Introduction
AstateofficialonceaskedConfucius(551–479 BCE)aboutwhetherto killallthewickedpeopleinhisdomain.Thesagereplied, ‘Justdesire thegoodyourselfandthecommonpeoplewillbegood.Bynaturethe gentleman[junzi]islikewindandthesmallman[xiaoren]likegrass. Letthewindsweepoverthegrassanditissuretobend.’1 Confucius believedthatmoralityisnotlimitedtotheprivatelifebutalsohas publicimplications.Incontext,hewasteachingthatthecultivationofa ruler’smoralcharacterwouldresultinagoodandharmonioussociety. Yetitwasnotonlyrulerswhoweretotransformthemselvesandthe societyaroundthem.Confuciusalsobelievedthateverybodycould pursueperfectionandultimatelybecomeasuperiorperson( junzi).
WhenweconsiderChristianity,weknowthatthegreatestcommandmentsaretoloveGodandtoloveone’sneighbour.Butarethese commandslimitedto ‘spiritual’ matters?InWesterncontexts,many debatewhetherChristianityshouldbeconsideredaprivatereligionor whetheritcouldhaveapublicvoice,engagingissuesofcommon interesttothewidersociety.InChina,thisbecomesevenmorecomplexgiventhatChristianityisoftenseenasaminorforeignreligionina socialiststate.Moreover,thepublicfaceofChineseChristianitycanbe seentobeatoddswiththeinterestsofChinesegoverningauthorities.
Infact,neitherChristianitynorConfucianismcanbefullyconstrainedbyrigidmoderncategoriessuchas ‘public’ or ‘private’ realms.Themultiplicityofthepractices,beliefs,andexperiences associatedwithanytraditiontendtoblurtheboundariesandassume naturalencroachmentsintoeachrealm.Itisoftenthecasethat
1 Analects 12:19.TranslatedinD.C.Lau,trans., TheAnalects (HongKong:Chinese UniversityPress,2000),115.
variousinternalandexternalforcesaffectthelevelofpublicorprivate engagement.2
EarlyChristianitywasapersecutedJewishsectarianfaithand rivalledgnosticism,mysteryreligions,andotherreligiousrealitiesof thebroaderGraeco-Romancontext nottomentiontheimperial cult.ThoughsomeoftheteachingsofJesusandhisdisciples expressedconcernsrelatedtothesocietyandthestate,theemphasis waslargelylimitedtowhatwewouldtodaycallaprivatereligion. However,Christianity’snegotiatedexistenceinthisreligiousecosystemwoulddramaticallychangeaftertheeventualconversionofthe RomanEmperorConstantineandthe313EdictofMilanwassignedto protectChristianity.TheChristianfaithwasnowthrustintothepublic space.Orwasittheotherwayaround?CoulditbethatChristianity receivedstatesupportbecauseofitspotentialforbringingunitytoan ideologicallydiverseempire?Whateverthereason,thisshiftinpolitical andreligiousrealitiesenabledChristianitytodevelopastrongerpublic voice.Thoughthiswouldbechallengedatmanypoints,anumberof Christiansthroughouthistoryhavesincearticulatedtheologicalformulationsforengagementinthepublicspace.
WithintheancientChinesecontext,asimilarstruggleexisted amongsttheHundredSchoolsofThought(zhuzibaijia).Manyof theseso-called ‘schools’,includingtheSchoolofScholars(rujia or Confucianism),theSchooloftheWay(daojia orDaoism),theSchool ofLaw(fajia orLegalism),theSchoolofMozi(Mojia orMoism),etc., spannedbothsociopoliticalandreligiophilosophicalconcerns.3 However,bytheHandynasty(206 BCE–220 CE),throughtheinfluence ofthinkerslikeDongZhongshu(179–104 BCE),Confucianismbecame
2 SeeJoséCasanova, PublicReligionsintheModernWorld (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1994),40–66.
3 Myuseoftheterm ‘religiophilosophical’ suggeststhechallengeofclearlydefining manyofthesetraditionsas ‘religions’ or ‘philosophies ’ inthecontemporaryunderstandingsoftheselabels.Forinstance,thereisafairbitofdebateonwhether Confucianismisareligionoraphilosophy.Whilstrecognizingthecomplexityand importanceofthesedebates,thiscurrentstudywillattempttostayneutralonthis matter.
