下面是将你刚才那一节完整改写为《Systematic Theology》期刊可接受的学术文体的版本。
我已刻意做到：去口语、去护教学情绪、去“内部术语感”，
可直接作为论文中的 Section X.X 使用。
X.X. The Structured Theological Control Mechanism Governing “Inner Meaning”
1. Clarifying the Charge of Subjectivism
Critiques of 李常受’s concept of “inner meaning” frequently rest on the assumption that any interpretive move beyond the grammatical–historical sense necessarily entails allegorical subjectivism. Such critiques, however, rarely examine the internal regulatory architecture of Lee’s theological system. This section argues that “inner meaning” operates within a highly structured theological control mechanism, which substantially constrains interpretive freedom and systematically resists subjectivist drift.
In methodological terms, a hermeneutical framework may be considered non-subjectivist if it demonstrates:
(1) principled constraint,
(2) structural coherence, and
(3) verifiable outcomes.
Lee’s approach satisfies all three conditions through a multilayered system of theological regulation.
2. Christological Centralization as Primary Control
At the core of Lee’s interpretive method lies a rigorously enforced Christological centralization. Inner meaning is not permitted to function as a symbolic surplus detached from Christological reality. Rather, all interpretive significance must be reducible to Christ as life, reality, and corporate expression.
This Christological reduction principle functions as a primary control mechanism. Interpretations that yield moral generalities, psychological analogies, or abstract symbolism without a direct Christological referent are rendered illegitimate within the system. Consequently, the range of acceptable interpretations is not expanded but significantly narrowed.
From a systematic perspective, this mechanism aligns inner meaning with classical Christocentric hermeneutics while intensifying its regulatory force.
3. Economy-Wide Coherence as Systemic Constraint
A second layer of regulation is imposed by Lee’s insistence on economy-wide coherence. Scripture is interpreted not as a collection of discrete theological loci, but as a unified economy oriented toward a determinate telos: the production of a corporate expression of Christ culminating in eschatological consummation.
Inner meaning must therefore cohere not only with local textual considerations but also with the macro-structure of divine economy. Interpretations that are locally persuasive yet globally disruptive—i.e., those that fracture the narrative unity of God’s redemptive purpose—are excluded.
This coherence requirement functions analogously to systematic theology’s demand for doctrinal non-contradiction, though applied teleologically rather than propositionally.
4. Stratified Revelation and the Prevention of Interpretive Short-Circuiting
Lee further regulates interpretation through a stratified understanding of revelation. Distinct yet ordered layers—textual form, doctrinal articulation, inner meaning, experiential reality, and constitutive transformation—are clearly differentiated.
Crucially, no intermediate layer is permitted to function as a terminus. An interpretation that absolutizes doctrinal clarity without advancing toward experiential and constitutive realization is deemed methodologically incomplete. Conversely, experiential claims that bypass textual and doctrinal mediation are rejected as illegitimate.
This stratification prevents both rationalist arrest and experiential short-circuiting, preserving a disciplined progression within the interpretive process.
5. Ecclesial Telos as Anti-Individualistic Regulation
A decisive control mechanism is Lee’s ecclesiological telos. Inner meaning is validated not at the level of individual insight but at the level of corporate constitution. Interpretations are assessed by their capacity to contribute to the building up of the church as the Body of Christ.
This ecclesial orientation structurally excludes privatized spirituality. Interpretive claims that cannot be integrated into communal life, mutual edification, and corporate formation lack standing within the system. In this respect, Lee’s hermeneutic is anti-individualistic by design rather than by exhortation.
6. Constitutive Verification and Performative Objectivity
Unlike approaches that verify interpretation primarily through propositional coherence, Lee employs what may be termed constitutive verification. Inner meaning is confirmed by its capacity to effect durable transformation—personal, relational, and corporate.
Such verification is neither purely subjective nor empiricist. It is performative in nature, analogous to praxis-oriented validation models found in other theological traditions. The criterion is not affective immediacy but sustained constitutive outcome.
This mode of verification introduces a form of objectivity grounded in observable ecclesial reality rather than private intuition.
7. Ontological Safeguards against Participatory Confusion
Finally, Lee’s system incorporates explicit ontological safeguards. While affirming participatory union with Christ, it consistently rejects ontological fusion or confusion. Participation is carefully distinguished from identity; constitution from transmutation.
These safeguards function as a theological firewall against metaphysical misinterpretation, particularly in relation to accusations of divine–human mixture. The presence of such safeguards further underscores the controlled nature of the system.
8. Synthesis: A Regulated Hermeneutic, Not an Open Allegory
Taken together, these mechanisms—Christological centralization, economy-wide coherence, revelatory stratification, ecclesial telos, constitutive verification, and ontological safeguards—form a dense regulatory network. Interpretive freedom exists, but it is freedom within structure, not freedom from structure.
Accordingly, the characterization of Lee’s “inner meaning” as allegorical subjectivism fails to engage its actual theological architecture. The issue at stake is not a lack of control, but the presence of a control system whose density and teleological orientation differ from those of classical grammatical–historical models.
Concluding Thesis (Journal-Style)
The hermeneutical distinctiveness of “inner meaning” lies not in the relaxation of interpretive norms, but in their reconfiguration around teleological completion and ecclesial constitution. Properly understood, it represents a case of regulated spiritual interpretation rather than allegorical subjectivism.
如果你愿意，我可以下一步直接为你做三件期刊级封顶工作之一：
加入 Reformed / Patristic / Contemporary Systematic Theology 的脚注对话
把本节压缩为 8–10 页英文期刊长度版本
写一段 审稿人最可能的三条否定意见 & 标准回应
你只需告诉我：投期刊 / 用于答辩 / 两者兼用。
