Wirkungsgeschichte and Jürgen Moltmann’s Theological Reception in China: A Response to Naomi Thurston
-
Alexander Garton-Eisenacher
Abstract
Naomi Thurston proposes the use of Gadamer’s concept Wirkungsgeschichte (Reception History) as an interpretive framework through which to analyse Chinese engagement with European theology, using Jürgen Moltmann’s theological literature as a case-study. This essay responds by discussing the underlying mechanics of Wirkungsgeschichte and Moltmann’s theological system to critically analyse whether the former does indeed serve as an appropriate lens through which to view the study and application of Moltmann’s writings in China. By identifying parallels between Moltmann’s theology of hope and the hermeneutical principles of postliberal theology, as well as Moltmann’s subversion of classical European causal explanation, the essay demonstrates the significant ways in which it actively invites international reception within the framework of Wirkungsgeschichte. Yet, the essay also argues that Gadamer’s concept raises significant limitations around the legitimacy of Chinese adoption, especially readings of Moltmann’s theology on the basis of non-Christian commitments. The essay thus concludes by posing the question whether the interdisciplinary nature of Sino-Christian theology’s reception of European works is adequately represented by Gadamer’s framework.
Zusammenfassung
Naomi Thurston schlägt vor, Gadamers Konzept der Wirkungsgeschichte als Interpretationsrahmen für die Analyse chinesischer Auseinandersetzungen mit der europäischen Theologie zu verwenden, indem sie Jürgen Moltmanns theologische Literatur als Fallstudie darstellt. Dieser Beitrag antwortet auf ihren Vorschlag. Es werden sowohl die der Wirkungsgeschichte zugrundeliegenden Mechanismen, als auch Moltmanns theologisches System erörtert, um kritisch zu analysieren, ob erstere tatsächlich als geeignetes Mittel zur Untersuchung des Verständnisses und der Anwendung von Moltmanns Schriften in China darstellen. Der Aufsatz identifiziert Parallelen zwischen Moltmanns Theologie der Hoffnung und den hermeneutischen Prinzipien der postliberalen Theologie sowie Moltmanns Subversion der klassischen europäischen Kausalerklärung und zeigt so, auf welche bedeutsame Weise diese aktiv zur internationalen Rezeption im Rahmen der Wirkungsgeschichte einladen. Der Aufsatz argumentiert jedoch auch, dass Gadamers Konzept die Legitimität chinesischer Übernahmen erheblich einschränkt, insbesondere jene Lesarten von Moltmanns Theologie, die auf nicht-christlichen Überzeugungen aufbauen. Der Beitrag schließt mit der Frage, ob Gadamers Entwurf den interdisziplinären Charakter der Rezeption europäischer Werke durch die chinesisch-christliche Theologie angemessen erfassen kann.
Bibliography
Boxall, Ian. “Reception History of the Bible.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible Volume 4: From 1750 to the Present, edited by John Riches, 172–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.10.1017/CHO9780511842870.012Search in Google Scholar
Castelo, Daniel. “Moltmann’s dismissal of divine impassibility: Warranted?” Scottish Journal of Theology 61, 4 (2008): 396–407.10.1017/S003693060800416XSearch in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. “Towards a Semiotic Inquiry into the Television Message.” In Internationalizing Cultural Studies: An Anthology, edited by Ackbar Abbas and John Nguyet Erni, 237–252. Malden: Blackwell, 2005.Search in Google Scholar
Finley, Kate and Joshua W. Seachris. “Narrative, Theology, and Philosophy of Religion.” In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Religion, edited by Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, 1–7. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2021.10.1002/9781119009924.eopr0259Search in Google Scholar
Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.Search in Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Hermeneutik I: Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.Search in Google Scholar
Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Towards a Constructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.Search in Google Scholar
Hauerwas, Stanley. Unleashing the Scripture: Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.Search in Google Scholar
Knight, Mark. “Wirkungsgeschichte, Reception History, Reception Theory.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, 2 (2010): 137–146.10.1177/0142064X10385858Search in Google Scholar
Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Philosophy in a Postliberal Age. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984.Search in Google Scholar
Malpas, Jeff. “Hans-Georg Gadamer.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified 22 August 2022, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/.Search in Google Scholar
Michener, Ronald T. “Postliberal Theology.” St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology, first published 6 June 2024, https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/PostliberalTheology.Search in Google Scholar
Mink, Louis O. “History and Fiction as Modes of Comprehension.” In Historical Understanding, edited by Brian Fay, Eugene O. Golob and Richard T. Vann, 42–60. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987.Search in Google Scholar
Moltmann, Jürgen. Der gekreuzigte Gott. Das Kreuz Christi als Grund und Kritik christlicher Theologie. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1973.Search in Google Scholar
Moltmann, Jürgen. Erfahrungen theologischen Denkens. Wege und Formen christlicher Theologie. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1999.Search in Google Scholar
Moltmann, Jürgen. Theologie der Hoffnung. Untersuchungen zur Begründung und zu den Konsequenzen einer christlichen Eschatologie. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966.Search in Google Scholar
Schank, Roger. Tell Me a Story: A New Look at Real and Artificial Memory. New York: Scribner’s, 1990.Search in Google Scholar
Tanner, Kathryn. Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
Thurston, Naomi. “New Political Theology in Beijing: Jürgen Moltmann’s Dialogue with Chinese Humanists.” Exchange 53 (2004): 204–232.10.1163/1572543x-bja10077Search in Google Scholar
Thurston, Naomi. “From Chinese Theology to Alternative Sinicizations: Theological Reception History and Moltmann’s Theology in Greater China.” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 67, no. 3 (2025): 361–395.10.1515/nzsth-2025-0037Search in Google Scholar
Velleman, J. David. “Narrative Explanation.” The Philosophical Review 112, 1 (2003): 1–25.10.1215/00318108-112-1-1Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Vom moralischen Beweis zur Vernunftkritik
- Rezeptionsgeschichte of Schleiermacher’s religious and theological thought in the Chinese-speaking World
- After Nietzsche: How Can We Do Sino-Christian Theology Today? – Critical Assessment of Liu Xiaofeng’s Sino-Christian Theological Proposals in 1994 and 1999
- The Reception of Paul Tillich in Sino-Christian Theology
- Wolfhart Pannenberg for Sino-Christian Theology: A Third Way between Liu Xiaofeng and He Guanghu
- From Chinese Theology to Alternative Sinicizations: Theological Reception History and Moltmann’s Theology in Greater China
- Wirkungsgeschichte and Jürgen Moltmann’s Theological Reception in China: A Response to Naomi Thurston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Vom moralischen Beweis zur Vernunftkritik
- Rezeptionsgeschichte of Schleiermacher’s religious and theological thought in the Chinese-speaking World
- After Nietzsche: How Can We Do Sino-Christian Theology Today? – Critical Assessment of Liu Xiaofeng’s Sino-Christian Theological Proposals in 1994 and 1999
- The Reception of Paul Tillich in Sino-Christian Theology
- Wolfhart Pannenberg for Sino-Christian Theology: A Third Way between Liu Xiaofeng and He Guanghu
- From Chinese Theology to Alternative Sinicizations: Theological Reception History and Moltmann’s Theology in Greater China
- Wirkungsgeschichte and Jürgen Moltmann’s Theological Reception in China: A Response to Naomi Thurston