Forsomediscussiononthisdebate,seeJuliaChing, ChineseReligions (Marknoll, NY:OrbisBooks,1993),1–9;MayfairMei-huiYang, ‘Introduction’,in Chinese Religiosities:AfflictionsofModernityandStateFormation,ed.MayfairMei-hui Yang(BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2008),11–34;Jason ĀnandaJosephson, TheInventionofReligioninJapan (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,2012),1–17.
thestateorthodoxyandwasseenashavingthepotentialtobringorder toadiverseempire.Moreover,Confucianismwasreformedtoofferan evenstrongerunderstandingofitsroleinthepublicspace.Competing ideologicalsystemsweresometimestoleratedandmanagedunderthe imperial-eraMinistryofCeremonies(taichangsi)orMinistryofRites (libu) ministrieswhichsomemayseeashavingsomeparallelswith today’sStateAdministrationforReligiousAffairs(SARA).4 This tendedtoencourageaprivatizationofthesealternativebeliefsand practices.LikeChristianityintheHolyRomanEmpire,fortwomillennia,ConfucianismhadapreferredpublicvoiceinimperialChina. Thiswasparticularlyunderscoredbytheimperialcivilexamination system,throughwhichindividualswhoaspiredtogovernthesociety wereeducatedintheConfucianclassicstobecomescholar-officials.
ThisbooktakesthesetworealitiesofChristianityandConfucianismtogetherwhenlookingatChineseChristianity.ThereligiophilosophicallegacyandsociopoliticalcontextofChinahavebeenmaking arecognizablemarkontheformationofChineseChristianity.This rightlyreflectsthecomplexitiesofwhatisoftentermedcontextual theology,wherebyChristianthoughtisbuiltontheresourcesofthe bible,Christiantradition,andaparticularcontext.5 Inthisstudy, IpresentthecasethattherecenthistoryofChineseChristianityhas beendevelopingapublicfaiththatusesresourcesfromboth ‘foreign’ Christianityand ‘indigenous’ Confucianismforpublicengagement.6
4 SeeC.K.Yang, ReligioninChineseSociety:AStudyofContemporarySocial FunctionsofReligionandSomeoftheirHistoricalFactors (BerkeleyandLosAngeles: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1961),180–217;HansBielenstein, TheBureaucracyof HanTimes (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1980),17–23;DanielH.Bays, ‘ATraditionofStateDominance’,in GodandCaesarinChina:PolicyImplicationsof Church-StateTensions,edsJasonKindoppandCarolLeeHamrin(Washington,DC: BrookingsInstitutionPress,2004),25–39.
5 StephenB.Bevans, ModelsofContextualTheology,rev.edn(Maryknoll,NY: OrbisBooks,2002),3–4.
6 Christianityisoftendescribedasa ‘foreignreligion’ or ‘foreignteaching’ (yangjiao) inChina.ThiscommonlabelseemstocontradictChristianity’slonghistoryinChina, reachingbacktothe7thcentury,andthedeeplyembeddedChineseculturalpriorities whichshapeChineseChristianityasaChinesereligion.Itwasnotuntilthe1850sthat ChristianityinChinacameunderstrongattackasaforeignreligion largelybecauseof itsassociationwithimperialismduringtheOpiumWars.Sincethen,thischaracterizationhasstuck.
Conversely,ConfucianismisoftendescribedasadistinctivepartofChinese(or EastAsian)culture.However,ArifDirlikaskswhethersomethingas ‘Chinese’ as Confucianismcanevenbefullyownedbythosewhoseethemselvesasculturally Chinese.Hewrites, ‘ItisinterestingtocontemplatewhenConfuciusbecameChinese,
Thisintegrationofseeminglyun relatedideastoformaChinese Christianpublicconsciousnessisnotalwaysexplicit,butitsin fluenceisundeniable.Moreover,thisbookattemptstomovebeyond facilebinaryoppositionsofpublic-private,sacred-secular,and thisworldly-otherworldly.Theseareartifi cialconstructsimposed onanyreligiophilosophicaltraditionanditisimportanttoacknowledgethetensionthatexistsbetweentheseantitheses.Ultimately, thisbookarguesthatChineseChristianityneedsanintegrative theologywhichpursuesaDivine-humanunityasthefoundation forthetheologianandthechurchtoengagethestateandthe society.
