Sino-Theology and the Philosophy of History

Sino-Theology and the Philosophy of History Sino-Theology and the Philosophy of History A Collection of Essays by Liu Xiaofeng Liu Xiaofeng, Translated with commentary by Leopold Leeb LEIDEN | BOSTON The author, Liu Xiaofeng. Used with the permission of Liu Xiaofeng. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Liu, Xiaofeng, 1956– [Essays. Selections. English] Sino-theology and the philosophy of history : a collection of essays by Liu Xiaofeng / Liu Xiaofeng ; translated with commentary by Leopold Leeb. pages cm ISBN 978-90-04-29281-9 (hardback : acid-free paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-29282-6 (e-book) 1. Christianity—China. 2. Theology—China. I. Leeb, Leopold, 1967– translator, commentator. II. Title. BR1285.L5813 2015 275.1—dc23 2015005128 This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface. isbn 978-90-04-29281-9 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-29282-6 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents Preface vii Translator’s Introduction 1 Leopold Leeb Part 1 Sino-Theology and the Philosophy of History 1 Is Everything “Spiritual” Altogether “Very Far Away” from the Chinese People? 27 2 Scientism and the “Spirit” of Christianity 40 3 Nationalist State-Ethics and the Christian “Spirit” 52 4 Sociological Observations on the Modern Context of Sino-Theology 66 5 Sino-Theology within the Argument Structure of Modern Thought 77 6 The Hermeneutic Fervor of Sino-Theology 89 7 The Phenomenon of Cultural Christians: A Noteworthy “Rumor” 107 8 The “Chinese-Language” Problem of Christian Theology 117 Part 2 Related Articles Preface to the Revised Version of Zhengjiu yu Xiaoyao (Delivering and Dallying) 135 Christianity, Paganism, and Modernity 146 vi contents Preface to The Confucian Religion and Nation-State (Rujiao yu minzu guojia) 155 Leo Strauss and China: Encountering a Classical Disposition 163 Hobbes and His “Apology” 181 Appendix Personalia: Persons related to Christian Studies in China 199 Index of Names and Subjects 204 Preface In April 1994, I presented some papers at the first “Day of Theology” of the Department of Religions at the Chinese University, Hong Kong, and in July of that same year I held a seminar called “Religion and Culture” at the Department of Religious Studies of Peking University. The essays I presented there had the title “Christian Theology in Chinese language within the modern context.” The abstract of these papers was published afterward in the journal Dao Feng: Chinese Journal of Theology, no. 2 (1995) (Daofeng: Hanyu shenxue xuekan《道风：汉语神学学刊》) (This shorter version explained that the expression “Sino-Theology” was based on an understanding of the “modern language context” (xiandai yujing 现代语境) and the aim was, as the title sug- gested, to discuss the possibility of Sino-Theology in view of the problems of modernity. Even if it was obviously only the outline of a study program, this article—unexpectedly—quickly evoked some serious critical reactions from the theological quarters in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The expression “Sino-Theology” originally was meant only to provide a kind of terminological basket in order to respond to the geographical cultural context of contemporary Chinese-speaking scholarship. The academic circles in Hong Kong and Taiwan commonly use the term “theology of the Chinese” (hua- ren shenxue 华人神学), but this expression is not precise and clear enough to serve as an academic term, and in the present geographical cultural language context, the name “Chinese theology” (Zhongguo shenxue 中国神学) is not exact enough either. The Chinese-speaking scholars in Malaysia and Singapore use the Chinese language to express their theology, but this cannot be called “Chinese theology.” If the philosophy of German-speaking Austrians and Swiss is not called “Philosophy in the German language,” but “German Philosophy,” and if the intellectual culture of North America is not called “English-speaking culture” but “English (British) culture,” this will inevitably lead to political conflicts. As far as the “Sino-Theology” of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and of the overseas Chinese in North America is concerned, I do not know too much, and I never intended to make respective comments and judgments. In fact, I was only concerned with the theology of China. The real intention of using Sino-Theology was to express a kind of scholarly consciousness (xuewen yishi 学问意识) and an intuitive feeling (sixiang ganjue 思想感觉), it was an effort to get a new understanding of China’s Christian theology. Emperor Kangxi (1654–1722), who was well versed in military matters as well as in cultural questions, once said, “Those Westerners and other commoners (xiaoren viii preface 小人) of their kind, how could one say that they grasp China’s great wisdom (Zhongguo zhi dali 中国之大理)?1 Besides, nobody of the Westerners really has a good command of the Chinese language, and for this reason their theories and statements are often ridiculous.”2 The “Chinese language” and the “great wisdom of China” are like two sides of the same coin. But if Christian theology becomes a “Chinese-language” (hanyu de 汉语的) theology, how could “China’s great wisdom” be prevented from undergoing a radical change? However, is the way in which Chinese intellectuals understand this radical change—a change that already happened and is still continuing—without problems? “Sino-Theology” already has a history of several hundred years, and the “inculturated” theology (“bensehua” shenxue“本色化”神学), which this essay criticizes so vigorously, is, of course, also a kind of theology in the Chinese language. “Sino-Theology” has been a matter of countless Chinese Christian scholars of several centuries, and it will concern every present and future Chinese Christian scholar. Wherever this essay criticizes the Sino-Theology of the past, the aim is in fact to clarify the present awareness (dangjin yishi 当今意识) of Sino-Theology. In the current changes of our present age, Sino- Theology has bumped into a new opportunity, and this opportunity must not be missed. Such a time will never come again. Therefore, we have to gain a new and broad understanding of the basic problems that arise from the intrusion (turu 突入) of Christian theology into the “great wisdom of China”—a process that has been delayed again and again. If we do not have a new understanding of the problem of the awareness of modernity, how could the theology, which is now in the process of growth, develop in the way that the historical opportunity demands? This essay first of all tries to get a new understanding of how Chinese- speaking thinkers (hanyu sixiangjie 汉语思想界) in the past perceived the relationship between Christianity and China. Here we are not mainly (and by no means “only”) aiming at an understanding of the term “inculturation” (bensehua 本色化), which has been fashionable for a long time in theological circles. Is the term “inculturation” not based on the [specific] understanding of the relationship between Christianity and China that was formed by the academic circles at the time of the May Fourth movement? If the Sino-Theology is 1 Translator note: dali can mean “great principle” or “deep wisdom.” 2 Translator note: This is a statement of Emperor Kangxi, after he had learned that the pope in Rome had forbidden Chinese Christians to take part in ancestor worship and other Chinese rites. Kangxi had several foreign missionaries at the court in Beijing who not only could read and write Chinese characters but who were also well versed in the Manchu language. preface ix still controlled by this rather problematic May Fourth tradition, and if there is no radical soul-searching (zhengben qingyuan 正本清源),3 the future Sino- Theology will be of little use, it will certainly have no big impact. In any way, by using the word “Sino-Theology,” I do certainly not express my own concrete theological topic. Since many years I also have been actively propagating the phrases “Sino-Theology,” “Chinese-language thought,” and similar terms, and the academic world has never seen such expressions as Liu- styled“-isms.” I do not yet have my personal concrete substantial theological topic, and maybe there will never be a special name for that, at least up to now I have never thought about that. Even if I have absorbed many elements from dialectical theology, existential theology, hermeneutic theology, historical theology and political theology, I am not interested in establishing a sys- tematic theology with a certain name, and I do not have any similar plans for the future. My personal interest and pursuit is to start from life experience and from the cultural-political context, to observe

Load more