Du Jiwen: What "View of Religion," What "Religious Studies"? Also on "Academic Theology" (Part I) | Marxism Research Network

On August 6, 2013, the China Ethnic News: Religion Weekly Forum published a signed article (hereafter "the Author") titled "Scientifically Study the Marxist View of Religion and Develop Chinese Religious Studies" (hereafter "the Article"). The content involved a reprimand of several viewpoints I expressed in an interview in this year's 5th issue of Marxist Studies (hereafter Studies), titled "Interview with Famous Scholars" (hereafter "the Interview"). Studies conducted this interview with me to commemorate the 120th anniversary of Mao Zedong's birth and the 50th anniversary of his ^[1] directive to establish the Institute of World Religions (IWR). At the time, I made a specific disclaimer: that during my tenure as director of the institute, I was "quite incompetent, barely managed one term before stepping down, and had little understanding of the institute's situation thereafter; however, speaking of the national situation—." Yet, when published, this disclaimer was edited out by the editors. My call to "study religion" and "critique theology" ^[2] was based on Comrade Mao Zedong's written instructions and was a reflection on the national situation. The Author’s interpretation of my words in the interview as being directed specifically at the Institute of World Religions seems somewhat intentional; moreover, the IWR does not belong to any private fiefdom—does a reference to someone at the institute equate to targeting the institute itself? Is it a case of "I am the Institute, and the Institute is me"?

Regarding academic matters, I believe that any person and any viewpoint can be questioned, especially my own. I have published views on many issues in the field of religion that differ from or even diametrically oppose those of others; thus, I originally did not intend to respond to certain critical opinions directed at me. However, the Article asserts: "Some people have not systematically studied Marxist doctrine and viewpoints on religion, yet they make irresponsible remarks regarding the specialized study of this Marxist view of religion." This caused some resentment: is the study of the "Marxist view of religion" to be monopolized by certain individuals, brook no outside input? The Article then proceeds to attack the person rather than the argument: claiming things like "one can clearly see the low moral ground and narrow-mindedness of their thought"; either they "simply do not understand" or it is a case of "historical ignorance"; "an academic puerility that takes words too literally and speaks off the cuff," and so on. It seems the topic has shifted from "scientific research" to unscientific personal attacks. Finally, there is a warning: "Do not degenerate into nitpicking and fault-finding in religious studies research, or inflating minor issues into matters of principle ^[3], becoming an academic 'temporary urban management worker' (chengguan) ^[4] with no authority to 'enforce the law'." How could someone who usually presents the facade of a refined gentleman suddenly assume such a demeanor?

I do not know what role a "temporary chengguan" occupies in their eyes, but their attitude of contempt goes without saying. This forces me to make a public response: "the academic community has no power to 'enforce the law'"—this is common sense, though the Article often treats common sense as its own brilliance. But is there no freedom of speech? Is there no right to appeal to the competent authorities to earnestly "enforce the law"? This, too, is common sense, but precisely the common sense that the Author has ignored and suppressed. Merely to defend the right of citizens to freedom of speech, and to call for the earnest implementation of legislation on the "separation of education and religion," it seems I must continue to speak.

I. Introduction

I do not wish to involve myself in the Author’s character or writing style, but the overbearing arrogance displayed in the Article has piqued my curiosity: where does this come from? The Author claims that the theology he constructs is not Christian theology, but an "academic theology" or "scholastic theology" that originates from the "non-religious academic world" and traces its lineage back to Plato. Is this the case? I have not systematically studied Plato and would absolutely not dare to "make irresponsible remarks" about this Greek philosopher—for instance, as to whether he can be reclassified from a philosopher to a theologian. However, it might be worth looking at the comments of Westerners. Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach's Pocket Theology records:

"Plato was an Athenian philosopher and a Father of the Christian Church. Without saying a word, the Church included him in its calendar of saints. That the Church has so many dogmas and creeds, not to mention the great sacraments, is all thanks to him."

Thus, there are two Platos: one of Ancient Greece, and one who was pulled into Christianity. Which Plato does the Author claim to succeed? I will discuss this in detail later. A major reason Plato is so famous in philosophy is that he raised the question of the relationship between the general and the particular, founding a major school of objective idealism; his unique status in Christianity stems from the "rational" role this played in constructing theological systems. Bertrand Russell devoted considerable space to analyzing Plato in his A History of Western Philosophy, saying:

"I wish to understand him, but to treat him with as little reverence as if he were a contemporary English or American advocate of totalitarianism."

Among modern Americans, some explicitly call Plato a "fascist." Russell also said:

"Christian theology and philosophy, at least until the thirteenth century, remained more Platonic than Aristotelian."

From this perspective, placing "academic theology" under Plato's name does not depart one bit from Christian theology; and the reason Christian theology absorbed Platonic philosophy may indeed contain an element similar to "totalitarianism" or "fascism."