THEGROWINGPUBLICNATUREOFCHINESE CHRISTIANITY
Discussionsaboutthepublicnatureofreligioninevitablyleadinto discussionsaboutthe ‘publicsphere’ orthe ‘publicsquare’.The formertermoriginatesinthewritingsoftheGermansociologist andphilosopherJürgenHabermas,7 whilstthelattertermhasbeen promotedbytheAmericanLutheran-turned-CatholicscholarRichardJohnNeuhaus.8 Bothformulationsareproductsofthetimesand thecontextsoftheirauthors.9 The ‘publicsphere’ wasconceivedin 1950sGermanywhenHabermasbelieveddiscursivespaceshadbeen threatened;hewishedtorestoreavoicetothebourgeoisie.10 In
whenhewasrenderedfromaZhoudynastysageintooneofthepointsofdeparture foracivilizationconceivedinnationalterms.WhentheJapanese,Koreans,and VietnameseadoptedConfucianismfortheirownpurposes,allthetimeclaiming theirownseparateidentity,didtheydosotobecomepartoftheSungorYuanor Ming,whomtheyresistedstrenuously ?’ ArifDirlik, ‘Timespace,SocialSpace,and theQuestionofChineseCulture’ , boundary2 35,no.1(2008):20.
7 JürgenHabermas, TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere:An InquiryintoaCategoryofBourgeoisSociety,trans.ThomasBurger(Cambridge:Polity Press,[1962]1989).
8 RichardJohnNeuhaus, TheNakedPublicSquare:ReligionandDemocracyin America (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1984).
9 SeeNicholasAdams, ‘InterreligiousEngagementinthePublicSphere’,in UnderstandingInterreligiousRelations,edsDavidCheetham,DouglasPratt,and DavidThomas(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2013),281–9.
10 MuchofthecriticismsofthisformulationareduetoHabermas’ focusona patriarchalbourgeoisie.SeeCraigCalhoun,ed., HabermasandthePublicSphere
contrast,the ‘publicsquare’ wasbirthedoutoftheUnitedStatesin the1980s,reflectingAmericandemocraticsensibilities;itinvolvedthe relationshipbetweenthechurchandthestate,andthegrowingreality ofsecularism.
Bothoftheseformulationshavetheiruniquecontextualidiosyncrasiesthathavebeenchallengedfromtimetotime;yet,neitherof thesetermswereveryimportantindiscussionsaboutChinauntilthe 1990s.Priortothis,DengXiaopinginitiatedaseriesofreformsto movebeyondtheMaoistdogmatismoftheCulturalRevolution (1966–76).Thisincludeda ‘MovementtoLiberateThinking’ (sixiang jiefangyundong),whichmanyhaveseenaspavingthewaytowardsa NeworSecondChineseEnlightenment the firstbeingtheMay FourthMovementorMayFourthEnlightenmentoftheearlytwentiethcentury.11 TheintellectualfermentoftheSecondChinese Enlightenmentwascomplicatedduetoeventsleadingtothe4June 1989clashinTiananmenSquarebetweenmilitarytroopsandstudent democracyprotesters.Hence,theclimateattheendofthe1980swas onethatlentitselftowardsareconsiderationofthepublicvoiceof intellectuals.
Theyear1989isimportantformorethanonereason.Inthatyear, Habermas’smonographonthepublicspherewastranslatedinto English.12 AnumberofWesternscholarsinChinesehistorybegan toarguefortherelevanceoftheterminthemainlandChinese context.Forinstance,WilliamT.RoweandMaryB.Rankinbelieve that,duringlateimperialandearlyRepublicanChina,therewasa growinguseoftheterm ‘public’ (gong)inChineseliteraturewhich suggestedtheemergingconceptoftheChinesecitizen.13 Thispublic (Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1992);RitaFelski, BeyondFeministAesthetics:Feminist LiteratureandSocialChange (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1989);Nick CrossleyandJohnM.Roberts,eds, AfterHabermas:NewPerspectivesonthePublic Sphere (Oxford:Blackwell,2004).
11 Idiscussthesetwo ‘enlightenments’ andtheirimplicationsonChristianityin ChinaindetailinAlexanderChow, Theosis,Sino-ChristianTheologyandtheSecond ChineseEnlightenment:HeavenandHumanityinUnity (NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan, 2013),21–40.
12 Anearlierarticleonthesubjectwas firsttranslatedintoEnglishin1964,butdid notseemtohavemuchimpact.JürgenHabermas, ‘ThePublicSphere:AnEncyclopediaArticle’,trans.SaraLennoxandFrankLennox, NewGermanCritique no.3 (Autumn1974):49–55.
