After Nietzsche: How Can We Do Sino-Christian Theology Today? – Critical Assessment of Liu Xiaofeng’s Sino-Christian Theological Proposals in 1994 and 1999

1 Introduction^[1]

On 11 May, 1978, Guangming Daily (Guanming ribao 光明日报) published the influential editorial “Practice is the Sole Criterion for Testing Truth” (Shijian shi jianyan zhenli de weiyi biaozhun 实践是检验真理的唯一标准), which sparked a nationwide debate. This debate paved the way for Deng Xiaoping’s policy of economic reform and opening up in China.^[2] On 13 December that year, Deng delivered his seminal speech, “Emancipate the Mind, Seek Truth from Facts, and Unite as One in Looking to the Future” (Jiefang sixiang, shishi qiushi, tuanjie yizhi xiangqiankan 解放思想、实事求是、团结一致向前看), which set the tone for the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. This session marked the formal beginning of China’s reform and opening-up process, which would profoundly shape the nation’s socio-political and cultural-intellectual landscape in the ensuing decades. In January and February in 1992, Deng undertook his now famous “Southern Tour,” during which he delivered a series of speeches aimed at revitalizing the then stalled reform agenda.^[3]

Amid these sweeping socio-political transformations, a new theological movement began to emerge in Chinese academic circles.^[4] In 1994, Daniel H. N. Yeung (杨熙楠), Liu Xiaofeng （刘小枫）, and He Guanghu （何光沪） re-launched the journal Logos & Pneuma, introducing the term “Sino-Theology”（Hanyu shenxue 汉语神学）to the Chinese-speaking academic community.^[5] The subtitle “Chinese Journal of Theology” （Hanyu shenxue xuekan 汉语神学学刊）^[6] explicitly underlined their intention to promote a Sino-Christian theological movement in Chinese cultural-intellectual context.^[7] This was an important milestone in the birth moment of the Sino-Christian theological movement.

He Guanghu advocates for a Sino-Christian theology in a broad sense, encompassing all Christian scholars writing in Chinese, from Matteo Ricci to Zhao Zichen.^[8] Regardless of nationality and geographical origin, all Christian theologies expressed in Chinese, drawing on existential experiences and cultural resources articulated in Chinese, and aimed primarily at Chinese-speaking readers, can be considered part of this kind of theology.^[9]

In contrast, Liu Xiaofeng – arguably the most influential figure in the early development of Sino-Christian theology, proposes a more specific Sino-Christian theology. For Liu, Sino-Christian theology entails the personal expression of Christian faith in Chinese language, outside of ecclesiastical or denominational frameworks, and oriented towards the humanities. In 1995, he published the programmatic document of the Sino-Christian theology movement “Sino-Christian Theology in the Modern Context” (Xiandai yujing zhong de hanyu jidu shenxue 现代语境中的汉语基督神学).^[10] In 1999, Liu substantially revised this work and retitled it “The Sino-Theology and Philosophy of History” (Hanyu shenxue yu lishi shenxue 汉语神学与历史神学),^[11] reflecting a significant shift in his theological orientation.

Concerning the relationship between Sino-Christian theology and traditional Chinese culture, Liu once remarked in 1999:

Although there was the ‘May Fourth’ New Culture Movement [in 1919], Chinese-language thought circles are still basically standing outside the gate of the historical-philosophical questions of modernity. Chinese-language academia remains preoccupied with the question of whether one is enlightened or not, failing to recognize that the intellectual challenges of the twentieth century are no longer post-Enlightenment but post-Romantic; not post-Kantian, but post-Nietzschean. Without an understanding of Christian thought, it is impossible to grasp deeply the post-Nietzschean stage of Western thought, let alone be able to engage with the deeper layers of the historical-philosophical questions of modernity (65).^[12]

This paragraph not only marks a paradigmatic shift in the intellectual discourse surrounding Sino-Christian theology and traditional Chinese culture, but also epitomizes a significant change in Liu’s own intellectual orientation. Taking this paragraph as a guiding reference, this article uses a textual-analytical approach to critically examine Liu Xiaofeng’s shift from Barthian dialectical theology to Nietzschean historical philosophy, as manifested in his two seminal proposals for Sino-Christian theology (section 3). This investigation will be helpful to understand the complex interplay between Sino-Christian theology and modern intellectual trends, particularly through the lens of the tension between the theological subject matter (Sache) and the concrete historical situatedness (Lage) discussed in section 2. Finally, section 4 considers possible trajectories for the future development of Sino-Christian theology.

2 Theological Subject Matter (Sache) and Concrete Historical Context (Lage)

Before analyzing Liu’s two proposals, this paper will first outline its theological methodology and situate Sino-Christian theology in its historical context. In discussing a particular theological proposal, it is crucial to consider the tension between the theological subject matter and the concrete historical context. This approach enables us to assess the relationship between theology and modern or contemporary intellectual trends, and to explore how we can continue to do theology within our specific historical context.

According to Swiss theologian Karl Barth, the subject matter (Sache) of Christian theology is God’s [self-]revelation in Jesus Christ – a revelation objectively given to and for humanity, witnessed in the Bible, proclaimed by the Christian church, and indicated through theological reflection. In other words, the divine-human relationship that is fundamentally linked to Jesus Christ, is revealed in God’s Word.^[13] By doing theology and dealing with specific theological questions, Barth first seeks to understand, interpret, articulate, and bear witness to this theological subject matter in his concrete historical context (“Wort zur Sache”). On this basis, he proceeds to address his historical context (“Wort zur Lage”). A concrete example of this methodology is the “Barmen Theological Declaration,”^[14] which Barth primarily drafted in 1934. The declaration embodied his uncompromising commitment to the theological subject matter (Sache) – his radical affirmation of Jesus Christ as the only one Word of God (John 1,14) – while simultaneously responding directly to the pressing issues of his historical moment (Lage): the systematic coordination (Gleichschaltung) of German Protestant churches under Nazi-backed “German Christian” Movement.