The internal confinement and despotism of Christianity are well known; externally, it manifests as exclusion, aggression, and invasion. Among the Abrahamic monotheisms, Christianity has been the most thorough and resolute in carrying exclusivity to its conclusion and transforming it into open aggression. The "Inquisition" lasted into the 19th century; the "Crusades" were fought for nearly two hundred years; the fire and blood of the latest "Second Crusade" have yet to cease, and its consequences are still fermenting—one can get a general idea by looking at the democracy and freedom gifted to Iraq. From the late 19th century, the banner of "conquering the world for Christ" passed into American hands, and from that time, the "Movement for the Christian Occupation of China" also rose, a trend that appears to be still in full swing today.

Could the Author of the Article, being engaged in "Christian studies," be influenced by the characteristics of Christian internal confinement and external exclusion? The Author provides his own explanation:

"Someone once asked me whether studying religion has any influence on one's personal ideology and spirit. I answered him by citing what Bacon said in 'Of Studies'—that 'studies perfect nature' and 'studies change temperament,' namely that 'studies enter into character'—and I affirmed this influence."

I find these words strikingly honest. This brings to mind the domineering air displayed in the Article, which perhaps results from Christian-Platonic theology entering his "temperament and character." I believe that if a person is very talented, it is best not to adopt this kind of temperament or character; otherwise, "talent" can very easily transform into "stupidity."

II. Dialogue

The Article does not comment on the basic viewpoints in my interview but chose only a few topics for denunciation; this selection is a technique for seizing the initiative in discourse—perhaps there is a specialized training for this in Western Christian communication studies. Nevertheless, I am willing to respond according to the order in which the Article attacked me.

In the Interview, regarding Mao Zedong's directive to "study religion," my view was: the mainstream has achieved this, but an undercurrent has changed "study" into "proselytizing" ^[5]; therefore, it is necessary to "set things right" ^[6] to restore the original face of religion. Regarding the "critique of theology" mentioned in the "directive," basically nothing has been done; on the contrary, "constructing theology" is in vogue, so we "must make up for these missed lessons" to maintain the dominance of scientific rationality. I also pointed out that the premise and foundation for implementing the spirit of the "directive" should follow the provisions of the Constitution and the law; one cannot interpret freedom of religious belief as religious anarchism. Since the Interview was conducted by Marxist Studies, my views were confined within the Marxist discourse system; if the Author of the Article did not use the Marxist banner, or was uninterested in, or even resentful of or opposed to Marxism, I would not have discussed the issues in the manner I did in the Interview. This time, the Author not only wants to "scientifically study the Marxist view of religion" but also wants to Commemorate the 120th Anniversary of Chairman Mao's Birth. This compels me to repeat a sentence from the Interview: "This indicates a change in the direction of the wind, which is a good thing." Thus, I have the following responses to the topics selected by the Article.

First, regarding the question of the "Marxist view of religion."

The Article says:

"Some people even absurdly believe that the Marxist view of religion is not an organic component of Marxism, but was 'loaded in' after 'going to a lot of trouble.' History will be the judge of this."

Whether or not one has systematically studied Marxist religious doctrine, and whether it is absurd or not, or what the public judgment is, all are irrelevant to the thesis. The key is: who "believes that the Marxist view of religion is not an organic component of Marxism, but was 'loaded in' after 'going to a lot of trouble'"?

My original words in the Interview were: The core of the issue is opposing the separation of the Marxist view of religion from the totality of Marxism, and the replacement of "the guidance of Marxism" with "the guidance of the Marxist view of religion."

To illustrate the change the Author of the Article has made to the subject of "guidance," it is worth analyzing the formulation in the opening paragraph of the Article—which can be further broken down into two sub-paragraphs:

In the first sub-paragraph, the single subject is "the Marxist view of religion," followed by three predicate clauses: 1. "is an important component of the Marxist theoretical system"; 2. "is the concrete manifestation of Marxism in the understanding and study of religion"; 3. therefore, it "is also the guiding ideology for our religious work and religious research." It can be seen that herein: 1. "Marxist theoretical system" excludes the practice of the scientific socialist movement and is therefore not the "Marxist" whole; 2. in fact, Marxist discourse on religious issues is by no means limited to "religious understanding and religious research"; 3. the "Marxist view of religion" functioning as the "guiding ideology" "therefore" can only be the Author’s personal "framework"—this is the true original meaning of why I questioned why the Author wanted to "go to a lot of trouble to then 'load the Marxist view of religion into the Marxist ideological and theoretical system'."

Recently, I read an account of "planning the disciplinary framework for the Marxist view of religion," which further confirms that there is indeed a "basket"—that is, a framework—for loading the Marxist view of religion, though it is merely still in the "planning" stage—as for what has been loaded in and what has been left out, I will omit that here.

