本文的目的是在「漢語神學」運動於華人神學界普受重視的情境 下，再思處境化神學的定位。本文將處境化神學與「漢語神學」作一 比較，反思處境化神學的正當性，其理據和方法，並兼回應「漢語神 學」對處境化神學的一些批判。 本文先比較「處境化」與「本色化」神學在概念上之區隔。後者 較重與傳統文化的結合，前者則著重當代的處境，並與所在社群認同， 一同面對未來。本文也比較處境化神學與劉小楓所倡議的「漢語神學」 在神學場域、表述主體及表述對象等三方面的不同。在這三方面，處 境化神學都比「漢語神學」更廣，也更連結於教會。 繼而本文說明處境化神學之正當性與必要性，指出所有神學都是 在某種文化處境中發展的神學，都可說是處境化神學。本文提出道成 肉身及聖靈的差遣與啟示，作為處境化神學的理據。本文指出處境就 是一指涉網絡（network of reference）。道成肉身是道進入世界，進 入指涉網絡，進入具體文化處境中。而神學要將上帝的道表述出來， 也必然要在文化處境中領受上帝的道，並向文化處境中的人表述上帝 的道。聖靈是差遣的聖靈，是他在道成肉身與道進入文化的上帝行動 中，一次又一次地將道開展到新的文化處境中。同時聖靈也是啟示的 靈，讓人在處境中領受真道成為可能，讓一代又一代的門徒，在他們 的文化處境中，體悟聖道更新的意義。本文指出處境化神學的努力有 翻譯、適應、吸納、實踐與體悟等不同的層面。 最後本文回應曾慶豹教授從「漢語神學」的立場對處境化神學所 發出的質疑，並對劉小楓的「漢語神學」作一些評論。

This paper seeks to rethink contextual theology in light of the popularity of Sino-Christian theology in Chinese theological discussions. This paper first defines “contextual theology” in comparison to the more outdated term “indigenized theology.” It then explains the necessity of contextual theology, analyzes its method, and differentiates the idea of contextual theology from that of Sino-Christian theology. It will be shown that the contextual theology has a wider context and is more church–related than the Sino-Christian theology proposed by Liu Xiaofeng. The doctrines of incarnation and the work of the Holy Spirit are examined as two reasons for contextual theology. It is argued that if the Word of God is incarnated into a cultural context in order to be revealed to us, then the church as the body of Christ is obliged to bring the Word continuously into other cultures in a way that the Word is made meaningful to them. If it was by the Holy Spirit that God sent Christ and the apostles into the world, we can then expect that by the Holy Spirit too God will empower the church to bring the Word into new contexts in the world. If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of revelation, then it should be affirmed that the Holy Spirit can help people receive the Word as it really is in the new contexts. It will also be argued that the Holy Spirit of revelation will bring new insights to the church in the new contexts. This paper also analyzes the method of contextual theology, numerating the issues of translation, adaption, assumption, practice, and existential understanding as major steps for contextual theology. Finally, this paper will respond to a criticism brought about by Ken-Pa Chin, and will comment on Liu Xiaofeng’s Sino-Christian theology.