Unlike Barth’s historical setting, we are currently situated in what is often described as an era of the “great change unseen in three thousand years” (Sanqiannian weiyou zhi dabianju 三千年未有之大变局)^[15] since the late Qing dynasty, and a “great change unseen in forty years” (Sishinian weiyou zhi dabianju 四十年未有之大变局) since Deng’s reform and opening-up policy in the late 1970s – a strategic assessment articulated by both the Chinese government and academic circles regarding the current domestic and international landscape.^[16] The “great change unseen in three thousand years” refers to the comprehensive intellectual, cultural, and political challenges China has faced since the outbreak the Sino-British Opium War in 1840 – that watershed moment when modern Western imperial powers and Protestant Christian missionaries first entered China. However, despite more than a century of communication and interaction, Western and Christian ideas have not been deeply assimilated or integrated into China’s intellectual, cultural, or political systems. As a result, the basic orientation and future trajectory of Chinese thought and culture remain uncertain.^[17]

In this context, Christian language and thought have not yet become major constructive elements within the framework of Chinese intellectual and cultural discourse. Moreover, Christian faith and theology continue to lack the recognition and respect they deserve within China’s intellectual, cultural, and political systems. Instead, they are often met with suspicion, rejection, or even resistance – both socio-politically and intellectual-culturally.

In addition to the “great change unseen in three thousand years,” the “great change unseen in forty years” has also profoundly shaped the contextual landscape of Sino-Christian theology. This more recent shift refers primarily to China’s rapid economic growth and the emergence of a new intellectual and cultural self-awareness since Deng’s policy of reform and opening up. As a result, the earlier enthusiasm for learning from modern Western and Christian civilizations in Chinese intellectual and cultural circles has diminished remarkably. In its place, a self-centered cultural conservatism and national localism – both of which emphasize the unique subjectivity of Chinese cultural-intellectual or socio-political systems – have become increasingly dominant, even defining.

As a result, the prevailing attitude towards Western thought, especially Christianity and modernity, has become markedly more conservative, reactionary and at times openly hostile.^[18] This reaction stems not only from a deep-seated oppositional sentiment against Western hegemony crystallized during “the great change unseen in three thousand years,” but also from the resurgent assertion of China’s civilizational legacy in antiquity, particularly through the reactivated “tianxia” (天下, “all under heaven”) paradigm, which has gained intellectual and political currency since the “great change unseen in forty years” of post-reform China.^[19] Only a limited cohort of relatively open-minded conservative scholars persists in advocating a sophisticated integration of China and the West, as well as of antiquity and modernity. However, even these voices tend to underscore the continuing tension between China and the West, and between antiquity and modernity.^[20]

Beyond China’s internal changes, global events have also played a crucial role in shaping the “great change unseen in 40 years.” At the global level, the event of 9/11 in 2001 and the financial crisis of 2008 constitute pivotal junctures that fundamentally reconfigured the international order, serving as essential reference points for comprehending China’s “great change unseen in 40 years.” In terms of ideal values, cultural and educational systems, and underlying views on the relationship between God and human being,^[21] the event of 9/11 has highlighted the fundamental divide and the radical difference between the East and the West (especially between the Christian and Islamic worlds) and between the West (represented by the Christian civilization) and China (represented by the Confucian civilization). The financial crisis of 2008 has once again exposed the limitations, shortcomings and even crises of the Western economic and political system. Nearly two decades later, our current world is still reeling from the aftershocks and turmoil of these twin black swan events. The current rising tensions between China and the United States are not only a result of the predicament created by the so-called “Thucydides Trap” – which refers to the complicated dynamic when a rising power appears to displace an established one – but also the consequences of such turmoil and the associated agitated complexes of seeking change. In the Western world, faced with many difficult problems such as terrorism and refugee flows – not to mention the current war in Ukraine – there has been another significant intellectual and spiritual crisis since the Enlightenment. The pursuit of universal value-ideals such as liberty, equality, and fraternity has been seriously challenged. Whether it is socialism since the collapse of the Soviet Union or capitalism (and even liberal democracy) since 9/11 and the financial crisis, once relatively stable intellectual and cultural paths and political-institutional choices have become ambiguous and even crisis-ridden. Localized responses and conservative programs with strong nationalist sentiments are increasingly emerging around the world. This is another moment of crisis and a time of transition in global human history, similar to the moment of crisis and transition of the Weimar Republic in German history after the First World War.

Returning to the situation in China today, the year 2008 marks a significant turning point in understanding the current intellectual and cultural sentiments of conservatism and nationalism in China. Before and after the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the Tibet issue and many other events have led to ongoing confrontations and conflicts between China and the West over ideal values, cultural practices, and political systems. Against the backdrop of 9/11 and the financial crisis, self-confidence in China’s civilization, way and system is growing and booming. In this context, combined with the history of Christianity in China and its entanglement with Western imperial powers, many Chinese intellectuals remain imbued with nationalist sentiments (such as saving the nation from extinction and making it powerful) since the May Fourth New Culture Movement. On the one hand, they are beginning to hold Chinese traditional culture in high esteem; on the other hand, they have a strong suspicion and even resistance to Christianity, which has been fiercely criticized since the May Fourth New Culture Movement.