That is to say, words that were originally my questioning of the Author were turned by the Article into my own advocacy, becoming an accusation of my opposition to the Marxist view of religion. What a fine piece of polemics! But regardless, on the surface, the Author seems to mean that the view of religion is a component of Marxism, and what he requires is merely using the view of religion as "guidance." But even so, I believe this is inappropriate because this formulation replaces the whole with a part, and such a replacement is dangerous. Since the beginning of the scientific socialist movement, Communists have closely linked the resolution of religious issues with the resolution of social issues. Religious work must submit to and serve the Party’s general line and general tasks; it is not permitted to use religious issues to divert or impact concerns regarding political and economic issues, let alone lead the masses toward the path of religious belief. To propose the guidance of the Marxist view of religion so as to offset the guidance of Marxism, I believe, not only fragments the integrity of Marxism but also shifts the direction in practice, interfering with or even obstructing the overall situation of the Party and the state.

The second sub-paragraph of the Article has four sentences: 1. Our religious research has always persisted in the guidance of Marxism; 2. Great achievements have been made in the study of the Marxist view of religion; 3. Scientifically studying and applying the Marxist view of religion is the implementation of persisting in the guidance of Marxism in our field of religious research. 4. Therefore, highlighting and emphasizing the Marxist view of religion is precisely our persistence in the guidance of Marxism in religious work and the research field. Herein, 1 uses "the guidance of Marxism" rather than the guidance of the "view of religion"; 2 speaks of the "study" of the Marxist view of religion, not its "guidance"; 3 the "Marxist view of religion" that "we" study and apply is "our" "implementation of persisting in the guidance of Marxism." "Therefore," it is merely "our" understanding and implementation and cannot pass itself off as Marxism itself. Finally, regarding 4, that "therefore" cannot hold: how does the "Marxist view of religion" that you study and apply suddenly become "persistence in the guidance of Marxism"?

Playing with words is a traditional characteristic of theology, and it remains prevalent today. In truth, the meaning expressed in these two short paragraphs is very simple: "Our" "Marxist view of religion" is the "guiding ideology" for religious work and the field of religious studies. But why express it in such a convoluted and tedious manner? It is also quite simple: they want to place a certain "view of religion" "planned" by certain individuals under the name of Marxism, thereby elevating it to the status of a "guiding ideology" for the whole Party and the entire country. In reality, this is not so easily accomplished.

I already spoke quite clearly in the "Interview" published in the Research: there are two different situations regarding the use of the term "view of religion." One is as a subject for study, research, and exploration, where various dissenting opinions are permitted; I support this with both hands. The other is as a "guiding ideology," in which case the nature changes completely. My original words were:

"It is claimed that the purpose of 'upholding and developing the Marxist view of religion' is to 'provide an ideological basis, a methodological basis, and a decision-making basis for strengthening and improving religious work under the new situation.'"

This "it is claimed" quotes the words of the author of the Article. This author’s ambition has been consistent; previously, the author said:

"Religious studies in contemporary China should emphasize both 'theoretical research' and 'applied research' as mutually complementary... but viewed as a whole, 'theoretical research' should... provide theoretical guidance, methodological support, and a horizon of vision for applied research."

The key point of these two passages lies in the word "provide." What was originally the "provision" of "theoretical research" has now been changed to the "provision" of the "Marxist view of religion." This is because the wind has shifted, yet the "purpose" remains unshaken. According to the author's own explanation, the "religious work" that needs to accept this "provision" includes the assessment of the situation, strategic decision-making, and the formulation of policies, laws, and regulations by Party and government departments regarding religious issues—that is, so-called "applied research." It is precisely because of this that it draws our particular concern: what kind of ideological basis, methodological basis, decision-making basis, theoretical guidance, methodological support, and horizon of vision do they intend to provide to the Party and the state? To what extent have these "purposes" been realized?

Finally, besides the "Marxist view of religion," does the author have their own "view of religion"? There is no need to dig deep; examples are found everywhere:

"My understanding of 'religion' can be summarized as follows: Religion is a value system, social formation, and practical behavior through which human beings use transcendent belief to overcome or sublimate their limited selves."

Whether the religious belief of the Article's author is "transcendent"—transcending "social existence" or the "economic base" ^[7]—is of no concern to me. However, it is worlds apart from the Article’s self-righteous declaration that the view of religion he upholds is the historical materialist view. As for the phrasing "limited self" used here, it is inherently theological, because only Christian theology refers to God as "infinite" (unlimited); it has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. According to dialectics, the finite and the infinite are a pair of interconnected categories; where does the infinite come from if divorced from the finite? When people are asked to detach themselves from vivid, lived life to pursue "eternal life" or the "infinite" after death, even from the perspective of scientific research or common sense, one might wonder: is it possible? Is it deceiving others or deceiving oneself? If one uses this kind of belief to change people's "value systems," that depends on whether the citizens are willing to choose it. But to use this kind of belief and value system to transform our "social formation" and make others engage in "practical behavior"—then the problem becomes huge. How huge? "Academia" turns into "politics": secular China devolves into a Christian China.