13 MaryBackusRankin, EliteActivismandPoliticalTransformationinChina: ZhejiangProvince,1865 –1911 (Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1986);
ChinesePublicTheology
sphere,theyargue,can ‘bedistinguishedfromthestate(guan)sphere ofcourtandbureaucracy ... [and]wasalsodistinctfromaprivate(si) realmoffamily,business,andpropertyinterests’ 14 Writingslikethis wouldresultinagrowingdebateaboutaChinese ‘publicsphere’,and thecloselyrelatednotionofaChinese ‘civilsociety’,inbothAnglophoneandSinophoneliterature.15 Literatureusingtheterm ‘public square ’ ismuchmoresparse butthisisperhapsbecauseofthe ChristianvantagepointthatNeuhauswaswritingfrom.16
Likeanyothertheoryborninonecontextandtranslatedinto another,therecanbesignificantchallengeswiththewholesaleapplicationoftheformulationsofHabermasorNeuhausintotheChinese situation.Assuch,thisbookwillemploythealternativetermof ‘publicspace’,whichhasbeensuggestedbyEdwardGuandMerle Goldmantodenotethe fluidarenabetweenthestateandthefamily inChinainwhichintellectualsandothersattempttoengage.17 Regardlessofthetermused,thedebatesaroundtheusefulnessof
WilliamT.Rowe, Hankow,ConflictandCommunityinaChineseCity,1796–1895 (Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1989);WilliamT.Rowe, ‘ThePublicSpherein ModernChina’ , ModernChina 16,no.3(July1990):309–29;MaryBackusRankin, ‘The OriginsofaChinesePublicSphere:LocalElitesandCommunityAffairsintheLate ImperialPeriod’ , Étudeschinoises 9,no.2(Autumn1990):13–60.
Foracontrastingapproach,seePhilipC.C.Huang, ‘“PublicSphere”/“CivilSociety” inChina?TheThirdRealmBetweenStateandSociety’ , ModernChina 19,no.2 (April1993):216–40.
14 Rankin, ‘TheOriginsofaChinesePublicSphere’,20.
15 Seethespecialissue ModernChina 19,no.2(April1993).SeealsoChen Ruoshui, ‘Zhongguolishishang “ gong ” deguannianjiqixiandaibianxing’ [ConceptionsofGong:ATypologicalandHolisticApproachtotheChineseVersionof ‘Public’],in Gonggongxingyugongminguan [TheConceptof ‘Public’ andCitizenship inComparativePerspectives],ed.XuJilin(Nanjing:JiangsuPeople’sPublishing, 2006),3–39;CaoWeidong, ‘TheHistoricalEffectofHabermasintheChinese Context:ACaseStudyoftheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere’ , FrontiersofPhilosophyinChina 1,no.1(January2006):41–50.
16 Perhapsoneofthenotableexceptionstothisisthe2014publicationoftheHong KongtheologianLaiPan-chiu(LaiPinchao), Guangchangshangdehanyushenxue: CongshenxuedaoJiduzongjiaoyanjiu [Sino-ChristianTheologyinthePublicSquare: FromTheologytoChristianStudies](HongKong:DaoFengShushe[Logosand PneumaPress],2014).
17 EdwardGuandMerleGoldman, ‘Introduction’,in ChineseIntellectualsBetween StateandMarket,edsMerleGoldmanandEdwardGu(London:RoutledgeCurzon, 2004),9–10.SeeMerleGoldman, FromComradetoCitizen:TheStruggleforPolitical RightsinChina (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2005),16–17.
Thisisalsothepracticeoftheeditorsofthespecialissueofthejournal Logosand Pneuma:ChineseJournalofTheology no.32(Spring2010),whichwasthemedas ‘Hanyushenxueyugonggongkongjian’ [Sino-ChristianTheologyandPublicSpace].
categoriessuchasthepublicsphere,publicsquare,orpublicspacein ChinahighlighttheimportanceofthisperiodinwhichChinese intellectualsseethepossibilityofastrongerpublicvoice their strongerpublicvoiceinChinesesociety.Hence,thisbookwill attempttohighlightthepublicnatureofChineseChristianityas expressedbyChristianintellectualssincetheendoftheCultural Revolution.
InEuropeandNorthAmerica,therehasbeenagrowingdebatein thelastfewdecadesabouttheroleofChristianintellectualsinthe publicspace.Thedevelopmentof ‘publictheology’ asa fieldof enquiryhasresultedinarapidgrowthofliteratureonthesubject comingfromavarietyofChristiantraditions Catholic,Reformed, Anglican,Anabaptist,andmanyothers.Somehavesuggestedthata particularexpressionofpublictheologycanhaveglobalcurrency.18 However,isthisgoalperhapstooambitious?Likeinthecaseofthe formulationsofthepublicsphereandthepublicsquare,thegrowing discourseaboutpublictheologyneedstobecontextuallysensitiveas well.Hence,throughsuchinitiativesasthe ‘GlobalNetworkfor PublicTheology’ andthe InternationalJournalofPublicTheology, thereisagrowingawarenessofmoreregionallyspecificunderstandingsofChristianity’spublicengagement.19 Furthermore,aseminal figuresuchasMaxStackhousehastriedtodistinguish ‘publictheology’ from ‘politicaltheology’,suggestingthattheformerfocuseson thecivilsocietyandthelatterfocusesonthepowerofthestate.20 But thisisalimitedviewwhichpreferencesWesterndiscourse.21 The
Contrastingly,TimothyCheek’srecentstudyonChineseintellectualsunashamedly usesthelanguageofthepublicsphere.SeeTimothyCheek, TheIntellectualinModern ChineseHistory (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015).