Finally, to contextualize these developments, we must have a look at the aforementioned May Fourth New Culture Movement (Wusi xinwenhua yundong 五四新文化运动，1919), – an cultural-intellectual and socio-political movement that championed “Mr. Science” and “Mr. Democracy” while rejecting traditional Chinese cultures and western Christianity – which fundamentally shaped China’s modern intellectual, cultural, social and political systems. This movement is also crucial to understanding both “the great change unseen in three thousand years” and “the great change unseen in the past 40 years.” On the one hand, in terms of the relationship between China and the West, contemporary intellectual and cultural circles are still deeply influenced by Enlightenment traditions such as the modern democratic spirit and scientific consciousness inherited from the May Fourth New Culture Movement. In this context, Christianity is seen not only as a “feudal superstition” (Fengjian mixin 封建迷信) that has been successfully criticized by modern scientism, but also as an accomplice or even a running dog of Western imperialism and capitalism, which is invading China politically, economically, and culturally. On the other hand, in terms of the tension between China’s antiquity and modernity, the May Fourth New Culture Movement put forward slogans such as “overthrowing Confucianism,” opposing traditional cultures, and criticizing religious superstition. Attitudes towards these two aspects of the movement reveal the basic position of certain thinkers or thought movements. In terms of attitudes towards Christianity, it is either admired and respected by liberal minds as an ally of modernity and Western liberal democracy that could be a good mentor or a good friend to help China “come out of the Middle ages” (Zouchu zhongshiji 走出中世纪), or it is suspected and opposed by conservative minds as a hostile foreign force that threatens China’s traditional political and cultural-educational system and hinders the renaissance of Chinese culture and thought. It is precisely in this intellectual, cultural and political context that we can understand both the indigenous theological programs that have emerged since the May Fourth New Culture Movement and the current “Sinicization of Christianity” initiative, initially proposed by scholars in the research field of religious and especially Christian studies and later adopted by the central government as its major religious policy. Both programs must either demonstrate their loyalty to the nationalist mainstream of saving the nation and making it powerful in the past or “docilely” obey the traditional system of “religion under politics,” while seeking a “cautious” integration^[22] with traditional Chinese cultures in the present.^[23]

3 From Barthianism to Nietzscheanism: A Significant Change of Liu’s Sino-Christian Theological Proposals

Building on the historical context discussed earlier, this section examines Liu’s change from Barthianism to Nietzscheanism as manifested in his two seminal Sino-Christian theological proposals in 1995 and 1999. Namely, Liu has shifted from an original Barthian dialectical theological emphasis on the Christ-event and individual faith to a Nietzschean historical-philosophical orientation centered on the natural order and distinct human spiritual types – a change that may be characterized as a move from Barthianism to Nietzscheanism. Meanwhile, Liu has gravitated towards Leo Strauss’s political philosophy in order to construct an ideological foundation, a cultural and educational system, and a reservoir of elites for the current intellectual, cultural and political system often referred to as the “New Era (Xinshidai 新时代).”^[24] Nietzsche serves as a pivotal intermediary^[25] through whom Liu has turned to Strauss. In terms of Liu’s own evaluation of Strauss, this shift presents a “cautious” and “docile” philosophical response to “the great change unseen in three thousand years,” and more specially to “the great change unseen in forty years.” This response is also regarded as a major reason for Liu’s promotion of Strauss’s political philosophy within Chinese academic circles,^[26] his vigorous support for classical studies, and his success in attracting a following among young and middle-aged intellectuals. To elaborate this claim, the following analysis compares and analyzes the change in Liu’s two proposals – “Sino-Christian Theology in Modern Language Context” (1995) and “The Sino-Christian Theology and Philosophy of History” (1999) – with a focus on his respective references to Barth and Nietzsche. This comparison reveals the trajectory of Liu’s shift from Barthianism to Nietzscheanism. Rather than tracing Barthian or Nietzschean influences on Liu, this analysis will focus on a close textual-analytical investigation of Liu’s appropriation of Barth and Nietzsche.

To understand Liu’s shift, it is instructive to begin with his 1995 paper “Sino-Christian Theology in Modern Language Context.” This paper shows a strong Barthian dialectical theological orientation, particularly in his emphasis on the Christ-event and theological expression shaped by person experience. As Liu states, “Christian theology involves faithful, rational reflections and language expressions about the Christ-event as God’s Word.” He further emphasizes its “symbiotic relationship with regional-historical language experience,” noting that the expressions of Christian thought are shaped by the “givenness of the historical language experiences used” (41).^[27] On the one hand, the Christ-event is described as “God’s individual historical revelation,” which took place “after the religious systems of various nations and ancient empires” (40). God is depicted as “the most historically concrete existence (Jesus Christ)” (40), and the revelation in Jesus Christ can be characterized as vertical – that is, transcendent and foundational – serving as the origin and ground of all Christian theology. On the other hand, the existential individual, in confessing belief in the Christ-event, responds to and articulate it concretely, relying solely on his own language experience of existing thoughts. In elaborating on the vertical, transcendent nature of the Christ-event, Liu cites Barth’s second commentary on Romans: “Since the Christ-event took place after the formation of various national-imperial religions, as a post-religious event, it is, according to K. Barth, a critique of all religions; the Christ-event reveals the crisis of all religions” (41).^[28]

Liu’s significant citation of Barth was firstly noticed by Simon Shui-Ma Kwan (关瑞文). Kwan adopts a hermeneutic approach, drawing inspiration from Hans-Gregor Gadamer, in his assessment of Liu’s paper. Focusing on Liu’s possible hermeneutic “prejudice,” Kwan concluded that “Liu Xiaofeng’s theology [...] was influenced by Barth’s theology.”^[29] In Kwan’s view, Liu’s theological program is deeply rooted in his specific historical context. Liu identified himself to as part of the generation of “April Fifth Tiananmen Incident” (Siwu tianmen shijian 四五天安门事件), a large-scale demonstration that took place on Tianmen Square shortly before the end of Cultural Revolution (1966–1977). Liu and his contemporaries experienced profound suffering during the Cultural Revolution, an experience that significantly influenced their intellectual and spiritual outlook.^[30] Possessing a keen awareness of cultural crisis, they were particularly sensitive to the potential confusion between human words and divine word. Consequently, they gravitated toward Barth’s theological assertion that the gap between human words and divine word is absolute and unbridgeable. Therefore, Kwan believes that Liu’s conception of Sino-Christian theology is historically and contextual grounded, making it particularly resonant with “Chinese people who cherish the spirit of “April Fifth.”^[31]