This view of religion is, in essence, a "Christian" view of religion. The author says:

"The question of the significance of Christianity for the development of Chinese society is the focus of my painstaking reflection and deliberate search for an answer. As a system of belief, values, and thought and culture, Christianity has a multi-layered and all-encompassing influence on world civilization. Its significance for the modernization of Chinese society is naturally manifold. For example, the Christian views of original sin, salvation, transcendence, the ultimate, and universalism all serve as a certain reference for our culture and value concepts."

This is entirely the statement of a Christian theologian. Not only is there no trace of a "Marxist view of religion," but even "research," "scholarship," and "neutrality" have vanished. Even "transcendence" has hit the ground, leaving only a "deliberate search" for the "significance of Christianity for the development of Chinese society," and specifically its significance for "Chinese-path modernization" in the sense of a "value system and system of thought and culture." If so many "systems" and "significances" are packed into the basket of the "Marxist view of religion" and treated as "guiding ideology," what would be the effect on "Chinese society"? Does this even require "elevating it to the level of principles" ^[8]?

II. On the Question of "Religious Studies" (Zongjiaoxue)

In the "Interview," I raised objections to the viewpoint of changing "religious research" (zongjiao yanjiu) to "the study of religion" (zongjiaoxue yanjiu) ^[9] and explained my reasons. At the same time, I pointed out that "the so-called Western zongjiaoxue was essentially a type of Christian theology born from Max Müller." To this, the Article mockingly said: this assertion regarding Western zongjiaoxue "only reflects a lack of basic common sense regarding zongjiaoxue." So, what does the Article itself say?

"Although the source of zongjiaoxue is 'Western religious studies,' the characteristic of the independent development of this discipline is breaking away from the scope and the premises of belief of Western Christian theology to advocate neutral comparative religious studies and the study of the history of religion. This separation is marked by the famous debate between Max Müller—a British-German comparative linguist, a German historian of the Christian Church, and one of the founders of Western zongjiaoxue—and Harnack regarding 'one religion' (referring to Christianity) versus the study of multiple religions. Since then, Western zongjiaoxue has developed into an emerging discipline that has parted ways with Christian theology."

Such a long explanation is presumably intended to prove that the author himself always moves beyond common sense. But what does this explain? 1. "The source of zongjiaoxue is Western religious studies"; 2. the "characteristic of the development" of this discipline is "breaking away from the scope of Western Christian theology." Do these two points not indicate that Western zongjiaoxue was originally a branch of Christian theology? Otherwise, why would it need to "break away"? 3. The "separation" of "Western zongjiaoxue" from "Christian theology" is "marked by the famous debate" between Max Müller, "one of the founders of Western zongjiaoxue," and Harnack. How is this different from my statement that "Western zongjiaoxue was essentially... born from Max Müller"? 4. If there is a difference, it lies in the characterization the Article gives to Müller’s zongjiaoxue—namely, so-called "parting ways with Christian theology." Unfortunately, the author provides no evidence for such an important piece of "common sense." Given my "lack of basic common sense regarding zongjiaoxue," I can supplement a little material to prove that Müller’s zongjiaoxue is pure Christian theology. In his Introduction to the Science of Religion, Müller posits that both man and nature are finite, but man has an innate instinct for the pursuit of the infinite; thus, the pursuit of the infinite becomes the "origin" of religion. Taking this as a premise and comparing various religions, the conclusion is that only "God" is "infinite." Among all the religions of the world, only Christianity, which believes in God, has reached the highest stage of religious evolution and embodies the supreme faith. Here is an excerpt from Müller’s conclusion after comparing all religions:

"The Christian takes away the most beautiful of all things, namely, the love of God in the hearts of men. We may call Him 'Infinite,' 'Invisible,' 'Immortal,' 'Father,' 'Supreme Self,' 'Above All,' 'Through All,' 'In All,' as we please. Our love for God is reflected in our love for men, our love for life, our love for the dead—in our life and in our love."

As for whether zongjiaoxue and theology have truly "separated," let us look at the argument of the Article's author himself:

"It should be pointed out that this 'enlightened' 'theological' research is still preserved within divinity schools in many Western universities, and 'zongjiaoxue,' as a branch of theology, also belongs to 'practical theology' or 'missionary theology.' Clearly, from the 'subjective' desire of the Christian Church, zongjiaoxue was once hoped to serve its pastoral 'practice' or external 'evangelization' as an auxiliary discipline."

