Du Jiwen: What Kind of "Concept of Religion" and "Religious Studies"? Also on "Academic Theology" (Part II)
(Continued from the previous part)
V. Why must "academic theology" be constructed in contemporary China?
Regarding this question, in addition to the reasons discussed previously, two further points can be added:
First, it relates to a judgment of the current socio-cultural situation in our country: the so-called "crisis of faith" and the perceived need for Christianity and its "spirituality" to "fill the void."
The author of the Article [1] states: "The 'crisis of faith' currently experienced by Chinese people is self-evident." This "crisis of faith" is a lament issued by many prominent scholars and high-ranking officials, yet I have always remained skeptical of it. Since when did China have a "faith" held by the entire people? What was this "faith"? When did it suddenly enter a "crisis," and what were the causes? It seems everyone is singing a different tune. Rarely, the author of the Article offers an "analysis":
"In contemporary mainland China, Christianity has also experienced rapid development. Analyzing the reasons, on one hand, it may be that traditional Chinese culture and its religious ecosystem [2] have suffered severe destruction; the 'wasteland' or 'vacuum' created by this will naturally be filled and overrun by new spiritual life. On the other hand, perhaps Chinese people whose bodies and minds were deeply traumatized in the past will have 'another choice' in their spiritual longing, looking forward to 'seeing the light at the end of the tunnel' [3]?!"
This "analysis" requires its own analysis. Due to space constraints, I do not intend to discuss it in detail here, but merely point out that the two reasons underlying the judgment that "Christianity has also experienced rapid development in contemporary mainland China" cannot withstand scrutiny: 1. To say that "traditional Chinese culture and its religious ecosystem have suffered severe destruction" is a conclusion derived from the slanders of those who lament the decline of traditional Chinese culture and an incorrect attitude toward tradition. It reflects a fundamental failure to understand the tradition of "making things new day by day" [4] and "the revolutions of Tang and Wu, which followed the will of Heaven and responded to the needs of the people," [5] as well as the dialectical relationship of Aufhebung (sublation) and development. 2. To say "perhaps Chinese people whose bodies and minds were deeply traumatized in the past..."—here, "Chinese people" is an abstraction; one must look at which "Chinese people" under what time, place, and conditions. From when does "the past" begin? Why were their "bodies and minds," or even their lives and property, deeply traumatized, and from which forces did this trauma originate? This must be clear. For example, the inscription on the Monument to the People's Heroes in Tiananmen Square contains an expression recognized by all "Chinese people."
I believe the concepts used in discourse should be clear and not leave people in a state of confusion. "Academic study" is not the phrasing of riddles that leave one wondering what is being said. A "scholar" should speak with evidence and not act like a fortune teller, projecting their own prophecies onto the future. Even if a "vacuum" of faith truly appeared in China today, must it be "filled" by "new spiritual life"? Even if it has truly become a "wasteland" of faith, must it be "overrun" by Christianity? Furthermore, how did the author calculate that "Chinese people who suffered deep trauma in body and mind would have a spiritual longing"? What kind of choice is "another choice"? What is the non-other choice? What kind of realm is the "light at the end of the tunnel" that is "looked forward to," and whose expectation is it? All of this gives me the impression that it has nothing to do with Platonic theology, but rather resembles the practices of Chinese shamans (wuxi).
Please forgive my "ignorance," but to which category of new biological discovery does "new spiritual life" belong? Furthermore, [the author claims] "its mystery and transcendence make the study of Christian culture an exploration of the profound and hidden within the spiritual world"—where in the universe is this "spiritual world" located? Again, "this book series aims to display the aesthetic feeling, charm, and verve inherent in Christian culture, reproducing the inspiration and influence that its spirituality, lingqi [6], and spiritual practice have given to the development of world culture"—exactly what "inspiration and influence" have this "spirituality, lingqi, and spiritual practice" given to world culture? Given the opportunity, I may delve further into the author’s discourse.
Second, it stems from a sense of urgency in resolving "Chinese contextual theology." The author states:
"What is more important and more urgent is how Christian faith can achieve a 'coherence' with the entirely new Chinese cultural system currently forming, and participate more actively and pro-actively in its construction... Thinkers in Chinese academic circles are also forming a significant 'academic theology' or Christian academic reflection."
