史密斯所提議的宗教神學，並非處理專門、單一的宗教議題，也非分項式的 主題陳述，而是全方位的新典範建構，如當代知名的基督教神學家希克(John Hick)
所言，「史氏藉由解構一個宗教(a religion)的概念，遂使〔我們〕更容易看出世界
人類宗教性(human religiousness)的連續性甚至是合一。」59即因為如此，在解構 與建構的過程中，史氏的宗教神學蘊含豐富的問題意識，觸及宗教的歷史、現況、
定義、內涵、認知、詮釋、檢證等複雜層面，加以他的遣詞用字艱澀獨特，行文 特色在以情說服重於邏輯析辯，歧義與誤解遂在所難免。為釐清之故，本文以下 據「宗教的定義與內容」以及「宗教的範疇與詮釋」兩子題再申論其宗教神學的 引伸含意，並援引其他學者以及個人的意見評述之。
一、宗教的定義與內容
史密斯對於「宗教」的理解，明顯地傾向唯心的、抽象的形上思考。他在論 述「宗教」時，將其區分為「信心」與「積累傳統」兩領域，而在提出「批判的、
群體的自我意識」時，我們亦可清楚認知他以人、傳統、特定的生存環境、超越
55 Wilfred C. Smith (1981). Towards a World Theology. pp.100-103; (1959). Comparative Religion:
Whither—and Why, pp.141-142. 另外亦參考 Edward J. Hughes (1986). Wilfred Cantwell Smith: A Theology for the World. London: SCM Press Ltd., pp.165-173.
56 Wilfred C. Smith (1979). Faith and Belie. p.171.
57 Wilfred C. Smith (1981). Towards a World Theology. p.186.
58 Ibid., p.125.
59 John Hick (1992). On Wilfred Cantwell Smith: His Place in the Study of Religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 4(1)-4(2), p.9.
實體(transcendent reality)作為宗教構成四要素的原因所在。60但是實質上，史氏 的宗教基本理念是人類對「神聖激發下的回應」(a response to a divine initiative)。
61此意味著他的「宗教」有一假設前提，即人秉天賦機能，能感知神聖亦能適時
60 Wilfred C. Smith (1981). Towards a World Theology. p.26.
61 Ibid., p.30.
62 Kenneth Cracknell (2001). Introductory Essay, in idem, (ed.). Wilfred Cantwell Smith: A Reader.
p.14.
63 Wilfred C. Smith (1981). Towards a World Theology. pp.180-187.
64 Philip C. Almond (1983). Wilfred Cantwell Smith as Theologian of Religion, p.304; Donald Wiebe (1992). On the Transformation of ‘Belief’ and the Domestication of ‘Faith’ in the Academic Study of Religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 4(1)-4(2), pp.47-67.
(theology)作為統整世界宗教歷史的形上架構，不過究其實對大部分的宗教而
65 有關此二重要的宗教主題，可參考 Ninian Smart (2005). Soteriology, in Encyclopedia of Religion,(ed.).Lindsay Jones. Detroit: Thomson Gale, vol.12, pp.8526-30; Kenneth Surin, Liberation, also in Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.8, pp.5435-5438; Peter Slater (1982). Review Essay: Three Views of Christianity. The Journal of American Academy of Religion, L (1), pp.97-100.
66 有關此一見解，參考 Langdon Gilkey (1981). A theological voyage with Wilfred Cantwell Smith.
Religious Studies Review, 7(4), p.303.
67 Wilfred C. Smith (1979). Faith and Belief. pp.1-8.
68 Wilfred C. Smith (1963). The Meaning and End of Religion. p.47; Kenneth Cracknell (2001).
Introductory Essay, pp.10-13.
69 S. Mark Heim (1995). Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. pp.
53-70.
及描述其內容時，為張綱舉目、以約御繁之故，無可避免地選擇最適當的條目或
70 Edward J. Hughes (1992). Wilfred Cantwell Smith and the perennial philosophy. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 4(1)-4(2), pp. 29-37.
