在芝加哥大學任教多年的天主教神學家特雷西（David Tracy，1939–）精於探討學術思潮，同時又以神職人員身份在大學長期任教，本文探討他在長期面對神學研究的學術性挑戰處境下所發展出來的神學思想方法，從而學習這對神學研究的學術性挑戰可帶來的啟發。特雷西主張神學是公共論述，提出神學必須面對三種公共空間：社會、學院與教會。早期著作呈現出思考精密的系統性，後來轉向多元與含混而發展後期三部曲，這迄今難以完成的後期三部曲寫作計畫反映了其後現代思想方式，他以「碎片」概念主張宗教傳統在分化與分裂的過程中不必是一面鏡子，而具有眾多獨特個體的多元特質。不過神學視野寬廣的特雷西還是努力處理兩極張力以涵蓋對立觀點，其中包括包容與排他、絕對與相對、現今與終末、會遇交融與若即若離，他致力於以一種「神秘─先知式」神學整合「彰顯特質」與「宣揚特質」兩種宗教型態，亦即「神秘式」與「先知式」兩種宗教傳統。特雷西的神學思想方法提醒了當神學研究面對學術挑戰時，在主觀投入的信仰前提與客觀抽離的學術要求之間，在強調信仰體驗的獻身熱忱與重視學術形式的規範檢驗之間，應力求平衡發展。當面對不同的公共空間而形成神學時，特雷西強調神學是公共論述，重視「實踐」（praxis）的重要性，有許多地方可供神學研究者學習之處。然而，他對於神學方法的專精與重視卻可能導致過份強調方法的副作用，以致減低神學寫作之創意與冒險的勇氣。

Catholic theologian David Tracy taught at Chicago University for many
years, and presented an example of mastering academic trends while
keeping his identity as a Catholic father. This paper will explore Tracy’s
theological method within his challenging academic context, with the aim
of learning how to deal with the academic challenge for theological study.
Tracy argues that theology, as public discourse, must face three
publics: society, academy and church. In his earlier period, he offered
precise and systematic characters throughout his early trilogy. Yet in
his later period, as he developed his later trilogy, he moved toward
pluralism and ambiguity. The delay in the completion of his second trilogy
reflected his adoption of a postmodern way of thought. Now he stresses
the concept of the fragment, meaning that a religious tradition need not
be a mirror in the process of differentiation and division; rather, what
remains are many pluralistic characters of many unique individuals.
Tracy’s theology has a broad scope of concern. His approach
deals with the tension between two poles in order to include opposing
positions, such as inclusiveness and exclusiveness, absoluteness and
relativity, now and end, participation and distanciation. He argues for
a mystical-prophetic theology in order to integrate a mystical religious
type of manifestation with a prophetic religious type of proclamation.
From Tracy’s theological method we can learn how to balance the presupposition of subjective faith and the requirement of objective
academic research, the passion of religious experience and the standard of
academic formality. In the context of the academic challenge to theological study, this is a vital issue. While doing theology in three different publics,what we learn from Tracy’s theological method is that theology as public discourse must emphasize the significance of praxis. Yet his focus on methodology may induce a side effect: decreasing the courage to engage in creativity or to embark on the adventure of theological writing.