The premise of this statement is "the entirely new Chinese cultural system currently forming"; the thesis is "how Christian faith can" "participate more actively and pro-actively" in this "entirely new cultural system"; the specific action is that "thinkers in Chinese academic circles are also forming a significant 'academic theology' or Christian academic reflection." See here: the "crisis," "wasteland," and "vacuum" have all vanished, replaced suddenly by an "entirely new Chinese cultural system currently forming." Thus, spiritual "filling" and "overrunning" have turned into the more active and pro-active participation of "Christian academic reflection" or "academic theology." As for these "thinkers in Chinese academic circles," besides the author's self-aggrandizement, one may observe how large the scope of this "thinkers" actually is, though it is certain they are not isolated cases. What are these "participatory" activities? The author states:
"We aim to theoretically deepen our understanding of contemporary world religious theology and philosophy, and to capture, outline, summarize, and synthesize the depth, breadth, and latest trends reached by the development of Christian thought; in practice, we aim to clearly recognize the role played by Christianity in various levels of contemporary world society and culture, as well as its influence on current Chinese social development, thereby making ideological and theoretical preparations for us to meet the renewal of the era and the challenges of the 21st century."
The "understanding," "capturing," "outlining," "summarizing," and "synthesizing" mentioned here are not empty words; they are backed by a large number of related activities. Interested friends might wish to do some "capturing" and "understanding" of their own. As for the requirement to "clearly recognize" the "role" and "influence" of Christianity in the "contemporary world" and "Chinese social development," I am sorry to say these are two hollow judgments. To claim Christianity is developing globally and has become a "universal religion," or that it is "developing rapidly" in China, borders on grandstanding and cannot withstand serious scrutiny. As for the comprehensive decline of Christianity and the growth of humanism and atheistic thought brought about by the popularization of science and secularization in the West, the author turns a blind eye. Without even the breadth of vision found in Contemporary Religions and Extremism edited by Jin Yijiu, to claim to be "making ideological and theoretical preparations for us to meet the renewal of the era and the challenges of the 21st century" is surely too selective and biased.
Here, I would like to take the opportunity to explain the issue of the Article accusing me of "elevating minor issues to the level of political principle" [7].
This relates to a paper of mine titled What Shall Master China's Destiny: Faith in Ghosts and Gods or Scientific Rationality?. The Faith in China [document] from Shanghai and the Bohai Initiative from Tianjin successively declared to the nation that "the national development goal centered on China's wealth and power" has shown obvious "limitations," and that we must "abandon" the "excessive esteem for the spirit of science and technology." Their common goal is to transform contemporary China into a religious state. Contrasting this with the two-handed approach of Western anti-China forces—on one hand, using every means to export religion to us, and on the other, doing their utmost to implement a high-tech blockade—their current goal is to find ways to contain China’s continuous prosperity and power. Based on this, my paper raised a query: what kind of phenomenon do the aforementioned Faith and Initiative represent? Are they "vibrating to the same frequency" or "responding to each other from within and without"? (Science and Atheism, Issue 1, 2013). Is this speaking the truth of the facts, or is it "elevating issues to the level of political principle"?
VI. Regarding the "extra-ecclesial" nature of academic theology
The Article states:
"The academic study of 'God' exists both within Christianity and in non-religious academic circles... Therefore, 'academic theology,' which objectively studies the question of 'God' from an academic perspective, is entirely tenable. The claim that 'academic theology' is necessarily 'academic proselytization' is either a total lack of understanding of this research or ignorance of the history of 'theological' terminology."
Here, I will focus on analyzing the first sentence. On the surface, it gives the impression that "extra-ecclesial" (jiaowai, outside the church) refers to "outside of Christianity." In reality, this is not the case. Its formal proposition is that "there is theology outside the church"—that is, "outside the church" specifically referring to the "Two Committees" [8] of Chinese Christianity. What then are the characteristics of Chinese ecclesial theology? According to my superficial understanding, as a whole, it aims to remove the label of "foreign religion" and become truly Chinese, a religion belonging to the Chinese people; this is termed "loving the country and loving the religion." In terms of content, it strives for identification with indigenous Chinese culture, i.e., the Sinicization of Christianity. Ultimately, it seeks to resolve the situation of "dividing the population into 'believers and non-believers,'" so that "Christian believers return to the embrace of the Chinese people, and the saying 'one more Christian, one less Chinese' is no longer heard."
"Extra-ecclesial theology" is quite different:
"Under the impact of the 'globalization' tide in politics, economy, and culture, the identity of 'Chinese people' is becoming increasingly complex and pluralistic. On one hand, 'globalization' has actually caused the fading of 'national borders' and the weakening of 'sovereignty' in the traditional sense for many nation-states; contemporary China similarly cannot avoid such changes in many fields."