18 Forexample,seeDeirdreK.HainsworthandScottR.Paeth,eds, PublicTheology foraGlobalSociety:EssaysinHonorofMaxStackhouse (GrandRapids,MI:Wm. B.Eerdmans,2010).
19 OtherexamplesincludeFelixWilfred, AsianPublicTheology:CriticalConcerns inChallengingTimes (Delhi:ISPCK,2010);SebastianKim, TheologyinthePublic Sphere:PublicTheologyasaCatalystforOpenDebate (London:SCMPress,2011), esp.Parts2and3;JosephQuayesi-Amakye, ChristologyandEvilinGhana:Towardsa PentecostalPublicTheology (Amsterdam:Rodopi,2013),esp.ch.6.
20 MaxL.Stackhouse, ‘CivilReligion,PoliticalTheologyandPublicTheology: What’stheDifference?’ PoliticalTheology 5,no.3(2004):275–93.SeeKim, Theology inthePublicSphere,20–5.
21 SeeKwokWaiLuen, ‘ReconsideringPublicTheology:InvolvementofHong KongProtestantChristianityintheOccupyCentralMovement’ , JournalofDharma 40,no.2(2015):169–88.
Chineselegalsystem,forinstance,onlyoffers ‘freedomofreligious belief ’ (zongjiaoxinyangziyou) aprivatematter asopposedto ‘freedomofreligion’ (zongjiaoziyou).22 Hence,religiousengagement withthecivilsocietynecessarilymeansreligiousengagementwith politicalpowers.Whilstmypreferenceistousetheterm ‘public theology’,bothpublictheologyandpoliticaltheologyareclosely related fieldsofenquiryandare,inmanyways,beneficialforthe Chinesepublicdiscourse.
Thiscurrentstudyexaminesaspecificregionalexpressionof publictheology,situatedinmainlandChinafollowingthedeathof MaoZedong(1893–1976)andtheendoftheCulturalRevolution (1966–76).Duringthelate1970s,thoughmanycommentators believedChristianityinChinawasnearingitsimminentdeath, DengXiaoping’sagendatomovebeyondMaoistorthodoxyencouragedanopennessthatresultedina ‘Christianityfever’ (Jidujiaore) prevailingacrossallsectorsofChinesesociety.Inparticular,this wouldhavesignificantimplicationsfortheintellectualfervourassociatedwiththeSecondChineseEnlightenment.Asalreadysuggested, theeventsof1989didnotbringanendtoeitherdimension(thatis, theChristianityfeverortheSecondChineseEnlightenment)but allowedthemtoenteranewphase.23 Hence,theconditionsofthe threedecadessincethe1980shaveenabledagrowingsenseofa Christianpublicvoice.Partneredwiththisisthegrowingtheological reflectiononhowChristiansareabletoengagewiththesocietyand thestate.Itwouldperhapsbeanoverstatementtodescribeallofthis asanexplicitattempttocrafta ‘publictheology’ . 24 Itwouldmoreover beincorrecttocharacterizeallChineseChristiansasdevelopinga strongerpublicvoice,giventhetendencyofthevastmajorityof ChineseChristianstostillfocusonpersonalpietyandonanexplicitly
22 IamgratefultoMarkMcLeisterforpointingoutthisimportantdistinctiontome.
23 ThispointabouttheSecondChineseEnlightenmenthasalsobeenmadebythe historianandpoliticalliberalXuJilin,butcontestedbythenewleftistWangHui.See XuJilin, ‘TheFateofanEnlightenment:TwentyYearsintheChineseIntellectual Sphere(1978–1998)’,in ChineseIntellectualsBetweenStateandMarket,183–203; WangHui, ‘ContemporaryChineseThoughtandtheQuestionofModernity’,trans. RebeccaE.Karl, SocialText 16,no.2([1997]Summer1998):9–44.
