it, need a way to explain why their theological claims are not immediately believable to many in the world today, although they had greater subscription in a previous period. Those who combine stories feel pulled in both directions at once and attempt a synthesis of genealogies. And, finally, those wary of being drawn into the orbit of any large story still end up taking a position on topics they address, such as religion's role in the modern world. In one form or another, genealogical discourse is entangled in the theological task. It therefore profits theologians to consider how best to navigate such stories. That was a working hypothesis behind the Theological Genealogies of Modernity conference and remains a premise of this special issue.

There are several features of these accounts, however, that make them challenging to handle skillfully. Perhaps the most obvious difficulty is their massive scope. They are indeed grand narratives, spanning whole epochs and rendering interpretive judgments upon them. As Richard Cross fittingly comments in his blistering polemic against the way Radically Orthodox theologians read Duns Scotus, “A grand narrative of this nature is dependent upon some—probably all—of the smaller stories that compose it. That some, and probably all, of these stories are truthful is necessary for the truthfulness of the analysis as a whole—for the truthfulness of the grand narrative.”4 Is it even possible for those who employ such narratives to know enough about all that they contain for their knowledge to be genuinely secure? Cross argues that while Radical Orthodoxy takes Scotus to be proposing a metaphysic when he says that the concept of being is univocal to God and creatures, he intends merely to advance a semantic theory. It would be easy for a reader of Cross's critique to feel that if the leading lights of Radical Orthodoxy are off base about Duns Scotus, then perhaps not only have they rushed in where angels fear to tread, but it would be foolhardy for anyone to lean heavily on a genealogy. Maybe caution should be the rule instead. Being wary regarding grand narratives appears to constitute the only way to avoid exposing oneself to perpetual vulnerability. One of the constituent essays in this collection responds constructively to this challenge, as discussed below. But for now, the point is simply to note that this difficulty attends grand genealogical narratives. Large-scale narrative accounts are also challenging to handle insofar as they contain a variety of material. While many major on intellectual history and refer to a wide range of primary texts, others bring within their purview material culture and social factors as well. A final challenge to handling genealogies well is that they raise fundamental questions of epistemology. Do genealogies force the theologian to choose between either a problematizing approach to knowledge (Nietzsche) or a tradition-informed stance (Aristotle)? Or is it preferable to bring these two together somehow? In this collection, Joel Rasmussen explores these questions in dialogue with Kierkegaard's corpus.

Theologians face these challenges, yet standard academic arrangements throw an obstacle in the way of addressing them effectively. Due to the breadth of genealogies, it would be ideal to discuss them in an interdisciplinary setting. Theologians would profit from conversing with historians, philosophers, and literary scholars. But because academic fields are typically isolated from one another in ways that inhibit communication and cooperation between specialized areas, the sort of discussions that theological genealogies inherently deserve seldom take place. It was for this reason that the conference included practitioners with an array of expertise. As readers of their respective essays can see, both Brad Gregory and Peter Harrison bring specialist skills as historians from which theologians can glean much. Several of our contributors have knowledge of philosophy. While Thomas Pfau did not contribute an essay to this collection, his skills as a literary scholar were on display at the conference itself when he engaged in a discussion of Kierkegaard with Joel Rasmussen.5

A welcome trend in recent work on genealogies is that the discussion is diversifying. Many standard points of reference continue to receive discussion at present, but they now stand alongside more efforts to speak about and from the perspective of previously marginalized communities. The conversation about such accounts is rightly expanding to include new voices, some of which are challenging well-ensconced genealogical practices in order to create opportunities to be heard. This is evident in the essay on “Genderealogy: Erasure and Repair” within this special issue. Its authors, Christine Helmer and Ruth Jackson Ravenscroft, argue that raising the profile of women within genealogies requires a deep reconception of human agency itself. Likewise, Ragnar M. Bergem ends his essay with an appreciative assessment of two major texts on the role of race and religion in the formation of modern Western culture. It is to the benefit of the present discussion that it is less dominated by figures from a single demographic.

本期《现代神学》特刊汇集了在 2021 年在线会议“现代性神学谱系”上首次以摘要形式发表的完整研究论文。无论是最初的事件还是现在的这本合集，现代性的神学谱系作为一个艺术术语，指的是对现代西方文化秩序的兴起进行的任何复杂的、广泛的叙述，强调神学在这一过程中的作用。会议组织者故意在广泛的意义上使用这个术语，因为他们希望找到一个标题来包含一系列叙述和学科观点。从广义上讲，这个术语既包括庆祝启蒙运动带来进步的故事，也包括强调需要不断回归前现代文化综合体的叙述，今天的人们应该继续从中接受指导。当然，这种简单化的区分值得挑战，这里的几篇文章对这种明显的选择划分提出了质疑。

假设我们将神学家定义为包容性的那些谈论上帝的人。神学家对家谱持有不同的立场。马库斯·博格引用了一个关于现代进步的常见故事，声称在过去的两个世纪中，历史学者已经了解到，耶稣从教会普世议会中出现的画面实际上与耶稣本人的生活和事工并不相符，但是相反，这是他死后几年里早期基督教运动的成果。1无论教会传统变得多么牢固，历史研究的进步都取代了先前的理解。相比之下，约翰·米尔班克认为，基督徒必须从中世纪的参与本体论中得到启发，才能正确地理解耶稣的身份。2 未能看到这一本体论的相关性就需要从另一组基本承诺开始，这些承诺从一开始就破坏了对经典信条关于耶稣是谁的说法的不同重复。博格和米尔班克采用了本质上不同的谱系，但每个故事都使用了一个或多或少符合可识别类型的故事——第一种情况是进步，第二种情况是衰落，至少在批评者看来是这样。其他神学家将这些选项混合在一起。例如，乔治·弗洛洛夫斯基（Georges Florovsky）的作品是复杂的叙事组合。一方面，他坚持认为所有基督教神学都应该追溯到教会的教父，他们阐明了信仰的沉淀。当代建设性的神学反思需要严格忠实于教父思想的综合。任何其他行为均视为背离此标准。另一方面，弗洛洛夫斯基重视现代历史主义和其他不属于教父综合要素的思想形式。只有通过巧妙的手法，他才能将词尾变化的叙述和他对进步成果的欣赏结合在一起。3也可以找到对任何整个谱系保持警惕的论点，相反，将自己限制在从几个谱系中收集见解。其中。乔尔·拉斯穆森（Joel Rasmussen）认为索伦·克尔凯郭尔（Søren Kierkegaard）对任何衡量我们自己、整个近代历史以及我们在其中的地位的尝试表示怀疑，而这些评估不受意识形态的影响。鉴于这些问题，最好的策略是