In contrast to Kwan’s hermeneutical emphasis on historical context, Pan-chiu Lai (赖品超) takes a different approach in analyzing Liu’s theology. In terms of “the shadow of Barth’s theology,”^[32] Lai does not consider Liu’s historical background or his related hermeneutic “prejudice” when discussing the relationship between Liu’s Sino-Christian theological proposal and indigenous theology. Instead, Lai engages directly with Liu’s text. Through a detailed discussion on Liu’s opposition between Christian theology and religion, Lai also identifies the influence of Barth’s second commentary on Romans, noting that “Liu Xiaofeng’s emphasis on the opposition between the Christ-event and religion stems from his interpretation of early Barth’s theology, though this interpretation does not fully represent Barth’s overall position.”^[33] Furthermore, Lai clarifies that Liu’s position conflicts with his own position by citing Ernst Troeltsch to affirm the individuality of theology.^[34]

Kwan’s interpretation highlights the significant impact of the “April Fifth Tiananmen Incident” and its historical context on Liu’s Sino-Christian theological proposal. He emphasizes that the hermeneutical “prejudice” rooted in this event has shaped Liu’s appropriation of Barth’s theology. Lai, on the other hand, observes that Liu frequently cites Barth, particularly the Barth of the second commentary on Romans, who underscores the absolute difference between the divine and the human and consequently offers a critique of religion.

Particularly relevant to this paper is Kwan’s discussion of Liu’s comparison between the “April Fifth” and the “May Fourth” generations. According to Kwan, the “April Fifth” generation clearly does not inherit the dominant ideological legacy. In this sense, it shares certain formal similarities with the “May Fourth” generation: both are viewed as destroyers of the prevailing cultural system and as rebels against established discursive traditions. As Liu himself remarks, “China’s two cultural crises in this century were provoked by these two generations respectively.”^[35]

Building on Kwan’s comparison, this paper argues that in 1995, as the author of “Sino-Christian Theology in Modern Chinese Language Context,” Liu maintained a firm critical stance toward Chinese traditional culture. This position was consistent with the perspective he had articulated earlier in his influential 1988 work Delivering and Dallying,^[36] where he, as a self-conscious intellectual successor of May Fourth New Culture Movement, fiercely criticizes traditional Chinese culture.^[37] However, unlike the May Fourth New Culture Movement’s emphasis on modern democratic consciousness and scientistic spirit, Liu’s 1995 critique was rooted in Barth’s dialectical theology, which underscores the absolute difference between the divine and the human, and thereby offers a radical critique not only of religion but also of modernity.^[38] In other words, even in 1995 – seventeen years after the onset of “the great change unseen in forty years” – Liu remained firmly opposed to any indigenizing theological approach that sought to integrate Christian theology and traditional Chinese culture.^[39]

Lai challenges Liu’s one-sidedly critical stance by arguing that Barth’s position on religion is far more complex and “absolutely not as negative and extreme as Liu’s.”^[40] In agreement with Lai’s critique, this paper contends that the so-called Barthian position in Liu’s Sino-Christian theological proposal does not reflect Barth’s theology as a whole. Rather, it refers specifically to Barth’s dialectical theological thinking in his second commentary on Romans, from which Liu appropriates particularly its emphasis on God’s revelation, the Christ-event, and their verticality, individuality and historicity, as well as the absolute difference between the divine and the human, leading to a radical critique of all human religions and cultures.^[41]

According to Lai, as mentioned previously, Liu affirms the individuality of faith through Ernst Troeltsch rather than through Barth. However, I argue that Liu’s emphasis on the individuality of faith stems instead from his focus on the historicity of God’s revelation and the uniqueness of the encounter with the Christ-event. This emphasis reflects a shared premise of modern theology, embraced by both Barth and Troeltsch, and therefore cannot be attributed exclusively to Troeltsch and the liberal theological tradition. Furthermore, I argue that Liu’s Barthianism is also evident in his emphasis on the expression of individual faith. Drawing from both personal existential experience and language experience, the believer articulates his response to the Christ-event within a concrete historical situation. This focus on individual existential expression of faith closely corresponds to Liu’s appropriation of Bultmann’s existential theology.^[42]

Therefore, on the one hand, Liu insists on the theological subject matter – namely, God’s revelation and the Christ-event. On the other hand, he underscores individual existential experience and language experience, understood always within the individual’s specific historical situation. Operating within the tension between the theological subject matter and historical context, Liu’s 1995 paper primarily addresses questions concerning China and the West in modern language context. In particular, it responds to “the great change unseen in three thousand years” and the changes since May Fourth New Culture Movement. Key themes include “the genesis of and conflicts between nation-states in the process of modernization,” and “the tension between the whole Christianity and modern China as a nation-state” (16).

Whether in terms of political nationalism, which seeks to establish a powerful nation-state (13), or cultural nationalism, which aspires to articulate a nation’s unique and superior cultural values (14), Christianity has been deeply entangled in the conflict between China and the West, often encountering fierce resistance (16). Liu argues that “the conflict between Christianity and Chinese social customs [...] or the conflict of cultural value-ideas is not a unique experience of Christianity in China” (16). Similar tensions, he notes, have historically existed between Christianity and Western nations as well. As a result, Liu remains deeply skeptical of “indigenous” or “inculturational” theological programs, which have long dominated Chinese theological discourse. He criticizes that these approaches for mistakenly framing the conflict between Christianity and Chinese society or culture as a conflict between China and the West (17), rather than recognizing it as a horizontal religious and cultural crisis ultimately provoked by the vertical Christ-event.

In line with this critique, Liu argues that since May Fourth New Culture Movement, Chinese Christian thought has been predominantly preoccupied with the political, ideological and cultural tensions between Christian nations and China as a nation-state, using such a framework as the basis for theological construction (17). Furthermore, Liu argues that, in light of the historical challenges emerging since May Fourth New Culture Movement, Sino-Christian theology inevitably faces three major conflicts: (1) the conflict between Christianity and Chinese culture, particularly Confucianism; (2) the conflict between Christianity and various strands of modern and contemporary anti-Christian philosophical and humanistic thought in Europe and America; and (3) the conflict between human-scientific theology and churchly theology.

