Volume 67, Issue 3 - Regional Issue: Theology in China

Zusammenfassung Als Schlüsselfigur in der Geschichte der westlichen Philosophie ist Kant ein wichtiger Vermittler im Dialog zwischen dem chinesischen Denken und der westlichen Zivilisation. Obwohl Kants Gotteslehre in China im Vergleich zu anderen Lehren weniger Einfluss hatte, ist sie dennoch ein wichtiges Thema in der chinesischsprachigen christlichen Theologie geworden. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die Geschichte der Rezeption von Kants Gotteslehre in der chinesischsprachigen Welt, fasst einen Faden zusammen, der vom Erfolg oder Misserfolg des „moralischen Beweises“ bis zur Wichtigkeit der Vernunftkritik reicht, und reflektiert über die Diskrepanz zwischen dem Fokus der chinesischsprachigen Welt und Kants eigenen Anliegen. Diese Rezeptionsgeschichte zeigt auch die Unterschiede zwischen der traditionellen Denkweise, der zeitgenössischen Ideologie Chinas und der von Kant angestrebten christlichen Zivilisation auf. Die neuen Interpretationen entfernen sich allmählich von den zivilisatorischen Unterschieden und kehren zu Kants eigenen Überlegungen und deren Implikationen innerhalb seiner eigenen Zivilisation zurück, was vielleicht zusätzliche Perspektiven und Ideen für zukünftige Diskussionen über Kant in der chinesischsprachigen christlichen Theologie liefert.

The religious and theological thought of Schleiermacher, the “father of modern Protestant theology,” has been accepted and interpreted by the Chinese-speaking world for more than a hundred years. During this period, China’s political system, social ideology and way of life have undergone great changes, which have greatly influenced and shaped the reception and interpretations of his ideas. Therefore, these interpretations present their own characteristics in different eras and regions. This article takes time as the vertical axis and region as the horizontal axis, and examines the reception and interpretations of Schleiermacher’s religious and theological thought in different periods in Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong and Taiwan districts, presenting their respective representative research results and contributions, depicting their characteristics, and pointing out some of the latest trends worthy of attention.

This article explores how Sino-Christian theology can respond to the challenges posed by modern thought after Nietzsche, through a critical examination of Liu Xiaofeng’s two Sino-Christian theological proposals in 1994 and 1999. Framed by the tension between the theological subject matter (Sache) – God’s revelation in Jesus Christ – and the historical context, it uses a textual-analytical case study to critically compare and assess Liu’s two proposals in terms of his reception and appropriation of modern thought. Liu’s 1994 proposal has a distinctly Barthian orientation: it emphasizes the encounter between the Christ-event and the existential individual, while raising key questions about the relationship between China and the West. In contrast, Liu’s significantly revised 1999 proposal adopts a Nietzschean position, shifting the focus to the tension between antiquity and modernity and prioritizing the historicity of theology. The article concludes by arguing that theology must, on the one hand, point to and bear witness to its subject matter and engage critically with horizontal, human constructions. On the other hand, theology must also become deeply contextual and seek to reconstruct horizontal, human realities from the perspective of God’s vertical revelation.

This paper aims to present a more comprehensive picture of the reception of Paul Tillich’s thought in China. Firstly, I will argue that Tillich’s works were initially translated into Chinese by Taiwanese academics, who opened an important door to the Chinese reception of Tillich’s theology. However, a more precise and substantial analysis has been completed by numerous academics in Hong Kong. It should be noted that in the past twenty years, numerous doctoral theses were produced in the Chinese University of Hong Kong – an important contribution to promoting the Chinese reception of Tillich. Secondly, I will argue that the Chinese reception of Tillich’s thought can be classified into three areas: Tillich and Buddhism, Tillich and Confucianism, Tillich and the Chinese/contemporary context. Lastly, I will provide some observations about the weaknesses of the current situation in the Chinese reception of Tillich’s works.

This article explores the reception to date and constructive potential of the late German Lutheran theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–2014), for Sino-Christian Theology. While Pannenberg’s voice has not been as prominent as Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jürgen Moltmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Paul Tillich, I argue that his programme’s overall apologetic interests, interdisciplinary emphases, focus upon history, and framing of the public nature of truth carry relevance for Sino-Christian theological construction, especially when considered in the light of the contrasting proposals by two of the movement’s more prominent figures: Liu Xiaofeng (b. 1956) and He Guanghu (b. 1950). Specifically, I argue that Pannenberg’s programme can serve as a mediating third way for Sino-Christian Theology between Liu’s suprahistorical revelational positivism and He’s principled religious pluralism. Insofar as Pannenberg’s programme is often accused of being overly Western and Eurocentric in its reading and application of Christianity’s developmental history, I propose also that Pannenberg’s own thought contains internal resources which can help correct this alleged problem. Though Sino-Christian Theology as an academic modality of discursive engagement has come upon challenging times over the last couple decades, Pannenberg’s voice is still relevant in providing mediating correctives to the approaches put forward by Liu and He.

Moltmann’s theology has been imported into Chinese theological and wider humanist discourses since the mid-1980s. This text will argue for approaching studies of Moltmann’s theology in contemporary China from the perspective of reception history, rather than within the framework of officially mandated religious “Sinicization,” 2 arguing that “theological reception histories” have engaged theological ideas and discourses in a dialogic, critical, and constructive manner that converses with China’s culture, history, and contemporary life.

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.