That is to say, according to the Article author's own exposition, Western "zongjiaoxue as a branch of theology" is "still preserved within divinity schools." In contemporary China, however, it has entered the national university system and scientific research units. Yet now, the author of the Article denies that Müller’s zongjiaoxue belongs to theology.

In fact, I have zero interest in Western zongjiaoxue; it is only because some people are making the scope of zongjiaoxue wider and wider that I have been forced to study it a bit. What is zongjiaoxue? Its "source" is thus. What happens when it comes to China? The author divides zongjiaoxue into two categories: broad and narrow. The narrow sense might be the kind the author himself manages, while the scope of "broad zongjiaoxue" continuously expands, stretching from general religious research to all disciplines tangentially related to religion, all the way to the relevant words and deeds of "believers, scholars, and officials"—all have entered his discipline of zongjiaoxue. Consequently, atheism has unfortunately been netted in as well, becoming a subordinate of zongjiaoxue. Thus, research topics and results concerning Chinese atheism must all undergo review by the discipline of zongjiaoxue. I do not know when atheism suddenly became a second-tier discipline of zongjiaoxue, and moreover, this second-tier discipline must submit to the jurisdiction of the first-tier discipline. It is not hard to imagine how difficult life must be when atheism is treated as a second-tier discipline of zongjiaoxue.

Why expand the scope of zongjiaoxue indefinitely? Boxing in atheism to control it is certainly an important reason, but more important is using the generality of zongjiaoxue to cover up the specific meanings within its religious discourse—that is, equating zongjiaoxue as a branch of Christian theology with zongjiaoxue understood ordinarily as an academic discipline. This turns the illegitimate into the legitimate. The author says:

"Research on Christianity in Chinese academic circles is academic, scholarly, collegiate, and scholar-type research; it should adhere more to the stance and methods of zongjiaoxue."

This academic and even scholar-type research on Christianity, according to the author's explanation above, should originally belong to the category of zongjiaoxue. Yet here, the specific proposal that it "should adhere more to the stance and methods of zongjiaoxue" implies that this zongjiaoxue belongs to the "narrow" zongjiaoxue that "provides stance and methods" for his "broad" zongjiaoxue—which is the Christian theology the author inherited from Müller's founding and which connects with Platonic theology. Thus, "religious research" is transformed into research that "adheres to the stance and methods of zongjiaoxue." This is also the origin of the phrasing that "contemporary Chinese religious research is based on the development of its zongjiaoxue." The author has performed such a conceptual sleight of hand between the broad and narrow senses, completing the reconstruction of "religious research" into "zongjiaoxue research," and finally realizing the original intent of research that "adheres to the stance and methods of zongjiaoxue."

So, what are the stance and methods of zongjiaoxue?

"Zongjiaoxue research only objectively studies the historical facts of religion. It is descriptive and analytical, rather than value-judgmental or subjectively selective. This kind of research does not comment on the truth or falsehood, the reality or emptiness of 'religion' and its 'theology,' nor does it take 'confession of faith' as a premise or goal... its research principles are its objectivity, rationality, and scientificity... 'Science' requires 'judgment,' 'definition,' and 'conclusion,' whereas zongjiaoxue remains to a large extent a 'descriptive' discipline, and one of its methods was once 'suspension of judgment' (epoché)—which is also why zongjiaoxue to this day still uses the word 'science' with caution to describe itself."

Here, the author on one hand asserts that zongjiaoxue only has depiction or description, without judgment or subjective selection—meaning it has no stance or viewpoint. But on the other hand, he refuses to "comment on the truth or falsehood, reality or emptiness of 'religion' and its 'theology,'" which shows a very strong subjective selection and a very clear stance and viewpoint. This is consistent with the confusion expressed by saying one moment that zongjiaoxue has "scientificity" and the next moment saying one should "use 'science' with caution." It is all due to a fear of science and a fear of truth, designed to make it easier to resist and oppose Marxist guidance within the Chinese "discourse context"—a point of which the author is quite conscious. For example, in his earlier years, the author explicitly stated:

"Zongjiaoxue, pioneered by the West, has its own historical background and limitations in subjective understanding... Today, we use Marxist guidance to build and develop our own zongjiaoxue..."

A clear chasm has been drawn between "guidance by Marxism" and "religious studies as pioneered in the West," and the boundary between right and wrong is unmistakable. Yet, in today’s "today," "guidance by Marxism" has vanished; that "religious studies" once described as having "limitations of historical context and subjective understanding" has suddenly been transformed into the "position and method" of "religious research in contemporary China." This shift demonstrates that the author's use of "religious studies research" (zōngjiàoxué yánjiū) and his rejection of "religious research" (zōngjiào yánjiū) is neither a lapse in memory nor a casual choice. If the reader is attentive, they will notice that although the vocabulary of "guidance by Marxism" appears in the Author’s ^[10] discourse, I have yet to see the formulation of "conducting scientific research on religious issues using the Marxist position, viewpoint, and method." The mystery here is obvious: the position, viewpoint, and method have all been usurped by his "religious studies."