Focusing on Liu’s response to the first conflict as an illustrative case, his 1995 paper – consistently with the aforementioned Barthian stance – firmly rejects any attempt to understand, interpret, or articulate the Christ-event by integrating elements of Confucianism, Buddhism, or Taoism into Christian theology in Western languages. Instead, Liu explicitly asserts that the believing individual must “depart from the thinking framework of indigenization or Sinicization, and directly confront the Christ-event” (42), and that Sino-Christian theology should be developed based on one’s own existential experience and language expression (45).

In 1999, in his substantially revised and retitled article “The Sino-Christian Theology and Philosophy of History,” Liu still focuses explicitly on the modern language context of Sino-theology. However, his emphasis shifts from the earlier concern with China and the West to a deeper engagement with the tension between antiquity and modernity. Accordingly, his point of departure is no longer the Barthian dialectical theological emphasis on the vertical Christ-event or the existential individual’s articulation of faith. The once-central image of “the sharp awl of revelational theology” is now contrasted unfavorably with “the blunt hammer of cultural theology” (5).^[43]

At this stage, Liu begins to approach a Nietzschean historical-philosophical position, characterized by a concern for moral types and the affirmation of aristocratic spiritual values. Nevertheless, Liu still appears to affirm Barth’s dialectical theology,^[44] particularly its insistence on the crisis of national thought and language provoked by the Christ-event, the impossibility of humanity and its religion, and the sheer possibility of God himself. In this regard, he cites Barth’s second commentary on Romans directly: “The last possibility of religion grows in the human soil”; “The boundary of religion is the line of death, which separates clearly human possibility from divine possibility, flesh from spirit, the temporary from the eternal” (88).

By this point, however, Liu’s theological orientation has demonstratively shifted. An exemplary marker of this change appears in a newly added footnote, where he discusses the human-scientific interest of Sino-theology: “The foundation of Sino-theology’s human-scientific interest is not regulated by denominational or traditional doctrines, but it is instead a denomination-neutral (perhaps even faith-neutral) theology, whose style is shaped by the academic context of human-scientific and social thought” (59). If in 1995 Barth was appropriated by Liu as a resource for articulating his own theological position; by 1999 Barth appears more as a “conservative churchly theologian,” “confronted with the pressure of the so-called modern academic principles,” and committed to resisting against the religious-scientific or religious-philosophical tendencies of theology, as advocated by “liberal churchly theologians” such as Troeltsch (59).

This re-characterization of Barth should be understood from Liu’s revised viewpoint of the modern language context. In Liu’s analysis, the differentiation of traditional Christian theology into human-scientific theology and churchly theology is precisely the need of Christianity to survive in modern language context (62–63). For Liu, this context is “no longer post-Enlightenment, but post-Romanticism, not post-Kantian, but post-Nietzschean” (65). The notion of “post-Romanticism” indicates a break from Enlightenment universalism and the consequent emergence of questions concerning cultural diversity. Although Liu does not define “post-Nietzschean” explicitly in the immediate context, a broader perspective reading of his entire paper suggests that it refers to “the depth of the questions concerning modern historical philosophy” (65), and marks a decisive shift in his intellectual orientation.

In the editorial preface to a collected volume about Nietzsche’s Antichrist, Liu makes his intellectual re-orientation explicitly: “Chinese thinkers who are concerned with the modern fate of the Chinese spirit share an intrinsic and profound connection with Nietzsche’s thinking – a connection that constitutes their intellectual destiny, from which they cannot hope to escape.”^[45] As early as 1999, while revising “The Sino-Christian Theology and Philosophy of History” he has already realized that “post-Nietzschean” was the pivotal phrase for understanding the context of modern thinking. This realization arguably marks his gradual awakening to the trajectory of his own intellectual destiny. Notably, the 1995 version of the same work contained no mention of Nietzsche; yet by 1999, he had embraced what he described as “an intrinsic and profound connection” with the philosopher.^[46] In the preface to The Sino-Christian Theology and Philosophy of History, Liu cites Eric Voegelin’s commentary on Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, explicitly asserting: “This book appears to talk about moral philosophy, but in fact presupposes the historical-philosophical questions underlying European modernity. It seeks to inaugurate a new transvaluation of values in Europe: to reconstruct aristocratic spiritual values on a post-Christian foundation (beyond good and evil).”^[47] Adopting this Nietzschean perspective – one that emphasizes spiritual order and noble values – Liu seeks to “approach the mission of Sino-theology from the historical-philosophical consciousness of questioning.” This, precisely, is the core “intention” behind his rewriting of “The Sino-Christian Theology and Philosophy of History” (2).

To gain a more thorough understanding of Liu’s Nietzschean perspective, we must also examine at least eleven additional references to Nietzsche found throughout the 1999 text,^[48] alongside a deeper analysis of the previously cited passages concerning the notion of “post-Nietzschean.” When Nietzsche’s name first appears in Liu’s narrative, Liu notes that the emergence of Sino-theology – marked by the arrival of Jesuit missionaries in China during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties – is in fact “a consequence of Western event of modernity.” He invokes Nietzsche’s characterization of the Jesuits as “true pioneers” in criticizing modernity. Unlike the radical critiques offered by postmodern thinkers, Liu positions the Jesuits as having launched “the first great attempt to relieve the suffering of European souls,” doing so from a conservative critical stance (9). Liu then raises a pivotal question: why were European souls suffering in the first place? His answer, as Nietzsche argued, is that “Platonism (for the masses, this means Christianity) has placed unbearable stress on the European souls, drawing it taut like a bow for two thousand years” (9).

