requires the intra-textualism of the New Criticism) “may be true of Frei’s early work, but is not an accurate description of Frei’s work as a whole” (39). Still other misunderstandings can be blocked by attending to secondary literature that develops Frei’s own positions (for instance, Werpehowski, DeHart, and Schwartzentruber on “ad hoc” “rather than ‘systematic’ apologetics,” 2). But most of Shin’s book is devoted to his own careful reading of Frei’s books and articles. There is no space here to give more than a taste of Shin’s careful arguments about Frei’s hermeneutics (part I), his christology (part II), and his theological method (part III). Shin argues persuasively that Frei’s scriptural hermeneutics came to center less on the literary genre of narrative (important as that remained) than on the church’s concrete practices of using Scripture centered on Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ’s unsubstitutable identity is public in a way that enables the church to receive enrichment from the world even as it engages the world in witness and service, including “a carefully circumscribed progressive politics” (94). Frei’s theological method is embedded in a concrete academy akin to Schleiermacher’s nineteenth-century University of Berlin, where professional education (including clerical training) and rigorous academic training coexisted in an “orderly eclecticism” (104), permitting and requiring theology to engage not only the academic publics of philosophy and history but also and even primarily literary studies and the social sciences. On all three scores (biblical hermeneutics, christology, and theological method) Shin’s book will provide novices to Frei’s theology a clear and careful commentary. Even long-time (or, if you prefer, older) readers like myself will find new insights throughout Shin’s readings of Frei. Shin proposes that “Frei’s position is perched somewhere between Barth and Schleiermacher” (131). This will surprise those who identify Frei with (usually wooden readings of) Barth, but Shin makes a strong case for this reading, at least on the methodological issues he discusses in the last part of his book. But should this really surprise? After all, Schleiermacher, Barth, and Frei were all Reformed Christians. But this raises a question: In what sense is a church divided Greek and Latin, Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Reformed, and others a single “public”? Shin’s book puts us in an excellent position to extend Frei’s reflections into these issues, ecclesiological and eventually trinitarian.

中文翻译：

---

追求朴实的灵性：CS刘易斯和化身信仰

需要新批评的内部文本主义）“可能适用于弗雷的早期作品，但不是对弗雷作品整体的准确描述”（39）。还有一些误解可以通过关注发展 Frei 自己立场的二级文献来阻止（例如，Werpehowski、DeHart 和 Schwartzentruber 关于“特别的”“而不是“系统的”护教学，2）。但申的大部分书都致力于他自己对弗雷的书籍和文章的仔细阅读。这里没有什么空间可以提供更多的味道，只是品尝 Shin 关于弗雷的诠释学（第一部分）、他的基督论（第二部分）和他的神学方法（第三部分）的仔细论证。Shin 很有说服力地论证说，Frei 的圣经诠释学不再以叙事的文学体裁为中心（重要的是仍然存在），而是教会使用以耶稣基督为中心的圣经的具体实践。耶稣基督不可替代的身份以某种方式公开，使教会能够从世界获得丰富，即使它让世界参与见证和服务，包括“谨慎限制的进步政治”（94）。Frei 的神学方法嵌入在类似于 Schleiermacher 的 19 世纪柏林大学的具体学院中，在那里专业教育（包括文书培训）和严格的学术培训以“有序的折衷主义”并存（104），允许和要求神学不仅涉及哲学和历史的学术公众，而且甚至主要涉及文学研究和社会科学。在所有三个方面（圣经诠释学、基督论和神学方法），申的书将为弗莱神学的新手提供清晰而细致的评论。即使是像我这样的老读者（或者，如果你愿意，也可以是年长的）读者也会在 Shin 对 Frei 的阅读中找到新的见解。Shin 提出“Frei 的位置介于 Barth 和 Schleiermacher 之间”（131）。这会让那些认为弗莱与（通常是对巴特的木读）感到惊讶的人感到惊讶，但申为这种解读提供了强有力的理由，至少在他书的最后一部分讨论的方法论问题上。但这真的应该令人惊讶吗？毕竟，施莱尔马赫、巴特、和弗莱都是改革宗基督徒。但这提出了一个问题：在什么意义上，一个教会分为希腊和拉丁，天主教和新教，路德教和改革宗，以及其他单一的“公众”？Shin 的书让我们处于一个很好的位置，可以将 Frei 的反思扩展到这些问题上，包括教会论的和最终的三位一体论。