24 ThetermitselfisfairlynewwhenreferringtoChristianityinChina.InNorth America,MartinMarty firstcoinedthetermin1974inanattempttodistinguishit fromRobertBellah’ s ‘civilreligion’.MartinMarty, ‘ReinholdNiebuhr:PublicTheologyandtheAmericanExperience’ , TheJournalofReligion 54,no.4(October1974): 332–59.
disengagedrelationshipwiththesociopoliticalcontext.Rather,the ChineseChristianintellectualsexaminedinthisstudyarepartofthis growingfervourinaChinesepublictheology.
GENERATIONALSHIFTS
ThisbooklooksatthepublicnatureofmainlandChineseChristianity bothhistoricallyandconstructively.Withregardstothe firstaspect, bynomeansdoIattemptanexhaustivehistory.Instead,thisstudy examinesthegrowingpublicvoiceofChristianityinChinasincethe late1970s.ThereareearlierexamplesofhowChineseChristianshave hadstrongpublicconsciousnesses,whichwewillbrieflyexplorein Chapter1.But,forreasonswehavediscussed,Chineseintellectualsin variousperiodsaftertheCulturalRevolutionhavehadagrowing interestinexercisingtheirpublicvoice.Itisthereforeworthwhileto focusonkeyChineseChristianintellectualslivingandwritingduring thiscriticalperiodtogainabettersenseofthemajorthemes expressedintheemergingChinesepublictheology.
Methodologically,aquestioncanberaisedaboutperiodization. Somescholarshaveattemptedtoorganizechangesinintellectual historywiththenotionofparadigmsandparadigmshifts.Related tothestudyofmissionsandworldChristianity,DavidBoschhas writtenaninfluentialtextentitled TransformingMission:Paradigm ShiftsinTheologyofMission. 25 Boschbuildshisunderstandingupon HansKüng’sworkonthehistoryofChristianthought,26 andboth basetheirapproachesonthefoundationalworkofThomasKuhn’ s historyofscience.27 Foreachofthesediscussions,acrisisoftenresults inaparadigmaticshiftfromanestablishedmodeofthinkingtoanew modeofthinking.Inhisworkonthehistoryofscience,Kuhnexplains that ‘thesolutiontoeach[crisis]hadbeenatleastpartiallyanticipated
25 DavidJ.Bosch, TransformingMission:ParadigmShiftsinTheologyofMission (Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks,1991).
26 HansKüng, ‘ParadigmChangeinTheology:AProposalforDiscussion’,in ParadigmChangeinTheology:ASymposiumfortheFuture,edsHansKüngand DavidTracy,trans.MargaretKöhl(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1989),3–33.SeeBosch, TransformingMission,181–3.
27 ThomasKuhn, TheStructureofScientificRevolutions ,50thanniversaryedn (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2012).
duringaperiodwhentherewasnocrisisinthecorresponding science;andintheabsenceofcrisisthoseanticipationshadbeen ignored.’28 Simplyput,historyrepeatsitself.Forinstance,thiscanbe seeninthewaysthatthepublicvoiceofChineseintellectualstoday arepartiallyanticipatedbythetraditionalConfucianscholar-officials. Whilstthisisausefulperiodizationtoolformanyreasons,itwould perhapsbeproblematictothinkofpost-CulturalRevolutionChinain termsofparadigms.Eachoftheabovestudies,forexample,uses paradigmstoshowhowonemodeofthinkingisaffectedbyacrisis momentwhichresultsinanewmodeofthinkingthatismutually exclusivetoitspredecessor.InconversationwithPaulFeyerabend, ThomasKuhndevelopshistheoryutilizingthenotionof ‘incommensurability’ toexplainwhatheseesasthefundamentalincomprehensibilityacrossvariousparadigms.29 Inastronomy,forexample, KuhnspeaksabouttheparadigmshiftfromthePtolemaicsystemto theCopernicansystem,wherebytheearthisnolongerseenasthe orbitalcentreofallcelestialbodies.30 KüngandBoschmakesimilar remarksaboutthecrisisoftheProtestantReformationinthehistoricaltrajectoryofWesternChristianity,wherebyapproachestotheologyandmissionsnecessarilyshiftedfromamedievalRoman CatholicparadigmtoanewReformation-eraparadigm.31
Theshiftsthatoccuracrossparadigmsareseeminglyquitedramaticandtheincommensurabilityofdifferentparadigmscanbe questioned.32 Moreover,paradigmscanperhapsonlybespotted withabird’s-eyeviewofamacro-levelhistoricalnarrative.However, whenwearedealingwithamatterofafewdecades,asinthecurrent study,shiftsinintellectualunderstandingsdooccur buttheyareby nomeans ‘Copernicanrevolutions’,sotospeak.Shiftshaveoccurred duringthisera,butthereisalsoacumulativeeffectthatiscommon acrossdifferentperiods.Moreover,individualswiththesameshared experiencesmayinterpretandreacttothoseeventsquitedifferently.