In his second reference to Nietzsche, Liu indirectly explains the significance of the Jesuit’s conservative position. Through a discussion of his understanding of Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Nietzsche, and Max Weber, Liu identifies “the crux of the historical-philosophical questions” as follows: “The [modern] capitalistic spirit will lead to the disintegration of the traditional ‘unifying order,’ whether in the West or in the East, and the legitimate foundation of secular theocratic rule will no longer be taken for granted” (13). According to Liu, the Jesuits revived the tradition of natural law precisely in order to restore and rebuild “the deadly endangered theocratic order of politics and culture” in the West. This, he argues, is why they adopted a conservative stance in their critique of modernity (8–9). Three important points deserve attention here. First, Liu is turning his focus toward the problems concerning antiquity and modernity as they arose within the West. Second, the attempts to reestablish or recover the former “great unifying order”^[49] may be seen as the ultimate concern^[50] of Liu’s historical-philosophical approach. This concern is arguably linked to Liu’s personal experience of the Cultural Revolution as a self-conscious representative of the “April Fourth” generation, as well as to his historically shaped “prejudice” and questioning consciousness. Third, the problems concerning antiquity and modernity are now being articulated specifically as a decision for ancient tradition and order. This ultimate concern – and a decision that follows from it – may help explain why Liu was previously drawn to Christian thought and favored a Barthian dialectical theological position, and why he now emphasizes the Jesuits’ conservative critique of modernity and turns to a Nietzschean historical philosophical standpoint.

In his third mention of Nietzsche, Liu continues: “The fundamental problem of Sino-theology” is that it has failed to follow Hegel, Nietzsche and Weber in “understanding modern historical-philosophical questions from the standpoint of the Christian spirit.” Instead, it has uncritically adopted the Enlightenment tradition by embracing either the “scientistic rational spirit” or “the nationalistic state-ethics” dominant since the May Fourth New Cultural Movement. Liu argues that if Sino-theology were to heed modern Confucian scholars’ prescriptions – syncretizing “the true spirit of Taoism and the old way of Neo-Confucianism” with Christianity, just as Confucianism once assimilated Buddhism, it would thereby “stand on the fundamentally wrong side, orienting itself to the fundamentally wrong direction” (15). This is because the modern historical-philosophical question in China is not a conflict between Chinese and Western cultures, but rather a conflict between antiquity and modernity – specially, a question of the “continuity and discontinuity of political system,” which, Liu notes, “has also haunted the thoughts of [both China and] Europe” (16). Here, Liu simultaneously reiterates his 1995 stance – criticizing scientism and nationalism while advocating hermeneutic and existential theology and signals a pivotal shift: the question of modernity is no longer centered on the China-West binary, but the primordial tension between antiquity and modernity, first manifested in the West and later replicated in China. This reorientation hinges on his heightened focus on political systems and political theology,^[51] and is inextricable from the post-Nietzschean cultural, intellectual, and political situation, which Liu observes through a Nietzschean lens – especially Nietzsche’s critique of modernity (including modern Christianity) and its consequent nihilism.

In his sixth reference to Nietzsche (19),^[52] Liu discuses Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche, emphasizing that theology or mythology, in Nietzsche’s sense, is essentially a form of political philosophy – one fundamentally preoccupied with the question of “how people should live” and consequently necessitating an attendant political vision (19–20). Liu contrasts Nietzsche’s attempt to restore “the evil, theater-like political system” with Plato’s vision of a “moral aristocratic political system.” However, Liu’s primary interest lies not in the contrast between these two political systems per se, but in excavating the more foundational antagonism between the poetical-musical spirit and the philosophical-rational spirit that underpins them. This lens elucidates why Liu so vigorously champions Nietzsche’s project of rehabilitating “noble spiritual values” (2).

Parallel to this sixth reference to Nietzsche, Liu, in his discussion of “the spirit of scientistic and enlightened rationalism,” describes it as “the God-like spirit of the modern secular [age]” – a spirit that proved incapable of furnishing the spiritual foundation of a new, reunified Europe. Opposed to this spirit is not only the imperial theological tradition of Roman Catholic Christianity, but also the ancient Greek philosophical tradition, particularly as reinterpreted by Nietzsche and Heidegger. “Scientism,” Liu asserts, “is essentially another form of Christianity, transformed into a natural religion” (25). This assertion echoes Nietzsche’s fierce critique of modern Christianity (especially Protestantism) while being more reserved in his treatment of Roman Catholicism and other Christian traditions.^[53] For Liu, modernity’s cardinal historical-philosophical failure resides in its inability to generate new unifying spiritual values or to furnish a unifying response to the primordial question of “how people should live.” The restoration and reconstruction of such values, as previously mentioned, constitutes the ultimate concern of Liu’s entire intellectual enterprise.

In confronting modernity’s historical-philosophical crisis as manifested in twentieth-century Western thought, Liu prioritizes the reinterpretation of what he terms “the profoundly destabilized legacies” of the foundational imperative “people should live in this way,” as originally articulated by Socrates, Moses, and Jesus. He accords particular significance to what he calls “the hermeneutics of the history of thinking” (68), especially the “immanent interpretation” of this history developed by Heidegger and Strauss in their thinking after Nietzsche.^[54] Heidegger, beginning from Nietzsche’s concept of the will to interpretation (the eighth reference, 68), sought to supersede traditional philosophy with a philosophical-historical hermeneutics aimed at returning to the primordial origin of Western thinking (69). Strauss, for his part, rediscovered the art of “writing between the lines” as both a “principle of existential politology” and “the key to understanding the questions of European thinking.” In his endeavor, Strauss radicalized Heidegger’s philosophical program by penetrating the core of modern historical-philosophy and reducing the essence of the history of philosophy to political philosophy (70).^[55] This reference to Nietzsche – and its accompanying discussion of post-Nietzschean hermeneutics, especially Heidegger’s historical interpretation of philosophy and Strauss’s reassertion of political philosophy – is essential for comprehending the pivotal shift in Liu’s thinking orientation.^[56] As Zhang Xu astutely observes, “once he realized, as Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Strauss did, that the Greek classics should be re-established as the orthodoxy of Western civilization, his [Liu’s] interest was no longer focused on Christianity.”^[57] This self-conscious departure from Christianity – and more specifically from his earlier Barthian dialectical theological stance – finds unambiguous expression in his revised Sino-theological proposal in 1999.