Within the circles of Sino-Christian theology, "globalization" is the general assessment made regarding the world, especially the 21st-century world situation—that is, the fading of borders, the weakening of sovereignty, and the pluralization of Chinese people's nationality or national identity. Whether this is factually true, I will not comment for now. However, it is crucial for understanding the nature of "extra-ecclesial theology." Let us look further:
"In the trend of globalization, overseas Chinese 'converting' to Christianity may appear on the surface as 'fewer' 'Chinese people,' but in fact, from a positive perspective, one can discover more Chinese people becoming 'cosmopolitans' or 'world citizens,' possessing 'universal' consciousness and 'global' participation. This 'consciousness' and 'participation' are full of 'modernity' and possess their own necessity and inevitability. This is the call and demand of contemporary era development, and it may lead 'more' Chinese people to devote themselves to it. This is the 'process of changing from localization to universality.'"
There is also a logical problem here. Originally, the author spoke of "overseas Chinese," but with the turn of the word "but," it becomes "more Chinese people." After all this wordiness, the main point is simply to explain that "in the trend of globalization," there seem to be fewer Chinese people, but more cosmopolitans or world citizens who "possess 'universal' consciousness and 'global' participation." Is this "universal consciousness" possessed by these "cosmopolitans" a "universal values" consciousness or a "universal religion" consciousness? No explanation is given, or perhaps the two are merged into one. In any case, the intent to make Chinese people no longer "Chinese" and to replace "patriots" with "cosmopolitans" is clear and definite. "Extra-ecclesial theology" thus takes on the heavy responsibility of making the Chinese people "change from localization to universality." This is claimed to be China’s "modernity," the "call and demand of contemporary era development," which has "its necessity and inevitability."
As is well known, "loving the country and loving the religion" is the foundation of the Chinese church. It is also the starting point and ultimate goal of ecclesial theology. "Extra-ecclesial theology" is distinctly different from this. The author of the Article has a clear exposition on this, which I cited in my Interview:
"'Loving the country and loving the religion,' with 'loving the country' first and 'loving the religion' second, has been a fixed pattern for the existence and development of religion in mainland China for decades. In today's globalization, where religions have universal appeals that cross international, ethnic, and regional lines, while many countries and regions still rely on their religions to maintain and protect the survival and development of their 'state,' there are also many countries and regions where signs and trends have appeared of 'loving the religion' supported by 'universal faith' diluting, hollowing out, or abandoning 'loving the country.' Therefore, relying on 'politics' to support or bolster 'religion' has its relativity and the possibility of failure; conversely, if 'religion' is used to maintain and help 'politics,' it will likewise reveal flaws or even produce the opposite of the intended result."
Here again, many logical errors are committed. The original intent of "loving the country and loving the religion" [9] is to realize the Sinicization of Christianity and to break free from the control of foreign forces; however, the author shifts the topic to whether Christianity and politics must depend on one another for survival. In reality, what he wishes to express is that "globalization" has brought about a "universal faith"—namely, the Christian faith—which "inevitably" must "dilute 'loving the religion' and hollow out or abandon 'loving the country.'" This could be considered pointing out the "must-take" path for the Chinese church. I am sorry, but at this point I must say that these remarks echo the movements of certain overseas forces to promote the Christian conquest of the world and the occupation of China. Is this a description of fact, or is it "raising matters to the level of principle" [10]?
Finally, what specific difference is there between the theology of "extra-ecclesial theology" and other theologies?
"With the spread and influence of Christianity as a 'universal religion' on a global scale, it has acquired greater openness and inclusiveness. The doctrine of 'no salvation outside the church' has thus come to an end." "Christian theologians can provide constructive and interpretive positive explanations of their faith truths and the 'meaning' of 'God,' and firmly believe that 'the truths proclaimed by Christianity are meaningful and true.'" "'Academic theology,' as a non-'confessional' research discipline outside the 'church,' emerged as the times required [11], and there have also appeared 'humanistic theologians' who use various methods of the humanities and social sciences to conduct objective, independent, and scientific research on Christianity."
Among the world's three major religions, academic theology only calls Christianity a "universal religion," which is a faithful reflection of Christianity's "tension," "exclusivity," and indeed its aggressiveness. The end of the Papal rule of "no salvation outside the church" has the historical background of the rise of Protestantism and the freedom of proselytization; these are not the topics we intend to discuss. The author's intent is to show that no matter which category of Christian theologian one belongs to, one has the right to make "constructive and interpretive positive explanations" of "faith truths" and "the meaning of God," and to "firmly believe that 'the truths proclaimed by Christianity are meaningful and true.'" It is precisely under this major premise that "academic theology" has "emerged as the times required," and "humanistic theologians" have distinguished themselves. In short, the academic theology constructed by humanistic theologians has no difference whatsoever from "ecclesial theology" and naturally bears the same mission of salvation. The only difference is the "use of various methods of the humanities and social sciences," displaying a form of "objective, independent, and scientific research."