28 Kuhn, TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,75.
29 SeeIanHacking, ‘IntroductoryEssay’,in TheStructureofScientificRevolutions, xxx–xxxiii.
30 Kuhn, TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,68–70.
31 Küng, ‘ParadigmChangeinTheology’,17–18;Bosch, TransformingMission,239.
32 Muchlater,Kuhnrespondedtothemanyconcernsleviedagainsthisuseofthe term ‘paradigm’ andcalledforanuancingoftheunderstanding.SeeThomasS.Kuhn, ‘SecondThoughtsonParadigms’,in TheEssentialTension:SelectedStudiesinScientificTraditionandChange (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1977),293–319.
Inthisstudy,insteadofparadigmsandparadigmshifts,Iemploy thelanguageofgenerationsandgenerationalshifts.Anumberof regionalspecialistshaveattemptedtouseagenerationalapproach totheirsubject,buttheyhavenotdevelopedmuchintermsofa theoreticalframework.33 Myinterest,toacertainextent,isinformed bythesociologicaltheoryofgenerations,whichisoftentracedbackto KarlMannheim’sseminalwork ‘TheProblemofGenerations’ . 34 For Mannheim,generationsarenotunderstoodintermsofkinship relationships,inwhichaparentandachildarenecessarilyoftwo generations.Instead,individualsarerelatedtooneanotherwithina generationalunitduetocertainsharedexperiencesofhistorical events,whathecallsa ‘sociallocation’ . 35 Thisdevelopsintoacommongenerationalconsciousnesswhichstratifiestheexperiencesof onegenerationasopposedtoanothergeneration.Somesociologists, includingMannheim,speakaboutgenerationsintermsofanage cohort36 thatis,individualsbornwithinacertaintimeframeand whocameofagetogether,suchasthe ‘BabyBoomgeneration’ or ‘GenerationX’.Othersdefineagenerationalunitmoreloosely, includingpeopleofvaryingageswhohavehadacollectiveresponse tohistoricaleventswhichareoftentraumatic,suchasthetwo
33 Forsomeexamples,seeYasuoFuruya,ed., AHistoryofJapaneseTheology (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1997);HeGuanghu, ‘ThreeGenerationsofChinese ChristianityResearchers:Fromthe1950sto2007’,in ChinaandChristianity:ANew PhaseofEncounter?,edsFelixWilfred,EdmondTang,andGeorgEvers(London: SCMPress,2008),58–70;VolterKüster, AProtestantTheologyofPassion:Korean MinjungTheologyRevisited (Leiden:Brill,2010),131–49;PaulKollman, ‘Classifying AfricanChristianities:Past,Present,andFuture:PartOne’ , JournalofReligionin Africa 40,no.1(March2010):3–32;PaulKollman, ‘ClassifyingAfricanChristianities, PartTwo:TheAnthropologyofChristianityandGenerationsofAfricanChristians’ , JournalofReligioninAfrica 40,no.2(May2010):118–48.
34 KarlMannheim, ‘TheProblemofGenerations’,in EssaysontheSociologyof Knowledge,ed.PaulKecskemeti(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1952),276–322. Foragoodhistoryonthesociologyofgen erations,seeJuneEdmundsandBryan S.Turner, ‘Introduction ’,in GenerationalConsciousness,Narrative,andPolitics ,eds JuneEdmundsandBryanS.Turner(Oxford:Rowman&Little fi eldPublishers, 2002),1 – 7.
35 Mannheim, ‘TheProblemofGenerations’,288–90,297–9.
36 SeeNormanB.Ryder, ‘NotesontheConceptofaPopulation’ , AmericanJournal ofSociology 69,no.5(Mar.1964):447–63;NormanB.Ryder, ‘TheCohortasa ConceptinSocialChange’ , AmericanSociologicalReview 30,no.6(Dec.1965): 843–61;LarryJ.Griffin, ‘“GenerationsandCollectiveMemory” Revisited:Race, Region,andMemoryofCivilRights’ , AmericanSociologicalReview 69,no.4(Aug. 2004):544–57.