无论神学家使用单一的家谱，无论他们使用多个故事，或者他们是否对如此宏大的故事持怀疑态度，他们都难免会采取一些对现代性谱系的立场。因此，神学家应该思考这些叙述所提出的问题以及如何处理它们。这项工作值得开展，因为神学家在维持其实质性主张的过程中需要求助于一个或多个家谱。那些倾向于进步叙事的人将其用于解释根深蒂固的传统如何阻碍未来的研究轨迹，因此必须受到抵制。那些研究衰落叙事或类似事物的人需要一种方法来解释为什么他们的神学主张不能立即被当今世界上的许多人所相信，尽管他们在前一个时期有更多的订阅。那些将故事结合起来的人会感到同时被拉向两个方向，并试图综合家谱。最后，那些担心被卷入任何大故事轨道的人最终仍然会在他们所讨论的主题上采取立场，例如宗教在现代世界中的作用。家谱话语以某种形式与神学任务纠缠在一起。因此，考虑如何最好地驾驭这些故事对神学家来说是有利的。这是现代性神学谱系会议背后的一个工作假设，并且仍然是本期特刊的前提。

然而，这些账户有几个特点，使得它们难以熟练处理。也许最明显的困难是其巨大的范围。它们确实是宏大的叙事，跨越了整个时代并对其做出了解释性判断。正如理查德·克罗斯（Richard Cross）在他对激进正统神学家阅读邓斯·司各脱（Duns Scotus）方式的激烈争论中恰如其分地评论道：“这种性质的宏大叙事依赖于组成它的一些（可能是全部）较小的故事。这些故事中的一些（也许是全部）是真实的，这对于整个分析的真实性——对于宏大叙事的真实性来说是必要的。4 对于那些采用此类叙述的人来说，是否有可能充分了解其中所包含的一切，从而使他们的知识真正安全？克罗斯认为，当司各脱说存在的概念对于上帝和受造物来说是单义的时，激进正统认为他提出了一种形而上学，但他只想提出一种语义理论。阅读克罗斯批评的读者很容易感觉到，如果激进正统派的领军人物对邓斯·司各脱的看法是错误的，那么也许他们不仅冲进了天使不敢涉足的地方，而且任何人的倾向都是鲁莽的。严重依赖家谱。也许谨慎应该成为规则。对宏大叙事保持警惕似乎是避免让自己永远暴露在脆弱之中的唯一方法。本集的一篇组成文章对这一挑战做出了建设性的回应，如下所述。但就目前而言，重点只是要指出，这种困难存在于宏大的家谱叙事中。大规模的叙述性叙述也具有挑战性，因为它们包含各种各样的材料。虽然许多人主修思想史并参考广泛的原始文本，但其他人也将物质文化和社会因素纳入其研究范围内。妥善处理家谱的最后一个挑战是它们提出了认识论的基本问题。谱系是否迫使神学家在问题化的知识方法（尼采）和基于传统的立场（亚里士多德）之间做出选择？或者以某种方式将这两者结合在一起更好？在这个集合中，

神学家面临这些挑战，但标准的学术安排为有效解决这些挑战设置了障碍。由于家谱的广度，在跨学科的环境中讨论它们是理想的。神学家可以从与历史学家、哲学家和文学学者的对话中获益。但由于学术领域通常彼此隔离，阻碍了专业领域之间的交流与合作，因此神学谱系本质上值得进行的讨论很少发生。正是由于这个原因，这次会议包括了具有一系列专业知识的从业者。正如各自文章的读者所看到的那样，布拉德·格雷戈里和彼得·哈里森都带来了历史学家的专业技能，神学家可以从中学到很多东西。我们的一些贡献者具有哲学知识。虽然托马斯·普福（Thomas Pfau）没有为该文集撰写文章，但当他与乔尔·拉斯穆森（Joel Rasmussen）讨论克尔凯郭尔（Kierkegaard）时，他作为文学学者的技能在会议上得到了展示。5

最近的家谱研究中一个值得欢迎的趋势是讨论的多样化。目前，许多标准参考点继续受到讨论，但现在它们与更多的努力一起从以前被边缘化的社区的角度进行讨论。关于此类帐户的讨论正在正确地扩大到包括新的声音，其中一些声音正在挑战严密的家谱实践，以创造被听到的机会。这在本期特刊的“性别学：擦除与修复”文章中显而易见。该书的作者克里斯汀·赫尔默（Christine Helmer）和露丝·杰克逊·拉文斯克罗夫特（Ruth Jackson Ravenscroft）认为，提高女性在谱系中的地位需要对人类能动性本身进行深刻的重新认识。同样，拉格纳·M. 贝尔格姆在文章的结尾对关于种族和宗教在现代西方文化形成中的作用的两篇主要文本进行了赞赏性评估。对当前讨论的好处是，它较少由单一人口统计数据主导。