The Author states that the purpose of "Christian studies" in China is: "To move people from 'misunderstanding' to 'understanding,' from a 'sensitive' perception to a cognition of 'meaning,' thereby allowing this discipline to evolve from a 'perilous ^[11]' study fraught with danger into a peaceful, harmonious study—becoming a 'prominent' study ^[12] recognized and accepted by the public. The comprehensive rollout of Christian studies and the widespread development of this discipline are the mission of history and the requirement of the era."

"Christian studies" here refers to "religious studies research," which is to say, Christian missiology or "proselytism." As for the solemn announcement that "the widespread development of this discipline is the mission of history and the requirement of the era," this too deserves the reader's solemn reflection—who endowed them with this "mission of history"? What kind of "era" is today, and what "requirements" does it propose? One might also inquire as to what forces and social conditions allow what they themselves consider a "perilous study" to leap into becoming a "'prominent study' recognized and accepted by the public"?

Furthermore, there is at least one more reason for the high-profile promotion of the "religious studies research" formulation: "Religious research in contemporary China is based on the development of its 'religious studies,' which in turn makes possible 'theological' research within Chinese academic circles."

There are two key points here: 1. "Religious research in contemporary China" is based on the "development of religious studies," where "based on" undoubtedly includes providing the "position and method" for religious research; 2. It "makes possible 'theological' research within Chinese academic circles." Why does grounding contemporary Chinese religious research in religious studies "make possible 'theological' research in Chinese academic circles"? One reason is that his "religious studies" and "academic theology" are synonymous and interactive.

III. On the Issue of "Critical Theology"

This was the issue I discussed most in the Interview ^[13] (see Research, pp. 17-23). It was also the point where the Article ^[14] denounced me most vehemently, earning me the warning: "If one could carefully study the essays concerning 'academic theology,' one might avoid such... academic naivety." Below, I might as well follow this advice and "carefully study" it once more. But first, I must address some logical issues in this passage of the Article:

The Article states: "The 'critical theology' mentioned by Chairman Mao in his instruction is actually synonymous with 'studying religion' mentioned at the same time." From a scholarly perspective, "study" (yánjiū) indeed contains the sense of "critique" (pīpàn); and "critique" indeed contains the sense of "study"—for example, Marx’s A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy or the Critique of the Gotha Programme. However, if one defines "study" and "critique" as identical concepts, the meaning becomes nonsensical. Why not try renaming Marx’s two aforementioned works A Study of Political Economy and A Study of the Gotha Programme? The Article argues that "during the 'Cultural Revolution,' the original meaning of 'critique' was distorted by the use of 'Great Criticism' ^[15] to carry out personal attacks." This shows that the connotation of "critique" can indeed be "distorted." Is it not also a distortion to interpret "critique" in the [Mao's] instruction as "study"? The Author once said that "for a long time, the context of mainland China and the concepts of its people have been under the influence of 'critical theology.'" If "critical" in this sentence were synonymous with "study," would there be any need for such indignation?
The Article cites Comrade Hu Jintao’s words—that we should "actively promote the positive elements in religious doctrines, such as promoting good and restraining evil, equality and tolerance, and poverty alleviation, which are close to the moral requirements of socialist society." How does this become proof that "our Party and government likewise encourage the academic community to participate in and assist the theological construction of the Chinese church"? And how can one conclude that "therefore, one cannot merely negate theology from a negative perspective"? How is a causal relationship established between Hu Jintao’s words and "theological construction"?
The Article states: "Theology is the systematic exposition of its religious doctrines; hence it contains positive content, so it cannot be totally negated, but can be correspondingly and actively promoted." What kind of logic is this—deducing "active promotion" from "cannot be totally negated"?
The Article states that the claim that "'academic theology' is necessarily 'academic proselytism'" is "clueless" and "ignorant." Well then: what does it mean to say theology can be "actively promoted"? What is the semantic difference between "promotion" (hóngyáng) and "proselytism" (xuānjiào)?

Through the Author’s reasoning, "critical theology" becomes "studying theology"; then, through further citation and interpretation, "studying theology" becomes "promoting theology." And what comes next? "From an academic perspective, an 'academic theology' that objectively studies the question of 'God' is entirely viable." Thus, "promoting theology" becomes "establishing theology"—the Author’s logic possesses such formidable power that it can transform Chairman Mao’s "critical theology" into "establishing theology" or "constructing theology." This serves as another example of cramming the Author's lofty opinions into the framework of the Marxist view of religion.