To summarize, this paper concludes that Liu’s extensively revised 1999 article “The Sino-Christian Theology and Philosophy of History” retains discernible Barthian elements in its dialectical theological framework: Sino-theology remains fundamentally dependent on the (crisis and the) possibility opened up by the Word of God, concentrating the vertical relationship between “Chinese thinking itself and the ideal form of Christ-theology, that is, how Chinese thinking and language experience could integrate and express the Christ-event and confess Christ” (90). However, through his sustained engagement with the question of modernity, Liu’s thinking underwent a significant shift. Originating from his ultimate concern about moral types, spiritual order and cultural-educational system, Liu encountered Nietzsche and developed an intrinsic, profound connection with the philosopher. This connection precipitated his departure from his earlier Barthian dialectical theological position, – focused on the Christ-event and the existential expression of the believing individual – toward a position increasingly shaped by Straus’s political philosophy, imbued with a distinct Nietzschean historical-philosophical flavor that prioritizes natural order and spiritual types.^[58] Crucially, Liu’s interpretation of modernity shifted his focus: from the China-West dichotomy and the tension between the Christ-event and national, religious culture to the primordial antagonism between ancient and modern spiritual values and moral orders. In this intellectual reorientation, Liu appropriated and extended Nietzsche’s critique of modernity (and modern Christianity), synthesizing it with post-Nietzschean critiques – particularly those of Heidegger and Strauss. The resultant program elevates the past while criticizing the present, advocating for natural order and spiritual system of ancient traditions.

4 “To Explore between Heaven and Human”: How Can Sino-Christian Theology Escape the Cave after Nietzsche?

As mentioned earlier, Liu’s 1999 analysis of Christianity’s modern language context in China undergoes a decisive shift – from the China-West dichotomy to the antiquity-modernity antagonism, specifically crystallized in the anthropological question: “the conflict between Christianity and China is essentially the conflict between Confucianism and Christianity regarding the question of human being” (37). At this intellectual juncture, Liu deliberately deemphasizes the conflict between the vertical, universally significant Christ-event and the horizontal, concrete, human, religious culture, instead underscoring the inter-horizontal tensions between competing religious-anthropological paradigms. From his Nietzschean perspective, Liu argues that the future language context for the development of Sino-theology will no longer center on the conflict between horizontal individuality and horizontal nationality in the modern language context, which is triggered by the Christ-event.^[59] Instead, the focus shifts to the tension between antiquity and modernity, concerning different horizontal spiritual values and ethical systems regarding “how people should live.”

This carries two crucial implications for critically assessing Liu’s Sino-theological proposals regarding the tension between the subject matter of Christian theology and the concrete historical context: 1) theological loyalty: theology must persistently point to and bear witness to its subject matter in the sense of Barth’s theology, sustaining a critical stance that deconstructs all horizontal, human constructs such as nation, religion, and culture. 2) Contextual engagement: simultaneously, theology must remain contextual and situational, seeking to reinterpret and construct horizontal, human dimensions in light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. If the situation were to surpass or even replace the subject matter, theology would cease to be theology. In such as case, theology would lose its theological, vertical, critical, and constructive features, degenerating into mere horizontal, “docile” rhetoric or “cautious” political philosophy – simply self-adjusting or compromising with the situation. It would no longer be a truth-seeking, ascending theology of the pilgrim on the way, which inherently requires a vertical dimension.

Therefore, in critical response to Liu’s Sino-theological proposals, which shift their focus toward the questions of antiquity and modernity, we argue that, even in the modern, post-Nietzschean context, Sino-Christian theology should not primarily attempt to direct its attention to horizontal, human questions or ways of living, as Liu did in 1999. Instead, its primary task remains to address the vertical question of God – specially, the question of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, especially the vertical Christ-event as God’s decisive self-disclosure, as Liu did in 1995. Only subsequently, and always derivatively, should it be engaging human questions, including those concerning ways of living. While fully acknowledging the important value of Liu’s Nietzschean historical-philosophical approach to Sino-Christian theology’s contemporary challenges, we must resolutely affirm that that the subject matter of theology – especially regarding the divine-human relationship, constitutes the non-negotiable foundation for alle future developments of Sino-Christian theology. After Nietzsche, Sino-Christian theological engagement with modernity, whether addressing antiquity vs. modernity, China vs. the West, or human nature (Xinxing 心性) vs. political system (Zhengzhi 政制), should not be confined to the level of mere horizontal human differences. Rather, it must persistently return to the vertical divine-human relationship. Echoing the historiographical adhortative of ancient Chinese historian Sima Qian (司马迁), Sino-Christian theology after Nietzsche must first and formost “explore between heaven and human” (Jiu tianrenzhiji 究天人之际), meaning that it must continually point to and return to the vertical divine-human relationship. In this way, the differences between China and the West can be communicated, “ancient and present changes” could be therefore “coherently brought together” (Tong gujinzhibian 通古今之变), and “a unique voice” can be “consistently expressed” (Cheng yijiazhiyan 成一家之言).