71 Wilfred C. Smith (1981). Towards a World Theology. pp.67-68.
72 Ibid., p.87.
73 Ibid., p.189.
74 Frank Whaling (1986). Introductory Essay, in idem, ed., The World’s Religious Traditions: Current Perspectives in Religious Studies. New York: Crossroad, p.12.
教現象學者所處理的宗教，舉凡顯現於感官現象界(what appears)、可捕捉者皆是
研究資料，其範疇涵蓋更為廣泛。75史氏心儀的世界宗教社群參與者，皆是具有
高深的知識程度並企求精神超越的各傳統菁英，例如他認為具有代表性的下列五 位：基督教的聖維多(Hugh of St. Victor, ob. 1142)、猶太教詩人猶大•哈•理維(Judah ha-Levi, ca. 1080-1141)、伊斯蘭經學家嘎札理(Ghazzali, 1058-1111)、印度哲學家 Manifestation, 2 vols, tr. J. E. Turner. Gloucester: Peter Smith, esp. vol. 2, pp. 671-694; Mircea Eliade (1974). Patterns in Comparative Religion, tr. Rosemary Sheed. N. Y.: New American Library, pp.1-33.
76 Wilfred C. Smith (1979). Faith and Belief. p.159.
77 Ibid., pp.160-172.
78 Kenneth Surin (1990). Towards a ‘Materialist’ Critique of ‘Religious Pluralism:’ Examination of the Discourse of John Hick and Wilfred Cantwell Smith, in Religious Pluralism and Unbelief: Studies Critical and Comparative, (ed.) Ian Hamnett. London and New York: Routledge, pp.114-129; idem (1990). A ‘Politics of Speech:’ Religious Pluralism in the Age of the McDonald’s Hamburger, in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. (ed.) Gavin D’Costa. New York: Maryknoll, pp.192-212.
79 Langdon Gilkey (1981). A Theological Voyage with Wilfred Cantwell Smith, p.304.
遍」與「特殊」之間並非彼此對立，而是彼此依存、相互辯證，如此方成就世界 意義下，「信仰」之用詞「去自然化了宗教生活」(to denature the religious life)，
以其代表或等同於「宗教」其實至為不妥。80另一方面，史氏認為「信心」是一
80 Wilfred C. Smith, Faith and Belief, pp.142-151.
81 Ibid., p.33.
82 Ibid., pp.39-40.
83 Ibid., pp.129-142.
方面的領會而非可具體指陳的物或數量，在人的認知運作過程中，是一個難以定 Religion: a Response to W. C. Smith. Numen, vol. xxvi (2), pp.234-249; Eric Sharpe (1973).
Dialogue and faith. Religion, 3, pp.89-105.
85 Peter Slater (1982). Review Essay: Three Views of Christianity, pp.99-100.
86 有關「宗教」是否適合成為有效的認知與研究範疇之討論，可參考 Robert D. Baird (1971).
Category Formation and the History of Religions. The Hague: Mouton, pp.14-16,126-133.
87 Wilfred C. Smith (1981). Towards a World Theology. p.78; Wilfred C. Smith (1976). Objectivity and the Humane Sciences: a New Proposal, p.180.
要求認知者與被認知的對象之間不存距離，且需彼此委身投入、互為主體。在史
88 Bård Maeland (2003). Rewarding Encounters, p.24.
89 S. Mark Heim (1995). Salvations, p.56.
90 Wilfred C. Smith (1981). Towards a World Theology, pp. 67, 87; idem, Faith and Belief, p. 7.
91 Richard M. Frank (1986). Ambiguities of Understanding. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 106(2), pp. 313-321.
92 Gerard Loughlin (1992). Review essay: Towards a Theology of Religion (Glyn Richards) and Towards a World Theology (Wilfred C. Smith). The Heythrop Journal, 33(10), pp.209-212.
93 Wilfred C. Smith (1980). Belief: a Reply to a Response. Numen, xxvii (2), pp.247-255.