IV. On the Issue of "Academic Theology"

The theology that the Author is establishing, or has already constructed, is called "academic theology." Let us first look at some of his own definitions:

Academic theology is a theology that conducts "scientific research" on Christianity "based on the position, viewpoint, methods, and research results of religious studies." "This kind of 'theological' research indeed exists; although it possesses the position and method of religious studies."
"Theology," in a broad sense, is the investigation of the question of "God." The term "theology" was not an invention of Christianity but was the original creation of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.
Academic research on "God" includes "both that of Christianity and that of the extra-ecclesial academic world; it is both 'theistic' and 'atheistic.'"

Regarding point 1, this is clearly the answer to how "theological research in Chinese academic circles becomes possible" mentioned above. Regarding point 2, I have already responded earlier. Point 3’s "extra-ecclesial theology" will be discussed specifically below; here I will only examine "atheistic theology."

According to the Author, the subject of "theology" (zōngjiàoxué) is "God" (shén); without "God," how can there be a "study" (xué)? To speak of "atheistic theology" is almost like saying "a rectangular round table." But wait—when Max Müller discussed "honest atheism and vulgar atheism," he placed "honest atheism" within the theology of his religious studies. He highly praised the "atheism" of Indian religions and Buddhism because they denied the infinite power of "devas" and opposed the worship of "celestial gods." Müller believed this was a ladder leading toward monotheism and ultimately toward faith in the Christian God. Based on this, he said that such atheism "is the life-blood of all true faith"; "it is the truest faith. Without this atheism, religion would have long ago become a fossilized hypocrisy. Without this atheism, no new religion or religious reform would be possible, and none of us could attain new life." In other words, his "atheism" uses the exclusivity of Christian monotheism as its standard. He reviewed the killings the Church has historically perpetrated in the name of "atheism," citing Vanini—an "atheist" who in 1619 was sentenced to having his tongue cut out before being burned alive—as a typical example. This man's "atheism" was characterized as follows:

"You ask me what God is? If I knew, I would be God. For no one knows God except God Himself. Although we may in some way discover God through His creations... let us say that God is the greatest good, the first being, all-encompassing, just, merciful, blessed, and calm; God is the creator, protector, arbiter, and omniscient; the Father, the King, the Lord, the rewarder, the ruler; the beginning, the end, the middle, and eternity; the authority, the giver of life, the observer, the craftsman, the divine providence, the benefactor. God alone is the all in all."

That a believer so infinitely loyal to God could be executed under the charge of atheism not only helps us understand the harsh religious despotism of the West and the use of "atheism" as a pretext for slaughtering the innocent but also helps us understand the truth behind so-called "atheistic theology."

Why is the Author not discussing Christian culture in general terms, but instead showing a particular fondness for theology? Let us look at his "view of Christianity." He says that his understanding and study of Christianity is not about its origins or history: "What is more important should be grasping its spiritual essence and thought-authenticity. Therefore, the exploration of theological thought has an extremely unique significance in the overall cognition and interpretation of Christianity. Theology embodies the intellectual activity and theoretical exploration of the Church; it is where the soul and essence of Christianity reside."

This is to say, the Author focuses on theological construction in order to master "the soul and essence of Christianity" and to promote its "spiritual essence and thought-authenticity." As for what "spiritual essence and thought-authenticity" mean, or what the "soul and essence" consist of, we shall not discuss that here. Let us see him continue: "How to construct a theological system with Chinese characteristics and develop Sino-Christian theology has become a topic of increasing concern."

This "people" [in "increasing concern for people"] is a formulation that objectifies "us." They are indeed more than one person, but the Author seems to be the only one who has publicly declared himself engaged in the "construction" of theology. This construction is unified with "theological research," and the measures and steps taken are roughly as follows: "For the Chinese academic community, the study of Christian theological thought should generally include two levels: first, the sorting and recognition of theological systems that have already matured within the Western cultural context; second, the search for or creation of appropriate theological conceptions and discourse within the Chinese cultural atmosphere. These two levels complement each other and form an organic whole; neither can be neglected... The efforts of Chinese scholars in recent years have created favorable conditions and laid the necessary foundation for this. People are looking forward with great anticipation to the systematic exposition of Christian theological thought and the construction of a system with Chinese characteristics, waiting for it to reach fruition and emerge into the light."

The reason I have quoted the Author's original text word for word is, first, to preserve its "authenticity" and avoid the suspicion of quoting out of context; and second, to seek clarification, facilitating a collective interpretation by the readers:

"The sorting and recognition of theological systems that have already matured within the Western cultural context": This includes the mass introduction and translation of Western theological treatises, the editing of various theological book series, and the publication of countless theological papers.
"The search for or creation of appropriate theological conceptions and discourse within the Chinese cultural atmosphere": Here, I remind readers to note that the "discourse" of academic theology is carefully sought and created; it should not be listened to or read casually, including terms like "the Marxist view of religion" or "religious studies research."
"The construction of a theological system with Chinese characteristics": This issue will be introduced specifically below.
"The efforts of Chinese scholars in recent years have created favorable conditions and laid the necessary foundation...": What are these favorable conditions? What is the necessary foundation? The Author offers no explanation, but the relevant institutions deserve serious reflection.
The "construction of a system with Chinese characteristics" for Christian theological thought is "about to emerge": Regrettably, while the "Chinese characteristics" are conspicuous, the "systematic construction" does not seem to show any trace of having moved beyond Western theological systems.