WorldWarsor9/11.Theseeventsdistinguishonegenerationfrom another. 37
Atheoryofgenerationsunderstoodinthissecondsenseisauseful heuristicdeviceinorganizingdiscussionsaboutChina acountry which,overthelastcentury,hasbeenshapedbyanumberofsignificantevents:twoWorldWars,acivilwar,twoenlightenments,the CulturalRevolution,themilitaryclashwithstudentprotestersin TiananmenSquareon4June1989,andthecountry’sascentinthe globaleconomy.Thispresentstudy,focusedontheperiodfollowing theCulturalRevolution,showsthatvariousindividualshavearisenas prominentspokespersonsofChristianityintheChinesepublicspace. Thesedecadeshavenotwitnessedacontinuous flowofprominent individuals,butseveraldistinctgroupshaveformed generations whichhavearisenatandasaresultof kairos momentssuchasthe CulturalRevolutionandthe1989clashinTiananmenSquare.Differentgenerationsmayhaveanoverlapinexperiences,buteach generationhasitsownnuancedrelationshipswiththesehistorical eventswhichtendtotranscendregionaldifferences(betweenBeijing andShanghaiandChengdu)becauseoftheircommongenerational consciousness.ThesecontextualfactorsofChina’scomplexhistory haveshapedthegrowingpublicnatureofChineseChristianityas seenthroughdifferenttheologicalandidentityformulations.
CONFUCIANIMAGINATION
Asecondmethodologicalconcerndealswiththeencountersbetween religiophilosophicaltraditionswhichresultinmultiplelevelsofconflict,conquest,andcollaboration.Generallyspeaking,countriesin Asiahavetendedtomaintainastrongsenseofreligiosity.However, therearenotmanyregionsofAsiathatenjoyaChristianmajority population.TheSriLankantheologianAloysiusPierisexplainsthisin whathecalls homoreligiosus theideathathumansarefundamentallyreligious.Thispsychologicalpostureisoftenseenintermsof ‘“cosmicreligion” thespeciesofreligionthatisfoundinAfrica, Asia,andOceania,andhasbeenpejorativelyreferredtoas “animism”
bycertainWesternauthors’ . 38 However,duetosociopoliticalchange andtechnocraticadvancements,new ‘cosmicreligions’ suchasMarxismanddemocracyhavefoundprominenceinthecosmicorder.39 YetPierisexplainsthat,inAsia,cosmicreligionshave ‘practically beendomesticatedandintegratedintooneortheotherofthethree metacosmicsoteriologies namely,Hinduism,Buddhism,andto someextentTaoism’ . 40 Inotherwords,religionsthataretranscendentandsoteriologicalhavebeenbuiltuponandtakenoverreligions thatareimmanentandnaturalistic.InAfricaandOceania,the metacosmicsoteriologiesofChristianityandIslamhavefound manyconverts.Contrastingly,inmuchofAsia,whereothermetacosmicreligionshavebeendominant,Christianityhasbeenunableto competeortomakemuchheadway.
ThisexplanationoftheconflictsthatexistbetweenvariousAsian metacosmicreligionsmakessenseinPieris’snativeSriLankain whichChristianityisstronglyopposedbythedominantand,sometimes,violentformsofSinhaleseBuddhism.WhenPierisspeaks aboutChina,herightlydescribesConfucianismasacosmicreligion. However,hismoregenericexplanationoftheprevalenceofmetacosmicreligionsishighlycontestablewithintheChinesecontext.Whilst heoffersausefulcategorizationoftheAsiancontextashavingcosmic andmetacosmicreligions,hisexplanationofthetensionsthatexist betweenvariousreligionsisperhapsmoreappropriateforSouthAsia thanEastAsia.
TheGhanaiantheologianKwameBediako,takingPieris’sviewsas astartingpoint,suggeststhatthisrelationshipbetweencosmicand metacosmicreligionsinAsiaconfirms ‘thehistoricalconnections betweenChristianityandprimalreligion’ foundmoreglobally.41 BediakodoesnotengagePieris’sdiscussionofmetacosmicsoteriologiesorinsistenceontheirhistoricalabsenceinAfricaandOceania. Butthisisundoubtedlybecause,incontrastwithPieris,Bediakois lessconcernedwiththecompetitionofmetacosmicsoteriologiesashe isinterestedinChristianity’sdominanceinsub-SaharanAfrica.
38 AloysiusPieris, AnAsianTheologyofLiberation (Edinburgh:T&TClark, 1988),71.
39 Ibid.,73–4. 40 Ibid.,72.
41 KwameBediako, ChristianityinAfrica:TheRenewalofaNon-WesternReligion (Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1995),174.