In other words, “to explore between heaven and human” in post-Nietzschean Sino-Christian theology necessitates beginning with God’s revelation in Jesus Christ – particularly the cross as the axial event – before its articulation in Chinese language. From this perspective, one might suggest that Liu’s new Nietzschean Sino-theological proposal contains elements of natural theology, which emphasizes natural order and spiritual types. This paper agrees with this suggestion. Liu’s natural theology tends to affirm existing natural orders and spiritual types from the viewpoint of God’s creation. However, from the vertical perspective of the cross, the beautiful world and the good natural order that God originally created have fallen, becoming corrupted and contained by sin. The original unity of God and humanity has ceased to exist and cannot be restored through mere restoration of the past. The disorder, nihilism and spiritual crisis after Nietzsche, what we face today, cannot be overcome by simply reviving the beauty and the goodness of the original creation in the past. From the horizontal perspective of the cross, sin does not triumph, and the fallen world is not only the world created by God in Jesus Christ (the kingdom of nature), but also God’s kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ (the kingdom of grace). This kingdom is not divided into the world of light and the world of darkness, as in the Platonic tradition.^[60]

From the combined horizontal and vertical perspective of the cross, sin has been overcome through Jesus Christ. The saved world now anticipates its future renewal (the kingdom of glory). Unlike a restoration that points to the past, renewal points to the new beauty and goodness that will be created in the future. This renewal is akin to a “creation anew by returning to the original” (Fanbenkaixin 返本开新), while not entirely neglecting the beauty and goodness of the original creation. In the future glory of the coming kingdom of God, renewal will maintain continuity with the original creation, while also introducing discontinuity through the new creation. In this new creation, sin and fall will no longer be possible, and the future world will be richer, better and much more beautiful. In the kingdom of God, where Jesus Christ reigns, the primary question concerning the divine-humane relationship is not “who is our enemy and who is our friend” (Mao Zedong 毛泽东) on the horizontal level, but who is our master and whose slaves are we on the horizontal level (cf. Romans 6,16–17). This question should also be the primary concern of theology, – and, by extension, Sino-Christian theology. When adopting a Barthian dialectical theological position in 1995, Liu might perceive clearly this point. However, under the Nietzschean historical-philosophical influence – and more significantly, driven by his ultimate concern about restoring and reconstructing a horizontal spiritual order – he abandoned the theological emphasis on the vertical Christ-event. In its place, he turned toward a political philosophy grounded in the horizontal, purely human realm, one that underscored the distinction between friend and enemy.

On the basis of this fundamental premise of “exploring between heaven and human” at a vertical level, Sino-Christian theology after Nietzsche and also after Liu can proceed to engage, at a concrete horizontal level, with questions such as how the differences between China and the West can be communicated, how “ancient and present changes” can be “coherently brought together,” and how “a unique voice” can be “consistently expressed.”

Regarding the human condition at the horizontal level, Plato’s cave metaphor from the Republic remains one of the most classical and profound in the history of human thought. From the perspective of the vertical theology of the cross, whether in the ancient natural order, or in the modern world dominated by will, humanity has yet to escape its respective caves – either clinging to ancient natural order and the unity of heaven and human, or becoming intoxicated with modern willing passion for self-expression. The attachment to ancient natural order may stem from what Nietzsche describes as the noble will and its life strategy. Those who dwell in the “ancient caves” often believe themselves to inhabit a divinely ordained natural order, and thus act in the name of and on the behalf of heaven or God, relying on community, faith, religion, culture, or even destiny. Yet such people, despite their claims, perceive neither the true external heavenly Tao nor the real inner order.

In contrast, the modern world – particularly in the wake of the collapse of universal rational ideals after Romanticism and Nietzsche – has elevated the self and its will as dominate. As a result, numerous selfies become trapped within the cave of their self-consciousness and tribalism. They are unable to transcend their immediate locals and tribes in the present, unable to return to the ancient natural order in the past, and even less to envision the hope of renewal in the future. Each self is like an untethered boat adrift in the endless ocean. One boat chooses to navigate against nihilism and absurdity by courageously embracing the ever-emerging possibilities. Another boat seeks to rediscover its identity by turning back to blood ties, kinship, family, land, culture, faith, nation, religion, ritual systems, history, and destiny (as seen, for instance, in some German Christians’ loyalty to blood, earth, and father-land during the time of Nazi Germany). However, despite these efforts, a true return proves elusive; they remain suspended in a state of perpetual rupture and discontinuity.

To a certain extent, cultural self-consciousness and self-confidence in a particular way of living – rooted in local blood ties, family ties, ethnicity, nation, religion, faith, and ritual systems – may indeed contribute to the reconstruction of social order and the recovery of an “our” self-identification. However, such sources often represent either a return to an ancient natural order that can diminish human dignity, or descent into a modern cave of the will that simultaneously “enlightens” and “deceives” （Qimeng 启蒙， a double connotation in the Chinese translation of “Enlightenment”）. If we hope to reestablish a renewed natural order, or to escape the reconfigured modern cave, we will not find solutions in either the natural order or original human nature.

As one possible interpretation of Plato’s cave metaphor suggests, the liberation and dignity of the human person do not come through self-illumination, by willingly breaking the chains, abandoning the shadows, and asserting one’s natural reason or self-expressive will. Rather, liberation and dignity come from an external light that shines upon the person, breaking the chains, dispelling the darkness, and drawing him/her toward the brightness with hope. This moment of being illuminated is precisely the foundational premise of theology in general and Sino-Christian theology in specific as both of them are deepened and expanded.

The tensions between China and the West, and between antiquity and modernity – their differences, conflicts and, the search for integration – can only be truly discerned, identified, and reconciled within the theological subject matter revealed by God himself, and within the kingdom of God brought by God himself. Without this divine reference point, both theology and Sino-Christian theology risk always falling back into a horizontal cave, however persuasive its rhetoric may appear. Therefore, Sino-Christian theology must remain vigilant against the temptation to justify any particular cave, and instead consistently point to and bear witness to its subject matter – God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Only in this way can it become a theology that speaks Chinese within the Chinese context after Nietzsche today. Such a Sino-Christian theology does not appeal to a natural order in the past, nor is it a self-expression of the will trapped in the present. Rather, if offers a new cultural, intellectual, political imagination oriented toward the divine renewal in the future, serving as a referential witness to the coming kingdom of God himself.