III. Words Outside the "Article"
The "Article" involves quite a few issues; I have focused my response on its problems regarding the view of religion, religious studies, and academic theology. Whether or not to discuss the remaining issues is another matter. But even from these three issues, one can roughly discern the "thinker" image the author of the "Article" has fashioned for himself—one moment he is a righteous "Marxist"; the next, his "Christian theology" bursts forth with spirituality; one moment he wants to participate in China's current cultural construction, the next he calls for "'universal' consciousness and 'global' participation." Where does this multiple personality come from? How is his dual identity as a member of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and a humanistic theologian handled so handily? Wherein lies the mystery? This is also worth exploring. Here, I shall only introduce some of the suggestions he made while vigorously advocating that the CPC should open its doors to religion:
First, he says that "within the Communist Party there has always existed a 'dual structure' of 'religious faith' and 'political faith,' and theoretically there is no contradiction." Whether this "dual structure" has always existed and whether it is theoretically non-contradictory will not be discussed here. However, characterizing Marxism as a "political faith" and placing it alongside "religious faith" as a "duality" is quite novel—where does this formulation come from? The author of the "Article" mentions Bertrand Russell. Russell authored Why I Am Not a Christian, demonstrating his extreme contempt for Christianity; his A History of Western Philosophy is also generally permeated with this contempt. In it, he says: "The Jewish way of understanding history, past and future, is such as to make a powerful appeal to the oppressed and unfortunate at all times. St. Augustine adapted this scheme to Christianity, Marx to Socialism." Based on this, he compared some vocabulary in the scientific socialist movement with Augustine's theological terminology, and specifically added two sentences: "The Marxian eschatology gave a value of faith," and "a similar dictionary could be made for the Nazis." That is to say, calling Marxism a "faith" and equating it with Christian faith stems from a contempt for Marxism; this is a common tactic used by some Western scholars with anti-communist sentiments. Yet, within theological circles that use latching onto Marxism as a way of preaching, such discourse is often treated as a glory to their faith. For example, some Western theologians believe that Das Kapital is a theological work because it proves the Christian doctrine of original sin. Looked at this way, the author's so-called "dual structure" is actually transformed into a "dual-unity." But from a Marxist perspective, this is nonsense.
Second, the reason the "dual structure" can exist is that the opposition between "atheism and theism" no longer exists, and the "dispute between theism and atheism" is a "pseudo-problem." The full expression of this view is:
"In the past, people were entangled in pseudo-problems such as whether something was nicknamed 'Capitalist' or 'Socialist' [12], or whether it was for the 'public' or 'private'; today, the dispute between 'theism' and 'atheism' is soon to become a pseudo-problem, while people feel no true interest in what the 'sacred' actually leads to."
This is very interesting. From a "Marxist" perspective, "whether something is nicknamed 'Capitalist' or 'Socialist,' or whether it is for 'public' or 'private'" are matters of principle; otherwise, Chinese-path modernization cannot be established, and the ruling party loses its reason for existence. Under the "guidance of the Marxist view of religion," this matter of principle is transformed into a "pseudo-problem" so that "people" will "become truly interested in what the 'sacred' leads to"—where does this "sacred" come from? What is it to "lead to"? Readers can savor this from his "extra-ecclesial theology."
The above two points are the main basis for supporting the idea that a CPC member and a religious believer can be one and the same. The following is a specific depiction of this "dual structure":
"In most cases, the dimension of religious faith is of the afterlife, the other shore, the transcendent, and the ultimate, which is not on the same level and does not have the same dimension as the this-worldly, this-shore, realistic, and practical nature of the ideal of Communist faith. These faiths with different levels of pursuit and different value dimensions should be able to coexist peacefully, reaching harmony without uniformity [13], in actual existence." "One concerns the other shore and the afterlife, serving as post-mortem or ultimate concern, while the other addresses this shore and this world, serving as pre-mortem or realistic concern... the same person can maintain these two dimensions, pursuing different goals at different levels and reaching different realms."
If a cartoonist were to sketch this "dual structure"—that is, these "two dimensions" or "levels"—I believe it would be entirely possible and would certainly produce a highly ironic social effect.
Finally, it must be stated: I respect the freedom of religious belief and am happy to see the Chinese church build its own theological system. The arguments in this article are directed entirely at the academic theology that claims to be "non-ecclesial" and "non-faith-based." The reason for questioning it is that this "Marxist view of religion" deviates from Marxism, and the setting for the construction of its "academic theology" is placed within the national education and scientific research systems, violating the national laws regarding the "separation of education and religion." There is no personal prejudice here, let alone anything related to religion itself.
Online editor: Jia Fei