Now, still using the Author’s own words: "In Christian theology, viewing 'theology' as the 'science of God'—where 'God is seen as the sole and comprehensive goal of theology'—can clearly be traced back to Platonic thought. From this, one can trace a line of development starting from Plato, through Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, up to contemporary theologians like Pannenberg."

This is, in fact, the daotong ^[16] (orthodox lineage) that "academic theology" claims for itself, as the theologian Pannenberg was the Author’s teacher of systematic theology.

The author provides an outline for his "academic theology":

"Introduction: Raising the Question"; 2. "The 'Academic' Genealogical Origins of 'Theology'"; 3. "The Evolution of 'Theology' within the Christian Tradition"; 4. "The Contemporary 'Openness' of 'Theology' and its Situation in China"; 5. "'Academic Theology' as a New Approach for Contemporary Chinese Christian Studies."

The contents therein are all intended to create public opinion for the "construction" of academic theology in China, and can be found scattered throughout his countless papers and speeches. However, once the "systemic structure" of "academic theology" is discussed, its Western essence can no longer be concealed. The author states: "Within the systemic framework and epistemic significance of 'systematic theology,' 'academic theology' possesses specialized research into its relevant 'theological' propositions."

Here, I will simply list the names of these propositions: 1. "Theology Proper" (Doctrine of God), 2. "Christology," 3. "Pneumatology," 4. "Anthropology," 5. "Soteriology," 6. "Creationism," 7. "Eschatology," 8. "Ecclesiology," 9. "Sacramentology." These topics themselves are, without exception, copies of the theology of the Christian church and Christian faith, even if they originate from "systematic theology." Finally, there is a summary: "'Academic theology' takes its 'Doctrine of God' as its core. But its doctrine of God is not a 'confessional' proof or an 'apologetic' defense; it is not intended to address the question of 'does God exist' or to discern the 'truth or falsehood' of faith. Rather, it uses scholarly methods, philosophical analysis, and a hermeneutic attitude to attempt to describe and analyze what the 'God' people talk about actually 'is,' or what kind of expressions and formulations are used. 'Academic theology' is not determined to prove whether 'God' exists, but rather aims to initiate active dialogue, discussion, and communication through the analysis and investigation of the question of 'the divine.' Here, 'academic theology' places its emphasis on researching the understanding of 'God' within the tradition of Christian faith, using this as a basis to unfold comparative research on the 'Doctrine of God' and introducing a horizon of the 'Doctrine of God' in the sense of world religions. In this sense, ['academic theology' is also a 'rationalized discourse concerning the Christian God'; 'God,' 'Deity,' or ultimate being is the subject of theology], and when its [discourse concerning God] has already [formed a rationalized system of knowledge], it can [become theology] as a matter of course."

The citations in the brackets above come from Liu Xiaofeng's "Sino-Christian Theology" ^[17]—meaning that even to construct "academic theology," one must quote the discourse of others to bolster one's own prestige, but let us set that aside. That theology takes the doctrine of God as its core indicates nothing more than the fact that once "God" is removed, so-called "scholarship" cannot be constructed, and "discourse" cannot even begin. The relationship of "God" to "theology" and the "doctrine of God" is a matter of life and death, yet the author absolutely avoids the "question of 'does God exist'" and does not discern the "truth or falsehood" of faith in God. How, then, can one conclude that the "Christian God" is a "rationalized discourse"? Where do this "reason" and "discourse" come from? Are they spiritual divine revelations or simply the text of the Bible? Since approximately the rise of Neo-Kantianism, a trend of avoiding discussion of ontology has emerged in Western philosophical circles. The reason why Sino-Christian theology or academic theology refuses to discuss "whether God exists" and refuses to discern the "truth or falsehood" of faith in God is that it stems from the very dregs of this philosophical trend. However, to believe that a "rationalized system of knowledge"—that is, the "formation" of "academic theology"—can be realized through such a "hermeneutic attitude" is, at least in my view, quite bizarre. "God" as a matter of faith for certain citizens requires no demonstration, and others cannot directly interfere; however, if one claims to be "non-confessional" yet avoids both the "existence" of the god that is the subject of their scholarship and remains "indifferent to its truth or falsehood," then it can only be pseudo-scholarship, and all its propositions are false propositions. Is the manufacture of such shams also a "framework planning" of the Marxist view of religion?

(To be continued)

Online Editor: Jiafei